CHEST Physician

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prophylaxis in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation can prevent upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and appears to have no effect on mortality, according to a randomized trial and a systematic review led by researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who need mechanical ventilation typically are given a PPI, such as pantoprazole, to prevent upper GI bleeding caused by stress-induced stomach ulcers, but some evidence suggested that their use might increase the risk for pneumonia and death in the most severely ill patients.

As a result, recent guidelines have issued only weak recommendations for stress ulcer prophylaxis, especially with PPIs, in critically ill patients at a high risk for bleeding, Deborah Cook, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University, and colleagues noted.

Significantly Lower Bleeding Risk

The REVISE trial, conducted in eight countries, compared pantoprazole 40 mg daily with placebo in critically ill adults on mechanical ventilation.

The primary efficacy outcome was clinically important upper GI bleeding in the ICU at 90 days, and the primary safety outcome was death from any cause at 90 days.

A total of 4821 patients in 68 ICUs were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group or placebo group.

Clinically important upper GI bleeding occurred in 25 patients (1%) receiving pantoprazole and in 84 patients (3.5%) receiving placebo. At 90 days, 696 patients (29.1%) in the pantoprazole group died, as did 734 (30.9%) in the placebo group.

No significant differences were found on key secondary outcomes, including ventilator-associated pneumonia and Clostridioides difficile infection in the hospital.

The authors concluded that pantoprazole resulted in a significantly lower risk for clinically important upper GI bleeding than placebo, and it had no significant effect on mortality.
 

Disease Severity as a Possible Factor

The systematic review included 12 randomized controlled trials comparing PPIs with placebo or no prophylaxis for stress ulcers in a total of 9533 critically ill adults. The researchers performed meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence. They also conducted a subgroup analysis combining within-trial subgroup data from the two largest trials.

They found that PPIs were associated with a reduced incidence of clinically important upper GI bleeding (relative risk [RR], 0.51, with high certainty evidence) and may have little or no effect on mortality (RR, 0.99, with low-certainty evidence).

However, the within-trial subgroup analysis with intermediate credibility suggested that the effect of PPIs on mortality may differ based on disease severity. The results also raised the possibility that PPI use may decrease 90-day mortality in less severely ill patients (RR, 0.89) and increase mortality in more severely ill patients (RR, 1.08). The mechanisms behind this possible signal are likely multifactorial, the authors noted.

In addition, the review found that PPIs may have no effect on pneumonia, duration of ICU stay, or duration of hospital stay, and little or no effect on C difficile infection or duration of mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence).

“Physicians, nurses, and pharmacists working in the ICU setting will use this information in practice right away, and the trial results and the updated meta-analysis will be incorporated into international practice guidelines,” Dr. Cook said.

Both studies had limitations. The REVISE trial did not include patient-reported disability outcomes, and the results may not be generalizable to patients with unassisted breathing. The systematic review included studies with diverse definitions of bleeding and pneumonia, and with mortality reported at different milestones, without considering competing risk analyses. Patient-important GI bleeding was available in only one trial. Other potential side effects of PPIs, such as infection with multidrug-resistant organisms, were not reported.

In an editorial accompanying both studies, Samuel M. Brown, MD, a pulmonologist and vice president of research at Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah, said that the REVISE trial was “well designed and executed, with generalizable eligibility criteria and excellent experimental separation.” He said the researchers had shown that PPIs “slightly but significantly” decrease the risk of important GI bleeding and have a “decent chance” of slightly decreasing mortality in less severely ill patients during mechanical ventilation. At the same time, he noted, PPIs “do not decrease — and may slightly increase — mortality” in severely ill patients.

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

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prophylaxis in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation can prevent upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and appears to have no effect on mortality, according to a randomized trial and a systematic review led by researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who need mechanical ventilation typically are given a PPI, such as pantoprazole, to prevent upper GI bleeding caused by stress-induced stomach ulcers, but some evidence suggested that their use might increase the risk for pneumonia and death in the most severely ill patients.

As a result, recent guidelines have issued only weak recommendations for stress ulcer prophylaxis, especially with PPIs, in critically ill patients at a high risk for bleeding, Deborah Cook, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University, and colleagues noted.

Significantly Lower Bleeding Risk

The REVISE trial, conducted in eight countries, compared pantoprazole 40 mg daily with placebo in critically ill adults on mechanical ventilation.

The primary efficacy outcome was clinically important upper GI bleeding in the ICU at 90 days, and the primary safety outcome was death from any cause at 90 days.

A total of 4821 patients in 68 ICUs were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group or placebo group.

Clinically important upper GI bleeding occurred in 25 patients (1%) receiving pantoprazole and in 84 patients (3.5%) receiving placebo. At 90 days, 696 patients (29.1%) in the pantoprazole group died, as did 734 (30.9%) in the placebo group.

No significant differences were found on key secondary outcomes, including ventilator-associated pneumonia and Clostridioides difficile infection in the hospital.

The authors concluded that pantoprazole resulted in a significantly lower risk for clinically important upper GI bleeding than placebo, and it had no significant effect on mortality.
 

Disease Severity as a Possible Factor

The systematic review included 12 randomized controlled trials comparing PPIs with placebo or no prophylaxis for stress ulcers in a total of 9533 critically ill adults. The researchers performed meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence. They also conducted a subgroup analysis combining within-trial subgroup data from the two largest trials.

They found that PPIs were associated with a reduced incidence of clinically important upper GI bleeding (relative risk [RR], 0.51, with high certainty evidence) and may have little or no effect on mortality (RR, 0.99, with low-certainty evidence).

However, the within-trial subgroup analysis with intermediate credibility suggested that the effect of PPIs on mortality may differ based on disease severity. The results also raised the possibility that PPI use may decrease 90-day mortality in less severely ill patients (RR, 0.89) and increase mortality in more severely ill patients (RR, 1.08). The mechanisms behind this possible signal are likely multifactorial, the authors noted.

In addition, the review found that PPIs may have no effect on pneumonia, duration of ICU stay, or duration of hospital stay, and little or no effect on C difficile infection or duration of mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence).

“Physicians, nurses, and pharmacists working in the ICU setting will use this information in practice right away, and the trial results and the updated meta-analysis will be incorporated into international practice guidelines,” Dr. Cook said.

Both studies had limitations. The REVISE trial did not include patient-reported disability outcomes, and the results may not be generalizable to patients with unassisted breathing. The systematic review included studies with diverse definitions of bleeding and pneumonia, and with mortality reported at different milestones, without considering competing risk analyses. Patient-important GI bleeding was available in only one trial. Other potential side effects of PPIs, such as infection with multidrug-resistant organisms, were not reported.

In an editorial accompanying both studies, Samuel M. Brown, MD, a pulmonologist and vice president of research at Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah, said that the REVISE trial was “well designed and executed, with generalizable eligibility criteria and excellent experimental separation.” He said the researchers had shown that PPIs “slightly but significantly” decrease the risk of important GI bleeding and have a “decent chance” of slightly decreasing mortality in less severely ill patients during mechanical ventilation. At the same time, he noted, PPIs “do not decrease — and may slightly increase — mortality” in severely ill patients.

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

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prophylaxis in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation can prevent upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and appears to have no effect on mortality, according to a randomized trial and a systematic review led by researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who need mechanical ventilation typically are given a PPI, such as pantoprazole, to prevent upper GI bleeding caused by stress-induced stomach ulcers, but some evidence suggested that their use might increase the risk for pneumonia and death in the most severely ill patients.

As a result, recent guidelines have issued only weak recommendations for stress ulcer prophylaxis, especially with PPIs, in critically ill patients at a high risk for bleeding, Deborah Cook, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University, and colleagues noted.

Significantly Lower Bleeding Risk

The REVISE trial, conducted in eight countries, compared pantoprazole 40 mg daily with placebo in critically ill adults on mechanical ventilation.

The primary efficacy outcome was clinically important upper GI bleeding in the ICU at 90 days, and the primary safety outcome was death from any cause at 90 days.

A total of 4821 patients in 68 ICUs were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group or placebo group.

Clinically important upper GI bleeding occurred in 25 patients (1%) receiving pantoprazole and in 84 patients (3.5%) receiving placebo. At 90 days, 696 patients (29.1%) in the pantoprazole group died, as did 734 (30.9%) in the placebo group.

No significant differences were found on key secondary outcomes, including ventilator-associated pneumonia and Clostridioides difficile infection in the hospital.

The authors concluded that pantoprazole resulted in a significantly lower risk for clinically important upper GI bleeding than placebo, and it had no significant effect on mortality.
 

Disease Severity as a Possible Factor

The systematic review included 12 randomized controlled trials comparing PPIs with placebo or no prophylaxis for stress ulcers in a total of 9533 critically ill adults. The researchers performed meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence. They also conducted a subgroup analysis combining within-trial subgroup data from the two largest trials.

They found that PPIs were associated with a reduced incidence of clinically important upper GI bleeding (relative risk [RR], 0.51, with high certainty evidence) and may have little or no effect on mortality (RR, 0.99, with low-certainty evidence).

However, the within-trial subgroup analysis with intermediate credibility suggested that the effect of PPIs on mortality may differ based on disease severity. The results also raised the possibility that PPI use may decrease 90-day mortality in less severely ill patients (RR, 0.89) and increase mortality in more severely ill patients (RR, 1.08). The mechanisms behind this possible signal are likely multifactorial, the authors noted.

In addition, the review found that PPIs may have no effect on pneumonia, duration of ICU stay, or duration of hospital stay, and little or no effect on C difficile infection or duration of mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence).

“Physicians, nurses, and pharmacists working in the ICU setting will use this information in practice right away, and the trial results and the updated meta-analysis will be incorporated into international practice guidelines,” Dr. Cook said.

Both studies had limitations. The REVISE trial did not include patient-reported disability outcomes, and the results may not be generalizable to patients with unassisted breathing. The systematic review included studies with diverse definitions of bleeding and pneumonia, and with mortality reported at different milestones, without considering competing risk analyses. Patient-important GI bleeding was available in only one trial. Other potential side effects of PPIs, such as infection with multidrug-resistant organisms, were not reported.

In an editorial accompanying both studies, Samuel M. Brown, MD, a pulmonologist and vice president of research at Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah, said that the REVISE trial was “well designed and executed, with generalizable eligibility criteria and excellent experimental separation.” He said the researchers had shown that PPIs “slightly but significantly” decrease the risk of important GI bleeding and have a “decent chance” of slightly decreasing mortality in less severely ill patients during mechanical ventilation. At the same time, he noted, PPIs “do not decrease — and may slightly increase — mortality” in severely ill patients.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Approximately half of US adult smokers tried to quit in 2022, but fewer than 40% used counseling or medication, and half received assistance or advice about quitting from clinicians, based on a review in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Previous research has shown that clinician intervention and evidence-based treatment increase the odds that smokers can quit successfully, but the extent to which these interventions are applied in practice has not been well studied, the researchers noted. 

Although great progress has been made in reducing cigarette smoking in the United States, disparities remain, both in use and in cessation, with an estimated 28.8 million adults reporting cigarette smoking in 2022, lead author Brenna VanFrank, MD, MSPH, said in an interview.

“Cigarette smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death and disease in the United States,” said Dr. VanFrank, Senior Medical Officer, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

In a new review, the researchers examined data from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey. The study population included 27,651 adults aged 18 years and older. Current smoking was defined as currently smoking each day or some days and ever having smoked at least 100 cigarettes. The survey assessed the individuals’ interest in quitting, past-year quit attempts, recent quitting success, receipt of healthcare professional advice about quitting, use of counseling to help quit, and use of medication to help quit.

In 2022, approximately two thirds (67.7%) of the 28.8 million adult smokers in the United States wanted to quit, half (53.3%) tried to quit, but only 8.8% were successful. Of those who reported trying to quit, 38.3% used counseling or medication. Of these, 36.3% used medication, 7.3% used counseling, and 5.3% used both.

Indicators of smoking cessation varied by health characteristics and sociodemographic factors, with the highest prevalence of attempts to quit smoking in the past year among adults aged 18-24 years and the lowest among those aged 45-64 years (74.4% vs 47.5%).

Rates of successful quitting were highest among individuals with higher levels of education and income, and use of smoking cessation treatment was highest among White adults (42.7%), followed by non-Hispanic adults of another race, Black adults, and Hispanic adults (33.6%, 32.6%, and 28.8%, respectively).

Smokers of menthol cigarettes had similarly low success rates for quitting (< 10%), although they were significantly more likely than nonmenthol cigarette smokers to express interest in quitting (72.2% vs 65.4%). Smokers of menthol cigarettes also had significantly lower prevalences than smokers of nonmenthol cigarettes of receiving clinician advance to quit and using treatment strategies (both P < .05).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, which may be subject to bias, and a lack of data on institutionalized adults or adults in the military, which may limit generalizability of the findings to those populations, the researchers noted. 

However, the results suggest that opportunities exist to increase smoking cessation across public health and healthcare sectors by expanding access to and use of services and supports to help smokers quit, they wrote.
 

Ensuring Support for All Smokers Seeking to Quit

The takeaway for clinical practice remains that quitting smoking “is one of the most important actions people who smoke can take to improve their health,” Dr. VanFrank said in an interview.

“It is important to ensure everyone has an opportunity to quit smoking and has access to proven treatments to help them be successful,” she emphasized. Strategies that include behavioral counseling, cessation medications, and advice and support from healthcare professionals can increase quit success. Given that tobacco dependence is a chronic, relapsing condition driven by addiction to nicotine, quitting successfully often takes multiple tries, and those trying to quit may need long-term support and repeated treatment. 

“Health systems changes, such as adoption of treatment protocols and standardized clinical work flows, can systematize clinical treatment delivery, and such changes might also serve to increase treatment access for the 75% of adults who smoke who see a healthcare professional in a given year,” said Dr. VanFrank.

As for additional research, “continued surveillance of tobacco use and cessation-related behaviors will help us monitor progress and identify continued opportunities to eliminate tobacco product use and tobacco-related disparities,” Dr. VanFrank said.

“We know a lot about what works to help people successfully quit smoking and what we can do to support people in making quit attempts,” she said. Including equitable opportunities in all commercial tobacco prevention and control efforts has the potential to reduce tobacco-related health disparities.

Overall smoking prevalence in the United States and the current study shows that most smokers would like to quit, David M. Mannino, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, said in an interview. The lack of success experienced by many smokers seeking to quit emphasizes the highly addictive nature of nicotine products, which cause death and disease when used as directed, added Dr. Mannino, who was not involved in the study.

The results of the review were not surprising, and reflect where tobacco treatment has been for the past 20 years, said Dr. Mannino. The good news is that smoking prevalence has continued to drop in the United States over the past 15 years. However, some bad news is that use of e-cigarettes/vaping is still increasing, especially in younger populations, and new nicotine delivery systems, such as pouches (Zyn) are addicting a new generation.
 

Always Ask About Smoking

In practice, “clinicians should always ask patients about cigarette smoking, as well as vaping and other nicotine use, advise them to quit, and refer them to tobacco treatment experts,” Dr. Mannino emphasized.

The bottom line is that better treatments are needed for tobacco/nicotine addiction, Dr. Mannino said. “Although we have come a long way, we have a long way to go as millions of smokers in the US and globally would like to quit.”

Tobacco-related disease continues to be the number one cause of morbidly and mortality in the United States, and although many current smokers want to quit, most are not successful, Jamie Garfield, MD, professor of thoracic medicine and surgery at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

“This review highlights the sheer number of current cigarette smokers who want to quit, how many of them attempted to quit, and how many of those were successful,” said Dr. Garfield, who was not involved in the study. Understanding the characteristics of individuals who are more or less likely to successfully quit smoking can help public health and healthcare sectors to increase smoking cessation by expanding access to and use of services and supports. 

“We have to do better to control the sale of tobacco products and make tobacco cessation more accessible to everyone,” Dr. Garfield said. In addition, clinicians need to be consistent in asking patients about tobacco use. “If we don’t ask, we will not know who needs help.” Behavioral counseling helps, as does pharmacotherapy, and the two together are more effective than either alone, she added.

Cessation services need to be tailored to the many demographic groups who use tobacco products, said Dr. Garfield. “Just as marketing campaigns directed to older adults will be different from those directed to young adults, so too must cessation resources. Providers need better options to choose from with regard to cessation resources and behavioral counseling sessions. They need to be aware of what motivates one group of people to smoke and how they can be inspired to quit, including which pharmacotherapies are affordable, available, and will work; the same strategies will not work for all people”

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Mannino disclosed serving as an expert witness for on tobacco use and tobacco-caused disease on behalf of people suing the tobacco and vaping industries. Dr. Garfield had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Approximately half of US adult smokers tried to quit in 2022, but fewer than 40% used counseling or medication, and half received assistance or advice about quitting from clinicians, based on a review in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Previous research has shown that clinician intervention and evidence-based treatment increase the odds that smokers can quit successfully, but the extent to which these interventions are applied in practice has not been well studied, the researchers noted. 

Although great progress has been made in reducing cigarette smoking in the United States, disparities remain, both in use and in cessation, with an estimated 28.8 million adults reporting cigarette smoking in 2022, lead author Brenna VanFrank, MD, MSPH, said in an interview.

“Cigarette smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death and disease in the United States,” said Dr. VanFrank, Senior Medical Officer, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

In a new review, the researchers examined data from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey. The study population included 27,651 adults aged 18 years and older. Current smoking was defined as currently smoking each day or some days and ever having smoked at least 100 cigarettes. The survey assessed the individuals’ interest in quitting, past-year quit attempts, recent quitting success, receipt of healthcare professional advice about quitting, use of counseling to help quit, and use of medication to help quit.

In 2022, approximately two thirds (67.7%) of the 28.8 million adult smokers in the United States wanted to quit, half (53.3%) tried to quit, but only 8.8% were successful. Of those who reported trying to quit, 38.3% used counseling or medication. Of these, 36.3% used medication, 7.3% used counseling, and 5.3% used both.

Indicators of smoking cessation varied by health characteristics and sociodemographic factors, with the highest prevalence of attempts to quit smoking in the past year among adults aged 18-24 years and the lowest among those aged 45-64 years (74.4% vs 47.5%).

Rates of successful quitting were highest among individuals with higher levels of education and income, and use of smoking cessation treatment was highest among White adults (42.7%), followed by non-Hispanic adults of another race, Black adults, and Hispanic adults (33.6%, 32.6%, and 28.8%, respectively).

Smokers of menthol cigarettes had similarly low success rates for quitting (< 10%), although they were significantly more likely than nonmenthol cigarette smokers to express interest in quitting (72.2% vs 65.4%). Smokers of menthol cigarettes also had significantly lower prevalences than smokers of nonmenthol cigarettes of receiving clinician advance to quit and using treatment strategies (both P < .05).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, which may be subject to bias, and a lack of data on institutionalized adults or adults in the military, which may limit generalizability of the findings to those populations, the researchers noted. 

However, the results suggest that opportunities exist to increase smoking cessation across public health and healthcare sectors by expanding access to and use of services and supports to help smokers quit, they wrote.
 

Ensuring Support for All Smokers Seeking to Quit

The takeaway for clinical practice remains that quitting smoking “is one of the most important actions people who smoke can take to improve their health,” Dr. VanFrank said in an interview.

“It is important to ensure everyone has an opportunity to quit smoking and has access to proven treatments to help them be successful,” she emphasized. Strategies that include behavioral counseling, cessation medications, and advice and support from healthcare professionals can increase quit success. Given that tobacco dependence is a chronic, relapsing condition driven by addiction to nicotine, quitting successfully often takes multiple tries, and those trying to quit may need long-term support and repeated treatment. 

“Health systems changes, such as adoption of treatment protocols and standardized clinical work flows, can systematize clinical treatment delivery, and such changes might also serve to increase treatment access for the 75% of adults who smoke who see a healthcare professional in a given year,” said Dr. VanFrank.

As for additional research, “continued surveillance of tobacco use and cessation-related behaviors will help us monitor progress and identify continued opportunities to eliminate tobacco product use and tobacco-related disparities,” Dr. VanFrank said.

“We know a lot about what works to help people successfully quit smoking and what we can do to support people in making quit attempts,” she said. Including equitable opportunities in all commercial tobacco prevention and control efforts has the potential to reduce tobacco-related health disparities.

Overall smoking prevalence in the United States and the current study shows that most smokers would like to quit, David M. Mannino, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, said in an interview. The lack of success experienced by many smokers seeking to quit emphasizes the highly addictive nature of nicotine products, which cause death and disease when used as directed, added Dr. Mannino, who was not involved in the study.

The results of the review were not surprising, and reflect where tobacco treatment has been for the past 20 years, said Dr. Mannino. The good news is that smoking prevalence has continued to drop in the United States over the past 15 years. However, some bad news is that use of e-cigarettes/vaping is still increasing, especially in younger populations, and new nicotine delivery systems, such as pouches (Zyn) are addicting a new generation.
 

Always Ask About Smoking

In practice, “clinicians should always ask patients about cigarette smoking, as well as vaping and other nicotine use, advise them to quit, and refer them to tobacco treatment experts,” Dr. Mannino emphasized.

The bottom line is that better treatments are needed for tobacco/nicotine addiction, Dr. Mannino said. “Although we have come a long way, we have a long way to go as millions of smokers in the US and globally would like to quit.”

Tobacco-related disease continues to be the number one cause of morbidly and mortality in the United States, and although many current smokers want to quit, most are not successful, Jamie Garfield, MD, professor of thoracic medicine and surgery at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

“This review highlights the sheer number of current cigarette smokers who want to quit, how many of them attempted to quit, and how many of those were successful,” said Dr. Garfield, who was not involved in the study. Understanding the characteristics of individuals who are more or less likely to successfully quit smoking can help public health and healthcare sectors to increase smoking cessation by expanding access to and use of services and supports. 

“We have to do better to control the sale of tobacco products and make tobacco cessation more accessible to everyone,” Dr. Garfield said. In addition, clinicians need to be consistent in asking patients about tobacco use. “If we don’t ask, we will not know who needs help.” Behavioral counseling helps, as does pharmacotherapy, and the two together are more effective than either alone, she added.

Cessation services need to be tailored to the many demographic groups who use tobacco products, said Dr. Garfield. “Just as marketing campaigns directed to older adults will be different from those directed to young adults, so too must cessation resources. Providers need better options to choose from with regard to cessation resources and behavioral counseling sessions. They need to be aware of what motivates one group of people to smoke and how they can be inspired to quit, including which pharmacotherapies are affordable, available, and will work; the same strategies will not work for all people”

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Mannino disclosed serving as an expert witness for on tobacco use and tobacco-caused disease on behalf of people suing the tobacco and vaping industries. Dr. Garfield had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Approximately half of US adult smokers tried to quit in 2022, but fewer than 40% used counseling or medication, and half received assistance or advice about quitting from clinicians, based on a review in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Previous research has shown that clinician intervention and evidence-based treatment increase the odds that smokers can quit successfully, but the extent to which these interventions are applied in practice has not been well studied, the researchers noted. 

Although great progress has been made in reducing cigarette smoking in the United States, disparities remain, both in use and in cessation, with an estimated 28.8 million adults reporting cigarette smoking in 2022, lead author Brenna VanFrank, MD, MSPH, said in an interview.

“Cigarette smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death and disease in the United States,” said Dr. VanFrank, Senior Medical Officer, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

In a new review, the researchers examined data from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey. The study population included 27,651 adults aged 18 years and older. Current smoking was defined as currently smoking each day or some days and ever having smoked at least 100 cigarettes. The survey assessed the individuals’ interest in quitting, past-year quit attempts, recent quitting success, receipt of healthcare professional advice about quitting, use of counseling to help quit, and use of medication to help quit.

In 2022, approximately two thirds (67.7%) of the 28.8 million adult smokers in the United States wanted to quit, half (53.3%) tried to quit, but only 8.8% were successful. Of those who reported trying to quit, 38.3% used counseling or medication. Of these, 36.3% used medication, 7.3% used counseling, and 5.3% used both.

Indicators of smoking cessation varied by health characteristics and sociodemographic factors, with the highest prevalence of attempts to quit smoking in the past year among adults aged 18-24 years and the lowest among those aged 45-64 years (74.4% vs 47.5%).

Rates of successful quitting were highest among individuals with higher levels of education and income, and use of smoking cessation treatment was highest among White adults (42.7%), followed by non-Hispanic adults of another race, Black adults, and Hispanic adults (33.6%, 32.6%, and 28.8%, respectively).

Smokers of menthol cigarettes had similarly low success rates for quitting (< 10%), although they were significantly more likely than nonmenthol cigarette smokers to express interest in quitting (72.2% vs 65.4%). Smokers of menthol cigarettes also had significantly lower prevalences than smokers of nonmenthol cigarettes of receiving clinician advance to quit and using treatment strategies (both P < .05).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, which may be subject to bias, and a lack of data on institutionalized adults or adults in the military, which may limit generalizability of the findings to those populations, the researchers noted. 

However, the results suggest that opportunities exist to increase smoking cessation across public health and healthcare sectors by expanding access to and use of services and supports to help smokers quit, they wrote.
 

Ensuring Support for All Smokers Seeking to Quit

The takeaway for clinical practice remains that quitting smoking “is one of the most important actions people who smoke can take to improve their health,” Dr. VanFrank said in an interview.

“It is important to ensure everyone has an opportunity to quit smoking and has access to proven treatments to help them be successful,” she emphasized. Strategies that include behavioral counseling, cessation medications, and advice and support from healthcare professionals can increase quit success. Given that tobacco dependence is a chronic, relapsing condition driven by addiction to nicotine, quitting successfully often takes multiple tries, and those trying to quit may need long-term support and repeated treatment. 

“Health systems changes, such as adoption of treatment protocols and standardized clinical work flows, can systematize clinical treatment delivery, and such changes might also serve to increase treatment access for the 75% of adults who smoke who see a healthcare professional in a given year,” said Dr. VanFrank.

As for additional research, “continued surveillance of tobacco use and cessation-related behaviors will help us monitor progress and identify continued opportunities to eliminate tobacco product use and tobacco-related disparities,” Dr. VanFrank said.

“We know a lot about what works to help people successfully quit smoking and what we can do to support people in making quit attempts,” she said. Including equitable opportunities in all commercial tobacco prevention and control efforts has the potential to reduce tobacco-related health disparities.

Overall smoking prevalence in the United States and the current study shows that most smokers would like to quit, David M. Mannino, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, said in an interview. The lack of success experienced by many smokers seeking to quit emphasizes the highly addictive nature of nicotine products, which cause death and disease when used as directed, added Dr. Mannino, who was not involved in the study.

The results of the review were not surprising, and reflect where tobacco treatment has been for the past 20 years, said Dr. Mannino. The good news is that smoking prevalence has continued to drop in the United States over the past 15 years. However, some bad news is that use of e-cigarettes/vaping is still increasing, especially in younger populations, and new nicotine delivery systems, such as pouches (Zyn) are addicting a new generation.
 

Always Ask About Smoking

In practice, “clinicians should always ask patients about cigarette smoking, as well as vaping and other nicotine use, advise them to quit, and refer them to tobacco treatment experts,” Dr. Mannino emphasized.

The bottom line is that better treatments are needed for tobacco/nicotine addiction, Dr. Mannino said. “Although we have come a long way, we have a long way to go as millions of smokers in the US and globally would like to quit.”

Tobacco-related disease continues to be the number one cause of morbidly and mortality in the United States, and although many current smokers want to quit, most are not successful, Jamie Garfield, MD, professor of thoracic medicine and surgery at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

“This review highlights the sheer number of current cigarette smokers who want to quit, how many of them attempted to quit, and how many of those were successful,” said Dr. Garfield, who was not involved in the study. Understanding the characteristics of individuals who are more or less likely to successfully quit smoking can help public health and healthcare sectors to increase smoking cessation by expanding access to and use of services and supports. 

“We have to do better to control the sale of tobacco products and make tobacco cessation more accessible to everyone,” Dr. Garfield said. In addition, clinicians need to be consistent in asking patients about tobacco use. “If we don’t ask, we will not know who needs help.” Behavioral counseling helps, as does pharmacotherapy, and the two together are more effective than either alone, she added.

Cessation services need to be tailored to the many demographic groups who use tobacco products, said Dr. Garfield. “Just as marketing campaigns directed to older adults will be different from those directed to young adults, so too must cessation resources. Providers need better options to choose from with regard to cessation resources and behavioral counseling sessions. They need to be aware of what motivates one group of people to smoke and how they can be inspired to quit, including which pharmacotherapies are affordable, available, and will work; the same strategies will not work for all people”

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Mannino disclosed serving as an expert witness for on tobacco use and tobacco-caused disease on behalf of people suing the tobacco and vaping industries. Dr. Garfield had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

A multicomponent nonpharmaceutical intervention improves sleep in people with dementia living at home, early results of a new phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) show.

The benefits of the intervention — called DREAMS-START — were sustained at 8 months and extended to caregivers, the study found.

“We’re pleased with our results. We think that we were able to deliver it successfully and to a high rate of fidelity,” said study investigator Penny Rapaport, PhD, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, England.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2024.
 

Sustained, Long-Term Effect

Sleep disturbances are very common in dementia. About 26% of people with all types of dementia will experience sleep disturbances, and that rate is higher in certain dementia subtypes, such as dementia with Lewy bodies, said Dr. Rapaport.

Such disturbances are distressing for people living with dementia as well as for those supporting them, she added. They’re “often the thing that will lead to people transitioning and moving into a care home.”

Dr. Rapaport noted there has not been full RCT evidence that any nonpharmacologic interventions or light-based treatments are effective in improving sleep disturbances.

Medications such as antipsychotics and benzodiazepines aren’t recommended as first-line treatment in people with dementia “because often these can be harmful,” she said.

The study recruited 377 dyads of people living with dementia (mean age, 79.4 years) and their caregivers from 12 national health service sites across England. “We were able to recruit an ethnically diverse sample from a broad socioeconomic background,” said Dr. Rapaport.

Researchers allocated the dyads to the intervention or to a treatment as usual group.

About 92% of participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis at 8 months, which was the primary time point.

The intervention consists of six 1-hour interactive sessions that are “personalized and tailored to individual goals and needs,” said Dr. Rapaport. It was delivered by supervised, trained graduates, not clinicians.

The sessions focused on components of sleep hygiene (healthy habits, behaviors, and environments); activity and exercise; a tailored sleep routine; strategies to manage distress; natural and artificial light; and relaxation. A whole session was devoted to supporting sleep of caregivers.

The trial included masked outcome assessments, “so the people collecting the data were blinded to the intervention group,” said Dr. Rapaport.

The primary outcome was the Sleep Disorders Inventory (SDI) score. The SDI is a questionnaire about frequency and severity of sleep-disturbed behaviors completed by caregivers; a higher score indicates a worse outcome. The study adjusted for baseline SDI score and study site.

The adjusted mean difference between groups on the SDI was −4.7 points (95% confidence interval [CI], −7.65 to −1.74; P = .002) at 8 months.

The minimal clinically important difference on the SDI is a 4-point change, noted Dr. Rapaport.

The adjusted mean difference on the SDI at 4 months (a secondary outcome) was −4.4 points (95% CI, −7.3 to −1.5; P = .003).

Referring to illustrative graphs, Dr. Rapaport said that SDI scores decreased at both 4 and 8 months. “You can see statistically, there’s a significant difference between groups at both time points,” she said.

“We saw a sustained effect, so not just immediately after the intervention, but afterwards at 8 months.”

As for other secondary outcomes, the study found a significant reduction in neuropsychiatric symptoms among people with dementia at 8 months in the intervention arm relative to the control arm.

In addition, sleep and anxiety significantly improved among caregivers after 8 months. This shows “a picture of things getting better for the person with dementia, and the person who’s caring for them,” said Dr. Rapaport.

She noted the good adherence rate, with almost 83% of people in the intervention arm completing four or more sessions.

Fidelity to the intervention (ie, the extent to which it is implemented as intended) was also high, “so we feel it was delivered well,” said Dr. Rapaport.

Researchers also carried out a health economics analysis and looked at strategies for implementation of the program, but Dr. Rapaport did not discuss those results.
 

Encouraging Findings

Commenting for this news organization, Alex Bahar-Fuchs, PhD, Faculty of Health, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, who co-chaired the session featuring the research, said the findings of this “well-powered” RCT are “encouraging,” both for the primary outcome of sleep quality and for some of the secondary outcomes for the care-partner.

“The study adds to the growing evidence behind several nonpharmacological treatment approaches for cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms of people with dementia,” he said. 

The results “offer some hope for the treatment of a common disturbance in people with dementia which is associated with poorer outcomes and increased caregiver burden,” he added. 

An important area for further work would be to incorporate more objective measures of sleep quality, said Dr. Bahar-Fuchs.

Because the primary outcome was measured using a self-report questionnaire (the SDI) completed by care-partners, and because the intervention arm could not be blinded, “it remains possible that some detection bias may have affected the study findings,” said Dr. Bahar-Fuchs.

He said he would like to see the research extended to include an active control condition “to be able to better ascertain treatment mechanisms.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research. Dr. Rapaport and Dr. Bahar-Fuchs reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A multicomponent nonpharmaceutical intervention improves sleep in people with dementia living at home, early results of a new phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) show.

The benefits of the intervention — called DREAMS-START — were sustained at 8 months and extended to caregivers, the study found.

“We’re pleased with our results. We think that we were able to deliver it successfully and to a high rate of fidelity,” said study investigator Penny Rapaport, PhD, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, England.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2024.
 

Sustained, Long-Term Effect

Sleep disturbances are very common in dementia. About 26% of people with all types of dementia will experience sleep disturbances, and that rate is higher in certain dementia subtypes, such as dementia with Lewy bodies, said Dr. Rapaport.

Such disturbances are distressing for people living with dementia as well as for those supporting them, she added. They’re “often the thing that will lead to people transitioning and moving into a care home.”

Dr. Rapaport noted there has not been full RCT evidence that any nonpharmacologic interventions or light-based treatments are effective in improving sleep disturbances.

Medications such as antipsychotics and benzodiazepines aren’t recommended as first-line treatment in people with dementia “because often these can be harmful,” she said.

The study recruited 377 dyads of people living with dementia (mean age, 79.4 years) and their caregivers from 12 national health service sites across England. “We were able to recruit an ethnically diverse sample from a broad socioeconomic background,” said Dr. Rapaport.

Researchers allocated the dyads to the intervention or to a treatment as usual group.

About 92% of participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis at 8 months, which was the primary time point.

The intervention consists of six 1-hour interactive sessions that are “personalized and tailored to individual goals and needs,” said Dr. Rapaport. It was delivered by supervised, trained graduates, not clinicians.

The sessions focused on components of sleep hygiene (healthy habits, behaviors, and environments); activity and exercise; a tailored sleep routine; strategies to manage distress; natural and artificial light; and relaxation. A whole session was devoted to supporting sleep of caregivers.

The trial included masked outcome assessments, “so the people collecting the data were blinded to the intervention group,” said Dr. Rapaport.

The primary outcome was the Sleep Disorders Inventory (SDI) score. The SDI is a questionnaire about frequency and severity of sleep-disturbed behaviors completed by caregivers; a higher score indicates a worse outcome. The study adjusted for baseline SDI score and study site.

The adjusted mean difference between groups on the SDI was −4.7 points (95% confidence interval [CI], −7.65 to −1.74; P = .002) at 8 months.

The minimal clinically important difference on the SDI is a 4-point change, noted Dr. Rapaport.

The adjusted mean difference on the SDI at 4 months (a secondary outcome) was −4.4 points (95% CI, −7.3 to −1.5; P = .003).

Referring to illustrative graphs, Dr. Rapaport said that SDI scores decreased at both 4 and 8 months. “You can see statistically, there’s a significant difference between groups at both time points,” she said.

“We saw a sustained effect, so not just immediately after the intervention, but afterwards at 8 months.”

As for other secondary outcomes, the study found a significant reduction in neuropsychiatric symptoms among people with dementia at 8 months in the intervention arm relative to the control arm.

In addition, sleep and anxiety significantly improved among caregivers after 8 months. This shows “a picture of things getting better for the person with dementia, and the person who’s caring for them,” said Dr. Rapaport.

She noted the good adherence rate, with almost 83% of people in the intervention arm completing four or more sessions.

Fidelity to the intervention (ie, the extent to which it is implemented as intended) was also high, “so we feel it was delivered well,” said Dr. Rapaport.

Researchers also carried out a health economics analysis and looked at strategies for implementation of the program, but Dr. Rapaport did not discuss those results.
 

Encouraging Findings

Commenting for this news organization, Alex Bahar-Fuchs, PhD, Faculty of Health, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, who co-chaired the session featuring the research, said the findings of this “well-powered” RCT are “encouraging,” both for the primary outcome of sleep quality and for some of the secondary outcomes for the care-partner.

“The study adds to the growing evidence behind several nonpharmacological treatment approaches for cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms of people with dementia,” he said. 

The results “offer some hope for the treatment of a common disturbance in people with dementia which is associated with poorer outcomes and increased caregiver burden,” he added. 

An important area for further work would be to incorporate more objective measures of sleep quality, said Dr. Bahar-Fuchs.

Because the primary outcome was measured using a self-report questionnaire (the SDI) completed by care-partners, and because the intervention arm could not be blinded, “it remains possible that some detection bias may have affected the study findings,” said Dr. Bahar-Fuchs.

He said he would like to see the research extended to include an active control condition “to be able to better ascertain treatment mechanisms.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research. Dr. Rapaport and Dr. Bahar-Fuchs reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A multicomponent nonpharmaceutical intervention improves sleep in people with dementia living at home, early results of a new phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) show.

The benefits of the intervention — called DREAMS-START — were sustained at 8 months and extended to caregivers, the study found.

“We’re pleased with our results. We think that we were able to deliver it successfully and to a high rate of fidelity,” said study investigator Penny Rapaport, PhD, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, England.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2024.
 

Sustained, Long-Term Effect

Sleep disturbances are very common in dementia. About 26% of people with all types of dementia will experience sleep disturbances, and that rate is higher in certain dementia subtypes, such as dementia with Lewy bodies, said Dr. Rapaport.

Such disturbances are distressing for people living with dementia as well as for those supporting them, she added. They’re “often the thing that will lead to people transitioning and moving into a care home.”

Dr. Rapaport noted there has not been full RCT evidence that any nonpharmacologic interventions or light-based treatments are effective in improving sleep disturbances.

Medications such as antipsychotics and benzodiazepines aren’t recommended as first-line treatment in people with dementia “because often these can be harmful,” she said.

The study recruited 377 dyads of people living with dementia (mean age, 79.4 years) and their caregivers from 12 national health service sites across England. “We were able to recruit an ethnically diverse sample from a broad socioeconomic background,” said Dr. Rapaport.

Researchers allocated the dyads to the intervention or to a treatment as usual group.

About 92% of participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis at 8 months, which was the primary time point.

The intervention consists of six 1-hour interactive sessions that are “personalized and tailored to individual goals and needs,” said Dr. Rapaport. It was delivered by supervised, trained graduates, not clinicians.

The sessions focused on components of sleep hygiene (healthy habits, behaviors, and environments); activity and exercise; a tailored sleep routine; strategies to manage distress; natural and artificial light; and relaxation. A whole session was devoted to supporting sleep of caregivers.

The trial included masked outcome assessments, “so the people collecting the data were blinded to the intervention group,” said Dr. Rapaport.

The primary outcome was the Sleep Disorders Inventory (SDI) score. The SDI is a questionnaire about frequency and severity of sleep-disturbed behaviors completed by caregivers; a higher score indicates a worse outcome. The study adjusted for baseline SDI score and study site.

The adjusted mean difference between groups on the SDI was −4.7 points (95% confidence interval [CI], −7.65 to −1.74; P = .002) at 8 months.

The minimal clinically important difference on the SDI is a 4-point change, noted Dr. Rapaport.

The adjusted mean difference on the SDI at 4 months (a secondary outcome) was −4.4 points (95% CI, −7.3 to −1.5; P = .003).

Referring to illustrative graphs, Dr. Rapaport said that SDI scores decreased at both 4 and 8 months. “You can see statistically, there’s a significant difference between groups at both time points,” she said.

“We saw a sustained effect, so not just immediately after the intervention, but afterwards at 8 months.”

As for other secondary outcomes, the study found a significant reduction in neuropsychiatric symptoms among people with dementia at 8 months in the intervention arm relative to the control arm.

In addition, sleep and anxiety significantly improved among caregivers after 8 months. This shows “a picture of things getting better for the person with dementia, and the person who’s caring for them,” said Dr. Rapaport.

She noted the good adherence rate, with almost 83% of people in the intervention arm completing four or more sessions.

Fidelity to the intervention (ie, the extent to which it is implemented as intended) was also high, “so we feel it was delivered well,” said Dr. Rapaport.

Researchers also carried out a health economics analysis and looked at strategies for implementation of the program, but Dr. Rapaport did not discuss those results.
 

Encouraging Findings

Commenting for this news organization, Alex Bahar-Fuchs, PhD, Faculty of Health, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, who co-chaired the session featuring the research, said the findings of this “well-powered” RCT are “encouraging,” both for the primary outcome of sleep quality and for some of the secondary outcomes for the care-partner.

“The study adds to the growing evidence behind several nonpharmacological treatment approaches for cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms of people with dementia,” he said. 

The results “offer some hope for the treatment of a common disturbance in people with dementia which is associated with poorer outcomes and increased caregiver burden,” he added. 

An important area for further work would be to incorporate more objective measures of sleep quality, said Dr. Bahar-Fuchs.

Because the primary outcome was measured using a self-report questionnaire (the SDI) completed by care-partners, and because the intervention arm could not be blinded, “it remains possible that some detection bias may have affected the study findings,” said Dr. Bahar-Fuchs.

He said he would like to see the research extended to include an active control condition “to be able to better ascertain treatment mechanisms.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research. Dr. Rapaport and Dr. Bahar-Fuchs reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Strapped for cash and searching for new profits, Tennessee-based Erlanger Health System illegally paid excessive salaries to physicians in exchange for patient referrals, the US government alleged in a federal lawsuit.

Erlanger changed its compensation model to entice revenue-generating doctors, paying some two to three times the median salary for their specialty, according to the complaint. 

The physicians in turn referred numerous patients to Erlanger, and the health system submitted claims to Medicare for the referred services in violation of the Stark Law, according to the suit, filed in US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. 

The government’s complaint “serves as a warning” to healthcare providers who try to boost profits through improper financial arrangements with referring physicians, said Tamala E. Miles, Special Agent in Charge for the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG).

In a statement provided to this news organization, Erlanger denied the allegations and said it would “vigorously” defend the lawsuit. 

“Erlanger paid physicians based on amounts that outside experts advised was fair market value,” Erlanger officials said in the statement. “Erlanger did not pay for referrals. A complete picture of the facts will demonstrate that the allegations lack merit and tell a very different story than what the government now claims.”

The Erlanger case is a reminder to physicians to consult their own knowledgeable advisors when considering financial arrangements with hospitals, said William Sarraille, JD, adjunct professor for the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law in Baltimore and a regulatory consultant. 

“There is a tendency by physicians when contracting ... to rely on [hospitals’] perceived compliance and legal expertise,” Mr. Sarraille told this news organization. “This case illustrates the risks in doing so. Sometimes bigger doesn’t translate into more sophisticated or more effective from a compliance perspective.” 
 

Stark Law Prohibits Kickbacks

The Stark Law prohibits hospitals from billing the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for services referred by a physician with whom the hospital has an improper financial relationship.

CMS paid Erlanger about $27.8 million for claims stemming from the improper financial arrangements, the government contends. 

“HHS-OIG will continue to investigate such deals to prevent financial arrangements that could compromise impartial medical judgment, increase healthcare costs, and erode public trust in the healthcare system,” Ms. Miles said in a statement. 
 

Suit: Health System’s Money Woes Led to Illegal Arrangements

Erlanger’s financial troubles allegedly started after a previous run-in with the US government over false claims. 

In 2005, Erlanger Health System agreed to pay the government $40 million to resolve allegations that it knowingly submitted false claims to Medicare, according to the government’s complaint. At the time, Erlanger entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the OIG that required Erlanger to put controls in place to ensure its financial relationships did not violate the Stark Law. 

Erlanger’s agreement with OIG ended in 2010. Over the next 3 years, the health system lost nearly $32 million and in fiscal year 2013, had only 65 days of cash on hand, according to the government’s lawsuit. 

Beginning in 2013, Erlanger allegedly implemented a strategy to increase profits by employing more physicians, particularly specialists from competing hospitals whose patients would need costly hospital stays, according to the complaint. 

Once hired, Erlanger’s physicians were expected to treat patients at Erlanger’s hospitals and refer them to other providers within the health system, the suit claims. Erlanger also relaxed or eliminated the oversight and controls on physician compensation put in place under the CIA. For example, Erlanger’s CEO signed some compensation contracts before its chief compliance officer could review them and no longer allowed the compliance officer to vote on whether to approve compensation arrangements, according to the complaint. 

Erlanger also changed its compensation model to include large salaries for medical director and academic positions and allegedly paid such salaries to physicians without ensuring the required work was performed. As a result, Erlanger physicians with profitable referrals were among the highest paid in the nation for their specialties, the government claims. For example, according to the complaint:

• Erlanger paid an electrophysiologist an annual clinical salary of $816,701, a medical director salary of $101,080, an academic salary of $59,322, and a productivity incentive based on work relative value units (wRVUs). The medical director and academic salaries paid were near the 90th percentile of comparable salaries in the specialty.
• The health system paid a neurosurgeon a base salary of $654,735, a productivity incentive based on wRVUs, and payments for excess call coverage ranging from $400 to $1000 per 24-hour shift. In 2016, the neurosurgeon made $500,000 in excess call payments.
• Erlanger paid a cardiothoracic surgeon a base clinical salary of $1,070,000, a sign-on bonus of $150,000, a retention bonus of $100,000 (payable in the 4th year of the contract), and a program incentive of up to $150,000 per year.

In addition, Erlanger ignored patient safety concerns about some of its high revenue-generating physicians, the government claims. 

For instance, Erlanger received multiple complaints that a cardiothoracic surgeon was misusing an expensive form of life support in which pumps and oxygenators take over heart and lung function. Overuse of the equipment prolonged patients’ hospital stays and increased the hospital fees generated by the surgeon, according to the complaint. Staff also raised concerns about the cardiothoracic surgeon’s patient outcomes. 

But Erlanger disregarded the concerns and in 2018, increased the cardiothoracic surgeon’s retention bonus from $100,000 to $250,000, the suit alleges. A year later, the health system increased his base salary from $1,070,000 to $1,195,000.

Health care compensation and billing consultants alerted Erlanger that it was overpaying salaries and handing out bonuses based on measures that overstated the work physicians were performing, but Erlanger ignored the warnings, according to the complaint. 

Administrators allegedly resisted efforts by the chief compliance officer to hire an outside consultant to review its compensation models. Erlanger fired the compliance officer in 2019. 

The former chief compliance officer and another administrator filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Erlanger in 2021. The two administrators are relators in the government’s July 2024 lawsuit. 
 

How to Protect Yourself From Illegal Hospital Deals

The Erlanger case is the latest in a series of recent complaints by the federal government involving financial arrangements between hospitals and physicians.

In December 2023, Indianapolis-based Community Health Network Inc. agreed to pay the government $345 million to resolve claims that it paid physicians above fair market value and awarded bonuses tied to referrals in violation of the Stark Law. 

Also in 2023, Saginaw, Michigan–based Covenant HealthCare and two physicians paid the government $69 million to settle allegations that administrators engaged in improper financial arrangements with referring physicians and a physician-owned investment group. In another 2023 case, Massachusetts Eye and Ear in Boston agreed to pay $5.7 million to resolve claims that some of its physician compensation plans violated the Stark Law. 

Before you enter into a financial arrangement with a hospital, it’s also important to examine what percentile the aggregate compensation would reflect, law professor Mr. Sarraille said. The Erlanger case highlights federal officials’ suspicion of compensation, in aggregate, that exceeds the 90th percentile and increased attention to compensation that exceeds the 75th percentile, he said. 

To research compensation levels, doctors can review the Medical Group Management Association’s annual compensation report or search its compensation data. 

Before signing any contracts, Mr. Sarraille suggests, physicians should also consider whether the hospital shares the same values. Ask physicians at the hospital what they have to say about the hospital’s culture, vision, and values. Have physicians left the hospital after their practices were acquired? Consider speaking with them to learn why. 

Keep in mind that a doctor’s reputation could be impacted by a compliance complaint, regardless of whether it’s directed at the hospital and not the employed physician, Mr. Sarraille said. 

“The [Erlanger] complaint focuses on the compensation of specific, named physicians saying they were wildly overcompensated,” he said. “The implication is that they sold their referral power in exchange for a pay day. It’s a bad look, no matter how the case evolves from here.” 

Physicians could also face their own liability risk under the Stark Law and False Claims Act, depending on the circumstances. In the event of related quality-of-care issues, medical liability could come into play, Mr. Sarraille noted. In such cases, plaintiffs’ attorneys may see an opportunity to boost their claims with allegations that the patient harm was a function of “chasing compensation dollars,” Mr. Sarraille said. 

“Where that happens, plaintiff lawyers see the potential for crippling punitive damages, which might not be covered by an insurer,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Strapped for cash and searching for new profits, Tennessee-based Erlanger Health System illegally paid excessive salaries to physicians in exchange for patient referrals, the US government alleged in a federal lawsuit.

Erlanger changed its compensation model to entice revenue-generating doctors, paying some two to three times the median salary for their specialty, according to the complaint. 

The physicians in turn referred numerous patients to Erlanger, and the health system submitted claims to Medicare for the referred services in violation of the Stark Law, according to the suit, filed in US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. 

The government’s complaint “serves as a warning” to healthcare providers who try to boost profits through improper financial arrangements with referring physicians, said Tamala E. Miles, Special Agent in Charge for the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG).

In a statement provided to this news organization, Erlanger denied the allegations and said it would “vigorously” defend the lawsuit. 

“Erlanger paid physicians based on amounts that outside experts advised was fair market value,” Erlanger officials said in the statement. “Erlanger did not pay for referrals. A complete picture of the facts will demonstrate that the allegations lack merit and tell a very different story than what the government now claims.”

The Erlanger case is a reminder to physicians to consult their own knowledgeable advisors when considering financial arrangements with hospitals, said William Sarraille, JD, adjunct professor for the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law in Baltimore and a regulatory consultant. 

“There is a tendency by physicians when contracting ... to rely on [hospitals’] perceived compliance and legal expertise,” Mr. Sarraille told this news organization. “This case illustrates the risks in doing so. Sometimes bigger doesn’t translate into more sophisticated or more effective from a compliance perspective.” 
 

Stark Law Prohibits Kickbacks

The Stark Law prohibits hospitals from billing the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for services referred by a physician with whom the hospital has an improper financial relationship.

CMS paid Erlanger about $27.8 million for claims stemming from the improper financial arrangements, the government contends. 

“HHS-OIG will continue to investigate such deals to prevent financial arrangements that could compromise impartial medical judgment, increase healthcare costs, and erode public trust in the healthcare system,” Ms. Miles said in a statement. 
 

Suit: Health System’s Money Woes Led to Illegal Arrangements

Erlanger’s financial troubles allegedly started after a previous run-in with the US government over false claims. 

In 2005, Erlanger Health System agreed to pay the government $40 million to resolve allegations that it knowingly submitted false claims to Medicare, according to the government’s complaint. At the time, Erlanger entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the OIG that required Erlanger to put controls in place to ensure its financial relationships did not violate the Stark Law. 

Erlanger’s agreement with OIG ended in 2010. Over the next 3 years, the health system lost nearly $32 million and in fiscal year 2013, had only 65 days of cash on hand, according to the government’s lawsuit. 

Beginning in 2013, Erlanger allegedly implemented a strategy to increase profits by employing more physicians, particularly specialists from competing hospitals whose patients would need costly hospital stays, according to the complaint. 

Once hired, Erlanger’s physicians were expected to treat patients at Erlanger’s hospitals and refer them to other providers within the health system, the suit claims. Erlanger also relaxed or eliminated the oversight and controls on physician compensation put in place under the CIA. For example, Erlanger’s CEO signed some compensation contracts before its chief compliance officer could review them and no longer allowed the compliance officer to vote on whether to approve compensation arrangements, according to the complaint. 

Erlanger also changed its compensation model to include large salaries for medical director and academic positions and allegedly paid such salaries to physicians without ensuring the required work was performed. As a result, Erlanger physicians with profitable referrals were among the highest paid in the nation for their specialties, the government claims. For example, according to the complaint:

• Erlanger paid an electrophysiologist an annual clinical salary of $816,701, a medical director salary of $101,080, an academic salary of $59,322, and a productivity incentive based on work relative value units (wRVUs). The medical director and academic salaries paid were near the 90th percentile of comparable salaries in the specialty.
• The health system paid a neurosurgeon a base salary of $654,735, a productivity incentive based on wRVUs, and payments for excess call coverage ranging from $400 to $1000 per 24-hour shift. In 2016, the neurosurgeon made $500,000 in excess call payments.
• Erlanger paid a cardiothoracic surgeon a base clinical salary of $1,070,000, a sign-on bonus of $150,000, a retention bonus of $100,000 (payable in the 4th year of the contract), and a program incentive of up to $150,000 per year.

In addition, Erlanger ignored patient safety concerns about some of its high revenue-generating physicians, the government claims. 

For instance, Erlanger received multiple complaints that a cardiothoracic surgeon was misusing an expensive form of life support in which pumps and oxygenators take over heart and lung function. Overuse of the equipment prolonged patients’ hospital stays and increased the hospital fees generated by the surgeon, according to the complaint. Staff also raised concerns about the cardiothoracic surgeon’s patient outcomes. 

But Erlanger disregarded the concerns and in 2018, increased the cardiothoracic surgeon’s retention bonus from $100,000 to $250,000, the suit alleges. A year later, the health system increased his base salary from $1,070,000 to $1,195,000.

Health care compensation and billing consultants alerted Erlanger that it was overpaying salaries and handing out bonuses based on measures that overstated the work physicians were performing, but Erlanger ignored the warnings, according to the complaint. 

Administrators allegedly resisted efforts by the chief compliance officer to hire an outside consultant to review its compensation models. Erlanger fired the compliance officer in 2019. 

The former chief compliance officer and another administrator filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Erlanger in 2021. The two administrators are relators in the government’s July 2024 lawsuit. 
 

How to Protect Yourself From Illegal Hospital Deals

The Erlanger case is the latest in a series of recent complaints by the federal government involving financial arrangements between hospitals and physicians.

In December 2023, Indianapolis-based Community Health Network Inc. agreed to pay the government $345 million to resolve claims that it paid physicians above fair market value and awarded bonuses tied to referrals in violation of the Stark Law. 

Also in 2023, Saginaw, Michigan–based Covenant HealthCare and two physicians paid the government $69 million to settle allegations that administrators engaged in improper financial arrangements with referring physicians and a physician-owned investment group. In another 2023 case, Massachusetts Eye and Ear in Boston agreed to pay $5.7 million to resolve claims that some of its physician compensation plans violated the Stark Law. 

Before you enter into a financial arrangement with a hospital, it’s also important to examine what percentile the aggregate compensation would reflect, law professor Mr. Sarraille said. The Erlanger case highlights federal officials’ suspicion of compensation, in aggregate, that exceeds the 90th percentile and increased attention to compensation that exceeds the 75th percentile, he said. 

To research compensation levels, doctors can review the Medical Group Management Association’s annual compensation report or search its compensation data. 

Before signing any contracts, Mr. Sarraille suggests, physicians should also consider whether the hospital shares the same values. Ask physicians at the hospital what they have to say about the hospital’s culture, vision, and values. Have physicians left the hospital after their practices were acquired? Consider speaking with them to learn why. 

Keep in mind that a doctor’s reputation could be impacted by a compliance complaint, regardless of whether it’s directed at the hospital and not the employed physician, Mr. Sarraille said. 

“The [Erlanger] complaint focuses on the compensation of specific, named physicians saying they were wildly overcompensated,” he said. “The implication is that they sold their referral power in exchange for a pay day. It’s a bad look, no matter how the case evolves from here.” 

Physicians could also face their own liability risk under the Stark Law and False Claims Act, depending on the circumstances. In the event of related quality-of-care issues, medical liability could come into play, Mr. Sarraille noted. In such cases, plaintiffs’ attorneys may see an opportunity to boost their claims with allegations that the patient harm was a function of “chasing compensation dollars,” Mr. Sarraille said. 

“Where that happens, plaintiff lawyers see the potential for crippling punitive damages, which might not be covered by an insurer,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Strapped for cash and searching for new profits, Tennessee-based Erlanger Health System illegally paid excessive salaries to physicians in exchange for patient referrals, the US government alleged in a federal lawsuit.

Erlanger changed its compensation model to entice revenue-generating doctors, paying some two to three times the median salary for their specialty, according to the complaint. 

The physicians in turn referred numerous patients to Erlanger, and the health system submitted claims to Medicare for the referred services in violation of the Stark Law, according to the suit, filed in US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. 

The government’s complaint “serves as a warning” to healthcare providers who try to boost profits through improper financial arrangements with referring physicians, said Tamala E. Miles, Special Agent in Charge for the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG).

In a statement provided to this news organization, Erlanger denied the allegations and said it would “vigorously” defend the lawsuit. 

“Erlanger paid physicians based on amounts that outside experts advised was fair market value,” Erlanger officials said in the statement. “Erlanger did not pay for referrals. A complete picture of the facts will demonstrate that the allegations lack merit and tell a very different story than what the government now claims.”

The Erlanger case is a reminder to physicians to consult their own knowledgeable advisors when considering financial arrangements with hospitals, said William Sarraille, JD, adjunct professor for the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law in Baltimore and a regulatory consultant. 

“There is a tendency by physicians when contracting ... to rely on [hospitals’] perceived compliance and legal expertise,” Mr. Sarraille told this news organization. “This case illustrates the risks in doing so. Sometimes bigger doesn’t translate into more sophisticated or more effective from a compliance perspective.” 
 

Stark Law Prohibits Kickbacks

The Stark Law prohibits hospitals from billing the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for services referred by a physician with whom the hospital has an improper financial relationship.

CMS paid Erlanger about $27.8 million for claims stemming from the improper financial arrangements, the government contends. 

“HHS-OIG will continue to investigate such deals to prevent financial arrangements that could compromise impartial medical judgment, increase healthcare costs, and erode public trust in the healthcare system,” Ms. Miles said in a statement. 
 

Suit: Health System’s Money Woes Led to Illegal Arrangements

Erlanger’s financial troubles allegedly started after a previous run-in with the US government over false claims. 

In 2005, Erlanger Health System agreed to pay the government $40 million to resolve allegations that it knowingly submitted false claims to Medicare, according to the government’s complaint. At the time, Erlanger entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the OIG that required Erlanger to put controls in place to ensure its financial relationships did not violate the Stark Law. 

Erlanger’s agreement with OIG ended in 2010. Over the next 3 years, the health system lost nearly $32 million and in fiscal year 2013, had only 65 days of cash on hand, according to the government’s lawsuit. 

Beginning in 2013, Erlanger allegedly implemented a strategy to increase profits by employing more physicians, particularly specialists from competing hospitals whose patients would need costly hospital stays, according to the complaint. 

Once hired, Erlanger’s physicians were expected to treat patients at Erlanger’s hospitals and refer them to other providers within the health system, the suit claims. Erlanger also relaxed or eliminated the oversight and controls on physician compensation put in place under the CIA. For example, Erlanger’s CEO signed some compensation contracts before its chief compliance officer could review them and no longer allowed the compliance officer to vote on whether to approve compensation arrangements, according to the complaint. 

Erlanger also changed its compensation model to include large salaries for medical director and academic positions and allegedly paid such salaries to physicians without ensuring the required work was performed. As a result, Erlanger physicians with profitable referrals were among the highest paid in the nation for their specialties, the government claims. For example, according to the complaint:

• Erlanger paid an electrophysiologist an annual clinical salary of $816,701, a medical director salary of $101,080, an academic salary of $59,322, and a productivity incentive based on work relative value units (wRVUs). The medical director and academic salaries paid were near the 90th percentile of comparable salaries in the specialty.
• The health system paid a neurosurgeon a base salary of $654,735, a productivity incentive based on wRVUs, and payments for excess call coverage ranging from $400 to $1000 per 24-hour shift. In 2016, the neurosurgeon made $500,000 in excess call payments.
• Erlanger paid a cardiothoracic surgeon a base clinical salary of $1,070,000, a sign-on bonus of $150,000, a retention bonus of $100,000 (payable in the 4th year of the contract), and a program incentive of up to $150,000 per year.

In addition, Erlanger ignored patient safety concerns about some of its high revenue-generating physicians, the government claims. 

For instance, Erlanger received multiple complaints that a cardiothoracic surgeon was misusing an expensive form of life support in which pumps and oxygenators take over heart and lung function. Overuse of the equipment prolonged patients’ hospital stays and increased the hospital fees generated by the surgeon, according to the complaint. Staff also raised concerns about the cardiothoracic surgeon’s patient outcomes. 

But Erlanger disregarded the concerns and in 2018, increased the cardiothoracic surgeon’s retention bonus from $100,000 to $250,000, the suit alleges. A year later, the health system increased his base salary from $1,070,000 to $1,195,000.

Health care compensation and billing consultants alerted Erlanger that it was overpaying salaries and handing out bonuses based on measures that overstated the work physicians were performing, but Erlanger ignored the warnings, according to the complaint. 

Administrators allegedly resisted efforts by the chief compliance officer to hire an outside consultant to review its compensation models. Erlanger fired the compliance officer in 2019. 

The former chief compliance officer and another administrator filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Erlanger in 2021. The two administrators are relators in the government’s July 2024 lawsuit. 
 

How to Protect Yourself From Illegal Hospital Deals

The Erlanger case is the latest in a series of recent complaints by the federal government involving financial arrangements between hospitals and physicians.

In December 2023, Indianapolis-based Community Health Network Inc. agreed to pay the government $345 million to resolve claims that it paid physicians above fair market value and awarded bonuses tied to referrals in violation of the Stark Law. 

Also in 2023, Saginaw, Michigan–based Covenant HealthCare and two physicians paid the government $69 million to settle allegations that administrators engaged in improper financial arrangements with referring physicians and a physician-owned investment group. In another 2023 case, Massachusetts Eye and Ear in Boston agreed to pay $5.7 million to resolve claims that some of its physician compensation plans violated the Stark Law. 

Before you enter into a financial arrangement with a hospital, it’s also important to examine what percentile the aggregate compensation would reflect, law professor Mr. Sarraille said. The Erlanger case highlights federal officials’ suspicion of compensation, in aggregate, that exceeds the 90th percentile and increased attention to compensation that exceeds the 75th percentile, he said. 

To research compensation levels, doctors can review the Medical Group Management Association’s annual compensation report or search its compensation data. 

Before signing any contracts, Mr. Sarraille suggests, physicians should also consider whether the hospital shares the same values. Ask physicians at the hospital what they have to say about the hospital’s culture, vision, and values. Have physicians left the hospital after their practices were acquired? Consider speaking with them to learn why. 

Keep in mind that a doctor’s reputation could be impacted by a compliance complaint, regardless of whether it’s directed at the hospital and not the employed physician, Mr. Sarraille said. 

“The [Erlanger] complaint focuses on the compensation of specific, named physicians saying they were wildly overcompensated,” he said. “The implication is that they sold their referral power in exchange for a pay day. It’s a bad look, no matter how the case evolves from here.” 

Physicians could also face their own liability risk under the Stark Law and False Claims Act, depending on the circumstances. In the event of related quality-of-care issues, medical liability could come into play, Mr. Sarraille noted. In such cases, plaintiffs’ attorneys may see an opportunity to boost their claims with allegations that the patient harm was a function of “chasing compensation dollars,” Mr. Sarraille said. 

“Where that happens, plaintiff lawyers see the potential for crippling punitive damages, which might not be covered by an insurer,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Chronic exposure to air pollutants such as fine particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μm in diameter (PM_2.5), particulate matter ≤ 10 μm in diameter (PM₁₀), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), and nitrogen oxides (NO_X) increased the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) onset. The risk was highest among those with high genetic risk and high air-pollution exposure. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers prospectively investigated the association between long-term exposure to air pollutants and incident SLE in 459,815 participants from the UK Biobank.
• A land-use regression model was used to quantify the annual average air pollution concentrations, including PM_2.5, PM₁₀, NO₂, and NO_X.
• The genetic susceptibility to lupus was assessed using polygenic risk scores (PRS), and the participants were classified into low–, intermediate–, or high–genetic-risk groups based on the tertiles of PRS.
• The joint effect of air pollutants and genetic susceptibility to lupus on the risk for incident SLE was evaluated, with the reference group consisting of participants with a low genetic risk and low exposure to air pollution.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Over a median follow-up period of 11.77 years, 399 new cases of SLE were identified.
• The odds of developing SLE were higher among participants with high genetic risk than among those with low genetic risk (hazard ratio [HR], 3.45; P < .001 for trend).
• The risk for developing SLE was even higher among participants with a high genetic risk and high exposure to PM_2.5 (adjusted HR [aHR], 4.16; 95% CI, 2.67-6.49), PM₁₀ (aHR, 5.31; 95% CI, 3.30-8.55), NO₂ (aHR, 5.61; 95% CI, 3.45-9.13), and NO_X (aHR, 4.80; 95% CI, 3.00-7.66) than among with those with a low genetic risk and low exposure to air pollutants.

IN PRACTICE:

“Findings can inform the development of stricter air quality regulations to mitigate exposure to harmful pollutants, thereby reducing the risk of SLE,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Meiqi Xing, MASc, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. It was published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study participants were enrolled voluntarily, which may have led to selection bias because they might have been healthier or more health conscious. The study did not consider the specific components of air pollutants, particularly particulate matter, which may have varying effects on the incidence of SLE. Other air pollutants such as ozone, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide were not included in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Chronic exposure to air pollutants such as fine particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μm in diameter (PM_2.5), particulate matter ≤ 10 μm in diameter (PM₁₀), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), and nitrogen oxides (NO_X) increased the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) onset. The risk was highest among those with high genetic risk and high air-pollution exposure. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers prospectively investigated the association between long-term exposure to air pollutants and incident SLE in 459,815 participants from the UK Biobank.
• A land-use regression model was used to quantify the annual average air pollution concentrations, including PM_2.5, PM₁₀, NO₂, and NO_X.
• The genetic susceptibility to lupus was assessed using polygenic risk scores (PRS), and the participants were classified into low–, intermediate–, or high–genetic-risk groups based on the tertiles of PRS.
• The joint effect of air pollutants and genetic susceptibility to lupus on the risk for incident SLE was evaluated, with the reference group consisting of participants with a low genetic risk and low exposure to air pollution.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Over a median follow-up period of 11.77 years, 399 new cases of SLE were identified.
• The odds of developing SLE were higher among participants with high genetic risk than among those with low genetic risk (hazard ratio [HR], 3.45; P < .001 for trend).
• The risk for developing SLE was even higher among participants with a high genetic risk and high exposure to PM_2.5 (adjusted HR [aHR], 4.16; 95% CI, 2.67-6.49), PM₁₀ (aHR, 5.31; 95% CI, 3.30-8.55), NO₂ (aHR, 5.61; 95% CI, 3.45-9.13), and NO_X (aHR, 4.80; 95% CI, 3.00-7.66) than among with those with a low genetic risk and low exposure to air pollutants.

IN PRACTICE:

“Findings can inform the development of stricter air quality regulations to mitigate exposure to harmful pollutants, thereby reducing the risk of SLE,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Meiqi Xing, MASc, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. It was published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study participants were enrolled voluntarily, which may have led to selection bias because they might have been healthier or more health conscious. The study did not consider the specific components of air pollutants, particularly particulate matter, which may have varying effects on the incidence of SLE. Other air pollutants such as ozone, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide were not included in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Chronic exposure to air pollutants such as fine particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μm in diameter (PM_2.5), particulate matter ≤ 10 μm in diameter (PM₁₀), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), and nitrogen oxides (NO_X) increased the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) onset. The risk was highest among those with high genetic risk and high air-pollution exposure. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers prospectively investigated the association between long-term exposure to air pollutants and incident SLE in 459,815 participants from the UK Biobank.
• A land-use regression model was used to quantify the annual average air pollution concentrations, including PM_2.5, PM₁₀, NO₂, and NO_X.
• The genetic susceptibility to lupus was assessed using polygenic risk scores (PRS), and the participants were classified into low–, intermediate–, or high–genetic-risk groups based on the tertiles of PRS.
• The joint effect of air pollutants and genetic susceptibility to lupus on the risk for incident SLE was evaluated, with the reference group consisting of participants with a low genetic risk and low exposure to air pollution.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Over a median follow-up period of 11.77 years, 399 new cases of SLE were identified.
• The odds of developing SLE were higher among participants with high genetic risk than among those with low genetic risk (hazard ratio [HR], 3.45; P < .001 for trend).
• The risk for developing SLE was even higher among participants with a high genetic risk and high exposure to PM_2.5 (adjusted HR [aHR], 4.16; 95% CI, 2.67-6.49), PM₁₀ (aHR, 5.31; 95% CI, 3.30-8.55), NO₂ (aHR, 5.61; 95% CI, 3.45-9.13), and NO_X (aHR, 4.80; 95% CI, 3.00-7.66) than among with those with a low genetic risk and low exposure to air pollutants.

IN PRACTICE:

“Findings can inform the development of stricter air quality regulations to mitigate exposure to harmful pollutants, thereby reducing the risk of SLE,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Meiqi Xing, MASc, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. It was published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study participants were enrolled voluntarily, which may have led to selection bias because they might have been healthier or more health conscious. The study did not consider the specific components of air pollutants, particularly particulate matter, which may have varying effects on the incidence of SLE. Other air pollutants such as ozone, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide were not included in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Semaglutide products sold online without a prescription may pose multiple risks to consumers, new research found.

Of six test purchases of semaglutide products offered online without a prescription, only three were actually received. The other three vendors demanded additional payment. Of the three delivered, one was potentially contaminated, and all three contained higher concentrations of semaglutide than indicated on the label, potentially resulting in an overdose.

“Semaglutide products are actively being sold without prescription by illegal online pharmacies, with vendors shipping unregistered and falsified products,” wrote Amir Reza Ashraf, PharmD, of the University of Pécs, Hungary, and colleagues in their paper, published online on August 2, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted in July 2023, but its publication comes a week after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an alert about dosing errors in compounded semaglutide, which typically does require a prescription.

Study coauthor Tim K. Mackey, PhD, told this news organization, “Compounding pharmacies are another element of this risk that has become more prominent now but arguably have more controls if prescribed appropriately, while the traditional ‘no-prescription’ online market still exists and will continue to evolve.”

Overall, said Dr. Mackey, professor of global health at the University of California San Diego and director of the Global Health Policy and Data Institute, “consumers take a huge risk when they seek to procure semaglutide outside of a legitimate physician-patient relationship and should only get semaglutide from a licensed and authorized pharmacy after discussing the risks versus benefits with their provider.”

He advises clinicians to actively discuss with their patients the risks associated with semaglutide and, specifically, the dangers of buying it online. “Clinicians can act as a primary information source for patient safety information by letting their patients know about these risks ... and also asking where patients get their medications in case they are concerned about reports of adverse events or other patient safety issues.”
 

Buyer Beware: Online Semaglutide Purchases Not as They Seem

The investigators began by searching online for websites advertising semaglutide without a prescription. They ordered products from six online vendors that showed up prominently in the searches. Of those, three offered prefilled 0.25 mg/dose semaglutide injection pens, while the other three sold vials of lyophilized semaglutide powder to be reconstituted to solution for injection. Prices for the smallest dose and quantity ranged from $113 to $360.

Only three of the ordered products — all vials — actually showed up. The advertised prefilled pens were all nondelivery scams, with requests for an extra payment of $650-$1200 purportedly to clear customs. This was confirmed as fraudulent by customs agencies, the authors noted.

The three vial products were received and assessed physically, of both the packaging and the actual product, by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry to determine purity and peptide concentration, and microbiologically, to examine sterility.

Using a checklist from the International Pharmaceutical Federation, Dr. Ashraf and colleagues found “clear discrepancies in regulatory registration information, accurate labeling, and evidence products were likely unregistered or unlicensed.”

Quality testing showed that one sample had an elevated presence of endotoxin suggesting possible contamination. While all three actually did contain semaglutide, the measured content exceeded the labeled amount by 29%-39%, posing a risk that users could receive up to 39% more than intended per injection, “particularly concerning if a consumer has to reconstitute and self-inject,” Dr. Mackey noted.

At least one of these sites in this study, “semaspace.com,” was subsequently sent a warning letter by the FDA for unauthorized semaglutide sale, Mackey noted.

Unfortunately, he told this news organization, these dangers are likely to persist. “There is a strong market opportunity to introduce counterfeit and unauthorized versions of semaglutide. Counterfeiters will continue to innovate with where they sell products, what products they offer, and how they mislead consumers about the safety and legality of what they are offering online. We are likely just at the beginning of counterfeiting of semaglutide, and it is likely that these false products will become endemic in our supply chain.”

The research was supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund. The authors had no further disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Semaglutide products sold online without a prescription may pose multiple risks to consumers, new research found.

Of six test purchases of semaglutide products offered online without a prescription, only three were actually received. The other three vendors demanded additional payment. Of the three delivered, one was potentially contaminated, and all three contained higher concentrations of semaglutide than indicated on the label, potentially resulting in an overdose.

“Semaglutide products are actively being sold without prescription by illegal online pharmacies, with vendors shipping unregistered and falsified products,” wrote Amir Reza Ashraf, PharmD, of the University of Pécs, Hungary, and colleagues in their paper, published online on August 2, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted in July 2023, but its publication comes a week after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an alert about dosing errors in compounded semaglutide, which typically does require a prescription.

Study coauthor Tim K. Mackey, PhD, told this news organization, “Compounding pharmacies are another element of this risk that has become more prominent now but arguably have more controls if prescribed appropriately, while the traditional ‘no-prescription’ online market still exists and will continue to evolve.”

Overall, said Dr. Mackey, professor of global health at the University of California San Diego and director of the Global Health Policy and Data Institute, “consumers take a huge risk when they seek to procure semaglutide outside of a legitimate physician-patient relationship and should only get semaglutide from a licensed and authorized pharmacy after discussing the risks versus benefits with their provider.”

He advises clinicians to actively discuss with their patients the risks associated with semaglutide and, specifically, the dangers of buying it online. “Clinicians can act as a primary information source for patient safety information by letting their patients know about these risks ... and also asking where patients get their medications in case they are concerned about reports of adverse events or other patient safety issues.”
 

Buyer Beware: Online Semaglutide Purchases Not as They Seem

The investigators began by searching online for websites advertising semaglutide without a prescription. They ordered products from six online vendors that showed up prominently in the searches. Of those, three offered prefilled 0.25 mg/dose semaglutide injection pens, while the other three sold vials of lyophilized semaglutide powder to be reconstituted to solution for injection. Prices for the smallest dose and quantity ranged from $113 to $360.

Only three of the ordered products — all vials — actually showed up. The advertised prefilled pens were all nondelivery scams, with requests for an extra payment of $650-$1200 purportedly to clear customs. This was confirmed as fraudulent by customs agencies, the authors noted.

The three vial products were received and assessed physically, of both the packaging and the actual product, by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry to determine purity and peptide concentration, and microbiologically, to examine sterility.

Using a checklist from the International Pharmaceutical Federation, Dr. Ashraf and colleagues found “clear discrepancies in regulatory registration information, accurate labeling, and evidence products were likely unregistered or unlicensed.”

Quality testing showed that one sample had an elevated presence of endotoxin suggesting possible contamination. While all three actually did contain semaglutide, the measured content exceeded the labeled amount by 29%-39%, posing a risk that users could receive up to 39% more than intended per injection, “particularly concerning if a consumer has to reconstitute and self-inject,” Dr. Mackey noted.

At least one of these sites in this study, “semaspace.com,” was subsequently sent a warning letter by the FDA for unauthorized semaglutide sale, Mackey noted.

Unfortunately, he told this news organization, these dangers are likely to persist. “There is a strong market opportunity to introduce counterfeit and unauthorized versions of semaglutide. Counterfeiters will continue to innovate with where they sell products, what products they offer, and how they mislead consumers about the safety and legality of what they are offering online. We are likely just at the beginning of counterfeiting of semaglutide, and it is likely that these false products will become endemic in our supply chain.”

The research was supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund. The authors had no further disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Semaglutide products sold online without a prescription may pose multiple risks to consumers, new research found.

Of six test purchases of semaglutide products offered online without a prescription, only three were actually received. The other three vendors demanded additional payment. Of the three delivered, one was potentially contaminated, and all three contained higher concentrations of semaglutide than indicated on the label, potentially resulting in an overdose.

“Semaglutide products are actively being sold without prescription by illegal online pharmacies, with vendors shipping unregistered and falsified products,” wrote Amir Reza Ashraf, PharmD, of the University of Pécs, Hungary, and colleagues in their paper, published online on August 2, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted in July 2023, but its publication comes a week after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an alert about dosing errors in compounded semaglutide, which typically does require a prescription.

Study coauthor Tim K. Mackey, PhD, told this news organization, “Compounding pharmacies are another element of this risk that has become more prominent now but arguably have more controls if prescribed appropriately, while the traditional ‘no-prescription’ online market still exists and will continue to evolve.”

Overall, said Dr. Mackey, professor of global health at the University of California San Diego and director of the Global Health Policy and Data Institute, “consumers take a huge risk when they seek to procure semaglutide outside of a legitimate physician-patient relationship and should only get semaglutide from a licensed and authorized pharmacy after discussing the risks versus benefits with their provider.”

He advises clinicians to actively discuss with their patients the risks associated with semaglutide and, specifically, the dangers of buying it online. “Clinicians can act as a primary information source for patient safety information by letting their patients know about these risks ... and also asking where patients get their medications in case they are concerned about reports of adverse events or other patient safety issues.”
 

Buyer Beware: Online Semaglutide Purchases Not as They Seem

The investigators began by searching online for websites advertising semaglutide without a prescription. They ordered products from six online vendors that showed up prominently in the searches. Of those, three offered prefilled 0.25 mg/dose semaglutide injection pens, while the other three sold vials of lyophilized semaglutide powder to be reconstituted to solution for injection. Prices for the smallest dose and quantity ranged from $113 to $360.

Only three of the ordered products — all vials — actually showed up. The advertised prefilled pens were all nondelivery scams, with requests for an extra payment of $650-$1200 purportedly to clear customs. This was confirmed as fraudulent by customs agencies, the authors noted.

The three vial products were received and assessed physically, of both the packaging and the actual product, by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry to determine purity and peptide concentration, and microbiologically, to examine sterility.

Using a checklist from the International Pharmaceutical Federation, Dr. Ashraf and colleagues found “clear discrepancies in regulatory registration information, accurate labeling, and evidence products were likely unregistered or unlicensed.”

Quality testing showed that one sample had an elevated presence of endotoxin suggesting possible contamination. While all three actually did contain semaglutide, the measured content exceeded the labeled amount by 29%-39%, posing a risk that users could receive up to 39% more than intended per injection, “particularly concerning if a consumer has to reconstitute and self-inject,” Dr. Mackey noted.

At least one of these sites in this study, “semaspace.com,” was subsequently sent a warning letter by the FDA for unauthorized semaglutide sale, Mackey noted.

Unfortunately, he told this news organization, these dangers are likely to persist. “There is a strong market opportunity to introduce counterfeit and unauthorized versions of semaglutide. Counterfeiters will continue to innovate with where they sell products, what products they offer, and how they mislead consumers about the safety and legality of what they are offering online. We are likely just at the beginning of counterfeiting of semaglutide, and it is likely that these false products will become endemic in our supply chain.”

The research was supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund. The authors had no further disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a case that spotlights the importance of comprehensive financial controls in medical offices, a leading New York City emergency medicine physician stands accused of using his business credit card to steal nearly $1.5 million from his clinical practice and spend it on cash advances, personal travel, lavish pet services, and more.

Michael Lucchesi, MD, who had served as chairman of Emergency Medicine at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in New York City, was arraigned on July 9 and pleaded not guilty. Dr. Lucchesi’s attorney, Earl Ward, did not respond to messages from this news organization, but he told the New York Post that “the funds he used were not stolen funds.”

Dr. Lucchesi, who’s in his late 60s, faces nine counts of first- and second-degree grand larceny, first-degree falsifying business records, and third-degree criminal tax fraud. According to a press statement from the district attorney of Kings County, which encompasses the borough of Brooklyn, Dr. Lucchesi is accused of using his clinical practice’s business card for cash advances (about $115,000), high-end pet care ($176,000), personal travel ($348,000), gym membership and personal training ($109,000), catering ($52,000), tuition payments for his children ($46,000), and other expenses such as online shopping, flowers, liquor, and electronics.

Most of the alleged pet care spending — $120,000 — went to the Green Leaf Pet Resort, which has two locations in New Jersey, including one with “56 acres of nature and lots of tail wagging.” Some of the alleged spending on gym membership was at the New York Sports Clubs chain, where monthly membership tops out at $139.99.

The alleged spending occurred between 2016 and 2023 and was discovered by SUNY Downstate during an audit. Dr. Lucchesi reportedly left his position at the hospital, where he made $399,712 in 2022 as a professor, according to public records.

“As a high-ranking doctor at this vital healthcare institution, this defendant was entrusted with access to significant funds, which he allegedly exploited, stealing more than 1 million dollars to pay for a lavish lifestyle,” District Attorney Eric Gonzalez said in a statement.

SUNY Downstate is in a fight for its life amid efforts by New York Governor Kathy Hochul to shut it down. According to The New York Times, it is the only state-run hospital in New York City.

Dr. Lucchesi, who had previously served as the hospital’s chief medical officer and acting head, was released without bail. His next court date is September 25, 2024.
 

Size of Alleged Theft Is ‘Very Unusual’

David P. Weber, JD, DBA, a professor and fraud specialist at Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland, told this news organization that the fraudulent use of a business or purchase credit card is a form of embezzlement and “one of the most frequently seen types of frauds against organizations.”

William J. Kresse, JD, MSA, CPA/CFF, who studies fraud at Governors State University in University Park, Illinois, noted in an interview with this news organization that the high amount of alleged fraud in this case is “very unusual,” as is the period it is said to have occurred (over 6 years).

Mr. Kresse highlighted a 2024 report by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, which found that the median fraud loss in healthcare, on the basis of 117 cases, is $100,000. The most common form of fraud in the industry is corruption (47%), followed by billing (38%), noncash theft such as inventory (22%), and expense reimbursement (21%).

The details of the current case suggest that “SUNY Downstate had weak or insufficient internal controls to prevent this type of fraud,” Salisbury University’s Mr. Weber said. “However, research also makes clear that the tenure and position of the perpetrator play a significant role in the size of the fraud. Internal controls are supposed to apply to all employees, but the higher in the organization the perpetrator is, the easier it can be to engage in fraud.”
 

Even Small Medical Offices Can Act to Prevent Fraud

What can be done to prevent this kind of fraud? “Each employee should be required to submit actual receipts or scanned copies, and the reimbursement requests should be reviewed and inputted by a separate department or office of the organization to ensure that the expenses are legitimate,” Mr. Weber said. “In addition, all credit card statements should be available for review by the organization either simultaneously with the bill going to the employee or available for audit or review at any time without notification to the employee. Expenses that are in certain categories should be prohibited automatically and coded to the card so such a charge is rejected by the credit card bank.”

Smaller businesses — like many medical practices — may not have the manpower to handle these roles. In that case, Mr. Weber said, “The key is segregation or separation of duties. The bookkeeper cannot be the person receiving the bank statements, the payments from patients, and the invoices from vendors. There needs to be at least one other person in the loop to have some level of control.”

One strategy, he said, “is that the practice should institute a policy that only the doctor or owner of the practice can receive the mail, not the bookkeeper. Even if the practice leader does not actually review the bank statements, simply opening them before handing them off to the bookkeeper can provide a level of deterrence [since] the employee may get caught if someone else is reviewing the bank statements.”
 

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

In a case that spotlights the importance of comprehensive financial controls in medical offices, a leading New York City emergency medicine physician stands accused of using his business credit card to steal nearly $1.5 million from his clinical practice and spend it on cash advances, personal travel, lavish pet services, and more.

Michael Lucchesi, MD, who had served as chairman of Emergency Medicine at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in New York City, was arraigned on July 9 and pleaded not guilty. Dr. Lucchesi’s attorney, Earl Ward, did not respond to messages from this news organization, but he told the New York Post that “the funds he used were not stolen funds.”

Dr. Lucchesi, who’s in his late 60s, faces nine counts of first- and second-degree grand larceny, first-degree falsifying business records, and third-degree criminal tax fraud. According to a press statement from the district attorney of Kings County, which encompasses the borough of Brooklyn, Dr. Lucchesi is accused of using his clinical practice’s business card for cash advances (about $115,000), high-end pet care ($176,000), personal travel ($348,000), gym membership and personal training ($109,000), catering ($52,000), tuition payments for his children ($46,000), and other expenses such as online shopping, flowers, liquor, and electronics.

Most of the alleged pet care spending — $120,000 — went to the Green Leaf Pet Resort, which has two locations in New Jersey, including one with “56 acres of nature and lots of tail wagging.” Some of the alleged spending on gym membership was at the New York Sports Clubs chain, where monthly membership tops out at $139.99.

The alleged spending occurred between 2016 and 2023 and was discovered by SUNY Downstate during an audit. Dr. Lucchesi reportedly left his position at the hospital, where he made $399,712 in 2022 as a professor, according to public records.

“As a high-ranking doctor at this vital healthcare institution, this defendant was entrusted with access to significant funds, which he allegedly exploited, stealing more than 1 million dollars to pay for a lavish lifestyle,” District Attorney Eric Gonzalez said in a statement.

SUNY Downstate is in a fight for its life amid efforts by New York Governor Kathy Hochul to shut it down. According to The New York Times, it is the only state-run hospital in New York City.

Dr. Lucchesi, who had previously served as the hospital’s chief medical officer and acting head, was released without bail. His next court date is September 25, 2024.
 

Size of Alleged Theft Is ‘Very Unusual’

David P. Weber, JD, DBA, a professor and fraud specialist at Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland, told this news organization that the fraudulent use of a business or purchase credit card is a form of embezzlement and “one of the most frequently seen types of frauds against organizations.”

William J. Kresse, JD, MSA, CPA/CFF, who studies fraud at Governors State University in University Park, Illinois, noted in an interview with this news organization that the high amount of alleged fraud in this case is “very unusual,” as is the period it is said to have occurred (over 6 years).

Mr. Kresse highlighted a 2024 report by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, which found that the median fraud loss in healthcare, on the basis of 117 cases, is $100,000. The most common form of fraud in the industry is corruption (47%), followed by billing (38%), noncash theft such as inventory (22%), and expense reimbursement (21%).

The details of the current case suggest that “SUNY Downstate had weak or insufficient internal controls to prevent this type of fraud,” Salisbury University’s Mr. Weber said. “However, research also makes clear that the tenure and position of the perpetrator play a significant role in the size of the fraud. Internal controls are supposed to apply to all employees, but the higher in the organization the perpetrator is, the easier it can be to engage in fraud.”
 

Even Small Medical Offices Can Act to Prevent Fraud

What can be done to prevent this kind of fraud? “Each employee should be required to submit actual receipts or scanned copies, and the reimbursement requests should be reviewed and inputted by a separate department or office of the organization to ensure that the expenses are legitimate,” Mr. Weber said. “In addition, all credit card statements should be available for review by the organization either simultaneously with the bill going to the employee or available for audit or review at any time without notification to the employee. Expenses that are in certain categories should be prohibited automatically and coded to the card so such a charge is rejected by the credit card bank.”

Smaller businesses — like many medical practices — may not have the manpower to handle these roles. In that case, Mr. Weber said, “The key is segregation or separation of duties. The bookkeeper cannot be the person receiving the bank statements, the payments from patients, and the invoices from vendors. There needs to be at least one other person in the loop to have some level of control.”

One strategy, he said, “is that the practice should institute a policy that only the doctor or owner of the practice can receive the mail, not the bookkeeper. Even if the practice leader does not actually review the bank statements, simply opening them before handing them off to the bookkeeper can provide a level of deterrence [since] the employee may get caught if someone else is reviewing the bank statements.”
 

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

In a case that spotlights the importance of comprehensive financial controls in medical offices, a leading New York City emergency medicine physician stands accused of using his business credit card to steal nearly $1.5 million from his clinical practice and spend it on cash advances, personal travel, lavish pet services, and more.

Michael Lucchesi, MD, who had served as chairman of Emergency Medicine at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in New York City, was arraigned on July 9 and pleaded not guilty. Dr. Lucchesi’s attorney, Earl Ward, did not respond to messages from this news organization, but he told the New York Post that “the funds he used were not stolen funds.”

Dr. Lucchesi, who’s in his late 60s, faces nine counts of first- and second-degree grand larceny, first-degree falsifying business records, and third-degree criminal tax fraud. According to a press statement from the district attorney of Kings County, which encompasses the borough of Brooklyn, Dr. Lucchesi is accused of using his clinical practice’s business card for cash advances (about $115,000), high-end pet care ($176,000), personal travel ($348,000), gym membership and personal training ($109,000), catering ($52,000), tuition payments for his children ($46,000), and other expenses such as online shopping, flowers, liquor, and electronics.

Most of the alleged pet care spending — $120,000 — went to the Green Leaf Pet Resort, which has two locations in New Jersey, including one with “56 acres of nature and lots of tail wagging.” Some of the alleged spending on gym membership was at the New York Sports Clubs chain, where monthly membership tops out at $139.99.

The alleged spending occurred between 2016 and 2023 and was discovered by SUNY Downstate during an audit. Dr. Lucchesi reportedly left his position at the hospital, where he made $399,712 in 2022 as a professor, according to public records.

“As a high-ranking doctor at this vital healthcare institution, this defendant was entrusted with access to significant funds, which he allegedly exploited, stealing more than 1 million dollars to pay for a lavish lifestyle,” District Attorney Eric Gonzalez said in a statement.

SUNY Downstate is in a fight for its life amid efforts by New York Governor Kathy Hochul to shut it down. According to The New York Times, it is the only state-run hospital in New York City.

Dr. Lucchesi, who had previously served as the hospital’s chief medical officer and acting head, was released without bail. His next court date is September 25, 2024.
 

Size of Alleged Theft Is ‘Very Unusual’

David P. Weber, JD, DBA, a professor and fraud specialist at Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland, told this news organization that the fraudulent use of a business or purchase credit card is a form of embezzlement and “one of the most frequently seen types of frauds against organizations.”

William J. Kresse, JD, MSA, CPA/CFF, who studies fraud at Governors State University in University Park, Illinois, noted in an interview with this news organization that the high amount of alleged fraud in this case is “very unusual,” as is the period it is said to have occurred (over 6 years).

Mr. Kresse highlighted a 2024 report by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, which found that the median fraud loss in healthcare, on the basis of 117 cases, is $100,000. The most common form of fraud in the industry is corruption (47%), followed by billing (38%), noncash theft such as inventory (22%), and expense reimbursement (21%).

The details of the current case suggest that “SUNY Downstate had weak or insufficient internal controls to prevent this type of fraud,” Salisbury University’s Mr. Weber said. “However, research also makes clear that the tenure and position of the perpetrator play a significant role in the size of the fraud. Internal controls are supposed to apply to all employees, but the higher in the organization the perpetrator is, the easier it can be to engage in fraud.”
 

Even Small Medical Offices Can Act to Prevent Fraud

What can be done to prevent this kind of fraud? “Each employee should be required to submit actual receipts or scanned copies, and the reimbursement requests should be reviewed and inputted by a separate department or office of the organization to ensure that the expenses are legitimate,” Mr. Weber said. “In addition, all credit card statements should be available for review by the organization either simultaneously with the bill going to the employee or available for audit or review at any time without notification to the employee. Expenses that are in certain categories should be prohibited automatically and coded to the card so such a charge is rejected by the credit card bank.”

Smaller businesses — like many medical practices — may not have the manpower to handle these roles. In that case, Mr. Weber said, “The key is segregation or separation of duties. The bookkeeper cannot be the person receiving the bank statements, the payments from patients, and the invoices from vendors. There needs to be at least one other person in the loop to have some level of control.”

One strategy, he said, “is that the practice should institute a policy that only the doctor or owner of the practice can receive the mail, not the bookkeeper. Even if the practice leader does not actually review the bank statements, simply opening them before handing them off to the bookkeeper can provide a level of deterrence [since] the employee may get caught if someone else is reviewing the bank statements.”
 

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