TOPLINE:

New data link smoking and heavy drinking with an increased risk for diverticulitis, with the greatest risk seen in adults who smoke and consume two or more drinks daily.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers studied 84,232 women in the Nurses’ Health Study II who were 39-52 years old and without known diverticulitis at baseline in 2003. 
• In 2015 and 2017, participants were asked via questionnaire whether they had been diagnosed with diverticulitis requiring antibiotic therapy or hospitalization. Diverticulitis was defined as a computed tomography scan or pathology report of diverticulitis or a provider diagnosis with a clinical presentation consistent with diverticulitis. 
• Smoking was assessed every 2 years and alcohol consumption every 4 years using standard questionnaires. 
• Consistent with prior studies on risk factors for diverticulitis, multivariable models adjusted for age, menopausal hormone status and hormone use, body mass index, physical activity, aspirin/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, intake of fiber and red/processed meat, and other factors were used. 

TAKEAWAY:

• During more than 1 million person-years of follow-up, 3018 incident cases of diverticulitis were identified. 
• Both current and past smoking were associated with increased risk for diverticulitis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2) compared with never smoking, although no dose-response relationship was evident. In an analysis restricted to participants who had surgery for diverticulitis, the magnitude of the association was strengthened (HR, 1.48 for current smokers and 1.46 for past smokers vs never smokers). 
• Consumption of ≥ 30 g/d of alcohol (2+ drinks/day) was associated with an increased risk for incident diverticulitis (HR, 1.26) compared with not drinking. 
• A joint analysis of smoking and alcohol found that individuals who ever smoked and consumed ≥ 30 g/d of alcohol were at the highest risk for diverticulitis (multivariate HR, 1.53) compared with individuals who never smoked and reported no alcohol use. 

IN PRACTICE:

“As there are currently no medical means to prevent diverticulitis other than dietary and lifestyle interventions, counseling patients about the avoidance of smoking and alcohol may help lower the risk for developing diverticulitis,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Sara Gunby, MD, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Diverticulitis diagnoses were self-reported, although a review of a subset of medical records confirmed the diagnosis in more than 90% of cases establishing the validity of self-report in this population. The study was limited to female nurses, so it is possible the findings may not be generalizable to men or other populations. Residual confounding may have impacted the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New data link smoking and heavy drinking with an increased risk for diverticulitis, with the greatest risk seen in adults who smoke and consume two or more drinks daily.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers studied 84,232 women in the Nurses’ Health Study II who were 39-52 years old and without known diverticulitis at baseline in 2003. 
• In 2015 and 2017, participants were asked via questionnaire whether they had been diagnosed with diverticulitis requiring antibiotic therapy or hospitalization. Diverticulitis was defined as a computed tomography scan or pathology report of diverticulitis or a provider diagnosis with a clinical presentation consistent with diverticulitis. 
• Smoking was assessed every 2 years and alcohol consumption every 4 years using standard questionnaires. 
• Consistent with prior studies on risk factors for diverticulitis, multivariable models adjusted for age, menopausal hormone status and hormone use, body mass index, physical activity, aspirin/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, intake of fiber and red/processed meat, and other factors were used. 

TAKEAWAY:

• During more than 1 million person-years of follow-up, 3018 incident cases of diverticulitis were identified. 
• Both current and past smoking were associated with increased risk for diverticulitis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2) compared with never smoking, although no dose-response relationship was evident. In an analysis restricted to participants who had surgery for diverticulitis, the magnitude of the association was strengthened (HR, 1.48 for current smokers and 1.46 for past smokers vs never smokers). 
• Consumption of ≥ 30 g/d of alcohol (2+ drinks/day) was associated with an increased risk for incident diverticulitis (HR, 1.26) compared with not drinking. 
• A joint analysis of smoking and alcohol found that individuals who ever smoked and consumed ≥ 30 g/d of alcohol were at the highest risk for diverticulitis (multivariate HR, 1.53) compared with individuals who never smoked and reported no alcohol use. 

IN PRACTICE:

“As there are currently no medical means to prevent diverticulitis other than dietary and lifestyle interventions, counseling patients about the avoidance of smoking and alcohol may help lower the risk for developing diverticulitis,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Sara Gunby, MD, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Diverticulitis diagnoses were self-reported, although a review of a subset of medical records confirmed the diagnosis in more than 90% of cases establishing the validity of self-report in this population. The study was limited to female nurses, so it is possible the findings may not be generalizable to men or other populations. Residual confounding may have impacted the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New data link smoking and heavy drinking with an increased risk for diverticulitis, with the greatest risk seen in adults who smoke and consume two or more drinks daily.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers studied 84,232 women in the Nurses’ Health Study II who were 39-52 years old and without known diverticulitis at baseline in 2003. 
• In 2015 and 2017, participants were asked via questionnaire whether they had been diagnosed with diverticulitis requiring antibiotic therapy or hospitalization. Diverticulitis was defined as a computed tomography scan or pathology report of diverticulitis or a provider diagnosis with a clinical presentation consistent with diverticulitis. 
• Smoking was assessed every 2 years and alcohol consumption every 4 years using standard questionnaires. 
• Consistent with prior studies on risk factors for diverticulitis, multivariable models adjusted for age, menopausal hormone status and hormone use, body mass index, physical activity, aspirin/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, intake of fiber and red/processed meat, and other factors were used. 

TAKEAWAY:

• During more than 1 million person-years of follow-up, 3018 incident cases of diverticulitis were identified. 
• Both current and past smoking were associated with increased risk for diverticulitis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2) compared with never smoking, although no dose-response relationship was evident. In an analysis restricted to participants who had surgery for diverticulitis, the magnitude of the association was strengthened (HR, 1.48 for current smokers and 1.46 for past smokers vs never smokers). 
• Consumption of ≥ 30 g/d of alcohol (2+ drinks/day) was associated with an increased risk for incident diverticulitis (HR, 1.26) compared with not drinking. 
• A joint analysis of smoking and alcohol found that individuals who ever smoked and consumed ≥ 30 g/d of alcohol were at the highest risk for diverticulitis (multivariate HR, 1.53) compared with individuals who never smoked and reported no alcohol use. 

IN PRACTICE:

“As there are currently no medical means to prevent diverticulitis other than dietary and lifestyle interventions, counseling patients about the avoidance of smoking and alcohol may help lower the risk for developing diverticulitis,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Sara Gunby, MD, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Diverticulitis diagnoses were self-reported, although a review of a subset of medical records confirmed the diagnosis in more than 90% of cases establishing the validity of self-report in this population. The study was limited to female nurses, so it is possible the findings may not be generalizable to men or other populations. Residual confounding may have impacted the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

France did it 5 years ago and now, from January 1, the Dutch have followed suit, banning devices such as mobile phones and tablets in classrooms unless needed during lessons, for medical reasons, or by students with disabilities. The ban aims to limit distractions during the school day. 

We could all surely do with some device detox, but the question remains whether too much screen time has an impact on child development. Karen Mansfield, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher on adolescent well-being in the digital age at Oxford University, told this news organization, “The evidence is definitely not set in stone. There have been some recent reviews of screen time effects on children, demonstrating very mixed findings.”

The latest research, said Dr. Mansfield, is still young, lacking consistency in findings, and rife with misinterpretation.

Tiziana Metitieri, a cognitive neuropsychologist at the Meyer Hospital in Florence, Italy, echoed these sentiments, suggesting that the sheer quantity of screen time is an insufficient metric for understanding its impact on cognitive and psychological development. “There are two main reasons for this,” she explained to this news organization. “Firstly, because the current measurements of screen time rely on self-report data, which can be affected by an overestimation or underestimation of objective usage due to social desirability bias. Secondly, because digital experiences differ in terms of content, device used, context, location, and individuals involved.”
 

Are Politicians in Too Much of a Rush?

UNESCO’s most recent report on technology in education highlighted a correlation between excessive mobile phone use and reduced educational performance and emotional stability.

The OECD report “Empowering Young Children in the Digital Age,” rightly suggested there is a need to improve protection in digital environments, bridge the digital divide, and educate parents and teachers on safe digital practices.

But Dr. Mansfield said, “Currently, policy implementation is racing far ahead of the evidence, with similar suggestions to ban smartphones in schools in the United Kingdom and Canada. However, there is no available evidence on the long-term benefits of banning smartphones. Much of the research behind the OECD and UNESCO policies is observational in nature, which limits causal interpretation more than with interventions.”

While most governments are not pursuing restrictive practices, Dr. Metitieri said that “their approaches are based on their political ideology, often using moral panic as a means to rally support, showing their heartfelt commitment to defending against the invasions of digital technology ruining human civilizations.” 

Sakshi Ghai, PhD, Dr. Mansfield’s fellow postdoctoral researcher at Oxford University, reiterated Dr. Metitieri’s concerns, “Screen time as a concept has limitations, and policy guidance needs to be careful when drawing insights from such limited evidence. What do we mean by screen time? How can time spent on different activities be clearly delineated? An oversimplistic focus on screen time may overlook the nuances and complexity of digital media use.”
 

The Key Is the What and Where

Digital screens can be productive for children, such as when used for educational purposes, be it to join a class over Zoom or partake in extracurricular educational activities. However, Dr. Ghai emphasized the importance of identifying what constitutes reasonable consumption of digital media. “Screens can help disadvantaged children achieve positive educational outcomes, particularly those with learning difficulties,” said Dr. Ghai. “Using media to interact with other children can also bring positive social connections to racially diverse children or those from the LGBTQ community, which reiterates why finding the balance that allows children to reap the benefits of digital technology while safeguarding their mental, physical, and social health, is crucial.”

On the other hand, Dr. Metitieri explained that there is evidence that passive exposure to educational content does not necessarily lead to growth benefits. “The key is the relational environment in which these digital experiences occur,” she said. 

Dr. Mansfield said a lot of research describes excessive use of digital media as a form of addiction. “Some studies have attempted to validate and test ‘smartphone addiction’ scales for adolescent. Besides pathologizing an increasingly common activity, such self-report scales are highly subjective, implying serious limitations when attempting to define ‘cut offs’ or diagnostic thresholds.”

Previous efforts to determine benchmarks for screen time usage, focusing on the relationship between historical screen usage and present mental well-being, have overlooked the nature of the digital interaction and the social and technological backdrop. “Effects of screen time on children is a continuously changing, rapidly developing research field, and other contextual factors have been shown to play a greater role on mental health,” explained Dr. Mansfield.
 

Are School Bans Too Restrictive?

Implementing nationwide policies that warrant a dramatic shift in how we approach activities that have become second nature, such as using a mobile phone, is profoundly difficult, particularly as evidence is inconclusive and inconsistent. “The long-term effects of different types of digital content on children’s learning are yet to be clear, and most education-related research so far has been carried out with college students,” said Dr. Mansfield.

For concerned parents and schools, Dr. Metitieri advised against overly restrictive approaches. “Children and adolescents can find ways around restrictions at home and school, meaning that an overly restrictive approach is limited in its effectiveness,” she said. “The best way to adapt to the changes happening in education, relationships, work, and leisure is through a combination of experiences offline and digital education.”

Mirroring Dr. Metitieri’s outlook, Dr. Mansfield suggested, “Restricting the use of smartphones and other personal devices is one method to reduce distraction, but ultimately, children will need to learn to optimize their use of digital devices.”

Recent Dutch media reports cited government ministers’ consultations with neuropsychiatrist Theo Compernolle, MD, PhD, who compared children’s current smartphone usage patterns to addiction and suggested that such habits may hinder the development of the prefrontal cortex. However, Dr. Mansfield said, “There is no evidence to back up this claim.” Although she acknowledged the potential short-term benefits of a screen time ban in enhancing classroom concentration, she said, “One study directly tested this hypothesis and found no association between social media use and brain development, meaning that any claims of long-term effects remain purely speculative.”

The issue of children’s screen time is complex. Understanding the content and context of screen time, educating parents and teachers, and integrating digital experiences with offline activities seem to be the way forward. While governments contend with the complexities of managing this rather modern challenge, the balance between digital engagement and cognitive development remains a critical topic for continued research and thoughtful policymaking. Dr. Metitieri summed it up, “As adult members of the digital society, it is important for us to educate ourselves on how to effectively use online platforms before sharing our experiences and concerns about the online world with children and adolescents.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

France did it 5 years ago and now, from January 1, the Dutch have followed suit, banning devices such as mobile phones and tablets in classrooms unless needed during lessons, for medical reasons, or by students with disabilities. The ban aims to limit distractions during the school day. 

We could all surely do with some device detox, but the question remains whether too much screen time has an impact on child development. Karen Mansfield, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher on adolescent well-being in the digital age at Oxford University, told this news organization, “The evidence is definitely not set in stone. There have been some recent reviews of screen time effects on children, demonstrating very mixed findings.”

The latest research, said Dr. Mansfield, is still young, lacking consistency in findings, and rife with misinterpretation.

Tiziana Metitieri, a cognitive neuropsychologist at the Meyer Hospital in Florence, Italy, echoed these sentiments, suggesting that the sheer quantity of screen time is an insufficient metric for understanding its impact on cognitive and psychological development. “There are two main reasons for this,” she explained to this news organization. “Firstly, because the current measurements of screen time rely on self-report data, which can be affected by an overestimation or underestimation of objective usage due to social desirability bias. Secondly, because digital experiences differ in terms of content, device used, context, location, and individuals involved.”
 

Are Politicians in Too Much of a Rush?

UNESCO’s most recent report on technology in education highlighted a correlation between excessive mobile phone use and reduced educational performance and emotional stability.

The OECD report “Empowering Young Children in the Digital Age,” rightly suggested there is a need to improve protection in digital environments, bridge the digital divide, and educate parents and teachers on safe digital practices.

But Dr. Mansfield said, “Currently, policy implementation is racing far ahead of the evidence, with similar suggestions to ban smartphones in schools in the United Kingdom and Canada. However, there is no available evidence on the long-term benefits of banning smartphones. Much of the research behind the OECD and UNESCO policies is observational in nature, which limits causal interpretation more than with interventions.”

While most governments are not pursuing restrictive practices, Dr. Metitieri said that “their approaches are based on their political ideology, often using moral panic as a means to rally support, showing their heartfelt commitment to defending against the invasions of digital technology ruining human civilizations.” 

Sakshi Ghai, PhD, Dr. Mansfield’s fellow postdoctoral researcher at Oxford University, reiterated Dr. Metitieri’s concerns, “Screen time as a concept has limitations, and policy guidance needs to be careful when drawing insights from such limited evidence. What do we mean by screen time? How can time spent on different activities be clearly delineated? An oversimplistic focus on screen time may overlook the nuances and complexity of digital media use.”
 

The Key Is the What and Where

Digital screens can be productive for children, such as when used for educational purposes, be it to join a class over Zoom or partake in extracurricular educational activities. However, Dr. Ghai emphasized the importance of identifying what constitutes reasonable consumption of digital media. “Screens can help disadvantaged children achieve positive educational outcomes, particularly those with learning difficulties,” said Dr. Ghai. “Using media to interact with other children can also bring positive social connections to racially diverse children or those from the LGBTQ community, which reiterates why finding the balance that allows children to reap the benefits of digital technology while safeguarding their mental, physical, and social health, is crucial.”

On the other hand, Dr. Metitieri explained that there is evidence that passive exposure to educational content does not necessarily lead to growth benefits. “The key is the relational environment in which these digital experiences occur,” she said. 

Dr. Mansfield said a lot of research describes excessive use of digital media as a form of addiction. “Some studies have attempted to validate and test ‘smartphone addiction’ scales for adolescent. Besides pathologizing an increasingly common activity, such self-report scales are highly subjective, implying serious limitations when attempting to define ‘cut offs’ or diagnostic thresholds.”

Previous efforts to determine benchmarks for screen time usage, focusing on the relationship between historical screen usage and present mental well-being, have overlooked the nature of the digital interaction and the social and technological backdrop. “Effects of screen time on children is a continuously changing, rapidly developing research field, and other contextual factors have been shown to play a greater role on mental health,” explained Dr. Mansfield.
 

Are School Bans Too Restrictive?

Implementing nationwide policies that warrant a dramatic shift in how we approach activities that have become second nature, such as using a mobile phone, is profoundly difficult, particularly as evidence is inconclusive and inconsistent. “The long-term effects of different types of digital content on children’s learning are yet to be clear, and most education-related research so far has been carried out with college students,” said Dr. Mansfield.

For concerned parents and schools, Dr. Metitieri advised against overly restrictive approaches. “Children and adolescents can find ways around restrictions at home and school, meaning that an overly restrictive approach is limited in its effectiveness,” she said. “The best way to adapt to the changes happening in education, relationships, work, and leisure is through a combination of experiences offline and digital education.”

Mirroring Dr. Metitieri’s outlook, Dr. Mansfield suggested, “Restricting the use of smartphones and other personal devices is one method to reduce distraction, but ultimately, children will need to learn to optimize their use of digital devices.”

Recent Dutch media reports cited government ministers’ consultations with neuropsychiatrist Theo Compernolle, MD, PhD, who compared children’s current smartphone usage patterns to addiction and suggested that such habits may hinder the development of the prefrontal cortex. However, Dr. Mansfield said, “There is no evidence to back up this claim.” Although she acknowledged the potential short-term benefits of a screen time ban in enhancing classroom concentration, she said, “One study directly tested this hypothesis and found no association between social media use and brain development, meaning that any claims of long-term effects remain purely speculative.”

The issue of children’s screen time is complex. Understanding the content and context of screen time, educating parents and teachers, and integrating digital experiences with offline activities seem to be the way forward. While governments contend with the complexities of managing this rather modern challenge, the balance between digital engagement and cognitive development remains a critical topic for continued research and thoughtful policymaking. Dr. Metitieri summed it up, “As adult members of the digital society, it is important for us to educate ourselves on how to effectively use online platforms before sharing our experiences and concerns about the online world with children and adolescents.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

France did it 5 years ago and now, from January 1, the Dutch have followed suit, banning devices such as mobile phones and tablets in classrooms unless needed during lessons, for medical reasons, or by students with disabilities. The ban aims to limit distractions during the school day. 

We could all surely do with some device detox, but the question remains whether too much screen time has an impact on child development. Karen Mansfield, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher on adolescent well-being in the digital age at Oxford University, told this news organization, “The evidence is definitely not set in stone. There have been some recent reviews of screen time effects on children, demonstrating very mixed findings.”

The latest research, said Dr. Mansfield, is still young, lacking consistency in findings, and rife with misinterpretation.

Tiziana Metitieri, a cognitive neuropsychologist at the Meyer Hospital in Florence, Italy, echoed these sentiments, suggesting that the sheer quantity of screen time is an insufficient metric for understanding its impact on cognitive and psychological development. “There are two main reasons for this,” she explained to this news organization. “Firstly, because the current measurements of screen time rely on self-report data, which can be affected by an overestimation or underestimation of objective usage due to social desirability bias. Secondly, because digital experiences differ in terms of content, device used, context, location, and individuals involved.”
 

Are Politicians in Too Much of a Rush?

UNESCO’s most recent report on technology in education highlighted a correlation between excessive mobile phone use and reduced educational performance and emotional stability.

The OECD report “Empowering Young Children in the Digital Age,” rightly suggested there is a need to improve protection in digital environments, bridge the digital divide, and educate parents and teachers on safe digital practices.

But Dr. Mansfield said, “Currently, policy implementation is racing far ahead of the evidence, with similar suggestions to ban smartphones in schools in the United Kingdom and Canada. However, there is no available evidence on the long-term benefits of banning smartphones. Much of the research behind the OECD and UNESCO policies is observational in nature, which limits causal interpretation more than with interventions.”

While most governments are not pursuing restrictive practices, Dr. Metitieri said that “their approaches are based on their political ideology, often using moral panic as a means to rally support, showing their heartfelt commitment to defending against the invasions of digital technology ruining human civilizations.” 

Sakshi Ghai, PhD, Dr. Mansfield’s fellow postdoctoral researcher at Oxford University, reiterated Dr. Metitieri’s concerns, “Screen time as a concept has limitations, and policy guidance needs to be careful when drawing insights from such limited evidence. What do we mean by screen time? How can time spent on different activities be clearly delineated? An oversimplistic focus on screen time may overlook the nuances and complexity of digital media use.”
 

The Key Is the What and Where

Digital screens can be productive for children, such as when used for educational purposes, be it to join a class over Zoom or partake in extracurricular educational activities. However, Dr. Ghai emphasized the importance of identifying what constitutes reasonable consumption of digital media. “Screens can help disadvantaged children achieve positive educational outcomes, particularly those with learning difficulties,” said Dr. Ghai. “Using media to interact with other children can also bring positive social connections to racially diverse children or those from the LGBTQ community, which reiterates why finding the balance that allows children to reap the benefits of digital technology while safeguarding their mental, physical, and social health, is crucial.”

On the other hand, Dr. Metitieri explained that there is evidence that passive exposure to educational content does not necessarily lead to growth benefits. “The key is the relational environment in which these digital experiences occur,” she said. 

Dr. Mansfield said a lot of research describes excessive use of digital media as a form of addiction. “Some studies have attempted to validate and test ‘smartphone addiction’ scales for adolescent. Besides pathologizing an increasingly common activity, such self-report scales are highly subjective, implying serious limitations when attempting to define ‘cut offs’ or diagnostic thresholds.”

Previous efforts to determine benchmarks for screen time usage, focusing on the relationship between historical screen usage and present mental well-being, have overlooked the nature of the digital interaction and the social and technological backdrop. “Effects of screen time on children is a continuously changing, rapidly developing research field, and other contextual factors have been shown to play a greater role on mental health,” explained Dr. Mansfield.
 

Are School Bans Too Restrictive?

Implementing nationwide policies that warrant a dramatic shift in how we approach activities that have become second nature, such as using a mobile phone, is profoundly difficult, particularly as evidence is inconclusive and inconsistent. “The long-term effects of different types of digital content on children’s learning are yet to be clear, and most education-related research so far has been carried out with college students,” said Dr. Mansfield.

For concerned parents and schools, Dr. Metitieri advised against overly restrictive approaches. “Children and adolescents can find ways around restrictions at home and school, meaning that an overly restrictive approach is limited in its effectiveness,” she said. “The best way to adapt to the changes happening in education, relationships, work, and leisure is through a combination of experiences offline and digital education.”

Mirroring Dr. Metitieri’s outlook, Dr. Mansfield suggested, “Restricting the use of smartphones and other personal devices is one method to reduce distraction, but ultimately, children will need to learn to optimize their use of digital devices.”

Recent Dutch media reports cited government ministers’ consultations with neuropsychiatrist Theo Compernolle, MD, PhD, who compared children’s current smartphone usage patterns to addiction and suggested that such habits may hinder the development of the prefrontal cortex. However, Dr. Mansfield said, “There is no evidence to back up this claim.” Although she acknowledged the potential short-term benefits of a screen time ban in enhancing classroom concentration, she said, “One study directly tested this hypothesis and found no association between social media use and brain development, meaning that any claims of long-term effects remain purely speculative.”

The issue of children’s screen time is complex. Understanding the content and context of screen time, educating parents and teachers, and integrating digital experiences with offline activities seem to be the way forward. While governments contend with the complexities of managing this rather modern challenge, the balance between digital engagement and cognitive development remains a critical topic for continued research and thoughtful policymaking. Dr. Metitieri summed it up, “As adult members of the digital society, it is important for us to educate ourselves on how to effectively use online platforms before sharing our experiences and concerns about the online world with children and adolescents.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent alert posted on the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) website blog announced, “Flovent HFA and Flovent Diskus Asthma Medicine Being Discontinued.” A further heading positioned next to images of the two red inhaler devices stated: “Generic versions of the same medicines and devices are available but you need to check your insurance.” While few, it is generally thought, will have trouble finding suitable alternatives, the warning captured the reality descending upon some individual asthma sufferers whose insurance coverage may need tweaking at the very least, or at worst may be lacking.

The AAFA blog included a GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) November 2023 statement to AAFA regarding the brand name FLOVENT discontinuation. It noted the launch of an authorized Flovent HFA (fluticasone propionate inhalation aerosol) generic in May 2022 and a planned (October 2023) launch of an authorized generic for Flovent Diskus (fluticasone propionate inhalation powder) as “part of our commitment to be ambitious for patients.” The GSK statement continues: “These GSK manufactured authorized generics will provide patients in the US with potentially lower cost alternatives of these medically important products. We recognize that patients have a number of options in the therapeutic area and therefore remain committed to ensuring the affordability of our medicines.”

GSK will continue to manufacture the authorized generics, but they will be distributed by Prasco LLC.
 

Medicaid Rebate Cap Removed

As a Forbes article on January 3, 2024, by Joshua Cohen (“New Medicaid Rebate Rule Causes Problems For Asthma Patients On Flovent”) points out, the Flovent January 1, 2024, discontinuation coincided with the removal of the Medicaid rebate cap (American Rescue Plan Medicaid Drug Rebate Program) targeting manufacturers who had previously raised medication prices at rates higher than the inflation rate. The Forbes story notes GoodRx data showing a 47% increase in Flovent price since 2014. The implication is that drug manufacturers could be forced to sell such a drug to Medicaid at a loss because of the rebate cap removal. An authorized generic introduced to the market at a lower price under a private label with no price history, however, would not be subject to the higher Medicaid rebates.

Motivation considerations aside, the fallout for patients may or may not include a lower cost alternative. The authorized generic versions of Flovent HFA and Flovent Diskus are identical to the branded products with respect to the drugs and the devices. The GSK statement expressed hope that most insurance plans will replace the brand name with the authorized generic. The possibility persists, however, that there may be some that do not — resulting in a need to find the right substitute and/or higher out-of-pocket costs.

“Even though some patients may experience some disruption initially in their prescriptions,” Diego J. Maselli, MD, professor and chief, division of pulmonary diseases and critical care, UT Health at San Antonio, Texas, said in an interview, “fortunately, there are quite a few alternatives, and we don’t anticipate significant problems. It will be a wrinkle for some of the patients with regard to coverage, but there are definitely many alternatives that can provide good enough treatment for them.”
 

Similar alternative inhalers?

The alternatives have their specific properties and qualities, but the vast majority of experts, Dr. Maselli said, consider them to be very similar.

For CAREMARK CVS, a major pharmaceutical benefits manager, the preferred Flovent substitute is Pulmicort Flexhaler, a dry-powder inhaler that contains budesonide rather than fluticasone. While Flovent HF is a metered dose inhaler with a propellant, the Pulmicort device contains budesonide as a dry powder and requires activation through inhalation, which can be problematic for young children, AAFA CEO Kenneth Mendez said in an interview. To address that issue, he said, CVS Caremark is covering the authorized fluticasone metered dose inhaler generic for children under 6 years old. “Those individuals 6 years and older with severe asthma who can’t breathe deeply enough to get the medicine into their lungs will have to work with their doctors to apply for a formulary exception. And that’s a complicated process,” Mr. Mendez observed. “And it can take some time,” he added.

Another key issue highlighted here, he emphasized, is “how complicated this system is.” The U.S. drug pricing ecosystem involves multiple manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, insurance companies and their various plans, and federal policies potentially creating situations that may reduce access to critical medicines for patients, Mr. Mendez said. “Some people will be scurrying and scrambling to try to get coverage. The scope of the impact is actually unknown, but we’re going to find out now. As a nonprofit, we monitor social media and we’re listening closely.”

AAFA’s further concern is the rising costs of asthma medications. “It’s the number one thing we hear about as a patient organization,” Mr. Mendez said. On January 9, 2024, AAFA issued a press release praising the previous day’s news item from the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (“Chairman Sanders, Baldwin, Luján, Markey Launch HELP Committee Investigation into Efforts by Pharmaceutical Companies to Manipulate the Price of Asthma Inhalers). In it, Senator Bernie Sanders pointed to the more than 12-fold higher cost in the United States compared with the United Kingdom for GSK’s inhaler combining fluticasone and a beta2 agonist. The Senate HELP Committee has sent letters to the CEOs of the four major inhaler manufacturers (AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, and Teva), stating: “These prices force patients, especially the uninsured and underinsured, to ration doses or abandon their prescriptions altogether. The results are predictable and devastating.”
 

High costs of inhalers could lead to rationing

AAFA research, the AAFA press release states, confirms that when asthma medicine costs become a barrier to treatment, people with asthma ration or discontinue medication use. The release also includes Mr. Mendez’s plea for a broad national conversation. “We are hopeful the HELP Committee investigation will lead to a national conversation about asthma drug costs and produce action that breaks down barriers to affordable treatment for people with asthma. The bottom line is that cost drives access. We understand the barriers, now it is important to move toward solutions.”

AAFA’s blog advises that when an individual’s insurance plan does not cover the authorized generic and does not offer a formulary exception, other inhaler options include ArmonAir Digihaler and Arnuity Ellipta. Because these are not identical to the authorized generics, individuals should check with their doctors regarding available doses and inhaler types and, if necessary, request training on inhaler use.

“It is really important for people with asthma to continue their asthma control medicines, especially during respiratory illness season.” AAFA urges individuals with asthma who are currently Flovent users to check with their doctors or pharmacists about the best next steps for them.

A recent alert posted on the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) website blog announced, “Flovent HFA and Flovent Diskus Asthma Medicine Being Discontinued.” A further heading positioned next to images of the two red inhaler devices stated: “Generic versions of the same medicines and devices are available but you need to check your insurance.” While few, it is generally thought, will have trouble finding suitable alternatives, the warning captured the reality descending upon some individual asthma sufferers whose insurance coverage may need tweaking at the very least, or at worst may be lacking.

The AAFA blog included a GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) November 2023 statement to AAFA regarding the brand name FLOVENT discontinuation. It noted the launch of an authorized Flovent HFA (fluticasone propionate inhalation aerosol) generic in May 2022 and a planned (October 2023) launch of an authorized generic for Flovent Diskus (fluticasone propionate inhalation powder) as “part of our commitment to be ambitious for patients.” The GSK statement continues: “These GSK manufactured authorized generics will provide patients in the US with potentially lower cost alternatives of these medically important products. We recognize that patients have a number of options in the therapeutic area and therefore remain committed to ensuring the affordability of our medicines.”

GSK will continue to manufacture the authorized generics, but they will be distributed by Prasco LLC.
 

Medicaid Rebate Cap Removed

As a Forbes article on January 3, 2024, by Joshua Cohen (“New Medicaid Rebate Rule Causes Problems For Asthma Patients On Flovent”) points out, the Flovent January 1, 2024, discontinuation coincided with the removal of the Medicaid rebate cap (American Rescue Plan Medicaid Drug Rebate Program) targeting manufacturers who had previously raised medication prices at rates higher than the inflation rate. The Forbes story notes GoodRx data showing a 47% increase in Flovent price since 2014. The implication is that drug manufacturers could be forced to sell such a drug to Medicaid at a loss because of the rebate cap removal. An authorized generic introduced to the market at a lower price under a private label with no price history, however, would not be subject to the higher Medicaid rebates.

Motivation considerations aside, the fallout for patients may or may not include a lower cost alternative. The authorized generic versions of Flovent HFA and Flovent Diskus are identical to the branded products with respect to the drugs and the devices. The GSK statement expressed hope that most insurance plans will replace the brand name with the authorized generic. The possibility persists, however, that there may be some that do not — resulting in a need to find the right substitute and/or higher out-of-pocket costs.

“Even though some patients may experience some disruption initially in their prescriptions,” Diego J. Maselli, MD, professor and chief, division of pulmonary diseases and critical care, UT Health at San Antonio, Texas, said in an interview, “fortunately, there are quite a few alternatives, and we don’t anticipate significant problems. It will be a wrinkle for some of the patients with regard to coverage, but there are definitely many alternatives that can provide good enough treatment for them.”
 

Similar alternative inhalers?

The alternatives have their specific properties and qualities, but the vast majority of experts, Dr. Maselli said, consider them to be very similar.

For CAREMARK CVS, a major pharmaceutical benefits manager, the preferred Flovent substitute is Pulmicort Flexhaler, a dry-powder inhaler that contains budesonide rather than fluticasone. While Flovent HF is a metered dose inhaler with a propellant, the Pulmicort device contains budesonide as a dry powder and requires activation through inhalation, which can be problematic for young children, AAFA CEO Kenneth Mendez said in an interview. To address that issue, he said, CVS Caremark is covering the authorized fluticasone metered dose inhaler generic for children under 6 years old. “Those individuals 6 years and older with severe asthma who can’t breathe deeply enough to get the medicine into their lungs will have to work with their doctors to apply for a formulary exception. And that’s a complicated process,” Mr. Mendez observed. “And it can take some time,” he added.

Another key issue highlighted here, he emphasized, is “how complicated this system is.” The U.S. drug pricing ecosystem involves multiple manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, insurance companies and their various plans, and federal policies potentially creating situations that may reduce access to critical medicines for patients, Mr. Mendez said. “Some people will be scurrying and scrambling to try to get coverage. The scope of the impact is actually unknown, but we’re going to find out now. As a nonprofit, we monitor social media and we’re listening closely.”

AAFA’s further concern is the rising costs of asthma medications. “It’s the number one thing we hear about as a patient organization,” Mr. Mendez said. On January 9, 2024, AAFA issued a press release praising the previous day’s news item from the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (“Chairman Sanders, Baldwin, Luján, Markey Launch HELP Committee Investigation into Efforts by Pharmaceutical Companies to Manipulate the Price of Asthma Inhalers). In it, Senator Bernie Sanders pointed to the more than 12-fold higher cost in the United States compared with the United Kingdom for GSK’s inhaler combining fluticasone and a beta2 agonist. The Senate HELP Committee has sent letters to the CEOs of the four major inhaler manufacturers (AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, and Teva), stating: “These prices force patients, especially the uninsured and underinsured, to ration doses or abandon their prescriptions altogether. The results are predictable and devastating.”
 

High costs of inhalers could lead to rationing

AAFA research, the AAFA press release states, confirms that when asthma medicine costs become a barrier to treatment, people with asthma ration or discontinue medication use. The release also includes Mr. Mendez’s plea for a broad national conversation. “We are hopeful the HELP Committee investigation will lead to a national conversation about asthma drug costs and produce action that breaks down barriers to affordable treatment for people with asthma. The bottom line is that cost drives access. We understand the barriers, now it is important to move toward solutions.”

AAFA’s blog advises that when an individual’s insurance plan does not cover the authorized generic and does not offer a formulary exception, other inhaler options include ArmonAir Digihaler and Arnuity Ellipta. Because these are not identical to the authorized generics, individuals should check with their doctors regarding available doses and inhaler types and, if necessary, request training on inhaler use.

“It is really important for people with asthma to continue their asthma control medicines, especially during respiratory illness season.” AAFA urges individuals with asthma who are currently Flovent users to check with their doctors or pharmacists about the best next steps for them.

A recent alert posted on the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) website blog announced, “Flovent HFA and Flovent Diskus Asthma Medicine Being Discontinued.” A further heading positioned next to images of the two red inhaler devices stated: “Generic versions of the same medicines and devices are available but you need to check your insurance.” While few, it is generally thought, will have trouble finding suitable alternatives, the warning captured the reality descending upon some individual asthma sufferers whose insurance coverage may need tweaking at the very least, or at worst may be lacking.

The AAFA blog included a GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) November 2023 statement to AAFA regarding the brand name FLOVENT discontinuation. It noted the launch of an authorized Flovent HFA (fluticasone propionate inhalation aerosol) generic in May 2022 and a planned (October 2023) launch of an authorized generic for Flovent Diskus (fluticasone propionate inhalation powder) as “part of our commitment to be ambitious for patients.” The GSK statement continues: “These GSK manufactured authorized generics will provide patients in the US with potentially lower cost alternatives of these medically important products. We recognize that patients have a number of options in the therapeutic area and therefore remain committed to ensuring the affordability of our medicines.”

GSK will continue to manufacture the authorized generics, but they will be distributed by Prasco LLC.
 

Medicaid Rebate Cap Removed

As a Forbes article on January 3, 2024, by Joshua Cohen (“New Medicaid Rebate Rule Causes Problems For Asthma Patients On Flovent”) points out, the Flovent January 1, 2024, discontinuation coincided with the removal of the Medicaid rebate cap (American Rescue Plan Medicaid Drug Rebate Program) targeting manufacturers who had previously raised medication prices at rates higher than the inflation rate. The Forbes story notes GoodRx data showing a 47% increase in Flovent price since 2014. The implication is that drug manufacturers could be forced to sell such a drug to Medicaid at a loss because of the rebate cap removal. An authorized generic introduced to the market at a lower price under a private label with no price history, however, would not be subject to the higher Medicaid rebates.

Motivation considerations aside, the fallout for patients may or may not include a lower cost alternative. The authorized generic versions of Flovent HFA and Flovent Diskus are identical to the branded products with respect to the drugs and the devices. The GSK statement expressed hope that most insurance plans will replace the brand name with the authorized generic. The possibility persists, however, that there may be some that do not — resulting in a need to find the right substitute and/or higher out-of-pocket costs.

“Even though some patients may experience some disruption initially in their prescriptions,” Diego J. Maselli, MD, professor and chief, division of pulmonary diseases and critical care, UT Health at San Antonio, Texas, said in an interview, “fortunately, there are quite a few alternatives, and we don’t anticipate significant problems. It will be a wrinkle for some of the patients with regard to coverage, but there are definitely many alternatives that can provide good enough treatment for them.”
 

Similar alternative inhalers?

The alternatives have their specific properties and qualities, but the vast majority of experts, Dr. Maselli said, consider them to be very similar.

For CAREMARK CVS, a major pharmaceutical benefits manager, the preferred Flovent substitute is Pulmicort Flexhaler, a dry-powder inhaler that contains budesonide rather than fluticasone. While Flovent HF is a metered dose inhaler with a propellant, the Pulmicort device contains budesonide as a dry powder and requires activation through inhalation, which can be problematic for young children, AAFA CEO Kenneth Mendez said in an interview. To address that issue, he said, CVS Caremark is covering the authorized fluticasone metered dose inhaler generic for children under 6 years old. “Those individuals 6 years and older with severe asthma who can’t breathe deeply enough to get the medicine into their lungs will have to work with their doctors to apply for a formulary exception. And that’s a complicated process,” Mr. Mendez observed. “And it can take some time,” he added.

Another key issue highlighted here, he emphasized, is “how complicated this system is.” The U.S. drug pricing ecosystem involves multiple manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, insurance companies and their various plans, and federal policies potentially creating situations that may reduce access to critical medicines for patients, Mr. Mendez said. “Some people will be scurrying and scrambling to try to get coverage. The scope of the impact is actually unknown, but we’re going to find out now. As a nonprofit, we monitor social media and we’re listening closely.”

AAFA’s further concern is the rising costs of asthma medications. “It’s the number one thing we hear about as a patient organization,” Mr. Mendez said. On January 9, 2024, AAFA issued a press release praising the previous day’s news item from the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (“Chairman Sanders, Baldwin, Luján, Markey Launch HELP Committee Investigation into Efforts by Pharmaceutical Companies to Manipulate the Price of Asthma Inhalers). In it, Senator Bernie Sanders pointed to the more than 12-fold higher cost in the United States compared with the United Kingdom for GSK’s inhaler combining fluticasone and a beta2 agonist. The Senate HELP Committee has sent letters to the CEOs of the four major inhaler manufacturers (AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, and Teva), stating: “These prices force patients, especially the uninsured and underinsured, to ration doses or abandon their prescriptions altogether. The results are predictable and devastating.”
 

High costs of inhalers could lead to rationing

AAFA research, the AAFA press release states, confirms that when asthma medicine costs become a barrier to treatment, people with asthma ration or discontinue medication use. The release also includes Mr. Mendez’s plea for a broad national conversation. “We are hopeful the HELP Committee investigation will lead to a national conversation about asthma drug costs and produce action that breaks down barriers to affordable treatment for people with asthma. The bottom line is that cost drives access. We understand the barriers, now it is important to move toward solutions.”

AAFA’s blog advises that when an individual’s insurance plan does not cover the authorized generic and does not offer a formulary exception, other inhaler options include ArmonAir Digihaler and Arnuity Ellipta. Because these are not identical to the authorized generics, individuals should check with their doctors regarding available doses and inhaler types and, if necessary, request training on inhaler use.

“It is really important for people with asthma to continue their asthma control medicines, especially during respiratory illness season.” AAFA urges individuals with asthma who are currently Flovent users to check with their doctors or pharmacists about the best next steps for them.

A1c level strongly predicts the risk of developing type 2 diabetes among adolescents with overweight or obesity, new data suggested.

In a large California healthcare database over a 10-year period, the incidence of type 2 diabetes was relatively low overall among adolescents with overweight and obesity. However, the risk increased with baseline A1c levels above 6.0% as well as in those with more severe obesity, women, and Asian or Pacific Islanders.

The new findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by pediatric endocrinologist Francis M. Hoe, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center, Roseville, California, and colleagues.

Previous studies have examined the incidence of type 2 diabetes among all youth, regardless of weight class. This is one of the first large population studies to examine the incidence and risk for type 2 diabetes by incremental level of A1c in a racially and ethnically diverse group of youth with overweight and obesity, Dr. Hoe told this news organization in an interview.

“This study was only possible to do because Kaiser Permanente Northern California has nearly 1 million pediatric members. The biggest thing we learned is that risk for type 2 diabetes is low in overweight and obese youth, especially those with an HbA1c less than 5.9%,” he said.
 

Zeroing in on Those at Greatest Risk for Type 2 Diabetes

Currently, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for type 2 diabetes in adolescents with overweight (body mass index [BMI], 85th percentile or greater) or obesity (≥ 95th) who have at least one additional risk factor, including family history of type 2 diabetes and Native American, Black, or Hispanic ethnicity. About one in four US adolescents qualify by those criteria, the authors noted in the paper.

And, as for adults, ADA recommends subsequent annual diabetes screening in youth identified as having “prediabetes,” that is, a A1c level between 5.7% and 6.5%.

The new study confirmed that adolescents with A1c in the upper end of the prediabetes range were at a greater risk for type 2 diabetes. But those individuals were the minority. Adolescents with overweight/obesity who had baseline A1c levels in the lower end of the prediabetes range, 5.7%-5.8%, accounted for two thirds of those with prediabetes in the study population and had a very low incidence of type 2 diabetes compared with those with higher A1c levels.

“Specifically, we found an annual type 2 diabetes incidence of 0.2% for HbA1c of 5.7%-5.8%, which is much lower than adults. These adolescents will likely benefit from lifestyle intervention. But because their risk of developing type 2 diabetes is lower, they probably don’t need to be screened annually, as currently recommended by the ADA,” Dr. Hoe said.

Similarly, he added, “since obesity severity was associated with a higher risk for type 2 diabetes, increases in BMI percentile should also prompt consideration of repeat diabetes screening.”
 

Large Database Allows for Detailed Findings

The study population was 74,552 adolescents aged 10-17 years with overweight or obesity, of whom 49.4% were male, 64.6% were younger than 15 years, and 73.1% had obesity. Only 21.6% were White, while 43.6% were Hispanic, 11.1% Black, and 17.6% Asian or Pacific Islander.

Nearly a quarter, 22.9%, had baseline A1c in the prediabetes range of 5.7%-6.4%. Mean A1c rose with BMI category from overweight to moderate to severe obesity (P < .001 for each comparison). Baseline A1c was highest (5.53%) in Black adolescents and lowest in White teens (5.38%), also significant differences by group (P < .001).

Of the total 698 who developed diabetes during the follow-up, 89.7% were classified as having type 2 diabetes, with a median 3.8 years from baseline to diagnosis.

The overall incidence rate of type 2 diabetes during the follow-up was 2.1 per 1000 person-years. As the baseline A1c rose from less than 5.5% to 6.0%, from 6.1% to 6.2%, and from 6.3% to 6.4%, those incidence rates were 0.8, 8.1, 21.8, and 68.9 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, compared to baseline A1c below 5.5%, increased risk was ninefold for A1c 5.9%-6.0%, 23-fold for 6.1%-6.2%, and 72-fold for 6.3%-6.4%.

The incidence rates were higher in female than in male adolescents (2.4 vs 1.8 per 1000 person-years) and increased by BMI category from 0.6 to 1.3 to 4.3 for those with overweight, moderate obesity, and severe obesity, respectively.

Type 2 diabetes incidence per 1000 person-years also varied by race and ethnicity, ranging from 1.3 for White adolescents to 3.0 for Asian or Pacific Islanders.

“We plan on further exploring the effect of the weight and BMI change over time and how that may affect type 2 diabetes risk,” Dr. Hoe told this news organization.

This study was supported by a grant from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health program. Dr. Hoe and his coauthors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A1c level strongly predicts the risk of developing type 2 diabetes among adolescents with overweight or obesity, new data suggested.

In a large California healthcare database over a 10-year period, the incidence of type 2 diabetes was relatively low overall among adolescents with overweight and obesity. However, the risk increased with baseline A1c levels above 6.0% as well as in those with more severe obesity, women, and Asian or Pacific Islanders.

The new findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by pediatric endocrinologist Francis M. Hoe, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center, Roseville, California, and colleagues.

Previous studies have examined the incidence of type 2 diabetes among all youth, regardless of weight class. This is one of the first large population studies to examine the incidence and risk for type 2 diabetes by incremental level of A1c in a racially and ethnically diverse group of youth with overweight and obesity, Dr. Hoe told this news organization in an interview.

“This study was only possible to do because Kaiser Permanente Northern California has nearly 1 million pediatric members. The biggest thing we learned is that risk for type 2 diabetes is low in overweight and obese youth, especially those with an HbA1c less than 5.9%,” he said.
 

Zeroing in on Those at Greatest Risk for Type 2 Diabetes

Currently, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for type 2 diabetes in adolescents with overweight (body mass index [BMI], 85th percentile or greater) or obesity (≥ 95th) who have at least one additional risk factor, including family history of type 2 diabetes and Native American, Black, or Hispanic ethnicity. About one in four US adolescents qualify by those criteria, the authors noted in the paper.

And, as for adults, ADA recommends subsequent annual diabetes screening in youth identified as having “prediabetes,” that is, a A1c level between 5.7% and 6.5%.

The new study confirmed that adolescents with A1c in the upper end of the prediabetes range were at a greater risk for type 2 diabetes. But those individuals were the minority. Adolescents with overweight/obesity who had baseline A1c levels in the lower end of the prediabetes range, 5.7%-5.8%, accounted for two thirds of those with prediabetes in the study population and had a very low incidence of type 2 diabetes compared with those with higher A1c levels.

“Specifically, we found an annual type 2 diabetes incidence of 0.2% for HbA1c of 5.7%-5.8%, which is much lower than adults. These adolescents will likely benefit from lifestyle intervention. But because their risk of developing type 2 diabetes is lower, they probably don’t need to be screened annually, as currently recommended by the ADA,” Dr. Hoe said.

Similarly, he added, “since obesity severity was associated with a higher risk for type 2 diabetes, increases in BMI percentile should also prompt consideration of repeat diabetes screening.”
 

Large Database Allows for Detailed Findings

The study population was 74,552 adolescents aged 10-17 years with overweight or obesity, of whom 49.4% were male, 64.6% were younger than 15 years, and 73.1% had obesity. Only 21.6% were White, while 43.6% were Hispanic, 11.1% Black, and 17.6% Asian or Pacific Islander.

Nearly a quarter, 22.9%, had baseline A1c in the prediabetes range of 5.7%-6.4%. Mean A1c rose with BMI category from overweight to moderate to severe obesity (P < .001 for each comparison). Baseline A1c was highest (5.53%) in Black adolescents and lowest in White teens (5.38%), also significant differences by group (P < .001).

Of the total 698 who developed diabetes during the follow-up, 89.7% were classified as having type 2 diabetes, with a median 3.8 years from baseline to diagnosis.

The overall incidence rate of type 2 diabetes during the follow-up was 2.1 per 1000 person-years. As the baseline A1c rose from less than 5.5% to 6.0%, from 6.1% to 6.2%, and from 6.3% to 6.4%, those incidence rates were 0.8, 8.1, 21.8, and 68.9 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, compared to baseline A1c below 5.5%, increased risk was ninefold for A1c 5.9%-6.0%, 23-fold for 6.1%-6.2%, and 72-fold for 6.3%-6.4%.

The incidence rates were higher in female than in male adolescents (2.4 vs 1.8 per 1000 person-years) and increased by BMI category from 0.6 to 1.3 to 4.3 for those with overweight, moderate obesity, and severe obesity, respectively.

Type 2 diabetes incidence per 1000 person-years also varied by race and ethnicity, ranging from 1.3 for White adolescents to 3.0 for Asian or Pacific Islanders.

“We plan on further exploring the effect of the weight and BMI change over time and how that may affect type 2 diabetes risk,” Dr. Hoe told this news organization.

This study was supported by a grant from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health program. Dr. Hoe and his coauthors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A1c level strongly predicts the risk of developing type 2 diabetes among adolescents with overweight or obesity, new data suggested.

In a large California healthcare database over a 10-year period, the incidence of type 2 diabetes was relatively low overall among adolescents with overweight and obesity. However, the risk increased with baseline A1c levels above 6.0% as well as in those with more severe obesity, women, and Asian or Pacific Islanders.

The new findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by pediatric endocrinologist Francis M. Hoe, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center, Roseville, California, and colleagues.

Previous studies have examined the incidence of type 2 diabetes among all youth, regardless of weight class. This is one of the first large population studies to examine the incidence and risk for type 2 diabetes by incremental level of A1c in a racially and ethnically diverse group of youth with overweight and obesity, Dr. Hoe told this news organization in an interview.

“This study was only possible to do because Kaiser Permanente Northern California has nearly 1 million pediatric members. The biggest thing we learned is that risk for type 2 diabetes is low in overweight and obese youth, especially those with an HbA1c less than 5.9%,” he said.
 

Zeroing in on Those at Greatest Risk for Type 2 Diabetes

Currently, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for type 2 diabetes in adolescents with overweight (body mass index [BMI], 85th percentile or greater) or obesity (≥ 95th) who have at least one additional risk factor, including family history of type 2 diabetes and Native American, Black, or Hispanic ethnicity. About one in four US adolescents qualify by those criteria, the authors noted in the paper.

And, as for adults, ADA recommends subsequent annual diabetes screening in youth identified as having “prediabetes,” that is, a A1c level between 5.7% and 6.5%.

The new study confirmed that adolescents with A1c in the upper end of the prediabetes range were at a greater risk for type 2 diabetes. But those individuals were the minority. Adolescents with overweight/obesity who had baseline A1c levels in the lower end of the prediabetes range, 5.7%-5.8%, accounted for two thirds of those with prediabetes in the study population and had a very low incidence of type 2 diabetes compared with those with higher A1c levels.

“Specifically, we found an annual type 2 diabetes incidence of 0.2% for HbA1c of 5.7%-5.8%, which is much lower than adults. These adolescents will likely benefit from lifestyle intervention. But because their risk of developing type 2 diabetes is lower, they probably don’t need to be screened annually, as currently recommended by the ADA,” Dr. Hoe said.

Similarly, he added, “since obesity severity was associated with a higher risk for type 2 diabetes, increases in BMI percentile should also prompt consideration of repeat diabetes screening.”
 

Large Database Allows for Detailed Findings

The study population was 74,552 adolescents aged 10-17 years with overweight or obesity, of whom 49.4% were male, 64.6% were younger than 15 years, and 73.1% had obesity. Only 21.6% were White, while 43.6% were Hispanic, 11.1% Black, and 17.6% Asian or Pacific Islander.

Nearly a quarter, 22.9%, had baseline A1c in the prediabetes range of 5.7%-6.4%. Mean A1c rose with BMI category from overweight to moderate to severe obesity (P < .001 for each comparison). Baseline A1c was highest (5.53%) in Black adolescents and lowest in White teens (5.38%), also significant differences by group (P < .001).

Of the total 698 who developed diabetes during the follow-up, 89.7% were classified as having type 2 diabetes, with a median 3.8 years from baseline to diagnosis.

The overall incidence rate of type 2 diabetes during the follow-up was 2.1 per 1000 person-years. As the baseline A1c rose from less than 5.5% to 6.0%, from 6.1% to 6.2%, and from 6.3% to 6.4%, those incidence rates were 0.8, 8.1, 21.8, and 68.9 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, compared to baseline A1c below 5.5%, increased risk was ninefold for A1c 5.9%-6.0%, 23-fold for 6.1%-6.2%, and 72-fold for 6.3%-6.4%.

The incidence rates were higher in female than in male adolescents (2.4 vs 1.8 per 1000 person-years) and increased by BMI category from 0.6 to 1.3 to 4.3 for those with overweight, moderate obesity, and severe obesity, respectively.

Type 2 diabetes incidence per 1000 person-years also varied by race and ethnicity, ranging from 1.3 for White adolescents to 3.0 for Asian or Pacific Islanders.

“We plan on further exploring the effect of the weight and BMI change over time and how that may affect type 2 diabetes risk,” Dr. Hoe told this news organization.

This study was supported by a grant from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health program. Dr. Hoe and his coauthors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intake of protein, especially from plants, in middle age is associated with higher odds of healthy aging and positive mental and physical health status in older women, a recent analysis of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) data suggests.

The study is said to be the first to examine the long-term impact of midlife protein consumption on later health status.

Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a team led by Andres V. Ardisson Korat, DSc, a nutritional epidemiologist at the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts, found the following midlife protein–related odds ratios (ORs) for later healthy aging measured at ages 70-93.

For each 3% energy increment from various protein sources:

• 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.10) for total protein
• 1.07 (1.02-1.11) for animal protein
• 1.14 (1.06-1.23) for dairy protein
• 1.38 (1.24-1.54) for plant protein 

In substitution analyses, significant positive associations were observed for the isocaloric replacement of animal or dairy protein, carbohydrate, or fat with plant protein — with increased ORs for healthy aging of 1.22-1.58 for each 3% of energy replacement.

On the measure of physical function, for example, replacing calories from all macronutrient variables with equivalent calories from plant protein was associated with 20%-60% higher odds of having no physical function limitations. Plant protein was also associated with higher odds for good mental status.

“Other studies have looked at protein intake in older adults, but we felt midlife was a more relevant etiological window,” Dr. Ardisson Korat said in an interview. “Our findings generally align, however, with those of protein intake in older populations, which have shown that protein can reduce the risk of frailty.”

He added that the benefits of protein, especially from plant sources, would likely apply to men as well and increasing plant protein intake is not difficult. “If you want a snack during the day, eat a handful of nuts instead of potato chips,” he advised. And eating several meals a week featuring beans, peas, lentils, tofu, whole grains, or seeds is an easy way to boost dietary plant protein, which comes with health-promoting soluble and insoluble fiber as well as antioxidant and anti-inflammatory polyphenols and other phytochemicals.

Conversely, plant but not animal protein consumption in older adulthood was linked to a lower risk of frailty in a previous NHS trial.

Higher plant protein intake was associated with a better probability of achieving healthy aging defined by changes in functional impairments, self-reported health/vitality, mental health, and use of health services in the Spanish Seniors-Estudio Sobre Nutricion y Riesgo Cardiovascular.

In contrast, animal protein intake in middle adulthood has been linked to an increased risk of premature death from chronic diseases driven by cardiovascular disease mortality.

The present findings are consistent with those observed for protein intakes in older adulthood, Dr. Ardisson Korat said.

“This study underscores the health advantages for midlife adults consuming adequate dietary protein — particularly plant protein — as one component of pursuing a healthy lifestyle,” said Douglas R. Dirschl, MD, chair of orthopedic surgery at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. Most Americans consume adequate amounts of protein, but according to Dr. Dirschl, who treats many older patients for osteoporotic fractures and other musculoskeletal conditions, many US diets are subpar in this nutrient.

While protein is essential for bone and muscle formation and maintenance, “a surprising number of Americans are protein deficient, even those who seem hale and are overweight,” he said.


 

Dietary Recommendations for Midlife Patients

Physicians should therefore advise midlife patients to meet or perhaps modestly exceed the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for protein of 0.8 g/kg per day and to make plant protein a substantial component of daily dietary protein intake, Dr. Dirschl said.

Luke D. Kim, MD, MEd, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, noted that patients with lower socioeconomic status or with difficulty in day-to-day functioning are likely to have suboptimal protein intake. Such patients may need encouragement to eat more protein. “But we should keep in mind that showing a higher associated odds ratio of better health with increased protein take does not mean causality,” he said.

According to Rachel L. Amdur, MD, an internist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, the long-term follow-up data from the NHS are uniquely helpful. “Middle-aged persons may think they no longer need much dietary protein and need to be reminded. Sometimes eating carbohydrates is just easier,” she said in an interview. Physicians need to asses and counsel patients on nutrition at all stages of life. “As I tell my patients, it’s best to think of your future self now.”

In agreement is Louis J. Morledge, MD, an internist at Northwell Health in New York City. “I firmly counsel my patients about adequate and often increased protein intake in middle life. But this is always within a larger framework of overall nutritional health.” He added that middle-aged persons often find themselves “stuck in food ruts,” and one of his clinical focuses is to advise patients about the importance of healthier food choices so they can better adjust to mental, emotional, physical, and skeletal changes as they age.
 

Study Details

The NHS analysis drew on prospective data from 48,762 nurses under age 60 in 1984. Total protein, animal protein, dairy protein, and plant protein were derived from validated food-frequency questionnaires.

Adjusting for lifestyle, demographics, and health status, the investigators identified 3721 (7.6% of cohort) eligible participants. The mean age of participants at baseline was 48.6 years; 38.6% had body mass indexes (BMI; in kg/m²) greater than 25; 22.9% were current smokers; and 88.2% were married.

Healthy aging was defined as freedom from 11 major chronic diseases, good mental health, and no impairments in cognitive or physical function, as assessed in the 2014 or 2016 NHS participant questionnaires. Diseases/treatments included cancer, type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft or coronary angioplasty, congestive heart failure, stroke, kidney failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Mean total protein consumption as a percentage of energy was 18.3% (standard deviation 3%), slightly higher than the average 16% in the US diet. Of this, 13.3% derived from animals, 3.6% from dairy products, and 4.9% from plants.

Total protein intake was positively associated with higher education levels, being physically active, higher BMI, and a baseline history of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. Conversely, total protein intake was inversely associated with intakes of total carbohydrates, nuts, alcohol, and sugar-sweetened beverages.

The associations between protein intake and healthy aging are complex and not fully understood, the authors stated.
 

Effects of Protein Intake

In studies of older adult populations lower protein intake has been associated with lean mass loss. Animal protein supplementation studies in older adults have shown lean mass gains potentially related to amino acid composition.

In terms of mechanisms, evidence suggests that protein-related activation of the rapamycin complex 1 pathway may play a role, the authors suggested. The activity of this signaling pathway decreases with age.

Rapamycin, a compound used to prevent organ transplant rejection, has been associated with delayed aging. In the body, dietary protein and exercise activate this pathway, thereby stimulating muscle protein synthesis and possibly improving physical function.

As for the differential associations of plant and animal protein on the chronic disease domain of the healthy aging phenotype, Dr. Ardisson Korat and coauthors said plant protein has been associated with favorable levels of important risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases, such as reduced LDL cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and insulin sensitivity, as well as decreased levels of proinflammatory markers.

Conversely, total and animal protein intakes have been positively associated with concentrations of insulin-like growth factor 1, which is implicated in the growth of malignant cells in breast and prostate tissue.

This study is the first step in evaluating the long-term health effect of protein intake in midlife, the relevant development window for most chronic conditions, the NHS study authors said. More research is needed, however, to corroborate the study findings in other populations and identify underlying mechanisms.

This study was supported by the USDA Agricultural Research Service and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The commentators disclosed no relevant competing interests.

Intake of protein, especially from plants, in middle age is associated with higher odds of healthy aging and positive mental and physical health status in older women, a recent analysis of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) data suggests.

The study is said to be the first to examine the long-term impact of midlife protein consumption on later health status.

Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a team led by Andres V. Ardisson Korat, DSc, a nutritional epidemiologist at the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts, found the following midlife protein–related odds ratios (ORs) for later healthy aging measured at ages 70-93.

For each 3% energy increment from various protein sources:

• 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.10) for total protein
• 1.07 (1.02-1.11) for animal protein
• 1.14 (1.06-1.23) for dairy protein
• 1.38 (1.24-1.54) for plant protein 

In substitution analyses, significant positive associations were observed for the isocaloric replacement of animal or dairy protein, carbohydrate, or fat with plant protein — with increased ORs for healthy aging of 1.22-1.58 for each 3% of energy replacement.

On the measure of physical function, for example, replacing calories from all macronutrient variables with equivalent calories from plant protein was associated with 20%-60% higher odds of having no physical function limitations. Plant protein was also associated with higher odds for good mental status.

“Other studies have looked at protein intake in older adults, but we felt midlife was a more relevant etiological window,” Dr. Ardisson Korat said in an interview. “Our findings generally align, however, with those of protein intake in older populations, which have shown that protein can reduce the risk of frailty.”

He added that the benefits of protein, especially from plant sources, would likely apply to men as well and increasing plant protein intake is not difficult. “If you want a snack during the day, eat a handful of nuts instead of potato chips,” he advised. And eating several meals a week featuring beans, peas, lentils, tofu, whole grains, or seeds is an easy way to boost dietary plant protein, which comes with health-promoting soluble and insoluble fiber as well as antioxidant and anti-inflammatory polyphenols and other phytochemicals.

Conversely, plant but not animal protein consumption in older adulthood was linked to a lower risk of frailty in a previous NHS trial.

Higher plant protein intake was associated with a better probability of achieving healthy aging defined by changes in functional impairments, self-reported health/vitality, mental health, and use of health services in the Spanish Seniors-Estudio Sobre Nutricion y Riesgo Cardiovascular.

In contrast, animal protein intake in middle adulthood has been linked to an increased risk of premature death from chronic diseases driven by cardiovascular disease mortality.

The present findings are consistent with those observed for protein intakes in older adulthood, Dr. Ardisson Korat said.

“This study underscores the health advantages for midlife adults consuming adequate dietary protein — particularly plant protein — as one component of pursuing a healthy lifestyle,” said Douglas R. Dirschl, MD, chair of orthopedic surgery at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. Most Americans consume adequate amounts of protein, but according to Dr. Dirschl, who treats many older patients for osteoporotic fractures and other musculoskeletal conditions, many US diets are subpar in this nutrient.

While protein is essential for bone and muscle formation and maintenance, “a surprising number of Americans are protein deficient, even those who seem hale and are overweight,” he said.


 

Dietary Recommendations for Midlife Patients

Physicians should therefore advise midlife patients to meet or perhaps modestly exceed the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for protein of 0.8 g/kg per day and to make plant protein a substantial component of daily dietary protein intake, Dr. Dirschl said.

Luke D. Kim, MD, MEd, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, noted that patients with lower socioeconomic status or with difficulty in day-to-day functioning are likely to have suboptimal protein intake. Such patients may need encouragement to eat more protein. “But we should keep in mind that showing a higher associated odds ratio of better health with increased protein take does not mean causality,” he said.

According to Rachel L. Amdur, MD, an internist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, the long-term follow-up data from the NHS are uniquely helpful. “Middle-aged persons may think they no longer need much dietary protein and need to be reminded. Sometimes eating carbohydrates is just easier,” she said in an interview. Physicians need to asses and counsel patients on nutrition at all stages of life. “As I tell my patients, it’s best to think of your future self now.”

In agreement is Louis J. Morledge, MD, an internist at Northwell Health in New York City. “I firmly counsel my patients about adequate and often increased protein intake in middle life. But this is always within a larger framework of overall nutritional health.” He added that middle-aged persons often find themselves “stuck in food ruts,” and one of his clinical focuses is to advise patients about the importance of healthier food choices so they can better adjust to mental, emotional, physical, and skeletal changes as they age.
 

Study Details

The NHS analysis drew on prospective data from 48,762 nurses under age 60 in 1984. Total protein, animal protein, dairy protein, and plant protein were derived from validated food-frequency questionnaires.

Adjusting for lifestyle, demographics, and health status, the investigators identified 3721 (7.6% of cohort) eligible participants. The mean age of participants at baseline was 48.6 years; 38.6% had body mass indexes (BMI; in kg/m²) greater than 25; 22.9% were current smokers; and 88.2% were married.

Healthy aging was defined as freedom from 11 major chronic diseases, good mental health, and no impairments in cognitive or physical function, as assessed in the 2014 or 2016 NHS participant questionnaires. Diseases/treatments included cancer, type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft or coronary angioplasty, congestive heart failure, stroke, kidney failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Mean total protein consumption as a percentage of energy was 18.3% (standard deviation 3%), slightly higher than the average 16% in the US diet. Of this, 13.3% derived from animals, 3.6% from dairy products, and 4.9% from plants.

Total protein intake was positively associated with higher education levels, being physically active, higher BMI, and a baseline history of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. Conversely, total protein intake was inversely associated with intakes of total carbohydrates, nuts, alcohol, and sugar-sweetened beverages.

The associations between protein intake and healthy aging are complex and not fully understood, the authors stated.
 

Effects of Protein Intake

In studies of older adult populations lower protein intake has been associated with lean mass loss. Animal protein supplementation studies in older adults have shown lean mass gains potentially related to amino acid composition.

In terms of mechanisms, evidence suggests that protein-related activation of the rapamycin complex 1 pathway may play a role, the authors suggested. The activity of this signaling pathway decreases with age.

Rapamycin, a compound used to prevent organ transplant rejection, has been associated with delayed aging. In the body, dietary protein and exercise activate this pathway, thereby stimulating muscle protein synthesis and possibly improving physical function.

As for the differential associations of plant and animal protein on the chronic disease domain of the healthy aging phenotype, Dr. Ardisson Korat and coauthors said plant protein has been associated with favorable levels of important risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases, such as reduced LDL cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and insulin sensitivity, as well as decreased levels of proinflammatory markers.

Conversely, total and animal protein intakes have been positively associated with concentrations of insulin-like growth factor 1, which is implicated in the growth of malignant cells in breast and prostate tissue.

This study is the first step in evaluating the long-term health effect of protein intake in midlife, the relevant development window for most chronic conditions, the NHS study authors said. More research is needed, however, to corroborate the study findings in other populations and identify underlying mechanisms.

This study was supported by the USDA Agricultural Research Service and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The commentators disclosed no relevant competing interests.

Intake of protein, especially from plants, in middle age is associated with higher odds of healthy aging and positive mental and physical health status in older women, a recent analysis of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) data suggests.

The study is said to be the first to examine the long-term impact of midlife protein consumption on later health status.

Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a team led by Andres V. Ardisson Korat, DSc, a nutritional epidemiologist at the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts, found the following midlife protein–related odds ratios (ORs) for later healthy aging measured at ages 70-93.

For each 3% energy increment from various protein sources:

• 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.10) for total protein
• 1.07 (1.02-1.11) for animal protein
• 1.14 (1.06-1.23) for dairy protein
• 1.38 (1.24-1.54) for plant protein 

In substitution analyses, significant positive associations were observed for the isocaloric replacement of animal or dairy protein, carbohydrate, or fat with plant protein — with increased ORs for healthy aging of 1.22-1.58 for each 3% of energy replacement.

On the measure of physical function, for example, replacing calories from all macronutrient variables with equivalent calories from plant protein was associated with 20%-60% higher odds of having no physical function limitations. Plant protein was also associated with higher odds for good mental status.

“Other studies have looked at protein intake in older adults, but we felt midlife was a more relevant etiological window,” Dr. Ardisson Korat said in an interview. “Our findings generally align, however, with those of protein intake in older populations, which have shown that protein can reduce the risk of frailty.”

He added that the benefits of protein, especially from plant sources, would likely apply to men as well and increasing plant protein intake is not difficult. “If you want a snack during the day, eat a handful of nuts instead of potato chips,” he advised. And eating several meals a week featuring beans, peas, lentils, tofu, whole grains, or seeds is an easy way to boost dietary plant protein, which comes with health-promoting soluble and insoluble fiber as well as antioxidant and anti-inflammatory polyphenols and other phytochemicals.

Conversely, plant but not animal protein consumption in older adulthood was linked to a lower risk of frailty in a previous NHS trial.

Higher plant protein intake was associated with a better probability of achieving healthy aging defined by changes in functional impairments, self-reported health/vitality, mental health, and use of health services in the Spanish Seniors-Estudio Sobre Nutricion y Riesgo Cardiovascular.

In contrast, animal protein intake in middle adulthood has been linked to an increased risk of premature death from chronic diseases driven by cardiovascular disease mortality.

The present findings are consistent with those observed for protein intakes in older adulthood, Dr. Ardisson Korat said.

“This study underscores the health advantages for midlife adults consuming adequate dietary protein — particularly plant protein — as one component of pursuing a healthy lifestyle,” said Douglas R. Dirschl, MD, chair of orthopedic surgery at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. Most Americans consume adequate amounts of protein, but according to Dr. Dirschl, who treats many older patients for osteoporotic fractures and other musculoskeletal conditions, many US diets are subpar in this nutrient.

While protein is essential for bone and muscle formation and maintenance, “a surprising number of Americans are protein deficient, even those who seem hale and are overweight,” he said.


 

Dietary Recommendations for Midlife Patients

Physicians should therefore advise midlife patients to meet or perhaps modestly exceed the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for protein of 0.8 g/kg per day and to make plant protein a substantial component of daily dietary protein intake, Dr. Dirschl said.

Luke D. Kim, MD, MEd, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, noted that patients with lower socioeconomic status or with difficulty in day-to-day functioning are likely to have suboptimal protein intake. Such patients may need encouragement to eat more protein. “But we should keep in mind that showing a higher associated odds ratio of better health with increased protein take does not mean causality,” he said.

According to Rachel L. Amdur, MD, an internist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, the long-term follow-up data from the NHS are uniquely helpful. “Middle-aged persons may think they no longer need much dietary protein and need to be reminded. Sometimes eating carbohydrates is just easier,” she said in an interview. Physicians need to asses and counsel patients on nutrition at all stages of life. “As I tell my patients, it’s best to think of your future self now.”

In agreement is Louis J. Morledge, MD, an internist at Northwell Health in New York City. “I firmly counsel my patients about adequate and often increased protein intake in middle life. But this is always within a larger framework of overall nutritional health.” He added that middle-aged persons often find themselves “stuck in food ruts,” and one of his clinical focuses is to advise patients about the importance of healthier food choices so they can better adjust to mental, emotional, physical, and skeletal changes as they age.
 

Study Details

The NHS analysis drew on prospective data from 48,762 nurses under age 60 in 1984. Total protein, animal protein, dairy protein, and plant protein were derived from validated food-frequency questionnaires.

Adjusting for lifestyle, demographics, and health status, the investigators identified 3721 (7.6% of cohort) eligible participants. The mean age of participants at baseline was 48.6 years; 38.6% had body mass indexes (BMI; in kg/m²) greater than 25; 22.9% were current smokers; and 88.2% were married.

Healthy aging was defined as freedom from 11 major chronic diseases, good mental health, and no impairments in cognitive or physical function, as assessed in the 2014 or 2016 NHS participant questionnaires. Diseases/treatments included cancer, type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft or coronary angioplasty, congestive heart failure, stroke, kidney failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Mean total protein consumption as a percentage of energy was 18.3% (standard deviation 3%), slightly higher than the average 16% in the US diet. Of this, 13.3% derived from animals, 3.6% from dairy products, and 4.9% from plants.

Total protein intake was positively associated with higher education levels, being physically active, higher BMI, and a baseline history of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. Conversely, total protein intake was inversely associated with intakes of total carbohydrates, nuts, alcohol, and sugar-sweetened beverages.

The associations between protein intake and healthy aging are complex and not fully understood, the authors stated.
 

Effects of Protein Intake

In studies of older adult populations lower protein intake has been associated with lean mass loss. Animal protein supplementation studies in older adults have shown lean mass gains potentially related to amino acid composition.

In terms of mechanisms, evidence suggests that protein-related activation of the rapamycin complex 1 pathway may play a role, the authors suggested. The activity of this signaling pathway decreases with age.

Rapamycin, a compound used to prevent organ transplant rejection, has been associated with delayed aging. In the body, dietary protein and exercise activate this pathway, thereby stimulating muscle protein synthesis and possibly improving physical function.

As for the differential associations of plant and animal protein on the chronic disease domain of the healthy aging phenotype, Dr. Ardisson Korat and coauthors said plant protein has been associated with favorable levels of important risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases, such as reduced LDL cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and insulin sensitivity, as well as decreased levels of proinflammatory markers.

Conversely, total and animal protein intakes have been positively associated with concentrations of insulin-like growth factor 1, which is implicated in the growth of malignant cells in breast and prostate tissue.

This study is the first step in evaluating the long-term health effect of protein intake in midlife, the relevant development window for most chronic conditions, the NHS study authors said. More research is needed, however, to corroborate the study findings in other populations and identify underlying mechanisms.

This study was supported by the USDA Agricultural Research Service and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The commentators disclosed no relevant competing interests.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Vertex Pharmaceuticals’ CRISPR gene-editing–based therapy exagamglogene autotemcel, or exa-cel, (Casgevy) for individuals aged 12 years or older with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, a rare inherited blood disorder.

The approval, which comes more than 2 months ahead of a target action date of March 30, marks the second for the landmark therapy. The FDA greenlit the CRISPR gene therapy to treat sickle cell disease last December.

The autologous, ex vivo, CRISPR/Cas9 gene-edited therapy from Vertex and CRISPR Therapeutics is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR.

The transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia approval is based on data from pivotal studies showing “consistent and durable response to treatment” in 52 patients who received an infusion and followed for up to 4 years. Treatment conferred transfusion independence in patients with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, according to a press release from Vertex late last year.

Vertex noted in a new press statement that expanded approval means about 1000 patients aged 12 years or older will be eligible for the one-time treatment for this indication. 

Exa-cel requires administration at authorized treatment centers experienced in stem cell transplantation.

The therapy, which has a list price of $2.2 million in the United States, should be available initially at nine authorized treatment centers early this year, with more to come, according to Vertex. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Vertex Pharmaceuticals’ CRISPR gene-editing–based therapy exagamglogene autotemcel, or exa-cel, (Casgevy) for individuals aged 12 years or older with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, a rare inherited blood disorder.

The approval, which comes more than 2 months ahead of a target action date of March 30, marks the second for the landmark therapy. The FDA greenlit the CRISPR gene therapy to treat sickle cell disease last December.

The autologous, ex vivo, CRISPR/Cas9 gene-edited therapy from Vertex and CRISPR Therapeutics is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR.

The transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia approval is based on data from pivotal studies showing “consistent and durable response to treatment” in 52 patients who received an infusion and followed for up to 4 years. Treatment conferred transfusion independence in patients with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, according to a press release from Vertex late last year.

Vertex noted in a new press statement that expanded approval means about 1000 patients aged 12 years or older will be eligible for the one-time treatment for this indication. 

Exa-cel requires administration at authorized treatment centers experienced in stem cell transplantation.

The therapy, which has a list price of $2.2 million in the United States, should be available initially at nine authorized treatment centers early this year, with more to come, according to Vertex. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Vertex Pharmaceuticals’ CRISPR gene-editing–based therapy exagamglogene autotemcel, or exa-cel, (Casgevy) for individuals aged 12 years or older with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, a rare inherited blood disorder.

The approval, which comes more than 2 months ahead of a target action date of March 30, marks the second for the landmark therapy. The FDA greenlit the CRISPR gene therapy to treat sickle cell disease last December.

The autologous, ex vivo, CRISPR/Cas9 gene-edited therapy from Vertex and CRISPR Therapeutics is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR.

The transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia approval is based on data from pivotal studies showing “consistent and durable response to treatment” in 52 patients who received an infusion and followed for up to 4 years. Treatment conferred transfusion independence in patients with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, according to a press release from Vertex late last year.

Vertex noted in a new press statement that expanded approval means about 1000 patients aged 12 years or older will be eligible for the one-time treatment for this indication. 

Exa-cel requires administration at authorized treatment centers experienced in stem cell transplantation.

The therapy, which has a list price of $2.2 million in the United States, should be available initially at nine authorized treatment centers early this year, with more to come, according to Vertex. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

Nearly 37 million Americans, or 15%, have chronic kidney disease (CKD), but 9 in 10 adults with the condition are not aware of their diagnosis. A recent study from Stanford University found that screening asymptomatic adults over the age of 35 years would be a cost-effective strategy for identifying patients with CKD before they develop severe illness. 

What should primary care providers be doing differently? 

The current standard of care is to screen people with underlying conditions that put them at higher risk of developing CKD, most commonly diabetes and hypertension. That’s why the American Diabetes Association recommends annual screening for CKD in patients with type 1 diabetes as well as those with type 2 diabetes. 

And the American Heart Association (AHA) released an advisory last year that defined cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome, a constellation of conditions that often occur together: obesity, diabetes, CKD, and cardiovascular disease. They propose a staged approach to identifying and monitoring CKM throughout the lifespan, which includes regular monitoring of the urine albumin-creatinine ratio in patients who have developed diabetes, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, or any signs of kidney disease.

But despite recognition from the subspecialty professional societies of the importance of screening persons with risk factors — additional conditions are obesity and family history of CKD — real-world implementation lags. 

Sylvia Rosas, MD, is a nephrologist and associate professor of medicine at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who also serves as president of the National Kidney Foundation. In an interview with this news organization, she cited several alarming facts about the state of CKD screening in the United States. 

“Of people with diabetes who have insurance, only 40% get both the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and the albumin performed, and for those who have hypertension, only 10%,” Dr. Rosas said. She is referring to a urine spot test that measures the amount of albumin in the urine, which is then paired with a serum measurement of creatinine to estimate the glomerular filtration rate. Both tests are needed to detect the asymptomatic stages of CKD, because the presence of albumin in the urine usually precedes drops in the GFR, which indicates more serious disease. 

Dr. Rosas said she is frustrated by the low rate of testing compared with other commonly recommended preventive screenings, given the low cost and simplicity of assessment. Serum creatinine often is obtained as part of a routine chemistry panel, and the albumin test requires a single spot urine test. Yet, in 2018, 61% of US adults aged 50-75 years had received a colonoscopy in the past 10 years. Compared with the high price and inconvenience of undergoing colonoscopy, Dr. Rosas has trouble believing that “we cannot get more than 40% of people [with diabetes] to pee in a cup.” 

But the biggest issue is that if people with risk factors don’t get screened before they develop symptoms of CKD, it is often too late to avoid dialysis or the need for transplantation. 

The early warning symptoms are few, according to Nisha Bansal, MD, a professor in the department of nephrology at the University of Washington in Seattle. “New hypertension is a really important early sign,” Dr. Bansal said. “We know kidney disease almost certainly causes hypertension, so I would definitely think about screening for kidney disease.” Other findings on exam are the appearance of new edema or signs of fluid retention in the hands or around the eyes, along with findings in the urine of albumin, protein, or blood. 

But most patients don’t have any symptoms in the early stages, and they can be nonspecific. “It is fatigue and some nausea,” Dr. Rosas said. “It’s only way at the end that you start vomiting, get itchy, or have hiccups.” Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have shown that over one third of patients at high risk for kidney failure are unaware of their disease. According to Dr. Rosas, these are patients who often receive the diagnosis of CKD and start dialysis the same day. 
 

Why Not Screen Everyone?

For many conditions, like HIV or different types of cancer, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends broad screening of asymptomatic individuals so that early treatment can improve outcomes. 

But when the USPSTF considered the question in 2012 of whether adults should be screened for CKD regardless of symptoms, it found little evidence that early detection could change the course of their illness. At that time, the standard of care for treating early stages of CKD generally focused on treating the comorbid conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. 

But the equation has changed with the availability of new drugs to treat CKD, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs).

“I consider these blockbuster drugs,” Dr. Bansal said. “For the first time in decades, we’re showing that this class of medications, the SGLT2 inhibitors, substantially reduce risk of loss of kidney function.”

Expressed in the lumen of the proximal renal tubules, SGLT2 reabsorbs filtered glucose from the tubular lumen. Inhibition of SGLT2 promotes urinary glucose excretion and reduces sodium reabsorption, increasing delivery of sodium to the distal tubule. The first SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin, was approved in 2013 for use as an antihyperglycemic agent but subsequently was shown to have serendipitous benefits for the heart and kidneys. 

Clinical trials have documented reductions in the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as decreases in the risk for progression to end-stage renal disease, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure. Updated international guidelines from 2022 recommend treating all patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD with an estimated GFR ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m2 with an SGLT2 inhibitor. 

But several trials of SGLT2 inhibitors also demonstrated benefits in reducing the risk for cardiovascular-related death or hospitalization for heart failure, even in patients without diabetes. Although initial approval from the US Food and Drug Administration was limited to patients with diabetes and heart failure, the agency has recently expanded its indications to include adults with CKD who do not have diabetes. 

Dr. Bansal said she was happy to see this widening of the indications, which makes more patients eligible to receive SGLT2 inhibitors. “I really think this early CKD group is a great group to consider for those medications,” she said. 

Dr. Bansal also pointed out that MRAs are another class of drugs with an interesting history. Earlier steroidal MRAs were found to have anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties, and in 1960 spironolactone was approved for use as a diuretic for the management of edema, primary aldosteronism, and hypertension. But even as their use in cardiology rose, MRAs had less utility for CKD, given adverse events such as hyperkalemia and hormonal effects like gynecomastia. 

But the latest generation of nonsteroidal MRAs (nsMRAs) has higher selectivity for the mineralocorticoid receptor than sex-steroid hormone receptors, reducing androgenic side effects and preventing elevated potassium. Finerenone, the only nsMRA approved in the United States, has been shown in clinical trials to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) and CKD outcomes, including kidney failure, decrease in estimated GFR, or death from renal causes. 
 

EPIC Changes Coming?

In light of treatment advances that offer hope of preventing progression of CKD in patients identified early, both the National Kidney Foundation and the American Kidney Fund lobbied the USPSTF in 2022 to conduct a fresh review of recent data to evaluate the need for updated screening recommendations. 

The task force completed development of a research plan and collection of public comments in early 2023 and is now reviewing evidence before developing a draft recommendation. 

A team of health policy researchers from Stanford is hoping that some of their recently published work will attract the panel’s attention. The first study, published in 2022, evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor that has been shown to reduce mortality by 48% in CKD patients without diabetes. 

The Stanford team found that adding dapagliflozin to standard care for these patients improved life expectancy by 2 years and reduced the percentage of those who needed dialysis or kidney transplant from 17% to 11%. 

More recently, Marika Cusick, a doctoral candidate in health policy at the Stanford School of Medicine in Stanford, California, served as first author of an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of screening asymptomatic adults. “We assessed screening for albuminuria in conjunction with conventional CKD therapy in addition to this new SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs,” she said. They projected how this might change CKD progression in US adults who are aged 35 or older compared with standard therapy alone. 

The findings were favorable. “A one-time screening would result in a reduction of 398,000 cases of kidney replacement therapy [defined as needing either dialysis or renal transplant] among 158 million US adults who are currently aged 35-75 years,” Ms. Cusick told this news organization.

In terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), a one-time screening at age 55 years yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,300 per QALY. Screening every 10 years between the ages of 35 and 75 years cost less than $100,000 per QALY gained. 

According to Doug Owens, MD, professor and chair of the department of health policy at Stanford School of Medicine, “There’s a societal decision about how much are we willing to pay for additional length and quality of life. And this fits within what is generally considered reasonable for the US.” 

For example, in the United States, screening for breast cancer among women aged 40-64 years costs $51,000 per QALY, whereas screening for lung cancer using USPSTF guidelines ranges from $72,639 to $156,774 per QALY. 

A former member of the USPSTF, Owens predicted that the current review process would take at least another year. Meanwhile, he and Ms. Cusick are hoping that their work influences the USPSTF to recommend screening asymptomatic adults. “Increasing the awareness of these drugs and their effectiveness is a crucial first step,” he said. 

Although adherence to current recommendations for screening of people at risk is poor, Dr. Rosas suggested that the USPSTF guidelines would be more influential in changing practice among primary care physicians than subspecialty guidelines would. 

“When you have a recommendation like that, they’re putting it in the electronic health record,” she said. By adding best practice alerts to their electronic health record systems, health systems can make it easier for primary care doctors to check all the boxes. 

In line with the AHA’s holistic approach towards managing cardiovascular illnesses, CKD, and metabolic disease, Dr. Bansal suggested an additional strategy: “I think we’re moving toward more interdisciplinary care models, where primary care doctors, nephrologist, cardiologists, and endocrinologists — all of us — should be working together in a collaborative care model, to help break down some of these barriers in terms of screening as well as implementation of these therapies.”

Dr. Bansal, Ms. Cusick, and Dr. Owens reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rosas receives funding from AstraZeneca and Bayer for serving on advisory boards and clinical research funding, as well as funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for clinical trials. 
 

Dr. Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist living in Portland, Oregon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 37 million Americans, or 15%, have chronic kidney disease (CKD), but 9 in 10 adults with the condition are not aware of their diagnosis. A recent study from Stanford University found that screening asymptomatic adults over the age of 35 years would be a cost-effective strategy for identifying patients with CKD before they develop severe illness. 

What should primary care providers be doing differently? 

The current standard of care is to screen people with underlying conditions that put them at higher risk of developing CKD, most commonly diabetes and hypertension. That’s why the American Diabetes Association recommends annual screening for CKD in patients with type 1 diabetes as well as those with type 2 diabetes. 

And the American Heart Association (AHA) released an advisory last year that defined cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome, a constellation of conditions that often occur together: obesity, diabetes, CKD, and cardiovascular disease. They propose a staged approach to identifying and monitoring CKM throughout the lifespan, which includes regular monitoring of the urine albumin-creatinine ratio in patients who have developed diabetes, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, or any signs of kidney disease.

But despite recognition from the subspecialty professional societies of the importance of screening persons with risk factors — additional conditions are obesity and family history of CKD — real-world implementation lags. 

Sylvia Rosas, MD, is a nephrologist and associate professor of medicine at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who also serves as president of the National Kidney Foundation. In an interview with this news organization, she cited several alarming facts about the state of CKD screening in the United States. 

“Of people with diabetes who have insurance, only 40% get both the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and the albumin performed, and for those who have hypertension, only 10%,” Dr. Rosas said. She is referring to a urine spot test that measures the amount of albumin in the urine, which is then paired with a serum measurement of creatinine to estimate the glomerular filtration rate. Both tests are needed to detect the asymptomatic stages of CKD, because the presence of albumin in the urine usually precedes drops in the GFR, which indicates more serious disease. 

Dr. Rosas said she is frustrated by the low rate of testing compared with other commonly recommended preventive screenings, given the low cost and simplicity of assessment. Serum creatinine often is obtained as part of a routine chemistry panel, and the albumin test requires a single spot urine test. Yet, in 2018, 61% of US adults aged 50-75 years had received a colonoscopy in the past 10 years. Compared with the high price and inconvenience of undergoing colonoscopy, Dr. Rosas has trouble believing that “we cannot get more than 40% of people [with diabetes] to pee in a cup.” 

But the biggest issue is that if people with risk factors don’t get screened before they develop symptoms of CKD, it is often too late to avoid dialysis or the need for transplantation. 

The early warning symptoms are few, according to Nisha Bansal, MD, a professor in the department of nephrology at the University of Washington in Seattle. “New hypertension is a really important early sign,” Dr. Bansal said. “We know kidney disease almost certainly causes hypertension, so I would definitely think about screening for kidney disease.” Other findings on exam are the appearance of new edema or signs of fluid retention in the hands or around the eyes, along with findings in the urine of albumin, protein, or blood. 

But most patients don’t have any symptoms in the early stages, and they can be nonspecific. “It is fatigue and some nausea,” Dr. Rosas said. “It’s only way at the end that you start vomiting, get itchy, or have hiccups.” Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have shown that over one third of patients at high risk for kidney failure are unaware of their disease. According to Dr. Rosas, these are patients who often receive the diagnosis of CKD and start dialysis the same day. 
 

Why Not Screen Everyone?

For many conditions, like HIV or different types of cancer, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends broad screening of asymptomatic individuals so that early treatment can improve outcomes. 

But when the USPSTF considered the question in 2012 of whether adults should be screened for CKD regardless of symptoms, it found little evidence that early detection could change the course of their illness. At that time, the standard of care for treating early stages of CKD generally focused on treating the comorbid conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. 

But the equation has changed with the availability of new drugs to treat CKD, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs).

“I consider these blockbuster drugs,” Dr. Bansal said. “For the first time in decades, we’re showing that this class of medications, the SGLT2 inhibitors, substantially reduce risk of loss of kidney function.”

Expressed in the lumen of the proximal renal tubules, SGLT2 reabsorbs filtered glucose from the tubular lumen. Inhibition of SGLT2 promotes urinary glucose excretion and reduces sodium reabsorption, increasing delivery of sodium to the distal tubule. The first SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin, was approved in 2013 for use as an antihyperglycemic agent but subsequently was shown to have serendipitous benefits for the heart and kidneys. 

Clinical trials have documented reductions in the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as decreases in the risk for progression to end-stage renal disease, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure. Updated international guidelines from 2022 recommend treating all patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD with an estimated GFR ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m2 with an SGLT2 inhibitor. 

But several trials of SGLT2 inhibitors also demonstrated benefits in reducing the risk for cardiovascular-related death or hospitalization for heart failure, even in patients without diabetes. Although initial approval from the US Food and Drug Administration was limited to patients with diabetes and heart failure, the agency has recently expanded its indications to include adults with CKD who do not have diabetes. 

Dr. Bansal said she was happy to see this widening of the indications, which makes more patients eligible to receive SGLT2 inhibitors. “I really think this early CKD group is a great group to consider for those medications,” she said. 

Dr. Bansal also pointed out that MRAs are another class of drugs with an interesting history. Earlier steroidal MRAs were found to have anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties, and in 1960 spironolactone was approved for use as a diuretic for the management of edema, primary aldosteronism, and hypertension. But even as their use in cardiology rose, MRAs had less utility for CKD, given adverse events such as hyperkalemia and hormonal effects like gynecomastia. 

But the latest generation of nonsteroidal MRAs (nsMRAs) has higher selectivity for the mineralocorticoid receptor than sex-steroid hormone receptors, reducing androgenic side effects and preventing elevated potassium. Finerenone, the only nsMRA approved in the United States, has been shown in clinical trials to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) and CKD outcomes, including kidney failure, decrease in estimated GFR, or death from renal causes. 
 

EPIC Changes Coming?

In light of treatment advances that offer hope of preventing progression of CKD in patients identified early, both the National Kidney Foundation and the American Kidney Fund lobbied the USPSTF in 2022 to conduct a fresh review of recent data to evaluate the need for updated screening recommendations. 

The task force completed development of a research plan and collection of public comments in early 2023 and is now reviewing evidence before developing a draft recommendation. 

A team of health policy researchers from Stanford is hoping that some of their recently published work will attract the panel’s attention. The first study, published in 2022, evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor that has been shown to reduce mortality by 48% in CKD patients without diabetes. 

The Stanford team found that adding dapagliflozin to standard care for these patients improved life expectancy by 2 years and reduced the percentage of those who needed dialysis or kidney transplant from 17% to 11%. 

More recently, Marika Cusick, a doctoral candidate in health policy at the Stanford School of Medicine in Stanford, California, served as first author of an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of screening asymptomatic adults. “We assessed screening for albuminuria in conjunction with conventional CKD therapy in addition to this new SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs,” she said. They projected how this might change CKD progression in US adults who are aged 35 or older compared with standard therapy alone. 

The findings were favorable. “A one-time screening would result in a reduction of 398,000 cases of kidney replacement therapy [defined as needing either dialysis or renal transplant] among 158 million US adults who are currently aged 35-75 years,” Ms. Cusick told this news organization.

In terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), a one-time screening at age 55 years yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,300 per QALY. Screening every 10 years between the ages of 35 and 75 years cost less than $100,000 per QALY gained. 

According to Doug Owens, MD, professor and chair of the department of health policy at Stanford School of Medicine, “There’s a societal decision about how much are we willing to pay for additional length and quality of life. And this fits within what is generally considered reasonable for the US.” 

For example, in the United States, screening for breast cancer among women aged 40-64 years costs $51,000 per QALY, whereas screening for lung cancer using USPSTF guidelines ranges from $72,639 to $156,774 per QALY. 

A former member of the USPSTF, Owens predicted that the current review process would take at least another year. Meanwhile, he and Ms. Cusick are hoping that their work influences the USPSTF to recommend screening asymptomatic adults. “Increasing the awareness of these drugs and their effectiveness is a crucial first step,” he said. 

Although adherence to current recommendations for screening of people at risk is poor, Dr. Rosas suggested that the USPSTF guidelines would be more influential in changing practice among primary care physicians than subspecialty guidelines would. 

“When you have a recommendation like that, they’re putting it in the electronic health record,” she said. By adding best practice alerts to their electronic health record systems, health systems can make it easier for primary care doctors to check all the boxes. 

In line with the AHA’s holistic approach towards managing cardiovascular illnesses, CKD, and metabolic disease, Dr. Bansal suggested an additional strategy: “I think we’re moving toward more interdisciplinary care models, where primary care doctors, nephrologist, cardiologists, and endocrinologists — all of us — should be working together in a collaborative care model, to help break down some of these barriers in terms of screening as well as implementation of these therapies.”

Dr. Bansal, Ms. Cusick, and Dr. Owens reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rosas receives funding from AstraZeneca and Bayer for serving on advisory boards and clinical research funding, as well as funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for clinical trials. 
 

Dr. Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist living in Portland, Oregon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 37 million Americans, or 15%, have chronic kidney disease (CKD), but 9 in 10 adults with the condition are not aware of their diagnosis. A recent study from Stanford University found that screening asymptomatic adults over the age of 35 years would be a cost-effective strategy for identifying patients with CKD before they develop severe illness. 

What should primary care providers be doing differently? 

The current standard of care is to screen people with underlying conditions that put them at higher risk of developing CKD, most commonly diabetes and hypertension. That’s why the American Diabetes Association recommends annual screening for CKD in patients with type 1 diabetes as well as those with type 2 diabetes. 

And the American Heart Association (AHA) released an advisory last year that defined cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome, a constellation of conditions that often occur together: obesity, diabetes, CKD, and cardiovascular disease. They propose a staged approach to identifying and monitoring CKM throughout the lifespan, which includes regular monitoring of the urine albumin-creatinine ratio in patients who have developed diabetes, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, or any signs of kidney disease.

But despite recognition from the subspecialty professional societies of the importance of screening persons with risk factors — additional conditions are obesity and family history of CKD — real-world implementation lags. 

Sylvia Rosas, MD, is a nephrologist and associate professor of medicine at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who also serves as president of the National Kidney Foundation. In an interview with this news organization, she cited several alarming facts about the state of CKD screening in the United States. 

“Of people with diabetes who have insurance, only 40% get both the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and the albumin performed, and for those who have hypertension, only 10%,” Dr. Rosas said. She is referring to a urine spot test that measures the amount of albumin in the urine, which is then paired with a serum measurement of creatinine to estimate the glomerular filtration rate. Both tests are needed to detect the asymptomatic stages of CKD, because the presence of albumin in the urine usually precedes drops in the GFR, which indicates more serious disease. 

Dr. Rosas said she is frustrated by the low rate of testing compared with other commonly recommended preventive screenings, given the low cost and simplicity of assessment. Serum creatinine often is obtained as part of a routine chemistry panel, and the albumin test requires a single spot urine test. Yet, in 2018, 61% of US adults aged 50-75 years had received a colonoscopy in the past 10 years. Compared with the high price and inconvenience of undergoing colonoscopy, Dr. Rosas has trouble believing that “we cannot get more than 40% of people [with diabetes] to pee in a cup.” 

But the biggest issue is that if people with risk factors don’t get screened before they develop symptoms of CKD, it is often too late to avoid dialysis or the need for transplantation. 

The early warning symptoms are few, according to Nisha Bansal, MD, a professor in the department of nephrology at the University of Washington in Seattle. “New hypertension is a really important early sign,” Dr. Bansal said. “We know kidney disease almost certainly causes hypertension, so I would definitely think about screening for kidney disease.” Other findings on exam are the appearance of new edema or signs of fluid retention in the hands or around the eyes, along with findings in the urine of albumin, protein, or blood. 

But most patients don’t have any symptoms in the early stages, and they can be nonspecific. “It is fatigue and some nausea,” Dr. Rosas said. “It’s only way at the end that you start vomiting, get itchy, or have hiccups.” Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have shown that over one third of patients at high risk for kidney failure are unaware of their disease. According to Dr. Rosas, these are patients who often receive the diagnosis of CKD and start dialysis the same day. 
 

Why Not Screen Everyone?

For many conditions, like HIV or different types of cancer, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends broad screening of asymptomatic individuals so that early treatment can improve outcomes. 

But when the USPSTF considered the question in 2012 of whether adults should be screened for CKD regardless of symptoms, it found little evidence that early detection could change the course of their illness. At that time, the standard of care for treating early stages of CKD generally focused on treating the comorbid conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. 

But the equation has changed with the availability of new drugs to treat CKD, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs).

“I consider these blockbuster drugs,” Dr. Bansal said. “For the first time in decades, we’re showing that this class of medications, the SGLT2 inhibitors, substantially reduce risk of loss of kidney function.”

Expressed in the lumen of the proximal renal tubules, SGLT2 reabsorbs filtered glucose from the tubular lumen. Inhibition of SGLT2 promotes urinary glucose excretion and reduces sodium reabsorption, increasing delivery of sodium to the distal tubule. The first SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin, was approved in 2013 for use as an antihyperglycemic agent but subsequently was shown to have serendipitous benefits for the heart and kidneys. 

Clinical trials have documented reductions in the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as decreases in the risk for progression to end-stage renal disease, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure. Updated international guidelines from 2022 recommend treating all patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD with an estimated GFR ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m2 with an SGLT2 inhibitor. 

But several trials of SGLT2 inhibitors also demonstrated benefits in reducing the risk for cardiovascular-related death or hospitalization for heart failure, even in patients without diabetes. Although initial approval from the US Food and Drug Administration was limited to patients with diabetes and heart failure, the agency has recently expanded its indications to include adults with CKD who do not have diabetes. 

Dr. Bansal said she was happy to see this widening of the indications, which makes more patients eligible to receive SGLT2 inhibitors. “I really think this early CKD group is a great group to consider for those medications,” she said. 

Dr. Bansal also pointed out that MRAs are another class of drugs with an interesting history. Earlier steroidal MRAs were found to have anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties, and in 1960 spironolactone was approved for use as a diuretic for the management of edema, primary aldosteronism, and hypertension. But even as their use in cardiology rose, MRAs had less utility for CKD, given adverse events such as hyperkalemia and hormonal effects like gynecomastia. 

But the latest generation of nonsteroidal MRAs (nsMRAs) has higher selectivity for the mineralocorticoid receptor than sex-steroid hormone receptors, reducing androgenic side effects and preventing elevated potassium. Finerenone, the only nsMRA approved in the United States, has been shown in clinical trials to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) and CKD outcomes, including kidney failure, decrease in estimated GFR, or death from renal causes. 
 

EPIC Changes Coming?

In light of treatment advances that offer hope of preventing progression of CKD in patients identified early, both the National Kidney Foundation and the American Kidney Fund lobbied the USPSTF in 2022 to conduct a fresh review of recent data to evaluate the need for updated screening recommendations. 

The task force completed development of a research plan and collection of public comments in early 2023 and is now reviewing evidence before developing a draft recommendation. 

A team of health policy researchers from Stanford is hoping that some of their recently published work will attract the panel’s attention. The first study, published in 2022, evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor that has been shown to reduce mortality by 48% in CKD patients without diabetes. 

The Stanford team found that adding dapagliflozin to standard care for these patients improved life expectancy by 2 years and reduced the percentage of those who needed dialysis or kidney transplant from 17% to 11%. 

More recently, Marika Cusick, a doctoral candidate in health policy at the Stanford School of Medicine in Stanford, California, served as first author of an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of screening asymptomatic adults. “We assessed screening for albuminuria in conjunction with conventional CKD therapy in addition to this new SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs,” she said. They projected how this might change CKD progression in US adults who are aged 35 or older compared with standard therapy alone. 

The findings were favorable. “A one-time screening would result in a reduction of 398,000 cases of kidney replacement therapy [defined as needing either dialysis or renal transplant] among 158 million US adults who are currently aged 35-75 years,” Ms. Cusick told this news organization.

In terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), a one-time screening at age 55 years yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,300 per QALY. Screening every 10 years between the ages of 35 and 75 years cost less than $100,000 per QALY gained. 

According to Doug Owens, MD, professor and chair of the department of health policy at Stanford School of Medicine, “There’s a societal decision about how much are we willing to pay for additional length and quality of life. And this fits within what is generally considered reasonable for the US.” 

For example, in the United States, screening for breast cancer among women aged 40-64 years costs $51,000 per QALY, whereas screening for lung cancer using USPSTF guidelines ranges from $72,639 to $156,774 per QALY. 

A former member of the USPSTF, Owens predicted that the current review process would take at least another year. Meanwhile, he and Ms. Cusick are hoping that their work influences the USPSTF to recommend screening asymptomatic adults. “Increasing the awareness of these drugs and their effectiveness is a crucial first step,” he said. 

Although adherence to current recommendations for screening of people at risk is poor, Dr. Rosas suggested that the USPSTF guidelines would be more influential in changing practice among primary care physicians than subspecialty guidelines would. 

“When you have a recommendation like that, they’re putting it in the electronic health record,” she said. By adding best practice alerts to their electronic health record systems, health systems can make it easier for primary care doctors to check all the boxes. 

In line with the AHA’s holistic approach towards managing cardiovascular illnesses, CKD, and metabolic disease, Dr. Bansal suggested an additional strategy: “I think we’re moving toward more interdisciplinary care models, where primary care doctors, nephrologist, cardiologists, and endocrinologists — all of us — should be working together in a collaborative care model, to help break down some of these barriers in terms of screening as well as implementation of these therapies.”

Dr. Bansal, Ms. Cusick, and Dr. Owens reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rosas receives funding from AstraZeneca and Bayer for serving on advisory boards and clinical research funding, as well as funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for clinical trials. 
 

Dr. Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist living in Portland, Oregon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.