Feature

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For much of his life, 32-year-old Michael Smith had a war going on in his head.

After a big meal, he knew he should be full. But an inexplicable hunger would drive him to pick up the fork again. 

Cravings for fried chicken or gummy bears overwhelmed him, fueling late-night DoorDash orders that — despite their bounty of fat and sugar — never satisfied him.

He recalls waking up on the couch, half-eaten takeout in his lap, feeling sluggish and out of control. 

“It was like I was food drunk,” recalls Smith, who lives in Boston. “I had a moment I looked at myself in the mirror. I was around 380 pounds, and I said, ‘OK, something has got to give.’ “ 

Smith is among the 42% of U.S. adults living with obesity, a misunderstood and stubbornly hard-to-manage condition that doctors have only recently begun to call a disease. Its root causes have been debated for decades, with studies suggesting everything from genes to lifestyle to a shifting food supply loaded with carbohydrates and ultra-processed foods. Solutions have long targeted self-discipline and a simple “eat less, move more” strategy with remarkably grim results. 

Those who successfully slim down tend to gain back 50% of that weight within 2 years, and 80% within 5 years. Meanwhile, the obesity epidemic marches on.

But a new frontier of brain-based therapies — from GLP-1 agonist drugs thought to act on reward and appetite centers to deep brain stimulation aimed at resetting neural circuits — has kindled hope among patients like Smith and the doctors who treat them. The treatments, and theories behind them, are not without controversy. They’re expensive, have side effects, and, critics contend, pull focus from diet and exercise. 

But most agree that in the battle against obesity, one crucial organ has been overlooked.

“Obesity, in almost all circumstances, is most likely a disorder of the brain,” said Casey Halpern, MD, associate professor of neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania. “What these individuals need is not simply more willpower, but the therapeutic equivalent of an electrician that can make right these connections inside their brain.”

A Break in the Machine

Throughout the day, the machine that is our brain is constantly humming in the background, taking in subtle signals from our gut, hormones, and environment to determine when we’re hungry, how food makes us feel, and whether we are taking in enough energy, or expending too much, to survive.

“We like to think that we have control over what we eat, but the brain is also integrating all of these factors that we don’t fully understand in ways that shape our decisions,” said Kevin Hall, PhD, an obesity researcher with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. “I liken it to holding your breath. I can do that for a period of time, and I have some conscious control. But eventually, physiology wins out.”

Mounting evidence suggests that in people with obesity, something in the machine is broken.

One seminal 2001 study in The Lancet suggested that, like people addicted to cocaine or alcohol, they lack receptors to the feel-good brain chemical dopamine and overeat in pursuit of the pleasure they lack. 

A recent study, not yet published, from Dr. Hall’s lab drew a slightly different conclusion, suggesting that people with obesity actually have too much dopamine, filling up those receptors so the pleasure spike from eating doesn’t feel like much.

“It’s kind of like trying to shout in a noisy room. You’re going to have to shout louder to have the same effect,” said Dr. Hall.

Gut-brain pathways that tell us we’re full may also be impaired.

In another study, Yale researchers tube-fed 500 calories of sugar or fat directly into the stomachs of 28 lean people and 30 people with obesity. Then they observed brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

In lean people, about 30 regions of the brain quieted after the meal, including parts of the striatum (associated with cravings).

In those with obesity, the brain barely responded at all. 

“In my clinic, patients will often say ‘I just finished my dinner, but it doesn’t feel like it,’” said senior author Mireille Serlie, MD, PhD, an obesity researcher at the Yale School of Medicine. “It may be that this nutrient-sensing interaction between the gut and the brain is less pronounced or comes too late for them after the meal.”

Dr. Halpern recently identified a brain circuit linking a memory center (hippocampus) to an appetite control region (hypothalamus). In people with obesity and binge eating disorder, the circuit appears jammed. This may cause them to, in a sense, forget they just ate.

“Some of their eating episodes are almost dissociative — they’re not realizing how much they are eating and can’t keep track of it,” he said.

Another brain system works to maintain longer-term homeostasis — or weight stability. Like a set thermostat, it kicks on to trigger hunger and fatigue when it senses we’re low on fat.

The hormone leptin, found in fat cells, sends signals to the hypothalamus to let it know how much energy we have on board.

“If leptin levels go up, it signals the brain that you have too much fat and you should eat less to return to the starting point,” said Rockefeller University geneticist Jeffrey Friedman, MD, PhD, who discovered the hormone in 1994. “If you have too little fat and leptin is low, that will stimulate appetite to return you to the starting point.”

In people with obesity, he said, the thermostat — or set point the body seeks to maintain — is too high.

All this raises a crucial question: How do these circuits and pathways malfunction in the first place?

What Breaks the Brain?

Genes, scientists agree, play a role. 

Studies show that genetics underlie as much as 75% of people’s differences in body mass index (BMI), with certain gene combinations raising obesity risk in particular environments. 

While hundreds of genes are believed to have a small effect, about a dozen single genes are thought to have a large effect. (Notably, most influence brain function.) For instance, about 6% of people with severe obesity since childhood have mutations in a gene called MC4R (melanocortin 4 receptor), which influences leptin signaling.

Still, genetics alone cannot account for the explosion in obesity in the U.S. over the last 50 years, says epidemiologist Deirdre Tobias, ScD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

At the population level, “our genes don’t change that much in less than a generation,” she said.

But our food supply has.

Ultra-processed foods — those containing hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrup, flavoring agents, emulsifiers, and other manufactured ingredients — now make up about 60% of the food supply.

“The evidence is fairly consistent indicating that there’s something about these foods that is possibly causing obesity,” said Tobias. 

In one telling 2019 study, Dr. Hall and his colleagues brought 20 men and women into a study center to live for a month and tightly controlled their food intake and activity. One group was provided with meals with 80% of calories from ultra-processed food. The other was given meals with no processed food. 

The three daily meals provided had the same calories, sugars, fats, fiber, and carbohydrates, and people were told to eat as much as they wanted.

Those on the ultra-processed diet ate about 500 calories more per day, ate faster, and gained weight. Those on the unprocessed diet lost weight.

“This is a stark example of how, when you can change the food environment, you cause really remarkable changes in food intake without people even being aware that they are overeating,” said Dr. Hall. 

Just what it is about these relatively novel foods that may trigger overeating is unclear. It could be the crunch, the lack of water content, the engineered balance of sugar/salt/fat, their easy-to-devour texture, or something else. 

Some research suggests that the foods may interfere with gut-brain signaling that tells the brain you’re full. 

“Evidence is amassing that the nutritional content of processed foods is not accurately conveyed to the brain,” Dana M. Small, PhD, a neuroscientist at Yale, wrote in a recent perspective paper in Science. 

Even more concerning: Some animal studies suggest processed foods reprogram the brain to dislike healthy foods.

And once these brain changes are made, they are hard to reverse.

“The problem is, our brain is not wired for this,” said Dr. Halpern. “We are not evolved to eat the food we are eating, so our brain adapts, but it adapts in a negative way that puts us at risk.”

That’s why changing the food environment via public policy must be part of the solution in combating obesity, Dr. Tobias said.

A New Era of Brain-Based Solutions

In the spring of 2021, after years of trying and failing to lose weight via the “move more, eat less” model, Michael Smith began to take a medication called Vyvanse. The drug was approved in 2008 for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but since it also influences levels of the hormones dopamine and norepinephrine to reduce cravings, it is now frequently prescribed for binge eating disorder.

“That was pretty much how I got rid of my first 60 to 70 pounds,” Smith said.

A few months later, after he hit a plateau, he had surgery to shrink the size of his stomach — a decision he now second-guesses. 

While it kept him from overeating for a time, the fried chicken and gummy bear cravings returned a few months later.

His doctor, Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, put him on a second medication: semaglutide, or Wegovy, the weekly shot approved for weight loss in 2021. It works, in part, by mimicking glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), a key gut hormone that lets your brain know you are full. 

The weight began to fall off again.

Smith’s success story is just one of many that Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine doctor-scientist at Harvard, has heard in her office in recent years.

“I do not believe these drugs are a panacea,” she said. “There are nonresponders, and those are the patients I take off the medication. But for the high-responders, and there are many of them, they are telling me, ‘Oh my gosh. For the first time in my life, I am not constantly thinking about eating. My life has changed.’” 

A Multi-Pronged Approach

Dr. Halpern, at Penn, has also been hearing success stories.

In recent years, he has placed permanent electrodes in the brains of three people with grade III, or severe, obesity and binge eating disorder. 

All had tried exercise, dieting, support groups, medication, and weight loss surgery to no avail.

The electrodes modulate an area in the center of the brain called the nucleus accumbens, which in mice studies has been shown to reduce cravings when stimulated.

Thus far, all three are seeing promising results.

“It’s not like I don’t think about food at all,” one of them, Robyn Baldwin, told The New York Times. “But I’m no longer a craving person.”

Dr. Halpern is now extending the trial to more patients and hopes to ultimately include other areas of the brain, including those that involve memory.

He imagines a day when people with severe obesity, who have failed conventional treatments, can walk into a clinic and have their brain circuits assessed to see which ones may be misfiring.

Many might find relief with noninvasive brain stimulation, like transcranial magnetic stimulation (already in use for depression). Others might need a more extreme approach, like the deep brain stimulation, or DBS, therapy Dr. Halpern used.

“Obviously, DBS is hard to scale, so it would have to be reserved for the most severe patients,” he said.

Still, not everyone believes brain-based drugs and surgeries are the answer. 

David Ludwig, MD, PhD, a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, played a key role in the discovery of GLP-1 and acknowledges that “of course” the brain influences body composition. But to him, explaining obesity as a disease of the brain oversimplifies it, discounting metabolic factors such as a tendency to store too much fat.

He noted that it’s hard to get drug companies, or any agencies, to fund large clinical trials on simple things like low-carbohydrate diets or exercise programs.

“We need all the tools we can get in the battle against the obesity epidemic, and new technologies are worth exploring,” he said. “However, the success of these drugs should not lead us to deprioritize diet and lifestyle interventions.” 

Dr. Stanford, who has received consulting fees from Wegovy, believes the future of treatment lies in a multi-pronged approach, with surgery, medication, and lifestyle changes coalescing in a lasting, but fragile, remission.

“Unfortunately, there is no cure for obesity,” said Dr. Stanford, whose patients often have setbacks and must try new strategies. “There are treatments that work for a while, but they are constantly pushing up against this origin in the brain.”

Smith says understanding this has been a big part of his success.

He is now a leaner and healthier 5-foot-6 and 204 pounds. In addition to taking his medication, he walks to work, goes to the gym twice a week, limits his portions, and tries to reframe the way he thinks about food, viewing it as fuel rather than an indulgence.

Sometimes, when he looks in the mirror, he is reminded of his 380-pound self, and it scares him. He doesn’t want to go back there. He’s confident now that he won’t have to.

“There is this misconception out there that you just need to put the fork down, but I’m learning it’s more complicated than that,” he said. “I intend to treat this as the illness that it is and do what I need to combat it so I’m able to keep this new reality I have built for myself.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

For much of his life, 32-year-old Michael Smith had a war going on in his head.

After a big meal, he knew he should be full. But an inexplicable hunger would drive him to pick up the fork again. 

Cravings for fried chicken or gummy bears overwhelmed him, fueling late-night DoorDash orders that — despite their bounty of fat and sugar — never satisfied him.

He recalls waking up on the couch, half-eaten takeout in his lap, feeling sluggish and out of control. 

“It was like I was food drunk,” recalls Smith, who lives in Boston. “I had a moment I looked at myself in the mirror. I was around 380 pounds, and I said, ‘OK, something has got to give.’ “ 

Smith is among the 42% of U.S. adults living with obesity, a misunderstood and stubbornly hard-to-manage condition that doctors have only recently begun to call a disease. Its root causes have been debated for decades, with studies suggesting everything from genes to lifestyle to a shifting food supply loaded with carbohydrates and ultra-processed foods. Solutions have long targeted self-discipline and a simple “eat less, move more” strategy with remarkably grim results. 

Those who successfully slim down tend to gain back 50% of that weight within 2 years, and 80% within 5 years. Meanwhile, the obesity epidemic marches on.

But a new frontier of brain-based therapies — from GLP-1 agonist drugs thought to act on reward and appetite centers to deep brain stimulation aimed at resetting neural circuits — has kindled hope among patients like Smith and the doctors who treat them. The treatments, and theories behind them, are not without controversy. They’re expensive, have side effects, and, critics contend, pull focus from diet and exercise. 

But most agree that in the battle against obesity, one crucial organ has been overlooked.

“Obesity, in almost all circumstances, is most likely a disorder of the brain,” said Casey Halpern, MD, associate professor of neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania. “What these individuals need is not simply more willpower, but the therapeutic equivalent of an electrician that can make right these connections inside their brain.”

A Break in the Machine

Throughout the day, the machine that is our brain is constantly humming in the background, taking in subtle signals from our gut, hormones, and environment to determine when we’re hungry, how food makes us feel, and whether we are taking in enough energy, or expending too much, to survive.

“We like to think that we have control over what we eat, but the brain is also integrating all of these factors that we don’t fully understand in ways that shape our decisions,” said Kevin Hall, PhD, an obesity researcher with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. “I liken it to holding your breath. I can do that for a period of time, and I have some conscious control. But eventually, physiology wins out.”

Mounting evidence suggests that in people with obesity, something in the machine is broken.

One seminal 2001 study in The Lancet suggested that, like people addicted to cocaine or alcohol, they lack receptors to the feel-good brain chemical dopamine and overeat in pursuit of the pleasure they lack. 

A recent study, not yet published, from Dr. Hall’s lab drew a slightly different conclusion, suggesting that people with obesity actually have too much dopamine, filling up those receptors so the pleasure spike from eating doesn’t feel like much.

“It’s kind of like trying to shout in a noisy room. You’re going to have to shout louder to have the same effect,” said Dr. Hall.

Gut-brain pathways that tell us we’re full may also be impaired.

In another study, Yale researchers tube-fed 500 calories of sugar or fat directly into the stomachs of 28 lean people and 30 people with obesity. Then they observed brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

In lean people, about 30 regions of the brain quieted after the meal, including parts of the striatum (associated with cravings).

In those with obesity, the brain barely responded at all. 

“In my clinic, patients will often say ‘I just finished my dinner, but it doesn’t feel like it,’” said senior author Mireille Serlie, MD, PhD, an obesity researcher at the Yale School of Medicine. “It may be that this nutrient-sensing interaction between the gut and the brain is less pronounced or comes too late for them after the meal.”

Dr. Halpern recently identified a brain circuit linking a memory center (hippocampus) to an appetite control region (hypothalamus). In people with obesity and binge eating disorder, the circuit appears jammed. This may cause them to, in a sense, forget they just ate.

“Some of their eating episodes are almost dissociative — they’re not realizing how much they are eating and can’t keep track of it,” he said.

Another brain system works to maintain longer-term homeostasis — or weight stability. Like a set thermostat, it kicks on to trigger hunger and fatigue when it senses we’re low on fat.

The hormone leptin, found in fat cells, sends signals to the hypothalamus to let it know how much energy we have on board.

“If leptin levels go up, it signals the brain that you have too much fat and you should eat less to return to the starting point,” said Rockefeller University geneticist Jeffrey Friedman, MD, PhD, who discovered the hormone in 1994. “If you have too little fat and leptin is low, that will stimulate appetite to return you to the starting point.”

In people with obesity, he said, the thermostat — or set point the body seeks to maintain — is too high.

All this raises a crucial question: How do these circuits and pathways malfunction in the first place?

What Breaks the Brain?

Genes, scientists agree, play a role. 

Studies show that genetics underlie as much as 75% of people’s differences in body mass index (BMI), with certain gene combinations raising obesity risk in particular environments. 

While hundreds of genes are believed to have a small effect, about a dozen single genes are thought to have a large effect. (Notably, most influence brain function.) For instance, about 6% of people with severe obesity since childhood have mutations in a gene called MC4R (melanocortin 4 receptor), which influences leptin signaling.

Still, genetics alone cannot account for the explosion in obesity in the U.S. over the last 50 years, says epidemiologist Deirdre Tobias, ScD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

At the population level, “our genes don’t change that much in less than a generation,” she said.

But our food supply has.

Ultra-processed foods — those containing hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrup, flavoring agents, emulsifiers, and other manufactured ingredients — now make up about 60% of the food supply.

“The evidence is fairly consistent indicating that there’s something about these foods that is possibly causing obesity,” said Tobias. 

In one telling 2019 study, Dr. Hall and his colleagues brought 20 men and women into a study center to live for a month and tightly controlled their food intake and activity. One group was provided with meals with 80% of calories from ultra-processed food. The other was given meals with no processed food. 

The three daily meals provided had the same calories, sugars, fats, fiber, and carbohydrates, and people were told to eat as much as they wanted.

Those on the ultra-processed diet ate about 500 calories more per day, ate faster, and gained weight. Those on the unprocessed diet lost weight.

“This is a stark example of how, when you can change the food environment, you cause really remarkable changes in food intake without people even being aware that they are overeating,” said Dr. Hall. 

Just what it is about these relatively novel foods that may trigger overeating is unclear. It could be the crunch, the lack of water content, the engineered balance of sugar/salt/fat, their easy-to-devour texture, or something else. 

Some research suggests that the foods may interfere with gut-brain signaling that tells the brain you’re full. 

“Evidence is amassing that the nutritional content of processed foods is not accurately conveyed to the brain,” Dana M. Small, PhD, a neuroscientist at Yale, wrote in a recent perspective paper in Science. 

Even more concerning: Some animal studies suggest processed foods reprogram the brain to dislike healthy foods.

And once these brain changes are made, they are hard to reverse.

“The problem is, our brain is not wired for this,” said Dr. Halpern. “We are not evolved to eat the food we are eating, so our brain adapts, but it adapts in a negative way that puts us at risk.”

That’s why changing the food environment via public policy must be part of the solution in combating obesity, Dr. Tobias said.

A New Era of Brain-Based Solutions

In the spring of 2021, after years of trying and failing to lose weight via the “move more, eat less” model, Michael Smith began to take a medication called Vyvanse. The drug was approved in 2008 for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but since it also influences levels of the hormones dopamine and norepinephrine to reduce cravings, it is now frequently prescribed for binge eating disorder.

“That was pretty much how I got rid of my first 60 to 70 pounds,” Smith said.

A few months later, after he hit a plateau, he had surgery to shrink the size of his stomach — a decision he now second-guesses. 

While it kept him from overeating for a time, the fried chicken and gummy bear cravings returned a few months later.

His doctor, Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, put him on a second medication: semaglutide, or Wegovy, the weekly shot approved for weight loss in 2021. It works, in part, by mimicking glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), a key gut hormone that lets your brain know you are full. 

The weight began to fall off again.

Smith’s success story is just one of many that Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine doctor-scientist at Harvard, has heard in her office in recent years.

“I do not believe these drugs are a panacea,” she said. “There are nonresponders, and those are the patients I take off the medication. But for the high-responders, and there are many of them, they are telling me, ‘Oh my gosh. For the first time in my life, I am not constantly thinking about eating. My life has changed.’” 

A Multi-Pronged Approach

Dr. Halpern, at Penn, has also been hearing success stories.

In recent years, he has placed permanent electrodes in the brains of three people with grade III, or severe, obesity and binge eating disorder. 

All had tried exercise, dieting, support groups, medication, and weight loss surgery to no avail.

The electrodes modulate an area in the center of the brain called the nucleus accumbens, which in mice studies has been shown to reduce cravings when stimulated.

Thus far, all three are seeing promising results.

“It’s not like I don’t think about food at all,” one of them, Robyn Baldwin, told The New York Times. “But I’m no longer a craving person.”

Dr. Halpern is now extending the trial to more patients and hopes to ultimately include other areas of the brain, including those that involve memory.

He imagines a day when people with severe obesity, who have failed conventional treatments, can walk into a clinic and have their brain circuits assessed to see which ones may be misfiring.

Many might find relief with noninvasive brain stimulation, like transcranial magnetic stimulation (already in use for depression). Others might need a more extreme approach, like the deep brain stimulation, or DBS, therapy Dr. Halpern used.

“Obviously, DBS is hard to scale, so it would have to be reserved for the most severe patients,” he said.

Still, not everyone believes brain-based drugs and surgeries are the answer. 

David Ludwig, MD, PhD, a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, played a key role in the discovery of GLP-1 and acknowledges that “of course” the brain influences body composition. But to him, explaining obesity as a disease of the brain oversimplifies it, discounting metabolic factors such as a tendency to store too much fat.

He noted that it’s hard to get drug companies, or any agencies, to fund large clinical trials on simple things like low-carbohydrate diets or exercise programs.

“We need all the tools we can get in the battle against the obesity epidemic, and new technologies are worth exploring,” he said. “However, the success of these drugs should not lead us to deprioritize diet and lifestyle interventions.” 

Dr. Stanford, who has received consulting fees from Wegovy, believes the future of treatment lies in a multi-pronged approach, with surgery, medication, and lifestyle changes coalescing in a lasting, but fragile, remission.

“Unfortunately, there is no cure for obesity,” said Dr. Stanford, whose patients often have setbacks and must try new strategies. “There are treatments that work for a while, but they are constantly pushing up against this origin in the brain.”

Smith says understanding this has been a big part of his success.

He is now a leaner and healthier 5-foot-6 and 204 pounds. In addition to taking his medication, he walks to work, goes to the gym twice a week, limits his portions, and tries to reframe the way he thinks about food, viewing it as fuel rather than an indulgence.

Sometimes, when he looks in the mirror, he is reminded of his 380-pound self, and it scares him. He doesn’t want to go back there. He’s confident now that he won’t have to.

“There is this misconception out there that you just need to put the fork down, but I’m learning it’s more complicated than that,” he said. “I intend to treat this as the illness that it is and do what I need to combat it so I’m able to keep this new reality I have built for myself.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

For much of his life, 32-year-old Michael Smith had a war going on in his head.

After a big meal, he knew he should be full. But an inexplicable hunger would drive him to pick up the fork again. 

Cravings for fried chicken or gummy bears overwhelmed him, fueling late-night DoorDash orders that — despite their bounty of fat and sugar — never satisfied him.

He recalls waking up on the couch, half-eaten takeout in his lap, feeling sluggish and out of control. 

“It was like I was food drunk,” recalls Smith, who lives in Boston. “I had a moment I looked at myself in the mirror. I was around 380 pounds, and I said, ‘OK, something has got to give.’ “ 

Smith is among the 42% of U.S. adults living with obesity, a misunderstood and stubbornly hard-to-manage condition that doctors have only recently begun to call a disease. Its root causes have been debated for decades, with studies suggesting everything from genes to lifestyle to a shifting food supply loaded with carbohydrates and ultra-processed foods. Solutions have long targeted self-discipline and a simple “eat less, move more” strategy with remarkably grim results. 

Those who successfully slim down tend to gain back 50% of that weight within 2 years, and 80% within 5 years. Meanwhile, the obesity epidemic marches on.

But a new frontier of brain-based therapies — from GLP-1 agonist drugs thought to act on reward and appetite centers to deep brain stimulation aimed at resetting neural circuits — has kindled hope among patients like Smith and the doctors who treat them. The treatments, and theories behind them, are not without controversy. They’re expensive, have side effects, and, critics contend, pull focus from diet and exercise. 

But most agree that in the battle against obesity, one crucial organ has been overlooked.

“Obesity, in almost all circumstances, is most likely a disorder of the brain,” said Casey Halpern, MD, associate professor of neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania. “What these individuals need is not simply more willpower, but the therapeutic equivalent of an electrician that can make right these connections inside their brain.”

A Break in the Machine

Throughout the day, the machine that is our brain is constantly humming in the background, taking in subtle signals from our gut, hormones, and environment to determine when we’re hungry, how food makes us feel, and whether we are taking in enough energy, or expending too much, to survive.

“We like to think that we have control over what we eat, but the brain is also integrating all of these factors that we don’t fully understand in ways that shape our decisions,” said Kevin Hall, PhD, an obesity researcher with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. “I liken it to holding your breath. I can do that for a period of time, and I have some conscious control. But eventually, physiology wins out.”

Mounting evidence suggests that in people with obesity, something in the machine is broken.

One seminal 2001 study in The Lancet suggested that, like people addicted to cocaine or alcohol, they lack receptors to the feel-good brain chemical dopamine and overeat in pursuit of the pleasure they lack. 

A recent study, not yet published, from Dr. Hall’s lab drew a slightly different conclusion, suggesting that people with obesity actually have too much dopamine, filling up those receptors so the pleasure spike from eating doesn’t feel like much.

“It’s kind of like trying to shout in a noisy room. You’re going to have to shout louder to have the same effect,” said Dr. Hall.

Gut-brain pathways that tell us we’re full may also be impaired.

In another study, Yale researchers tube-fed 500 calories of sugar or fat directly into the stomachs of 28 lean people and 30 people with obesity. Then they observed brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

In lean people, about 30 regions of the brain quieted after the meal, including parts of the striatum (associated with cravings).

In those with obesity, the brain barely responded at all. 

“In my clinic, patients will often say ‘I just finished my dinner, but it doesn’t feel like it,’” said senior author Mireille Serlie, MD, PhD, an obesity researcher at the Yale School of Medicine. “It may be that this nutrient-sensing interaction between the gut and the brain is less pronounced or comes too late for them after the meal.”

Dr. Halpern recently identified a brain circuit linking a memory center (hippocampus) to an appetite control region (hypothalamus). In people with obesity and binge eating disorder, the circuit appears jammed. This may cause them to, in a sense, forget they just ate.

“Some of their eating episodes are almost dissociative — they’re not realizing how much they are eating and can’t keep track of it,” he said.

Another brain system works to maintain longer-term homeostasis — or weight stability. Like a set thermostat, it kicks on to trigger hunger and fatigue when it senses we’re low on fat.

The hormone leptin, found in fat cells, sends signals to the hypothalamus to let it know how much energy we have on board.

“If leptin levels go up, it signals the brain that you have too much fat and you should eat less to return to the starting point,” said Rockefeller University geneticist Jeffrey Friedman, MD, PhD, who discovered the hormone in 1994. “If you have too little fat and leptin is low, that will stimulate appetite to return you to the starting point.”

In people with obesity, he said, the thermostat — or set point the body seeks to maintain — is too high.

All this raises a crucial question: How do these circuits and pathways malfunction in the first place?

What Breaks the Brain?

Genes, scientists agree, play a role. 

Studies show that genetics underlie as much as 75% of people’s differences in body mass index (BMI), with certain gene combinations raising obesity risk in particular environments. 

While hundreds of genes are believed to have a small effect, about a dozen single genes are thought to have a large effect. (Notably, most influence brain function.) For instance, about 6% of people with severe obesity since childhood have mutations in a gene called MC4R (melanocortin 4 receptor), which influences leptin signaling.

Still, genetics alone cannot account for the explosion in obesity in the U.S. over the last 50 years, says epidemiologist Deirdre Tobias, ScD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

At the population level, “our genes don’t change that much in less than a generation,” she said.

But our food supply has.

Ultra-processed foods — those containing hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrup, flavoring agents, emulsifiers, and other manufactured ingredients — now make up about 60% of the food supply.

“The evidence is fairly consistent indicating that there’s something about these foods that is possibly causing obesity,” said Tobias. 

In one telling 2019 study, Dr. Hall and his colleagues brought 20 men and women into a study center to live for a month and tightly controlled their food intake and activity. One group was provided with meals with 80% of calories from ultra-processed food. The other was given meals with no processed food. 

The three daily meals provided had the same calories, sugars, fats, fiber, and carbohydrates, and people were told to eat as much as they wanted.

Those on the ultra-processed diet ate about 500 calories more per day, ate faster, and gained weight. Those on the unprocessed diet lost weight.

“This is a stark example of how, when you can change the food environment, you cause really remarkable changes in food intake without people even being aware that they are overeating,” said Dr. Hall. 

Just what it is about these relatively novel foods that may trigger overeating is unclear. It could be the crunch, the lack of water content, the engineered balance of sugar/salt/fat, their easy-to-devour texture, or something else. 

Some research suggests that the foods may interfere with gut-brain signaling that tells the brain you’re full. 

“Evidence is amassing that the nutritional content of processed foods is not accurately conveyed to the brain,” Dana M. Small, PhD, a neuroscientist at Yale, wrote in a recent perspective paper in Science. 

Even more concerning: Some animal studies suggest processed foods reprogram the brain to dislike healthy foods.

And once these brain changes are made, they are hard to reverse.

“The problem is, our brain is not wired for this,” said Dr. Halpern. “We are not evolved to eat the food we are eating, so our brain adapts, but it adapts in a negative way that puts us at risk.”

That’s why changing the food environment via public policy must be part of the solution in combating obesity, Dr. Tobias said.

A New Era of Brain-Based Solutions

In the spring of 2021, after years of trying and failing to lose weight via the “move more, eat less” model, Michael Smith began to take a medication called Vyvanse. The drug was approved in 2008 for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but since it also influences levels of the hormones dopamine and norepinephrine to reduce cravings, it is now frequently prescribed for binge eating disorder.

“That was pretty much how I got rid of my first 60 to 70 pounds,” Smith said.

A few months later, after he hit a plateau, he had surgery to shrink the size of his stomach — a decision he now second-guesses. 

While it kept him from overeating for a time, the fried chicken and gummy bear cravings returned a few months later.

His doctor, Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, put him on a second medication: semaglutide, or Wegovy, the weekly shot approved for weight loss in 2021. It works, in part, by mimicking glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), a key gut hormone that lets your brain know you are full. 

The weight began to fall off again.

Smith’s success story is just one of many that Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine doctor-scientist at Harvard, has heard in her office in recent years.

“I do not believe these drugs are a panacea,” she said. “There are nonresponders, and those are the patients I take off the medication. But for the high-responders, and there are many of them, they are telling me, ‘Oh my gosh. For the first time in my life, I am not constantly thinking about eating. My life has changed.’” 

A Multi-Pronged Approach

Dr. Halpern, at Penn, has also been hearing success stories.

In recent years, he has placed permanent electrodes in the brains of three people with grade III, or severe, obesity and binge eating disorder. 

All had tried exercise, dieting, support groups, medication, and weight loss surgery to no avail.

The electrodes modulate an area in the center of the brain called the nucleus accumbens, which in mice studies has been shown to reduce cravings when stimulated.

Thus far, all three are seeing promising results.

“It’s not like I don’t think about food at all,” one of them, Robyn Baldwin, told The New York Times. “But I’m no longer a craving person.”

Dr. Halpern is now extending the trial to more patients and hopes to ultimately include other areas of the brain, including those that involve memory.

He imagines a day when people with severe obesity, who have failed conventional treatments, can walk into a clinic and have their brain circuits assessed to see which ones may be misfiring.

Many might find relief with noninvasive brain stimulation, like transcranial magnetic stimulation (already in use for depression). Others might need a more extreme approach, like the deep brain stimulation, or DBS, therapy Dr. Halpern used.

“Obviously, DBS is hard to scale, so it would have to be reserved for the most severe patients,” he said.

Still, not everyone believes brain-based drugs and surgeries are the answer. 

David Ludwig, MD, PhD, a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, played a key role in the discovery of GLP-1 and acknowledges that “of course” the brain influences body composition. But to him, explaining obesity as a disease of the brain oversimplifies it, discounting metabolic factors such as a tendency to store too much fat.

He noted that it’s hard to get drug companies, or any agencies, to fund large clinical trials on simple things like low-carbohydrate diets or exercise programs.

“We need all the tools we can get in the battle against the obesity epidemic, and new technologies are worth exploring,” he said. “However, the success of these drugs should not lead us to deprioritize diet and lifestyle interventions.” 

Dr. Stanford, who has received consulting fees from Wegovy, believes the future of treatment lies in a multi-pronged approach, with surgery, medication, and lifestyle changes coalescing in a lasting, but fragile, remission.

“Unfortunately, there is no cure for obesity,” said Dr. Stanford, whose patients often have setbacks and must try new strategies. “There are treatments that work for a while, but they are constantly pushing up against this origin in the brain.”

Smith says understanding this has been a big part of his success.

He is now a leaner and healthier 5-foot-6 and 204 pounds. In addition to taking his medication, he walks to work, goes to the gym twice a week, limits his portions, and tries to reframe the way he thinks about food, viewing it as fuel rather than an indulgence.

Sometimes, when he looks in the mirror, he is reminded of his 380-pound self, and it scares him. He doesn’t want to go back there. He’s confident now that he won’t have to.

“There is this misconception out there that you just need to put the fork down, but I’m learning it’s more complicated than that,” he said. “I intend to treat this as the illness that it is and do what I need to combat it so I’m able to keep this new reality I have built for myself.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

The positive results from the SELECT trial for the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) were hailed as ushering in a “new era for patients with obesity.” In the trial of overweight and obese patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes, semaglutide showed meaningful reductions in cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with placebo.

“I definitely see increasing adoption of GLP-1 RAs by cardiologists and expect the number to increase now that the data support its use in secondary prevention,” said Nicole L. Lohr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Board of Governors, and Mary G. Waters, chair of cardiovascular medicine at UAB, Birmingham.

But many cardiologists are more hesitant. “I think there’s going to be an increasing urgency for cardiologists to start prescribing these drugs, but I don’t think the comfort to do so is that widespread at this point,” said American Heart Association (AHA) volunteer Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore and chair of the AHA’s recent presidential advisory on cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health.

“Weight loss hasn’t been a central focus in our practice until recently, with the advent of these more powerful agents. There’s a need for more education around not only the use of these agents, but also around initiating weight loss discussions in a nonjudgmental way that reflects the complexity of obesity as a condition with multifactorial causes.”

The process will take time and may be similar to what happened with statins, he suggests. “Statins started in the endocrinology space, but as their cardiovascular benefits became more clear, they were increasingly adopted by cardiologists, primary care physicians, and others.”

Eugene Yang, MD, chair of the ACC Prevention of CVD Council and codirector of UW Medicine’s Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program in Seattle, agrees that GLP-1 uptake by cardiologists will likely be slow. “It’s a bit premature to start prescribing right away,” he said. “Semaglutide hasn’t been approved for secondary prevention at this point, and until it’s approved specifically for that indication, I don’t think many cardiologists will prescribe it.”
 

Side Effects ‘Concerning’

Beyond the requisite approval, Dr. Yang is concerned about side effects such as gastroparesis, severe nausea, and vomiting. “I’m not sure cardiologists are going to feel comfortable helping patients deal with these effects.”

Because GLP-1 RAs are already being used widely in primary care, he says, “I personally would work in collaboration with either my primary care colleagues or with endocrinologists.”

Ambarish Pandey, MD, an associate professor of internal medicine (cardiology) and medical director of the heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, is already prescribing semaglutide to patients with HFpEF and obesity. “In terms of side effects, I just tell patients what to expect,” he says.

Dr. Pandey prepares patients for appetite reduction, early satiety and fullness, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and other gastrointestinal symptoms. “Then I start low and slowly titrate to achieve enough weight loss. If they’re having adverse effects on a higher dose, I use a lower dose.”

The approach is working well for most patients, he says. “Obviously there’s some initial getting used to the drug, but once that has happened, patients like it because they see improvements in their exercise capacity and quality of life.”

But GLP-1 RAs are also associated with increased heart rate, which “is never good news,” notes Howard Weintraub, MD, a professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and clinical director of the NYU Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease. At least some of the elevation may be masked by beta-blocker use, he suggests. “The mechanism is not well elucidated, but it is something we’re going to need to keep an eye on, because we don’t want to get ambushed.”
 

Cost, Access ‘Significant Barriers’

All the cardiologists this news organization spoke with agreed that cost and access will be significant barriers to widespread prescribing, at least for now.

“Prescribing for individuals at very high cardiovascular risk will probably give a reasonable amount of bang for your buck. But individuals with more adverse social determinants of health, who are more likely to have challenges with obesity and related complications, are also least likely to be able to pay the exorbitant costs out of pocket. So, this is also an important health equity issue,” Dr. Ndumele says.

Furthermore, he adds, where GLP-1 RAs will fit for those with a lower absolute CVD risk “is still a clear question.”

“Access comes two ways,” Dr. Weintraub says. “One is the supply, which continues to be an issue. You can’t sell the drug if you don’t have it.”

The other access route is the insurance companies. “Will they throw down a gauntlet and make cardiologists prove that a patient failed other obesity drugs before they can prescribe a GLP-1 RA? Some of the old obesity drugs are not only unpleasant to use, but they’re ineffective and may have bad cardiac signals.”

If the new drugs are approved for secondary prevention, patients will want them and doctors will want them, he says. The demand will be “huge,” and it’s not clear how it will be handled.

Dr. Pandey agrees that getting the drug without “good insurance” to cover the cost is a big challenge. “ As more of these drugs become available, hopefully the cost will come down, and hopefully access will grow as companies are able to scale up production.”
 

Add-On or Substitute?

Anticipating approval, Dr. Yang says it’s not yet clear where the GLP-1 RAs stand among the various available cardiovascular therapies.

“Based on the results of SELECT, one could argue that maybe it’s more important to get the weight down and reduce blood pressure versus adding another cholesterol-lowering medication, for example, especially if a patient is already on a statin and ezetimibe. But maybe their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is not exactly below the threshold of the current guideline. And maybe they’re overweight or prediabetic, and they can lose 10% or 15% of their body weight with a GLP-1 RA. You may have to pick and choose.”

That said, he adds, “Who’s going to be able to afford all of this? Some patients would be taking a PCSK9 inhibitor, bempedoic acid because their lipids are not optimized, then a GLP-1 receptor. Right there, we’re talking about at least $2000 a month for those three medications. That’s not feasible.”

“This is one of the things I’ve worried about, given all the drugs some of our patients are on,” Dr. Weintraub says. “The data on cholesterol-lowering drugs are so monumental, it’s hard to say you can do without it. The same is true of blood pressure-lowering medication. So to my mind, a GLP-1 RA is going to have to be an add-on.”

“The only good news is that unlike in the heart failure arena, patients are not paying for other drugs on top of it,” he says. “Statins, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and beta-blockers are all generic; they’re not going to leave a huge hole in the patient’s pocket when the donut hole [Medicare payment gap] comes around. So in this case, if the GLP-1 RAs get included, which I hope they will, the added cost may not be that horrible.”
 

What About Lifestyle Changes?

Everyone agreed that the drugs are not a substitute for lifestyle changes.

“I have seen many patients who take these medications reach plateaus, and when discontinued, gain back the weight. I counsel patients to view the medication as an aid and not necessarily a magic wand,” Dr. Lohr says.

Dr. Ndumele agrees. “I advocate a lifestyle-first approach,” he says. “I imagine there will be busy clinicians who will prescribe medications as a first line, but that’s not going to be our most effective approach.”

The major challenge to such an approach, he says, is that lifestyle support has to be ongoing. “It’s not the kind of thing that just happens in a yearly doctor’s visit appointment, and it’s been under-supported in most coverage and reimbursement strategies.”

In his clinical practice, which includes ongoing support for lifestyle changes, Dr. Ndumele is seeing far greater weight loss than was shown in SELECT. “I think there’s a real benefit to having the two approaches come together,” he says.

Dr. Yang also favors an emphasis on lifestyle. “The success rate of a lifestyle approach may be low, but that doesn’t change the importance of it. We need to figure out better ways to do it.” Leveraging technology is one way, he suggests, such as cellphone reminders to walk more or alerts to tell you when to sleep.

“I also encourage patients to monitor their own blood pressure, and they do.” Dr. Yang acknowledges that his patient population is highly educated with access to resources to purchase the technological devices. However, he adds, “if the clinician is negative, and doesn’t really believe these interventions will work, the patient can sense that, and then they won’t work.” It’s up to the clinician to promote the importance of these lifestyle changes in order to be successful. Is it discouraging at times? Yes. But don’t let the patient know.”

Dr. Pandey approaches the issue differently. “Our healthcare system is such that patients don’t get to see us that often, so I think we should start the lifestyle intervention, but also start the medication at the same time, in parallel, because we don’t have time to take a stepwise approach.”

“Lifestyle interventions are better received if patients see positive improvements, and the medication actually induces a positive improvement,” he says. He is concerned that if a lifestyle first approach doesn’t work “that can affect the willingness to try future therapies. And we don’t want to lose like 6 or 8 months just trying lifestyle when they could have benefited from the weight-loss medication, as well.”

Dr. Lohr, Dr. Ndumele, and Dr. Yang report no conflicts of interest. Dr. Weintraub reports being an investigator in the SELECT trial and a consultant for NovoNordisk. Dr. Pandey reports receiving research support from the National Institutes of Health; grant funding from Applied Therapeutics and Gilead Sciences; honoraria outside of the present study as an advisor/consultant for Tricog Health Inc, Lilly USA, Rivus, Cytokinetics, Roche Diagnostics, Axon therapies, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Science 37 Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Merck, Sarfez Pharmaceuticals, Emmi Solutions; and has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and serving as a consultant for Palomarin Inc. with stocks compensation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The positive results from the SELECT trial for the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) were hailed as ushering in a “new era for patients with obesity.” In the trial of overweight and obese patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes, semaglutide showed meaningful reductions in cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with placebo.

“I definitely see increasing adoption of GLP-1 RAs by cardiologists and expect the number to increase now that the data support its use in secondary prevention,” said Nicole L. Lohr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Board of Governors, and Mary G. Waters, chair of cardiovascular medicine at UAB, Birmingham.

But many cardiologists are more hesitant. “I think there’s going to be an increasing urgency for cardiologists to start prescribing these drugs, but I don’t think the comfort to do so is that widespread at this point,” said American Heart Association (AHA) volunteer Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore and chair of the AHA’s recent presidential advisory on cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health.

“Weight loss hasn’t been a central focus in our practice until recently, with the advent of these more powerful agents. There’s a need for more education around not only the use of these agents, but also around initiating weight loss discussions in a nonjudgmental way that reflects the complexity of obesity as a condition with multifactorial causes.”

The process will take time and may be similar to what happened with statins, he suggests. “Statins started in the endocrinology space, but as their cardiovascular benefits became more clear, they were increasingly adopted by cardiologists, primary care physicians, and others.”

Eugene Yang, MD, chair of the ACC Prevention of CVD Council and codirector of UW Medicine’s Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program in Seattle, agrees that GLP-1 uptake by cardiologists will likely be slow. “It’s a bit premature to start prescribing right away,” he said. “Semaglutide hasn’t been approved for secondary prevention at this point, and until it’s approved specifically for that indication, I don’t think many cardiologists will prescribe it.”
 

Side Effects ‘Concerning’

Beyond the requisite approval, Dr. Yang is concerned about side effects such as gastroparesis, severe nausea, and vomiting. “I’m not sure cardiologists are going to feel comfortable helping patients deal with these effects.”

Because GLP-1 RAs are already being used widely in primary care, he says, “I personally would work in collaboration with either my primary care colleagues or with endocrinologists.”

Ambarish Pandey, MD, an associate professor of internal medicine (cardiology) and medical director of the heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, is already prescribing semaglutide to patients with HFpEF and obesity. “In terms of side effects, I just tell patients what to expect,” he says.

Dr. Pandey prepares patients for appetite reduction, early satiety and fullness, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and other gastrointestinal symptoms. “Then I start low and slowly titrate to achieve enough weight loss. If they’re having adverse effects on a higher dose, I use a lower dose.”

The approach is working well for most patients, he says. “Obviously there’s some initial getting used to the drug, but once that has happened, patients like it because they see improvements in their exercise capacity and quality of life.”

But GLP-1 RAs are also associated with increased heart rate, which “is never good news,” notes Howard Weintraub, MD, a professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and clinical director of the NYU Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease. At least some of the elevation may be masked by beta-blocker use, he suggests. “The mechanism is not well elucidated, but it is something we’re going to need to keep an eye on, because we don’t want to get ambushed.”
 

Cost, Access ‘Significant Barriers’

All the cardiologists this news organization spoke with agreed that cost and access will be significant barriers to widespread prescribing, at least for now.

“Prescribing for individuals at very high cardiovascular risk will probably give a reasonable amount of bang for your buck. But individuals with more adverse social determinants of health, who are more likely to have challenges with obesity and related complications, are also least likely to be able to pay the exorbitant costs out of pocket. So, this is also an important health equity issue,” Dr. Ndumele says.

Furthermore, he adds, where GLP-1 RAs will fit for those with a lower absolute CVD risk “is still a clear question.”

“Access comes two ways,” Dr. Weintraub says. “One is the supply, which continues to be an issue. You can’t sell the drug if you don’t have it.”

The other access route is the insurance companies. “Will they throw down a gauntlet and make cardiologists prove that a patient failed other obesity drugs before they can prescribe a GLP-1 RA? Some of the old obesity drugs are not only unpleasant to use, but they’re ineffective and may have bad cardiac signals.”

If the new drugs are approved for secondary prevention, patients will want them and doctors will want them, he says. The demand will be “huge,” and it’s not clear how it will be handled.

Dr. Pandey agrees that getting the drug without “good insurance” to cover the cost is a big challenge. “ As more of these drugs become available, hopefully the cost will come down, and hopefully access will grow as companies are able to scale up production.”
 

Add-On or Substitute?

Anticipating approval, Dr. Yang says it’s not yet clear where the GLP-1 RAs stand among the various available cardiovascular therapies.

“Based on the results of SELECT, one could argue that maybe it’s more important to get the weight down and reduce blood pressure versus adding another cholesterol-lowering medication, for example, especially if a patient is already on a statin and ezetimibe. But maybe their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is not exactly below the threshold of the current guideline. And maybe they’re overweight or prediabetic, and they can lose 10% or 15% of their body weight with a GLP-1 RA. You may have to pick and choose.”

That said, he adds, “Who’s going to be able to afford all of this? Some patients would be taking a PCSK9 inhibitor, bempedoic acid because their lipids are not optimized, then a GLP-1 receptor. Right there, we’re talking about at least $2000 a month for those three medications. That’s not feasible.”

“This is one of the things I’ve worried about, given all the drugs some of our patients are on,” Dr. Weintraub says. “The data on cholesterol-lowering drugs are so monumental, it’s hard to say you can do without it. The same is true of blood pressure-lowering medication. So to my mind, a GLP-1 RA is going to have to be an add-on.”

“The only good news is that unlike in the heart failure arena, patients are not paying for other drugs on top of it,” he says. “Statins, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and beta-blockers are all generic; they’re not going to leave a huge hole in the patient’s pocket when the donut hole [Medicare payment gap] comes around. So in this case, if the GLP-1 RAs get included, which I hope they will, the added cost may not be that horrible.”
 

What About Lifestyle Changes?

Everyone agreed that the drugs are not a substitute for lifestyle changes.

“I have seen many patients who take these medications reach plateaus, and when discontinued, gain back the weight. I counsel patients to view the medication as an aid and not necessarily a magic wand,” Dr. Lohr says.

Dr. Ndumele agrees. “I advocate a lifestyle-first approach,” he says. “I imagine there will be busy clinicians who will prescribe medications as a first line, but that’s not going to be our most effective approach.”

The major challenge to such an approach, he says, is that lifestyle support has to be ongoing. “It’s not the kind of thing that just happens in a yearly doctor’s visit appointment, and it’s been under-supported in most coverage and reimbursement strategies.”

In his clinical practice, which includes ongoing support for lifestyle changes, Dr. Ndumele is seeing far greater weight loss than was shown in SELECT. “I think there’s a real benefit to having the two approaches come together,” he says.

Dr. Yang also favors an emphasis on lifestyle. “The success rate of a lifestyle approach may be low, but that doesn’t change the importance of it. We need to figure out better ways to do it.” Leveraging technology is one way, he suggests, such as cellphone reminders to walk more or alerts to tell you when to sleep.

“I also encourage patients to monitor their own blood pressure, and they do.” Dr. Yang acknowledges that his patient population is highly educated with access to resources to purchase the technological devices. However, he adds, “if the clinician is negative, and doesn’t really believe these interventions will work, the patient can sense that, and then they won’t work.” It’s up to the clinician to promote the importance of these lifestyle changes in order to be successful. Is it discouraging at times? Yes. But don’t let the patient know.”

Dr. Pandey approaches the issue differently. “Our healthcare system is such that patients don’t get to see us that often, so I think we should start the lifestyle intervention, but also start the medication at the same time, in parallel, because we don’t have time to take a stepwise approach.”

“Lifestyle interventions are better received if patients see positive improvements, and the medication actually induces a positive improvement,” he says. He is concerned that if a lifestyle first approach doesn’t work “that can affect the willingness to try future therapies. And we don’t want to lose like 6 or 8 months just trying lifestyle when they could have benefited from the weight-loss medication, as well.”

Dr. Lohr, Dr. Ndumele, and Dr. Yang report no conflicts of interest. Dr. Weintraub reports being an investigator in the SELECT trial and a consultant for NovoNordisk. Dr. Pandey reports receiving research support from the National Institutes of Health; grant funding from Applied Therapeutics and Gilead Sciences; honoraria outside of the present study as an advisor/consultant for Tricog Health Inc, Lilly USA, Rivus, Cytokinetics, Roche Diagnostics, Axon therapies, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Science 37 Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Merck, Sarfez Pharmaceuticals, Emmi Solutions; and has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and serving as a consultant for Palomarin Inc. with stocks compensation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The positive results from the SELECT trial for the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) were hailed as ushering in a “new era for patients with obesity.” In the trial of overweight and obese patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes, semaglutide showed meaningful reductions in cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with placebo.

“I definitely see increasing adoption of GLP-1 RAs by cardiologists and expect the number to increase now that the data support its use in secondary prevention,” said Nicole L. Lohr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Board of Governors, and Mary G. Waters, chair of cardiovascular medicine at UAB, Birmingham.

But many cardiologists are more hesitant. “I think there’s going to be an increasing urgency for cardiologists to start prescribing these drugs, but I don’t think the comfort to do so is that widespread at this point,” said American Heart Association (AHA) volunteer Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore and chair of the AHA’s recent presidential advisory on cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health.

“Weight loss hasn’t been a central focus in our practice until recently, with the advent of these more powerful agents. There’s a need for more education around not only the use of these agents, but also around initiating weight loss discussions in a nonjudgmental way that reflects the complexity of obesity as a condition with multifactorial causes.”

The process will take time and may be similar to what happened with statins, he suggests. “Statins started in the endocrinology space, but as their cardiovascular benefits became more clear, they were increasingly adopted by cardiologists, primary care physicians, and others.”

Eugene Yang, MD, chair of the ACC Prevention of CVD Council and codirector of UW Medicine’s Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program in Seattle, agrees that GLP-1 uptake by cardiologists will likely be slow. “It’s a bit premature to start prescribing right away,” he said. “Semaglutide hasn’t been approved for secondary prevention at this point, and until it’s approved specifically for that indication, I don’t think many cardiologists will prescribe it.”
 

Side Effects ‘Concerning’

Beyond the requisite approval, Dr. Yang is concerned about side effects such as gastroparesis, severe nausea, and vomiting. “I’m not sure cardiologists are going to feel comfortable helping patients deal with these effects.”

Because GLP-1 RAs are already being used widely in primary care, he says, “I personally would work in collaboration with either my primary care colleagues or with endocrinologists.”

Ambarish Pandey, MD, an associate professor of internal medicine (cardiology) and medical director of the heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, is already prescribing semaglutide to patients with HFpEF and obesity. “In terms of side effects, I just tell patients what to expect,” he says.

Dr. Pandey prepares patients for appetite reduction, early satiety and fullness, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and other gastrointestinal symptoms. “Then I start low and slowly titrate to achieve enough weight loss. If they’re having adverse effects on a higher dose, I use a lower dose.”

The approach is working well for most patients, he says. “Obviously there’s some initial getting used to the drug, but once that has happened, patients like it because they see improvements in their exercise capacity and quality of life.”

But GLP-1 RAs are also associated with increased heart rate, which “is never good news,” notes Howard Weintraub, MD, a professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and clinical director of the NYU Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease. At least some of the elevation may be masked by beta-blocker use, he suggests. “The mechanism is not well elucidated, but it is something we’re going to need to keep an eye on, because we don’t want to get ambushed.”
 

Cost, Access ‘Significant Barriers’

All the cardiologists this news organization spoke with agreed that cost and access will be significant barriers to widespread prescribing, at least for now.

“Prescribing for individuals at very high cardiovascular risk will probably give a reasonable amount of bang for your buck. But individuals with more adverse social determinants of health, who are more likely to have challenges with obesity and related complications, are also least likely to be able to pay the exorbitant costs out of pocket. So, this is also an important health equity issue,” Dr. Ndumele says.

Furthermore, he adds, where GLP-1 RAs will fit for those with a lower absolute CVD risk “is still a clear question.”

“Access comes two ways,” Dr. Weintraub says. “One is the supply, which continues to be an issue. You can’t sell the drug if you don’t have it.”

The other access route is the insurance companies. “Will they throw down a gauntlet and make cardiologists prove that a patient failed other obesity drugs before they can prescribe a GLP-1 RA? Some of the old obesity drugs are not only unpleasant to use, but they’re ineffective and may have bad cardiac signals.”

If the new drugs are approved for secondary prevention, patients will want them and doctors will want them, he says. The demand will be “huge,” and it’s not clear how it will be handled.

Dr. Pandey agrees that getting the drug without “good insurance” to cover the cost is a big challenge. “ As more of these drugs become available, hopefully the cost will come down, and hopefully access will grow as companies are able to scale up production.”
 

Add-On or Substitute?

Anticipating approval, Dr. Yang says it’s not yet clear where the GLP-1 RAs stand among the various available cardiovascular therapies.

“Based on the results of SELECT, one could argue that maybe it’s more important to get the weight down and reduce blood pressure versus adding another cholesterol-lowering medication, for example, especially if a patient is already on a statin and ezetimibe. But maybe their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is not exactly below the threshold of the current guideline. And maybe they’re overweight or prediabetic, and they can lose 10% or 15% of their body weight with a GLP-1 RA. You may have to pick and choose.”

That said, he adds, “Who’s going to be able to afford all of this? Some patients would be taking a PCSK9 inhibitor, bempedoic acid because their lipids are not optimized, then a GLP-1 receptor. Right there, we’re talking about at least $2000 a month for those three medications. That’s not feasible.”

“This is one of the things I’ve worried about, given all the drugs some of our patients are on,” Dr. Weintraub says. “The data on cholesterol-lowering drugs are so monumental, it’s hard to say you can do without it. The same is true of blood pressure-lowering medication. So to my mind, a GLP-1 RA is going to have to be an add-on.”

“The only good news is that unlike in the heart failure arena, patients are not paying for other drugs on top of it,” he says. “Statins, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and beta-blockers are all generic; they’re not going to leave a huge hole in the patient’s pocket when the donut hole [Medicare payment gap] comes around. So in this case, if the GLP-1 RAs get included, which I hope they will, the added cost may not be that horrible.”
 

What About Lifestyle Changes?

Everyone agreed that the drugs are not a substitute for lifestyle changes.

“I have seen many patients who take these medications reach plateaus, and when discontinued, gain back the weight. I counsel patients to view the medication as an aid and not necessarily a magic wand,” Dr. Lohr says.

Dr. Ndumele agrees. “I advocate a lifestyle-first approach,” he says. “I imagine there will be busy clinicians who will prescribe medications as a first line, but that’s not going to be our most effective approach.”

The major challenge to such an approach, he says, is that lifestyle support has to be ongoing. “It’s not the kind of thing that just happens in a yearly doctor’s visit appointment, and it’s been under-supported in most coverage and reimbursement strategies.”

In his clinical practice, which includes ongoing support for lifestyle changes, Dr. Ndumele is seeing far greater weight loss than was shown in SELECT. “I think there’s a real benefit to having the two approaches come together,” he says.

Dr. Yang also favors an emphasis on lifestyle. “The success rate of a lifestyle approach may be low, but that doesn’t change the importance of it. We need to figure out better ways to do it.” Leveraging technology is one way, he suggests, such as cellphone reminders to walk more or alerts to tell you when to sleep.

“I also encourage patients to monitor their own blood pressure, and they do.” Dr. Yang acknowledges that his patient population is highly educated with access to resources to purchase the technological devices. However, he adds, “if the clinician is negative, and doesn’t really believe these interventions will work, the patient can sense that, and then they won’t work.” It’s up to the clinician to promote the importance of these lifestyle changes in order to be successful. Is it discouraging at times? Yes. But don’t let the patient know.”

Dr. Pandey approaches the issue differently. “Our healthcare system is such that patients don’t get to see us that often, so I think we should start the lifestyle intervention, but also start the medication at the same time, in parallel, because we don’t have time to take a stepwise approach.”

“Lifestyle interventions are better received if patients see positive improvements, and the medication actually induces a positive improvement,” he says. He is concerned that if a lifestyle first approach doesn’t work “that can affect the willingness to try future therapies. And we don’t want to lose like 6 or 8 months just trying lifestyle when they could have benefited from the weight-loss medication, as well.”

Dr. Lohr, Dr. Ndumele, and Dr. Yang report no conflicts of interest. Dr. Weintraub reports being an investigator in the SELECT trial and a consultant for NovoNordisk. Dr. Pandey reports receiving research support from the National Institutes of Health; grant funding from Applied Therapeutics and Gilead Sciences; honoraria outside of the present study as an advisor/consultant for Tricog Health Inc, Lilly USA, Rivus, Cytokinetics, Roche Diagnostics, Axon therapies, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Science 37 Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Merck, Sarfez Pharmaceuticals, Emmi Solutions; and has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and serving as a consultant for Palomarin Inc. with stocks compensation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Changes in tissue thickness in the back of the eye can correlate with worsening or improvement of renal problems and could help predict who will have worsening of kidney function, a new analysis report finds. 

The research, published in the journal Nature Communications, is the first to show an association between chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the thickness of the retinal and choroidal layers in the back of the eye as measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT), a noninvasive imaging technology commonly used to evaluate eye diseases such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic eye disease, and retinal detachments.

“These are common scans that people get at the opticians and now in many hospitals,” said Neeraj Dhaun, MD, PhD, a professor of nephrology at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. (Opticians in the United Kingdom are the equivalent of optometrists in North America.) 
 

CKD Severity Equals Thinner Retinas

“We scanned the back of eye of healthy people as well as patients with various types and degrees of kidney disease, and we found that two layers in the back of eye, the retina and the choroid, were thinner in patients with kidney disease compared to people who are healthy, and that the extent of this thinning predicts whether kidney function would decline going forward over a period of 2 or 3 years,” Dr. Dhaun, the corresponding author of the new paper, said.

The publication is a report of four different studies. The first study measured OCT metrics in 112 patients with CKD, 92 patients with a functional kidney transplant, and 86 control volunteers. The researchers found the retina was 5% thinner in patients with CKD than in healthy controls. They also found that patients with CKD had reduced macular volume: 8.44 ± .44 mm³ vs 8.73 ± .36 mm³ (P < .001). The choroid was also found to be thinner at each of three macular locations measured in patients with CKD vs control volunteers. At baseline, CKD and transplant patients had significantly lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 55 ± 27 and 55 ± 24 mL/min/1.73 m² compared with control volunteers at 97 ± 14 mL/min/1.73 m².

The second study reported on OCT measurements and kidney histologic injury in 50 patients who had a kidney biopsy within 30 days of their OCT. It found that choroidal thinning at all three macular locations was independently associated with more extensive kidney scarring. 

The third study focused on 25 patients with kidney failure who had a kidney transplant. Their eGFR improved from 8 ± 3 to 58 ± 21 mL/min/1.73 m² in the first week after the transplant. The choroid in these patients thickened about 5% at 1 week and by about 10% at 1 month posttransplant. OCT of 22 kidney donors showed thickening of the choroid a week after nephrectomy before a tendency to thinning over the next year.

The fourth study found that for patients with stable CKD, every 1 mm3 decrease in macular volume correlated to an increased odds of a decline in eGFR by more than 10% at 1 year (2.48; 95% CI, 1.26-5.08; P = .01) and by more than 20% at 2 years (3.75; 95% CI, 1.26-5.08; P = .004).
 

Exploring the Kidney-Eye Connection 

The potential explanation for the correlation between retinal and choroidal thickness and kidney function is unclear, Dr. Dhaun said. 

“We don’t know the exact mechanisms, and these are difficult to define from studies in patients, which is why we are doing more work in animal models of kidney disease to see if we can establish the pathways that lead to the changes in the eye,” he said. 

“However,” Dr. Dhaun added, “what we do know is that kidney disease affects the whole body. For example, kidney disease can lead to high blood pressure and heart disease, as well as diseases in the brain, and it is these effects of kidney disease on the body as whole that we are probably picking up in the back of the eye.” 

OCT has the potential to make the monitoring of patients with CKD and kidney transplant more convenient than it is now, Dr. Dhaun said. “These scanners are available in the community, and what would be ideal at some point in the future is to be able to do a patient’s kidney health check in the community potentially incorporating OCT scanning alongside blood-pressure monitoring and other healthcare measures,” he said.

“The findings provide an exciting example of how noninvasive retinal imaging using OCT can provide quantitative biomarkers of systemic disease,” Amir Kashani, MD, PhD, the Boone Pickens Professor of Ophthalmology and Biomedical Engineering at the Wilmer Eye Institute of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, told this news organization. “It is striking that their findings demonstrate some potential of reversible changes in choroidal perfusion after kidney transplantation.”

The finding that choroidal thickness changes in CKD are at least partly reversible with kidney transplantation is a revelation, Dr. Kashani said, and may point to a greater role for ophthalmologists in managing systemic disease. 

“Ophthalmologists can and should use their unique experience and understanding of the eye to help monitor and manage systemic conditions in collaboration with our medicine colleagues,” he said. “There are many systemic diseases that can impact the eye and ophthalmologist are uniquely positioned to help interpret those findings.”

Dr. Kashani noted that a particular strength of the report was the comparison of choroidal measurements in patients who had kidney transplantation and those that had a nephrectomy. “The consistent direction of changes in these two groups suggests the study findings are real and meaningful,” he said.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Dhaun and co-authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kashani disclosed a financial relationship with Carl Zeiss Meditec.

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

Changes in tissue thickness in the back of the eye can correlate with worsening or improvement of renal problems and could help predict who will have worsening of kidney function, a new analysis report finds. 

The research, published in the journal Nature Communications, is the first to show an association between chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the thickness of the retinal and choroidal layers in the back of the eye as measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT), a noninvasive imaging technology commonly used to evaluate eye diseases such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic eye disease, and retinal detachments.

“These are common scans that people get at the opticians and now in many hospitals,” said Neeraj Dhaun, MD, PhD, a professor of nephrology at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. (Opticians in the United Kingdom are the equivalent of optometrists in North America.) 
 

CKD Severity Equals Thinner Retinas

“We scanned the back of eye of healthy people as well as patients with various types and degrees of kidney disease, and we found that two layers in the back of eye, the retina and the choroid, were thinner in patients with kidney disease compared to people who are healthy, and that the extent of this thinning predicts whether kidney function would decline going forward over a period of 2 or 3 years,” Dr. Dhaun, the corresponding author of the new paper, said.

The publication is a report of four different studies. The first study measured OCT metrics in 112 patients with CKD, 92 patients with a functional kidney transplant, and 86 control volunteers. The researchers found the retina was 5% thinner in patients with CKD than in healthy controls. They also found that patients with CKD had reduced macular volume: 8.44 ± .44 mm³ vs 8.73 ± .36 mm³ (P < .001). The choroid was also found to be thinner at each of three macular locations measured in patients with CKD vs control volunteers. At baseline, CKD and transplant patients had significantly lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 55 ± 27 and 55 ± 24 mL/min/1.73 m² compared with control volunteers at 97 ± 14 mL/min/1.73 m².

The second study reported on OCT measurements and kidney histologic injury in 50 patients who had a kidney biopsy within 30 days of their OCT. It found that choroidal thinning at all three macular locations was independently associated with more extensive kidney scarring. 

The third study focused on 25 patients with kidney failure who had a kidney transplant. Their eGFR improved from 8 ± 3 to 58 ± 21 mL/min/1.73 m² in the first week after the transplant. The choroid in these patients thickened about 5% at 1 week and by about 10% at 1 month posttransplant. OCT of 22 kidney donors showed thickening of the choroid a week after nephrectomy before a tendency to thinning over the next year.

The fourth study found that for patients with stable CKD, every 1 mm3 decrease in macular volume correlated to an increased odds of a decline in eGFR by more than 10% at 1 year (2.48; 95% CI, 1.26-5.08; P = .01) and by more than 20% at 2 years (3.75; 95% CI, 1.26-5.08; P = .004).
 

Exploring the Kidney-Eye Connection 

The potential explanation for the correlation between retinal and choroidal thickness and kidney function is unclear, Dr. Dhaun said. 

“We don’t know the exact mechanisms, and these are difficult to define from studies in patients, which is why we are doing more work in animal models of kidney disease to see if we can establish the pathways that lead to the changes in the eye,” he said. 

“However,” Dr. Dhaun added, “what we do know is that kidney disease affects the whole body. For example, kidney disease can lead to high blood pressure and heart disease, as well as diseases in the brain, and it is these effects of kidney disease on the body as whole that we are probably picking up in the back of the eye.” 

OCT has the potential to make the monitoring of patients with CKD and kidney transplant more convenient than it is now, Dr. Dhaun said. “These scanners are available in the community, and what would be ideal at some point in the future is to be able to do a patient’s kidney health check in the community potentially incorporating OCT scanning alongside blood-pressure monitoring and other healthcare measures,” he said.

“The findings provide an exciting example of how noninvasive retinal imaging using OCT can provide quantitative biomarkers of systemic disease,” Amir Kashani, MD, PhD, the Boone Pickens Professor of Ophthalmology and Biomedical Engineering at the Wilmer Eye Institute of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, told this news organization. “It is striking that their findings demonstrate some potential of reversible changes in choroidal perfusion after kidney transplantation.”

The finding that choroidal thickness changes in CKD are at least partly reversible with kidney transplantation is a revelation, Dr. Kashani said, and may point to a greater role for ophthalmologists in managing systemic disease. 

“Ophthalmologists can and should use their unique experience and understanding of the eye to help monitor and manage systemic conditions in collaboration with our medicine colleagues,” he said. “There are many systemic diseases that can impact the eye and ophthalmologist are uniquely positioned to help interpret those findings.”

Dr. Kashani noted that a particular strength of the report was the comparison of choroidal measurements in patients who had kidney transplantation and those that had a nephrectomy. “The consistent direction of changes in these two groups suggests the study findings are real and meaningful,” he said.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Dhaun and co-authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kashani disclosed a financial relationship with Carl Zeiss Meditec.

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

Changes in tissue thickness in the back of the eye can correlate with worsening or improvement of renal problems and could help predict who will have worsening of kidney function, a new analysis report finds. 

The research, published in the journal Nature Communications, is the first to show an association between chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the thickness of the retinal and choroidal layers in the back of the eye as measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT), a noninvasive imaging technology commonly used to evaluate eye diseases such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic eye disease, and retinal detachments.

“These are common scans that people get at the opticians and now in many hospitals,” said Neeraj Dhaun, MD, PhD, a professor of nephrology at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. (Opticians in the United Kingdom are the equivalent of optometrists in North America.) 
 

CKD Severity Equals Thinner Retinas

“We scanned the back of eye of healthy people as well as patients with various types and degrees of kidney disease, and we found that two layers in the back of eye, the retina and the choroid, were thinner in patients with kidney disease compared to people who are healthy, and that the extent of this thinning predicts whether kidney function would decline going forward over a period of 2 or 3 years,” Dr. Dhaun, the corresponding author of the new paper, said.

The publication is a report of four different studies. The first study measured OCT metrics in 112 patients with CKD, 92 patients with a functional kidney transplant, and 86 control volunteers. The researchers found the retina was 5% thinner in patients with CKD than in healthy controls. They also found that patients with CKD had reduced macular volume: 8.44 ± .44 mm³ vs 8.73 ± .36 mm³ (P < .001). The choroid was also found to be thinner at each of three macular locations measured in patients with CKD vs control volunteers. At baseline, CKD and transplant patients had significantly lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 55 ± 27 and 55 ± 24 mL/min/1.73 m² compared with control volunteers at 97 ± 14 mL/min/1.73 m².

The second study reported on OCT measurements and kidney histologic injury in 50 patients who had a kidney biopsy within 30 days of their OCT. It found that choroidal thinning at all three macular locations was independently associated with more extensive kidney scarring. 

The third study focused on 25 patients with kidney failure who had a kidney transplant. Their eGFR improved from 8 ± 3 to 58 ± 21 mL/min/1.73 m² in the first week after the transplant. The choroid in these patients thickened about 5% at 1 week and by about 10% at 1 month posttransplant. OCT of 22 kidney donors showed thickening of the choroid a week after nephrectomy before a tendency to thinning over the next year.

The fourth study found that for patients with stable CKD, every 1 mm3 decrease in macular volume correlated to an increased odds of a decline in eGFR by more than 10% at 1 year (2.48; 95% CI, 1.26-5.08; P = .01) and by more than 20% at 2 years (3.75; 95% CI, 1.26-5.08; P = .004).
 

Exploring the Kidney-Eye Connection 

The potential explanation for the correlation between retinal and choroidal thickness and kidney function is unclear, Dr. Dhaun said. 

“We don’t know the exact mechanisms, and these are difficult to define from studies in patients, which is why we are doing more work in animal models of kidney disease to see if we can establish the pathways that lead to the changes in the eye,” he said. 

“However,” Dr. Dhaun added, “what we do know is that kidney disease affects the whole body. For example, kidney disease can lead to high blood pressure and heart disease, as well as diseases in the brain, and it is these effects of kidney disease on the body as whole that we are probably picking up in the back of the eye.” 

OCT has the potential to make the monitoring of patients with CKD and kidney transplant more convenient than it is now, Dr. Dhaun said. “These scanners are available in the community, and what would be ideal at some point in the future is to be able to do a patient’s kidney health check in the community potentially incorporating OCT scanning alongside blood-pressure monitoring and other healthcare measures,” he said.

“The findings provide an exciting example of how noninvasive retinal imaging using OCT can provide quantitative biomarkers of systemic disease,” Amir Kashani, MD, PhD, the Boone Pickens Professor of Ophthalmology and Biomedical Engineering at the Wilmer Eye Institute of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, told this news organization. “It is striking that their findings demonstrate some potential of reversible changes in choroidal perfusion after kidney transplantation.”

The finding that choroidal thickness changes in CKD are at least partly reversible with kidney transplantation is a revelation, Dr. Kashani said, and may point to a greater role for ophthalmologists in managing systemic disease. 

“Ophthalmologists can and should use their unique experience and understanding of the eye to help monitor and manage systemic conditions in collaboration with our medicine colleagues,” he said. “There are many systemic diseases that can impact the eye and ophthalmologist are uniquely positioned to help interpret those findings.”

Dr. Kashani noted that a particular strength of the report was the comparison of choroidal measurements in patients who had kidney transplantation and those that had a nephrectomy. “The consistent direction of changes in these two groups suggests the study findings are real and meaningful,” he said.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Dhaun and co-authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kashani disclosed a financial relationship with Carl Zeiss Meditec.

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

SAN DIEGO — Clinically significant interstitial lung disease (ILD) is believed to occur in 5%-10% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but robust data are lacking on how to best predict which patients face the highest risk for RA-associated ILD. However, the results of several studies presented at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting indicate that researchers are making strides in this field of rheumatologic care.

Adding Genetic Factors Improves ILD Risk Prediction

In the realm of risk stratification, Austin M. Wheeler, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, discussed the development and validation of a combined clinical and genetic risk score for ILD. “There is clear and well documented phenotypic and genetic overlap of ILD with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF),” Dr. Wheeler said. “A number of clinical risk factors have been described for RA-ILD, including older age, male sex, smoking history, higher disease activity, and seropositivity. There are also well-documented genetic risk factors for RA-ILD. The MUC5B genetic variant is the strongest risk factor for IPF, and it’s been described in RA-ILD as well.”

Dr. Wheeler

A recently published study indicated that a genetic risk score without the MUC5B variant improved predictive ability for IPF and interstitial lung abnormalities better than using the MUC5B variant alone, “but no prior attempts have been made at developing a composite genetic risk score in RA-ILD” using both genetic and clinical risk factors, he said.

For the current study, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues drew from 2,386 participants in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) Registry, a multicenter, prospective cohort of US veterans with rheumatologist-diagnosed RA and who fulfilled the 1987 ACR classification criteria. The researchers validated ILD through a systematic review of medical records, including clinical diagnosis of ILD plus either imaging or lung biopsy findings, and collected whole genome data that included 12 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously identified to be associated with risk for RA-ILD. They then used a meta-analytic approach to create pooled associations for each of those respective SNPs using data from the VARA registry participants as well as participants from the past study where the SNPs were first identified. “Those pooled associations were what we used for our effects size within the genetic risk score,” which ended up using five of the SNPs, Dr. Wheeler explained. Next, he and his colleagues combined the genetic risk score with clinical risk factors including age, sex, smoking history, disease activity, and rheumatoid factor (RF) positivity to create their combined risk score.

The mean age of the cohort was 70 years, 89% were male, 78% had a smoking history, and 78% were anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody positive. Of the 2,386 participants, 224 (9.4%) had RA-ILD. The full composite risk score had the highest area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.67, compared with an AUC of 0.623 using the clinical factors alone, 0.651 using the clinical factors plus only the MUC5B variant, and 0.654 using the composite score minus only the MUC5B variant. These AUCs show that “the combined risk score performs better than clinical factors even without the inclusion of the MUC5B variant in the score, which is notable because it supports the importance of further investigation into polygenic risk scores in RA-ILD as there is clearly more at play in a patient’s overall genetic risk,” Dr. Wheeler said.

As an example of the composite score’s ability to discriminate between people with and without RA-ILD, a cutpoint of 0.05 gave a sensitivity of 90.2% and would have eliminated about 25% of the cohort from unnecessary high-resolution CT scans and pulmonary function tests, he said.

“This study demonstrates the potential utility of genetic risk scores in RA-ILD identification and supports further investigation into individual risk stratification and screening,” he concluded. “This isn’t ready for clinical applicability by any means, but I think it serves as a proof of concept of the idea of a genetic risk score in RA-ILD.”

Biomarker Score Investigated

In a separate abstract, Brent Luedders, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and colleagues set out to determine if a previously derived biomarker score is associated with prevalent and incident ILD in the same VARA Registry cohort. An abstract presented at the ACR 2022 annual meeting found that a panel derived from IPF peripheral biomarkers was significantly associated with RA-ILD, including matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, -7, and -9, eotaxin, macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt3L) and interleukin-8 (IL-8). For the current analysis, Dr. Luedders and colleagues measured the concentrations of seven biomarkers (MMP-7, MMP-9, eotaxin, MDC, MCP-1, Flt3L, IL-8) from serum/plasma samples collected from VARA’s participants at enrollment to develop a score based on the concentrations of each biomarker.

Dr. Luedders

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, although those with prevalent RA-ILD were slightly older than those without ILD, and those who developed incident ILD during follow-up had slightly higher RA disease activity at the time of enrollment. When the researchers examined the association of the biomarker score with prevalent RA-ILD as a continuous measure, they found an adjusted OR of 1.08 for prevalent RA-ILD for each 1-point increase in the biomarker score. “When this was divided into quartiles, we found that the highest quartile of the biomarker score was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.31 for prevalent RA-ILD,” Dr. Luedders said. “We saw a significant P for trend of < .001, suggesting a dose-response relationship, in which higher scores had higher risk.” Similar associations were observed for incident RA-ILD, in which participants with the highest quartile had an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.26 for incident RA-ILD.

The AUC of 0.653 that was obtained with clinical factors did not significantly improve with inclusion of the biomarker score, rising to only 0.669. “In receiver operating characteristic analysis, the addition of the biomarker score to clinical variables (age, sex, race, smoking status, anti-CCP positivity, and RA disease activity by DAS28) did not lead to a significant increase in the area under the curve. Therefore, further work is needed to identify combinations of clinical, biomarker, and other factors to accurately predict which people with RA will develop ILD,” he said.

Dr. Luedders acknowledged certain limitations of the results, including the fact that MMP-2 was not measured in this cohort and thus not included in the score. “This was an observational study with usual care; therefore, the absence of systemic evaluation for ILD may miss early or mild RA-ILD cases,” he added. “Similarly, a male predominance may limit the generalizability, and we have limited information on the RA-ILD pattern.” He concluded that the study results “support the shared pathogenesis of IPF and RA-ILD. However, we found that this score has limited discriminative performance, compared to clinical risk factors alone.”
 

Drilling Down on ILD Subtypes

In a poster abstract presentation at the meeting, Gregory Campbell McDermott, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, highlighted results from a study that investigated differences in demographic, serologic, and lifestyle factors for RA-ILD and the major subtypes of RA-ILD: usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP). “Historically, RA-ILD has been studied as a single entity, even though we increasingly recognized that there are lots of different subtypes that fall under the umbrella of RA-ILD,” Dr. McDermott said in an interview. “We are also learning that the different subtypes probably have both prognostic and potentially therapeutic implications. For example, the UIP subtype, which is the most fibrotic subtype, has the worst prognosis but also may be a potential target for antifibrotic therapies. We’ve been trying to see if we can identify factors that are associated with specific subtypes, in particular the UIP subtype which has the worst prognosis.”

Dr. McDermott

He and his colleagues examined 208 patients with RA-ILD with a mean age of 51 years and 547 patients with RA but no ILD with a mean age of 49 years from two RA cohorts comprising 3,328 patients: the Mass General Brigham Biobank RA Cohort and the Brigham RA Sequential Study (BRASS). Of the 208 RA-ILD cases, nearly half (48%) were RA-UIP, 18% were RA-NSIP, 8% were organizing pneumonia, 3% were respiratory bronchiolitis-ILD, and 23% were other/indeterminate. After conducting multivariable adjusted analyses, the researchers found that RA-ILD was associated with male sex (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.23), seropositivity for RF and/or anti-CCP (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.51-3.24) and being an ever smoker (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.13-2.54). Having all three of these risk factors was strongly associated with RA-ILD (OR, 6.04; 95% CI, 2.92-12.47) and with RA-UIP in particular (OR, 7.1). “We found that a lot of the traditional RA-ILD risk factors like male sex, history of smoking, and seropositive status were most strongly associated with a UIP pattern,” Dr. McDermott said. “We think this is a first step in trying to understand how these different ILD subtypes may have different risk factors, pathogenesis, and potentially different treatments, prevention, and screening strategies.”

While clinicians wait for guidelines on systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease-associated ILD that are expected to be published by the ACR in 2024, he added that “we probably shouldn’t screen every single person with RA for ILD, but we need to identify people who have symptoms or findings on clinical exam. This study wasn’t designed to look specifically at who is at high risk, but I think we are moving toward that question: Who is high risk, and who’s asymptomatic [but] may need more screening?”

He pointed out limitations of the study, including its retrospective design and the fact that imaging was done for clinical purposes, “so it’s probably a higher risk group to begin with than the whole RA population,” he said. “We also didn’t have data on RA disease activity or erosions, some of these other measures that we think are important for understanding the full RA disease phenotype in these patients.”

Dr. Wheeler reported having no disclosures. Dr. Luedders reported that his study was supported by the VA, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the University of Nebraska Medical Center Mentored Scholars Program. Dr. McDermott reported that his study was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

SAN DIEGO — Clinically significant interstitial lung disease (ILD) is believed to occur in 5%-10% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but robust data are lacking on how to best predict which patients face the highest risk for RA-associated ILD. However, the results of several studies presented at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting indicate that researchers are making strides in this field of rheumatologic care.

Adding Genetic Factors Improves ILD Risk Prediction

In the realm of risk stratification, Austin M. Wheeler, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, discussed the development and validation of a combined clinical and genetic risk score for ILD. “There is clear and well documented phenotypic and genetic overlap of ILD with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF),” Dr. Wheeler said. “A number of clinical risk factors have been described for RA-ILD, including older age, male sex, smoking history, higher disease activity, and seropositivity. There are also well-documented genetic risk factors for RA-ILD. The MUC5B genetic variant is the strongest risk factor for IPF, and it’s been described in RA-ILD as well.”

Dr. Wheeler

A recently published study indicated that a genetic risk score without the MUC5B variant improved predictive ability for IPF and interstitial lung abnormalities better than using the MUC5B variant alone, “but no prior attempts have been made at developing a composite genetic risk score in RA-ILD” using both genetic and clinical risk factors, he said.

For the current study, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues drew from 2,386 participants in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) Registry, a multicenter, prospective cohort of US veterans with rheumatologist-diagnosed RA and who fulfilled the 1987 ACR classification criteria. The researchers validated ILD through a systematic review of medical records, including clinical diagnosis of ILD plus either imaging or lung biopsy findings, and collected whole genome data that included 12 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously identified to be associated with risk for RA-ILD. They then used a meta-analytic approach to create pooled associations for each of those respective SNPs using data from the VARA registry participants as well as participants from the past study where the SNPs were first identified. “Those pooled associations were what we used for our effects size within the genetic risk score,” which ended up using five of the SNPs, Dr. Wheeler explained. Next, he and his colleagues combined the genetic risk score with clinical risk factors including age, sex, smoking history, disease activity, and rheumatoid factor (RF) positivity to create their combined risk score.

The mean age of the cohort was 70 years, 89% were male, 78% had a smoking history, and 78% were anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody positive. Of the 2,386 participants, 224 (9.4%) had RA-ILD. The full composite risk score had the highest area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.67, compared with an AUC of 0.623 using the clinical factors alone, 0.651 using the clinical factors plus only the MUC5B variant, and 0.654 using the composite score minus only the MUC5B variant. These AUCs show that “the combined risk score performs better than clinical factors even without the inclusion of the MUC5B variant in the score, which is notable because it supports the importance of further investigation into polygenic risk scores in RA-ILD as there is clearly more at play in a patient’s overall genetic risk,” Dr. Wheeler said.

As an example of the composite score’s ability to discriminate between people with and without RA-ILD, a cutpoint of 0.05 gave a sensitivity of 90.2% and would have eliminated about 25% of the cohort from unnecessary high-resolution CT scans and pulmonary function tests, he said.

“This study demonstrates the potential utility of genetic risk scores in RA-ILD identification and supports further investigation into individual risk stratification and screening,” he concluded. “This isn’t ready for clinical applicability by any means, but I think it serves as a proof of concept of the idea of a genetic risk score in RA-ILD.”

Biomarker Score Investigated

In a separate abstract, Brent Luedders, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and colleagues set out to determine if a previously derived biomarker score is associated with prevalent and incident ILD in the same VARA Registry cohort. An abstract presented at the ACR 2022 annual meeting found that a panel derived from IPF peripheral biomarkers was significantly associated with RA-ILD, including matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, -7, and -9, eotaxin, macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt3L) and interleukin-8 (IL-8). For the current analysis, Dr. Luedders and colleagues measured the concentrations of seven biomarkers (MMP-7, MMP-9, eotaxin, MDC, MCP-1, Flt3L, IL-8) from serum/plasma samples collected from VARA’s participants at enrollment to develop a score based on the concentrations of each biomarker.

Dr. Luedders

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, although those with prevalent RA-ILD were slightly older than those without ILD, and those who developed incident ILD during follow-up had slightly higher RA disease activity at the time of enrollment. When the researchers examined the association of the biomarker score with prevalent RA-ILD as a continuous measure, they found an adjusted OR of 1.08 for prevalent RA-ILD for each 1-point increase in the biomarker score. “When this was divided into quartiles, we found that the highest quartile of the biomarker score was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.31 for prevalent RA-ILD,” Dr. Luedders said. “We saw a significant P for trend of < .001, suggesting a dose-response relationship, in which higher scores had higher risk.” Similar associations were observed for incident RA-ILD, in which participants with the highest quartile had an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.26 for incident RA-ILD.

The AUC of 0.653 that was obtained with clinical factors did not significantly improve with inclusion of the biomarker score, rising to only 0.669. “In receiver operating characteristic analysis, the addition of the biomarker score to clinical variables (age, sex, race, smoking status, anti-CCP positivity, and RA disease activity by DAS28) did not lead to a significant increase in the area under the curve. Therefore, further work is needed to identify combinations of clinical, biomarker, and other factors to accurately predict which people with RA will develop ILD,” he said.

Dr. Luedders acknowledged certain limitations of the results, including the fact that MMP-2 was not measured in this cohort and thus not included in the score. “This was an observational study with usual care; therefore, the absence of systemic evaluation for ILD may miss early or mild RA-ILD cases,” he added. “Similarly, a male predominance may limit the generalizability, and we have limited information on the RA-ILD pattern.” He concluded that the study results “support the shared pathogenesis of IPF and RA-ILD. However, we found that this score has limited discriminative performance, compared to clinical risk factors alone.”
 

Drilling Down on ILD Subtypes

In a poster abstract presentation at the meeting, Gregory Campbell McDermott, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, highlighted results from a study that investigated differences in demographic, serologic, and lifestyle factors for RA-ILD and the major subtypes of RA-ILD: usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP). “Historically, RA-ILD has been studied as a single entity, even though we increasingly recognized that there are lots of different subtypes that fall under the umbrella of RA-ILD,” Dr. McDermott said in an interview. “We are also learning that the different subtypes probably have both prognostic and potentially therapeutic implications. For example, the UIP subtype, which is the most fibrotic subtype, has the worst prognosis but also may be a potential target for antifibrotic therapies. We’ve been trying to see if we can identify factors that are associated with specific subtypes, in particular the UIP subtype which has the worst prognosis.”

Dr. McDermott

He and his colleagues examined 208 patients with RA-ILD with a mean age of 51 years and 547 patients with RA but no ILD with a mean age of 49 years from two RA cohorts comprising 3,328 patients: the Mass General Brigham Biobank RA Cohort and the Brigham RA Sequential Study (BRASS). Of the 208 RA-ILD cases, nearly half (48%) were RA-UIP, 18% were RA-NSIP, 8% were organizing pneumonia, 3% were respiratory bronchiolitis-ILD, and 23% were other/indeterminate. After conducting multivariable adjusted analyses, the researchers found that RA-ILD was associated with male sex (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.23), seropositivity for RF and/or anti-CCP (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.51-3.24) and being an ever smoker (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.13-2.54). Having all three of these risk factors was strongly associated with RA-ILD (OR, 6.04; 95% CI, 2.92-12.47) and with RA-UIP in particular (OR, 7.1). “We found that a lot of the traditional RA-ILD risk factors like male sex, history of smoking, and seropositive status were most strongly associated with a UIP pattern,” Dr. McDermott said. “We think this is a first step in trying to understand how these different ILD subtypes may have different risk factors, pathogenesis, and potentially different treatments, prevention, and screening strategies.”

While clinicians wait for guidelines on systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease-associated ILD that are expected to be published by the ACR in 2024, he added that “we probably shouldn’t screen every single person with RA for ILD, but we need to identify people who have symptoms or findings on clinical exam. This study wasn’t designed to look specifically at who is at high risk, but I think we are moving toward that question: Who is high risk, and who’s asymptomatic [but] may need more screening?”

He pointed out limitations of the study, including its retrospective design and the fact that imaging was done for clinical purposes, “so it’s probably a higher risk group to begin with than the whole RA population,” he said. “We also didn’t have data on RA disease activity or erosions, some of these other measures that we think are important for understanding the full RA disease phenotype in these patients.”

Dr. Wheeler reported having no disclosures. Dr. Luedders reported that his study was supported by the VA, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the University of Nebraska Medical Center Mentored Scholars Program. Dr. McDermott reported that his study was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

SAN DIEGO — Clinically significant interstitial lung disease (ILD) is believed to occur in 5%-10% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but robust data are lacking on how to best predict which patients face the highest risk for RA-associated ILD. However, the results of several studies presented at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting indicate that researchers are making strides in this field of rheumatologic care.

Adding Genetic Factors Improves ILD Risk Prediction

In the realm of risk stratification, Austin M. Wheeler, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, discussed the development and validation of a combined clinical and genetic risk score for ILD. “There is clear and well documented phenotypic and genetic overlap of ILD with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF),” Dr. Wheeler said. “A number of clinical risk factors have been described for RA-ILD, including older age, male sex, smoking history, higher disease activity, and seropositivity. There are also well-documented genetic risk factors for RA-ILD. The MUC5B genetic variant is the strongest risk factor for IPF, and it’s been described in RA-ILD as well.”

Dr. Wheeler

A recently published study indicated that a genetic risk score without the MUC5B variant improved predictive ability for IPF and interstitial lung abnormalities better than using the MUC5B variant alone, “but no prior attempts have been made at developing a composite genetic risk score in RA-ILD” using both genetic and clinical risk factors, he said.

For the current study, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues drew from 2,386 participants in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) Registry, a multicenter, prospective cohort of US veterans with rheumatologist-diagnosed RA and who fulfilled the 1987 ACR classification criteria. The researchers validated ILD through a systematic review of medical records, including clinical diagnosis of ILD plus either imaging or lung biopsy findings, and collected whole genome data that included 12 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) previously identified to be associated with risk for RA-ILD. They then used a meta-analytic approach to create pooled associations for each of those respective SNPs using data from the VARA registry participants as well as participants from the past study where the SNPs were first identified. “Those pooled associations were what we used for our effects size within the genetic risk score,” which ended up using five of the SNPs, Dr. Wheeler explained. Next, he and his colleagues combined the genetic risk score with clinical risk factors including age, sex, smoking history, disease activity, and rheumatoid factor (RF) positivity to create their combined risk score.

The mean age of the cohort was 70 years, 89% were male, 78% had a smoking history, and 78% were anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody positive. Of the 2,386 participants, 224 (9.4%) had RA-ILD. The full composite risk score had the highest area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.67, compared with an AUC of 0.623 using the clinical factors alone, 0.651 using the clinical factors plus only the MUC5B variant, and 0.654 using the composite score minus only the MUC5B variant. These AUCs show that “the combined risk score performs better than clinical factors even without the inclusion of the MUC5B variant in the score, which is notable because it supports the importance of further investigation into polygenic risk scores in RA-ILD as there is clearly more at play in a patient’s overall genetic risk,” Dr. Wheeler said.

As an example of the composite score’s ability to discriminate between people with and without RA-ILD, a cutpoint of 0.05 gave a sensitivity of 90.2% and would have eliminated about 25% of the cohort from unnecessary high-resolution CT scans and pulmonary function tests, he said.

“This study demonstrates the potential utility of genetic risk scores in RA-ILD identification and supports further investigation into individual risk stratification and screening,” he concluded. “This isn’t ready for clinical applicability by any means, but I think it serves as a proof of concept of the idea of a genetic risk score in RA-ILD.”

Biomarker Score Investigated

In a separate abstract, Brent Luedders, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and colleagues set out to determine if a previously derived biomarker score is associated with prevalent and incident ILD in the same VARA Registry cohort. An abstract presented at the ACR 2022 annual meeting found that a panel derived from IPF peripheral biomarkers was significantly associated with RA-ILD, including matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, -7, and -9, eotaxin, macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt3L) and interleukin-8 (IL-8). For the current analysis, Dr. Luedders and colleagues measured the concentrations of seven biomarkers (MMP-7, MMP-9, eotaxin, MDC, MCP-1, Flt3L, IL-8) from serum/plasma samples collected from VARA’s participants at enrollment to develop a score based on the concentrations of each biomarker.

Dr. Luedders

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, although those with prevalent RA-ILD were slightly older than those without ILD, and those who developed incident ILD during follow-up had slightly higher RA disease activity at the time of enrollment. When the researchers examined the association of the biomarker score with prevalent RA-ILD as a continuous measure, they found an adjusted OR of 1.08 for prevalent RA-ILD for each 1-point increase in the biomarker score. “When this was divided into quartiles, we found that the highest quartile of the biomarker score was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.31 for prevalent RA-ILD,” Dr. Luedders said. “We saw a significant P for trend of < .001, suggesting a dose-response relationship, in which higher scores had higher risk.” Similar associations were observed for incident RA-ILD, in which participants with the highest quartile had an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.26 for incident RA-ILD.

The AUC of 0.653 that was obtained with clinical factors did not significantly improve with inclusion of the biomarker score, rising to only 0.669. “In receiver operating characteristic analysis, the addition of the biomarker score to clinical variables (age, sex, race, smoking status, anti-CCP positivity, and RA disease activity by DAS28) did not lead to a significant increase in the area under the curve. Therefore, further work is needed to identify combinations of clinical, biomarker, and other factors to accurately predict which people with RA will develop ILD,” he said.

Dr. Luedders acknowledged certain limitations of the results, including the fact that MMP-2 was not measured in this cohort and thus not included in the score. “This was an observational study with usual care; therefore, the absence of systemic evaluation for ILD may miss early or mild RA-ILD cases,” he added. “Similarly, a male predominance may limit the generalizability, and we have limited information on the RA-ILD pattern.” He concluded that the study results “support the shared pathogenesis of IPF and RA-ILD. However, we found that this score has limited discriminative performance, compared to clinical risk factors alone.”
 

Drilling Down on ILD Subtypes

In a poster abstract presentation at the meeting, Gregory Campbell McDermott, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, highlighted results from a study that investigated differences in demographic, serologic, and lifestyle factors for RA-ILD and the major subtypes of RA-ILD: usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP). “Historically, RA-ILD has been studied as a single entity, even though we increasingly recognized that there are lots of different subtypes that fall under the umbrella of RA-ILD,” Dr. McDermott said in an interview. “We are also learning that the different subtypes probably have both prognostic and potentially therapeutic implications. For example, the UIP subtype, which is the most fibrotic subtype, has the worst prognosis but also may be a potential target for antifibrotic therapies. We’ve been trying to see if we can identify factors that are associated with specific subtypes, in particular the UIP subtype which has the worst prognosis.”

Dr. McDermott

He and his colleagues examined 208 patients with RA-ILD with a mean age of 51 years and 547 patients with RA but no ILD with a mean age of 49 years from two RA cohorts comprising 3,328 patients: the Mass General Brigham Biobank RA Cohort and the Brigham RA Sequential Study (BRASS). Of the 208 RA-ILD cases, nearly half (48%) were RA-UIP, 18% were RA-NSIP, 8% were organizing pneumonia, 3% were respiratory bronchiolitis-ILD, and 23% were other/indeterminate. After conducting multivariable adjusted analyses, the researchers found that RA-ILD was associated with male sex (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.23), seropositivity for RF and/or anti-CCP (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.51-3.24) and being an ever smoker (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.13-2.54). Having all three of these risk factors was strongly associated with RA-ILD (OR, 6.04; 95% CI, 2.92-12.47) and with RA-UIP in particular (OR, 7.1). “We found that a lot of the traditional RA-ILD risk factors like male sex, history of smoking, and seropositive status were most strongly associated with a UIP pattern,” Dr. McDermott said. “We think this is a first step in trying to understand how these different ILD subtypes may have different risk factors, pathogenesis, and potentially different treatments, prevention, and screening strategies.”

While clinicians wait for guidelines on systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease-associated ILD that are expected to be published by the ACR in 2024, he added that “we probably shouldn’t screen every single person with RA for ILD, but we need to identify people who have symptoms or findings on clinical exam. This study wasn’t designed to look specifically at who is at high risk, but I think we are moving toward that question: Who is high risk, and who’s asymptomatic [but] may need more screening?”

He pointed out limitations of the study, including its retrospective design and the fact that imaging was done for clinical purposes, “so it’s probably a higher risk group to begin with than the whole RA population,” he said. “We also didn’t have data on RA disease activity or erosions, some of these other measures that we think are important for understanding the full RA disease phenotype in these patients.”

Dr. Wheeler reported having no disclosures. Dr. Luedders reported that his study was supported by the VA, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the University of Nebraska Medical Center Mentored Scholars Program. Dr. McDermott reported that his study was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The proposal by the major cardiovascular societies in the US to form a new board of cardiovascular medicine to manage initial and ongoing certification of cardiologists represents something of a revolution in the field of continuing medical education and assessment of competency. 

Five US cardiovascular societies — the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA), the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) — have now joined forces to propose a new professional certification board for cardiovascular medicine, to be known as the American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine (ABCVM). 

The ABCVM would be independent of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), the current organization providing maintenance of certification for cardiologists as well as many other internal medicine subspecialties. The ABIM’s maintenance of certification process has been widely criticized for many years and has been described as “needlessly burdensome and expensive.” 

The ABCVM is hoping to offer a more appropriate and supportive approach, according to Jeffrey Kuvin, MD, a trustee of the ACC, who has been heading up the working group to develop this plan. 

Dr. Kuvin, who is chair of the cardiology at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York, a large academic healthcare system, explained that maintenance of certification has been a topic of discussion across the cardiovascular community for many years, and the ACC has a working group focused on the next steps for evaluation of competency, which he chairs.

“The topic of evaluation of competence has been on the mind of the ACC for many years and hence a work group was developed to focus on this,” Dr. Kuvin noted. “A lot of evolution of the concepts and next steps have been drawn out of this working group. And now other cardiovascular societies have joined to show unification across the house of cardiology and that this is indeed the way that the cardiovascular profession should move.” 
 

“Time to Separate from Internal Medicine”

The general concept behind the new cardiology board is to separate cardiology from the ABIM. 

“This is rooted from the concept that cardiology has evolved so much over the last few decades into such a large multidimensional specialty that it really does demarcate itself from internal medicine, and as such, it deserves a separate board governed by cardiologists with collaboration across the entirely of cardiology,” Dr. Kuvin said. 

Cardiology has had significant growth and expansion of technology, tools, medications, and the approach to patients in many specialities and subspecialties, he added. “We have defined training programs in many different areas within cardiology; we have our own guidelines, our own competency statements, and in many cases, cardiology exists as its own department outside of medicine in many institutions. It’s just time to separate cardiology from the umbrella of internal medicine.” 

The new cardiology board would be separate from, and not report to, the ABIM; rather, it would report directly to the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), the only recognized medical certification body in the US. 
 

What Are the Proposed Changes

Under the present system, managed by the ABIM, clinicians must undergo two stages of certification to be a cardiologist. First, they have to pass the initial certification exam in general cardiology, and then exams in one of four subspecialties if they plan to enter one of these, including interventional cardiology, electrophysiology, advanced heart failure or adult congenital heart disease. 

Next, clinicians enter the maintenance of certification phase, which can take three different forms: 1) taking another recertification exam every 10 years; 2) the collaborative maintenance pathway — a collaboration between ACC and ABIM, which includes evaluation, learning and a certified exam each year; or 3) longitudinal knowledge and assessment — in which the program interacts with the clinician on an ongoing basis, sending secured questions regularly. 

All three of these pathways for maintenance of certification involve high stakes questions and a set bar for passing or failing. 

Under the proposed new cardiology board, an initial certification exam would still be required after fellowship training, but the maintenance of certification process would be completely restructured, with the new approach taking the form of continuous learning and assessment of competency. 

“This is an iterative process, but we envision with a new American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine, we will pick up where the ABIM left off,” Dr. Kuvin notes. “That includes an initial certifying examination for the five areas that already exist under the ABIM system but with the opportunities to expand that to further specialties as well.”

He points out that there are several areas in cardiology that are currently not represented by these five areas that warrant some discussion, including multimodality imaging, vascular heart disease, and cardio-oncology. 

“At present, everybody has to pass the general cardiology exam and then some may wish to further train and get certified in one of the other four other specific areas. But one topic that has been discussed over many years is how do we maintain competency in the areas in which clinicians practice over their lifetime as a cardiologist,” Dr. Kuvin commented. 

He said the proposed cardiology board would like to adhere to some basic principles that are fundamental to the practice of medicine. 

“We want to make sure that we are practicing medicine so that our patients derive the most benefit from seeing a cardiologist,” he said. “We also want to make sure, however, that this is a supportive process, supporting cardiologists to learn what they know and more importantly what they don’t know; to identify knowledge gaps in specific area; to help the cardiologist fill those knowledge gaps; to acknowledge those gaps have been filled; and then move on to another area of interest. This will be the focus of this new and improved model of continuous competency.”

The proposed new board also says it wants to make sure this is appropriate to the area in which the clinician is practicing.

“To take a closed book certified exam every 10 years on the world of cardiology as happens at the current time – or the assessments conducted in the other two pathways – is often meaningless to the cardiologist,” Dr. Kuvin says. “All three current pathways involve high stakes questions that are often irrelevant to one’s clinical practice.” 
 

Lifelong Learning

“The crux of the changes we are proposing will be away from the focus of passing a test towards a model of helping the individual with their competency, with continuous learning and evaluation of competency to help the clinician fill in their knowledge gaps,” he explains.

He described the new approach as “lifelong learning,” adding that, instead of it being “a punitive pass/fail environment with no feedback, which causes a lot of discontent among clinicians,” it will be a supportive process, where a clinician will be helped in filling their knowledge gaps. 

“I think this would be a welcome change not just for cardiology but across medical specialties,” Dr. Kuvin said. 

He also pointed out the ABMS itself is considering a continuous competency approach, and the proposed new cardiology board aims to work with the ABMS to make sure that their goals of continuous competency assessment are matched. 

“The world has changed. The ability to access information has changed. It is no longer imperative for a clinician to have every piece of knowledge in their brain, but rather to know how to get knowledge and to incorporate that knowledge into clinical practice,” Dr. Kuvin noted. “Competency should not involve knowledge alone as in a closed book exam. It is more about understanding the world that we live in, how to synthesize information, where we need to improve knowledge and how to do that.” 

Dr. Kuvin acknowledged that asking clinicians questions is a very helpful tool to identify their knowledge base and their knowledge gaps. “But we believe the clinician needs to be given resources — that could be a conference, an article, a simulation — to fill that knowledge gap. Then we could ask clinicians some different questions and if they get those right then we have provided a service.” 

Tactile skills for cardiologists needing to perform procedures – such as interventionalists or electrophysiologists may be incorporated by simulation in a technology-based scenario.

On how often these assessments would take place, Dr. Kuvin said that hadn’t been decided for sure. 

“We certainly do not think an assessment every 10 years is appropriate. We envision, instead of an episodic model, it will be rather a lifelong journey of education and competency. This will involve frequent contact and making sure knowledge gaps are being filled. There are criteria being set out by the ABMS that there should be a certain number of touch points with individuals on an annual as well as a 5-year basis to make sure cardiologists are staying within specific guardrails. The exact nature of these is yet to be determined,” he said. 

Dr. Kuvin added that it was not known yet what sort of hours would be required but added that “this will not be a significant time burden.”
 

What is the Timeframe?

The application to the ABMS for a separate cardiology board is still ongoing and has not yet received formal acceptance. Representatives from the five US cardiovascular societies are in the initial stages of formulating a transition board. 

“The submission to the ABMS will take time for them to review. This could take up to a year or so,” Dr. Kuvin estimates. 

This is the first time the ABMS has entertained the concept of a new board in many years, he noted. “It will be a paradigm shift for the whole country. I think that cardiology is really at the forefront and in a position where we can actually do this. If cardiovascular medicine is granted a new board, I think this will help change the approach of how physicians are assessed in terms of continuous competency not just in cardiology but across all specialties of medicine.”

He added: “We are confident that we can work within the construct of the ABMS guidelines that have been revised to be much more holistic in the approach of continuous competence across the board. This includes thinking beyond rote medical knowledge and thinking about the clinician as a whole and their abilities to communicate, act professionally, work within a complex medical system, utilize medical resources effectively. These all have to be part of continuous competence.”
 

How Much Will This Cost?

Noting that the ABIM has received criticism over the costs of the certification process, Dr. Kuvin said they intend to make this “as lean a machine as possible with the focus on reducing the financial [burden] as well as the time burden for cardiologists. It is very important that this is not cumbersome, that it is woven into clinical practice, and that it is not costly.” 

But he pointed out that building a new board will have significant costs. 

“We have to think about developing initial board certification examinations as well as changing the paradigm on continuous certification,” he said. “This will take some up-front costs, and our society partners have decided that they are willing to provide some start-up funds for this. We anticipate the initial certification will remain somewhat similar in price, but the cost of ongoing continuous competency assessment will be significantly reduced compared to today’s models.”

Dr. Kuvin said the collaboration of the five participating US cardiovascular societies was unprecedented. But he noted that while the transition board is beginning with representatives of these individual societies, it will ultimately be independent from these societies and have its own board of directors. 

He suggested that other societies representing other parts of cardiology are also interested. “Cardiology has recognized how important this is,” he said. “Everybody is excited about this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The proposal by the major cardiovascular societies in the US to form a new board of cardiovascular medicine to manage initial and ongoing certification of cardiologists represents something of a revolution in the field of continuing medical education and assessment of competency. 

Five US cardiovascular societies — the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA), the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) — have now joined forces to propose a new professional certification board for cardiovascular medicine, to be known as the American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine (ABCVM). 

The ABCVM would be independent of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), the current organization providing maintenance of certification for cardiologists as well as many other internal medicine subspecialties. The ABIM’s maintenance of certification process has been widely criticized for many years and has been described as “needlessly burdensome and expensive.” 

The ABCVM is hoping to offer a more appropriate and supportive approach, according to Jeffrey Kuvin, MD, a trustee of the ACC, who has been heading up the working group to develop this plan. 

Dr. Kuvin, who is chair of the cardiology at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York, a large academic healthcare system, explained that maintenance of certification has been a topic of discussion across the cardiovascular community for many years, and the ACC has a working group focused on the next steps for evaluation of competency, which he chairs.

“The topic of evaluation of competence has been on the mind of the ACC for many years and hence a work group was developed to focus on this,” Dr. Kuvin noted. “A lot of evolution of the concepts and next steps have been drawn out of this working group. And now other cardiovascular societies have joined to show unification across the house of cardiology and that this is indeed the way that the cardiovascular profession should move.” 
 

“Time to Separate from Internal Medicine”

The general concept behind the new cardiology board is to separate cardiology from the ABIM. 

“This is rooted from the concept that cardiology has evolved so much over the last few decades into such a large multidimensional specialty that it really does demarcate itself from internal medicine, and as such, it deserves a separate board governed by cardiologists with collaboration across the entirely of cardiology,” Dr. Kuvin said. 

Cardiology has had significant growth and expansion of technology, tools, medications, and the approach to patients in many specialities and subspecialties, he added. “We have defined training programs in many different areas within cardiology; we have our own guidelines, our own competency statements, and in many cases, cardiology exists as its own department outside of medicine in many institutions. It’s just time to separate cardiology from the umbrella of internal medicine.” 

The new cardiology board would be separate from, and not report to, the ABIM; rather, it would report directly to the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), the only recognized medical certification body in the US. 
 

What Are the Proposed Changes

Under the present system, managed by the ABIM, clinicians must undergo two stages of certification to be a cardiologist. First, they have to pass the initial certification exam in general cardiology, and then exams in one of four subspecialties if they plan to enter one of these, including interventional cardiology, electrophysiology, advanced heart failure or adult congenital heart disease. 

Next, clinicians enter the maintenance of certification phase, which can take three different forms: 1) taking another recertification exam every 10 years; 2) the collaborative maintenance pathway — a collaboration between ACC and ABIM, which includes evaluation, learning and a certified exam each year; or 3) longitudinal knowledge and assessment — in which the program interacts with the clinician on an ongoing basis, sending secured questions regularly. 

All three of these pathways for maintenance of certification involve high stakes questions and a set bar for passing or failing. 

Under the proposed new cardiology board, an initial certification exam would still be required after fellowship training, but the maintenance of certification process would be completely restructured, with the new approach taking the form of continuous learning and assessment of competency. 

“This is an iterative process, but we envision with a new American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine, we will pick up where the ABIM left off,” Dr. Kuvin notes. “That includes an initial certifying examination for the five areas that already exist under the ABIM system but with the opportunities to expand that to further specialties as well.”

He points out that there are several areas in cardiology that are currently not represented by these five areas that warrant some discussion, including multimodality imaging, vascular heart disease, and cardio-oncology. 

“At present, everybody has to pass the general cardiology exam and then some may wish to further train and get certified in one of the other four other specific areas. But one topic that has been discussed over many years is how do we maintain competency in the areas in which clinicians practice over their lifetime as a cardiologist,” Dr. Kuvin commented. 

He said the proposed cardiology board would like to adhere to some basic principles that are fundamental to the practice of medicine. 

“We want to make sure that we are practicing medicine so that our patients derive the most benefit from seeing a cardiologist,” he said. “We also want to make sure, however, that this is a supportive process, supporting cardiologists to learn what they know and more importantly what they don’t know; to identify knowledge gaps in specific area; to help the cardiologist fill those knowledge gaps; to acknowledge those gaps have been filled; and then move on to another area of interest. This will be the focus of this new and improved model of continuous competency.”

The proposed new board also says it wants to make sure this is appropriate to the area in which the clinician is practicing.

“To take a closed book certified exam every 10 years on the world of cardiology as happens at the current time – or the assessments conducted in the other two pathways – is often meaningless to the cardiologist,” Dr. Kuvin says. “All three current pathways involve high stakes questions that are often irrelevant to one’s clinical practice.” 
 

Lifelong Learning

“The crux of the changes we are proposing will be away from the focus of passing a test towards a model of helping the individual with their competency, with continuous learning and evaluation of competency to help the clinician fill in their knowledge gaps,” he explains.

He described the new approach as “lifelong learning,” adding that, instead of it being “a punitive pass/fail environment with no feedback, which causes a lot of discontent among clinicians,” it will be a supportive process, where a clinician will be helped in filling their knowledge gaps. 

“I think this would be a welcome change not just for cardiology but across medical specialties,” Dr. Kuvin said. 

He also pointed out the ABMS itself is considering a continuous competency approach, and the proposed new cardiology board aims to work with the ABMS to make sure that their goals of continuous competency assessment are matched. 

“The world has changed. The ability to access information has changed. It is no longer imperative for a clinician to have every piece of knowledge in their brain, but rather to know how to get knowledge and to incorporate that knowledge into clinical practice,” Dr. Kuvin noted. “Competency should not involve knowledge alone as in a closed book exam. It is more about understanding the world that we live in, how to synthesize information, where we need to improve knowledge and how to do that.” 

Dr. Kuvin acknowledged that asking clinicians questions is a very helpful tool to identify their knowledge base and their knowledge gaps. “But we believe the clinician needs to be given resources — that could be a conference, an article, a simulation — to fill that knowledge gap. Then we could ask clinicians some different questions and if they get those right then we have provided a service.” 

Tactile skills for cardiologists needing to perform procedures – such as interventionalists or electrophysiologists may be incorporated by simulation in a technology-based scenario.

On how often these assessments would take place, Dr. Kuvin said that hadn’t been decided for sure. 

“We certainly do not think an assessment every 10 years is appropriate. We envision, instead of an episodic model, it will be rather a lifelong journey of education and competency. This will involve frequent contact and making sure knowledge gaps are being filled. There are criteria being set out by the ABMS that there should be a certain number of touch points with individuals on an annual as well as a 5-year basis to make sure cardiologists are staying within specific guardrails. The exact nature of these is yet to be determined,” he said. 

Dr. Kuvin added that it was not known yet what sort of hours would be required but added that “this will not be a significant time burden.”
 

What is the Timeframe?

The application to the ABMS for a separate cardiology board is still ongoing and has not yet received formal acceptance. Representatives from the five US cardiovascular societies are in the initial stages of formulating a transition board. 

“The submission to the ABMS will take time for them to review. This could take up to a year or so,” Dr. Kuvin estimates. 

This is the first time the ABMS has entertained the concept of a new board in many years, he noted. “It will be a paradigm shift for the whole country. I think that cardiology is really at the forefront and in a position where we can actually do this. If cardiovascular medicine is granted a new board, I think this will help change the approach of how physicians are assessed in terms of continuous competency not just in cardiology but across all specialties of medicine.”

He added: “We are confident that we can work within the construct of the ABMS guidelines that have been revised to be much more holistic in the approach of continuous competence across the board. This includes thinking beyond rote medical knowledge and thinking about the clinician as a whole and their abilities to communicate, act professionally, work within a complex medical system, utilize medical resources effectively. These all have to be part of continuous competence.”
 

How Much Will This Cost?

Noting that the ABIM has received criticism over the costs of the certification process, Dr. Kuvin said they intend to make this “as lean a machine as possible with the focus on reducing the financial [burden] as well as the time burden for cardiologists. It is very important that this is not cumbersome, that it is woven into clinical practice, and that it is not costly.” 

But he pointed out that building a new board will have significant costs. 

“We have to think about developing initial board certification examinations as well as changing the paradigm on continuous certification,” he said. “This will take some up-front costs, and our society partners have decided that they are willing to provide some start-up funds for this. We anticipate the initial certification will remain somewhat similar in price, but the cost of ongoing continuous competency assessment will be significantly reduced compared to today’s models.”

Dr. Kuvin said the collaboration of the five participating US cardiovascular societies was unprecedented. But he noted that while the transition board is beginning with representatives of these individual societies, it will ultimately be independent from these societies and have its own board of directors. 

He suggested that other societies representing other parts of cardiology are also interested. “Cardiology has recognized how important this is,” he said. “Everybody is excited about this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The proposal by the major cardiovascular societies in the US to form a new board of cardiovascular medicine to manage initial and ongoing certification of cardiologists represents something of a revolution in the field of continuing medical education and assessment of competency. 

Five US cardiovascular societies — the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA), the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) — have now joined forces to propose a new professional certification board for cardiovascular medicine, to be known as the American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine (ABCVM). 

The ABCVM would be independent of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), the current organization providing maintenance of certification for cardiologists as well as many other internal medicine subspecialties. The ABIM’s maintenance of certification process has been widely criticized for many years and has been described as “needlessly burdensome and expensive.” 

The ABCVM is hoping to offer a more appropriate and supportive approach, according to Jeffrey Kuvin, MD, a trustee of the ACC, who has been heading up the working group to develop this plan. 

Dr. Kuvin, who is chair of the cardiology at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York, a large academic healthcare system, explained that maintenance of certification has been a topic of discussion across the cardiovascular community for many years, and the ACC has a working group focused on the next steps for evaluation of competency, which he chairs.

“The topic of evaluation of competence has been on the mind of the ACC for many years and hence a work group was developed to focus on this,” Dr. Kuvin noted. “A lot of evolution of the concepts and next steps have been drawn out of this working group. And now other cardiovascular societies have joined to show unification across the house of cardiology and that this is indeed the way that the cardiovascular profession should move.” 
 

“Time to Separate from Internal Medicine”

The general concept behind the new cardiology board is to separate cardiology from the ABIM. 

“This is rooted from the concept that cardiology has evolved so much over the last few decades into such a large multidimensional specialty that it really does demarcate itself from internal medicine, and as such, it deserves a separate board governed by cardiologists with collaboration across the entirely of cardiology,” Dr. Kuvin said. 

Cardiology has had significant growth and expansion of technology, tools, medications, and the approach to patients in many specialities and subspecialties, he added. “We have defined training programs in many different areas within cardiology; we have our own guidelines, our own competency statements, and in many cases, cardiology exists as its own department outside of medicine in many institutions. It’s just time to separate cardiology from the umbrella of internal medicine.” 

The new cardiology board would be separate from, and not report to, the ABIM; rather, it would report directly to the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), the only recognized medical certification body in the US. 
 

What Are the Proposed Changes

Under the present system, managed by the ABIM, clinicians must undergo two stages of certification to be a cardiologist. First, they have to pass the initial certification exam in general cardiology, and then exams in one of four subspecialties if they plan to enter one of these, including interventional cardiology, electrophysiology, advanced heart failure or adult congenital heart disease. 

Next, clinicians enter the maintenance of certification phase, which can take three different forms: 1) taking another recertification exam every 10 years; 2) the collaborative maintenance pathway — a collaboration between ACC and ABIM, which includes evaluation, learning and a certified exam each year; or 3) longitudinal knowledge and assessment — in which the program interacts with the clinician on an ongoing basis, sending secured questions regularly. 

All three of these pathways for maintenance of certification involve high stakes questions and a set bar for passing or failing. 

Under the proposed new cardiology board, an initial certification exam would still be required after fellowship training, but the maintenance of certification process would be completely restructured, with the new approach taking the form of continuous learning and assessment of competency. 

“This is an iterative process, but we envision with a new American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine, we will pick up where the ABIM left off,” Dr. Kuvin notes. “That includes an initial certifying examination for the five areas that already exist under the ABIM system but with the opportunities to expand that to further specialties as well.”

He points out that there are several areas in cardiology that are currently not represented by these five areas that warrant some discussion, including multimodality imaging, vascular heart disease, and cardio-oncology. 

“At present, everybody has to pass the general cardiology exam and then some may wish to further train and get certified in one of the other four other specific areas. But one topic that has been discussed over many years is how do we maintain competency in the areas in which clinicians practice over their lifetime as a cardiologist,” Dr. Kuvin commented. 

He said the proposed cardiology board would like to adhere to some basic principles that are fundamental to the practice of medicine. 

“We want to make sure that we are practicing medicine so that our patients derive the most benefit from seeing a cardiologist,” he said. “We also want to make sure, however, that this is a supportive process, supporting cardiologists to learn what they know and more importantly what they don’t know; to identify knowledge gaps in specific area; to help the cardiologist fill those knowledge gaps; to acknowledge those gaps have been filled; and then move on to another area of interest. This will be the focus of this new and improved model of continuous competency.”

The proposed new board also says it wants to make sure this is appropriate to the area in which the clinician is practicing.

“To take a closed book certified exam every 10 years on the world of cardiology as happens at the current time – or the assessments conducted in the other two pathways – is often meaningless to the cardiologist,” Dr. Kuvin says. “All three current pathways involve high stakes questions that are often irrelevant to one’s clinical practice.” 
 

Lifelong Learning

“The crux of the changes we are proposing will be away from the focus of passing a test towards a model of helping the individual with their competency, with continuous learning and evaluation of competency to help the clinician fill in their knowledge gaps,” he explains.

He described the new approach as “lifelong learning,” adding that, instead of it being “a punitive pass/fail environment with no feedback, which causes a lot of discontent among clinicians,” it will be a supportive process, where a clinician will be helped in filling their knowledge gaps. 

“I think this would be a welcome change not just for cardiology but across medical specialties,” Dr. Kuvin said. 

He also pointed out the ABMS itself is considering a continuous competency approach, and the proposed new cardiology board aims to work with the ABMS to make sure that their goals of continuous competency assessment are matched. 

“The world has changed. The ability to access information has changed. It is no longer imperative for a clinician to have every piece of knowledge in their brain, but rather to know how to get knowledge and to incorporate that knowledge into clinical practice,” Dr. Kuvin noted. “Competency should not involve knowledge alone as in a closed book exam. It is more about understanding the world that we live in, how to synthesize information, where we need to improve knowledge and how to do that.” 

Dr. Kuvin acknowledged that asking clinicians questions is a very helpful tool to identify their knowledge base and their knowledge gaps. “But we believe the clinician needs to be given resources — that could be a conference, an article, a simulation — to fill that knowledge gap. Then we could ask clinicians some different questions and if they get those right then we have provided a service.” 

Tactile skills for cardiologists needing to perform procedures – such as interventionalists or electrophysiologists may be incorporated by simulation in a technology-based scenario.

On how often these assessments would take place, Dr. Kuvin said that hadn’t been decided for sure. 

“We certainly do not think an assessment every 10 years is appropriate. We envision, instead of an episodic model, it will be rather a lifelong journey of education and competency. This will involve frequent contact and making sure knowledge gaps are being filled. There are criteria being set out by the ABMS that there should be a certain number of touch points with individuals on an annual as well as a 5-year basis to make sure cardiologists are staying within specific guardrails. The exact nature of these is yet to be determined,” he said. 

Dr. Kuvin added that it was not known yet what sort of hours would be required but added that “this will not be a significant time burden.”
 

What is the Timeframe?

The application to the ABMS for a separate cardiology board is still ongoing and has not yet received formal acceptance. Representatives from the five US cardiovascular societies are in the initial stages of formulating a transition board. 

“The submission to the ABMS will take time for them to review. This could take up to a year or so,” Dr. Kuvin estimates. 

This is the first time the ABMS has entertained the concept of a new board in many years, he noted. “It will be a paradigm shift for the whole country. I think that cardiology is really at the forefront and in a position where we can actually do this. If cardiovascular medicine is granted a new board, I think this will help change the approach of how physicians are assessed in terms of continuous competency not just in cardiology but across all specialties of medicine.”

He added: “We are confident that we can work within the construct of the ABMS guidelines that have been revised to be much more holistic in the approach of continuous competence across the board. This includes thinking beyond rote medical knowledge and thinking about the clinician as a whole and their abilities to communicate, act professionally, work within a complex medical system, utilize medical resources effectively. These all have to be part of continuous competence.”
 

How Much Will This Cost?

Noting that the ABIM has received criticism over the costs of the certification process, Dr. Kuvin said they intend to make this “as lean a machine as possible with the focus on reducing the financial [burden] as well as the time burden for cardiologists. It is very important that this is not cumbersome, that it is woven into clinical practice, and that it is not costly.” 

But he pointed out that building a new board will have significant costs. 

“We have to think about developing initial board certification examinations as well as changing the paradigm on continuous certification,” he said. “This will take some up-front costs, and our society partners have decided that they are willing to provide some start-up funds for this. We anticipate the initial certification will remain somewhat similar in price, but the cost of ongoing continuous competency assessment will be significantly reduced compared to today’s models.”

Dr. Kuvin said the collaboration of the five participating US cardiovascular societies was unprecedented. But he noted that while the transition board is beginning with representatives of these individual societies, it will ultimately be independent from these societies and have its own board of directors. 

He suggested that other societies representing other parts of cardiology are also interested. “Cardiology has recognized how important this is,” he said. “Everybody is excited about this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Talk about bloodlines: In the Brodsky family, the field of hematology tied father to son. Now a grandson is heading into the “family business.” This extraordinary legacy ties the late Isadore Brodsky, a pioneering hematologist, to his son Robert A. Brodsky, current president of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), and grandson Max Brodsky, now a second-year hematology fellow.

In interviews, Robert and Max Brodsky spoke about the appeal of hematology and the threads that unite them with family members who came before. The elder Brodsky also talked about the work that’s made him the proudest during his year-long presidency at ASH.

Courtesy Dr. Robert A. Brodsky

Robert A. Brodsky is professor of medicine and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He is stepping down as ASH president at its annual meeting in San Diego, December 9-12. Here are excerpts from our conversation:

Q: What drew your dad into medicine?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: He was going through his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania, then the Vietnam War came, and he served at the National Institutes of Health in what they referred to as the Yellow Berets. He got very interested in retroviruses and viruses that lead to cancer, which was a foreign idea at the time. This led him into hematology, stem cells, and myeloproliferative disorders.

He had a very successful career in hematology and just loved it. He performed the first bone marrow transplant in the tristate area of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.

Q: What did he like about hematology specifically?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: It’s a fascinating field, probably the most scientific area of medicine. It’s so easy to access blood and bone marrow. You can grow it, you can look at it, you can see it. It’s hard to do that with a lung, heart, kidney, or brain. Even back then, they could translate some of the science. What really drew him to hematology — and me, for that matter — was looking at a blood smear or bone marrow and being able to make a diagnosis. The other thing is the personal aspect. Hematologists tend to like the long-term relationships that they develop with their patients over the years.

Q: What were the biggest transformations in hematology during his career?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: Bone marrow transplant had the biggest impact, and it’s an area he really pioneered. He was very much involved in some of the early bone marrow transplants and was very close with Dr. George W. Santos, who was at Johns Hopkins and one of the big pioneers in that area as well. To be able to take marrow from related donors, get it to grow without the patient rejecting it, and cure a disease, was really huge. When he started doing this, patients had no other option. To see patients be cured was incredibly satisfying to him.

Q: How did you end up following your father into hematology?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: My brother Jeff, who’s a surgeon and older than me, knew he was going into medicine — probably about 3 hours after he was born. I came to it late. I was a political science major as an undergrad and really trying to figure out what I wanted to do. In my sophomore year, I decided I wanted to give this a shot. My dad worked very hard, long hours, but you could tell he loved what he did. And he was never absent, always involved in our lives and still made time for everyone. At some level, that must have had an influence on me.

Q: What has changed in hematology over your 30-plus years in medicine?

A: When I look back at when I was a fellow, it’s just mind-boggling how many lethal or life-threatening diseases are now pretty easy to treat. I studied disorders like aplastic anemia, which was very fatal. Without treatment, patients would die within a year. Now, over 95% are cured. Another classic examples is chronic myeloid leukemia disorder. Back when I was a fellow, the median survival for CML was maybe 4 to 6 years. Now, Kareem Abdul Jabbar has had this[for about 15 years]. Also a lot of hematologic malignancies are being cured with immunotherapy approaches. We’ve figured out the pathophysiology of a lot of diseases, and there are incredible genetic diagnostic assays.

Q: What was your father’s relationship with ASH?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: The first ASH meeting was 1958 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. There were 300 hematologists there, and my dad was one of them. We’re going to have over 30,000 people in San Diego, which is a record, and another 5,000 or 6,000 virtually.

Q: As ASH president, what are your biggest accomplishments when it comes to addressing the shortage of hematologists and other issues?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH is investing $19 million to develop fellowships with a focus on hematology.* This is going to put lots of new hematologists into the workforce over the next 5 to 10 years. We’ve also been working on the Maintenance of Certification [MOC] process to make it less onerous on physicians. It’s really a bad process, and it’s not just ASH [that’s complaining], it’s all of medicine. We’re hearing this from GI, endocrine, renal and the general internists.

[In a September 2023 letter to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s president and chief officer, Dr. Brodsky wrote that “ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program.” ASH is calling for a new and reformed MOC program.]

Q: What convinced ASH to expand its journals by adding Blood Neoplasia and Blood Vessels, Thrombosis & Hemostasis?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH has two flagship journals right now, Blood and Blood Advances, and they’re both very competitive, high-impact journals. It turns out there’s not enough room to publish all the new science, and they end up rejecting the majority of the submissions that come to them. We decided to keep these journals in the ASH family because there’s some fantastic clinical trials and science that would be going elsewhere.

Dr. Brodsky’s sons both have medical degrees: Brett Brodsky, DO, is a resident at Virginia Commonwealth University who plans to become a sports medicine specialist, and Max Brodsky, MD, is a second-year fellow in hematology at Johns Hopkins University.

In an interview, Max Brodsky, MD, talked about the roots of his family’s dedication to caring for others.

Q: What drew you to hematology?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’ve watched both my dad and my grandfather be leaders in the field as both physicians and scientists, and that was very inspirational for me to see. And I went to a medical school [Drexel University College of Medicine] that my dad went to and where my grandfather was on faculty. That was like walking in their footsteps in a major way.

Q: What do you hope to focus on as a hematologist?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’m still working through that, but I am really interested in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Patients used to not be able to survive their initial episodes, but now we have good treatments and are able to follow them as outpatients. With this whole cohort of patients that are surviving, we’re seeing that they have more health problems — more heart disease, more strokes and kidney disease. There’s a whole growing field exploring how to treat these patients for their lifespan.

Q: How do you deal with the reality that more of your patients will die than in some other medical fields?

Dr. Max Brodsky: It is challenging, but I also see those moments as opportunities to support patients and families. I’m good at connecting to patients and families who are in scary situations. I’ve always had that skill of putting people at ease, making people feel calm, knowing that they can trust me, and I have their best interests in mind.

Q: Why do you think your family is so committed to medicine?

Dr. Max Brodsky: We’re Jewish, and looking to help the world is one of the main core values of Judaism. The Torah expects us to make this world better.  Actually, my great-grandfather Max, whom I’m named after, used to dig tunnels to help people escape Ukraine and get to freedom. He was always looking to help others as well. My great-grandmother was shot crossing the border escaping from Ukraine, and he carried her the whole way to the boat. They lived in very poor West Philadelphia and poured everything into my grandfather. He became a great doctor, and his sons and his grandchildren are in medicine today.

*Correction, 12/11: A previous version of this story misstated the amount of ASH’s $19 million investment in developing fellowships with a focus on hematology.

Talk about bloodlines: In the Brodsky family, the field of hematology tied father to son. Now a grandson is heading into the “family business.” This extraordinary legacy ties the late Isadore Brodsky, a pioneering hematologist, to his son Robert A. Brodsky, current president of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), and grandson Max Brodsky, now a second-year hematology fellow.

In interviews, Robert and Max Brodsky spoke about the appeal of hematology and the threads that unite them with family members who came before. The elder Brodsky also talked about the work that’s made him the proudest during his year-long presidency at ASH.

Courtesy Dr. Robert A. Brodsky

Robert A. Brodsky is professor of medicine and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He is stepping down as ASH president at its annual meeting in San Diego, December 9-12. Here are excerpts from our conversation:

Q: What drew your dad into medicine?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: He was going through his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania, then the Vietnam War came, and he served at the National Institutes of Health in what they referred to as the Yellow Berets. He got very interested in retroviruses and viruses that lead to cancer, which was a foreign idea at the time. This led him into hematology, stem cells, and myeloproliferative disorders.

He had a very successful career in hematology and just loved it. He performed the first bone marrow transplant in the tristate area of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.

Q: What did he like about hematology specifically?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: It’s a fascinating field, probably the most scientific area of medicine. It’s so easy to access blood and bone marrow. You can grow it, you can look at it, you can see it. It’s hard to do that with a lung, heart, kidney, or brain. Even back then, they could translate some of the science. What really drew him to hematology — and me, for that matter — was looking at a blood smear or bone marrow and being able to make a diagnosis. The other thing is the personal aspect. Hematologists tend to like the long-term relationships that they develop with their patients over the years.

Q: What were the biggest transformations in hematology during his career?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: Bone marrow transplant had the biggest impact, and it’s an area he really pioneered. He was very much involved in some of the early bone marrow transplants and was very close with Dr. George W. Santos, who was at Johns Hopkins and one of the big pioneers in that area as well. To be able to take marrow from related donors, get it to grow without the patient rejecting it, and cure a disease, was really huge. When he started doing this, patients had no other option. To see patients be cured was incredibly satisfying to him.

Q: How did you end up following your father into hematology?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: My brother Jeff, who’s a surgeon and older than me, knew he was going into medicine — probably about 3 hours after he was born. I came to it late. I was a political science major as an undergrad and really trying to figure out what I wanted to do. In my sophomore year, I decided I wanted to give this a shot. My dad worked very hard, long hours, but you could tell he loved what he did. And he was never absent, always involved in our lives and still made time for everyone. At some level, that must have had an influence on me.

Q: What has changed in hematology over your 30-plus years in medicine?

A: When I look back at when I was a fellow, it’s just mind-boggling how many lethal or life-threatening diseases are now pretty easy to treat. I studied disorders like aplastic anemia, which was very fatal. Without treatment, patients would die within a year. Now, over 95% are cured. Another classic examples is chronic myeloid leukemia disorder. Back when I was a fellow, the median survival for CML was maybe 4 to 6 years. Now, Kareem Abdul Jabbar has had this[for about 15 years]. Also a lot of hematologic malignancies are being cured with immunotherapy approaches. We’ve figured out the pathophysiology of a lot of diseases, and there are incredible genetic diagnostic assays.

Q: What was your father’s relationship with ASH?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: The first ASH meeting was 1958 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. There were 300 hematologists there, and my dad was one of them. We’re going to have over 30,000 people in San Diego, which is a record, and another 5,000 or 6,000 virtually.

Q: As ASH president, what are your biggest accomplishments when it comes to addressing the shortage of hematologists and other issues?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH is investing $19 million to develop fellowships with a focus on hematology.* This is going to put lots of new hematologists into the workforce over the next 5 to 10 years. We’ve also been working on the Maintenance of Certification [MOC] process to make it less onerous on physicians. It’s really a bad process, and it’s not just ASH [that’s complaining], it’s all of medicine. We’re hearing this from GI, endocrine, renal and the general internists.

[In a September 2023 letter to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s president and chief officer, Dr. Brodsky wrote that “ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program.” ASH is calling for a new and reformed MOC program.]

Q: What convinced ASH to expand its journals by adding Blood Neoplasia and Blood Vessels, Thrombosis & Hemostasis?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH has two flagship journals right now, Blood and Blood Advances, and they’re both very competitive, high-impact journals. It turns out there’s not enough room to publish all the new science, and they end up rejecting the majority of the submissions that come to them. We decided to keep these journals in the ASH family because there’s some fantastic clinical trials and science that would be going elsewhere.

Dr. Brodsky’s sons both have medical degrees: Brett Brodsky, DO, is a resident at Virginia Commonwealth University who plans to become a sports medicine specialist, and Max Brodsky, MD, is a second-year fellow in hematology at Johns Hopkins University.

In an interview, Max Brodsky, MD, talked about the roots of his family’s dedication to caring for others.

Q: What drew you to hematology?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’ve watched both my dad and my grandfather be leaders in the field as both physicians and scientists, and that was very inspirational for me to see. And I went to a medical school [Drexel University College of Medicine] that my dad went to and where my grandfather was on faculty. That was like walking in their footsteps in a major way.

Q: What do you hope to focus on as a hematologist?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’m still working through that, but I am really interested in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Patients used to not be able to survive their initial episodes, but now we have good treatments and are able to follow them as outpatients. With this whole cohort of patients that are surviving, we’re seeing that they have more health problems — more heart disease, more strokes and kidney disease. There’s a whole growing field exploring how to treat these patients for their lifespan.

Q: How do you deal with the reality that more of your patients will die than in some other medical fields?

Dr. Max Brodsky: It is challenging, but I also see those moments as opportunities to support patients and families. I’m good at connecting to patients and families who are in scary situations. I’ve always had that skill of putting people at ease, making people feel calm, knowing that they can trust me, and I have their best interests in mind.

Q: Why do you think your family is so committed to medicine?

Dr. Max Brodsky: We’re Jewish, and looking to help the world is one of the main core values of Judaism. The Torah expects us to make this world better.  Actually, my great-grandfather Max, whom I’m named after, used to dig tunnels to help people escape Ukraine and get to freedom. He was always looking to help others as well. My great-grandmother was shot crossing the border escaping from Ukraine, and he carried her the whole way to the boat. They lived in very poor West Philadelphia and poured everything into my grandfather. He became a great doctor, and his sons and his grandchildren are in medicine today.

*Correction, 12/11: A previous version of this story misstated the amount of ASH’s $19 million investment in developing fellowships with a focus on hematology.

Talk about bloodlines: In the Brodsky family, the field of hematology tied father to son. Now a grandson is heading into the “family business.” This extraordinary legacy ties the late Isadore Brodsky, a pioneering hematologist, to his son Robert A. Brodsky, current president of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), and grandson Max Brodsky, now a second-year hematology fellow.

In interviews, Robert and Max Brodsky spoke about the appeal of hematology and the threads that unite them with family members who came before. The elder Brodsky also talked about the work that’s made him the proudest during his year-long presidency at ASH.

Courtesy Dr. Robert A. Brodsky

Robert A. Brodsky is professor of medicine and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He is stepping down as ASH president at its annual meeting in San Diego, December 9-12. Here are excerpts from our conversation:

Q: What drew your dad into medicine?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: He was going through his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania, then the Vietnam War came, and he served at the National Institutes of Health in what they referred to as the Yellow Berets. He got very interested in retroviruses and viruses that lead to cancer, which was a foreign idea at the time. This led him into hematology, stem cells, and myeloproliferative disorders.

He had a very successful career in hematology and just loved it. He performed the first bone marrow transplant in the tristate area of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.

Q: What did he like about hematology specifically?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: It’s a fascinating field, probably the most scientific area of medicine. It’s so easy to access blood and bone marrow. You can grow it, you can look at it, you can see it. It’s hard to do that with a lung, heart, kidney, or brain. Even back then, they could translate some of the science. What really drew him to hematology — and me, for that matter — was looking at a blood smear or bone marrow and being able to make a diagnosis. The other thing is the personal aspect. Hematologists tend to like the long-term relationships that they develop with their patients over the years.

Q: What were the biggest transformations in hematology during his career?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: Bone marrow transplant had the biggest impact, and it’s an area he really pioneered. He was very much involved in some of the early bone marrow transplants and was very close with Dr. George W. Santos, who was at Johns Hopkins and one of the big pioneers in that area as well. To be able to take marrow from related donors, get it to grow without the patient rejecting it, and cure a disease, was really huge. When he started doing this, patients had no other option. To see patients be cured was incredibly satisfying to him.

Q: How did you end up following your father into hematology?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: My brother Jeff, who’s a surgeon and older than me, knew he was going into medicine — probably about 3 hours after he was born. I came to it late. I was a political science major as an undergrad and really trying to figure out what I wanted to do. In my sophomore year, I decided I wanted to give this a shot. My dad worked very hard, long hours, but you could tell he loved what he did. And he was never absent, always involved in our lives and still made time for everyone. At some level, that must have had an influence on me.

Q: What has changed in hematology over your 30-plus years in medicine?

A: When I look back at when I was a fellow, it’s just mind-boggling how many lethal or life-threatening diseases are now pretty easy to treat. I studied disorders like aplastic anemia, which was very fatal. Without treatment, patients would die within a year. Now, over 95% are cured. Another classic examples is chronic myeloid leukemia disorder. Back when I was a fellow, the median survival for CML was maybe 4 to 6 years. Now, Kareem Abdul Jabbar has had this[for about 15 years]. Also a lot of hematologic malignancies are being cured with immunotherapy approaches. We’ve figured out the pathophysiology of a lot of diseases, and there are incredible genetic diagnostic assays.

Q: What was your father’s relationship with ASH?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: The first ASH meeting was 1958 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. There were 300 hematologists there, and my dad was one of them. We’re going to have over 30,000 people in San Diego, which is a record, and another 5,000 or 6,000 virtually.

Q: As ASH president, what are your biggest accomplishments when it comes to addressing the shortage of hematologists and other issues?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH is investing $19 million to develop fellowships with a focus on hematology.* This is going to put lots of new hematologists into the workforce over the next 5 to 10 years. We’ve also been working on the Maintenance of Certification [MOC] process to make it less onerous on physicians. It’s really a bad process, and it’s not just ASH [that’s complaining], it’s all of medicine. We’re hearing this from GI, endocrine, renal and the general internists.

[In a September 2023 letter to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s president and chief officer, Dr. Brodsky wrote that “ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program.” ASH is calling for a new and reformed MOC program.]

Q: What convinced ASH to expand its journals by adding Blood Neoplasia and Blood Vessels, Thrombosis & Hemostasis?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH has two flagship journals right now, Blood and Blood Advances, and they’re both very competitive, high-impact journals. It turns out there’s not enough room to publish all the new science, and they end up rejecting the majority of the submissions that come to them. We decided to keep these journals in the ASH family because there’s some fantastic clinical trials and science that would be going elsewhere.

Dr. Brodsky’s sons both have medical degrees: Brett Brodsky, DO, is a resident at Virginia Commonwealth University who plans to become a sports medicine specialist, and Max Brodsky, MD, is a second-year fellow in hematology at Johns Hopkins University.

In an interview, Max Brodsky, MD, talked about the roots of his family’s dedication to caring for others.

Q: What drew you to hematology?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’ve watched both my dad and my grandfather be leaders in the field as both physicians and scientists, and that was very inspirational for me to see. And I went to a medical school [Drexel University College of Medicine] that my dad went to and where my grandfather was on faculty. That was like walking in their footsteps in a major way.

Q: What do you hope to focus on as a hematologist?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’m still working through that, but I am really interested in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Patients used to not be able to survive their initial episodes, but now we have good treatments and are able to follow them as outpatients. With this whole cohort of patients that are surviving, we’re seeing that they have more health problems — more heart disease, more strokes and kidney disease. There’s a whole growing field exploring how to treat these patients for their lifespan.

Q: How do you deal with the reality that more of your patients will die than in some other medical fields?

Dr. Max Brodsky: It is challenging, but I also see those moments as opportunities to support patients and families. I’m good at connecting to patients and families who are in scary situations. I’ve always had that skill of putting people at ease, making people feel calm, knowing that they can trust me, and I have their best interests in mind.

Q: Why do you think your family is so committed to medicine?

Dr. Max Brodsky: We’re Jewish, and looking to help the world is one of the main core values of Judaism. The Torah expects us to make this world better.  Actually, my great-grandfather Max, whom I’m named after, used to dig tunnels to help people escape Ukraine and get to freedom. He was always looking to help others as well. My great-grandmother was shot crossing the border escaping from Ukraine, and he carried her the whole way to the boat. They lived in very poor West Philadelphia and poured everything into my grandfather. He became a great doctor, and his sons and his grandchildren are in medicine today.

*Correction, 12/11: A previous version of this story misstated the amount of ASH’s $19 million investment in developing fellowships with a focus on hematology.

Some call the drug “ecstasy” or “molly.” Researchers are calling it a potential tool to help treat loneliness.

As public health experts sound the alarm on a rising loneliness epidemic in the United States and across the globe, early research is finding that MDMA could increase social connectedness and reduce defensiveness in some people — effects that some say could, in combination with therapy, help combat loneliness. 

In the latest study, MDMA “led to a robust increase in feelings of connection” among people socializing in a controlled setting. Participants were dosed with either MDMA or a placebo and asked to chat with a stranger. Afterward, those who took MDMA said their companion was more responsive and attentive, and that they had plenty in common. The drug also “increased participants’ ratings of liking their partners, feeling connected and finding the conversation enjoyable and meaningful.” 

The study was small — just 18 participants — but its results “have implications for MDMA-assisted therapy,” the authors wrote. “This feeling of connectedness could help patients feel safe and trusting, thereby facilitating deeper emotional exploration.” 

MDMA “really does seem to make people want to interact more with other people,” says Harriet de Wit, PhD, a neuropharmacologist at the University of Chicago and one of the study’s authors. The results echo those of earlier research using psychedelics like LSD or psilocybin. 

It’s important to note that any intervention involving MDMA or psychedelics would be a drug-assisted therapy — that is, used in conjunction with the appropriate therapy and in a therapeutic setting. MDMA-assisted therapy has already drawn popular and scientific attention, as it recently cleared clinical trials for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and may be nearing approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

According to Friederike Holze, PhD, psychopharmacologist at the University of Basel, in Switzerland, “there could be a place” for MDMA and psychedelics in treating chronic loneliness, but only under professional supervision. 

There would have to be clear guidelines too, says Joshua Woolley, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco. 

MDMA and psychedelics “induce this plastic state, a state where people can change. They feel open, they feel like things are possible,” Dr. Woolley says. Then, with therapy, “you can help them change.”

Loneliness Can Impact Our Health

On top of the mental health ramifications, the physiologic effects of loneliness could have grave consequences over time. In observational studies, loneliness has been linked to higher risks for cancer and heart disease, and shorter lifespan. One third  of Americans over 45 say they are chronically lonely. 

Chronic loneliness changes how we think and behave, research shows. It makes us fear contact with others and see them in a more negative light, as more threatening and less trustworthy. Lonely people prefer to stand farther apart  from strangers and avoid touch. 

This is where MDMA-assisted therapies could potentially help, by easing these defensive tendencies, according to Dr. Woolley.

MDMA, Psychedelics, and Social Behavior

MDMA, or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, is a hybrid  between a stimulant and a psychedelic. In Dr. de Wit’s earlier experiments, volunteers given MDMA engaged more in communal activities, chatting, and playing games. They used more positive words during social encounters than those who had received a placebo. And after MDMA, people felt less rejected if they were slighted in Cyberball  — a virtual ball-tossing game commonly used to measure the effects of social exclusion.

MDMA has been shown to reduce people’s response to other’s negative emotions, diminishing activation of the amygdala (the brain’s fear center) while looking at pictures of angry faces. 

This could be helpful. “If you perceive a person’s natural expression as being a little bit angry, if that disappears, then you might be more inclined to interact,” de Wit says. 

However, there may be downsides, too. If a drug makes people more trusting and willing to connect, they could be taken advantage of. This is why, Dr. Woolley says, “psychedelics have been used in cults.” 

MDMA may also make the experience of touch more pleasant. In a series of experiments in 2019, researchers gently stroked volunteers ’ arms with a goat-hair brush, mimicking the comforting gestures one may receive from a loved one. At the same time, the scientists monitored the volunteers’ facial muscles. People on MDMA perceived gentle touch as more pleasant than those on placebo, and their smile muscles activated more.

MDMA and psychedelics boost social behaviors in animals, too — suggesting that their effects on relationships have a biological basis. Rats on MDMA are more likely to lie next to each other, and mice become more resilient to social stress. Even octopuses become more outgoing after a dose of MDMA, choosing to spend more time with other octopuses instead of a new toy. Classic psychedelics show similar effects — LSD, for example, makes mice more social. 

Psychedelics can induce a sense of a “dissolution of the self-other boundary,” Dr. Woolley says. People who take them often say it’s “helped them feel more connected to themselves and other people.” LSD, first synthesized in 1938, may help increase empathy in some people. 

Psilocybin, a compound found in over 200 species of mushrooms and used for centuries in Mesoamerican rituals, also seems to boost empathy, with effects persisting for at least seven days. In Cyberball, the online ball-throwing game, people who took psilocybin felt less socially rejected, an outcome reflected in their brain activation patterns in one study — the areas responsible for social-pain processing appeared to dim after a dose. 

Making It Legal and Putting It to Use

In 2020, Oregon became the first state to establish a regulatory framework for psilocybin for therapeutic use, and  Colorado  followed suit in 2022. Such therapeutic applications of psilocybin could help fight loneliness as well, Dr. Woolley believes, because a “ common symptom of depression is that people feel socially withdrawn and lack motivation, ” he says. As mentioned above, MDMA-assisted therapy is also nearing FDA approval for PTSD. 

What remain unclear are the exact mechanisms at play. 

“MDMA releases oxytocin, and it does that through serotonin receptors,” Dr. de Wit says. Serotonin activates 5-HT1A receptors in the hypothalamus, releasing oxytocin into the bloodstream. In Dr. de Wit’s recent experiments, the more people felt connected after taking MDMA, the more oxytocin was found circulating in their bodies. (Another drug, methamphetamine, also upped the levels of oxytocin but did not increase feelings of connectedness.) 

“It’s likely that both something in the serotonin system independent of oxytocin, and oxytocin itself, contribute,” Dr. de Wit says. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter responsible for motivation, appears to increase as well. 

The empathy-boosting effects of LSD also seem to be at least partly driven by oxytocin, experiments published in 2021 revealed. Studies in mice, meanwhile, suggest that glutamate, a chemical messenger in the brain, may be behind some of LSD’s prosocial effects. 

Scientists are fairly certain which receptors these drugs bind to and which neurotransmitters they affect. “How that gets translated into these higher-order things like empathy and feeling connected to the world, we don’t totally understand,” Dr. Woolley says.

Challenges and the Future

Although MDMA and psychedelics are largely considered safe when taken in a legal, medically controlled setting, there is reason to be cautious.

“They have relatively low impact on the body, like heart rate increase or blood pressure increase. But they might leave some disturbing psychological effects,” says Dr. Holze. Scientists routinely screen experiment volunteers for their risk for psychiatric disorders. 

Although risk for addiction is low with both MDMA and psychedelics, there is always some risk for misuse. MDMA “ can produce feelings of well-being, and then people might use it repeatedly, ” Dr. de Wit says. “ That doesn ’ t seem to be a problem for really a lot of people, but it could easily happen. ”  

Still, possibilities remain for MDMA in the fight against loneliness. 

“[People] feel open, they feel like things are possible, they feel like they’re unstuck,” Dr. Woolley says. “You can harness that in psychotherapy.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Some call the drug “ecstasy” or “molly.” Researchers are calling it a potential tool to help treat loneliness.

As public health experts sound the alarm on a rising loneliness epidemic in the United States and across the globe, early research is finding that MDMA could increase social connectedness and reduce defensiveness in some people — effects that some say could, in combination with therapy, help combat loneliness. 

In the latest study, MDMA “led to a robust increase in feelings of connection” among people socializing in a controlled setting. Participants were dosed with either MDMA or a placebo and asked to chat with a stranger. Afterward, those who took MDMA said their companion was more responsive and attentive, and that they had plenty in common. The drug also “increased participants’ ratings of liking their partners, feeling connected and finding the conversation enjoyable and meaningful.” 

The study was small — just 18 participants — but its results “have implications for MDMA-assisted therapy,” the authors wrote. “This feeling of connectedness could help patients feel safe and trusting, thereby facilitating deeper emotional exploration.” 

MDMA “really does seem to make people want to interact more with other people,” says Harriet de Wit, PhD, a neuropharmacologist at the University of Chicago and one of the study’s authors. The results echo those of earlier research using psychedelics like LSD or psilocybin. 

It’s important to note that any intervention involving MDMA or psychedelics would be a drug-assisted therapy — that is, used in conjunction with the appropriate therapy and in a therapeutic setting. MDMA-assisted therapy has already drawn popular and scientific attention, as it recently cleared clinical trials for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and may be nearing approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

According to Friederike Holze, PhD, psychopharmacologist at the University of Basel, in Switzerland, “there could be a place” for MDMA and psychedelics in treating chronic loneliness, but only under professional supervision. 

There would have to be clear guidelines too, says Joshua Woolley, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco. 

MDMA and psychedelics “induce this plastic state, a state where people can change. They feel open, they feel like things are possible,” Dr. Woolley says. Then, with therapy, “you can help them change.”

Loneliness Can Impact Our Health

On top of the mental health ramifications, the physiologic effects of loneliness could have grave consequences over time. In observational studies, loneliness has been linked to higher risks for cancer and heart disease, and shorter lifespan. One third  of Americans over 45 say they are chronically lonely. 

Chronic loneliness changes how we think and behave, research shows. It makes us fear contact with others and see them in a more negative light, as more threatening and less trustworthy. Lonely people prefer to stand farther apart  from strangers and avoid touch. 

This is where MDMA-assisted therapies could potentially help, by easing these defensive tendencies, according to Dr. Woolley.

MDMA, Psychedelics, and Social Behavior

MDMA, or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, is a hybrid  between a stimulant and a psychedelic. In Dr. de Wit’s earlier experiments, volunteers given MDMA engaged more in communal activities, chatting, and playing games. They used more positive words during social encounters than those who had received a placebo. And after MDMA, people felt less rejected if they were slighted in Cyberball  — a virtual ball-tossing game commonly used to measure the effects of social exclusion.

MDMA has been shown to reduce people’s response to other’s negative emotions, diminishing activation of the amygdala (the brain’s fear center) while looking at pictures of angry faces. 

This could be helpful. “If you perceive a person’s natural expression as being a little bit angry, if that disappears, then you might be more inclined to interact,” de Wit says. 

However, there may be downsides, too. If a drug makes people more trusting and willing to connect, they could be taken advantage of. This is why, Dr. Woolley says, “psychedelics have been used in cults.” 

MDMA may also make the experience of touch more pleasant. In a series of experiments in 2019, researchers gently stroked volunteers ’ arms with a goat-hair brush, mimicking the comforting gestures one may receive from a loved one. At the same time, the scientists monitored the volunteers’ facial muscles. People on MDMA perceived gentle touch as more pleasant than those on placebo, and their smile muscles activated more.

MDMA and psychedelics boost social behaviors in animals, too — suggesting that their effects on relationships have a biological basis. Rats on MDMA are more likely to lie next to each other, and mice become more resilient to social stress. Even octopuses become more outgoing after a dose of MDMA, choosing to spend more time with other octopuses instead of a new toy. Classic psychedelics show similar effects — LSD, for example, makes mice more social. 

Psychedelics can induce a sense of a “dissolution of the self-other boundary,” Dr. Woolley says. People who take them often say it’s “helped them feel more connected to themselves and other people.” LSD, first synthesized in 1938, may help increase empathy in some people. 

Psilocybin, a compound found in over 200 species of mushrooms and used for centuries in Mesoamerican rituals, also seems to boost empathy, with effects persisting for at least seven days. In Cyberball, the online ball-throwing game, people who took psilocybin felt less socially rejected, an outcome reflected in their brain activation patterns in one study — the areas responsible for social-pain processing appeared to dim after a dose. 

Making It Legal and Putting It to Use

In 2020, Oregon became the first state to establish a regulatory framework for psilocybin for therapeutic use, and  Colorado  followed suit in 2022. Such therapeutic applications of psilocybin could help fight loneliness as well, Dr. Woolley believes, because a “ common symptom of depression is that people feel socially withdrawn and lack motivation, ” he says. As mentioned above, MDMA-assisted therapy is also nearing FDA approval for PTSD. 

What remain unclear are the exact mechanisms at play. 

“MDMA releases oxytocin, and it does that through serotonin receptors,” Dr. de Wit says. Serotonin activates 5-HT1A receptors in the hypothalamus, releasing oxytocin into the bloodstream. In Dr. de Wit’s recent experiments, the more people felt connected after taking MDMA, the more oxytocin was found circulating in their bodies. (Another drug, methamphetamine, also upped the levels of oxytocin but did not increase feelings of connectedness.) 

“It’s likely that both something in the serotonin system independent of oxytocin, and oxytocin itself, contribute,” Dr. de Wit says. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter responsible for motivation, appears to increase as well. 

The empathy-boosting effects of LSD also seem to be at least partly driven by oxytocin, experiments published in 2021 revealed. Studies in mice, meanwhile, suggest that glutamate, a chemical messenger in the brain, may be behind some of LSD’s prosocial effects. 

Scientists are fairly certain which receptors these drugs bind to and which neurotransmitters they affect. “How that gets translated into these higher-order things like empathy and feeling connected to the world, we don’t totally understand,” Dr. Woolley says.

Challenges and the Future

Although MDMA and psychedelics are largely considered safe when taken in a legal, medically controlled setting, there is reason to be cautious.

“They have relatively low impact on the body, like heart rate increase or blood pressure increase. But they might leave some disturbing psychological effects,” says Dr. Holze. Scientists routinely screen experiment volunteers for their risk for psychiatric disorders. 

Although risk for addiction is low with both MDMA and psychedelics, there is always some risk for misuse. MDMA “ can produce feelings of well-being, and then people might use it repeatedly, ” Dr. de Wit says. “ That doesn ’ t seem to be a problem for really a lot of people, but it could easily happen. ”  

Still, possibilities remain for MDMA in the fight against loneliness. 

“[People] feel open, they feel like things are possible, they feel like they’re unstuck,” Dr. Woolley says. “You can harness that in psychotherapy.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Some call the drug “ecstasy” or “molly.” Researchers are calling it a potential tool to help treat loneliness.

As public health experts sound the alarm on a rising loneliness epidemic in the United States and across the globe, early research is finding that MDMA could increase social connectedness and reduce defensiveness in some people — effects that some say could, in combination with therapy, help combat loneliness. 

In the latest study, MDMA “led to a robust increase in feelings of connection” among people socializing in a controlled setting. Participants were dosed with either MDMA or a placebo and asked to chat with a stranger. Afterward, those who took MDMA said their companion was more responsive and attentive, and that they had plenty in common. The drug also “increased participants’ ratings of liking their partners, feeling connected and finding the conversation enjoyable and meaningful.” 

The study was small — just 18 participants — but its results “have implications for MDMA-assisted therapy,” the authors wrote. “This feeling of connectedness could help patients feel safe and trusting, thereby facilitating deeper emotional exploration.” 

MDMA “really does seem to make people want to interact more with other people,” says Harriet de Wit, PhD, a neuropharmacologist at the University of Chicago and one of the study’s authors. The results echo those of earlier research using psychedelics like LSD or psilocybin. 

It’s important to note that any intervention involving MDMA or psychedelics would be a drug-assisted therapy — that is, used in conjunction with the appropriate therapy and in a therapeutic setting. MDMA-assisted therapy has already drawn popular and scientific attention, as it recently cleared clinical trials for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and may be nearing approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

According to Friederike Holze, PhD, psychopharmacologist at the University of Basel, in Switzerland, “there could be a place” for MDMA and psychedelics in treating chronic loneliness, but only under professional supervision. 

There would have to be clear guidelines too, says Joshua Woolley, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco. 

MDMA and psychedelics “induce this plastic state, a state where people can change. They feel open, they feel like things are possible,” Dr. Woolley says. Then, with therapy, “you can help them change.”

Loneliness Can Impact Our Health

On top of the mental health ramifications, the physiologic effects of loneliness could have grave consequences over time. In observational studies, loneliness has been linked to higher risks for cancer and heart disease, and shorter lifespan. One third  of Americans over 45 say they are chronically lonely. 

Chronic loneliness changes how we think and behave, research shows. It makes us fear contact with others and see them in a more negative light, as more threatening and less trustworthy. Lonely people prefer to stand farther apart  from strangers and avoid touch. 

This is where MDMA-assisted therapies could potentially help, by easing these defensive tendencies, according to Dr. Woolley.

MDMA, Psychedelics, and Social Behavior

MDMA, or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, is a hybrid  between a stimulant and a psychedelic. In Dr. de Wit’s earlier experiments, volunteers given MDMA engaged more in communal activities, chatting, and playing games. They used more positive words during social encounters than those who had received a placebo. And after MDMA, people felt less rejected if they were slighted in Cyberball  — a virtual ball-tossing game commonly used to measure the effects of social exclusion.

MDMA has been shown to reduce people’s response to other’s negative emotions, diminishing activation of the amygdala (the brain’s fear center) while looking at pictures of angry faces. 

This could be helpful. “If you perceive a person’s natural expression as being a little bit angry, if that disappears, then you might be more inclined to interact,” de Wit says. 

However, there may be downsides, too. If a drug makes people more trusting and willing to connect, they could be taken advantage of. This is why, Dr. Woolley says, “psychedelics have been used in cults.” 

MDMA may also make the experience of touch more pleasant. In a series of experiments in 2019, researchers gently stroked volunteers ’ arms with a goat-hair brush, mimicking the comforting gestures one may receive from a loved one. At the same time, the scientists monitored the volunteers’ facial muscles. People on MDMA perceived gentle touch as more pleasant than those on placebo, and their smile muscles activated more.

MDMA and psychedelics boost social behaviors in animals, too — suggesting that their effects on relationships have a biological basis. Rats on MDMA are more likely to lie next to each other, and mice become more resilient to social stress. Even octopuses become more outgoing after a dose of MDMA, choosing to spend more time with other octopuses instead of a new toy. Classic psychedelics show similar effects — LSD, for example, makes mice more social. 

Psychedelics can induce a sense of a “dissolution of the self-other boundary,” Dr. Woolley says. People who take them often say it’s “helped them feel more connected to themselves and other people.” LSD, first synthesized in 1938, may help increase empathy in some people. 

Psilocybin, a compound found in over 200 species of mushrooms and used for centuries in Mesoamerican rituals, also seems to boost empathy, with effects persisting for at least seven days. In Cyberball, the online ball-throwing game, people who took psilocybin felt less socially rejected, an outcome reflected in their brain activation patterns in one study — the areas responsible for social-pain processing appeared to dim after a dose. 

Making It Legal and Putting It to Use

In 2020, Oregon became the first state to establish a regulatory framework for psilocybin for therapeutic use, and  Colorado  followed suit in 2022. Such therapeutic applications of psilocybin could help fight loneliness as well, Dr. Woolley believes, because a “ common symptom of depression is that people feel socially withdrawn and lack motivation, ” he says. As mentioned above, MDMA-assisted therapy is also nearing FDA approval for PTSD. 

What remain unclear are the exact mechanisms at play. 

“MDMA releases oxytocin, and it does that through serotonin receptors,” Dr. de Wit says. Serotonin activates 5-HT1A receptors in the hypothalamus, releasing oxytocin into the bloodstream. In Dr. de Wit’s recent experiments, the more people felt connected after taking MDMA, the more oxytocin was found circulating in their bodies. (Another drug, methamphetamine, also upped the levels of oxytocin but did not increase feelings of connectedness.) 

“It’s likely that both something in the serotonin system independent of oxytocin, and oxytocin itself, contribute,” Dr. de Wit says. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter responsible for motivation, appears to increase as well. 

The empathy-boosting effects of LSD also seem to be at least partly driven by oxytocin, experiments published in 2021 revealed. Studies in mice, meanwhile, suggest that glutamate, a chemical messenger in the brain, may be behind some of LSD’s prosocial effects. 

Scientists are fairly certain which receptors these drugs bind to and which neurotransmitters they affect. “How that gets translated into these higher-order things like empathy and feeling connected to the world, we don’t totally understand,” Dr. Woolley says.

Challenges and the Future

Although MDMA and psychedelics are largely considered safe when taken in a legal, medically controlled setting, there is reason to be cautious.

“They have relatively low impact on the body, like heart rate increase or blood pressure increase. But they might leave some disturbing psychological effects,” says Dr. Holze. Scientists routinely screen experiment volunteers for their risk for psychiatric disorders. 

Although risk for addiction is low with both MDMA and psychedelics, there is always some risk for misuse. MDMA “ can produce feelings of well-being, and then people might use it repeatedly, ” Dr. de Wit says. “ That doesn ’ t seem to be a problem for really a lot of people, but it could easily happen. ”  

Still, possibilities remain for MDMA in the fight against loneliness. 

“[People] feel open, they feel like things are possible, they feel like they’re unstuck,” Dr. Woolley says. “You can harness that in psychotherapy.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.