Dermatology News

TOPLINE:

The tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor TAK-279 demonstrated superiority to placebo in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to phase 2 trial results.

METHODOLOGY:

• Eligible patients were over 18 years old, had PsA for over 6 months, met the classification criteria for PsA, and had at least three swollen and tender joints despite prior nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, or biologic treatment.
• A total of 290 patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive placebo, oral TAK-279 5 mg, 15 mg, or 30 mg once daily.
• The primary endpoint was a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at 12 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• More than half of patients assigned to TAK-279 15 mg (53.3%) and TAK-279 30 mg (54.2%) achieved ACR20 at 12 weeks, compared with 29.2% of those assigned to placebo.
• Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 response rates were also higher in patients assigned to TAK-279 30 mg (45.7%) or 15 mg (28.3%) than those in placebo (15.4%).
• Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any kind were numerically higher in the 30-mg group, though serious TEAEs were similar across all treatment arms.
• The most frequent adverse events were nasal pharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, headache, and rash, with rash being most common in the TAK-279 30-mg group.

IN PRACTICE:

“There are few targeted oral therapies for active PSA available currently,” said lead author Alan Kivitz, MD, Altoona Center for Clinical Research, Duncansville, Pennsylvania, “and [TAK-279], which was well tolerated and demonstrated superior efficacy versus placebo, may be a promising targeted oral therapy for patients with PsA.”
 

SOURCE:

Dr. Kivitz presented the study findings at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 Annual Meeting, held in Vienna.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was a phase 2 trial, and larger studies in active PsA are needed (and currently being planned).
 

DISCLOSURES:

The phase 2 trial was funded by Nimbus and Takeda. Dr. Kivitz has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and UCB. He has stock or stock options in Pfizer, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, Novartis, and Pfizer and has received consultant fees from Fresenius Kabi, Genzyme, Gilead, Grunenthal, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Janssen, Pfizer, Selecta, SynAct Pharma, and Takeda. He has been part of a board or advisory board for ChemoCentryx, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, Princeton Biopartners, and UCB. Other authors also disclosed many relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

The tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor TAK-279 demonstrated superiority to placebo in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to phase 2 trial results.

METHODOLOGY:

• Eligible patients were over 18 years old, had PsA for over 6 months, met the classification criteria for PsA, and had at least three swollen and tender joints despite prior nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, or biologic treatment.
• A total of 290 patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive placebo, oral TAK-279 5 mg, 15 mg, or 30 mg once daily.
• The primary endpoint was a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at 12 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• More than half of patients assigned to TAK-279 15 mg (53.3%) and TAK-279 30 mg (54.2%) achieved ACR20 at 12 weeks, compared with 29.2% of those assigned to placebo.
• Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 response rates were also higher in patients assigned to TAK-279 30 mg (45.7%) or 15 mg (28.3%) than those in placebo (15.4%).
• Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any kind were numerically higher in the 30-mg group, though serious TEAEs were similar across all treatment arms.
• The most frequent adverse events were nasal pharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, headache, and rash, with rash being most common in the TAK-279 30-mg group.

IN PRACTICE:

“There are few targeted oral therapies for active PSA available currently,” said lead author Alan Kivitz, MD, Altoona Center for Clinical Research, Duncansville, Pennsylvania, “and [TAK-279], which was well tolerated and demonstrated superior efficacy versus placebo, may be a promising targeted oral therapy for patients with PsA.”
 

SOURCE:

Dr. Kivitz presented the study findings at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 Annual Meeting, held in Vienna.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was a phase 2 trial, and larger studies in active PsA are needed (and currently being planned).
 

DISCLOSURES:

The phase 2 trial was funded by Nimbus and Takeda. Dr. Kivitz has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and UCB. He has stock or stock options in Pfizer, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, Novartis, and Pfizer and has received consultant fees from Fresenius Kabi, Genzyme, Gilead, Grunenthal, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Janssen, Pfizer, Selecta, SynAct Pharma, and Takeda. He has been part of a board or advisory board for ChemoCentryx, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, Princeton Biopartners, and UCB. Other authors also disclosed many relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

The tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor TAK-279 demonstrated superiority to placebo in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to phase 2 trial results.

METHODOLOGY:

• Eligible patients were over 18 years old, had PsA for over 6 months, met the classification criteria for PsA, and had at least three swollen and tender joints despite prior nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, or biologic treatment.
• A total of 290 patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive placebo, oral TAK-279 5 mg, 15 mg, or 30 mg once daily.
• The primary endpoint was a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at 12 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• More than half of patients assigned to TAK-279 15 mg (53.3%) and TAK-279 30 mg (54.2%) achieved ACR20 at 12 weeks, compared with 29.2% of those assigned to placebo.
• Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 response rates were also higher in patients assigned to TAK-279 30 mg (45.7%) or 15 mg (28.3%) than those in placebo (15.4%).
• Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any kind were numerically higher in the 30-mg group, though serious TEAEs were similar across all treatment arms.
• The most frequent adverse events were nasal pharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, headache, and rash, with rash being most common in the TAK-279 30-mg group.

IN PRACTICE:

“There are few targeted oral therapies for active PSA available currently,” said lead author Alan Kivitz, MD, Altoona Center for Clinical Research, Duncansville, Pennsylvania, “and [TAK-279], which was well tolerated and demonstrated superior efficacy versus placebo, may be a promising targeted oral therapy for patients with PsA.”
 

SOURCE:

Dr. Kivitz presented the study findings at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 Annual Meeting, held in Vienna.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was a phase 2 trial, and larger studies in active PsA are needed (and currently being planned).
 

DISCLOSURES:

The phase 2 trial was funded by Nimbus and Takeda. Dr. Kivitz has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and UCB. He has stock or stock options in Pfizer, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, Novartis, and Pfizer and has received consultant fees from Fresenius Kabi, Genzyme, Gilead, Grunenthal, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Janssen, Pfizer, Selecta, SynAct Pharma, and Takeda. He has been part of a board or advisory board for ChemoCentryx, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, Princeton Biopartners, and UCB. Other authors also disclosed many relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment of patients with active psoriatic arthritis with sonelokimab — an interleukin (IL)-17A- and IL-17F-inhibiting nanobody — led to a higher percentage of patients with 50% or greater improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) compared with the placebo in a phase 2 trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Sonelokimab is a 40-kDa nanobody that binds to IL-17A, IL-17F, and albumin.
• Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with active PsA (at least three swollen and three tender joints) and had a psoriasis diagnosis.
• A total of 207 patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to every 4 weeks receive placebo, sonelokimab 60 mg with no induction (NI) period, sonelokimab 60 mg with induction, and sonelokimab 120 mg with induction.
• Induction was once every 2 weeks up to week 8 of the trial.
• The primary endpoint was meeting ACR20 response criteria at 12 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 46% of patients in the sonelokimab 120-mg and 60-mg groups achieved ACR50, compared with 36.6% in the sonelokimab 60-mg NI group and 20% of those assigned to placebo.
• ACR20 and 90% or greater reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score response rates were higher in all three sonelokimab groups than in the placebo group.
• There were no unexpected safety findings during the trial, and no cases of inflammatory bowel disease or major cardiovascular events.
• There were two cases of oral candidiasis, which did not lead to study discontinuation.

IN PRACTICE:

These data “support further exploration in phase 3 trials of sonelokimab to evaluate its potential for the treatment of PsA,” the authors noted in the presentation.

SOURCE:

Iain B. McInnes, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, presented these phase 2 trial results at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 Annual Congress, held in Vienna.

LIMITATIONS:

The results are from a phase 2 trial, and more research is needed.

DISCLOSURES:

MoonLake Immunotherapeutics funded the research. Dr. McInnes disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Causeway Therapeutics, Cabaletta Bio, Compugen, Evelo, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB. Other authors also disclosed many relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment of patients with active psoriatic arthritis with sonelokimab — an interleukin (IL)-17A- and IL-17F-inhibiting nanobody — led to a higher percentage of patients with 50% or greater improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) compared with the placebo in a phase 2 trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Sonelokimab is a 40-kDa nanobody that binds to IL-17A, IL-17F, and albumin.
• Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with active PsA (at least three swollen and three tender joints) and had a psoriasis diagnosis.
• A total of 207 patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to every 4 weeks receive placebo, sonelokimab 60 mg with no induction (NI) period, sonelokimab 60 mg with induction, and sonelokimab 120 mg with induction.
• Induction was once every 2 weeks up to week 8 of the trial.
• The primary endpoint was meeting ACR20 response criteria at 12 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 46% of patients in the sonelokimab 120-mg and 60-mg groups achieved ACR50, compared with 36.6% in the sonelokimab 60-mg NI group and 20% of those assigned to placebo.
• ACR20 and 90% or greater reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score response rates were higher in all three sonelokimab groups than in the placebo group.
• There were no unexpected safety findings during the trial, and no cases of inflammatory bowel disease or major cardiovascular events.
• There were two cases of oral candidiasis, which did not lead to study discontinuation.

IN PRACTICE:

These data “support further exploration in phase 3 trials of sonelokimab to evaluate its potential for the treatment of PsA,” the authors noted in the presentation.

SOURCE:

Iain B. McInnes, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, presented these phase 2 trial results at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 Annual Congress, held in Vienna.

LIMITATIONS:

The results are from a phase 2 trial, and more research is needed.

DISCLOSURES:

MoonLake Immunotherapeutics funded the research. Dr. McInnes disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Causeway Therapeutics, Cabaletta Bio, Compugen, Evelo, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB. Other authors also disclosed many relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment of patients with active psoriatic arthritis with sonelokimab — an interleukin (IL)-17A- and IL-17F-inhibiting nanobody — led to a higher percentage of patients with 50% or greater improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) compared with the placebo in a phase 2 trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Sonelokimab is a 40-kDa nanobody that binds to IL-17A, IL-17F, and albumin.
• Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with active PsA (at least three swollen and three tender joints) and had a psoriasis diagnosis.
• A total of 207 patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to every 4 weeks receive placebo, sonelokimab 60 mg with no induction (NI) period, sonelokimab 60 mg with induction, and sonelokimab 120 mg with induction.
• Induction was once every 2 weeks up to week 8 of the trial.
• The primary endpoint was meeting ACR20 response criteria at 12 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 46% of patients in the sonelokimab 120-mg and 60-mg groups achieved ACR50, compared with 36.6% in the sonelokimab 60-mg NI group and 20% of those assigned to placebo.
• ACR20 and 90% or greater reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score response rates were higher in all three sonelokimab groups than in the placebo group.
• There were no unexpected safety findings during the trial, and no cases of inflammatory bowel disease or major cardiovascular events.
• There were two cases of oral candidiasis, which did not lead to study discontinuation.

IN PRACTICE:

These data “support further exploration in phase 3 trials of sonelokimab to evaluate its potential for the treatment of PsA,” the authors noted in the presentation.

SOURCE:

Iain B. McInnes, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, presented these phase 2 trial results at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 Annual Congress, held in Vienna.

LIMITATIONS:

The results are from a phase 2 trial, and more research is needed.

DISCLOSURES:

MoonLake Immunotherapeutics funded the research. Dr. McInnes disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Causeway Therapeutics, Cabaletta Bio, Compugen, Evelo, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB. Other authors also disclosed many relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance that does not require additional switching studies for biosimilars seeking interchangeability. These studies were previously recommended to demonstrate that switching between the biosimilar and its reference product showed no greater risk than using the reference product alone.

“The recommendations in today’s draft guidance, when finalized, will provide clarity and transparency about the FDA’s thinking and align the review and approval process with existing and emerging science,” said Sarah Yim, MD, director of the FDA’s Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in a statement on June 20. “We have gained valuable experience reviewing both biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar medications over the past 10 years. Both biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars meet the same high standard of biosimilarity for FDA approval and both are as safe and effective as the reference product.”

An interchangeable status allows a biosimilar product to be swapped with the reference product without involvement from the prescribing provider, depending on state law.

While switching studies were not required under previous FDA guidance, the 2019 document did state that the agency “expects that applications generally will include data from a switching study or studies in one or more appropriate conditions of use.”

However, of the 13 biosimilars that received interchangeability status, 9 did not include switching study data.

“Experience has shown that, for the products approved as biosimilars to date, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy is insignificant following single or multiple switches between a reference product and a biosimilar product,” the FDA stated. The agency’s investigators also conducted a systematic review of switching studies, which found no differences in risk for death, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuations in participants switched between biosimilars and reference products and those that remained on reference products.

“Additionally, today’s analytical tools can accurately evaluate the structure and effects [of] biologic products, both in the lab (in vitro) and in living organisms (in vivo) with more precision and sensitivity than switching studies,” the agency noted.

The FDA is now calling for commentary on these draft recommendations to be submitted by Aug. 20, 2024.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance that does not require additional switching studies for biosimilars seeking interchangeability. These studies were previously recommended to demonstrate that switching between the biosimilar and its reference product showed no greater risk than using the reference product alone.

“The recommendations in today’s draft guidance, when finalized, will provide clarity and transparency about the FDA’s thinking and align the review and approval process with existing and emerging science,” said Sarah Yim, MD, director of the FDA’s Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in a statement on June 20. “We have gained valuable experience reviewing both biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar medications over the past 10 years. Both biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars meet the same high standard of biosimilarity for FDA approval and both are as safe and effective as the reference product.”

An interchangeable status allows a biosimilar product to be swapped with the reference product without involvement from the prescribing provider, depending on state law.

While switching studies were not required under previous FDA guidance, the 2019 document did state that the agency “expects that applications generally will include data from a switching study or studies in one or more appropriate conditions of use.”

However, of the 13 biosimilars that received interchangeability status, 9 did not include switching study data.

“Experience has shown that, for the products approved as biosimilars to date, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy is insignificant following single or multiple switches between a reference product and a biosimilar product,” the FDA stated. The agency’s investigators also conducted a systematic review of switching studies, which found no differences in risk for death, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuations in participants switched between biosimilars and reference products and those that remained on reference products.

“Additionally, today’s analytical tools can accurately evaluate the structure and effects [of] biologic products, both in the lab (in vitro) and in living organisms (in vivo) with more precision and sensitivity than switching studies,” the agency noted.

The FDA is now calling for commentary on these draft recommendations to be submitted by Aug. 20, 2024.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance that does not require additional switching studies for biosimilars seeking interchangeability. These studies were previously recommended to demonstrate that switching between the biosimilar and its reference product showed no greater risk than using the reference product alone.

“The recommendations in today’s draft guidance, when finalized, will provide clarity and transparency about the FDA’s thinking and align the review and approval process with existing and emerging science,” said Sarah Yim, MD, director of the FDA’s Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in a statement on June 20. “We have gained valuable experience reviewing both biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar medications over the past 10 years. Both biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars meet the same high standard of biosimilarity for FDA approval and both are as safe and effective as the reference product.”

An interchangeable status allows a biosimilar product to be swapped with the reference product without involvement from the prescribing provider, depending on state law.

While switching studies were not required under previous FDA guidance, the 2019 document did state that the agency “expects that applications generally will include data from a switching study or studies in one or more appropriate conditions of use.”

However, of the 13 biosimilars that received interchangeability status, 9 did not include switching study data.

“Experience has shown that, for the products approved as biosimilars to date, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy is insignificant following single or multiple switches between a reference product and a biosimilar product,” the FDA stated. The agency’s investigators also conducted a systematic review of switching studies, which found no differences in risk for death, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuations in participants switched between biosimilars and reference products and those that remained on reference products.

“Additionally, today’s analytical tools can accurately evaluate the structure and effects [of] biologic products, both in the lab (in vitro) and in living organisms (in vivo) with more precision and sensitivity than switching studies,” the agency noted.

The FDA is now calling for commentary on these draft recommendations to be submitted by Aug. 20, 2024.

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

Federal health officials with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have issued an alert, warning health professionals and the public about an increased risk for dengue virus infections in the United States.

The global incidence of dengue in 2024 is the highest on record, reported the agency.

In the Americas, more than 9.7 million cases of dengue have been reported in the first 6 months of 2024 — more than double the 4.6 million cases reported in all of 2023.

In the United States, Puerto Rico has declared a public health emergency, with 1498 dengue cases reported so far and a “higher-than-expected” number of dengue cases having been identified among US travelers in the first half of this year at 745 cases, according to the alert.

The CDC reports 197 dengue cases in Florida, 134 in New York, 50 in Massachusetts, 40 in California, 14 in Colorado, nine in Arizona, and eight in the District of Columbia, among others.

Transmitted by infected Aedes genus mosquitoes, dengue is the most common arboviral disease globally and is a nationally notifiable disease in the United States.

The six US territories and freely associated states with frequent or continuous dengue transmission are Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau.
 

Monitoring for Dengue

With rising global and domestic cases of dengue, the CDC urges healthcare providers to monitor for dengue:

• Maintain a high index of suspicion in patients with fever who have been in areas with frequent or continuous dengue transmission within 14 days before illness onset.
• Order diagnostic tests for acute dengue infection such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody tests or nonstructural protein 1 antigen tests and IgM antibody tests.
• Ensure timely reporting of dengue cases to public health authorities.
• Promote mosquito bite prevention measures among people living in or visiting areas with frequent or continuous dengue transmission.

Roughly one in four dengue virus infections are symptomatic and can be mild or severe. Symptoms begin after an incubation period of about 5-7 days.

Symptoms include fever accompanied by nonspecific signs and symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, rash, muscle aches, joint pain, bone pain, pain behind the eyes, headache, or low white blood cell counts.
 

Disease Progression

Warning signs that may predict progression to severe disease include abdominal pain or tenderness, persistent vomiting, clinical fluid accumulation, mucosal bleeding, lethargy or restlessness, and progressive increase in hematocrit or liver enlargement.

One in 20 people with symptomatic dengue will develop severe disease, with bleeding, shock, or respiratory distress caused by plasma leakage or end-organ impairment.

Infants aged a year or younger, pregnant people, adults aged 65 years or older, people with certain medical conditions, and those with previous dengue infections are at increased risk for severe dengue.

“Healthcare providers should be prepared to recognize, diagnose, manage, and report dengue cases to health authorities; public health partners should investigate cases and disseminate clear prevention messages to the public,” the alert stated.

The CDC is actively implementing several strategies to address the increase in cases of dengue in the United States. In early April, the agency launched a program-led emergency response and is providing monthly situational updates on dengue to partners, stakeholders, and jurisdictions.

The CDC is also expanding laboratory capacity to improve laboratory testing approaches; collaborating with state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments to strengthen dengue surveillance and recommend prevention strategies; and working to educate the public on dengue prevention.

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

Federal health officials with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have issued an alert, warning health professionals and the public about an increased risk for dengue virus infections in the United States.

The global incidence of dengue in 2024 is the highest on record, reported the agency.

In the Americas, more than 9.7 million cases of dengue have been reported in the first 6 months of 2024 — more than double the 4.6 million cases reported in all of 2023.

In the United States, Puerto Rico has declared a public health emergency, with 1498 dengue cases reported so far and a “higher-than-expected” number of dengue cases having been identified among US travelers in the first half of this year at 745 cases, according to the alert.

The CDC reports 197 dengue cases in Florida, 134 in New York, 50 in Massachusetts, 40 in California, 14 in Colorado, nine in Arizona, and eight in the District of Columbia, among others.

Transmitted by infected Aedes genus mosquitoes, dengue is the most common arboviral disease globally and is a nationally notifiable disease in the United States.

The six US territories and freely associated states with frequent or continuous dengue transmission are Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau.
 

Monitoring for Dengue

With rising global and domestic cases of dengue, the CDC urges healthcare providers to monitor for dengue:

• Maintain a high index of suspicion in patients with fever who have been in areas with frequent or continuous dengue transmission within 14 days before illness onset.
• Order diagnostic tests for acute dengue infection such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody tests or nonstructural protein 1 antigen tests and IgM antibody tests.
• Ensure timely reporting of dengue cases to public health authorities.
• Promote mosquito bite prevention measures among people living in or visiting areas with frequent or continuous dengue transmission.

Roughly one in four dengue virus infections are symptomatic and can be mild or severe. Symptoms begin after an incubation period of about 5-7 days.

Symptoms include fever accompanied by nonspecific signs and symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, rash, muscle aches, joint pain, bone pain, pain behind the eyes, headache, or low white blood cell counts.
 

Disease Progression

Warning signs that may predict progression to severe disease include abdominal pain or tenderness, persistent vomiting, clinical fluid accumulation, mucosal bleeding, lethargy or restlessness, and progressive increase in hematocrit or liver enlargement.

One in 20 people with symptomatic dengue will develop severe disease, with bleeding, shock, or respiratory distress caused by plasma leakage or end-organ impairment.

Infants aged a year or younger, pregnant people, adults aged 65 years or older, people with certain medical conditions, and those with previous dengue infections are at increased risk for severe dengue.

“Healthcare providers should be prepared to recognize, diagnose, manage, and report dengue cases to health authorities; public health partners should investigate cases and disseminate clear prevention messages to the public,” the alert stated.

The CDC is actively implementing several strategies to address the increase in cases of dengue in the United States. In early April, the agency launched a program-led emergency response and is providing monthly situational updates on dengue to partners, stakeholders, and jurisdictions.

The CDC is also expanding laboratory capacity to improve laboratory testing approaches; collaborating with state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments to strengthen dengue surveillance and recommend prevention strategies; and working to educate the public on dengue prevention.

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

Federal health officials with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have issued an alert, warning health professionals and the public about an increased risk for dengue virus infections in the United States.

The global incidence of dengue in 2024 is the highest on record, reported the agency.

In the Americas, more than 9.7 million cases of dengue have been reported in the first 6 months of 2024 — more than double the 4.6 million cases reported in all of 2023.

In the United States, Puerto Rico has declared a public health emergency, with 1498 dengue cases reported so far and a “higher-than-expected” number of dengue cases having been identified among US travelers in the first half of this year at 745 cases, according to the alert.

The CDC reports 197 dengue cases in Florida, 134 in New York, 50 in Massachusetts, 40 in California, 14 in Colorado, nine in Arizona, and eight in the District of Columbia, among others.

Transmitted by infected Aedes genus mosquitoes, dengue is the most common arboviral disease globally and is a nationally notifiable disease in the United States.

The six US territories and freely associated states with frequent or continuous dengue transmission are Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau.
 

Monitoring for Dengue

With rising global and domestic cases of dengue, the CDC urges healthcare providers to monitor for dengue:

• Maintain a high index of suspicion in patients with fever who have been in areas with frequent or continuous dengue transmission within 14 days before illness onset.
• Order diagnostic tests for acute dengue infection such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody tests or nonstructural protein 1 antigen tests and IgM antibody tests.
• Ensure timely reporting of dengue cases to public health authorities.
• Promote mosquito bite prevention measures among people living in or visiting areas with frequent or continuous dengue transmission.

Roughly one in four dengue virus infections are symptomatic and can be mild or severe. Symptoms begin after an incubation period of about 5-7 days.

Symptoms include fever accompanied by nonspecific signs and symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, rash, muscle aches, joint pain, bone pain, pain behind the eyes, headache, or low white blood cell counts.
 

Disease Progression

Warning signs that may predict progression to severe disease include abdominal pain or tenderness, persistent vomiting, clinical fluid accumulation, mucosal bleeding, lethargy or restlessness, and progressive increase in hematocrit or liver enlargement.

One in 20 people with symptomatic dengue will develop severe disease, with bleeding, shock, or respiratory distress caused by plasma leakage or end-organ impairment.

Infants aged a year or younger, pregnant people, adults aged 65 years or older, people with certain medical conditions, and those with previous dengue infections are at increased risk for severe dengue.

“Healthcare providers should be prepared to recognize, diagnose, manage, and report dengue cases to health authorities; public health partners should investigate cases and disseminate clear prevention messages to the public,” the alert stated.

The CDC is actively implementing several strategies to address the increase in cases of dengue in the United States. In early April, the agency launched a program-led emergency response and is providing monthly situational updates on dengue to partners, stakeholders, and jurisdictions.

The CDC is also expanding laboratory capacity to improve laboratory testing approaches; collaborating with state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments to strengthen dengue surveillance and recommend prevention strategies; and working to educate the public on dengue prevention.

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

Halifax, Nova Scotia; American Samoa; Queens, New York; Lansing, Michigan; Gurugram, India. I often ask patients where they’re from. Practicing in San Diego, the answers are a geography lesson. People from around the world come here. I sometimes add the more interesting question: How’d you end up here? Many took the three highways to San Diego: the Navy, the defense industry (like General Dynamics), or followed a partner. My Queens patient had a better answer: Super Bowl XXII. On Sunday, Jan. 31st, 1988, the Redskins played the Broncos in San Diego. John Elway and the Broncos lost, but it didn’t matter. “I was scrapin’ the ice off my windshield that Monday morning when I thought, that’s it. I’m done! I drove to the garage where I worked and quit on the spot. Then I drove home and packed my bags.”

In a paper on how to make life decisions, this guy would be Exhibit A: “Don’t overthink it.” That approach might not be suitable for everyone, or for every decision. It might actually be an example of how not to make life decisions (more on that later). But, is there a best way to go about making big life decisions?

The first treatise on this subject was a paper by one Franklin, Ben in 1772. Providing advice to a friend on how to make a career decision, Franklin argued: “My way is to divide half a sheet of paper by a line into two columns; writing over the one Pro and over the other Con.” This “moral algebra” as he called it was a framework to put rigor to a messy, organic problem.

wrawecihokilospeslofriphohobuchibiletutawrospepehophastephechewrubrelopadrocosleswobislimimumesoclupiuiposwocihistithophabru

The flaw in this method is that in the end you have two lists. Then what? Do the length of the lists decide? What if some factors are more important? Well, let’s add tools to help. You could use a spreadsheet and assign weights to each variable. Then sum the values and choose based on that. So if “not scraping ice off your windshield” is twice as important as “doubling your rent,” then you’ve got your answer. But what if you aren’t good at estimating how important things are? Actually, most of us are pretty awful at assigning weights to life variables – having bags of money is the consummate example. Seems important, but because of habituation, it turns out to not be sustainable. Note Exhibit B, our wealthy neighbor who owns a Lambo and G-Wagen (AMG squared, of course), who just parked a Cybertruck in his driveway. Realizing the risk of depending on peoples’ flawed judgment, companies instead use statistical modeling called bootstrap aggregating to “vote” on the weights for variables in a prediction. If you aren’t sure how important a new Rivian or walking to the beach would be, a model can answer that for you! It’s a bit disconcerting, I know. I mean, how can a model know what we’d like? Wait, isn’t that how Netflix picks stuff for you? Exactly.

Ok, so why don’t we just ask our friendly personal AI? “OK, ChatGPT, given what you know about me, where can I have it all?” Alas, here we slam into a glass wall. It seems the answer is out there but even our life-changing magical AI tools fail us. Mathematically, it is impossible to have it all. An illustrative example of this is called the economic “impossible trinity problem.” Even the most sophisticated algorithm cannot find an optional solution to some trinities such as fixed foreign exchange rate, free capital movement, and an independent monetary policy. Economists have concluded you must trade off one to have the other two. Impossible trinities are common in economics and in life. Armistead Maupin in his “Tales of the City” codifies it as Mona’s Law, the essence of which is: You cannot have the perfect job, the perfect partner, and the perfect house at the same time. (See Exhibit C, one Tom Brady).

[embed:render:related:node:267456]

This brings me to my final point, hard decisions are matters of the heart and experiencing life is the best way to understand its beautiful chaos. If making rash judgments is ill-advised and using technology cannot solve all problems (try asking your AI buddy for the square root of 2 as a fraction) what tools can we use? Maybe try reading more novels. They allow us to experience multiple lifetimes in a short time, which is what we need to learn what matters. Reading Dorothea’s choice at the end of “Middlemarch” is a nice example. Should she give up Lowick Manor and marry the penniless Ladislaw or keep it and use her wealth to help others? Seeing her struggle helps us understand how to answer questions like: Should I give up my academic practice or marry that guy or move to Texas? These cannot be reduced to arithmetic. The only way to know is to know as much of life as possible.

My last visit with my Queens patient was our last together. He’s divorced and moving from San Diego to Gallatin, Tennessee. “I’ve paid my last taxes to California, Doc. I decided that’s it, I’m done!” Perhaps he should have read “The Grapes of Wrath” before he set out for California in the first place.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Halifax, Nova Scotia; American Samoa; Queens, New York; Lansing, Michigan; Gurugram, India. I often ask patients where they’re from. Practicing in San Diego, the answers are a geography lesson. People from around the world come here. I sometimes add the more interesting question: How’d you end up here? Many took the three highways to San Diego: the Navy, the defense industry (like General Dynamics), or followed a partner. My Queens patient had a better answer: Super Bowl XXII. On Sunday, Jan. 31st, 1988, the Redskins played the Broncos in San Diego. John Elway and the Broncos lost, but it didn’t matter. “I was scrapin’ the ice off my windshield that Monday morning when I thought, that’s it. I’m done! I drove to the garage where I worked and quit on the spot. Then I drove home and packed my bags.”

In a paper on how to make life decisions, this guy would be Exhibit A: “Don’t overthink it.” That approach might not be suitable for everyone, or for every decision. It might actually be an example of how not to make life decisions (more on that later). But, is there a best way to go about making big life decisions?

The first treatise on this subject was a paper by one Franklin, Ben in 1772. Providing advice to a friend on how to make a career decision, Franklin argued: “My way is to divide half a sheet of paper by a line into two columns; writing over the one Pro and over the other Con.” This “moral algebra” as he called it was a framework to put rigor to a messy, organic problem.

wrawecihokilospeslofriphohobuchibiletutawrospepehophastephechewrubrelopadrocosleswobislimimumesoclupiuiposwocihistithophabru

The flaw in this method is that in the end you have two lists. Then what? Do the length of the lists decide? What if some factors are more important? Well, let’s add tools to help. You could use a spreadsheet and assign weights to each variable. Then sum the values and choose based on that. So if “not scraping ice off your windshield” is twice as important as “doubling your rent,” then you’ve got your answer. But what if you aren’t good at estimating how important things are? Actually, most of us are pretty awful at assigning weights to life variables – having bags of money is the consummate example. Seems important, but because of habituation, it turns out to not be sustainable. Note Exhibit B, our wealthy neighbor who owns a Lambo and G-Wagen (AMG squared, of course), who just parked a Cybertruck in his driveway. Realizing the risk of depending on peoples’ flawed judgment, companies instead use statistical modeling called bootstrap aggregating to “vote” on the weights for variables in a prediction. If you aren’t sure how important a new Rivian or walking to the beach would be, a model can answer that for you! It’s a bit disconcerting, I know. I mean, how can a model know what we’d like? Wait, isn’t that how Netflix picks stuff for you? Exactly.

Ok, so why don’t we just ask our friendly personal AI? “OK, ChatGPT, given what you know about me, where can I have it all?” Alas, here we slam into a glass wall. It seems the answer is out there but even our life-changing magical AI tools fail us. Mathematically, it is impossible to have it all. An illustrative example of this is called the economic “impossible trinity problem.” Even the most sophisticated algorithm cannot find an optional solution to some trinities such as fixed foreign exchange rate, free capital movement, and an independent monetary policy. Economists have concluded you must trade off one to have the other two. Impossible trinities are common in economics and in life. Armistead Maupin in his “Tales of the City” codifies it as Mona’s Law, the essence of which is: You cannot have the perfect job, the perfect partner, and the perfect house at the same time. (See Exhibit C, one Tom Brady).

[embed:render:related:node:267456]

This brings me to my final point, hard decisions are matters of the heart and experiencing life is the best way to understand its beautiful chaos. If making rash judgments is ill-advised and using technology cannot solve all problems (try asking your AI buddy for the square root of 2 as a fraction) what tools can we use? Maybe try reading more novels. They allow us to experience multiple lifetimes in a short time, which is what we need to learn what matters. Reading Dorothea’s choice at the end of “Middlemarch” is a nice example. Should she give up Lowick Manor and marry the penniless Ladislaw or keep it and use her wealth to help others? Seeing her struggle helps us understand how to answer questions like: Should I give up my academic practice or marry that guy or move to Texas? These cannot be reduced to arithmetic. The only way to know is to know as much of life as possible.

My last visit with my Queens patient was our last together. He’s divorced and moving from San Diego to Gallatin, Tennessee. “I’ve paid my last taxes to California, Doc. I decided that’s it, I’m done!” Perhaps he should have read “The Grapes of Wrath” before he set out for California in the first place.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Halifax, Nova Scotia; American Samoa; Queens, New York; Lansing, Michigan; Gurugram, India. I often ask patients where they’re from. Practicing in San Diego, the answers are a geography lesson. People from around the world come here. I sometimes add the more interesting question: How’d you end up here? Many took the three highways to San Diego: the Navy, the defense industry (like General Dynamics), or followed a partner. My Queens patient had a better answer: Super Bowl XXII. On Sunday, Jan. 31st, 1988, the Redskins played the Broncos in San Diego. John Elway and the Broncos lost, but it didn’t matter. “I was scrapin’ the ice off my windshield that Monday morning when I thought, that’s it. I’m done! I drove to the garage where I worked and quit on the spot. Then I drove home and packed my bags.”

In a paper on how to make life decisions, this guy would be Exhibit A: “Don’t overthink it.” That approach might not be suitable for everyone, or for every decision. It might actually be an example of how not to make life decisions (more on that later). But, is there a best way to go about making big life decisions?

The first treatise on this subject was a paper by one Franklin, Ben in 1772. Providing advice to a friend on how to make a career decision, Franklin argued: “My way is to divide half a sheet of paper by a line into two columns; writing over the one Pro and over the other Con.” This “moral algebra” as he called it was a framework to put rigor to a messy, organic problem.

wrawecihokilospeslofriphohobuchibiletutawrospepehophastephechewrubrelopadrocosleswobislimimumesoclupiuiposwocihistithophabru

The flaw in this method is that in the end you have two lists. Then what? Do the length of the lists decide? What if some factors are more important? Well, let’s add tools to help. You could use a spreadsheet and assign weights to each variable. Then sum the values and choose based on that. So if “not scraping ice off your windshield” is twice as important as “doubling your rent,” then you’ve got your answer. But what if you aren’t good at estimating how important things are? Actually, most of us are pretty awful at assigning weights to life variables – having bags of money is the consummate example. Seems important, but because of habituation, it turns out to not be sustainable. Note Exhibit B, our wealthy neighbor who owns a Lambo and G-Wagen (AMG squared, of course), who just parked a Cybertruck in his driveway. Realizing the risk of depending on peoples’ flawed judgment, companies instead use statistical modeling called bootstrap aggregating to “vote” on the weights for variables in a prediction. If you aren’t sure how important a new Rivian or walking to the beach would be, a model can answer that for you! It’s a bit disconcerting, I know. I mean, how can a model know what we’d like? Wait, isn’t that how Netflix picks stuff for you? Exactly.

Ok, so why don’t we just ask our friendly personal AI? “OK, ChatGPT, given what you know about me, where can I have it all?” Alas, here we slam into a glass wall. It seems the answer is out there but even our life-changing magical AI tools fail us. Mathematically, it is impossible to have it all. An illustrative example of this is called the economic “impossible trinity problem.” Even the most sophisticated algorithm cannot find an optional solution to some trinities such as fixed foreign exchange rate, free capital movement, and an independent monetary policy. Economists have concluded you must trade off one to have the other two. Impossible trinities are common in economics and in life. Armistead Maupin in his “Tales of the City” codifies it as Mona’s Law, the essence of which is: You cannot have the perfect job, the perfect partner, and the perfect house at the same time. (See Exhibit C, one Tom Brady).

[embed:render:related:node:267456]

This brings me to my final point, hard decisions are matters of the heart and experiencing life is the best way to understand its beautiful chaos. If making rash judgments is ill-advised and using technology cannot solve all problems (try asking your AI buddy for the square root of 2 as a fraction) what tools can we use? Maybe try reading more novels. They allow us to experience multiple lifetimes in a short time, which is what we need to learn what matters. Reading Dorothea’s choice at the end of “Middlemarch” is a nice example. Should she give up Lowick Manor and marry the penniless Ladislaw or keep it and use her wealth to help others? Seeing her struggle helps us understand how to answer questions like: Should I give up my academic practice or marry that guy or move to Texas? These cannot be reduced to arithmetic. The only way to know is to know as much of life as possible.

My last visit with my Queens patient was our last together. He’s divorced and moving from San Diego to Gallatin, Tennessee. “I’ve paid my last taxes to California, Doc. I decided that’s it, I’m done!” Perhaps he should have read “The Grapes of Wrath” before he set out for California in the first place.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

MONTREAL – Levels of neurofilament light chain (Nfl) may be a biomarker of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN), new research suggests.

Investigators found Nfl levels increased in cancer patients following a first infusion of the medication paclitaxel and corresponded to neuropathy severity 6-12 months post-treatment, suggesting the blood protein may provide an early CIPN biomarker.

“Nfl after a single cycle could detect axonal degeneration,” said lead investigator Masarra Joda, a researcher and PhD candidate at the University of Sydney in Australia. She added that “quantification of Nfl may provide a clinically useful marker of emerging neurotoxicity in patients vulnerable to CIPN.”

The findings were presented at the Peripheral Nerve Society (PNS) 2024 annual meeting.
 

Common, Burdensome Side Effect

A common side effect of chemotherapy, CIPN manifests as sensory neuropathy and causes degeneration of the peripheral axons. A protein biomarker of axonal degeneration, Nfl has previously been investigated as a way of identifying patients at risk of CIPN.

The goal of the current study was to identify the potential link between Nfl with neurophysiological markers of axon degeneration in patients receiving the neurotoxin chemotherapy paclitaxel.

The study included 93 cancer patients. All were assessed at the beginning, middle, and end of treatment. CIPN was assessed using blood samples of Nfl and the Total Neuropathy Score (TNS), the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) neuropathy scale, and patient-reported measures using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Module (EORTC-CIPN20).

Axonal degeneration was measured with neurophysiological tests including sural nerve compound sensory action potential (CSAP) for the lower limbs, and sensory median nerve CSAP, as well as stimulus threshold testing, for the upper limbs. 

Almost all of study participants (97%) were female. The majority (66%) had breast cancer and 30% had gynecological cancer. Most (73%) were receiving a weekly regimen of paclitaxel, and the remainder were treated with taxanes plus platinum once every 3 weeks. By the end of treatment, 82% of the patients had developed CIPN, which was mild in 44% and moderate/severe in 38%. 

Nfl levels increased significantly from baseline to after the first dose of chemotherapy (P < .001), “highlighting that nerve damage occurs from the very beginning of treatment,” senior investigator Susanna Park, PhD, told this news organization. 

In addition, “patients with higher Nfl levels after a single paclitaxel treatment had greater neuropathy at the end of treatment (higher EORTC scores [P ≤ .026], and higher TNS scores [P ≤ .00]),” added Dr. Park, who is associate professor at the University of Sydney.

“Importantly, we also looked at long-term outcomes beyond the end of chemotherapy, because chronic neuropathy produces a significant burden in cancer survivors,” said Dr. Park. 

“Among a total of 44 patients who completed the 6- to 12-month post-treatment follow-up, NfL levels after a single treatment were linked to severity of nerve damage quantified with neurophysiological tests, and greater Nfl levels at mid-treatment were correlated with worse patient and neurologically graded neuropathy at 6-12 months.”

Dr. Park said the results suggest that NfL may provide a biomarker of long-term axon damage and that Nfl assays “may enable clinicians to evaluate the risk of long-term toxicity early during paclitaxel treatment to hopefully provide clinically significant information to guide better treatment titration.” 

Currently, she said, CIPN is a prominent cause of dose reduction and early chemotherapy cessation. 

“For example, in early breast cancer around 25% of patients experience a dose reduction due to the severity of neuropathy symptoms.” But, she said, “there is no standardized way of identifying which patients are at risk of long-term neuropathy and therefore, may benefit more from dose reduction. In this setting, a biomarker such as Nfl could provide oncologists with more information about the risk of long-term toxicity and take that into account in dose decision-making.” 

For some cancers, she added, there are multiple potential therapy options.

“A biomarker such as NfL could assist in determining risk-benefit profile in terms of switching to alternate therapies. However, further studies will be needed to fully define the utility of NfL as a biomarker of paclitaxel neuropathy.” 
 

Promising Research

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Maryam Lustberg, MD, associate professor, director of the Center for Breast Cancer at Smilow Cancer Hospital and Yale Cancer Center, and chief of Breast Medical Oncology at Yale Cancer Center, in New Haven, Connecticut, said the study “builds on a body of work previously reported by others showing that neurofilament light chains as detected in the blood can be associated with early signs of neurotoxic injury.” 

She added that the research “is promising, since existing clinical and patient-reported measures tend to under-detect chemotherapy-induced neuropathy until more permanent injury might have occurred.” 

Dr. Lustberg, who is immediate past president of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, said future studies are needed before Nfl testing can be implemented in routine practice, but that “early detection will allow earlier initiation of supportive care strategies such as physical therapy and exercise, as well as dose modifications, which may be helpful for preventing permanent damage and improving quality of life.” 

The investigators and Dr. Lustberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Levels of neurofilament light chain (Nfl) may be a biomarker of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN), new research suggests.

Investigators found Nfl levels increased in cancer patients following a first infusion of the medication paclitaxel and corresponded to neuropathy severity 6-12 months post-treatment, suggesting the blood protein may provide an early CIPN biomarker.

“Nfl after a single cycle could detect axonal degeneration,” said lead investigator Masarra Joda, a researcher and PhD candidate at the University of Sydney in Australia. She added that “quantification of Nfl may provide a clinically useful marker of emerging neurotoxicity in patients vulnerable to CIPN.”

The findings were presented at the Peripheral Nerve Society (PNS) 2024 annual meeting.
 

Common, Burdensome Side Effect

A common side effect of chemotherapy, CIPN manifests as sensory neuropathy and causes degeneration of the peripheral axons. A protein biomarker of axonal degeneration, Nfl has previously been investigated as a way of identifying patients at risk of CIPN.

The goal of the current study was to identify the potential link between Nfl with neurophysiological markers of axon degeneration in patients receiving the neurotoxin chemotherapy paclitaxel.

The study included 93 cancer patients. All were assessed at the beginning, middle, and end of treatment. CIPN was assessed using blood samples of Nfl and the Total Neuropathy Score (TNS), the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) neuropathy scale, and patient-reported measures using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Module (EORTC-CIPN20).

Axonal degeneration was measured with neurophysiological tests including sural nerve compound sensory action potential (CSAP) for the lower limbs, and sensory median nerve CSAP, as well as stimulus threshold testing, for the upper limbs. 

Almost all of study participants (97%) were female. The majority (66%) had breast cancer and 30% had gynecological cancer. Most (73%) were receiving a weekly regimen of paclitaxel, and the remainder were treated with taxanes plus platinum once every 3 weeks. By the end of treatment, 82% of the patients had developed CIPN, which was mild in 44% and moderate/severe in 38%. 

Nfl levels increased significantly from baseline to after the first dose of chemotherapy (P < .001), “highlighting that nerve damage occurs from the very beginning of treatment,” senior investigator Susanna Park, PhD, told this news organization. 

In addition, “patients with higher Nfl levels after a single paclitaxel treatment had greater neuropathy at the end of treatment (higher EORTC scores [P ≤ .026], and higher TNS scores [P ≤ .00]),” added Dr. Park, who is associate professor at the University of Sydney.

“Importantly, we also looked at long-term outcomes beyond the end of chemotherapy, because chronic neuropathy produces a significant burden in cancer survivors,” said Dr. Park. 

“Among a total of 44 patients who completed the 6- to 12-month post-treatment follow-up, NfL levels after a single treatment were linked to severity of nerve damage quantified with neurophysiological tests, and greater Nfl levels at mid-treatment were correlated with worse patient and neurologically graded neuropathy at 6-12 months.”

Dr. Park said the results suggest that NfL may provide a biomarker of long-term axon damage and that Nfl assays “may enable clinicians to evaluate the risk of long-term toxicity early during paclitaxel treatment to hopefully provide clinically significant information to guide better treatment titration.” 

Currently, she said, CIPN is a prominent cause of dose reduction and early chemotherapy cessation. 

“For example, in early breast cancer around 25% of patients experience a dose reduction due to the severity of neuropathy symptoms.” But, she said, “there is no standardized way of identifying which patients are at risk of long-term neuropathy and therefore, may benefit more from dose reduction. In this setting, a biomarker such as Nfl could provide oncologists with more information about the risk of long-term toxicity and take that into account in dose decision-making.” 

For some cancers, she added, there are multiple potential therapy options.

“A biomarker such as NfL could assist in determining risk-benefit profile in terms of switching to alternate therapies. However, further studies will be needed to fully define the utility of NfL as a biomarker of paclitaxel neuropathy.” 
 

Promising Research

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Maryam Lustberg, MD, associate professor, director of the Center for Breast Cancer at Smilow Cancer Hospital and Yale Cancer Center, and chief of Breast Medical Oncology at Yale Cancer Center, in New Haven, Connecticut, said the study “builds on a body of work previously reported by others showing that neurofilament light chains as detected in the blood can be associated with early signs of neurotoxic injury.” 

She added that the research “is promising, since existing clinical and patient-reported measures tend to under-detect chemotherapy-induced neuropathy until more permanent injury might have occurred.” 

Dr. Lustberg, who is immediate past president of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, said future studies are needed before Nfl testing can be implemented in routine practice, but that “early detection will allow earlier initiation of supportive care strategies such as physical therapy and exercise, as well as dose modifications, which may be helpful for preventing permanent damage and improving quality of life.” 

The investigators and Dr. Lustberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Levels of neurofilament light chain (Nfl) may be a biomarker of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN), new research suggests.

Investigators found Nfl levels increased in cancer patients following a first infusion of the medication paclitaxel and corresponded to neuropathy severity 6-12 months post-treatment, suggesting the blood protein may provide an early CIPN biomarker.

“Nfl after a single cycle could detect axonal degeneration,” said lead investigator Masarra Joda, a researcher and PhD candidate at the University of Sydney in Australia. She added that “quantification of Nfl may provide a clinically useful marker of emerging neurotoxicity in patients vulnerable to CIPN.”

The findings were presented at the Peripheral Nerve Society (PNS) 2024 annual meeting.
 

Common, Burdensome Side Effect

A common side effect of chemotherapy, CIPN manifests as sensory neuropathy and causes degeneration of the peripheral axons. A protein biomarker of axonal degeneration, Nfl has previously been investigated as a way of identifying patients at risk of CIPN.

The goal of the current study was to identify the potential link between Nfl with neurophysiological markers of axon degeneration in patients receiving the neurotoxin chemotherapy paclitaxel.

The study included 93 cancer patients. All were assessed at the beginning, middle, and end of treatment. CIPN was assessed using blood samples of Nfl and the Total Neuropathy Score (TNS), the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) neuropathy scale, and patient-reported measures using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Module (EORTC-CIPN20).

Axonal degeneration was measured with neurophysiological tests including sural nerve compound sensory action potential (CSAP) for the lower limbs, and sensory median nerve CSAP, as well as stimulus threshold testing, for the upper limbs. 

Almost all of study participants (97%) were female. The majority (66%) had breast cancer and 30% had gynecological cancer. Most (73%) were receiving a weekly regimen of paclitaxel, and the remainder were treated with taxanes plus platinum once every 3 weeks. By the end of treatment, 82% of the patients had developed CIPN, which was mild in 44% and moderate/severe in 38%. 

Nfl levels increased significantly from baseline to after the first dose of chemotherapy (P < .001), “highlighting that nerve damage occurs from the very beginning of treatment,” senior investigator Susanna Park, PhD, told this news organization. 

In addition, “patients with higher Nfl levels after a single paclitaxel treatment had greater neuropathy at the end of treatment (higher EORTC scores [P ≤ .026], and higher TNS scores [P ≤ .00]),” added Dr. Park, who is associate professor at the University of Sydney.

“Importantly, we also looked at long-term outcomes beyond the end of chemotherapy, because chronic neuropathy produces a significant burden in cancer survivors,” said Dr. Park. 

“Among a total of 44 patients who completed the 6- to 12-month post-treatment follow-up, NfL levels after a single treatment were linked to severity of nerve damage quantified with neurophysiological tests, and greater Nfl levels at mid-treatment were correlated with worse patient and neurologically graded neuropathy at 6-12 months.”

Dr. Park said the results suggest that NfL may provide a biomarker of long-term axon damage and that Nfl assays “may enable clinicians to evaluate the risk of long-term toxicity early during paclitaxel treatment to hopefully provide clinically significant information to guide better treatment titration.” 

Currently, she said, CIPN is a prominent cause of dose reduction and early chemotherapy cessation. 

“For example, in early breast cancer around 25% of patients experience a dose reduction due to the severity of neuropathy symptoms.” But, she said, “there is no standardized way of identifying which patients are at risk of long-term neuropathy and therefore, may benefit more from dose reduction. In this setting, a biomarker such as Nfl could provide oncologists with more information about the risk of long-term toxicity and take that into account in dose decision-making.” 

For some cancers, she added, there are multiple potential therapy options.

“A biomarker such as NfL could assist in determining risk-benefit profile in terms of switching to alternate therapies. However, further studies will be needed to fully define the utility of NfL as a biomarker of paclitaxel neuropathy.” 
 

Promising Research

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Maryam Lustberg, MD, associate professor, director of the Center for Breast Cancer at Smilow Cancer Hospital and Yale Cancer Center, and chief of Breast Medical Oncology at Yale Cancer Center, in New Haven, Connecticut, said the study “builds on a body of work previously reported by others showing that neurofilament light chains as detected in the blood can be associated with early signs of neurotoxic injury.” 

She added that the research “is promising, since existing clinical and patient-reported measures tend to under-detect chemotherapy-induced neuropathy until more permanent injury might have occurred.” 

Dr. Lustberg, who is immediate past president of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, said future studies are needed before Nfl testing can be implemented in routine practice, but that “early detection will allow earlier initiation of supportive care strategies such as physical therapy and exercise, as well as dose modifications, which may be helpful for preventing permanent damage and improving quality of life.” 

The investigators and Dr. Lustberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

[embed:render:related:node:268907]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[embed:render:related:node:268907]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[embed:render:related:node:268907]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Therapeutic Continuums’ Aid Disease Management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systemic Sclerosis Research Agenda and Recommendations Align

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

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

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

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

Remission Elusive but Getting Closer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Therapeutic Continuums’ Aid Disease Management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systemic Sclerosis Research Agenda and Recommendations Align

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

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

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

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

Remission Elusive but Getting Closer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Therapeutic Continuums’ Aid Disease Management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systemic Sclerosis Research Agenda and Recommendations Align

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

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

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

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

Remission Elusive but Getting Closer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing Concerns from Health Care Organizations

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

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

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

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

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

Cyberattack Impact and Response

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

Ongoing Concerns from Health Care Organizations

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

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

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

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

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

Cyberattack Impact and Response

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

Ongoing Concerns from Health Care Organizations

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

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

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

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

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

Cyberattack Impact and Response

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

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

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

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

Open Access Defined

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Predatory Journals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact Factor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

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

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

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

Open Access Defined

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Predatory Journals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact Factor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

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

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

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

Open Access Defined

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Predatory Journals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact Factor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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