User login
No more ‘escape hatch’: Post Roe, new worries about meds linked to birth defects
As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?
“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”
Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”
Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.
Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.
Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.
Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.
“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”
Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.
Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.
What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”
Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.
“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”
Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”
The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.
“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”
Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.
While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.
“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”
The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?
“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”
Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”
Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.
Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.
Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.
Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.
“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”
Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.
Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.
What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”
Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.
“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”
Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”
The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.
“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”
Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.
While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.
“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”
The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?
“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”
Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”
Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.
Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.
Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.
Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.
“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”
Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.
Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.
What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”
Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.
“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”
Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”
The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.
“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”
Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.
While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.
“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”
The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More evidence the flu vaccine may guard against Alzheimer’s
In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.
“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.
The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.
The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
40% lower risk
Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.
However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.
Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.
The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.
During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.
The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
Mechanism unclear
“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.
“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.
It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.
“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
Alzheimer’s expert weighs in
Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.
“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.
“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.
“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.
“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.
The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.
The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
40% lower risk
Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.
However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.
Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.
The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.
During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.
The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
Mechanism unclear
“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.
“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.
It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.
“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
Alzheimer’s expert weighs in
Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.
“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.
“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.
“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.
“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.
The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.
The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
40% lower risk
Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.
However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.
Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.
The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.
During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.
The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
Mechanism unclear
“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.
“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.
It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.
“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
Alzheimer’s expert weighs in
Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.
“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.
“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.
“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE
Pemvidutide promising for fatty liver disease
LONDON – Weight loss, lipid reductions, and “robust improvements” in lipid species associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were achieved in patients who were treated with pemvidutide in a first-in-human, phase 1 clinical trial reported at the annual International Liver Congress, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
The presenting study investigator, Stephen A. Harrison, MD, said that pemvidutide, which is also being developed for the treatment of obesity, appeared to be well tolerated. There were no serious or severe adverse events, and no patient had to discontinue treatment because of side effects.
Overall, “pemvidutide represents a promising new agent,” said Dr. Harrison, medical director of Pinnacle Research in San Antonio, Texas.
Dual incretin effect
Pemvidutide is a “balanced” dual agonist of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon, Dr. Harrison explained in his oral abstract.
“With glucagon, we are working to drive energy expenditure up, and with GLP-1, we’re decreasing food intake,” Dr. Harrison said.
What might set pemvidutide apart from other incretins lies within its structure, Dr. Harrison suggested. The structure has two main regions – one with greater GLP-1 specificity and the other with greater glucagon specificity, and these two areas are linked by a propriety technology called a EuPort™ domain. This is an area which allows the drug to bind to albumin, which increases its serum half-life and enables weekly dosing while slowing its entry into the bloodstream.
“Ultimately, we think that this has impacts, hypothetically, on tolerability and potentially mitigating the need for dose escalation,” said Dr. Harrison.
Weight loss results
The phase 1 study Dr. Harrison presented had a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design with single and multiple ascending doses (SAD/MAD) of pemvidutide being tested. He presented data on the MAD phase only, noting that the SAD phase had been used to determine what doses to use in the latter.
Seventy individuals with a body mass index of between 25 and 40 kg/m2 were recruited and 34 of these were enrolled in the MAD phase of the study. Three doses of pemvidutide were used, given subcutaneously once a week for 12 weeks: Seven participants received 1.2 mg, 9 were given 1.8 mg, 11 had 2.4 mg, and 7 subjects were treated with placebo. Dr. Harrison noted that there were no caloric restrictions in the trial and no lifestyle modifications or interventions.
The average age of study participants ranged from 27 to 35 years and the mean BMI was 30-31 kg/m2 across each group, with their lipid parameters in the upper range of normal.
Clear weight loss reductions were seen across all the pemvidutide groups versus placebo, with the greatest percentage changes in weight loss seen with the two higher doses used. At week 12, there was a 4.9%, 10.3% and 9.0% weight loss in the 1.2-mg, 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg pemvidutide groups compared to 1.6% in placebo-treated individuals.
All patients in the 1.8-mg group achieved a 5% or greater weight loss, Dr. Harrison observed, but there “was a plateauing” effect with the 2.4-mg dose with 89% of patients achieving this target. In comparison, a third of patients on the lowest dose and 20% of those on placebo achieved this target.
The trajectory of weight loss seen in the trial suggests that “the rate of weight loss would continue beyond 12 weeks if we were to continue the therapy” Dr. Harrison said.
Lipid changes and liver fat reductions
Levels of serum lipids from baseline to week 12 fell to a greater extent with pemvidutide treatment than with placebo, in the range of –27% for total cholesterol in the two highest dose groups, –25% for LDL-cholesterol for those groups, –37% for triglycerides for the 1.2- and 1.8-mg groups, and reductions in apolipoprotein B were seen.
“We saw an initial decline in HDL [high-density lipoprotein],” Dr. Harrison said, noting that “this is consistent with prior studies looking at rapid weight loss, and over time, this mitigates as you continue to treat at least based on other mechanisms of action or other drugs with similar mechanisms.”
Pemvidutide treatment was also associated with increased lipid oxidation and decreased lipid synthesis, and “there was a robust decrease in lipids implicated in NASH inflammation,” Dr. Harrison pointed out.
Importantly, in five of eight participants who had high levels of liver fat at baseline – defined as a 5% or greater magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton-density-fat-fraction (MRI-PDFF) – showed a decrease to undetectable limits (1.5% or less). This was a greater than 90% reduction in liver fat, Dr. Harrison said. All five patients were in the 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg groups.
As for side effects, these were “predominantly upper GI, with nausea and vomiting.” These were mild in most cases, but he pointed out that five patients treated with the 1.8-mg dose experienced moderate nausea and three experienced moderate vomiting. Mild diarrhea and constipation were also seen in two of patients given this dose but was not reported in any of the other groups.
During the discussion following the presentation, it was pointed out that there was no clear dose-dependent effect considering the 1.8-mg dose seemed to have a stronger effect in some areas than the 2.4-mg dose. That’s a fair point, Dr. Harrison responded, reiterating it was a small study with a short treatment duration, but that there did look like a plateauing effect, “at least in patients with a mean BMI of between 30 and 31.”
Dr. Harrison was asked about potential effects on insulin levels and if that was a worry because, if glucagon is stimulated, it could increase insulin. That in turn might encourage insulin resistance and promote worse outcomes.
“If you look outside of just this program, glucagon agonism has been dosed in a lot of patients over time, and we haven’t seen that,” Dr. Harrison replied. Pemvidutide is an agonist rather than antagonist, so perhaps the [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]–inducing effects seen before with glucagon antagonism won’t occur, he suggested.
Dr. Harrison disclosed ties to Altimmune (the study sponsor), Akero, Axcella, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cirius, CiVi Biopharma, Conatus, Corcept, CymaBay, Enyo, Galectin, Genentech, Genfit, Gilead, Hepion, Hightide, HistoIndex, Intercept, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Bio, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, NorthSea, Pfizer, Sagimet, Viking, and 89Bio.
LONDON – Weight loss, lipid reductions, and “robust improvements” in lipid species associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were achieved in patients who were treated with pemvidutide in a first-in-human, phase 1 clinical trial reported at the annual International Liver Congress, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
The presenting study investigator, Stephen A. Harrison, MD, said that pemvidutide, which is also being developed for the treatment of obesity, appeared to be well tolerated. There were no serious or severe adverse events, and no patient had to discontinue treatment because of side effects.
Overall, “pemvidutide represents a promising new agent,” said Dr. Harrison, medical director of Pinnacle Research in San Antonio, Texas.
Dual incretin effect
Pemvidutide is a “balanced” dual agonist of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon, Dr. Harrison explained in his oral abstract.
“With glucagon, we are working to drive energy expenditure up, and with GLP-1, we’re decreasing food intake,” Dr. Harrison said.
What might set pemvidutide apart from other incretins lies within its structure, Dr. Harrison suggested. The structure has two main regions – one with greater GLP-1 specificity and the other with greater glucagon specificity, and these two areas are linked by a propriety technology called a EuPort™ domain. This is an area which allows the drug to bind to albumin, which increases its serum half-life and enables weekly dosing while slowing its entry into the bloodstream.
“Ultimately, we think that this has impacts, hypothetically, on tolerability and potentially mitigating the need for dose escalation,” said Dr. Harrison.
Weight loss results
The phase 1 study Dr. Harrison presented had a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design with single and multiple ascending doses (SAD/MAD) of pemvidutide being tested. He presented data on the MAD phase only, noting that the SAD phase had been used to determine what doses to use in the latter.
Seventy individuals with a body mass index of between 25 and 40 kg/m2 were recruited and 34 of these were enrolled in the MAD phase of the study. Three doses of pemvidutide were used, given subcutaneously once a week for 12 weeks: Seven participants received 1.2 mg, 9 were given 1.8 mg, 11 had 2.4 mg, and 7 subjects were treated with placebo. Dr. Harrison noted that there were no caloric restrictions in the trial and no lifestyle modifications or interventions.
The average age of study participants ranged from 27 to 35 years and the mean BMI was 30-31 kg/m2 across each group, with their lipid parameters in the upper range of normal.
Clear weight loss reductions were seen across all the pemvidutide groups versus placebo, with the greatest percentage changes in weight loss seen with the two higher doses used. At week 12, there was a 4.9%, 10.3% and 9.0% weight loss in the 1.2-mg, 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg pemvidutide groups compared to 1.6% in placebo-treated individuals.
All patients in the 1.8-mg group achieved a 5% or greater weight loss, Dr. Harrison observed, but there “was a plateauing” effect with the 2.4-mg dose with 89% of patients achieving this target. In comparison, a third of patients on the lowest dose and 20% of those on placebo achieved this target.
The trajectory of weight loss seen in the trial suggests that “the rate of weight loss would continue beyond 12 weeks if we were to continue the therapy” Dr. Harrison said.
Lipid changes and liver fat reductions
Levels of serum lipids from baseline to week 12 fell to a greater extent with pemvidutide treatment than with placebo, in the range of –27% for total cholesterol in the two highest dose groups, –25% for LDL-cholesterol for those groups, –37% for triglycerides for the 1.2- and 1.8-mg groups, and reductions in apolipoprotein B were seen.
“We saw an initial decline in HDL [high-density lipoprotein],” Dr. Harrison said, noting that “this is consistent with prior studies looking at rapid weight loss, and over time, this mitigates as you continue to treat at least based on other mechanisms of action or other drugs with similar mechanisms.”
Pemvidutide treatment was also associated with increased lipid oxidation and decreased lipid synthesis, and “there was a robust decrease in lipids implicated in NASH inflammation,” Dr. Harrison pointed out.
Importantly, in five of eight participants who had high levels of liver fat at baseline – defined as a 5% or greater magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton-density-fat-fraction (MRI-PDFF) – showed a decrease to undetectable limits (1.5% or less). This was a greater than 90% reduction in liver fat, Dr. Harrison said. All five patients were in the 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg groups.
As for side effects, these were “predominantly upper GI, with nausea and vomiting.” These were mild in most cases, but he pointed out that five patients treated with the 1.8-mg dose experienced moderate nausea and three experienced moderate vomiting. Mild diarrhea and constipation were also seen in two of patients given this dose but was not reported in any of the other groups.
During the discussion following the presentation, it was pointed out that there was no clear dose-dependent effect considering the 1.8-mg dose seemed to have a stronger effect in some areas than the 2.4-mg dose. That’s a fair point, Dr. Harrison responded, reiterating it was a small study with a short treatment duration, but that there did look like a plateauing effect, “at least in patients with a mean BMI of between 30 and 31.”
Dr. Harrison was asked about potential effects on insulin levels and if that was a worry because, if glucagon is stimulated, it could increase insulin. That in turn might encourage insulin resistance and promote worse outcomes.
“If you look outside of just this program, glucagon agonism has been dosed in a lot of patients over time, and we haven’t seen that,” Dr. Harrison replied. Pemvidutide is an agonist rather than antagonist, so perhaps the [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]–inducing effects seen before with glucagon antagonism won’t occur, he suggested.
Dr. Harrison disclosed ties to Altimmune (the study sponsor), Akero, Axcella, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cirius, CiVi Biopharma, Conatus, Corcept, CymaBay, Enyo, Galectin, Genentech, Genfit, Gilead, Hepion, Hightide, HistoIndex, Intercept, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Bio, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, NorthSea, Pfizer, Sagimet, Viking, and 89Bio.
LONDON – Weight loss, lipid reductions, and “robust improvements” in lipid species associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were achieved in patients who were treated with pemvidutide in a first-in-human, phase 1 clinical trial reported at the annual International Liver Congress, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
The presenting study investigator, Stephen A. Harrison, MD, said that pemvidutide, which is also being developed for the treatment of obesity, appeared to be well tolerated. There were no serious or severe adverse events, and no patient had to discontinue treatment because of side effects.
Overall, “pemvidutide represents a promising new agent,” said Dr. Harrison, medical director of Pinnacle Research in San Antonio, Texas.
Dual incretin effect
Pemvidutide is a “balanced” dual agonist of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon, Dr. Harrison explained in his oral abstract.
“With glucagon, we are working to drive energy expenditure up, and with GLP-1, we’re decreasing food intake,” Dr. Harrison said.
What might set pemvidutide apart from other incretins lies within its structure, Dr. Harrison suggested. The structure has two main regions – one with greater GLP-1 specificity and the other with greater glucagon specificity, and these two areas are linked by a propriety technology called a EuPort™ domain. This is an area which allows the drug to bind to albumin, which increases its serum half-life and enables weekly dosing while slowing its entry into the bloodstream.
“Ultimately, we think that this has impacts, hypothetically, on tolerability and potentially mitigating the need for dose escalation,” said Dr. Harrison.
Weight loss results
The phase 1 study Dr. Harrison presented had a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design with single and multiple ascending doses (SAD/MAD) of pemvidutide being tested. He presented data on the MAD phase only, noting that the SAD phase had been used to determine what doses to use in the latter.
Seventy individuals with a body mass index of between 25 and 40 kg/m2 were recruited and 34 of these were enrolled in the MAD phase of the study. Three doses of pemvidutide were used, given subcutaneously once a week for 12 weeks: Seven participants received 1.2 mg, 9 were given 1.8 mg, 11 had 2.4 mg, and 7 subjects were treated with placebo. Dr. Harrison noted that there were no caloric restrictions in the trial and no lifestyle modifications or interventions.
The average age of study participants ranged from 27 to 35 years and the mean BMI was 30-31 kg/m2 across each group, with their lipid parameters in the upper range of normal.
Clear weight loss reductions were seen across all the pemvidutide groups versus placebo, with the greatest percentage changes in weight loss seen with the two higher doses used. At week 12, there was a 4.9%, 10.3% and 9.0% weight loss in the 1.2-mg, 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg pemvidutide groups compared to 1.6% in placebo-treated individuals.
All patients in the 1.8-mg group achieved a 5% or greater weight loss, Dr. Harrison observed, but there “was a plateauing” effect with the 2.4-mg dose with 89% of patients achieving this target. In comparison, a third of patients on the lowest dose and 20% of those on placebo achieved this target.
The trajectory of weight loss seen in the trial suggests that “the rate of weight loss would continue beyond 12 weeks if we were to continue the therapy” Dr. Harrison said.
Lipid changes and liver fat reductions
Levels of serum lipids from baseline to week 12 fell to a greater extent with pemvidutide treatment than with placebo, in the range of –27% for total cholesterol in the two highest dose groups, –25% for LDL-cholesterol for those groups, –37% for triglycerides for the 1.2- and 1.8-mg groups, and reductions in apolipoprotein B were seen.
“We saw an initial decline in HDL [high-density lipoprotein],” Dr. Harrison said, noting that “this is consistent with prior studies looking at rapid weight loss, and over time, this mitigates as you continue to treat at least based on other mechanisms of action or other drugs with similar mechanisms.”
Pemvidutide treatment was also associated with increased lipid oxidation and decreased lipid synthesis, and “there was a robust decrease in lipids implicated in NASH inflammation,” Dr. Harrison pointed out.
Importantly, in five of eight participants who had high levels of liver fat at baseline – defined as a 5% or greater magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton-density-fat-fraction (MRI-PDFF) – showed a decrease to undetectable limits (1.5% or less). This was a greater than 90% reduction in liver fat, Dr. Harrison said. All five patients were in the 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg groups.
As for side effects, these were “predominantly upper GI, with nausea and vomiting.” These were mild in most cases, but he pointed out that five patients treated with the 1.8-mg dose experienced moderate nausea and three experienced moderate vomiting. Mild diarrhea and constipation were also seen in two of patients given this dose but was not reported in any of the other groups.
During the discussion following the presentation, it was pointed out that there was no clear dose-dependent effect considering the 1.8-mg dose seemed to have a stronger effect in some areas than the 2.4-mg dose. That’s a fair point, Dr. Harrison responded, reiterating it was a small study with a short treatment duration, but that there did look like a plateauing effect, “at least in patients with a mean BMI of between 30 and 31.”
Dr. Harrison was asked about potential effects on insulin levels and if that was a worry because, if glucagon is stimulated, it could increase insulin. That in turn might encourage insulin resistance and promote worse outcomes.
“If you look outside of just this program, glucagon agonism has been dosed in a lot of patients over time, and we haven’t seen that,” Dr. Harrison replied. Pemvidutide is an agonist rather than antagonist, so perhaps the [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]–inducing effects seen before with glucagon antagonism won’t occur, he suggested.
Dr. Harrison disclosed ties to Altimmune (the study sponsor), Akero, Axcella, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cirius, CiVi Biopharma, Conatus, Corcept, CymaBay, Enyo, Galectin, Genentech, Genfit, Gilead, Hepion, Hightide, HistoIndex, Intercept, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Bio, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, NorthSea, Pfizer, Sagimet, Viking, and 89Bio.
AT ILC 2022
Fatty liver disease drives rise in liver cancer deaths
LONDON – Around the world, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has driven an increase in deaths from liver cancer over the past decade, overtaking alcoholic liver disease, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C, according to an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.
A global rise in liver cancer deaths and chronic liver disease reflects changes in underlying health patterns, said Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor and chair, department of medicine, Inova Fairfax Medical Campus, Falls Church, Va., who presented the analysis at the International Liver Congress (ILC) 2022.
“NAFLD and NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] are rapidly becoming the main causes of cirrhosis and liver cancer in the world,” Dr. Younossi told this news organization. “We have known about the increasing prevalence for some time, but now the outcomes in terms of mortality are catching up,” he said.
“The bottom line of this study is that the burden of this disease [NAFLD] is going up, and it will be the most important disease of the next decade or so,” he said, adding that “the largest annual percentage increase in rates of mortality from liver cancer or chronic liver disease cirrhosis is related to NAFLD.”
Specifically, during the decade of 2009-2019, the annual percent change (APC) of +1.33% in the global liver cancer death rate was driven by the fact that the APC for NAFLD was +2.47%. By comparison, the APC for alcoholic liver disease was +1.91%; for hepatitis B, the APC was +0.21%; and for hepatitis C, the APC was +1.12%.
Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, professor and senior consultant of hepatology and director of Odense Liver Research Centre at SDU and Odense University Hospital, Denmark, who chaired the session in which this presentation was a part, acknowledged the importance of recognizing the contribution of NAFLD to liver cancer mortality.
“Liver diseases are on the rise. They are the fastest rising cause of death in the United Kingdom, faster than heart disease and other cancers. NAFLD in particular is the fastest growing cause of liver cancer, and the leading cause in France and the United States,” he remarked.
Dr. Krag also highlighted the costs of disease management.
“Managing fatty liver disease in Europe is estimated at €35 billion in direct health care, so we need to do something now,” he stressed.
“The global burden of NAFLD is so high that we need both prevention and treatment tools,” Dr. Krag said. “Change to lifestyle is a ‘no-brainer’ and costs governments very little. For the sake of our young people, we need to take this very seriously. At a political level, we can easily implement this, for example, by banning junk food advertisements, but also educating young people and their families. Good drugs will also help.”
NAFLD: The liver manifestation of type 2 diabetes
About 25%-30% of the global population have NAFLD, and 3%-5% have NASH. Dr. Younossi highlighted that the U.S. transplant database shows that NAFLD was the second indication for all liver transplants in the country. NAFLD also was a leading cause of liver transplants for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
There are around two billion cases of chronic liver disease globally, he said. He noted that over time, there has been an increase in all kinds of liver diseases, as reflected in the annual percent change.
“The global epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes is driving the rise in NAFLD, but even among lean people, the prevalence of NAFLD is around 9%,” Dr. Younossi said. “Alongside the eye and kidney complications of diabetes, this is the liver manifestation of type 2 diabetes.”
To assess global liver disease and death, Dr. Younossi and his colleagues turned to the Global Burden of Disease Study, which gathered data from around 7,000 investigators located across 22 different regions of the world, comprising 156 countries.
They calculated the incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in relation to liver cancer and chronic liver disease, including the APC. They linked the data to changes in four liver diseases: NAFLD, alcoholic liver disease, hepatitis B infection, and hepatitis C infection.
The cases of NAFLD reported in the study had been diagnosed by ultrasound or other imaging. Importantly, the prevalence of NAFLD was adjusted for alcohol use in the various national populations, explained Dr. Younossi.
In 2019, they reported that globally, the overall prevalence of liver disease reached 1.69 billion (liver cancer, 0.04%; chronic liver disease, 99.96%), with an incidence of 2.59 million (liver cancer, 20.7%; chronic liver disease, 79.3%), mortality of 1.95 million (liver cancer, 24.8%; chronic liver disease, 75.3%), and DALYs of 58.7 million (liver cancer, 21.3%; chronic liver disease, 78.7%).
Between 2009 and 2019, deaths from liver cancer rose by 27.2%, and deaths from chronic liver disease rose by 10.6%. DALYs from liver cancer rose by 21.9%, and DALYs from chronic liver disease were up by 5.1%.
In contrast to the increase in liver cancer deaths, deaths from chronic liver disease decreased (APC, –0.18%). The decrease was driven by a decrease in hepatitis B (APC, –1.83%). APCs for hepatitis C (+0.37%), alcoholic liver disease (+0.45%), and NAFLD (+1.33%) increased.
“The burden of hepatitis B–related mortality has decreased because we have been so good at vaccinating people,” Dr. Younossi remarked.
NAFLD ‘exploding’ in Middle East, North Africa, and East Asia
The increase in NAFLD has been seen in all regions of the world, but a breakdown by region shows that NAFLD is primarily “exploding” with highest prevalence and mortality in the Middle East (mostly Egypt, Iran, and Turkey), North Africa, and East Asia, said Dr. Younossi. In addition, there are large increases in the West and South America.
“We knew that the prevalence was high in the Middle East, but we now know that mortality is also high, so we are connecting these data,” said Dr. Younossi.
Awareness lacking
Dr. Younossi pressed the fact that awareness among the general population, primary care providers, and policymakers is very low. “From my perspective, raising awareness of NAFLD is the number one priority, and that is the value of this study.”
He added that more people will become aware as testing becomes more manageable.
“There are some noninvasive tests being developed, so in the future, we won’t have to do liver biopsies to diagnose these patients,” he said. “Currently, there are some excellent treatments being developed.”
“The WHO [World Health Organization] does not mention NAFLD as an important noncommunicable disease, and this too has to change,” Dr. Younossi added.
Dr. Younossi has received research funds and/or has consulted for Abbott, Allergan, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Echosens, Genfit, Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Madrigal, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Krag has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
LONDON – Around the world, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has driven an increase in deaths from liver cancer over the past decade, overtaking alcoholic liver disease, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C, according to an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.
A global rise in liver cancer deaths and chronic liver disease reflects changes in underlying health patterns, said Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor and chair, department of medicine, Inova Fairfax Medical Campus, Falls Church, Va., who presented the analysis at the International Liver Congress (ILC) 2022.
“NAFLD and NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] are rapidly becoming the main causes of cirrhosis and liver cancer in the world,” Dr. Younossi told this news organization. “We have known about the increasing prevalence for some time, but now the outcomes in terms of mortality are catching up,” he said.
“The bottom line of this study is that the burden of this disease [NAFLD] is going up, and it will be the most important disease of the next decade or so,” he said, adding that “the largest annual percentage increase in rates of mortality from liver cancer or chronic liver disease cirrhosis is related to NAFLD.”
Specifically, during the decade of 2009-2019, the annual percent change (APC) of +1.33% in the global liver cancer death rate was driven by the fact that the APC for NAFLD was +2.47%. By comparison, the APC for alcoholic liver disease was +1.91%; for hepatitis B, the APC was +0.21%; and for hepatitis C, the APC was +1.12%.
Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, professor and senior consultant of hepatology and director of Odense Liver Research Centre at SDU and Odense University Hospital, Denmark, who chaired the session in which this presentation was a part, acknowledged the importance of recognizing the contribution of NAFLD to liver cancer mortality.
“Liver diseases are on the rise. They are the fastest rising cause of death in the United Kingdom, faster than heart disease and other cancers. NAFLD in particular is the fastest growing cause of liver cancer, and the leading cause in France and the United States,” he remarked.
Dr. Krag also highlighted the costs of disease management.
“Managing fatty liver disease in Europe is estimated at €35 billion in direct health care, so we need to do something now,” he stressed.
“The global burden of NAFLD is so high that we need both prevention and treatment tools,” Dr. Krag said. “Change to lifestyle is a ‘no-brainer’ and costs governments very little. For the sake of our young people, we need to take this very seriously. At a political level, we can easily implement this, for example, by banning junk food advertisements, but also educating young people and their families. Good drugs will also help.”
NAFLD: The liver manifestation of type 2 diabetes
About 25%-30% of the global population have NAFLD, and 3%-5% have NASH. Dr. Younossi highlighted that the U.S. transplant database shows that NAFLD was the second indication for all liver transplants in the country. NAFLD also was a leading cause of liver transplants for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
There are around two billion cases of chronic liver disease globally, he said. He noted that over time, there has been an increase in all kinds of liver diseases, as reflected in the annual percent change.
“The global epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes is driving the rise in NAFLD, but even among lean people, the prevalence of NAFLD is around 9%,” Dr. Younossi said. “Alongside the eye and kidney complications of diabetes, this is the liver manifestation of type 2 diabetes.”
To assess global liver disease and death, Dr. Younossi and his colleagues turned to the Global Burden of Disease Study, which gathered data from around 7,000 investigators located across 22 different regions of the world, comprising 156 countries.
They calculated the incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in relation to liver cancer and chronic liver disease, including the APC. They linked the data to changes in four liver diseases: NAFLD, alcoholic liver disease, hepatitis B infection, and hepatitis C infection.
The cases of NAFLD reported in the study had been diagnosed by ultrasound or other imaging. Importantly, the prevalence of NAFLD was adjusted for alcohol use in the various national populations, explained Dr. Younossi.
In 2019, they reported that globally, the overall prevalence of liver disease reached 1.69 billion (liver cancer, 0.04%; chronic liver disease, 99.96%), with an incidence of 2.59 million (liver cancer, 20.7%; chronic liver disease, 79.3%), mortality of 1.95 million (liver cancer, 24.8%; chronic liver disease, 75.3%), and DALYs of 58.7 million (liver cancer, 21.3%; chronic liver disease, 78.7%).
Between 2009 and 2019, deaths from liver cancer rose by 27.2%, and deaths from chronic liver disease rose by 10.6%. DALYs from liver cancer rose by 21.9%, and DALYs from chronic liver disease were up by 5.1%.
In contrast to the increase in liver cancer deaths, deaths from chronic liver disease decreased (APC, –0.18%). The decrease was driven by a decrease in hepatitis B (APC, –1.83%). APCs for hepatitis C (+0.37%), alcoholic liver disease (+0.45%), and NAFLD (+1.33%) increased.
“The burden of hepatitis B–related mortality has decreased because we have been so good at vaccinating people,” Dr. Younossi remarked.
NAFLD ‘exploding’ in Middle East, North Africa, and East Asia
The increase in NAFLD has been seen in all regions of the world, but a breakdown by region shows that NAFLD is primarily “exploding” with highest prevalence and mortality in the Middle East (mostly Egypt, Iran, and Turkey), North Africa, and East Asia, said Dr. Younossi. In addition, there are large increases in the West and South America.
“We knew that the prevalence was high in the Middle East, but we now know that mortality is also high, so we are connecting these data,” said Dr. Younossi.
Awareness lacking
Dr. Younossi pressed the fact that awareness among the general population, primary care providers, and policymakers is very low. “From my perspective, raising awareness of NAFLD is the number one priority, and that is the value of this study.”
He added that more people will become aware as testing becomes more manageable.
“There are some noninvasive tests being developed, so in the future, we won’t have to do liver biopsies to diagnose these patients,” he said. “Currently, there are some excellent treatments being developed.”
“The WHO [World Health Organization] does not mention NAFLD as an important noncommunicable disease, and this too has to change,” Dr. Younossi added.
Dr. Younossi has received research funds and/or has consulted for Abbott, Allergan, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Echosens, Genfit, Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Madrigal, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Krag has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
LONDON – Around the world, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has driven an increase in deaths from liver cancer over the past decade, overtaking alcoholic liver disease, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C, according to an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.
A global rise in liver cancer deaths and chronic liver disease reflects changes in underlying health patterns, said Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor and chair, department of medicine, Inova Fairfax Medical Campus, Falls Church, Va., who presented the analysis at the International Liver Congress (ILC) 2022.
“NAFLD and NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] are rapidly becoming the main causes of cirrhosis and liver cancer in the world,” Dr. Younossi told this news organization. “We have known about the increasing prevalence for some time, but now the outcomes in terms of mortality are catching up,” he said.
“The bottom line of this study is that the burden of this disease [NAFLD] is going up, and it will be the most important disease of the next decade or so,” he said, adding that “the largest annual percentage increase in rates of mortality from liver cancer or chronic liver disease cirrhosis is related to NAFLD.”
Specifically, during the decade of 2009-2019, the annual percent change (APC) of +1.33% in the global liver cancer death rate was driven by the fact that the APC for NAFLD was +2.47%. By comparison, the APC for alcoholic liver disease was +1.91%; for hepatitis B, the APC was +0.21%; and for hepatitis C, the APC was +1.12%.
Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, professor and senior consultant of hepatology and director of Odense Liver Research Centre at SDU and Odense University Hospital, Denmark, who chaired the session in which this presentation was a part, acknowledged the importance of recognizing the contribution of NAFLD to liver cancer mortality.
“Liver diseases are on the rise. They are the fastest rising cause of death in the United Kingdom, faster than heart disease and other cancers. NAFLD in particular is the fastest growing cause of liver cancer, and the leading cause in France and the United States,” he remarked.
Dr. Krag also highlighted the costs of disease management.
“Managing fatty liver disease in Europe is estimated at €35 billion in direct health care, so we need to do something now,” he stressed.
“The global burden of NAFLD is so high that we need both prevention and treatment tools,” Dr. Krag said. “Change to lifestyle is a ‘no-brainer’ and costs governments very little. For the sake of our young people, we need to take this very seriously. At a political level, we can easily implement this, for example, by banning junk food advertisements, but also educating young people and their families. Good drugs will also help.”
NAFLD: The liver manifestation of type 2 diabetes
About 25%-30% of the global population have NAFLD, and 3%-5% have NASH. Dr. Younossi highlighted that the U.S. transplant database shows that NAFLD was the second indication for all liver transplants in the country. NAFLD also was a leading cause of liver transplants for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
There are around two billion cases of chronic liver disease globally, he said. He noted that over time, there has been an increase in all kinds of liver diseases, as reflected in the annual percent change.
“The global epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes is driving the rise in NAFLD, but even among lean people, the prevalence of NAFLD is around 9%,” Dr. Younossi said. “Alongside the eye and kidney complications of diabetes, this is the liver manifestation of type 2 diabetes.”
To assess global liver disease and death, Dr. Younossi and his colleagues turned to the Global Burden of Disease Study, which gathered data from around 7,000 investigators located across 22 different regions of the world, comprising 156 countries.
They calculated the incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in relation to liver cancer and chronic liver disease, including the APC. They linked the data to changes in four liver diseases: NAFLD, alcoholic liver disease, hepatitis B infection, and hepatitis C infection.
The cases of NAFLD reported in the study had been diagnosed by ultrasound or other imaging. Importantly, the prevalence of NAFLD was adjusted for alcohol use in the various national populations, explained Dr. Younossi.
In 2019, they reported that globally, the overall prevalence of liver disease reached 1.69 billion (liver cancer, 0.04%; chronic liver disease, 99.96%), with an incidence of 2.59 million (liver cancer, 20.7%; chronic liver disease, 79.3%), mortality of 1.95 million (liver cancer, 24.8%; chronic liver disease, 75.3%), and DALYs of 58.7 million (liver cancer, 21.3%; chronic liver disease, 78.7%).
Between 2009 and 2019, deaths from liver cancer rose by 27.2%, and deaths from chronic liver disease rose by 10.6%. DALYs from liver cancer rose by 21.9%, and DALYs from chronic liver disease were up by 5.1%.
In contrast to the increase in liver cancer deaths, deaths from chronic liver disease decreased (APC, –0.18%). The decrease was driven by a decrease in hepatitis B (APC, –1.83%). APCs for hepatitis C (+0.37%), alcoholic liver disease (+0.45%), and NAFLD (+1.33%) increased.
“The burden of hepatitis B–related mortality has decreased because we have been so good at vaccinating people,” Dr. Younossi remarked.
NAFLD ‘exploding’ in Middle East, North Africa, and East Asia
The increase in NAFLD has been seen in all regions of the world, but a breakdown by region shows that NAFLD is primarily “exploding” with highest prevalence and mortality in the Middle East (mostly Egypt, Iran, and Turkey), North Africa, and East Asia, said Dr. Younossi. In addition, there are large increases in the West and South America.
“We knew that the prevalence was high in the Middle East, but we now know that mortality is also high, so we are connecting these data,” said Dr. Younossi.
Awareness lacking
Dr. Younossi pressed the fact that awareness among the general population, primary care providers, and policymakers is very low. “From my perspective, raising awareness of NAFLD is the number one priority, and that is the value of this study.”
He added that more people will become aware as testing becomes more manageable.
“There are some noninvasive tests being developed, so in the future, we won’t have to do liver biopsies to diagnose these patients,” he said. “Currently, there are some excellent treatments being developed.”
“The WHO [World Health Organization] does not mention NAFLD as an important noncommunicable disease, and this too has to change,” Dr. Younossi added.
Dr. Younossi has received research funds and/or has consulted for Abbott, Allergan, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Echosens, Genfit, Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Madrigal, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Krag has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ILC 2022
FDA unveils 5-year plan for ALS and other neurodegenerative diseases
The agency’s Action Plan for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) aims to advance the development of safe and effective medical products and facilitate patient access to novel treatments.
“The effects of rare neurodegenerative diseases are devastating, with very few effective therapeutic options available to patients. We recognize the urgent need for new treatments that can both improve and extend the lives of people diagnosed with these diseases,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.
“To face that challenge and to accelerate drug development, we need innovative approaches to better understand these diseases while also building on current scientific and research capabilities,” Dr. Califf acknowledged.
“This action plan, especially including the use of public-private partnerships and direct involvement of patients, will ensure the FDA is working toward meeting the task set forth by Congress to enhance the quality of life for those suffering by facilitating access to new therapies,” Dr. Califf added.
Blueprint to ‘aggressively’ move forward
The action plan represents a “blueprint” for how the agency will “aggressively” move forward to address challenges in drug development for rare neurodegenerative diseases to improve patient health, the FDA said.
The plan was created in accordance with provisions in the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (ACT for ALS) that President Biden signed into law in late 2021.
Targeted activities include establishing the FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases Task Force and the public-private partnership for rare neurodegenerative diseases, developing disease-specific science strategies over the next 5 years, and leveraging ongoing FDA regulatory science efforts.
The ALS Science Strategy is part of the plan focused specifically on ALS. It provides a “forward-leaning” framework for FDA activities, which include efforts to improve characterization of disease pathogenesis and natural history, boost clinical trial infrastructure and agility to enable early selection of promising therapeutic candidates for further development, optimize clinical trial design, improve access to the trials, streamline clinical trial operations, and reduce the time and cost of drug development.
The FDA says patient engagement, public workshops, research projects, coordination across FDA centers and offices, and collaboration with the National Institutes of Health will be key to the success of implementation of the ALS Science Strategy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency’s Action Plan for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) aims to advance the development of safe and effective medical products and facilitate patient access to novel treatments.
“The effects of rare neurodegenerative diseases are devastating, with very few effective therapeutic options available to patients. We recognize the urgent need for new treatments that can both improve and extend the lives of people diagnosed with these diseases,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.
“To face that challenge and to accelerate drug development, we need innovative approaches to better understand these diseases while also building on current scientific and research capabilities,” Dr. Califf acknowledged.
“This action plan, especially including the use of public-private partnerships and direct involvement of patients, will ensure the FDA is working toward meeting the task set forth by Congress to enhance the quality of life for those suffering by facilitating access to new therapies,” Dr. Califf added.
Blueprint to ‘aggressively’ move forward
The action plan represents a “blueprint” for how the agency will “aggressively” move forward to address challenges in drug development for rare neurodegenerative diseases to improve patient health, the FDA said.
The plan was created in accordance with provisions in the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (ACT for ALS) that President Biden signed into law in late 2021.
Targeted activities include establishing the FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases Task Force and the public-private partnership for rare neurodegenerative diseases, developing disease-specific science strategies over the next 5 years, and leveraging ongoing FDA regulatory science efforts.
The ALS Science Strategy is part of the plan focused specifically on ALS. It provides a “forward-leaning” framework for FDA activities, which include efforts to improve characterization of disease pathogenesis and natural history, boost clinical trial infrastructure and agility to enable early selection of promising therapeutic candidates for further development, optimize clinical trial design, improve access to the trials, streamline clinical trial operations, and reduce the time and cost of drug development.
The FDA says patient engagement, public workshops, research projects, coordination across FDA centers and offices, and collaboration with the National Institutes of Health will be key to the success of implementation of the ALS Science Strategy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency’s Action Plan for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) aims to advance the development of safe and effective medical products and facilitate patient access to novel treatments.
“The effects of rare neurodegenerative diseases are devastating, with very few effective therapeutic options available to patients. We recognize the urgent need for new treatments that can both improve and extend the lives of people diagnosed with these diseases,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.
“To face that challenge and to accelerate drug development, we need innovative approaches to better understand these diseases while also building on current scientific and research capabilities,” Dr. Califf acknowledged.
“This action plan, especially including the use of public-private partnerships and direct involvement of patients, will ensure the FDA is working toward meeting the task set forth by Congress to enhance the quality of life for those suffering by facilitating access to new therapies,” Dr. Califf added.
Blueprint to ‘aggressively’ move forward
The action plan represents a “blueprint” for how the agency will “aggressively” move forward to address challenges in drug development for rare neurodegenerative diseases to improve patient health, the FDA said.
The plan was created in accordance with provisions in the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (ACT for ALS) that President Biden signed into law in late 2021.
Targeted activities include establishing the FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases Task Force and the public-private partnership for rare neurodegenerative diseases, developing disease-specific science strategies over the next 5 years, and leveraging ongoing FDA regulatory science efforts.
The ALS Science Strategy is part of the plan focused specifically on ALS. It provides a “forward-leaning” framework for FDA activities, which include efforts to improve characterization of disease pathogenesis and natural history, boost clinical trial infrastructure and agility to enable early selection of promising therapeutic candidates for further development, optimize clinical trial design, improve access to the trials, streamline clinical trial operations, and reduce the time and cost of drug development.
The FDA says patient engagement, public workshops, research projects, coordination across FDA centers and offices, and collaboration with the National Institutes of Health will be key to the success of implementation of the ALS Science Strategy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
White House expands access to monkeypox vaccines
The White House is scaling up its response to the monkeypox outbreak, expanding access to vaccines to more at-risk individuals, officials said in a press call. More than 56,000 doses of the monkeypox vaccine JYNNEOS will be made available immediately, and more than 240,000 doses will be allocated in the coming weeks.
“The administration’s current strategy is focused on containing the outbreak by providing vaccines to those most in need to prevent further spread of monkeypox in the communities most impacted,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said on a June 28 press call. “As additional supply becomes available, we will further expand our efforts making vaccines available to a wider population.”
As of June 28, there were 4,700 detected cases of monkeypox globally in 49 countries. Since the first U.S. case of monkeypox was identified on May 17, there have been 306 confirmed cases across 28 jurisdictions.
Prior to this announcement, vaccination against monkeypox was recommended only for people with known exposures to the virus. Now, the vaccine is available to people who are likely to be exposed to the virus, including:
- People who have had close physical contact with someone diagnosed with monkeypox.
- People with a sexual partner diagnosed with monkeypox.
- Men who have sex with men who have had multiple sex partners in a venue where monkeypox was identified.
The JYNNEOS vaccine is administered in two doses, delivered 28 days apart. People will have maximum immunity 2 weeks after the second dose. People should be vaccinated within 2 weeks of a possible monkeypox exposure, Dr. Walensky said, adding, “The sooner you can get vaccinated after exposure, the better.”
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will immediately allocate the 56,000 JYNNEOS doses across the country, prioritizing jurisdictions to areas of high transmission. A second vaccine, ACAM2000, can also be requested, but it has a greater risk for serious side effects and is not appropriate for immunocompromised individuals or people with heart disease. In the coming weeks, 240,000 JYNNEOS doses will be made available for second doses as well as first doses “as the vaccine strategy broadens,” said David Boucher, director of infectious disease preparedness and response for HHS. There are currently 800,000 JYNNEOS doses that have been manufactured and approved for release, he said, and awaiting inspection by the Food and Drug Administration, which should be completed in the beginning of July.
At the same time, the administration is focusing on increasing access to testing. Monkeypox testing is now available in 78 state public health labs in 48 states that can collectively conduct 10,000 tests per week. In addition, the administration announced on June 23 that HHS began shipping monkeypox tests to five commercial lab companies to expand testing capacity as well as make testing more accessible.
“We continue to work very closely with the community and with public health partners and clinicians to increase awareness of the monkey pox outbreak and to facilitate adequate capacity and equitable access to testing,” Dr. Walensky said. “I strongly encourage all health care providers to have a high clinical suspicion for monkeypox among their patients. Patients presenting with a suspicious rash should be tested.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The White House is scaling up its response to the monkeypox outbreak, expanding access to vaccines to more at-risk individuals, officials said in a press call. More than 56,000 doses of the monkeypox vaccine JYNNEOS will be made available immediately, and more than 240,000 doses will be allocated in the coming weeks.
“The administration’s current strategy is focused on containing the outbreak by providing vaccines to those most in need to prevent further spread of monkeypox in the communities most impacted,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said on a June 28 press call. “As additional supply becomes available, we will further expand our efforts making vaccines available to a wider population.”
As of June 28, there were 4,700 detected cases of monkeypox globally in 49 countries. Since the first U.S. case of monkeypox was identified on May 17, there have been 306 confirmed cases across 28 jurisdictions.
Prior to this announcement, vaccination against monkeypox was recommended only for people with known exposures to the virus. Now, the vaccine is available to people who are likely to be exposed to the virus, including:
- People who have had close physical contact with someone diagnosed with monkeypox.
- People with a sexual partner diagnosed with monkeypox.
- Men who have sex with men who have had multiple sex partners in a venue where monkeypox was identified.
The JYNNEOS vaccine is administered in two doses, delivered 28 days apart. People will have maximum immunity 2 weeks after the second dose. People should be vaccinated within 2 weeks of a possible monkeypox exposure, Dr. Walensky said, adding, “The sooner you can get vaccinated after exposure, the better.”
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will immediately allocate the 56,000 JYNNEOS doses across the country, prioritizing jurisdictions to areas of high transmission. A second vaccine, ACAM2000, can also be requested, but it has a greater risk for serious side effects and is not appropriate for immunocompromised individuals or people with heart disease. In the coming weeks, 240,000 JYNNEOS doses will be made available for second doses as well as first doses “as the vaccine strategy broadens,” said David Boucher, director of infectious disease preparedness and response for HHS. There are currently 800,000 JYNNEOS doses that have been manufactured and approved for release, he said, and awaiting inspection by the Food and Drug Administration, which should be completed in the beginning of July.
At the same time, the administration is focusing on increasing access to testing. Monkeypox testing is now available in 78 state public health labs in 48 states that can collectively conduct 10,000 tests per week. In addition, the administration announced on June 23 that HHS began shipping monkeypox tests to five commercial lab companies to expand testing capacity as well as make testing more accessible.
“We continue to work very closely with the community and with public health partners and clinicians to increase awareness of the monkey pox outbreak and to facilitate adequate capacity and equitable access to testing,” Dr. Walensky said. “I strongly encourage all health care providers to have a high clinical suspicion for monkeypox among their patients. Patients presenting with a suspicious rash should be tested.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The White House is scaling up its response to the monkeypox outbreak, expanding access to vaccines to more at-risk individuals, officials said in a press call. More than 56,000 doses of the monkeypox vaccine JYNNEOS will be made available immediately, and more than 240,000 doses will be allocated in the coming weeks.
“The administration’s current strategy is focused on containing the outbreak by providing vaccines to those most in need to prevent further spread of monkeypox in the communities most impacted,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said on a June 28 press call. “As additional supply becomes available, we will further expand our efforts making vaccines available to a wider population.”
As of June 28, there were 4,700 detected cases of monkeypox globally in 49 countries. Since the first U.S. case of monkeypox was identified on May 17, there have been 306 confirmed cases across 28 jurisdictions.
Prior to this announcement, vaccination against monkeypox was recommended only for people with known exposures to the virus. Now, the vaccine is available to people who are likely to be exposed to the virus, including:
- People who have had close physical contact with someone diagnosed with monkeypox.
- People with a sexual partner diagnosed with monkeypox.
- Men who have sex with men who have had multiple sex partners in a venue where monkeypox was identified.
The JYNNEOS vaccine is administered in two doses, delivered 28 days apart. People will have maximum immunity 2 weeks after the second dose. People should be vaccinated within 2 weeks of a possible monkeypox exposure, Dr. Walensky said, adding, “The sooner you can get vaccinated after exposure, the better.”
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will immediately allocate the 56,000 JYNNEOS doses across the country, prioritizing jurisdictions to areas of high transmission. A second vaccine, ACAM2000, can also be requested, but it has a greater risk for serious side effects and is not appropriate for immunocompromised individuals or people with heart disease. In the coming weeks, 240,000 JYNNEOS doses will be made available for second doses as well as first doses “as the vaccine strategy broadens,” said David Boucher, director of infectious disease preparedness and response for HHS. There are currently 800,000 JYNNEOS doses that have been manufactured and approved for release, he said, and awaiting inspection by the Food and Drug Administration, which should be completed in the beginning of July.
At the same time, the administration is focusing on increasing access to testing. Monkeypox testing is now available in 78 state public health labs in 48 states that can collectively conduct 10,000 tests per week. In addition, the administration announced on June 23 that HHS began shipping monkeypox tests to five commercial lab companies to expand testing capacity as well as make testing more accessible.
“We continue to work very closely with the community and with public health partners and clinicians to increase awareness of the monkey pox outbreak and to facilitate adequate capacity and equitable access to testing,” Dr. Walensky said. “I strongly encourage all health care providers to have a high clinical suspicion for monkeypox among their patients. Patients presenting with a suspicious rash should be tested.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Roe v. Wade: Medical groups react to Supreme Court decision
The country’s top medical organizations condemned the overturning of Roe v. Wade, saying the removal of federal protections for women to access abortion services marks a “dark day.”
“It is unfathomable. It is unfair. It is wrong,” said the President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Iffath Abbasi Hoskins, MD.
“Today is a very dark day in health care. It is a dark day, indeed, for the tens of millions of patients who have suddenly and unfairly lost access to safe legal and evidence-based abortion care,” Dr. Hoskins said at a press conference June 24 sponsored by ACOG.
“It is dark for the thousands of clinicians who now, instead of focusing on providing health care to their patients, have to live with the threats of legal, civil, and even professional penalties,” Dr. Hoskins added.
ACOG has 62,000 members and is the leading group of doctors that provides obstetric and gynecologic care.
Dilemma for some doctors?
“I’d like to take a moment to talk about the future of the medical profession,” said ACOG Chief Executive Officer Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH. “[The] decision is, as Dr. Hoskins clearly said, a tragic one for our patients in states across the country, but the harm does not end there.”
Dr. Phipps described overturning Roe v. Wade as “the boldest act of legislative interference that we have seen in this country. It will allow state legislators to tell physicians what care they can and cannot provide to their patients.”
“It will leave physicians looking over our shoulders, wondering if a patient is in enough of a crisis to permit an exception to a law,” Dr. Phipps added. “This is an affront to all that drew my colleagues and me into medicine.”
Although the impact on doctor training remains to be seen, she said 44% of ob.gyn. residents are trained in states now empowered to ban abortions.
The effect of the Supreme Court decision on miscarriage management is another unknown.
“It’s going to be very difficult for us, the clinicians, to manage miscarriage,” Dr. Hoskins said. “Many miscarriages could be what we call ‘incomplete’ in the beginning,” where there is still a heartbeat and the patient is cramping and/or bleeding.
In that instance, Dr. Hoskins said, clinicians may be thinking that they have to wait.
“They may be needing to get additional opinions, whether it’s a legal opinion ... or another medical opinion.”
“It’s going to have a devastating effect on every aspect of a woman’s health care, including if she is spontaneously miscarrying,” Dr. Hoskins predicted.
Physician protect thyself?
To what extent doctors can shield themselves from potential prosecution “is a hard question to answer,” Molly Meegan, JD, ACOG’s chief legal officer and general counsel, said.
Ms. Meegan recommended members speak to the risk managers at their individual institutions for guidance.
“It is a real patchwork [of laws] out there, she said. “And that patchwork itself is a danger to people as they seek essential reproductive health care.”
Also, she added, “If a doctor can’t tell what the law is at the time they’re trying to provide the care, it has a terribly chilling effect on medical care.”
Another potential threat to doctors in states that still allow abortion services is action from a neighboring state.
“We are going to be advocating very strongly that states do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction to reach beyond the edges of their state.”
The worry is if a doctor in New Mexico, where abortion is legal, performs an abortion for a person from Texas, where it will soon be illegal, is then prosecuted by Texas, for example.
Medication abortion
Asked about any potential effects on medication abortions, ACOG’s Jen Villavicencio, MD, said it remains to be seen.
“Certainly many of the laws that we have seen, including trigger ban laws, encompass medication abortion,” she said. Several states have these so-called trigger laws, which put into effect laws passed to ban abortion in case Roe was overturned.
This means, she said, that any abortion option, whether it’s procedural or medication, could be and will be banned in some of these states.
Ms. Meegan added that ACOG will continue to support access to medication abortion and that it should be decided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and not individual states.
Maternal mortality may rise
“Maternal mortality in and of itself is a very difficult topic,” Dr. Hoskins said, but [the] decision amplifies the implications. “I think of the patients who will have to manage severe complications and mental health challenges while they are carrying a pregnancy that they are forced to carry.”
“I also think of the patients who need to end their pregnancies in order to save their own lives,” Dr. Hoskins added.
Dr. Hoskins said the United States already has a high maternal mortality rate. This new law, she added, could force women into higher-risk situations if they experience high blood pressure, preeclampsia, or bleeding after the birth of the baby.
Growing inequality possible?
“The grievous inequities that exist in this country will grow and expand unchecked without safe access to legal abortion,” Dr. Phipps said.
She noted that women, based on location, will continue “to have protected access to safe evidence-based abortion. Others will have the means and resources and opportunities to secure the care.”
But the same may not be true for women in underserved or disadvantaged communities, Dr. Phipps added.
American Medical Association
ACOG was not the only group to react. “The American Medical Association is deeply disturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn nearly a half century of precedent protecting patients’ right to critical reproductive health care,” President Jack Resneck Jr., MD, said in a statement.
The decision represents “an egregious allowance of government intrusion into the medical examination room, a direct attack on the practice of medicine and the patient-physician relationship, and a brazen violation of patients’ rights to evidence-based reproductive health services.”
American Academy of Family Physicians
“The American Academy of Family Physicians is disappointed and disheartened by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down longstanding protections afforded by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey,” President Sterling N. Ransone Jr., MD, said in a statement.
The organization has 127,600 physician and medical student members.
“This decision negatively impacts our practices and our patients by undermining the patient-physician relationship and potentially criminalizing evidence-based medical care,” added Dr. Ransone.
American College of Physicians
“A patient’s decision about whether to continue a pregnancy should be a private decision made in consultation with a physician or other health care professional, without interference from the government,” President Ryan D. Mire, MD, said in a statement. “We strongly oppose medically unnecessary government restrictions on any health care services,” added Dr. Mire on behalf of the group’s 161,000 members.
American Academy of Pediatrics
“This decision carries grave consequences for our adolescent patients, who already face many more barriers than adults in accessing comprehensive reproductive health care services and abortion care,” President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, said in a statement.
“In the wake of this ruling, the American Academy of Pediatrics will continue to support our chapters as states consider policies affecting access to abortion care, and pediatricians will continue to support our patients,” Dr. Szilagyi added.
American Public Health Association
The court’s decision “is a catastrophic judicial failure that will reverberate differently in each state and portends to jeopardize the health and lives of all Americans,” Executive Director Georges C. Benjamin, MD, said in a statement.
American Urogynecologic Society
“The American Urogynecologic Society opposes any ruling that restricts a person’s access to health care and criminalizes the practice of medicine,” the group said in a statement. “This ruling ultimately poses a serious threat to the patient-provider relationship and subsequent decisionmaking necessary to ensure optimal outcomes for patients. As practitioners, we should be free to provide what is in the best interest of our patients.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The country’s top medical organizations condemned the overturning of Roe v. Wade, saying the removal of federal protections for women to access abortion services marks a “dark day.”
“It is unfathomable. It is unfair. It is wrong,” said the President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Iffath Abbasi Hoskins, MD.
“Today is a very dark day in health care. It is a dark day, indeed, for the tens of millions of patients who have suddenly and unfairly lost access to safe legal and evidence-based abortion care,” Dr. Hoskins said at a press conference June 24 sponsored by ACOG.
“It is dark for the thousands of clinicians who now, instead of focusing on providing health care to their patients, have to live with the threats of legal, civil, and even professional penalties,” Dr. Hoskins added.
ACOG has 62,000 members and is the leading group of doctors that provides obstetric and gynecologic care.
Dilemma for some doctors?
“I’d like to take a moment to talk about the future of the medical profession,” said ACOG Chief Executive Officer Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH. “[The] decision is, as Dr. Hoskins clearly said, a tragic one for our patients in states across the country, but the harm does not end there.”
Dr. Phipps described overturning Roe v. Wade as “the boldest act of legislative interference that we have seen in this country. It will allow state legislators to tell physicians what care they can and cannot provide to their patients.”
“It will leave physicians looking over our shoulders, wondering if a patient is in enough of a crisis to permit an exception to a law,” Dr. Phipps added. “This is an affront to all that drew my colleagues and me into medicine.”
Although the impact on doctor training remains to be seen, she said 44% of ob.gyn. residents are trained in states now empowered to ban abortions.
The effect of the Supreme Court decision on miscarriage management is another unknown.
“It’s going to be very difficult for us, the clinicians, to manage miscarriage,” Dr. Hoskins said. “Many miscarriages could be what we call ‘incomplete’ in the beginning,” where there is still a heartbeat and the patient is cramping and/or bleeding.
In that instance, Dr. Hoskins said, clinicians may be thinking that they have to wait.
“They may be needing to get additional opinions, whether it’s a legal opinion ... or another medical opinion.”
“It’s going to have a devastating effect on every aspect of a woman’s health care, including if she is spontaneously miscarrying,” Dr. Hoskins predicted.
Physician protect thyself?
To what extent doctors can shield themselves from potential prosecution “is a hard question to answer,” Molly Meegan, JD, ACOG’s chief legal officer and general counsel, said.
Ms. Meegan recommended members speak to the risk managers at their individual institutions for guidance.
“It is a real patchwork [of laws] out there, she said. “And that patchwork itself is a danger to people as they seek essential reproductive health care.”
Also, she added, “If a doctor can’t tell what the law is at the time they’re trying to provide the care, it has a terribly chilling effect on medical care.”
Another potential threat to doctors in states that still allow abortion services is action from a neighboring state.
“We are going to be advocating very strongly that states do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction to reach beyond the edges of their state.”
The worry is if a doctor in New Mexico, where abortion is legal, performs an abortion for a person from Texas, where it will soon be illegal, is then prosecuted by Texas, for example.
Medication abortion
Asked about any potential effects on medication abortions, ACOG’s Jen Villavicencio, MD, said it remains to be seen.
“Certainly many of the laws that we have seen, including trigger ban laws, encompass medication abortion,” she said. Several states have these so-called trigger laws, which put into effect laws passed to ban abortion in case Roe was overturned.
This means, she said, that any abortion option, whether it’s procedural or medication, could be and will be banned in some of these states.
Ms. Meegan added that ACOG will continue to support access to medication abortion and that it should be decided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and not individual states.
Maternal mortality may rise
“Maternal mortality in and of itself is a very difficult topic,” Dr. Hoskins said, but [the] decision amplifies the implications. “I think of the patients who will have to manage severe complications and mental health challenges while they are carrying a pregnancy that they are forced to carry.”
“I also think of the patients who need to end their pregnancies in order to save their own lives,” Dr. Hoskins added.
Dr. Hoskins said the United States already has a high maternal mortality rate. This new law, she added, could force women into higher-risk situations if they experience high blood pressure, preeclampsia, or bleeding after the birth of the baby.
Growing inequality possible?
“The grievous inequities that exist in this country will grow and expand unchecked without safe access to legal abortion,” Dr. Phipps said.
She noted that women, based on location, will continue “to have protected access to safe evidence-based abortion. Others will have the means and resources and opportunities to secure the care.”
But the same may not be true for women in underserved or disadvantaged communities, Dr. Phipps added.
American Medical Association
ACOG was not the only group to react. “The American Medical Association is deeply disturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn nearly a half century of precedent protecting patients’ right to critical reproductive health care,” President Jack Resneck Jr., MD, said in a statement.
The decision represents “an egregious allowance of government intrusion into the medical examination room, a direct attack on the practice of medicine and the patient-physician relationship, and a brazen violation of patients’ rights to evidence-based reproductive health services.”
American Academy of Family Physicians
“The American Academy of Family Physicians is disappointed and disheartened by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down longstanding protections afforded by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey,” President Sterling N. Ransone Jr., MD, said in a statement.
The organization has 127,600 physician and medical student members.
“This decision negatively impacts our practices and our patients by undermining the patient-physician relationship and potentially criminalizing evidence-based medical care,” added Dr. Ransone.
American College of Physicians
“A patient’s decision about whether to continue a pregnancy should be a private decision made in consultation with a physician or other health care professional, without interference from the government,” President Ryan D. Mire, MD, said in a statement. “We strongly oppose medically unnecessary government restrictions on any health care services,” added Dr. Mire on behalf of the group’s 161,000 members.
American Academy of Pediatrics
“This decision carries grave consequences for our adolescent patients, who already face many more barriers than adults in accessing comprehensive reproductive health care services and abortion care,” President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, said in a statement.
“In the wake of this ruling, the American Academy of Pediatrics will continue to support our chapters as states consider policies affecting access to abortion care, and pediatricians will continue to support our patients,” Dr. Szilagyi added.
American Public Health Association
The court’s decision “is a catastrophic judicial failure that will reverberate differently in each state and portends to jeopardize the health and lives of all Americans,” Executive Director Georges C. Benjamin, MD, said in a statement.
American Urogynecologic Society
“The American Urogynecologic Society opposes any ruling that restricts a person’s access to health care and criminalizes the practice of medicine,” the group said in a statement. “This ruling ultimately poses a serious threat to the patient-provider relationship and subsequent decisionmaking necessary to ensure optimal outcomes for patients. As practitioners, we should be free to provide what is in the best interest of our patients.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The country’s top medical organizations condemned the overturning of Roe v. Wade, saying the removal of federal protections for women to access abortion services marks a “dark day.”
“It is unfathomable. It is unfair. It is wrong,” said the President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Iffath Abbasi Hoskins, MD.
“Today is a very dark day in health care. It is a dark day, indeed, for the tens of millions of patients who have suddenly and unfairly lost access to safe legal and evidence-based abortion care,” Dr. Hoskins said at a press conference June 24 sponsored by ACOG.
“It is dark for the thousands of clinicians who now, instead of focusing on providing health care to their patients, have to live with the threats of legal, civil, and even professional penalties,” Dr. Hoskins added.
ACOG has 62,000 members and is the leading group of doctors that provides obstetric and gynecologic care.
Dilemma for some doctors?
“I’d like to take a moment to talk about the future of the medical profession,” said ACOG Chief Executive Officer Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH. “[The] decision is, as Dr. Hoskins clearly said, a tragic one for our patients in states across the country, but the harm does not end there.”
Dr. Phipps described overturning Roe v. Wade as “the boldest act of legislative interference that we have seen in this country. It will allow state legislators to tell physicians what care they can and cannot provide to their patients.”
“It will leave physicians looking over our shoulders, wondering if a patient is in enough of a crisis to permit an exception to a law,” Dr. Phipps added. “This is an affront to all that drew my colleagues and me into medicine.”
Although the impact on doctor training remains to be seen, she said 44% of ob.gyn. residents are trained in states now empowered to ban abortions.
The effect of the Supreme Court decision on miscarriage management is another unknown.
“It’s going to be very difficult for us, the clinicians, to manage miscarriage,” Dr. Hoskins said. “Many miscarriages could be what we call ‘incomplete’ in the beginning,” where there is still a heartbeat and the patient is cramping and/or bleeding.
In that instance, Dr. Hoskins said, clinicians may be thinking that they have to wait.
“They may be needing to get additional opinions, whether it’s a legal opinion ... or another medical opinion.”
“It’s going to have a devastating effect on every aspect of a woman’s health care, including if she is spontaneously miscarrying,” Dr. Hoskins predicted.
Physician protect thyself?
To what extent doctors can shield themselves from potential prosecution “is a hard question to answer,” Molly Meegan, JD, ACOG’s chief legal officer and general counsel, said.
Ms. Meegan recommended members speak to the risk managers at their individual institutions for guidance.
“It is a real patchwork [of laws] out there, she said. “And that patchwork itself is a danger to people as they seek essential reproductive health care.”
Also, she added, “If a doctor can’t tell what the law is at the time they’re trying to provide the care, it has a terribly chilling effect on medical care.”
Another potential threat to doctors in states that still allow abortion services is action from a neighboring state.
“We are going to be advocating very strongly that states do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction to reach beyond the edges of their state.”
The worry is if a doctor in New Mexico, where abortion is legal, performs an abortion for a person from Texas, where it will soon be illegal, is then prosecuted by Texas, for example.
Medication abortion
Asked about any potential effects on medication abortions, ACOG’s Jen Villavicencio, MD, said it remains to be seen.
“Certainly many of the laws that we have seen, including trigger ban laws, encompass medication abortion,” she said. Several states have these so-called trigger laws, which put into effect laws passed to ban abortion in case Roe was overturned.
This means, she said, that any abortion option, whether it’s procedural or medication, could be and will be banned in some of these states.
Ms. Meegan added that ACOG will continue to support access to medication abortion and that it should be decided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and not individual states.
Maternal mortality may rise
“Maternal mortality in and of itself is a very difficult topic,” Dr. Hoskins said, but [the] decision amplifies the implications. “I think of the patients who will have to manage severe complications and mental health challenges while they are carrying a pregnancy that they are forced to carry.”
“I also think of the patients who need to end their pregnancies in order to save their own lives,” Dr. Hoskins added.
Dr. Hoskins said the United States already has a high maternal mortality rate. This new law, she added, could force women into higher-risk situations if they experience high blood pressure, preeclampsia, or bleeding after the birth of the baby.
Growing inequality possible?
“The grievous inequities that exist in this country will grow and expand unchecked without safe access to legal abortion,” Dr. Phipps said.
She noted that women, based on location, will continue “to have protected access to safe evidence-based abortion. Others will have the means and resources and opportunities to secure the care.”
But the same may not be true for women in underserved or disadvantaged communities, Dr. Phipps added.
American Medical Association
ACOG was not the only group to react. “The American Medical Association is deeply disturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn nearly a half century of precedent protecting patients’ right to critical reproductive health care,” President Jack Resneck Jr., MD, said in a statement.
The decision represents “an egregious allowance of government intrusion into the medical examination room, a direct attack on the practice of medicine and the patient-physician relationship, and a brazen violation of patients’ rights to evidence-based reproductive health services.”
American Academy of Family Physicians
“The American Academy of Family Physicians is disappointed and disheartened by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down longstanding protections afforded by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey,” President Sterling N. Ransone Jr., MD, said in a statement.
The organization has 127,600 physician and medical student members.
“This decision negatively impacts our practices and our patients by undermining the patient-physician relationship and potentially criminalizing evidence-based medical care,” added Dr. Ransone.
American College of Physicians
“A patient’s decision about whether to continue a pregnancy should be a private decision made in consultation with a physician or other health care professional, without interference from the government,” President Ryan D. Mire, MD, said in a statement. “We strongly oppose medically unnecessary government restrictions on any health care services,” added Dr. Mire on behalf of the group’s 161,000 members.
American Academy of Pediatrics
“This decision carries grave consequences for our adolescent patients, who already face many more barriers than adults in accessing comprehensive reproductive health care services and abortion care,” President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, said in a statement.
“In the wake of this ruling, the American Academy of Pediatrics will continue to support our chapters as states consider policies affecting access to abortion care, and pediatricians will continue to support our patients,” Dr. Szilagyi added.
American Public Health Association
The court’s decision “is a catastrophic judicial failure that will reverberate differently in each state and portends to jeopardize the health and lives of all Americans,” Executive Director Georges C. Benjamin, MD, said in a statement.
American Urogynecologic Society
“The American Urogynecologic Society opposes any ruling that restricts a person’s access to health care and criminalizes the practice of medicine,” the group said in a statement. “This ruling ultimately poses a serious threat to the patient-provider relationship and subsequent decisionmaking necessary to ensure optimal outcomes for patients. As practitioners, we should be free to provide what is in the best interest of our patients.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Why it’s so hard to prevent physician suicide
Kip Wenger, DO, an emergency physician and systems medical director of Team Health, Knoxville, Tenn., was asked to see a patient in the emergency department. He was shocked when he realized who the patient was – a 33-year-old female physician friend and colleague.
She was bleeding from multiple self-inflicted injuries and ultimately died. “I was devastated and couldn’t wrap my head around what had just happened,” Dr. Wenger told this news organization.
It’s important for physicians to be aware of warning signs in their colleagues, such as showing up late, being irritable and short-tempered with staff, missing shifts, making mistakes, or receiving an increasing number of patient complaints, Dr. Wenger says.
Dr. Wenger had had dinner with her several weeks earlier and saw some subtle changes. He had known her as a “positive, upbeat person,” but her demeanor was different during dinner.
“There were no typical telltale signs – she was talking about her plans for the future, including buying a new bicycle – but she wasn’t herself and seemed to become tearful when I hugged her at the end of the evening,” he said. He later heard from another colleague that she had shared feeling “hopeless.”
The scope of the problem
According to the American Society for Suicide Prevention, roughly 300-400 physicians die by suicide annually. Although one study suggests a lower number, official reports likely underestimate suicides, study author Katherine Gold, MD, MSW, associate professor of family medicine, obstetrics, and gynecology, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.
Peter Yellowlees, MD, MBBS, professor of psychiatry, University of California, Davis, concurs, suggesting that some single-car accidents involving physicians might be suicides. Perry Lin, MD, assistant clinical professor, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens, and national co-chair of the Physician Suicide Awareness Committee of the American Association of Suicidology, says that some death certificates state that the deceased died of “accidental causes” because the physician who completes the certificate, possibly a colleague, is reluctant to list the actual cause of death to protect his colleague’s memory or the family’s feelings.
In general, and among physicians, White men older than 65 “represent the largest percentage of people who die from suicide nationwide,” says Dr. Lin.
But younger people are also susceptible, Dr. Lin adds. One of the most vulnerable periods for potential suicide is during the first few months of residency. This dovetails with the findings of Medscape’s 2022 report Suicide: A Tragedy of the Profession. In that report, a difference was found between frequency of suicidal thoughts in younger physicians, compared with older physicians (14% in those < 35 years vs. 8% for those ≥ 45 years).
Hurdles to preventing physician suicide
“The best thing that can happen in our profession is upstream intervention – if people seek help before they get to the point of suicidality, recognizing they’re under stress and duress and that they might be going down a bad pathway,” says Dr. Lin. But research suggests that many physicians don’t do so.
Gary Price, MD, attending surgeon and clinical assistant professor of surgery, Yale–New Haven Hospital, Connecticut, and president of the Physicians Foundation, says his organization has identified barriers that prevent physicians from seeking help.
Physicians feel they may put their licensure at risk if they admit to receiving help for mental issues. These concerns were expressed by respondents in Medscape’s above mentioned 2022 report, many of whom didn’t seek treatment for depression, burnout, or suicidal thoughts lest it affect their professional standing when renewing their license or seeking credentialing.
Although organizations and societies are advocating against these questions, a recent study found that almost 70% of U.S. states and territories continue to ask physicians about their mental health, and 28% ask for diagnoses (beyond current impairments) – a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
“Mental health illness is different from mental health impairment,” Ryan Mire, MD, a Nashville, Tenn.–based internist, said in an interview. “As physicians, we’re comfortable with licensing boards asking whether the physician has any condition that might impair their care for patients, but not about a history of mental illness.”
The second barrier, says Dr. Price, is that hospital credentialing committees sometimes ask similar questions, as do commercial and malpractice insurers.
Another roadblock is that in some states, undergoing treatment for a mental health problem could be subject to discovery by a plaintiff’s attorney in a malpractice case, even if the physician’s mental health history had no effect on patient care. But that’s uncommon, says Daniel Shapiro, PhD, author of “Delivering Doctor Amelia,” a book about his treatment of a suicidal physician who underwent a malpractice lawsuit. “I’ve never seen that happen.”
A final barrier is that many employers require employees to receive treatment within their own institution or health system. “Physicians may be reluctant to get help where they work, with colleagues and friends knowing about their illness or being involved with their care,” says Dr. Price.
In 2022, the American College of Physicians (ACP) issued a toolkit to help members encourage licensing and credentialing boards to remove questions about mental health on applications and include language that supports receiving treatment, Dr. Mire says.
Layers of vulnerability
There are few data regarding relative risk among particular races or ethnicities, “but we know racism is a social stressor,” says Dr. Mire. “Obviously, people from historically disadvantaged populations tend to have societal stressors like discrimination and racism that add an extra layer of burden.”
Intersectionality – having multiple intersecting risk factors – may confer even higher risk. “For example, if you’re a female physician from a historically marginalized race and a resident dealing with the ‘hidden curriculum’ of trying to be resilient, you have multiple layers of vulnerability.”
There are also limited data regarding which specialties or work environments are associated with highest risk. “Obviously, challenges exist in every segment of medicine and at different ages, stages, and work environments, and they intersect with each individual physician’s personal risk factors,” says Dr. Mire, president of the ACP and assistant clinical professor of clinical medical education, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis.
Pamela Wible, MD, is an Oregon-based retired physician who herself went through a suicidal period about 11 years into her career that motivated her to embrace a new vision of clinical practice and change her practice model. After a series of physician suicides in her area, she began to speak and write openly about physician suicide, and since her retirement from clinical practice, she makes herself available on a full-time basis to distressed physicians. “When I address a conference of a particular medical specialty or a group in a particular geographical region, I focus on the specific vulnerabilities in that specialty or region,” she says.
What increases the chances of suicide?
“Many factors, both within and outside the professional setting, affect someone’s decision to die by suicide – after all, physicians have the same stressors as other people, like family, finances, and their own health,” Dr. Mire says. When it comes to non–work-related factors, marital stressors and comorbid psychiatric illness particularly raise the risk, says Dr. Lin.
But certain drivers are specific to the practice of medicine, with burnout and depression first in line.
Dr. Shapiro, who is vice dean for faculty and administrative affairs, Penn State University, Hershey, and the Garner James Cline Professor of Medical Humanism, conducts burnout evaluations throughout the country. “Simple depression screeners prior to the pandemic showed about a 10% major depression rate in physicians,” he told this news organization. “Now, we’re seeing a 30%-33% depression rate, even in those who weren’t frontline providers during the pandemic.”
Dr. Price agrees, noting that burnout in physicians has gone from 40% to 60% since the pandemic. But burnout doesn’t always lead to suicide. It’s when burnout progresses to depression, becomes more severe, and is untreated that the suicidal risk arises, he emphasizes.
Additionally, being a doctor isn’t “just a profession” but a “calling and identity,” says Dr. Gold. Job-related problems (for example, a malpractice suit, complaints to the medical board, loss of autonomy, changing work demands) can raise suicidal risk.
And job-related problems can inform the location of suicide, says Dr. Wible, who is the author of “Physicians Suicide Letters – Answered.”
“A work-related catalyst makes it more likely that the person will attempt or complete suicide in the work setting. Physicians have stepped off hospital rooftops, shot or stabbed themselves in hospital parking lots, or [hanged] themselves in hospital chapels. Perhaps it’s because they’re choosing to die in the place where they’ve been most wounded.”
You are not at fault
“If you’re feeling suicidal, you might feel utterly alone, but if there’s one message I can give you, it’s that you’re not alone, and there are many things you can do to mitigate your pain and despair,” Dr. Wible says. “And you’re not defective. It’s the health care system that’s defective. You have nothing to be ashamed of.”
Some institutions have a “buddy system” that pairs clinicians to provide mutual peer support. A partner who notices concerning signs can refer the other partner for help. Physicians can also be paired with a “buddy,” even without a formal institutional structure.
A “buddy” is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Shapiro cautions it might be necessary to consult a trained professional for serious depression or suicidality. Several states provide connection to local resources. Employee assistance programs (EAPs) might be helpful, although many physicians don’t trust their institution’s EAP. Or physicians can ask colleagues to recommend a “doctor’s doctor” who specializes in treating physicians, suggests Dr. Yellowlees, author of “Physician Suicide: Cases and Commentaries.”
In Medscape’s 2022 report, almost all respondents who reported having suicidal colleagues said they offered help, including emotional support, practical assistance, referrals, speaking to family members, or even personally taking the colleague to the ED or to a therapist.
To enhance physicians’ ability to help each other, Dr. Lin recommends “gatekeeper training,” which has been shown to reduce suicide. “This strategy utilizes a peer-to-peer model, but, rather than a single ‘peer buddy,’ everyone is a ‘gatekeeper’ trained in approaches, such as QPR – Question, Persuade, Refer. ‘Gatekeepers’ are taught how to recognize warning signs of suicide, question the potentially suicidal individual, persuade him/her to get help, and provide referrals.”
Other ways to prevent suicide
Dr. Lin advises physicians to “create a personalized safety plan and write down signs and clues that they may be going down the wrong path and what they can do – like breathing exercises, relaxation – and identifying people to talk to, places to go, or phone numbers to call, if those initial measures aren’t enough.” The plan is private and allows the physician to determine at what point help is needed and who should be consulted. “Sometimes, when a person is in acute stress, even looking up a phone number can seem insurmountable. But having it on paper lowers the barrier, making it more achievable.”
Resources should be posted in places where physicians gather so that those who don’t already have a safety plan have easy access to that information, he suggests.
In addition, consideration may be given to reaching out for support if a colleague has died by suicide, experts suggest. Whether offered by one’s institution, a peer arrangement, spiritual counseling, or psychotherapy, one may need help dealing with the trauma, guilt, and grief that often accompany this type of loss.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Kip Wenger, DO, an emergency physician and systems medical director of Team Health, Knoxville, Tenn., was asked to see a patient in the emergency department. He was shocked when he realized who the patient was – a 33-year-old female physician friend and colleague.
She was bleeding from multiple self-inflicted injuries and ultimately died. “I was devastated and couldn’t wrap my head around what had just happened,” Dr. Wenger told this news organization.
It’s important for physicians to be aware of warning signs in their colleagues, such as showing up late, being irritable and short-tempered with staff, missing shifts, making mistakes, or receiving an increasing number of patient complaints, Dr. Wenger says.
Dr. Wenger had had dinner with her several weeks earlier and saw some subtle changes. He had known her as a “positive, upbeat person,” but her demeanor was different during dinner.
“There were no typical telltale signs – she was talking about her plans for the future, including buying a new bicycle – but she wasn’t herself and seemed to become tearful when I hugged her at the end of the evening,” he said. He later heard from another colleague that she had shared feeling “hopeless.”
The scope of the problem
According to the American Society for Suicide Prevention, roughly 300-400 physicians die by suicide annually. Although one study suggests a lower number, official reports likely underestimate suicides, study author Katherine Gold, MD, MSW, associate professor of family medicine, obstetrics, and gynecology, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.
Peter Yellowlees, MD, MBBS, professor of psychiatry, University of California, Davis, concurs, suggesting that some single-car accidents involving physicians might be suicides. Perry Lin, MD, assistant clinical professor, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens, and national co-chair of the Physician Suicide Awareness Committee of the American Association of Suicidology, says that some death certificates state that the deceased died of “accidental causes” because the physician who completes the certificate, possibly a colleague, is reluctant to list the actual cause of death to protect his colleague’s memory or the family’s feelings.
In general, and among physicians, White men older than 65 “represent the largest percentage of people who die from suicide nationwide,” says Dr. Lin.
But younger people are also susceptible, Dr. Lin adds. One of the most vulnerable periods for potential suicide is during the first few months of residency. This dovetails with the findings of Medscape’s 2022 report Suicide: A Tragedy of the Profession. In that report, a difference was found between frequency of suicidal thoughts in younger physicians, compared with older physicians (14% in those < 35 years vs. 8% for those ≥ 45 years).
Hurdles to preventing physician suicide
“The best thing that can happen in our profession is upstream intervention – if people seek help before they get to the point of suicidality, recognizing they’re under stress and duress and that they might be going down a bad pathway,” says Dr. Lin. But research suggests that many physicians don’t do so.
Gary Price, MD, attending surgeon and clinical assistant professor of surgery, Yale–New Haven Hospital, Connecticut, and president of the Physicians Foundation, says his organization has identified barriers that prevent physicians from seeking help.
Physicians feel they may put their licensure at risk if they admit to receiving help for mental issues. These concerns were expressed by respondents in Medscape’s above mentioned 2022 report, many of whom didn’t seek treatment for depression, burnout, or suicidal thoughts lest it affect their professional standing when renewing their license or seeking credentialing.
Although organizations and societies are advocating against these questions, a recent study found that almost 70% of U.S. states and territories continue to ask physicians about their mental health, and 28% ask for diagnoses (beyond current impairments) – a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
“Mental health illness is different from mental health impairment,” Ryan Mire, MD, a Nashville, Tenn.–based internist, said in an interview. “As physicians, we’re comfortable with licensing boards asking whether the physician has any condition that might impair their care for patients, but not about a history of mental illness.”
The second barrier, says Dr. Price, is that hospital credentialing committees sometimes ask similar questions, as do commercial and malpractice insurers.
Another roadblock is that in some states, undergoing treatment for a mental health problem could be subject to discovery by a plaintiff’s attorney in a malpractice case, even if the physician’s mental health history had no effect on patient care. But that’s uncommon, says Daniel Shapiro, PhD, author of “Delivering Doctor Amelia,” a book about his treatment of a suicidal physician who underwent a malpractice lawsuit. “I’ve never seen that happen.”
A final barrier is that many employers require employees to receive treatment within their own institution or health system. “Physicians may be reluctant to get help where they work, with colleagues and friends knowing about their illness or being involved with their care,” says Dr. Price.
In 2022, the American College of Physicians (ACP) issued a toolkit to help members encourage licensing and credentialing boards to remove questions about mental health on applications and include language that supports receiving treatment, Dr. Mire says.
Layers of vulnerability
There are few data regarding relative risk among particular races or ethnicities, “but we know racism is a social stressor,” says Dr. Mire. “Obviously, people from historically disadvantaged populations tend to have societal stressors like discrimination and racism that add an extra layer of burden.”
Intersectionality – having multiple intersecting risk factors – may confer even higher risk. “For example, if you’re a female physician from a historically marginalized race and a resident dealing with the ‘hidden curriculum’ of trying to be resilient, you have multiple layers of vulnerability.”
There are also limited data regarding which specialties or work environments are associated with highest risk. “Obviously, challenges exist in every segment of medicine and at different ages, stages, and work environments, and they intersect with each individual physician’s personal risk factors,” says Dr. Mire, president of the ACP and assistant clinical professor of clinical medical education, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis.
Pamela Wible, MD, is an Oregon-based retired physician who herself went through a suicidal period about 11 years into her career that motivated her to embrace a new vision of clinical practice and change her practice model. After a series of physician suicides in her area, she began to speak and write openly about physician suicide, and since her retirement from clinical practice, she makes herself available on a full-time basis to distressed physicians. “When I address a conference of a particular medical specialty or a group in a particular geographical region, I focus on the specific vulnerabilities in that specialty or region,” she says.
What increases the chances of suicide?
“Many factors, both within and outside the professional setting, affect someone’s decision to die by suicide – after all, physicians have the same stressors as other people, like family, finances, and their own health,” Dr. Mire says. When it comes to non–work-related factors, marital stressors and comorbid psychiatric illness particularly raise the risk, says Dr. Lin.
But certain drivers are specific to the practice of medicine, with burnout and depression first in line.
Dr. Shapiro, who is vice dean for faculty and administrative affairs, Penn State University, Hershey, and the Garner James Cline Professor of Medical Humanism, conducts burnout evaluations throughout the country. “Simple depression screeners prior to the pandemic showed about a 10% major depression rate in physicians,” he told this news organization. “Now, we’re seeing a 30%-33% depression rate, even in those who weren’t frontline providers during the pandemic.”
Dr. Price agrees, noting that burnout in physicians has gone from 40% to 60% since the pandemic. But burnout doesn’t always lead to suicide. It’s when burnout progresses to depression, becomes more severe, and is untreated that the suicidal risk arises, he emphasizes.
Additionally, being a doctor isn’t “just a profession” but a “calling and identity,” says Dr. Gold. Job-related problems (for example, a malpractice suit, complaints to the medical board, loss of autonomy, changing work demands) can raise suicidal risk.
And job-related problems can inform the location of suicide, says Dr. Wible, who is the author of “Physicians Suicide Letters – Answered.”
“A work-related catalyst makes it more likely that the person will attempt or complete suicide in the work setting. Physicians have stepped off hospital rooftops, shot or stabbed themselves in hospital parking lots, or [hanged] themselves in hospital chapels. Perhaps it’s because they’re choosing to die in the place where they’ve been most wounded.”
You are not at fault
“If you’re feeling suicidal, you might feel utterly alone, but if there’s one message I can give you, it’s that you’re not alone, and there are many things you can do to mitigate your pain and despair,” Dr. Wible says. “And you’re not defective. It’s the health care system that’s defective. You have nothing to be ashamed of.”
Some institutions have a “buddy system” that pairs clinicians to provide mutual peer support. A partner who notices concerning signs can refer the other partner for help. Physicians can also be paired with a “buddy,” even without a formal institutional structure.
A “buddy” is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Shapiro cautions it might be necessary to consult a trained professional for serious depression or suicidality. Several states provide connection to local resources. Employee assistance programs (EAPs) might be helpful, although many physicians don’t trust their institution’s EAP. Or physicians can ask colleagues to recommend a “doctor’s doctor” who specializes in treating physicians, suggests Dr. Yellowlees, author of “Physician Suicide: Cases and Commentaries.”
In Medscape’s 2022 report, almost all respondents who reported having suicidal colleagues said they offered help, including emotional support, practical assistance, referrals, speaking to family members, or even personally taking the colleague to the ED or to a therapist.
To enhance physicians’ ability to help each other, Dr. Lin recommends “gatekeeper training,” which has been shown to reduce suicide. “This strategy utilizes a peer-to-peer model, but, rather than a single ‘peer buddy,’ everyone is a ‘gatekeeper’ trained in approaches, such as QPR – Question, Persuade, Refer. ‘Gatekeepers’ are taught how to recognize warning signs of suicide, question the potentially suicidal individual, persuade him/her to get help, and provide referrals.”
Other ways to prevent suicide
Dr. Lin advises physicians to “create a personalized safety plan and write down signs and clues that they may be going down the wrong path and what they can do – like breathing exercises, relaxation – and identifying people to talk to, places to go, or phone numbers to call, if those initial measures aren’t enough.” The plan is private and allows the physician to determine at what point help is needed and who should be consulted. “Sometimes, when a person is in acute stress, even looking up a phone number can seem insurmountable. But having it on paper lowers the barrier, making it more achievable.”
Resources should be posted in places where physicians gather so that those who don’t already have a safety plan have easy access to that information, he suggests.
In addition, consideration may be given to reaching out for support if a colleague has died by suicide, experts suggest. Whether offered by one’s institution, a peer arrangement, spiritual counseling, or psychotherapy, one may need help dealing with the trauma, guilt, and grief that often accompany this type of loss.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Kip Wenger, DO, an emergency physician and systems medical director of Team Health, Knoxville, Tenn., was asked to see a patient in the emergency department. He was shocked when he realized who the patient was – a 33-year-old female physician friend and colleague.
She was bleeding from multiple self-inflicted injuries and ultimately died. “I was devastated and couldn’t wrap my head around what had just happened,” Dr. Wenger told this news organization.
It’s important for physicians to be aware of warning signs in their colleagues, such as showing up late, being irritable and short-tempered with staff, missing shifts, making mistakes, or receiving an increasing number of patient complaints, Dr. Wenger says.
Dr. Wenger had had dinner with her several weeks earlier and saw some subtle changes. He had known her as a “positive, upbeat person,” but her demeanor was different during dinner.
“There were no typical telltale signs – she was talking about her plans for the future, including buying a new bicycle – but she wasn’t herself and seemed to become tearful when I hugged her at the end of the evening,” he said. He later heard from another colleague that she had shared feeling “hopeless.”
The scope of the problem
According to the American Society for Suicide Prevention, roughly 300-400 physicians die by suicide annually. Although one study suggests a lower number, official reports likely underestimate suicides, study author Katherine Gold, MD, MSW, associate professor of family medicine, obstetrics, and gynecology, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.
Peter Yellowlees, MD, MBBS, professor of psychiatry, University of California, Davis, concurs, suggesting that some single-car accidents involving physicians might be suicides. Perry Lin, MD, assistant clinical professor, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens, and national co-chair of the Physician Suicide Awareness Committee of the American Association of Suicidology, says that some death certificates state that the deceased died of “accidental causes” because the physician who completes the certificate, possibly a colleague, is reluctant to list the actual cause of death to protect his colleague’s memory or the family’s feelings.
In general, and among physicians, White men older than 65 “represent the largest percentage of people who die from suicide nationwide,” says Dr. Lin.
But younger people are also susceptible, Dr. Lin adds. One of the most vulnerable periods for potential suicide is during the first few months of residency. This dovetails with the findings of Medscape’s 2022 report Suicide: A Tragedy of the Profession. In that report, a difference was found between frequency of suicidal thoughts in younger physicians, compared with older physicians (14% in those < 35 years vs. 8% for those ≥ 45 years).
Hurdles to preventing physician suicide
“The best thing that can happen in our profession is upstream intervention – if people seek help before they get to the point of suicidality, recognizing they’re under stress and duress and that they might be going down a bad pathway,” says Dr. Lin. But research suggests that many physicians don’t do so.
Gary Price, MD, attending surgeon and clinical assistant professor of surgery, Yale–New Haven Hospital, Connecticut, and president of the Physicians Foundation, says his organization has identified barriers that prevent physicians from seeking help.
Physicians feel they may put their licensure at risk if they admit to receiving help for mental issues. These concerns were expressed by respondents in Medscape’s above mentioned 2022 report, many of whom didn’t seek treatment for depression, burnout, or suicidal thoughts lest it affect their professional standing when renewing their license or seeking credentialing.
Although organizations and societies are advocating against these questions, a recent study found that almost 70% of U.S. states and territories continue to ask physicians about their mental health, and 28% ask for diagnoses (beyond current impairments) – a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
“Mental health illness is different from mental health impairment,” Ryan Mire, MD, a Nashville, Tenn.–based internist, said in an interview. “As physicians, we’re comfortable with licensing boards asking whether the physician has any condition that might impair their care for patients, but not about a history of mental illness.”
The second barrier, says Dr. Price, is that hospital credentialing committees sometimes ask similar questions, as do commercial and malpractice insurers.
Another roadblock is that in some states, undergoing treatment for a mental health problem could be subject to discovery by a plaintiff’s attorney in a malpractice case, even if the physician’s mental health history had no effect on patient care. But that’s uncommon, says Daniel Shapiro, PhD, author of “Delivering Doctor Amelia,” a book about his treatment of a suicidal physician who underwent a malpractice lawsuit. “I’ve never seen that happen.”
A final barrier is that many employers require employees to receive treatment within their own institution or health system. “Physicians may be reluctant to get help where they work, with colleagues and friends knowing about their illness or being involved with their care,” says Dr. Price.
In 2022, the American College of Physicians (ACP) issued a toolkit to help members encourage licensing and credentialing boards to remove questions about mental health on applications and include language that supports receiving treatment, Dr. Mire says.
Layers of vulnerability
There are few data regarding relative risk among particular races or ethnicities, “but we know racism is a social stressor,” says Dr. Mire. “Obviously, people from historically disadvantaged populations tend to have societal stressors like discrimination and racism that add an extra layer of burden.”
Intersectionality – having multiple intersecting risk factors – may confer even higher risk. “For example, if you’re a female physician from a historically marginalized race and a resident dealing with the ‘hidden curriculum’ of trying to be resilient, you have multiple layers of vulnerability.”
There are also limited data regarding which specialties or work environments are associated with highest risk. “Obviously, challenges exist in every segment of medicine and at different ages, stages, and work environments, and they intersect with each individual physician’s personal risk factors,” says Dr. Mire, president of the ACP and assistant clinical professor of clinical medical education, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis.
Pamela Wible, MD, is an Oregon-based retired physician who herself went through a suicidal period about 11 years into her career that motivated her to embrace a new vision of clinical practice and change her practice model. After a series of physician suicides in her area, she began to speak and write openly about physician suicide, and since her retirement from clinical practice, she makes herself available on a full-time basis to distressed physicians. “When I address a conference of a particular medical specialty or a group in a particular geographical region, I focus on the specific vulnerabilities in that specialty or region,” she says.
What increases the chances of suicide?
“Many factors, both within and outside the professional setting, affect someone’s decision to die by suicide – after all, physicians have the same stressors as other people, like family, finances, and their own health,” Dr. Mire says. When it comes to non–work-related factors, marital stressors and comorbid psychiatric illness particularly raise the risk, says Dr. Lin.
But certain drivers are specific to the practice of medicine, with burnout and depression first in line.
Dr. Shapiro, who is vice dean for faculty and administrative affairs, Penn State University, Hershey, and the Garner James Cline Professor of Medical Humanism, conducts burnout evaluations throughout the country. “Simple depression screeners prior to the pandemic showed about a 10% major depression rate in physicians,” he told this news organization. “Now, we’re seeing a 30%-33% depression rate, even in those who weren’t frontline providers during the pandemic.”
Dr. Price agrees, noting that burnout in physicians has gone from 40% to 60% since the pandemic. But burnout doesn’t always lead to suicide. It’s when burnout progresses to depression, becomes more severe, and is untreated that the suicidal risk arises, he emphasizes.
Additionally, being a doctor isn’t “just a profession” but a “calling and identity,” says Dr. Gold. Job-related problems (for example, a malpractice suit, complaints to the medical board, loss of autonomy, changing work demands) can raise suicidal risk.
And job-related problems can inform the location of suicide, says Dr. Wible, who is the author of “Physicians Suicide Letters – Answered.”
“A work-related catalyst makes it more likely that the person will attempt or complete suicide in the work setting. Physicians have stepped off hospital rooftops, shot or stabbed themselves in hospital parking lots, or [hanged] themselves in hospital chapels. Perhaps it’s because they’re choosing to die in the place where they’ve been most wounded.”
You are not at fault
“If you’re feeling suicidal, you might feel utterly alone, but if there’s one message I can give you, it’s that you’re not alone, and there are many things you can do to mitigate your pain and despair,” Dr. Wible says. “And you’re not defective. It’s the health care system that’s defective. You have nothing to be ashamed of.”
Some institutions have a “buddy system” that pairs clinicians to provide mutual peer support. A partner who notices concerning signs can refer the other partner for help. Physicians can also be paired with a “buddy,” even without a formal institutional structure.
A “buddy” is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Shapiro cautions it might be necessary to consult a trained professional for serious depression or suicidality. Several states provide connection to local resources. Employee assistance programs (EAPs) might be helpful, although many physicians don’t trust their institution’s EAP. Or physicians can ask colleagues to recommend a “doctor’s doctor” who specializes in treating physicians, suggests Dr. Yellowlees, author of “Physician Suicide: Cases and Commentaries.”
In Medscape’s 2022 report, almost all respondents who reported having suicidal colleagues said they offered help, including emotional support, practical assistance, referrals, speaking to family members, or even personally taking the colleague to the ED or to a therapist.
To enhance physicians’ ability to help each other, Dr. Lin recommends “gatekeeper training,” which has been shown to reduce suicide. “This strategy utilizes a peer-to-peer model, but, rather than a single ‘peer buddy,’ everyone is a ‘gatekeeper’ trained in approaches, such as QPR – Question, Persuade, Refer. ‘Gatekeepers’ are taught how to recognize warning signs of suicide, question the potentially suicidal individual, persuade him/her to get help, and provide referrals.”
Other ways to prevent suicide
Dr. Lin advises physicians to “create a personalized safety plan and write down signs and clues that they may be going down the wrong path and what they can do – like breathing exercises, relaxation – and identifying people to talk to, places to go, or phone numbers to call, if those initial measures aren’t enough.” The plan is private and allows the physician to determine at what point help is needed and who should be consulted. “Sometimes, when a person is in acute stress, even looking up a phone number can seem insurmountable. But having it on paper lowers the barrier, making it more achievable.”
Resources should be posted in places where physicians gather so that those who don’t already have a safety plan have easy access to that information, he suggests.
In addition, consideration may be given to reaching out for support if a colleague has died by suicide, experts suggest. Whether offered by one’s institution, a peer arrangement, spiritual counseling, or psychotherapy, one may need help dealing with the trauma, guilt, and grief that often accompany this type of loss.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Roe v. Wade overturned, ending 50 years of abortion protections
According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.
Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.
The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.
The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2.
In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).
Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.
The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
Trigger laws and bans
When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.
University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.
The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.
Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.
“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”
In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.
Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.
On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.
Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Some states protecting rights
At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.
Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.
B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”
But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
Medication abortions, travel next battle
Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.
Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.
Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.
Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.
George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”
He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”
Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.
Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.
The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.
The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2.
In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).
Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.
The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
Trigger laws and bans
When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.
University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.
The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.
Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.
“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”
In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.
Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.
On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.
Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Some states protecting rights
At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.
Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.
B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”
But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
Medication abortions, travel next battle
Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.
Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.
Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.
Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.
George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”
He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”
Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.
Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.
The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.
The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2.
In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).
Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.
The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
Trigger laws and bans
When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.
University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.
The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.
Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.
“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”
In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.
Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.
On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.
Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Some states protecting rights
At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.
Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.
B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”
But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
Medication abortions, travel next battle
Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.
Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.
Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.
Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.
George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”
He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”
Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
$3 billion in cancer drug waste: Can it be salvaged?
Three billion dollars: It’s enough to finance the annual out-of-pocket costs for 1 in 7 patients with cancer. It would cover almost half of the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget. And it could fund President Biden’s entire Cancer Moonshot program, with more than a billion to spare.
It’s also how much the United States spends on unused cancer drugs each year, some experts estimate.
Drug companies typically sell infused drugs in one or two single-dose vial sizes, but patients don’t come in such neat packages. A patient may need 300 mg of a drug that is only sold as 200 mg vials, which means half of a vial will go to waste.
Although most oncology drugs don’t incur substantial waste, even small volumes can translate to millions of dollars a year.
But can this money be saved or reallocated, if only we delivered drugs more efficiently?
Some experts don’t believe that’s possible.
“Attempts to recoup money for discarded drugs wouldn’t happen in a vacuum,” said Robin Yabroff, PhD, MBA, an epidemiologist and scientific vice president of Health Services Research at the American Cancer Society, who was part of a committee commissioned to evaluate the costs associated with discarded drugs.
The potential catch of any widespread effort to seek repayment or reduce the amount of discarded drugs, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues note, is that manufacturers would “simply increase the price of the vial.”
In other words, attempting to fix one problem may lead to another — essentially a whack-a-mole of cancer costs, which are projected to balloon to $246 billion by 2030.
What this means is without sweeping policies to rein in cancer care costs, oncologists can only do so much. And every little bit counts.
“We are left chipping away at this monster of cancer care costs,” said Adam Binder, MD, a medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.
Millions spent on “reasonable amount” of waste
Michal Sarfaty, MD, was excited when enfortumab vedotin came on the market to treat advanced urothelial cancer in late 2019.
The cost of the drug, however, tempered her enthusiasm.
Enfortumab vedotin is a “great drug,” said Dr. Sarfaty, an oncologist at the Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. But it can cost upwards of $500,000 a year for an average-weight man.
Given the expense, Dr. Sarfaty wanted to understand how much of the drug gets thrown away. During a fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center in New York, Dr. Sarfaty explored the amount of unused enfortumab vedotin among the 64 patients who received the drug in 2020. She, along with a team at MSK, calculated the price tag of that waste and extrapolated those estimates for patients across the country.
Although waste occurred in almost half of administered doses (367 of 793), only a small volume got discarded — 2.9% per dose, on average.
Multiplying unused milligrams by the cost per milligram, Dr. Sarfaty and colleagues estimated that, for each patient, $3,127 of the drug got discarded. When calculated over the year, the cost came to just over $200,000 at MSK, and nearly $15 million when projected across the approved patient population in the United States.
“Ultimately, we did not see a lot of waste with this specific drug,” Dr. Sarfaty said. “Under 2.9% is considered a reasonable amount, below the 3% threshold Peter Bach, MD, and colleagues recommend. But even with this small amount of waste, the cost per patient and to the system remains notable.”
The problem with recouping drug waste
Estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which tracks costs associated with discarded weight-based drugs covered under Medicare Part B, support the notion that small quantities of discarded drugs can still translate to big bucks.
Since 2017, CMS has required healthcare providers to report the volume of drugs discarded from a single-dose vial using a code, known as the JW modifier. The JW modifier means that providers can be reimbursed for the entire vial amount, not just the quantity the patient used.
In 2019, claims data from Medicare Part B showed that 1.85% of discarded rituximab came to $33.3 million. For infliximab, the 1.55% of discarded liquid translated to $15 million, and just 0.36% of discarded pembrolizumab reached $10 million.
However, experts question whether the JW modifier accurately reflects the quantity of drugs discarded.
According to the 2021 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), most physicians don’t use the JW modifier. Among Medicare claims, 16.2% included the JW modifier in 2017 and 16.9% did in 2018.
The rate was significantly lower for private insurance. Of more than 4 million private insurance claims on 77 drugs made in 2017 and 2018, only 3.6% included the JW modifier; 15 of these drugs had no JW claims.
“Although we found that most physicians don’t use the JW modifier, even those who do, don’t use it consistently, even for the same patient,” said Dr. Yabroff, a co-author on the report.
Going a step further, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues argue that even if everyone used the JW modifier as intended, manufacturers would probably increase the price of drugs to compensate for any loss, potentially eliminating savings for payers.
That’s because, in the United States, manufacturers typically base drug prices on a patient and payers’ “willingness to pay for better health,” not on the volume of liquid used. Take a patient who pays $2,000 to receive the dose they need. If that dose is 600 mg but requires using two vials of 400 mg, then “to the patient, the 600-mg dose is worth $2,000, and the remainder has no value whatsoever,” the NASEM authors argue.
The authors parallel this scenario to purchasing a designer coat or dress. If that item requires alterations that remove a section of material, “the customer does not typically get a rebate because all the fabric was not needed,” the NASEM team writes.
But there’s a flaw in this rationale, argues Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. A person’s willingness to pay for better health assumes that the price of a drug is based on proper market forces, where a drug’s cost and its effectiveness are in harmony.
“The problem is we’re operating in a broken market where the prices of oncology drugs have no real bearing on their efficacy,” said Dr. Goldstein.
And, as Dr. Bach noted in a 2021 Health Affairs piece, willingness to pay also requires that consumers know what they’re paying and allows them to walk away from an excessively high price.
But neither is a reality.
For one, Dr. Bach explains, companies may lowball the monthly price of a drug. In 2020, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced that its new drug Blenrep would carry a list price of $8,277 per vial, or about $23,900 per month for an average 79 kg (175 lb) patient. That price accounts for two vials of the drug. But, according to Dr. Bach, “what GSK left out is that 44% of U.S. adults weigh more than 80 kg, and above that weight, three vials are needed per dose.” That would raise the average monthly cost to $30,479.
Perhaps more importantly, consumers can’t easily walk away.
“Medicare can’t negotiate prices and is forced to pay what a drug company says,” Dr. Goldstein said. “This is very different to when I buy a coat. If the price is too high, I can walk away.”
Fixed dosing: A solution or a new problem?
Efforts to reduce the financial impact of discarded cancer drugs can blow back on physicians, patients, and payers in other unanticipated ways. Take fixed dosing. Although chemotherapy dosing remains weight-based, many targeted therapies — such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab — recently transitioned to a fixed dosing regimen.
Administering a fixed, instead of weight-based, dose eliminates waste but can create new problems.
“Patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” said Dr. Goldstein. In a 2017 analysis, Dr. Goldstein and colleagues compared dosing strategies in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received pembrolizumab. The team found that the total annual cost of weight-based dosing was $2.6 billion, whereas the cost of the fixed dosing strategy was $3.44 billion — 24% more. In other words, personalized weight-based dosing would save more than $825 million dollars in the United States each year.
A 2020 analysis based in France found a similar cost increase of 26% for fixed dosing of pembrolizumab as well as nivolumab.
“I’ve argued we should go back to weight-based dosing,” Dr. Goldstein said. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”
Does dose rounding work?
Rose DiMarco, PharmD, BCPS, BCOP, keeps a tight watch on patients being treated at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.
Dr. DiMarco educates patients about their treatment plan, reviews their lab results, and monitors them for side effects and drug interactions.
She also thinks a lot about costs.
“We spend about $100,000 a day on oncology drugs, and we want to make sure we’re not being wasteful,” Dr. DiMarco said in an interview.
One major initiative to curb waste and reduce costs at Jefferson has centered on dose rounding, which calculates whether a specific dose can be altered slightly to conserve vials and prevent waste. According to the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association, a patient can receive up to 10% more or less of a weight-based dose without impacting treatment efficacy.
If, for instance, a patient requires 380 mg, but two vials come to 400 mg, rounding up that dose by approximately 5% means eliminating 20 mg that would go unused. But if that patient requires 420 mg, rounding down about 5% means substantial savings from not opening a new vial.
At Jefferson, Dr. DiMarco and her pharmacy colleagues map out dose ranges for all patients. Anyone who falls inside the 10% may be eligible for dose rounding. Anyone who doesn’t will receive the usual dose.
Although it is a challenge to implement, dose rounding has become standard of care at many cancer centers across the United States and is linked to substantial savings.
A 2018 analysis projected annual savings of $865,000 associated with rounding down eight monoclonal antibodies for patients with metastatic disease at a community cancer center. A more recent analysis from the Mayo Clinic found that dose rounding saved a total of 9,814 drug vials — 4485 of which were cancer drugs and 5329 of which were biologics — and resulted in $7.3 million in savings over 6 months in 2019 — $1.56 million from oncology agents and $5.7 from biologics.
And in a small 2019 analysis, researchers at Jefferson showed dose rounding of one monoclonal antibody saved approximately $30,000 in just 3 months, Dr. DiMarco noted.
“Not only does this process reduce costs and waste, but it also standardizes the preparation of hazardous medications, which can help prevent medication errors,” Dr. DiMarco said.
Nibbling around the edges
Despite estimates that scale into the billions of dollars, “drug wastage is just a small part of overall cancer costs,” Dr. Sarfaty said.
Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at MSK, agrees. “When we talk about affordability and cost, we can nibble around the edges of what’s really important,” Dr. Chino said. “Discarded drugs may cost a lot when you consider them in aggregate, but they are not as important as negotiated drug prices, which could substantially reduce overall costs.”
And until drug prices are addressed on a broader policy level, the cost of cancer care likely won’t improve in a meaningful way.
“But for the patient sitting in front of me, my focus will always be to provide the best care possible,” Dr. Binder said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Three billion dollars: It’s enough to finance the annual out-of-pocket costs for 1 in 7 patients with cancer. It would cover almost half of the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget. And it could fund President Biden’s entire Cancer Moonshot program, with more than a billion to spare.
It’s also how much the United States spends on unused cancer drugs each year, some experts estimate.
Drug companies typically sell infused drugs in one or two single-dose vial sizes, but patients don’t come in such neat packages. A patient may need 300 mg of a drug that is only sold as 200 mg vials, which means half of a vial will go to waste.
Although most oncology drugs don’t incur substantial waste, even small volumes can translate to millions of dollars a year.
But can this money be saved or reallocated, if only we delivered drugs more efficiently?
Some experts don’t believe that’s possible.
“Attempts to recoup money for discarded drugs wouldn’t happen in a vacuum,” said Robin Yabroff, PhD, MBA, an epidemiologist and scientific vice president of Health Services Research at the American Cancer Society, who was part of a committee commissioned to evaluate the costs associated with discarded drugs.
The potential catch of any widespread effort to seek repayment or reduce the amount of discarded drugs, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues note, is that manufacturers would “simply increase the price of the vial.”
In other words, attempting to fix one problem may lead to another — essentially a whack-a-mole of cancer costs, which are projected to balloon to $246 billion by 2030.
What this means is without sweeping policies to rein in cancer care costs, oncologists can only do so much. And every little bit counts.
“We are left chipping away at this monster of cancer care costs,” said Adam Binder, MD, a medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.
Millions spent on “reasonable amount” of waste
Michal Sarfaty, MD, was excited when enfortumab vedotin came on the market to treat advanced urothelial cancer in late 2019.
The cost of the drug, however, tempered her enthusiasm.
Enfortumab vedotin is a “great drug,” said Dr. Sarfaty, an oncologist at the Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. But it can cost upwards of $500,000 a year for an average-weight man.
Given the expense, Dr. Sarfaty wanted to understand how much of the drug gets thrown away. During a fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center in New York, Dr. Sarfaty explored the amount of unused enfortumab vedotin among the 64 patients who received the drug in 2020. She, along with a team at MSK, calculated the price tag of that waste and extrapolated those estimates for patients across the country.
Although waste occurred in almost half of administered doses (367 of 793), only a small volume got discarded — 2.9% per dose, on average.
Multiplying unused milligrams by the cost per milligram, Dr. Sarfaty and colleagues estimated that, for each patient, $3,127 of the drug got discarded. When calculated over the year, the cost came to just over $200,000 at MSK, and nearly $15 million when projected across the approved patient population in the United States.
“Ultimately, we did not see a lot of waste with this specific drug,” Dr. Sarfaty said. “Under 2.9% is considered a reasonable amount, below the 3% threshold Peter Bach, MD, and colleagues recommend. But even with this small amount of waste, the cost per patient and to the system remains notable.”
The problem with recouping drug waste
Estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which tracks costs associated with discarded weight-based drugs covered under Medicare Part B, support the notion that small quantities of discarded drugs can still translate to big bucks.
Since 2017, CMS has required healthcare providers to report the volume of drugs discarded from a single-dose vial using a code, known as the JW modifier. The JW modifier means that providers can be reimbursed for the entire vial amount, not just the quantity the patient used.
In 2019, claims data from Medicare Part B showed that 1.85% of discarded rituximab came to $33.3 million. For infliximab, the 1.55% of discarded liquid translated to $15 million, and just 0.36% of discarded pembrolizumab reached $10 million.
However, experts question whether the JW modifier accurately reflects the quantity of drugs discarded.
According to the 2021 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), most physicians don’t use the JW modifier. Among Medicare claims, 16.2% included the JW modifier in 2017 and 16.9% did in 2018.
The rate was significantly lower for private insurance. Of more than 4 million private insurance claims on 77 drugs made in 2017 and 2018, only 3.6% included the JW modifier; 15 of these drugs had no JW claims.
“Although we found that most physicians don’t use the JW modifier, even those who do, don’t use it consistently, even for the same patient,” said Dr. Yabroff, a co-author on the report.
Going a step further, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues argue that even if everyone used the JW modifier as intended, manufacturers would probably increase the price of drugs to compensate for any loss, potentially eliminating savings for payers.
That’s because, in the United States, manufacturers typically base drug prices on a patient and payers’ “willingness to pay for better health,” not on the volume of liquid used. Take a patient who pays $2,000 to receive the dose they need. If that dose is 600 mg but requires using two vials of 400 mg, then “to the patient, the 600-mg dose is worth $2,000, and the remainder has no value whatsoever,” the NASEM authors argue.
The authors parallel this scenario to purchasing a designer coat or dress. If that item requires alterations that remove a section of material, “the customer does not typically get a rebate because all the fabric was not needed,” the NASEM team writes.
But there’s a flaw in this rationale, argues Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. A person’s willingness to pay for better health assumes that the price of a drug is based on proper market forces, where a drug’s cost and its effectiveness are in harmony.
“The problem is we’re operating in a broken market where the prices of oncology drugs have no real bearing on their efficacy,” said Dr. Goldstein.
And, as Dr. Bach noted in a 2021 Health Affairs piece, willingness to pay also requires that consumers know what they’re paying and allows them to walk away from an excessively high price.
But neither is a reality.
For one, Dr. Bach explains, companies may lowball the monthly price of a drug. In 2020, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced that its new drug Blenrep would carry a list price of $8,277 per vial, or about $23,900 per month for an average 79 kg (175 lb) patient. That price accounts for two vials of the drug. But, according to Dr. Bach, “what GSK left out is that 44% of U.S. adults weigh more than 80 kg, and above that weight, three vials are needed per dose.” That would raise the average monthly cost to $30,479.
Perhaps more importantly, consumers can’t easily walk away.
“Medicare can’t negotiate prices and is forced to pay what a drug company says,” Dr. Goldstein said. “This is very different to when I buy a coat. If the price is too high, I can walk away.”
Fixed dosing: A solution or a new problem?
Efforts to reduce the financial impact of discarded cancer drugs can blow back on physicians, patients, and payers in other unanticipated ways. Take fixed dosing. Although chemotherapy dosing remains weight-based, many targeted therapies — such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab — recently transitioned to a fixed dosing regimen.
Administering a fixed, instead of weight-based, dose eliminates waste but can create new problems.
“Patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” said Dr. Goldstein. In a 2017 analysis, Dr. Goldstein and colleagues compared dosing strategies in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received pembrolizumab. The team found that the total annual cost of weight-based dosing was $2.6 billion, whereas the cost of the fixed dosing strategy was $3.44 billion — 24% more. In other words, personalized weight-based dosing would save more than $825 million dollars in the United States each year.
A 2020 analysis based in France found a similar cost increase of 26% for fixed dosing of pembrolizumab as well as nivolumab.
“I’ve argued we should go back to weight-based dosing,” Dr. Goldstein said. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”
Does dose rounding work?
Rose DiMarco, PharmD, BCPS, BCOP, keeps a tight watch on patients being treated at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.
Dr. DiMarco educates patients about their treatment plan, reviews their lab results, and monitors them for side effects and drug interactions.
She also thinks a lot about costs.
“We spend about $100,000 a day on oncology drugs, and we want to make sure we’re not being wasteful,” Dr. DiMarco said in an interview.
One major initiative to curb waste and reduce costs at Jefferson has centered on dose rounding, which calculates whether a specific dose can be altered slightly to conserve vials and prevent waste. According to the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association, a patient can receive up to 10% more or less of a weight-based dose without impacting treatment efficacy.
If, for instance, a patient requires 380 mg, but two vials come to 400 mg, rounding up that dose by approximately 5% means eliminating 20 mg that would go unused. But if that patient requires 420 mg, rounding down about 5% means substantial savings from not opening a new vial.
At Jefferson, Dr. DiMarco and her pharmacy colleagues map out dose ranges for all patients. Anyone who falls inside the 10% may be eligible for dose rounding. Anyone who doesn’t will receive the usual dose.
Although it is a challenge to implement, dose rounding has become standard of care at many cancer centers across the United States and is linked to substantial savings.
A 2018 analysis projected annual savings of $865,000 associated with rounding down eight monoclonal antibodies for patients with metastatic disease at a community cancer center. A more recent analysis from the Mayo Clinic found that dose rounding saved a total of 9,814 drug vials — 4485 of which were cancer drugs and 5329 of which were biologics — and resulted in $7.3 million in savings over 6 months in 2019 — $1.56 million from oncology agents and $5.7 from biologics.
And in a small 2019 analysis, researchers at Jefferson showed dose rounding of one monoclonal antibody saved approximately $30,000 in just 3 months, Dr. DiMarco noted.
“Not only does this process reduce costs and waste, but it also standardizes the preparation of hazardous medications, which can help prevent medication errors,” Dr. DiMarco said.
Nibbling around the edges
Despite estimates that scale into the billions of dollars, “drug wastage is just a small part of overall cancer costs,” Dr. Sarfaty said.
Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at MSK, agrees. “When we talk about affordability and cost, we can nibble around the edges of what’s really important,” Dr. Chino said. “Discarded drugs may cost a lot when you consider them in aggregate, but they are not as important as negotiated drug prices, which could substantially reduce overall costs.”
And until drug prices are addressed on a broader policy level, the cost of cancer care likely won’t improve in a meaningful way.
“But for the patient sitting in front of me, my focus will always be to provide the best care possible,” Dr. Binder said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Three billion dollars: It’s enough to finance the annual out-of-pocket costs for 1 in 7 patients with cancer. It would cover almost half of the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget. And it could fund President Biden’s entire Cancer Moonshot program, with more than a billion to spare.
It’s also how much the United States spends on unused cancer drugs each year, some experts estimate.
Drug companies typically sell infused drugs in one or two single-dose vial sizes, but patients don’t come in such neat packages. A patient may need 300 mg of a drug that is only sold as 200 mg vials, which means half of a vial will go to waste.
Although most oncology drugs don’t incur substantial waste, even small volumes can translate to millions of dollars a year.
But can this money be saved or reallocated, if only we delivered drugs more efficiently?
Some experts don’t believe that’s possible.
“Attempts to recoup money for discarded drugs wouldn’t happen in a vacuum,” said Robin Yabroff, PhD, MBA, an epidemiologist and scientific vice president of Health Services Research at the American Cancer Society, who was part of a committee commissioned to evaluate the costs associated with discarded drugs.
The potential catch of any widespread effort to seek repayment or reduce the amount of discarded drugs, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues note, is that manufacturers would “simply increase the price of the vial.”
In other words, attempting to fix one problem may lead to another — essentially a whack-a-mole of cancer costs, which are projected to balloon to $246 billion by 2030.
What this means is without sweeping policies to rein in cancer care costs, oncologists can only do so much. And every little bit counts.
“We are left chipping away at this monster of cancer care costs,” said Adam Binder, MD, a medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.
Millions spent on “reasonable amount” of waste
Michal Sarfaty, MD, was excited when enfortumab vedotin came on the market to treat advanced urothelial cancer in late 2019.
The cost of the drug, however, tempered her enthusiasm.
Enfortumab vedotin is a “great drug,” said Dr. Sarfaty, an oncologist at the Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. But it can cost upwards of $500,000 a year for an average-weight man.
Given the expense, Dr. Sarfaty wanted to understand how much of the drug gets thrown away. During a fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center in New York, Dr. Sarfaty explored the amount of unused enfortumab vedotin among the 64 patients who received the drug in 2020. She, along with a team at MSK, calculated the price tag of that waste and extrapolated those estimates for patients across the country.
Although waste occurred in almost half of administered doses (367 of 793), only a small volume got discarded — 2.9% per dose, on average.
Multiplying unused milligrams by the cost per milligram, Dr. Sarfaty and colleagues estimated that, for each patient, $3,127 of the drug got discarded. When calculated over the year, the cost came to just over $200,000 at MSK, and nearly $15 million when projected across the approved patient population in the United States.
“Ultimately, we did not see a lot of waste with this specific drug,” Dr. Sarfaty said. “Under 2.9% is considered a reasonable amount, below the 3% threshold Peter Bach, MD, and colleagues recommend. But even with this small amount of waste, the cost per patient and to the system remains notable.”
The problem with recouping drug waste
Estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which tracks costs associated with discarded weight-based drugs covered under Medicare Part B, support the notion that small quantities of discarded drugs can still translate to big bucks.
Since 2017, CMS has required healthcare providers to report the volume of drugs discarded from a single-dose vial using a code, known as the JW modifier. The JW modifier means that providers can be reimbursed for the entire vial amount, not just the quantity the patient used.
In 2019, claims data from Medicare Part B showed that 1.85% of discarded rituximab came to $33.3 million. For infliximab, the 1.55% of discarded liquid translated to $15 million, and just 0.36% of discarded pembrolizumab reached $10 million.
However, experts question whether the JW modifier accurately reflects the quantity of drugs discarded.
According to the 2021 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), most physicians don’t use the JW modifier. Among Medicare claims, 16.2% included the JW modifier in 2017 and 16.9% did in 2018.
The rate was significantly lower for private insurance. Of more than 4 million private insurance claims on 77 drugs made in 2017 and 2018, only 3.6% included the JW modifier; 15 of these drugs had no JW claims.
“Although we found that most physicians don’t use the JW modifier, even those who do, don’t use it consistently, even for the same patient,” said Dr. Yabroff, a co-author on the report.
Going a step further, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues argue that even if everyone used the JW modifier as intended, manufacturers would probably increase the price of drugs to compensate for any loss, potentially eliminating savings for payers.
That’s because, in the United States, manufacturers typically base drug prices on a patient and payers’ “willingness to pay for better health,” not on the volume of liquid used. Take a patient who pays $2,000 to receive the dose they need. If that dose is 600 mg but requires using two vials of 400 mg, then “to the patient, the 600-mg dose is worth $2,000, and the remainder has no value whatsoever,” the NASEM authors argue.
The authors parallel this scenario to purchasing a designer coat or dress. If that item requires alterations that remove a section of material, “the customer does not typically get a rebate because all the fabric was not needed,” the NASEM team writes.
But there’s a flaw in this rationale, argues Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. A person’s willingness to pay for better health assumes that the price of a drug is based on proper market forces, where a drug’s cost and its effectiveness are in harmony.
“The problem is we’re operating in a broken market where the prices of oncology drugs have no real bearing on their efficacy,” said Dr. Goldstein.
And, as Dr. Bach noted in a 2021 Health Affairs piece, willingness to pay also requires that consumers know what they’re paying and allows them to walk away from an excessively high price.
But neither is a reality.
For one, Dr. Bach explains, companies may lowball the monthly price of a drug. In 2020, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced that its new drug Blenrep would carry a list price of $8,277 per vial, or about $23,900 per month for an average 79 kg (175 lb) patient. That price accounts for two vials of the drug. But, according to Dr. Bach, “what GSK left out is that 44% of U.S. adults weigh more than 80 kg, and above that weight, three vials are needed per dose.” That would raise the average monthly cost to $30,479.
Perhaps more importantly, consumers can’t easily walk away.
“Medicare can’t negotiate prices and is forced to pay what a drug company says,” Dr. Goldstein said. “This is very different to when I buy a coat. If the price is too high, I can walk away.”
Fixed dosing: A solution or a new problem?
Efforts to reduce the financial impact of discarded cancer drugs can blow back on physicians, patients, and payers in other unanticipated ways. Take fixed dosing. Although chemotherapy dosing remains weight-based, many targeted therapies — such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab — recently transitioned to a fixed dosing regimen.
Administering a fixed, instead of weight-based, dose eliminates waste but can create new problems.
“Patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” said Dr. Goldstein. In a 2017 analysis, Dr. Goldstein and colleagues compared dosing strategies in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received pembrolizumab. The team found that the total annual cost of weight-based dosing was $2.6 billion, whereas the cost of the fixed dosing strategy was $3.44 billion — 24% more. In other words, personalized weight-based dosing would save more than $825 million dollars in the United States each year.
A 2020 analysis based in France found a similar cost increase of 26% for fixed dosing of pembrolizumab as well as nivolumab.
“I’ve argued we should go back to weight-based dosing,” Dr. Goldstein said. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”
Does dose rounding work?
Rose DiMarco, PharmD, BCPS, BCOP, keeps a tight watch on patients being treated at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.
Dr. DiMarco educates patients about their treatment plan, reviews their lab results, and monitors them for side effects and drug interactions.
She also thinks a lot about costs.
“We spend about $100,000 a day on oncology drugs, and we want to make sure we’re not being wasteful,” Dr. DiMarco said in an interview.
One major initiative to curb waste and reduce costs at Jefferson has centered on dose rounding, which calculates whether a specific dose can be altered slightly to conserve vials and prevent waste. According to the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association, a patient can receive up to 10% more or less of a weight-based dose without impacting treatment efficacy.
If, for instance, a patient requires 380 mg, but two vials come to 400 mg, rounding up that dose by approximately 5% means eliminating 20 mg that would go unused. But if that patient requires 420 mg, rounding down about 5% means substantial savings from not opening a new vial.
At Jefferson, Dr. DiMarco and her pharmacy colleagues map out dose ranges for all patients. Anyone who falls inside the 10% may be eligible for dose rounding. Anyone who doesn’t will receive the usual dose.
Although it is a challenge to implement, dose rounding has become standard of care at many cancer centers across the United States and is linked to substantial savings.
A 2018 analysis projected annual savings of $865,000 associated with rounding down eight monoclonal antibodies for patients with metastatic disease at a community cancer center. A more recent analysis from the Mayo Clinic found that dose rounding saved a total of 9,814 drug vials — 4485 of which were cancer drugs and 5329 of which were biologics — and resulted in $7.3 million in savings over 6 months in 2019 — $1.56 million from oncology agents and $5.7 from biologics.
And in a small 2019 analysis, researchers at Jefferson showed dose rounding of one monoclonal antibody saved approximately $30,000 in just 3 months, Dr. DiMarco noted.
“Not only does this process reduce costs and waste, but it also standardizes the preparation of hazardous medications, which can help prevent medication errors,” Dr. DiMarco said.
Nibbling around the edges
Despite estimates that scale into the billions of dollars, “drug wastage is just a small part of overall cancer costs,” Dr. Sarfaty said.
Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at MSK, agrees. “When we talk about affordability and cost, we can nibble around the edges of what’s really important,” Dr. Chino said. “Discarded drugs may cost a lot when you consider them in aggregate, but they are not as important as negotiated drug prices, which could substantially reduce overall costs.”
And until drug prices are addressed on a broader policy level, the cost of cancer care likely won’t improve in a meaningful way.
“But for the patient sitting in front of me, my focus will always be to provide the best care possible,” Dr. Binder said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.