Dermatology News

In a cross-sectional study of malpractice and medical liability claims for cutaneous energy-based device procedures, the most litigated health professionals were plastic surgeons, and the most commonly affected anatomical sites were the face, head, and/or neck.

“The utilization of laser and energy-based devices (LEBD) has grown substantially,” corresponding author Scott Stratman, MD, MPH, and coauthors wrote in their study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “This has led to a rise in practitioners, both physicians and nonphysicians, who may lack the requisite training in LEBD procedures. Subsequently, procedures performed by these untrained practitioners have resulted in more lawsuits related to patient complications. As the demand for LEBD procedures and the number of practitioners performing these procedures increase, it remains paramount to characterize the trends of malpractice cases involving these procedures.”

Dr. Stratman, a dermatology resident at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and colleagues queried the LexisNexis database from 1985 to Sept. 30, 2023, for all state, federal, and appellate cases that included the terms “negligence” or “malpractice” and “skin” and “laser.” After they removed duplicate cases and excluded cases that did not report dermatologic complications or cutaneous energy-based procedures, the final analysis included 75 cases.

Most of the appellants/plaintiffs (66; 88%) were women, a greater number of cases were in the Northeast (26; 34.7%) and the South (23; 30.7%), and the fewest cases were in the Midwest (12 [16%]). The most common anatomical sites were the face, head, and/or neck, and 43 of the cases (57.3%) were decided in favor of the appellee/defendant or the party defending against the appeal, while 29 (38.7%) were in favor of the appellant/plaintiff or the party appealing, and three cases (4%) did not report a verdict.

In other findings, plastic surgeons were the most litigated healthcare professionals (18; 24%), while 39 of the overall cases (52%) involved nonphysician operators (NPOs), 32 (42.7%) involved a physician operator, and 4 cases (5.3%) did not name a device operator. The most common procedure performed in the included cases was laser hair removal (33; 44%). Complications from energy-based devices included burns, scarring, and pigmentation changes. Statistically significant associations were neither found between verdict outcome and appellee/defendant type nor found between energy-device operator or anatomical site.

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the LexisNexis database does not contain cases handled in out-of-court settlements and cases that underwent third-party arbitration.

“Physicians must recognize their responsibility when delegating procedures to NPOs and their role in supervision of these procedures,” they concluded. “Comprehensive training for physicians and their agents is necessary to diminish adverse outcomes and legal risks. Moreover, all practitioners should be held to the same standard of care. Familiarity with malpractice trends not only strengthens the patient-provider relationship but also equips providers with effective strategies to minimize the risk of legal repercussions.”

Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was asked to comment on the study, said that it “reaffirms previous studies which show that laser hair removal continues to be the most litigated procedure in laser surgery, and that nonphysician operators are most commonly litigated against. It further reiterates the importance of close supervision and expert training of procedures delegated by physicians.”

Neither the authors nor Dr. Avram reported having relevant financial disclosures.

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

In a cross-sectional study of malpractice and medical liability claims for cutaneous energy-based device procedures, the most litigated health professionals were plastic surgeons, and the most commonly affected anatomical sites were the face, head, and/or neck.

“The utilization of laser and energy-based devices (LEBD) has grown substantially,” corresponding author Scott Stratman, MD, MPH, and coauthors wrote in their study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “This has led to a rise in practitioners, both physicians and nonphysicians, who may lack the requisite training in LEBD procedures. Subsequently, procedures performed by these untrained practitioners have resulted in more lawsuits related to patient complications. As the demand for LEBD procedures and the number of practitioners performing these procedures increase, it remains paramount to characterize the trends of malpractice cases involving these procedures.”

Dr. Stratman, a dermatology resident at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and colleagues queried the LexisNexis database from 1985 to Sept. 30, 2023, for all state, federal, and appellate cases that included the terms “negligence” or “malpractice” and “skin” and “laser.” After they removed duplicate cases and excluded cases that did not report dermatologic complications or cutaneous energy-based procedures, the final analysis included 75 cases.

Most of the appellants/plaintiffs (66; 88%) were women, a greater number of cases were in the Northeast (26; 34.7%) and the South (23; 30.7%), and the fewest cases were in the Midwest (12 [16%]). The most common anatomical sites were the face, head, and/or neck, and 43 of the cases (57.3%) were decided in favor of the appellee/defendant or the party defending against the appeal, while 29 (38.7%) were in favor of the appellant/plaintiff or the party appealing, and three cases (4%) did not report a verdict.

In other findings, plastic surgeons were the most litigated healthcare professionals (18; 24%), while 39 of the overall cases (52%) involved nonphysician operators (NPOs), 32 (42.7%) involved a physician operator, and 4 cases (5.3%) did not name a device operator. The most common procedure performed in the included cases was laser hair removal (33; 44%). Complications from energy-based devices included burns, scarring, and pigmentation changes. Statistically significant associations were neither found between verdict outcome and appellee/defendant type nor found between energy-device operator or anatomical site.

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the LexisNexis database does not contain cases handled in out-of-court settlements and cases that underwent third-party arbitration.

“Physicians must recognize their responsibility when delegating procedures to NPOs and their role in supervision of these procedures,” they concluded. “Comprehensive training for physicians and their agents is necessary to diminish adverse outcomes and legal risks. Moreover, all practitioners should be held to the same standard of care. Familiarity with malpractice trends not only strengthens the patient-provider relationship but also equips providers with effective strategies to minimize the risk of legal repercussions.”

Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was asked to comment on the study, said that it “reaffirms previous studies which show that laser hair removal continues to be the most litigated procedure in laser surgery, and that nonphysician operators are most commonly litigated against. It further reiterates the importance of close supervision and expert training of procedures delegated by physicians.”

Neither the authors nor Dr. Avram reported having relevant financial disclosures.

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

In a cross-sectional study of malpractice and medical liability claims for cutaneous energy-based device procedures, the most litigated health professionals were plastic surgeons, and the most commonly affected anatomical sites were the face, head, and/or neck.

“The utilization of laser and energy-based devices (LEBD) has grown substantially,” corresponding author Scott Stratman, MD, MPH, and coauthors wrote in their study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “This has led to a rise in practitioners, both physicians and nonphysicians, who may lack the requisite training in LEBD procedures. Subsequently, procedures performed by these untrained practitioners have resulted in more lawsuits related to patient complications. As the demand for LEBD procedures and the number of practitioners performing these procedures increase, it remains paramount to characterize the trends of malpractice cases involving these procedures.”

Dr. Stratman, a dermatology resident at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and colleagues queried the LexisNexis database from 1985 to Sept. 30, 2023, for all state, federal, and appellate cases that included the terms “negligence” or “malpractice” and “skin” and “laser.” After they removed duplicate cases and excluded cases that did not report dermatologic complications or cutaneous energy-based procedures, the final analysis included 75 cases.

Most of the appellants/plaintiffs (66; 88%) were women, a greater number of cases were in the Northeast (26; 34.7%) and the South (23; 30.7%), and the fewest cases were in the Midwest (12 [16%]). The most common anatomical sites were the face, head, and/or neck, and 43 of the cases (57.3%) were decided in favor of the appellee/defendant or the party defending against the appeal, while 29 (38.7%) were in favor of the appellant/plaintiff or the party appealing, and three cases (4%) did not report a verdict.

In other findings, plastic surgeons were the most litigated healthcare professionals (18; 24%), while 39 of the overall cases (52%) involved nonphysician operators (NPOs), 32 (42.7%) involved a physician operator, and 4 cases (5.3%) did not name a device operator. The most common procedure performed in the included cases was laser hair removal (33; 44%). Complications from energy-based devices included burns, scarring, and pigmentation changes. Statistically significant associations were neither found between verdict outcome and appellee/defendant type nor found between energy-device operator or anatomical site.

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the LexisNexis database does not contain cases handled in out-of-court settlements and cases that underwent third-party arbitration.

“Physicians must recognize their responsibility when delegating procedures to NPOs and their role in supervision of these procedures,” they concluded. “Comprehensive training for physicians and their agents is necessary to diminish adverse outcomes and legal risks. Moreover, all practitioners should be held to the same standard of care. Familiarity with malpractice trends not only strengthens the patient-provider relationship but also equips providers with effective strategies to minimize the risk of legal repercussions.”

Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was asked to comment on the study, said that it “reaffirms previous studies which show that laser hair removal continues to be the most litigated procedure in laser surgery, and that nonphysician operators are most commonly litigated against. It further reiterates the importance of close supervision and expert training of procedures delegated by physicians.”

Neither the authors nor Dr. Avram reported having relevant financial disclosures.

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

VIENNA – The use of immunosuppressive and antifibrotic drugs to treat skin and lung fibrosis leads updated recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) for the treatment of systemic sclerosis.

“The most impactful new recommendation relates to the evidence for immunosuppressive agents and antifibrotics for the treatment of skin fibrosis and lung fibrosis,” said Francesco Del Galdo, MD, PhD, professor of experimental medicine, consultant rheumatologist, and scleroderma and connective tissue diseases specialist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, England. Dr. Del Galdo presented the update at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“But there are also new recommendations, including a redefined target population for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation following cyclophosphamide, the upfront combination treatment at the time of diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension [PAH], and a negative recommendation for the use of anticoagulants for pulmonary arterial hypertension,” noted Dr. Del Galdo, highlighting key updates in the 2024 recommendations.

Robert B.M. Landewé, MD, PhD, professor and rheumatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands, co-moderated the session on EULAR recommendations. “The management of systemic sclerosis is a field in which a lot is happening,” he said. “The last update goes back to 2017, and in the meantime, many new approaches have seen the light, especially pertaining to skin fibrosis and interstitial lung disease. Six new recommendations have been coined, covering drugs like mycophenolate mofetil, nintedanib, rituximab, and tocilizumab. None of these therapies were present in the 2017 recommendations. It seems the field is now ready to further expand on targeted therapies for the management of musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, calcinosis, and the local management of digital ulcers.”
 

‘Therapeutic Continuums’ Aid Disease Management

Dr. Del Galdo and his colleagues grouped the various interventions across what the recommendations label as evidence-backed “therapeutic continuums.” These span six of the eight different clinical manifestations of systemic sclerosis: Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, pulmonary hypertension, musculoskeletal manifestations, skin fibrosis, interstitial lung disease (ILD), and gastrointestinal and renal crisis.

A slide showing the different strengths of evidence for various drugs across the eight manifestations illustrated the principle behind the therapeutic continuums. “These ‘therapeutic continuums’ suggest a common pathogenetic mechanism driving the various manifestations of disease,” said Dr. Del Galdo. For example, he noted, “If rituximab had a positive response in skin and in lung, it suggests that B cells play a role in the clinical manifestations of skin and lung in this disease.”

Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the new immunosuppression continuum and associated treatments for skin and lung fibrosis. “For skin involvement, the task force recommended mycophenolate, methotrexate, and rituximab, with tocilizumab having a lower level of evidence and lower recommendation strength; similarly, in interstitial lung disease, we have rituximab, mycophenolate, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib, and these all have the highest strength of evidence. Tocilizumab is assigned one strength of evidence below the other drugs.”

He also cited the phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) drugs that are used across Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, and pulmonary arterial hypertension, which together form a vascular therapeutic continuum.

The complexity of systemic sclerosis and multiple manifestations was a major determinant of the recommendations, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “The task force realized that since this is such a complex disease, we cannot recommend one treatment unconditionally. For example, with mycophenolate mofetil, what works for most patients for the skin and lung manifestations might not for someone who experiences severe diarrhea, in which mycophenolate is contraindicated. So, the highest degree of recommendation that the task force felt comfortable with was ‘should be considered.’ ”

Dr. Del Galdo stressed that the complex nature of systemic sclerosis means that “when thinking of treating one manifestation, you also always need to consider all the other clinical manifestations as experienced by the patient, and it is this multifaceted scenario that will ultimately lead to your final choice.”

Turning to new evidence around drug use, Dr. Del Galdo said that rituximab has the highest level of evidence across skin and lung manifestations, nintedanib is new in lung, and tocilizumab is new across both skin and lung.

To treat systemic sclerosis–pulmonary arterial hypertension (SSc-PAH), as long as there are no contraindications, the task force recommends using PDE5i and endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) at diagnosis. Data from phase 3 trials show a better outcome when the combination is established early.

The task force suggests avoiding the use of warfarin in PAH. “This is supported by a signal from two trials showing an increase in morbidity and mortality in these patients,” noted Dr. Del Galdo.

He also pointed out that selexipag and riociguat were new and important second-line additions for the treatment of PAH, and — consistent with the ERA approach — the EULAR recommendation supports frequent follow-up to establish a treat-to-target approach to maximizing clinical outcomes in SSc-PAH and SSc-ILD. “Specifically, for the first time, we recommend monitoring the effect of any chosen intervention selected within 3-6 months of starting. The evidence suggests there is a group of patients who respond and some who respond less well and who might benefit from a second-line intervention.”

For example, results of one trial support the approach of adding an antifibrotic agent to reduce progression in people with progressive lung fibrosis. “Similarly, for pulmonary hypertension, we recommend putting patients on dual treatment, and if this fails, place them on selexipag or switch the PDE5i to riociguat,” Dr. Del Galdo said.
 

Systemic Sclerosis Research Agenda and Recommendations Align

Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the value of therapeutic continuums in advancing disease understanding. “It is starting to teach us what we know and what we don’t and where do we need to build more evidence. Effectively, they determine where the gaps in therapy lie, and this starts to guide the research agenda.

“In fact, what is really interesting about this recommendation update — certainly from the perspective of disease understanding — is that we are starting to have a bird’s-eye view of the clinical manifestations of scleroderma that have so often been dealt with separately. Now we are starting to build a cumulative evidence map of this disease.”

In 2017, the research agenda largely advocated identifying immune-targeting drugs for skin and lung fibrosis, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “Now, we’ve done that — we’ve identified appropriate immunosuppressive drugs — and this is testimony to the importance of these recommendations because what prioritized the research agenda 10 years ago ended up informing the clinical trials and made it into the recommendations.”

“We definitely are one step forward compared to this 2017 recommendation and closer to what we would like to do,” he asserted.
 

Remission Elusive but Getting Closer

In some respects, according to Dr. Del Galdo, research and development is making relatively slow progress, especially compared with other rheumatologic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. “We cannot put patients with systemic sclerosis in remission yet. But I think we are one step ahead in that we’ve now established the treat-to-target approach to maximize the efficacy with which we can stall disease progression, but we cannot yet put these patients into remission,” he said. Systemic sclerosis has multiple manifestations, and fibrotic damage cannot be reversed. “Right now, the scar will remain there forever,” he noted.

Until remission is achievable, Dr. Del Galdo advises diagnosing and treating patients earlier to prevent fibrotic manifestations.

Dr. Del Galdo explained the three leading priorities on the systemic sclerosis research agenda. “There are three because it is such a complex disease. The first is considering the patient voice — this is the most important one, and the patients say they want a more holistic approach — so trialing and treating multiple manifestations together.”

Second, Dr. Del Galdo said, he would like to see a patient-reported measure developed that can capture the entire disease.

Third, from a physician’s point of view, Dr. Del Galdo said, “We want to send the patients into remission. We need to continue to further deconvolute the clinical manifestations and find the bottleneck at the beginning of the natural history of disease.

“If we can find a drug that is effective very early on, before the patients start getting the eight different manifestations with different levels of severity, then we will be on the right road, which we hope will end in remission.”

Dr. Del Galdo has served on the speakers bureau for AstraZeneca and Janssen; consulted for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe; and received grant or research support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boheringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Kymab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Dr. Landewé had no relevant disclosures.

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

VIENNA – The use of immunosuppressive and antifibrotic drugs to treat skin and lung fibrosis leads updated recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) for the treatment of systemic sclerosis.

“The most impactful new recommendation relates to the evidence for immunosuppressive agents and antifibrotics for the treatment of skin fibrosis and lung fibrosis,” said Francesco Del Galdo, MD, PhD, professor of experimental medicine, consultant rheumatologist, and scleroderma and connective tissue diseases specialist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, England. Dr. Del Galdo presented the update at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“But there are also new recommendations, including a redefined target population for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation following cyclophosphamide, the upfront combination treatment at the time of diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension [PAH], and a negative recommendation for the use of anticoagulants for pulmonary arterial hypertension,” noted Dr. Del Galdo, highlighting key updates in the 2024 recommendations.

Robert B.M. Landewé, MD, PhD, professor and rheumatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands, co-moderated the session on EULAR recommendations. “The management of systemic sclerosis is a field in which a lot is happening,” he said. “The last update goes back to 2017, and in the meantime, many new approaches have seen the light, especially pertaining to skin fibrosis and interstitial lung disease. Six new recommendations have been coined, covering drugs like mycophenolate mofetil, nintedanib, rituximab, and tocilizumab. None of these therapies were present in the 2017 recommendations. It seems the field is now ready to further expand on targeted therapies for the management of musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, calcinosis, and the local management of digital ulcers.”
 

‘Therapeutic Continuums’ Aid Disease Management

Dr. Del Galdo and his colleagues grouped the various interventions across what the recommendations label as evidence-backed “therapeutic continuums.” These span six of the eight different clinical manifestations of systemic sclerosis: Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, pulmonary hypertension, musculoskeletal manifestations, skin fibrosis, interstitial lung disease (ILD), and gastrointestinal and renal crisis.

A slide showing the different strengths of evidence for various drugs across the eight manifestations illustrated the principle behind the therapeutic continuums. “These ‘therapeutic continuums’ suggest a common pathogenetic mechanism driving the various manifestations of disease,” said Dr. Del Galdo. For example, he noted, “If rituximab had a positive response in skin and in lung, it suggests that B cells play a role in the clinical manifestations of skin and lung in this disease.”

Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the new immunosuppression continuum and associated treatments for skin and lung fibrosis. “For skin involvement, the task force recommended mycophenolate, methotrexate, and rituximab, with tocilizumab having a lower level of evidence and lower recommendation strength; similarly, in interstitial lung disease, we have rituximab, mycophenolate, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib, and these all have the highest strength of evidence. Tocilizumab is assigned one strength of evidence below the other drugs.”

He also cited the phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) drugs that are used across Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, and pulmonary arterial hypertension, which together form a vascular therapeutic continuum.

The complexity of systemic sclerosis and multiple manifestations was a major determinant of the recommendations, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “The task force realized that since this is such a complex disease, we cannot recommend one treatment unconditionally. For example, with mycophenolate mofetil, what works for most patients for the skin and lung manifestations might not for someone who experiences severe diarrhea, in which mycophenolate is contraindicated. So, the highest degree of recommendation that the task force felt comfortable with was ‘should be considered.’ ”

Dr. Del Galdo stressed that the complex nature of systemic sclerosis means that “when thinking of treating one manifestation, you also always need to consider all the other clinical manifestations as experienced by the patient, and it is this multifaceted scenario that will ultimately lead to your final choice.”

Turning to new evidence around drug use, Dr. Del Galdo said that rituximab has the highest level of evidence across skin and lung manifestations, nintedanib is new in lung, and tocilizumab is new across both skin and lung.

To treat systemic sclerosis–pulmonary arterial hypertension (SSc-PAH), as long as there are no contraindications, the task force recommends using PDE5i and endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) at diagnosis. Data from phase 3 trials show a better outcome when the combination is established early.

The task force suggests avoiding the use of warfarin in PAH. “This is supported by a signal from two trials showing an increase in morbidity and mortality in these patients,” noted Dr. Del Galdo.

He also pointed out that selexipag and riociguat were new and important second-line additions for the treatment of PAH, and — consistent with the ERA approach — the EULAR recommendation supports frequent follow-up to establish a treat-to-target approach to maximizing clinical outcomes in SSc-PAH and SSc-ILD. “Specifically, for the first time, we recommend monitoring the effect of any chosen intervention selected within 3-6 months of starting. The evidence suggests there is a group of patients who respond and some who respond less well and who might benefit from a second-line intervention.”

For example, results of one trial support the approach of adding an antifibrotic agent to reduce progression in people with progressive lung fibrosis. “Similarly, for pulmonary hypertension, we recommend putting patients on dual treatment, and if this fails, place them on selexipag or switch the PDE5i to riociguat,” Dr. Del Galdo said.
 

Systemic Sclerosis Research Agenda and Recommendations Align

Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the value of therapeutic continuums in advancing disease understanding. “It is starting to teach us what we know and what we don’t and where do we need to build more evidence. Effectively, they determine where the gaps in therapy lie, and this starts to guide the research agenda.

“In fact, what is really interesting about this recommendation update — certainly from the perspective of disease understanding — is that we are starting to have a bird’s-eye view of the clinical manifestations of scleroderma that have so often been dealt with separately. Now we are starting to build a cumulative evidence map of this disease.”

In 2017, the research agenda largely advocated identifying immune-targeting drugs for skin and lung fibrosis, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “Now, we’ve done that — we’ve identified appropriate immunosuppressive drugs — and this is testimony to the importance of these recommendations because what prioritized the research agenda 10 years ago ended up informing the clinical trials and made it into the recommendations.”

“We definitely are one step forward compared to this 2017 recommendation and closer to what we would like to do,” he asserted.
 

Remission Elusive but Getting Closer

In some respects, according to Dr. Del Galdo, research and development is making relatively slow progress, especially compared with other rheumatologic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. “We cannot put patients with systemic sclerosis in remission yet. But I think we are one step ahead in that we’ve now established the treat-to-target approach to maximize the efficacy with which we can stall disease progression, but we cannot yet put these patients into remission,” he said. Systemic sclerosis has multiple manifestations, and fibrotic damage cannot be reversed. “Right now, the scar will remain there forever,” he noted.

Until remission is achievable, Dr. Del Galdo advises diagnosing and treating patients earlier to prevent fibrotic manifestations.

Dr. Del Galdo explained the three leading priorities on the systemic sclerosis research agenda. “There are three because it is such a complex disease. The first is considering the patient voice — this is the most important one, and the patients say they want a more holistic approach — so trialing and treating multiple manifestations together.”

Second, Dr. Del Galdo said, he would like to see a patient-reported measure developed that can capture the entire disease.

Third, from a physician’s point of view, Dr. Del Galdo said, “We want to send the patients into remission. We need to continue to further deconvolute the clinical manifestations and find the bottleneck at the beginning of the natural history of disease.

“If we can find a drug that is effective very early on, before the patients start getting the eight different manifestations with different levels of severity, then we will be on the right road, which we hope will end in remission.”

Dr. Del Galdo has served on the speakers bureau for AstraZeneca and Janssen; consulted for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe; and received grant or research support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boheringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Kymab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Dr. Landewé had no relevant disclosures.

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

VIENNA – The use of immunosuppressive and antifibrotic drugs to treat skin and lung fibrosis leads updated recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) for the treatment of systemic sclerosis.

“The most impactful new recommendation relates to the evidence for immunosuppressive agents and antifibrotics for the treatment of skin fibrosis and lung fibrosis,” said Francesco Del Galdo, MD, PhD, professor of experimental medicine, consultant rheumatologist, and scleroderma and connective tissue diseases specialist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, England. Dr. Del Galdo presented the update at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“But there are also new recommendations, including a redefined target population for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation following cyclophosphamide, the upfront combination treatment at the time of diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension [PAH], and a negative recommendation for the use of anticoagulants for pulmonary arterial hypertension,” noted Dr. Del Galdo, highlighting key updates in the 2024 recommendations.

Robert B.M. Landewé, MD, PhD, professor and rheumatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands, co-moderated the session on EULAR recommendations. “The management of systemic sclerosis is a field in which a lot is happening,” he said. “The last update goes back to 2017, and in the meantime, many new approaches have seen the light, especially pertaining to skin fibrosis and interstitial lung disease. Six new recommendations have been coined, covering drugs like mycophenolate mofetil, nintedanib, rituximab, and tocilizumab. None of these therapies were present in the 2017 recommendations. It seems the field is now ready to further expand on targeted therapies for the management of musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, calcinosis, and the local management of digital ulcers.”
 

‘Therapeutic Continuums’ Aid Disease Management

Dr. Del Galdo and his colleagues grouped the various interventions across what the recommendations label as evidence-backed “therapeutic continuums.” These span six of the eight different clinical manifestations of systemic sclerosis: Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, pulmonary hypertension, musculoskeletal manifestations, skin fibrosis, interstitial lung disease (ILD), and gastrointestinal and renal crisis.

A slide showing the different strengths of evidence for various drugs across the eight manifestations illustrated the principle behind the therapeutic continuums. “These ‘therapeutic continuums’ suggest a common pathogenetic mechanism driving the various manifestations of disease,” said Dr. Del Galdo. For example, he noted, “If rituximab had a positive response in skin and in lung, it suggests that B cells play a role in the clinical manifestations of skin and lung in this disease.”

Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the new immunosuppression continuum and associated treatments for skin and lung fibrosis. “For skin involvement, the task force recommended mycophenolate, methotrexate, and rituximab, with tocilizumab having a lower level of evidence and lower recommendation strength; similarly, in interstitial lung disease, we have rituximab, mycophenolate, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib, and these all have the highest strength of evidence. Tocilizumab is assigned one strength of evidence below the other drugs.”

He also cited the phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) drugs that are used across Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, and pulmonary arterial hypertension, which together form a vascular therapeutic continuum.

The complexity of systemic sclerosis and multiple manifestations was a major determinant of the recommendations, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “The task force realized that since this is such a complex disease, we cannot recommend one treatment unconditionally. For example, with mycophenolate mofetil, what works for most patients for the skin and lung manifestations might not for someone who experiences severe diarrhea, in which mycophenolate is contraindicated. So, the highest degree of recommendation that the task force felt comfortable with was ‘should be considered.’ ”

Dr. Del Galdo stressed that the complex nature of systemic sclerosis means that “when thinking of treating one manifestation, you also always need to consider all the other clinical manifestations as experienced by the patient, and it is this multifaceted scenario that will ultimately lead to your final choice.”

Turning to new evidence around drug use, Dr. Del Galdo said that rituximab has the highest level of evidence across skin and lung manifestations, nintedanib is new in lung, and tocilizumab is new across both skin and lung.

To treat systemic sclerosis–pulmonary arterial hypertension (SSc-PAH), as long as there are no contraindications, the task force recommends using PDE5i and endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) at diagnosis. Data from phase 3 trials show a better outcome when the combination is established early.

The task force suggests avoiding the use of warfarin in PAH. “This is supported by a signal from two trials showing an increase in morbidity and mortality in these patients,” noted Dr. Del Galdo.

He also pointed out that selexipag and riociguat were new and important second-line additions for the treatment of PAH, and — consistent with the ERA approach — the EULAR recommendation supports frequent follow-up to establish a treat-to-target approach to maximizing clinical outcomes in SSc-PAH and SSc-ILD. “Specifically, for the first time, we recommend monitoring the effect of any chosen intervention selected within 3-6 months of starting. The evidence suggests there is a group of patients who respond and some who respond less well and who might benefit from a second-line intervention.”

For example, results of one trial support the approach of adding an antifibrotic agent to reduce progression in people with progressive lung fibrosis. “Similarly, for pulmonary hypertension, we recommend putting patients on dual treatment, and if this fails, place them on selexipag or switch the PDE5i to riociguat,” Dr. Del Galdo said.
 

Systemic Sclerosis Research Agenda and Recommendations Align

Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the value of therapeutic continuums in advancing disease understanding. “It is starting to teach us what we know and what we don’t and where do we need to build more evidence. Effectively, they determine where the gaps in therapy lie, and this starts to guide the research agenda.

“In fact, what is really interesting about this recommendation update — certainly from the perspective of disease understanding — is that we are starting to have a bird’s-eye view of the clinical manifestations of scleroderma that have so often been dealt with separately. Now we are starting to build a cumulative evidence map of this disease.”

In 2017, the research agenda largely advocated identifying immune-targeting drugs for skin and lung fibrosis, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “Now, we’ve done that — we’ve identified appropriate immunosuppressive drugs — and this is testimony to the importance of these recommendations because what prioritized the research agenda 10 years ago ended up informing the clinical trials and made it into the recommendations.”

“We definitely are one step forward compared to this 2017 recommendation and closer to what we would like to do,” he asserted.
 

Remission Elusive but Getting Closer

In some respects, according to Dr. Del Galdo, research and development is making relatively slow progress, especially compared with other rheumatologic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. “We cannot put patients with systemic sclerosis in remission yet. But I think we are one step ahead in that we’ve now established the treat-to-target approach to maximize the efficacy with which we can stall disease progression, but we cannot yet put these patients into remission,” he said. Systemic sclerosis has multiple manifestations, and fibrotic damage cannot be reversed. “Right now, the scar will remain there forever,” he noted.

Until remission is achievable, Dr. Del Galdo advises diagnosing and treating patients earlier to prevent fibrotic manifestations.

Dr. Del Galdo explained the three leading priorities on the systemic sclerosis research agenda. “There are three because it is such a complex disease. The first is considering the patient voice — this is the most important one, and the patients say they want a more holistic approach — so trialing and treating multiple manifestations together.”

Second, Dr. Del Galdo said, he would like to see a patient-reported measure developed that can capture the entire disease.

Third, from a physician’s point of view, Dr. Del Galdo said, “We want to send the patients into remission. We need to continue to further deconvolute the clinical manifestations and find the bottleneck at the beginning of the natural history of disease.

“If we can find a drug that is effective very early on, before the patients start getting the eight different manifestations with different levels of severity, then we will be on the right road, which we hope will end in remission.”

Dr. Del Galdo has served on the speakers bureau for AstraZeneca and Janssen; consulted for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe; and received grant or research support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boheringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Kymab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Dr. Landewé had no relevant disclosures.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced the conclusion of a program that provided billions in early Medicare payments to those affected by the Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group cyberattack last winter. The Accelerated and Advance Payment program, which began in early March to assist hospitals and practices facing significant reimbursement delays, will stop accepting applications after July 12, 2024.

CMS reported that the program advanced more than $2.55 billion in Medicare payments to > 4200 Part A providers, including hospitals, and more than $717.18 million in payments to Part B suppliers such as physicians, nonphysician practitioners, and durable medical equipment suppliers.

According to CMS, the Medicare billing system is now functioning properly, and 96% of the early payments have been recovered. The advances were to represent ≤ 30 days of typical claims payments in a 3-month period of 2023, with full repayment expected within 90 days through “automatic recoupment from Medicare claims” — no extensions allowed.

The agency took a victory lap regarding its response. “In the face of one of the most widespread cyberattacks on the US health care industry, CMS promptly took action to get providers and suppliers access to the funds they needed to continue providing patients with vital care,” CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement. “Our efforts helped minimize the disruptive fallout from this incident, and we will remain vigilant to be ready to address future events.”

Ongoing Concerns from Health Care Organizations

Ben Teicher, an American Hospital Association spokesman, said that the organization hopes that CMS will be responsive if there’s more need for action after the advance payment program expires. The organization represents about 5000 hospitals, health care systems, and other providers.

“Our members report that the aftereffects of this event will likely be felt throughout the remainder of the year,” he said. According to Teicher, hospitals remain concerned about their ability to process claims and appeal denials, the safety of reconnecting to cyber services, and access to information needed to bill patients and reconcile payments.

In addition, hospitals are concerned about “financial support to mitigate the considerable costs incurred as a result of the cyberattack,” he said.

Charlene MacDonald, executive vice-president of public affairs at the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents more than 1000 for-profit hospitals, sent a statement to this news organization that said some providers “are still feeling the effects of care denials and delays caused by insurer inaction.

“We appreciate that the Administration acted within its authority to support providers during this unprecedented crisis and blunt these devastating impacts, especially because a vast majority of managed care companies failed to step up to the plate,” she said. “It is now time to shift our focus to holding plans accountable for using tactics to delay and deny needed patient care.”

Cyberattack Impact and Response

The ransom-based cyberattack against Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group targeted an electronic data interchange clearing house processing payer reimbursement systems, disrupting cash flows at hospitals and medical practices, and affecting patient access to prescriptions and life-saving therapy.

Change Healthcare — part of the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Optum — processes half of all medical claims, according to a Department of Justice lawsuit. The American Hospital Association described the cyberattack as “the most significant and consequential incident of its kind” in US history.

By late March, UnitedHealth Group said nearly all medical and pharmacy claims were processing properly, while a deputy secretary of the US Department of Health & Human Services told clinicians that officials were focusing on the last group of clinicians who were facing cash-flow problems.

Still, a senior advisor with CMS told providers at that time that “we have heard from so many providers over the last several weeks who are really struggling to make ends meet right now or who are worried that they will not be able to make payroll in the weeks to come.”

Randy Dotinga is a freelance health/medical reporter and board member of the Association of Health Care Journalists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced the conclusion of a program that provided billions in early Medicare payments to those affected by the Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group cyberattack last winter. The Accelerated and Advance Payment program, which began in early March to assist hospitals and practices facing significant reimbursement delays, will stop accepting applications after July 12, 2024.

CMS reported that the program advanced more than $2.55 billion in Medicare payments to > 4200 Part A providers, including hospitals, and more than $717.18 million in payments to Part B suppliers such as physicians, nonphysician practitioners, and durable medical equipment suppliers.

According to CMS, the Medicare billing system is now functioning properly, and 96% of the early payments have been recovered. The advances were to represent ≤ 30 days of typical claims payments in a 3-month period of 2023, with full repayment expected within 90 days through “automatic recoupment from Medicare claims” — no extensions allowed.

The agency took a victory lap regarding its response. “In the face of one of the most widespread cyberattacks on the US health care industry, CMS promptly took action to get providers and suppliers access to the funds they needed to continue providing patients with vital care,” CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement. “Our efforts helped minimize the disruptive fallout from this incident, and we will remain vigilant to be ready to address future events.”

Ongoing Concerns from Health Care Organizations

Ben Teicher, an American Hospital Association spokesman, said that the organization hopes that CMS will be responsive if there’s more need for action after the advance payment program expires. The organization represents about 5000 hospitals, health care systems, and other providers.

“Our members report that the aftereffects of this event will likely be felt throughout the remainder of the year,” he said. According to Teicher, hospitals remain concerned about their ability to process claims and appeal denials, the safety of reconnecting to cyber services, and access to information needed to bill patients and reconcile payments.

In addition, hospitals are concerned about “financial support to mitigate the considerable costs incurred as a result of the cyberattack,” he said.

Charlene MacDonald, executive vice-president of public affairs at the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents more than 1000 for-profit hospitals, sent a statement to this news organization that said some providers “are still feeling the effects of care denials and delays caused by insurer inaction.

“We appreciate that the Administration acted within its authority to support providers during this unprecedented crisis and blunt these devastating impacts, especially because a vast majority of managed care companies failed to step up to the plate,” she said. “It is now time to shift our focus to holding plans accountable for using tactics to delay and deny needed patient care.”

Cyberattack Impact and Response

The ransom-based cyberattack against Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group targeted an electronic data interchange clearing house processing payer reimbursement systems, disrupting cash flows at hospitals and medical practices, and affecting patient access to prescriptions and life-saving therapy.

Change Healthcare — part of the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Optum — processes half of all medical claims, according to a Department of Justice lawsuit. The American Hospital Association described the cyberattack as “the most significant and consequential incident of its kind” in US history.

By late March, UnitedHealth Group said nearly all medical and pharmacy claims were processing properly, while a deputy secretary of the US Department of Health & Human Services told clinicians that officials were focusing on the last group of clinicians who were facing cash-flow problems.

Still, a senior advisor with CMS told providers at that time that “we have heard from so many providers over the last several weeks who are really struggling to make ends meet right now or who are worried that they will not be able to make payroll in the weeks to come.”

Randy Dotinga is a freelance health/medical reporter and board member of the Association of Health Care Journalists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced the conclusion of a program that provided billions in early Medicare payments to those affected by the Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group cyberattack last winter. The Accelerated and Advance Payment program, which began in early March to assist hospitals and practices facing significant reimbursement delays, will stop accepting applications after July 12, 2024.

CMS reported that the program advanced more than $2.55 billion in Medicare payments to > 4200 Part A providers, including hospitals, and more than $717.18 million in payments to Part B suppliers such as physicians, nonphysician practitioners, and durable medical equipment suppliers.

According to CMS, the Medicare billing system is now functioning properly, and 96% of the early payments have been recovered. The advances were to represent ≤ 30 days of typical claims payments in a 3-month period of 2023, with full repayment expected within 90 days through “automatic recoupment from Medicare claims” — no extensions allowed.

The agency took a victory lap regarding its response. “In the face of one of the most widespread cyberattacks on the US health care industry, CMS promptly took action to get providers and suppliers access to the funds they needed to continue providing patients with vital care,” CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement. “Our efforts helped minimize the disruptive fallout from this incident, and we will remain vigilant to be ready to address future events.”

Ongoing Concerns from Health Care Organizations

Ben Teicher, an American Hospital Association spokesman, said that the organization hopes that CMS will be responsive if there’s more need for action after the advance payment program expires. The organization represents about 5000 hospitals, health care systems, and other providers.

“Our members report that the aftereffects of this event will likely be felt throughout the remainder of the year,” he said. According to Teicher, hospitals remain concerned about their ability to process claims and appeal denials, the safety of reconnecting to cyber services, and access to information needed to bill patients and reconcile payments.

In addition, hospitals are concerned about “financial support to mitigate the considerable costs incurred as a result of the cyberattack,” he said.

Charlene MacDonald, executive vice-president of public affairs at the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents more than 1000 for-profit hospitals, sent a statement to this news organization that said some providers “are still feeling the effects of care denials and delays caused by insurer inaction.

“We appreciate that the Administration acted within its authority to support providers during this unprecedented crisis and blunt these devastating impacts, especially because a vast majority of managed care companies failed to step up to the plate,” she said. “It is now time to shift our focus to holding plans accountable for using tactics to delay and deny needed patient care.”

Cyberattack Impact and Response

The ransom-based cyberattack against Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group targeted an electronic data interchange clearing house processing payer reimbursement systems, disrupting cash flows at hospitals and medical practices, and affecting patient access to prescriptions and life-saving therapy.

Change Healthcare — part of the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Optum — processes half of all medical claims, according to a Department of Justice lawsuit. The American Hospital Association described the cyberattack as “the most significant and consequential incident of its kind” in US history.

By late March, UnitedHealth Group said nearly all medical and pharmacy claims were processing properly, while a deputy secretary of the US Department of Health & Human Services told clinicians that officials were focusing on the last group of clinicians who were facing cash-flow problems.

Still, a senior advisor with CMS told providers at that time that “we have heard from so many providers over the last several weeks who are really struggling to make ends meet right now or who are worried that they will not be able to make payroll in the weeks to come.”

Randy Dotinga is a freelance health/medical reporter and board member of the Association of Health Care Journalists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals. 

Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
 

Open Access Defined

Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us? 

Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions. 

The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.

This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately. 

Then copyright is retained, in the case of NIH employees, for example, by the government or by the journals themselves. The two elements of open access, I think, are immediate access to the material and the fact that it’s published with a Creative Commons license. 

Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.

If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated? 

Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.

That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education. 

For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later. 

In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
 

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published. 

Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own. 

With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please. 

Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you. 

Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access. 

That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on. 

Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on. 

Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish? 
 

Predatory Journals

Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals. 

The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript. 

Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore. 

There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals. 

One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?

If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list. 

I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals. 

I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals. 
 

Impact Factor

Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number. 

Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal. 

It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level. 

Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense. 

This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions. 

I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?” 

There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice. 

If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on. 

I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers. 

Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed? 

Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them. 

That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.

Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it. 

Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish. 

There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that? 

Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician. 

Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research. 

We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications. 

Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers. 

The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology. 

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up? 

Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
 

Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals. 

Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
 

Open Access Defined

Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us? 

Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions. 

The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.

This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately. 

Then copyright is retained, in the case of NIH employees, for example, by the government or by the journals themselves. The two elements of open access, I think, are immediate access to the material and the fact that it’s published with a Creative Commons license. 

Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.

If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated? 

Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.

That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education. 

For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later. 

In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
 

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published. 

Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own. 

With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please. 

Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you. 

Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access. 

That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on. 

Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on. 

Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish? 
 

Predatory Journals

Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals. 

The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript. 

Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore. 

There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals. 

One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?

If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list. 

I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals. 

I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals. 
 

Impact Factor

Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number. 

Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal. 

It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level. 

Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense. 

This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions. 

I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?” 

There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice. 

If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on. 

I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers. 

Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed? 

Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them. 

That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.

Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it. 

Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish. 

There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that? 

Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician. 

Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research. 

We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications. 

Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers. 

The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology. 

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up? 

Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
 

Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals. 

Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
 

Open Access Defined

Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us? 

Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions. 

The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.

This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately. 

Then copyright is retained, in the case of NIH employees, for example, by the government or by the journals themselves. The two elements of open access, I think, are immediate access to the material and the fact that it’s published with a Creative Commons license. 

Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.

If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated? 

Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.

That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education. 

For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later. 

In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
 

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published. 

Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own. 

With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please. 

Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you. 

Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access. 

That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on. 

Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on. 

Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish? 
 

Predatory Journals

Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals. 

The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript. 

Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore. 

There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals. 

One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?

If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list. 

I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals. 

I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals. 
 

Impact Factor

Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number. 

Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal. 

It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level. 

Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense. 

This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions. 

I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?” 

There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice. 

If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on. 

I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers. 

Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed? 

Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them. 

That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.

Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it. 

Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish. 

There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that? 

Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician. 

Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research. 

We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications. 

Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers. 

The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology. 

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up? 

Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
 

Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There has been a large amount of news lately about dating online and dating apps. Probably the most common way younger people find potential partners is to go online and see who’s there that they might want to meet. 

Online dating is also notorious for being full of scammers. There are all kinds of people out there that you have to be careful of, who are trying to rip you off by saying, “Send me money, I’m in trouble,” or “Now that we have a relationship, will you support my particular entrepreneurial idea?” Certainly, dangers are there. 

Another danger we don’t talk much about is meeting people who have sexually transmitted diseases. That’s been a problem before websites and before dating apps. I think the opportunity of meeting more people — strangers, people you don’t really know — who may not tell you the truth about their health, and particularly their sexual health, is really out there. 

It’s always good medical advice to tell people to practice safe sex, and that often involves a man wearing a condom. It certainly is the case that we want to attend not just to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy but also to the transmission of diseases. I think it’s very important to tell women of reproductive age to get their HPV shot to try to reduce cancers in their reproductive systems, or sometimes in men — anal cancers, or even being a transmitter of disease. 

Even then, certainly one wants to recommend that, in an age where some people are going to meet many partners that they don’t know well or don’t have much background with, it’s wise to try to prevent diseases using the vaccines we’ve got, using the contraceptive methods that will prevent disease transmission, and reminding people to ask about sex life. 

I did come across a website that just startled me. It’s called HeHealth, and basically it says to men, if you are conscientious about your sex life, take a picture of your penis, send it to us, and we have doctors — I presume they’re US doctors but I don’t know — who will diagnose venereal diseases based on that picture. I presume women could also say, “Before we have sex, or now that we’re approaching that possibility, I want you to send a picture to this company on this website.” 

Now, a couple of reminders. I think we all know this, but just because you’re not manifesting symptoms on your reproductive organs doesn’t mean you don’t have a sexual disease. It’s not a reliable measure. Yes, maybe you could have somebody say: “Oh, that looks nasty. I’m not sure you ought to have sex right now, and maybe you should go get some treatment.” This is going to miss many cases and is not a reliable indicator that your partner is safe in terms of not transmitting diseases to you. 

It also isn’t clear what they do with these images. Do they keep them? Who can see them? Could they resell them? What sort of privacy protection have you got if you decide to use this? 

There’s another issue here, which is, if they misdiagnose someone and you do catch a sexual disease, who’s liable? Can you go after them for using doctors who weren’t competent or transmitting images that weren’t really adequate because you didn’t know how to take that picture properly when you sent that off to them? There are many unknowns. 

The bottom line is that we’re in a different world, I think, of romance. We’re in a world where some people are going to meet more partners. Some people are going to meet more strangers. One approach is to have us take pictures of ourselves, send them off to who knows where, and ask for a green light to go ahead and have sexual relations. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to rely on that as a way to avoid the risks of unprotected sexual behavior. 

We do know what to do in dealing with patients who are sexually active. First, we have to ask them. Then we’ve got to recommend available vaccinations to prevent the transmission of some cancers, the HPV vaccine. Then they need that reminder about safe sexual practices not only to protect against unwanted pregnancy, but still, in this day and age, to protect against syphilis, which is on the rise, plus HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other sexually transmissible diseases. 

I’m not going to rely on the penis picture to make the world safe for sex. I think we have to still use the old-fashioned techniques of education and prevention to do the best we can.

Dr. Caplan is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There has been a large amount of news lately about dating online and dating apps. Probably the most common way younger people find potential partners is to go online and see who’s there that they might want to meet. 

Online dating is also notorious for being full of scammers. There are all kinds of people out there that you have to be careful of, who are trying to rip you off by saying, “Send me money, I’m in trouble,” or “Now that we have a relationship, will you support my particular entrepreneurial idea?” Certainly, dangers are there. 

Another danger we don’t talk much about is meeting people who have sexually transmitted diseases. That’s been a problem before websites and before dating apps. I think the opportunity of meeting more people — strangers, people you don’t really know — who may not tell you the truth about their health, and particularly their sexual health, is really out there. 

It’s always good medical advice to tell people to practice safe sex, and that often involves a man wearing a condom. It certainly is the case that we want to attend not just to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy but also to the transmission of diseases. I think it’s very important to tell women of reproductive age to get their HPV shot to try to reduce cancers in their reproductive systems, or sometimes in men — anal cancers, or even being a transmitter of disease. 

Even then, certainly one wants to recommend that, in an age where some people are going to meet many partners that they don’t know well or don’t have much background with, it’s wise to try to prevent diseases using the vaccines we’ve got, using the contraceptive methods that will prevent disease transmission, and reminding people to ask about sex life. 

I did come across a website that just startled me. It’s called HeHealth, and basically it says to men, if you are conscientious about your sex life, take a picture of your penis, send it to us, and we have doctors — I presume they’re US doctors but I don’t know — who will diagnose venereal diseases based on that picture. I presume women could also say, “Before we have sex, or now that we’re approaching that possibility, I want you to send a picture to this company on this website.” 

Now, a couple of reminders. I think we all know this, but just because you’re not manifesting symptoms on your reproductive organs doesn’t mean you don’t have a sexual disease. It’s not a reliable measure. Yes, maybe you could have somebody say: “Oh, that looks nasty. I’m not sure you ought to have sex right now, and maybe you should go get some treatment.” This is going to miss many cases and is not a reliable indicator that your partner is safe in terms of not transmitting diseases to you. 

It also isn’t clear what they do with these images. Do they keep them? Who can see them? Could they resell them? What sort of privacy protection have you got if you decide to use this? 

There’s another issue here, which is, if they misdiagnose someone and you do catch a sexual disease, who’s liable? Can you go after them for using doctors who weren’t competent or transmitting images that weren’t really adequate because you didn’t know how to take that picture properly when you sent that off to them? There are many unknowns. 

The bottom line is that we’re in a different world, I think, of romance. We’re in a world where some people are going to meet more partners. Some people are going to meet more strangers. One approach is to have us take pictures of ourselves, send them off to who knows where, and ask for a green light to go ahead and have sexual relations. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to rely on that as a way to avoid the risks of unprotected sexual behavior. 

We do know what to do in dealing with patients who are sexually active. First, we have to ask them. Then we’ve got to recommend available vaccinations to prevent the transmission of some cancers, the HPV vaccine. Then they need that reminder about safe sexual practices not only to protect against unwanted pregnancy, but still, in this day and age, to protect against syphilis, which is on the rise, plus HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other sexually transmissible diseases. 

I’m not going to rely on the penis picture to make the world safe for sex. I think we have to still use the old-fashioned techniques of education and prevention to do the best we can.

Dr. Caplan is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There has been a large amount of news lately about dating online and dating apps. Probably the most common way younger people find potential partners is to go online and see who’s there that they might want to meet. 

Online dating is also notorious for being full of scammers. There are all kinds of people out there that you have to be careful of, who are trying to rip you off by saying, “Send me money, I’m in trouble,” or “Now that we have a relationship, will you support my particular entrepreneurial idea?” Certainly, dangers are there. 

Another danger we don’t talk much about is meeting people who have sexually transmitted diseases. That’s been a problem before websites and before dating apps. I think the opportunity of meeting more people — strangers, people you don’t really know — who may not tell you the truth about their health, and particularly their sexual health, is really out there. 

It’s always good medical advice to tell people to practice safe sex, and that often involves a man wearing a condom. It certainly is the case that we want to attend not just to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy but also to the transmission of diseases. I think it’s very important to tell women of reproductive age to get their HPV shot to try to reduce cancers in their reproductive systems, or sometimes in men — anal cancers, or even being a transmitter of disease. 

Even then, certainly one wants to recommend that, in an age where some people are going to meet many partners that they don’t know well or don’t have much background with, it’s wise to try to prevent diseases using the vaccines we’ve got, using the contraceptive methods that will prevent disease transmission, and reminding people to ask about sex life. 

I did come across a website that just startled me. It’s called HeHealth, and basically it says to men, if you are conscientious about your sex life, take a picture of your penis, send it to us, and we have doctors — I presume they’re US doctors but I don’t know — who will diagnose venereal diseases based on that picture. I presume women could also say, “Before we have sex, or now that we’re approaching that possibility, I want you to send a picture to this company on this website.” 

Now, a couple of reminders. I think we all know this, but just because you’re not manifesting symptoms on your reproductive organs doesn’t mean you don’t have a sexual disease. It’s not a reliable measure. Yes, maybe you could have somebody say: “Oh, that looks nasty. I’m not sure you ought to have sex right now, and maybe you should go get some treatment.” This is going to miss many cases and is not a reliable indicator that your partner is safe in terms of not transmitting diseases to you. 

It also isn’t clear what they do with these images. Do they keep them? Who can see them? Could they resell them? What sort of privacy protection have you got if you decide to use this? 

There’s another issue here, which is, if they misdiagnose someone and you do catch a sexual disease, who’s liable? Can you go after them for using doctors who weren’t competent or transmitting images that weren’t really adequate because you didn’t know how to take that picture properly when you sent that off to them? There are many unknowns. 

The bottom line is that we’re in a different world, I think, of romance. We’re in a world where some people are going to meet more partners. Some people are going to meet more strangers. One approach is to have us take pictures of ourselves, send them off to who knows where, and ask for a green light to go ahead and have sexual relations. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to rely on that as a way to avoid the risks of unprotected sexual behavior. 

We do know what to do in dealing with patients who are sexually active. First, we have to ask them. Then we’ve got to recommend available vaccinations to prevent the transmission of some cancers, the HPV vaccine. Then they need that reminder about safe sexual practices not only to protect against unwanted pregnancy, but still, in this day and age, to protect against syphilis, which is on the rise, plus HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other sexually transmissible diseases. 

I’m not going to rely on the penis picture to make the world safe for sex. I think we have to still use the old-fashioned techniques of education and prevention to do the best we can.

Dr. Caplan is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a topical anticholinergic, sofpironium topical gel, 12.45%, for the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis in adults and children aged ≥ 9 years.

According to a press release from Botanix Pharmaceuticals, which developed the product and will market it under the brand name Sofdra, approval was based on results from two phase 3 studies that enrolled 710 patients with primary axillary hyperhidrosis. In the trials, patients treated with sofpironium topical gel, 12.45%, experienced “clinically and statistically meaningful changes” from baseline in the Gravimetric Sweat Production and the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Measure–Axillary seven-item score, according to the company.

Botanix plans to enable qualified patients to gain early access to the product in the third quarter of 2024, with commercial sales expected in the fourth quarter of 2024.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a topical anticholinergic, sofpironium topical gel, 12.45%, for the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis in adults and children aged ≥ 9 years.

According to a press release from Botanix Pharmaceuticals, which developed the product and will market it under the brand name Sofdra, approval was based on results from two phase 3 studies that enrolled 710 patients with primary axillary hyperhidrosis. In the trials, patients treated with sofpironium topical gel, 12.45%, experienced “clinically and statistically meaningful changes” from baseline in the Gravimetric Sweat Production and the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Measure–Axillary seven-item score, according to the company.

Botanix plans to enable qualified patients to gain early access to the product in the third quarter of 2024, with commercial sales expected in the fourth quarter of 2024.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a topical anticholinergic, sofpironium topical gel, 12.45%, for the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis in adults and children aged ≥ 9 years.

According to a press release from Botanix Pharmaceuticals, which developed the product and will market it under the brand name Sofdra, approval was based on results from two phase 3 studies that enrolled 710 patients with primary axillary hyperhidrosis. In the trials, patients treated with sofpironium topical gel, 12.45%, experienced “clinically and statistically meaningful changes” from baseline in the Gravimetric Sweat Production and the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Measure–Axillary seven-item score, according to the company.

Botanix plans to enable qualified patients to gain early access to the product in the third quarter of 2024, with commercial sales expected in the fourth quarter of 2024.
 

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

WASHINGTON — In 2013, Vishal A. Patel, MD, was completing a fellowship in Mohs surgery and cutaneous oncology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, when a study was published showing that most nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) were treated with surgery, regardless of the patient’s life expectancy. Life expectancy “should enter into treatment decisions,” the authors concluded.

“The article got a lot of pushback from the Mohs surgeons,” and the value of surgery in older adults and particularly those with limited life expectancy “became a hot topic,” Dr. Patel recalled at the ElderDerm conference hosted by the Department of Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, and described as a first-of-its-kind meeting dedicated to improving dermatologic care for older adults.

Christine Kilgore

Today, however, more than a decade later, guidelines still promote surgical therapy as the gold standard across the board, and questions raised by the study are still unaddressed, Dr. Patel, associate professor of dermatology and medicine/oncology at George Washington University, said at the meeting. These questions are becoming increasingly urgent as the incidence of skin cancer, especially NMSC, rises in the older adult population, especially in patients older than 85 years. “It’s a function of our training and our treatment guidelines that we reach for the most definitive treatment, which happens to be the most aggressive, in these patients,” added Dr. Patel, who is also director of the cutaneous oncology program at the GW Cancer Center.

“Sometimes we lose track of what ... we need to do” to provide care that reflects the best interests of the older patient, he continued. “Surgery may be the gold standard for treating the majority of NMSCs ... but is it the [best option] for what our older patients and patients with limited life expectancy need?”

Learning about what truly matters to the patient is a key element of the “age-friendly, whole-person care” that dermatologists must embrace as older adults become an increasingly large subset of their patient population, Christina Prather, MD, director and associate professor of geriatrics and palliative medicine at George Washington University, said at the meeting.

By 2040, projections are that the number of adults aged 85 years and older in the United States will be nearly quadruple the number in 2000, according to one estimate.

“We know that there are less than 6000 practicing geriatricians in the country ... [so the healthcare system] needs more of you who know how to bring an age-friendly approach to care,” Dr. Prather said. Dermatology is among the specialties that need to be “geriatricized.”
 

NMSC Increasing in the Older Population

The incidence of skin cancer is rising faster than that of any other cancer, Dr. Patel said. One window into the epidemiology, he said, comes from recently published data showing that an average of 6.1 million adults were treated each year for skin cancer during 2016-2018 (5.2 million of them for NMSC) — an increase from an average of 5.8 million annually in the 2012-2015 period. The data come from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), which is conducted by the US Public Health Service through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As a frame of reference, the average number of adults treated each year for nonskin cancers during these periods rose from 10.8 to 11.9 million, according to the 2023 MEPS data. “Skin cancer is about one-third of all cancers combined,” Dr. Patel said.

Not only is the incidence of NMSC significantly higher than that of melanoma but it also shows a more prominent aging trend. This was documented recently in a long-term observational study from Japan, in which researchers looked at the change in the median age of patients with NMSC and melanoma, compared with cancers of other organs, from 1991 to 2020 and found that NMSC had by far the greatest rise in median age, to a median age of 80 years in 2021.

Even more notable, Dr. Patel said, was a particularly marked increase in the number of patients with skin cancer aged 90 years and older. In 2021, this group of older adults accounted for 17% of patients receiving treatment for skin cancer at the Japanese hospital where the data were collected.

The 2013 study that stirred Dr. Patel as a fellow was of 1536 consecutive patients diagnosed with NMSC at two dermatology clinics (a University of California San Francisco–based private clinic and a Veterans Affairs Medical Center clinic) and followed for 6 years. “What’s interesting and worth thinking about is that, regardless of patients’ life expectancy, NMSCs were treated aggressively and surgically, and the choice of surgery was not influenced by the patient’s poor prognosis in a multivariate model” adjusted for tumor and patient characteristics, he said at the meeting.

The researchers defined limited life expectancy as either 85 years or older or having a Charleston Comorbidity Index ≥ 3. Approximately half of the patients with limited life expectancy died within 5 years, none of NMSC. Most patients with limited life expectancy were not often bothered by their tumors, and approximately one in five reported a treatment complication within 2 years. The 5-year tumor recurrence rate was 3.7%.

A more recent study looked at 1181 patients older than 85 years with NMSC referred for Mohs surgery. Almost all patients in the multicenter, prospective cohort study (91.3%) were treated with Mohs.

Treated patients were more likely to have facial tumors and higher functional status than those not treated with Mohs surgery, and the most common reasons provided by surgeons for proceeding with the surgery were a patient desire for a high cure rate (66%), higher functional status for age (57%), and high-risk tumor type (40%). Almost 42% of the referred patients were 89 years or older.

“Granted, [the reasons] are justified indications for surgery,” Dr. Patel said. Yet the study brings up the question of “whether we need to do Mohs surgery this frequently in elderly patients?” In an email after the meeting, he added, “it’s a question we may need to reconsider as the elderly population continues to increase and median age of NMSC rises.”
 

Underutilized Management Options for NMSC

In his practice, discussions of treatment options are preceded by a thorough discussion of the disease itself. Many lesions are low risk, and helping patients understand risks, as well as understanding what is important to the patient — especially those with limited life expectancy — will guide shared decision-making to choose the best treatment, Dr. Patel said at the meeting.

The dermatologist’s risk assessment — both staging and stratifying risk as it relates to specific outcomes such as recurrence, metastases, or death — takes on added importance in the older patient, he emphasized. “I think we underutilize the risk assessment.”

Also underutilized is the option of shave removal for low-risk squamous cell carcinomas and basal cell carcinomas, Dr. Patel said, noting that, in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, “there’s an option for shave removal and nothing more if you have clear margins.”

Alternatively, disc excision with the initial biopsy can often be considered. “Having that intent to treat at the time of biopsy may be all that needs to be done” in older patients with obvious or highly suspicious lesions, he said.

Systemic immunotherapy has joined the treatment armamentarium for advanced basal cell carcinoma and advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and if early, ongoing research of intralesional programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor treatment advances, this could be another option for older adults in the future, Dr. Patel said. Targeting drug delivery directly to the tumor would lower the total dose, decrease systemic exposure, and could be used to avoid surgery for some groups of patients, such as those with limited life expectancy.

A Personal Story, a Word on Melanoma

Dr. Prather recalled when her 97-year-old grandfather had a skin lesion on his forehead removed, and a conversation he had with her mother about whether he really needed to have the procedure because he had cognitive impairment and was on oral anticoagulants.

The clinician “said it absolutely had to go. ... I can’t tell you how much his doctors’ visits and wound care consumed my family’s life for the next few years — for this thing that never quite healed,” she said.

“Was it necessary? The more I’ve learned over time is that it wasn’t,” Dr. Prather added. “We have to take time [with our older patients] and think critically. What is feasible? What makes the most sense? What is the most important thing I need to know about the patient?”

Also important, Dr. Patel noted, is the big-picture consideration of skin cancer treatment costs. The MEPS survey data showing the rising prevalence of skin cancer treatment also documented the economic burden: A nearly 30% increase in the average annual cost of treating NMSC from $5 billion in 2012-2015 to $6.5 billion in 2016-2018. (The average annual costs of treating melanoma decreased slightly.) “Skin cancer is a big drain on our limited resources,” he said.

With melanoma as well, dermatologists must think critically and holistically about the individual patient — and not have “a single view lens of the disease and how we treat the disease,” said Dr. Patel, urging the audience to read a “Sounding Board” article published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2021. The article argued that there is overdiagnosis of cutaneous melanoma stemming from increased screening, falling clinical thresholds for biopsy, and falling pathological thresholds for labeling morphologic changes as cancer.

“There’s a diagnostic disconnect and a problem of overdiagnosis ... because we’re afraid to miss or make a mistake,” he said. “It leads to the question, do all lesions denoted as skin cancers need aggressive treatment? What does it mean for the patient in front of you?”

Dr. Patel reported receiving honoraria from Regeneron, Almirall, Biofrontera, Sun Pharma, and SkylineDx and serving on the speaker bureau of Regeneron and Almirall. He is chief medical officer for Lazarus AI and is cofounder of the Skin Cancer Outcomes consortium. Dr. Prather disclosed relationships with the National Institutes of Health, AHRQ, The Washington Home Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — In 2013, Vishal A. Patel, MD, was completing a fellowship in Mohs surgery and cutaneous oncology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, when a study was published showing that most nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) were treated with surgery, regardless of the patient’s life expectancy. Life expectancy “should enter into treatment decisions,” the authors concluded.

“The article got a lot of pushback from the Mohs surgeons,” and the value of surgery in older adults and particularly those with limited life expectancy “became a hot topic,” Dr. Patel recalled at the ElderDerm conference hosted by the Department of Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, and described as a first-of-its-kind meeting dedicated to improving dermatologic care for older adults.

Christine Kilgore

Today, however, more than a decade later, guidelines still promote surgical therapy as the gold standard across the board, and questions raised by the study are still unaddressed, Dr. Patel, associate professor of dermatology and medicine/oncology at George Washington University, said at the meeting. These questions are becoming increasingly urgent as the incidence of skin cancer, especially NMSC, rises in the older adult population, especially in patients older than 85 years. “It’s a function of our training and our treatment guidelines that we reach for the most definitive treatment, which happens to be the most aggressive, in these patients,” added Dr. Patel, who is also director of the cutaneous oncology program at the GW Cancer Center.

“Sometimes we lose track of what ... we need to do” to provide care that reflects the best interests of the older patient, he continued. “Surgery may be the gold standard for treating the majority of NMSCs ... but is it the [best option] for what our older patients and patients with limited life expectancy need?”

Learning about what truly matters to the patient is a key element of the “age-friendly, whole-person care” that dermatologists must embrace as older adults become an increasingly large subset of their patient population, Christina Prather, MD, director and associate professor of geriatrics and palliative medicine at George Washington University, said at the meeting.

By 2040, projections are that the number of adults aged 85 years and older in the United States will be nearly quadruple the number in 2000, according to one estimate.

“We know that there are less than 6000 practicing geriatricians in the country ... [so the healthcare system] needs more of you who know how to bring an age-friendly approach to care,” Dr. Prather said. Dermatology is among the specialties that need to be “geriatricized.”
 

NMSC Increasing in the Older Population

The incidence of skin cancer is rising faster than that of any other cancer, Dr. Patel said. One window into the epidemiology, he said, comes from recently published data showing that an average of 6.1 million adults were treated each year for skin cancer during 2016-2018 (5.2 million of them for NMSC) — an increase from an average of 5.8 million annually in the 2012-2015 period. The data come from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), which is conducted by the US Public Health Service through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As a frame of reference, the average number of adults treated each year for nonskin cancers during these periods rose from 10.8 to 11.9 million, according to the 2023 MEPS data. “Skin cancer is about one-third of all cancers combined,” Dr. Patel said.

Not only is the incidence of NMSC significantly higher than that of melanoma but it also shows a more prominent aging trend. This was documented recently in a long-term observational study from Japan, in which researchers looked at the change in the median age of patients with NMSC and melanoma, compared with cancers of other organs, from 1991 to 2020 and found that NMSC had by far the greatest rise in median age, to a median age of 80 years in 2021.

Even more notable, Dr. Patel said, was a particularly marked increase in the number of patients with skin cancer aged 90 years and older. In 2021, this group of older adults accounted for 17% of patients receiving treatment for skin cancer at the Japanese hospital where the data were collected.

The 2013 study that stirred Dr. Patel as a fellow was of 1536 consecutive patients diagnosed with NMSC at two dermatology clinics (a University of California San Francisco–based private clinic and a Veterans Affairs Medical Center clinic) and followed for 6 years. “What’s interesting and worth thinking about is that, regardless of patients’ life expectancy, NMSCs were treated aggressively and surgically, and the choice of surgery was not influenced by the patient’s poor prognosis in a multivariate model” adjusted for tumor and patient characteristics, he said at the meeting.

The researchers defined limited life expectancy as either 85 years or older or having a Charleston Comorbidity Index ≥ 3. Approximately half of the patients with limited life expectancy died within 5 years, none of NMSC. Most patients with limited life expectancy were not often bothered by their tumors, and approximately one in five reported a treatment complication within 2 years. The 5-year tumor recurrence rate was 3.7%.

A more recent study looked at 1181 patients older than 85 years with NMSC referred for Mohs surgery. Almost all patients in the multicenter, prospective cohort study (91.3%) were treated with Mohs.

Treated patients were more likely to have facial tumors and higher functional status than those not treated with Mohs surgery, and the most common reasons provided by surgeons for proceeding with the surgery were a patient desire for a high cure rate (66%), higher functional status for age (57%), and high-risk tumor type (40%). Almost 42% of the referred patients were 89 years or older.

“Granted, [the reasons] are justified indications for surgery,” Dr. Patel said. Yet the study brings up the question of “whether we need to do Mohs surgery this frequently in elderly patients?” In an email after the meeting, he added, “it’s a question we may need to reconsider as the elderly population continues to increase and median age of NMSC rises.”
 

Underutilized Management Options for NMSC

In his practice, discussions of treatment options are preceded by a thorough discussion of the disease itself. Many lesions are low risk, and helping patients understand risks, as well as understanding what is important to the patient — especially those with limited life expectancy — will guide shared decision-making to choose the best treatment, Dr. Patel said at the meeting.

The dermatologist’s risk assessment — both staging and stratifying risk as it relates to specific outcomes such as recurrence, metastases, or death — takes on added importance in the older patient, he emphasized. “I think we underutilize the risk assessment.”

Also underutilized is the option of shave removal for low-risk squamous cell carcinomas and basal cell carcinomas, Dr. Patel said, noting that, in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, “there’s an option for shave removal and nothing more if you have clear margins.”

Alternatively, disc excision with the initial biopsy can often be considered. “Having that intent to treat at the time of biopsy may be all that needs to be done” in older patients with obvious or highly suspicious lesions, he said.

Systemic immunotherapy has joined the treatment armamentarium for advanced basal cell carcinoma and advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and if early, ongoing research of intralesional programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor treatment advances, this could be another option for older adults in the future, Dr. Patel said. Targeting drug delivery directly to the tumor would lower the total dose, decrease systemic exposure, and could be used to avoid surgery for some groups of patients, such as those with limited life expectancy.

A Personal Story, a Word on Melanoma

Dr. Prather recalled when her 97-year-old grandfather had a skin lesion on his forehead removed, and a conversation he had with her mother about whether he really needed to have the procedure because he had cognitive impairment and was on oral anticoagulants.

The clinician “said it absolutely had to go. ... I can’t tell you how much his doctors’ visits and wound care consumed my family’s life for the next few years — for this thing that never quite healed,” she said.

“Was it necessary? The more I’ve learned over time is that it wasn’t,” Dr. Prather added. “We have to take time [with our older patients] and think critically. What is feasible? What makes the most sense? What is the most important thing I need to know about the patient?”

Also important, Dr. Patel noted, is the big-picture consideration of skin cancer treatment costs. The MEPS survey data showing the rising prevalence of skin cancer treatment also documented the economic burden: A nearly 30% increase in the average annual cost of treating NMSC from $5 billion in 2012-2015 to $6.5 billion in 2016-2018. (The average annual costs of treating melanoma decreased slightly.) “Skin cancer is a big drain on our limited resources,” he said.

With melanoma as well, dermatologists must think critically and holistically about the individual patient — and not have “a single view lens of the disease and how we treat the disease,” said Dr. Patel, urging the audience to read a “Sounding Board” article published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2021. The article argued that there is overdiagnosis of cutaneous melanoma stemming from increased screening, falling clinical thresholds for biopsy, and falling pathological thresholds for labeling morphologic changes as cancer.

“There’s a diagnostic disconnect and a problem of overdiagnosis ... because we’re afraid to miss or make a mistake,” he said. “It leads to the question, do all lesions denoted as skin cancers need aggressive treatment? What does it mean for the patient in front of you?”

Dr. Patel reported receiving honoraria from Regeneron, Almirall, Biofrontera, Sun Pharma, and SkylineDx and serving on the speaker bureau of Regeneron and Almirall. He is chief medical officer for Lazarus AI and is cofounder of the Skin Cancer Outcomes consortium. Dr. Prather disclosed relationships with the National Institutes of Health, AHRQ, The Washington Home Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — In 2013, Vishal A. Patel, MD, was completing a fellowship in Mohs surgery and cutaneous oncology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, when a study was published showing that most nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) were treated with surgery, regardless of the patient’s life expectancy. Life expectancy “should enter into treatment decisions,” the authors concluded.

“The article got a lot of pushback from the Mohs surgeons,” and the value of surgery in older adults and particularly those with limited life expectancy “became a hot topic,” Dr. Patel recalled at the ElderDerm conference hosted by the Department of Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, and described as a first-of-its-kind meeting dedicated to improving dermatologic care for older adults.

Christine Kilgore

Today, however, more than a decade later, guidelines still promote surgical therapy as the gold standard across the board, and questions raised by the study are still unaddressed, Dr. Patel, associate professor of dermatology and medicine/oncology at George Washington University, said at the meeting. These questions are becoming increasingly urgent as the incidence of skin cancer, especially NMSC, rises in the older adult population, especially in patients older than 85 years. “It’s a function of our training and our treatment guidelines that we reach for the most definitive treatment, which happens to be the most aggressive, in these patients,” added Dr. Patel, who is also director of the cutaneous oncology program at the GW Cancer Center.

“Sometimes we lose track of what ... we need to do” to provide care that reflects the best interests of the older patient, he continued. “Surgery may be the gold standard for treating the majority of NMSCs ... but is it the [best option] for what our older patients and patients with limited life expectancy need?”

Learning about what truly matters to the patient is a key element of the “age-friendly, whole-person care” that dermatologists must embrace as older adults become an increasingly large subset of their patient population, Christina Prather, MD, director and associate professor of geriatrics and palliative medicine at George Washington University, said at the meeting.

By 2040, projections are that the number of adults aged 85 years and older in the United States will be nearly quadruple the number in 2000, according to one estimate.

“We know that there are less than 6000 practicing geriatricians in the country ... [so the healthcare system] needs more of you who know how to bring an age-friendly approach to care,” Dr. Prather said. Dermatology is among the specialties that need to be “geriatricized.”
 

NMSC Increasing in the Older Population

The incidence of skin cancer is rising faster than that of any other cancer, Dr. Patel said. One window into the epidemiology, he said, comes from recently published data showing that an average of 6.1 million adults were treated each year for skin cancer during 2016-2018 (5.2 million of them for NMSC) — an increase from an average of 5.8 million annually in the 2012-2015 period. The data come from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), which is conducted by the US Public Health Service through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As a frame of reference, the average number of adults treated each year for nonskin cancers during these periods rose from 10.8 to 11.9 million, according to the 2023 MEPS data. “Skin cancer is about one-third of all cancers combined,” Dr. Patel said.

Not only is the incidence of NMSC significantly higher than that of melanoma but it also shows a more prominent aging trend. This was documented recently in a long-term observational study from Japan, in which researchers looked at the change in the median age of patients with NMSC and melanoma, compared with cancers of other organs, from 1991 to 2020 and found that NMSC had by far the greatest rise in median age, to a median age of 80 years in 2021.

Even more notable, Dr. Patel said, was a particularly marked increase in the number of patients with skin cancer aged 90 years and older. In 2021, this group of older adults accounted for 17% of patients receiving treatment for skin cancer at the Japanese hospital where the data were collected.

The 2013 study that stirred Dr. Patel as a fellow was of 1536 consecutive patients diagnosed with NMSC at two dermatology clinics (a University of California San Francisco–based private clinic and a Veterans Affairs Medical Center clinic) and followed for 6 years. “What’s interesting and worth thinking about is that, regardless of patients’ life expectancy, NMSCs were treated aggressively and surgically, and the choice of surgery was not influenced by the patient’s poor prognosis in a multivariate model” adjusted for tumor and patient characteristics, he said at the meeting.

The researchers defined limited life expectancy as either 85 years or older or having a Charleston Comorbidity Index ≥ 3. Approximately half of the patients with limited life expectancy died within 5 years, none of NMSC. Most patients with limited life expectancy were not often bothered by their tumors, and approximately one in five reported a treatment complication within 2 years. The 5-year tumor recurrence rate was 3.7%.

A more recent study looked at 1181 patients older than 85 years with NMSC referred for Mohs surgery. Almost all patients in the multicenter, prospective cohort study (91.3%) were treated with Mohs.

Treated patients were more likely to have facial tumors and higher functional status than those not treated with Mohs surgery, and the most common reasons provided by surgeons for proceeding with the surgery were a patient desire for a high cure rate (66%), higher functional status for age (57%), and high-risk tumor type (40%). Almost 42% of the referred patients were 89 years or older.

“Granted, [the reasons] are justified indications for surgery,” Dr. Patel said. Yet the study brings up the question of “whether we need to do Mohs surgery this frequently in elderly patients?” In an email after the meeting, he added, “it’s a question we may need to reconsider as the elderly population continues to increase and median age of NMSC rises.”
 

Underutilized Management Options for NMSC

In his practice, discussions of treatment options are preceded by a thorough discussion of the disease itself. Many lesions are low risk, and helping patients understand risks, as well as understanding what is important to the patient — especially those with limited life expectancy — will guide shared decision-making to choose the best treatment, Dr. Patel said at the meeting.

The dermatologist’s risk assessment — both staging and stratifying risk as it relates to specific outcomes such as recurrence, metastases, or death — takes on added importance in the older patient, he emphasized. “I think we underutilize the risk assessment.”

Also underutilized is the option of shave removal for low-risk squamous cell carcinomas and basal cell carcinomas, Dr. Patel said, noting that, in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, “there’s an option for shave removal and nothing more if you have clear margins.”

Alternatively, disc excision with the initial biopsy can often be considered. “Having that intent to treat at the time of biopsy may be all that needs to be done” in older patients with obvious or highly suspicious lesions, he said.

Systemic immunotherapy has joined the treatment armamentarium for advanced basal cell carcinoma and advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and if early, ongoing research of intralesional programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor treatment advances, this could be another option for older adults in the future, Dr. Patel said. Targeting drug delivery directly to the tumor would lower the total dose, decrease systemic exposure, and could be used to avoid surgery for some groups of patients, such as those with limited life expectancy.

A Personal Story, a Word on Melanoma

Dr. Prather recalled when her 97-year-old grandfather had a skin lesion on his forehead removed, and a conversation he had with her mother about whether he really needed to have the procedure because he had cognitive impairment and was on oral anticoagulants.

The clinician “said it absolutely had to go. ... I can’t tell you how much his doctors’ visits and wound care consumed my family’s life for the next few years — for this thing that never quite healed,” she said.

“Was it necessary? The more I’ve learned over time is that it wasn’t,” Dr. Prather added. “We have to take time [with our older patients] and think critically. What is feasible? What makes the most sense? What is the most important thing I need to know about the patient?”

Also important, Dr. Patel noted, is the big-picture consideration of skin cancer treatment costs. The MEPS survey data showing the rising prevalence of skin cancer treatment also documented the economic burden: A nearly 30% increase in the average annual cost of treating NMSC from $5 billion in 2012-2015 to $6.5 billion in 2016-2018. (The average annual costs of treating melanoma decreased slightly.) “Skin cancer is a big drain on our limited resources,” he said.

With melanoma as well, dermatologists must think critically and holistically about the individual patient — and not have “a single view lens of the disease and how we treat the disease,” said Dr. Patel, urging the audience to read a “Sounding Board” article published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2021. The article argued that there is overdiagnosis of cutaneous melanoma stemming from increased screening, falling clinical thresholds for biopsy, and falling pathological thresholds for labeling morphologic changes as cancer.

“There’s a diagnostic disconnect and a problem of overdiagnosis ... because we’re afraid to miss or make a mistake,” he said. “It leads to the question, do all lesions denoted as skin cancers need aggressive treatment? What does it mean for the patient in front of you?”

Dr. Patel reported receiving honoraria from Regeneron, Almirall, Biofrontera, Sun Pharma, and SkylineDx and serving on the speaker bureau of Regeneron and Almirall. He is chief medical officer for Lazarus AI and is cofounder of the Skin Cancer Outcomes consortium. Dr. Prather disclosed relationships with the National Institutes of Health, AHRQ, The Washington Home Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Ixekizumab (Taltz), an interleukin-17A inhibitor that’s already approved for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis in adults appears likely to be granted the same corresponding indications for children, based on initial results from an open-label, phase 3 trial that employed adalimumab as a reference.

With a safety profile comparable with that seen in adult patients, ixekizumab “met the prespecified criterion for success at 16 weeks,” reported Athimalaipet V. Ramanan, MD, PhD, of Bristol Royal Hospital for Children and Translational Health Sciences, Bristol, England.

In this multicenter, randomized, open-label trial called COSPIRIT-JIA, which is still ongoing, investigators enrolled 101 children with active juvenile PsA (JPsA) or enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA), which is akin to spondyloarthritis in adults.

The efficacy and safety data at 16 weeks were presented as a late-breaking abstract at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. Dr. Ramanan said that the open-label extension to 104 weeks is underway and further follow-up out to 264 weeks is planned.
 

Nearly 90% Achieve ACR30

The trial had an adaptive design in which the first 40 patients without biologics experience were randomized to ixekizumab or adalimumab, stratified by JPsA or ERA diagnosis, and the following 61 patients with either no biologic experience or an inadequate response or intolerance to biologics all received ixekizumab. The drugs were dosed according to weight. Dr. Ramanan explained that a placebo-controlled trial was considered unethical because of the strong evidence of benefit from biologics for JPsA and ERA.

The trial easily met its predefined threshold for success, which required ≥ 80% probability, based on Bayesian analysis, that ≥ 50% of patients would have 30% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR30) at week 16. ACR30 was achieved in 88.9% of those treated with ixekizumab overall vs 95.0% of those treated with adalimumab, but the trial was not designed as a head-to-head comparison. Rather, adalimumab served as a reference.

When compared for the distinct diseases, the ACR30 rates were also numerically lower for ixekizumab relative to adalimumab for both ERA (88.9% vs 93.8%) and JPsA (88.9% vs 100%), but all of the adalimumab patients were naive to biologics. In comparison, about 75% of patients receiving ixekizumab were biologic-therapy naive.

Response rates to ixekizumab overall were numerically higher for patients without previous biologic experience than for those with experience (90.0% vs 85.7%), and this was also the case for patients with ERA (92.5% vs 78.6%). However, in the JPsA group, biologic-experienced patients had higher numerical response rates to ixekizumab (100% vs 85.0%).

An ACR30 is not a clinical goal that satisfies most patients and clinicians, Dr. Ramanan conceded, but he noted that ACR50 was reached with ixekizumab by 81.5% with ERA and 74.1% with JPsA, and ACR70 was reached by 68.5% and 55.6%, respectively. The highest responses of ACR90 (27.8% and 33.3%) and ACR100 (14.8% and 25.9%) were lower but still substantial in the ERA and JPsA groups, respectively.

Through week 16, 58.0% of those treated with ixekizumab had an adverse event considered treatment-related. Nearly half were of mild severity, and the remainder were moderate. Only 3.7% were considered serious. No patient discontinued study treatment because of an adverse event.

In this study, the presence of at least three active peripheral joints was an inclusion criterion. The median age was about 13 years in the biologic-naive adalimumab and ixekizumab groups and 14 years in the ixekizumab biologic-experienced group. The youngest patient in the study was aged 5 years, and the oldest was aged 18 years. Although about 40% of patients were women in the two biologic-naive subgroups, it was 60% in the biologic-experienced group.

On average, patients in the biologic-naive group were entered about 1 year after diagnosis. In the experienced patients, the average duration of disease at entry was nearly 4 years. About 45% of patients remained on conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs while receiving ixekizumab. The proportion was 35% in the adalimumab reference arm.
 

Ixekizumab Might Fulfill Need for More Options

There are several biologics that have received regulatory approval or are already widely used for the treatment of JPsA or ERA, but more options are needed, according to Dr. Ramanan and the chair of the abstract session in which these data were reported. According to Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, a researcher at the Center for Experimental Rheumatology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, regulatory approval of ixekizumab will depend on sustained efficacy and safety in longer follow-up from the COSPIRIT-JIA trial, but this trial supports continued development.

Despite a novel mechanism of action, “the data so far suggest a level of efficacy similar to that of anti-TNF [anti-tumor necrosis factor] biologics,” said Dr. Ospelt, who, in addition to moderating the late-breaking session, served as Scientific Program Chair of EULAR 2024.

While Dr. Ospelt emphasized that she is a researcher involved in translational rheumatology studies and not a clinician, she said there was consensus within the program committee to select this abstract from other high-quality latebreaker submissions on the basis of its potential clinical significance.

Dr. Ramanan reported financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SOBI, UCB, and Eli Lilly, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Ospelt reported no potential conflicts of interest.
 

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

VIENNA — Ixekizumab (Taltz), an interleukin-17A inhibitor that’s already approved for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis in adults appears likely to be granted the same corresponding indications for children, based on initial results from an open-label, phase 3 trial that employed adalimumab as a reference.

With a safety profile comparable with that seen in adult patients, ixekizumab “met the prespecified criterion for success at 16 weeks,” reported Athimalaipet V. Ramanan, MD, PhD, of Bristol Royal Hospital for Children and Translational Health Sciences, Bristol, England.

In this multicenter, randomized, open-label trial called COSPIRIT-JIA, which is still ongoing, investigators enrolled 101 children with active juvenile PsA (JPsA) or enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA), which is akin to spondyloarthritis in adults.

The efficacy and safety data at 16 weeks were presented as a late-breaking abstract at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. Dr. Ramanan said that the open-label extension to 104 weeks is underway and further follow-up out to 264 weeks is planned.
 

Nearly 90% Achieve ACR30

The trial had an adaptive design in which the first 40 patients without biologics experience were randomized to ixekizumab or adalimumab, stratified by JPsA or ERA diagnosis, and the following 61 patients with either no biologic experience or an inadequate response or intolerance to biologics all received ixekizumab. The drugs were dosed according to weight. Dr. Ramanan explained that a placebo-controlled trial was considered unethical because of the strong evidence of benefit from biologics for JPsA and ERA.

The trial easily met its predefined threshold for success, which required ≥ 80% probability, based on Bayesian analysis, that ≥ 50% of patients would have 30% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR30) at week 16. ACR30 was achieved in 88.9% of those treated with ixekizumab overall vs 95.0% of those treated with adalimumab, but the trial was not designed as a head-to-head comparison. Rather, adalimumab served as a reference.

When compared for the distinct diseases, the ACR30 rates were also numerically lower for ixekizumab relative to adalimumab for both ERA (88.9% vs 93.8%) and JPsA (88.9% vs 100%), but all of the adalimumab patients were naive to biologics. In comparison, about 75% of patients receiving ixekizumab were biologic-therapy naive.

Response rates to ixekizumab overall were numerically higher for patients without previous biologic experience than for those with experience (90.0% vs 85.7%), and this was also the case for patients with ERA (92.5% vs 78.6%). However, in the JPsA group, biologic-experienced patients had higher numerical response rates to ixekizumab (100% vs 85.0%).

An ACR30 is not a clinical goal that satisfies most patients and clinicians, Dr. Ramanan conceded, but he noted that ACR50 was reached with ixekizumab by 81.5% with ERA and 74.1% with JPsA, and ACR70 was reached by 68.5% and 55.6%, respectively. The highest responses of ACR90 (27.8% and 33.3%) and ACR100 (14.8% and 25.9%) were lower but still substantial in the ERA and JPsA groups, respectively.

Through week 16, 58.0% of those treated with ixekizumab had an adverse event considered treatment-related. Nearly half were of mild severity, and the remainder were moderate. Only 3.7% were considered serious. No patient discontinued study treatment because of an adverse event.

In this study, the presence of at least three active peripheral joints was an inclusion criterion. The median age was about 13 years in the biologic-naive adalimumab and ixekizumab groups and 14 years in the ixekizumab biologic-experienced group. The youngest patient in the study was aged 5 years, and the oldest was aged 18 years. Although about 40% of patients were women in the two biologic-naive subgroups, it was 60% in the biologic-experienced group.

On average, patients in the biologic-naive group were entered about 1 year after diagnosis. In the experienced patients, the average duration of disease at entry was nearly 4 years. About 45% of patients remained on conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs while receiving ixekizumab. The proportion was 35% in the adalimumab reference arm.
 

Ixekizumab Might Fulfill Need for More Options

There are several biologics that have received regulatory approval or are already widely used for the treatment of JPsA or ERA, but more options are needed, according to Dr. Ramanan and the chair of the abstract session in which these data were reported. According to Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, a researcher at the Center for Experimental Rheumatology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, regulatory approval of ixekizumab will depend on sustained efficacy and safety in longer follow-up from the COSPIRIT-JIA trial, but this trial supports continued development.

Despite a novel mechanism of action, “the data so far suggest a level of efficacy similar to that of anti-TNF [anti-tumor necrosis factor] biologics,” said Dr. Ospelt, who, in addition to moderating the late-breaking session, served as Scientific Program Chair of EULAR 2024.

While Dr. Ospelt emphasized that she is a researcher involved in translational rheumatology studies and not a clinician, she said there was consensus within the program committee to select this abstract from other high-quality latebreaker submissions on the basis of its potential clinical significance.

Dr. Ramanan reported financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SOBI, UCB, and Eli Lilly, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Ospelt reported no potential conflicts of interest.
 

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

VIENNA — Ixekizumab (Taltz), an interleukin-17A inhibitor that’s already approved for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis in adults appears likely to be granted the same corresponding indications for children, based on initial results from an open-label, phase 3 trial that employed adalimumab as a reference.

With a safety profile comparable with that seen in adult patients, ixekizumab “met the prespecified criterion for success at 16 weeks,” reported Athimalaipet V. Ramanan, MD, PhD, of Bristol Royal Hospital for Children and Translational Health Sciences, Bristol, England.

In this multicenter, randomized, open-label trial called COSPIRIT-JIA, which is still ongoing, investigators enrolled 101 children with active juvenile PsA (JPsA) or enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA), which is akin to spondyloarthritis in adults.

The efficacy and safety data at 16 weeks were presented as a late-breaking abstract at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. Dr. Ramanan said that the open-label extension to 104 weeks is underway and further follow-up out to 264 weeks is planned.
 

Nearly 90% Achieve ACR30

The trial had an adaptive design in which the first 40 patients without biologics experience were randomized to ixekizumab or adalimumab, stratified by JPsA or ERA diagnosis, and the following 61 patients with either no biologic experience or an inadequate response or intolerance to biologics all received ixekizumab. The drugs were dosed according to weight. Dr. Ramanan explained that a placebo-controlled trial was considered unethical because of the strong evidence of benefit from biologics for JPsA and ERA.

The trial easily met its predefined threshold for success, which required ≥ 80% probability, based on Bayesian analysis, that ≥ 50% of patients would have 30% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR30) at week 16. ACR30 was achieved in 88.9% of those treated with ixekizumab overall vs 95.0% of those treated with adalimumab, but the trial was not designed as a head-to-head comparison. Rather, adalimumab served as a reference.

When compared for the distinct diseases, the ACR30 rates were also numerically lower for ixekizumab relative to adalimumab for both ERA (88.9% vs 93.8%) and JPsA (88.9% vs 100%), but all of the adalimumab patients were naive to biologics. In comparison, about 75% of patients receiving ixekizumab were biologic-therapy naive.

Response rates to ixekizumab overall were numerically higher for patients without previous biologic experience than for those with experience (90.0% vs 85.7%), and this was also the case for patients with ERA (92.5% vs 78.6%). However, in the JPsA group, biologic-experienced patients had higher numerical response rates to ixekizumab (100% vs 85.0%).

An ACR30 is not a clinical goal that satisfies most patients and clinicians, Dr. Ramanan conceded, but he noted that ACR50 was reached with ixekizumab by 81.5% with ERA and 74.1% with JPsA, and ACR70 was reached by 68.5% and 55.6%, respectively. The highest responses of ACR90 (27.8% and 33.3%) and ACR100 (14.8% and 25.9%) were lower but still substantial in the ERA and JPsA groups, respectively.

Through week 16, 58.0% of those treated with ixekizumab had an adverse event considered treatment-related. Nearly half were of mild severity, and the remainder were moderate. Only 3.7% were considered serious. No patient discontinued study treatment because of an adverse event.

In this study, the presence of at least three active peripheral joints was an inclusion criterion. The median age was about 13 years in the biologic-naive adalimumab and ixekizumab groups and 14 years in the ixekizumab biologic-experienced group. The youngest patient in the study was aged 5 years, and the oldest was aged 18 years. Although about 40% of patients were women in the two biologic-naive subgroups, it was 60% in the biologic-experienced group.

On average, patients in the biologic-naive group were entered about 1 year after diagnosis. In the experienced patients, the average duration of disease at entry was nearly 4 years. About 45% of patients remained on conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs while receiving ixekizumab. The proportion was 35% in the adalimumab reference arm.
 

Ixekizumab Might Fulfill Need for More Options

There are several biologics that have received regulatory approval or are already widely used for the treatment of JPsA or ERA, but more options are needed, according to Dr. Ramanan and the chair of the abstract session in which these data were reported. According to Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, a researcher at the Center for Experimental Rheumatology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, regulatory approval of ixekizumab will depend on sustained efficacy and safety in longer follow-up from the COSPIRIT-JIA trial, but this trial supports continued development.

Despite a novel mechanism of action, “the data so far suggest a level of efficacy similar to that of anti-TNF [anti-tumor necrosis factor] biologics,” said Dr. Ospelt, who, in addition to moderating the late-breaking session, served as Scientific Program Chair of EULAR 2024.

While Dr. Ospelt emphasized that she is a researcher involved in translational rheumatology studies and not a clinician, she said there was consensus within the program committee to select this abstract from other high-quality latebreaker submissions on the basis of its potential clinical significance.

Dr. Ramanan reported financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SOBI, UCB, and Eli Lilly, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Ospelt reported no potential conflicts of interest.
 

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

While Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are marketed as providing more generous benefits than traditional Medicare (TM), differences in the financial burden between beneficiaries switching to MA and staying with TM, are minimal, a longitudinal cohort analysis found.

In fact, according to a study by Sungchul Park, PhD, a health economist at Korea University in Seoul, and colleagues, the estimated annual out-of-pocket spending when switching to MA was $168 higher than staying in TM. That amounted to a 10.5% relative increase based on baseline out-of-pocket spending of $1597 annually among switchers, ranging widely, however, from a $133 decrease to a $469 increase. And for some, MA enrollment was associated with a higher likelihood of catastrophic financial burden.

“Our findings contrast with the notion that MA’s apparently more generous health insurance benefits lead to financial savings for enrollees,” Dr. Park and associates wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

The study

The analysis looked at costs for 7054 TM stayers and 1544 TM-to-MA switchers from the 2014-2020 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, focusing on a cohort in which 18% of TM-covered individuals in year 1 switched to MA in year 2.

Comparative financial outcome measures included individual healthcare costs (out-of-pocket spending/cost sharing), financial burden (high/catastrophic), and subjective financial hardship (difficulty paying medical bills).

Although the overall out-of-pocket differences for MA were minimal and amounted to less than 1% of total healthcare expenses, MA was associated with a greater financial burden in vulnerable, especially in low-income populations. For every 100 beneficiaries with family incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level, one to six more switchers faced a catastrophic financial burden, with their out-of-pocket costs consuming more than 40% of household income in the year after switching.

The gap between the perception of lower costs and reality may be caused by a substantially heavier cost-sharing burden for certain services in MA plans, Dr. Park and associates pointed out. While MA enrollees generally paid less in some studies than the Part A hospital deductible for TM for inpatient stays of 3 days, they were more likely to face higher cost sharing for stays exceeding 7 days

Furthermore, whereas TM covers home health services without cost sharing, some MA plans have copayments. In addition, out-of-network health services can cost more. MA enrollees paid an average of $9 more for mental health services than for other in-network services and often encountered limited access to in-network providers. According to a 2021 study, only 18.2% of mental health professionals, 34.4% of cardiologists, 50.0% of psychiatrists, and 57.9% of primary care providers were included in MA networks,

An accompanying editorial noted that private MA plans will reap $83 billion in overpayments from U.S. taxpayers this year, according to Congress’s Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

And as the data from Dr. Park and colleagues reveal, switchers don’t get much financial protection, according to primary care physician and healthcare researcher Steffi J. Woolhandler, MD, MPH, and internist David U. Himmelstein, MD, both of City University of New York at Hunter College in New York City.

“Medicare Advantage looks good when you’re healthy and don’t need much care. But when you need coverage, it often fails, leaving you with big bills and narrow choices for care,” Dr. Woolhandler said in an interview.

So how do these findings square with insurers’ hard-sell claims and enrollees’ perceptions that MA cuts out-of-pocket costs? “The likeliest explanation is that MA insurers have structured their benefits to advantage low-cost (that is, profitable) enrollees and disadvantage those requiring expensive care,” the editorial commentators wrote. For beneficiaries on inexpensive medications, MA plans would be a financial win. “But for patients requiring expensive chemotherapies, the 20% coinsurance that most MA plans charge could be financially ruinous.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, David A. Lipschutz, JD, LLB, associate director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Washington, DC, called the study an important one that provides more evidence that significant overpayments to MA plans don’t translate to better financial protections for plan enrollees, particularly lower-income individuals. “While there has been some recent movement to hold plans more accountable for providing necessary care, much more impactful action by policymakers is required to mitigate the harms of the growing privatization of the Medicare program,” he said. “MA overpayments could be redistributed to traditional Medicare in order to enrich all Medicare beneficiaries instead of just insurance companies.”

This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea. Dr. Park disclosed no competing interests. One study coauthor reported support from government and not-for-profit research-funding bodies. Editorialists Dr. Woolhandler and Dr. Himmelstein had no competing interests to declare. Dr. Lipschutz disclosed Medicare advocacy work.

While Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are marketed as providing more generous benefits than traditional Medicare (TM), differences in the financial burden between beneficiaries switching to MA and staying with TM, are minimal, a longitudinal cohort analysis found.

In fact, according to a study by Sungchul Park, PhD, a health economist at Korea University in Seoul, and colleagues, the estimated annual out-of-pocket spending when switching to MA was $168 higher than staying in TM. That amounted to a 10.5% relative increase based on baseline out-of-pocket spending of $1597 annually among switchers, ranging widely, however, from a $133 decrease to a $469 increase. And for some, MA enrollment was associated with a higher likelihood of catastrophic financial burden.

“Our findings contrast with the notion that MA’s apparently more generous health insurance benefits lead to financial savings for enrollees,” Dr. Park and associates wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

The study

The analysis looked at costs for 7054 TM stayers and 1544 TM-to-MA switchers from the 2014-2020 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, focusing on a cohort in which 18% of TM-covered individuals in year 1 switched to MA in year 2.

Comparative financial outcome measures included individual healthcare costs (out-of-pocket spending/cost sharing), financial burden (high/catastrophic), and subjective financial hardship (difficulty paying medical bills).

Although the overall out-of-pocket differences for MA were minimal and amounted to less than 1% of total healthcare expenses, MA was associated with a greater financial burden in vulnerable, especially in low-income populations. For every 100 beneficiaries with family incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level, one to six more switchers faced a catastrophic financial burden, with their out-of-pocket costs consuming more than 40% of household income in the year after switching.

The gap between the perception of lower costs and reality may be caused by a substantially heavier cost-sharing burden for certain services in MA plans, Dr. Park and associates pointed out. While MA enrollees generally paid less in some studies than the Part A hospital deductible for TM for inpatient stays of 3 days, they were more likely to face higher cost sharing for stays exceeding 7 days

Furthermore, whereas TM covers home health services without cost sharing, some MA plans have copayments. In addition, out-of-network health services can cost more. MA enrollees paid an average of $9 more for mental health services than for other in-network services and often encountered limited access to in-network providers. According to a 2021 study, only 18.2% of mental health professionals, 34.4% of cardiologists, 50.0% of psychiatrists, and 57.9% of primary care providers were included in MA networks,

An accompanying editorial noted that private MA plans will reap $83 billion in overpayments from U.S. taxpayers this year, according to Congress’s Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

And as the data from Dr. Park and colleagues reveal, switchers don’t get much financial protection, according to primary care physician and healthcare researcher Steffi J. Woolhandler, MD, MPH, and internist David U. Himmelstein, MD, both of City University of New York at Hunter College in New York City.

“Medicare Advantage looks good when you’re healthy and don’t need much care. But when you need coverage, it often fails, leaving you with big bills and narrow choices for care,” Dr. Woolhandler said in an interview.

So how do these findings square with insurers’ hard-sell claims and enrollees’ perceptions that MA cuts out-of-pocket costs? “The likeliest explanation is that MA insurers have structured their benefits to advantage low-cost (that is, profitable) enrollees and disadvantage those requiring expensive care,” the editorial commentators wrote. For beneficiaries on inexpensive medications, MA plans would be a financial win. “But for patients requiring expensive chemotherapies, the 20% coinsurance that most MA plans charge could be financially ruinous.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, David A. Lipschutz, JD, LLB, associate director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Washington, DC, called the study an important one that provides more evidence that significant overpayments to MA plans don’t translate to better financial protections for plan enrollees, particularly lower-income individuals. “While there has been some recent movement to hold plans more accountable for providing necessary care, much more impactful action by policymakers is required to mitigate the harms of the growing privatization of the Medicare program,” he said. “MA overpayments could be redistributed to traditional Medicare in order to enrich all Medicare beneficiaries instead of just insurance companies.”

This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea. Dr. Park disclosed no competing interests. One study coauthor reported support from government and not-for-profit research-funding bodies. Editorialists Dr. Woolhandler and Dr. Himmelstein had no competing interests to declare. Dr. Lipschutz disclosed Medicare advocacy work.

While Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are marketed as providing more generous benefits than traditional Medicare (TM), differences in the financial burden between beneficiaries switching to MA and staying with TM, are minimal, a longitudinal cohort analysis found.

In fact, according to a study by Sungchul Park, PhD, a health economist at Korea University in Seoul, and colleagues, the estimated annual out-of-pocket spending when switching to MA was $168 higher than staying in TM. That amounted to a 10.5% relative increase based on baseline out-of-pocket spending of $1597 annually among switchers, ranging widely, however, from a $133 decrease to a $469 increase. And for some, MA enrollment was associated with a higher likelihood of catastrophic financial burden.

“Our findings contrast with the notion that MA’s apparently more generous health insurance benefits lead to financial savings for enrollees,” Dr. Park and associates wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

The study

The analysis looked at costs for 7054 TM stayers and 1544 TM-to-MA switchers from the 2014-2020 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, focusing on a cohort in which 18% of TM-covered individuals in year 1 switched to MA in year 2.

Comparative financial outcome measures included individual healthcare costs (out-of-pocket spending/cost sharing), financial burden (high/catastrophic), and subjective financial hardship (difficulty paying medical bills).

Although the overall out-of-pocket differences for MA were minimal and amounted to less than 1% of total healthcare expenses, MA was associated with a greater financial burden in vulnerable, especially in low-income populations. For every 100 beneficiaries with family incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level, one to six more switchers faced a catastrophic financial burden, with their out-of-pocket costs consuming more than 40% of household income in the year after switching.

The gap between the perception of lower costs and reality may be caused by a substantially heavier cost-sharing burden for certain services in MA plans, Dr. Park and associates pointed out. While MA enrollees generally paid less in some studies than the Part A hospital deductible for TM for inpatient stays of 3 days, they were more likely to face higher cost sharing for stays exceeding 7 days

Furthermore, whereas TM covers home health services without cost sharing, some MA plans have copayments. In addition, out-of-network health services can cost more. MA enrollees paid an average of $9 more for mental health services than for other in-network services and often encountered limited access to in-network providers. According to a 2021 study, only 18.2% of mental health professionals, 34.4% of cardiologists, 50.0% of psychiatrists, and 57.9% of primary care providers were included in MA networks,

An accompanying editorial noted that private MA plans will reap $83 billion in overpayments from U.S. taxpayers this year, according to Congress’s Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

And as the data from Dr. Park and colleagues reveal, switchers don’t get much financial protection, according to primary care physician and healthcare researcher Steffi J. Woolhandler, MD, MPH, and internist David U. Himmelstein, MD, both of City University of New York at Hunter College in New York City.

“Medicare Advantage looks good when you’re healthy and don’t need much care. But when you need coverage, it often fails, leaving you with big bills and narrow choices for care,” Dr. Woolhandler said in an interview.

So how do these findings square with insurers’ hard-sell claims and enrollees’ perceptions that MA cuts out-of-pocket costs? “The likeliest explanation is that MA insurers have structured their benefits to advantage low-cost (that is, profitable) enrollees and disadvantage those requiring expensive care,” the editorial commentators wrote. For beneficiaries on inexpensive medications, MA plans would be a financial win. “But for patients requiring expensive chemotherapies, the 20% coinsurance that most MA plans charge could be financially ruinous.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, David A. Lipschutz, JD, LLB, associate director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Washington, DC, called the study an important one that provides more evidence that significant overpayments to MA plans don’t translate to better financial protections for plan enrollees, particularly lower-income individuals. “While there has been some recent movement to hold plans more accountable for providing necessary care, much more impactful action by policymakers is required to mitigate the harms of the growing privatization of the Medicare program,” he said. “MA overpayments could be redistributed to traditional Medicare in order to enrich all Medicare beneficiaries instead of just insurance companies.”

This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea. Dr. Park disclosed no competing interests. One study coauthor reported support from government and not-for-profit research-funding bodies. Editorialists Dr. Woolhandler and Dr. Himmelstein had no competing interests to declare. Dr. Lipschutz disclosed Medicare advocacy work.