Clinical Endocrinology News

Muvalaplin, a novel oral medication, safely and effectively lowers high levels of lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), results from the phase 2 KRAKEN trial show.

Concentrations of Lp(a) cholesterol are genetically determined and remain steady throughout life. Levels of 125 nmol/L or higher promote clotting and inflammation, significantly increasing the risk for heart attack, stroke, aortic stenosis, and peripheral artery disease. This affects about 20% of the population, particularly people of Black African and South Asian descent.

There are currently no approved therapies that lower Lp(a), said study author Stephen Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, director of the Victorian Heart Institute at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Several injectable therapies are currently in clinical trials, but muvalaplin is the only oral option. The new drug lowers Lp(a) levels by disrupting the bond between the two parts of the Lp(a) particle.

 

The KRAKEN Trial

In the KRAKEN trial, 233 adults from around the world with very high Lp(a) levels (> 175 nmol/L) were randomized either to one of three daily doses of muvalaplin — 10, 60, or 240 mg — or to placebo for 12 weeks.

The researchers measured Lp(a) levels with a standard blood test and with a novel test designed to specifically measure levels of intact Lp(a) particles in the blood. In addition to Lp(a), the standard test detects one of its components, apolipoprotein A particles, that are bound to the drug, which can lead to an underestimation of Lp(a) reductions.

Lp(a) levels were up to 70.0% lower in the muvalaplin group than in the placebo group when measured with the traditional blood test and by up to 85.5% lower when measured with the new test. Approximately 82% of participants achieved an Lp(a) level lower than 125 nmol/L when measured with the traditional blood test, and 97% achieved that level when the new test was used. Patients who received either 60 or 240 mg of muvalaplin had similar reductions in Lp(a) levels, which were greater than the reductions seen in the 10 mg group. The drug was safe and generally well tolerated.

“This is a very reassuring phase 2 result,” Nicholls said when he presented the KRAKEN findings at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago, which were simultaneously published online in JAMA. “It encourages the ongoing development of this agent.”

Lp(a) levels are not affected by changes in lifestyle or diet or by traditional lipid-lowering treatments like statins, said Erin Michos, MD, a cardiologist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved in the study.

And high Lp(a) levels confer significant cardiovascular risk even when other risks are reduced. So muvalaplin is “a highly promising approach to treat a previously untreatable disorder,” she explained.

Larger and longer studies, with more diverse patient populations, are needed to confirm the results and to determine whether reducing Lp(a) also improves cardiovascular outcomes, Michos pointed out.

“While muvalaplin appears to be an effective approach to lowering Lp(a) levels, we still need to study whether Lp(a) lowering will result in fewer heart attacks and strokes,” Nicholls added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Muvalaplin, a novel oral medication, safely and effectively lowers high levels of lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), results from the phase 2 KRAKEN trial show.

Concentrations of Lp(a) cholesterol are genetically determined and remain steady throughout life. Levels of 125 nmol/L or higher promote clotting and inflammation, significantly increasing the risk for heart attack, stroke, aortic stenosis, and peripheral artery disease. This affects about 20% of the population, particularly people of Black African and South Asian descent.

There are currently no approved therapies that lower Lp(a), said study author Stephen Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, director of the Victorian Heart Institute at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Several injectable therapies are currently in clinical trials, but muvalaplin is the only oral option. The new drug lowers Lp(a) levels by disrupting the bond between the two parts of the Lp(a) particle.

 

The KRAKEN Trial

In the KRAKEN trial, 233 adults from around the world with very high Lp(a) levels (> 175 nmol/L) were randomized either to one of three daily doses of muvalaplin — 10, 60, or 240 mg — or to placebo for 12 weeks.

The researchers measured Lp(a) levels with a standard blood test and with a novel test designed to specifically measure levels of intact Lp(a) particles in the blood. In addition to Lp(a), the standard test detects one of its components, apolipoprotein A particles, that are bound to the drug, which can lead to an underestimation of Lp(a) reductions.

Lp(a) levels were up to 70.0% lower in the muvalaplin group than in the placebo group when measured with the traditional blood test and by up to 85.5% lower when measured with the new test. Approximately 82% of participants achieved an Lp(a) level lower than 125 nmol/L when measured with the traditional blood test, and 97% achieved that level when the new test was used. Patients who received either 60 or 240 mg of muvalaplin had similar reductions in Lp(a) levels, which were greater than the reductions seen in the 10 mg group. The drug was safe and generally well tolerated.

“This is a very reassuring phase 2 result,” Nicholls said when he presented the KRAKEN findings at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago, which were simultaneously published online in JAMA. “It encourages the ongoing development of this agent.”

Lp(a) levels are not affected by changes in lifestyle or diet or by traditional lipid-lowering treatments like statins, said Erin Michos, MD, a cardiologist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved in the study.

And high Lp(a) levels confer significant cardiovascular risk even when other risks are reduced. So muvalaplin is “a highly promising approach to treat a previously untreatable disorder,” she explained.

Larger and longer studies, with more diverse patient populations, are needed to confirm the results and to determine whether reducing Lp(a) also improves cardiovascular outcomes, Michos pointed out.

“While muvalaplin appears to be an effective approach to lowering Lp(a) levels, we still need to study whether Lp(a) lowering will result in fewer heart attacks and strokes,” Nicholls added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Muvalaplin, a novel oral medication, safely and effectively lowers high levels of lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), results from the phase 2 KRAKEN trial show.

Concentrations of Lp(a) cholesterol are genetically determined and remain steady throughout life. Levels of 125 nmol/L or higher promote clotting and inflammation, significantly increasing the risk for heart attack, stroke, aortic stenosis, and peripheral artery disease. This affects about 20% of the population, particularly people of Black African and South Asian descent.

There are currently no approved therapies that lower Lp(a), said study author Stephen Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, director of the Victorian Heart Institute at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Several injectable therapies are currently in clinical trials, but muvalaplin is the only oral option. The new drug lowers Lp(a) levels by disrupting the bond between the two parts of the Lp(a) particle.

 

The KRAKEN Trial

In the KRAKEN trial, 233 adults from around the world with very high Lp(a) levels (> 175 nmol/L) were randomized either to one of three daily doses of muvalaplin — 10, 60, or 240 mg — or to placebo for 12 weeks.

The researchers measured Lp(a) levels with a standard blood test and with a novel test designed to specifically measure levels of intact Lp(a) particles in the blood. In addition to Lp(a), the standard test detects one of its components, apolipoprotein A particles, that are bound to the drug, which can lead to an underestimation of Lp(a) reductions.

Lp(a) levels were up to 70.0% lower in the muvalaplin group than in the placebo group when measured with the traditional blood test and by up to 85.5% lower when measured with the new test. Approximately 82% of participants achieved an Lp(a) level lower than 125 nmol/L when measured with the traditional blood test, and 97% achieved that level when the new test was used. Patients who received either 60 or 240 mg of muvalaplin had similar reductions in Lp(a) levels, which were greater than the reductions seen in the 10 mg group. The drug was safe and generally well tolerated.

“This is a very reassuring phase 2 result,” Nicholls said when he presented the KRAKEN findings at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago, which were simultaneously published online in JAMA. “It encourages the ongoing development of this agent.”

Lp(a) levels are not affected by changes in lifestyle or diet or by traditional lipid-lowering treatments like statins, said Erin Michos, MD, a cardiologist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved in the study.

And high Lp(a) levels confer significant cardiovascular risk even when other risks are reduced. So muvalaplin is “a highly promising approach to treat a previously untreatable disorder,” she explained.

Larger and longer studies, with more diverse patient populations, are needed to confirm the results and to determine whether reducing Lp(a) also improves cardiovascular outcomes, Michos pointed out.

“While muvalaplin appears to be an effective approach to lowering Lp(a) levels, we still need to study whether Lp(a) lowering will result in fewer heart attacks and strokes,” Nicholls added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Light-intensity walking reduces postprandial glucose and diastolic blood pressure in young adults with obesity and can improve insulin levels, depending on the walking pattern.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized crossover trial with 16 young adults aged 18-34 years with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 in Bangkok, Thailand, to examine the effects of different light-intensity walking patterns on postprandial cardiometabolic responses.
• Participants (mean age, 25; mean BMI, 29.8) engaged in four 7-hour experimental conditions, each involving a different activity: Uninterrupted sitting, 30-minutes of light-intensity walking, 3-minute light-intensity walking every 30 minutes, or a combination of both walking regimens. There was a 7- to 20-day washout period between each experiment period.
• Baseline and 6-hour postprandial concentrations of glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and blood pressure were measured.
• Incremental areas under the curve (iAUC) for each outcome and average blood pressure were compared between sitting and walking conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• All the walking interventions reduced postprandial glucose concentrations and diastolic blood pressure compared with uninterrupted sitting.
• Continuous 30-minute light-intensity walking alone or combined with brief 3-minute bouts also attenuated postprandial insulin concentrations.
• No significant differences were found for triglycerides iAUC and systolic blood pressure between the four experiment conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the notion that engaging in light-intensity walking, regardless of the pattern, provides benefits to glycemic control. Moreover, the timing and patterns of light-intensity physical activity may be an important factor in reducing postprandial insulin concentrations,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Waris Wongpipit, PhD, Division of Health and Physical Education, Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand, was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s small sample size of 16 participants may limit the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of the study (7-hour experimental conditions) may not reflect long-term effects. The prescribed activities and dietary profiles, along with the controlled laboratory setting, may not accurately represent real-world conditions. The lack of objective physical activity/sedentary behavior measurement to confirm compliance between conditions is a limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, Thailand Science Research and Innovation, and Chulalongkorn University. Wongpipit received grant support from these organizations. Paddy C. Dempsey is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia research fellowship. The other authors had no disclosures.

 

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

TOPLINE:

Light-intensity walking reduces postprandial glucose and diastolic blood pressure in young adults with obesity and can improve insulin levels, depending on the walking pattern.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized crossover trial with 16 young adults aged 18-34 years with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 in Bangkok, Thailand, to examine the effects of different light-intensity walking patterns on postprandial cardiometabolic responses.
• Participants (mean age, 25; mean BMI, 29.8) engaged in four 7-hour experimental conditions, each involving a different activity: Uninterrupted sitting, 30-minutes of light-intensity walking, 3-minute light-intensity walking every 30 minutes, or a combination of both walking regimens. There was a 7- to 20-day washout period between each experiment period.
• Baseline and 6-hour postprandial concentrations of glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and blood pressure were measured.
• Incremental areas under the curve (iAUC) for each outcome and average blood pressure were compared between sitting and walking conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• All the walking interventions reduced postprandial glucose concentrations and diastolic blood pressure compared with uninterrupted sitting.
• Continuous 30-minute light-intensity walking alone or combined with brief 3-minute bouts also attenuated postprandial insulin concentrations.
• No significant differences were found for triglycerides iAUC and systolic blood pressure between the four experiment conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the notion that engaging in light-intensity walking, regardless of the pattern, provides benefits to glycemic control. Moreover, the timing and patterns of light-intensity physical activity may be an important factor in reducing postprandial insulin concentrations,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Waris Wongpipit, PhD, Division of Health and Physical Education, Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand, was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s small sample size of 16 participants may limit the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of the study (7-hour experimental conditions) may not reflect long-term effects. The prescribed activities and dietary profiles, along with the controlled laboratory setting, may not accurately represent real-world conditions. The lack of objective physical activity/sedentary behavior measurement to confirm compliance between conditions is a limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, Thailand Science Research and Innovation, and Chulalongkorn University. Wongpipit received grant support from these organizations. Paddy C. Dempsey is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia research fellowship. The other authors had no disclosures.

 

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

TOPLINE:

Light-intensity walking reduces postprandial glucose and diastolic blood pressure in young adults with obesity and can improve insulin levels, depending on the walking pattern.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized crossover trial with 16 young adults aged 18-34 years with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 in Bangkok, Thailand, to examine the effects of different light-intensity walking patterns on postprandial cardiometabolic responses.
• Participants (mean age, 25; mean BMI, 29.8) engaged in four 7-hour experimental conditions, each involving a different activity: Uninterrupted sitting, 30-minutes of light-intensity walking, 3-minute light-intensity walking every 30 minutes, or a combination of both walking regimens. There was a 7- to 20-day washout period between each experiment period.
• Baseline and 6-hour postprandial concentrations of glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and blood pressure were measured.
• Incremental areas under the curve (iAUC) for each outcome and average blood pressure were compared between sitting and walking conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• All the walking interventions reduced postprandial glucose concentrations and diastolic blood pressure compared with uninterrupted sitting.
• Continuous 30-minute light-intensity walking alone or combined with brief 3-minute bouts also attenuated postprandial insulin concentrations.
• No significant differences were found for triglycerides iAUC and systolic blood pressure between the four experiment conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the notion that engaging in light-intensity walking, regardless of the pattern, provides benefits to glycemic control. Moreover, the timing and patterns of light-intensity physical activity may be an important factor in reducing postprandial insulin concentrations,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Waris Wongpipit, PhD, Division of Health and Physical Education, Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand, was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s small sample size of 16 participants may limit the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of the study (7-hour experimental conditions) may not reflect long-term effects. The prescribed activities and dietary profiles, along with the controlled laboratory setting, may not accurately represent real-world conditions. The lack of objective physical activity/sedentary behavior measurement to confirm compliance between conditions is a limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, Thailand Science Research and Innovation, and Chulalongkorn University. Wongpipit received grant support from these organizations. Paddy C. Dempsey is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia research fellowship. The other authors had no disclosures.

 

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

WASHINGTON — Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduced the need for urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and gout flare therapies in people who had both type 2 diabetes (T2D) and gout, new research has found.

Data from a large US claims database showed that SGLT2i use was associated with a 31% lower rate of initiation of ULT. “This provides further support for the use of SLGT2i therapy in patients with gout, particularly those with high-risk multimorbidity and polypharmacy,” Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The first agent of the SGLT2i class, dapagliflozin, was initially approved in the United States a decade ago for treating T2D. Since then, several other “flozins” have become available, and some have also received additional indications for heart failure and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. Several prior studies have linked SGLT2i use with lower rates of gout flares as well as lower likelihood of developing gout in the first place, although not all studies have found this benefit.

Asked about the clinical implications of the new data, Challener said in an interview that “I don’t think we’re quite at the point where this is changing gout management per se, but this just helps us understand that [SGT2is] may have a role at some point, maybe as a combination on top of another agent. Or, in some patients, it really may be enough if they’re already on an SGLT2i where we don’t need to jump to adding allopurinol. Maybe they have tophi, but they were just started on an SGLT2i and they’re not flaring. Typically, you would start those patients on allopurinol, but you could potentially just monitor them if they were just started on one of those [SGLT2i] agents.” 

Asked to comment, session moderator J. Antonio Aviña-Zubieta, MD, PhD, head of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and senior scientist at Arthritis Research Canada, said in an interview: “What I can see possibly happening when there’s more evidence is that SGLT2is may be used or even become standard of care as an adjuvant therapy to decrease flares, and by that, decrease the risk of complications.”

 

Reductions in ULT, Flares, and Healthcare Visits

The new study used administrative health data from the multicenter TriNetX Diamond network of electronic medical record and claims data from 92 healthcare sites with 212 million patients. Among those with both T2D and gout who were not taking ULT at baseline, a total of 16,104 initiated SGLT2is and 16,046 initiated glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA).

Propensity score matching was conducted for demographics including age, race, and sex; comorbidities; use of emergency, inpatient, and critical care services; medications; labs; and body mass index. That yielded 11,800 individuals each in the SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA groups.

Over 5 years, 9.9% of the SGLT2i group vs 13.4% of those using GLP-1 RA had initiated ULT, a significant difference with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75). The risk for initiation of colchicine for gout flares was 4.7% with SGLT2i vs 6.0% for GLP-1 RA — also a significant difference with an HR of 0.74 (0.65-0.83).

Medical visits for gout occurred in 28.0% vs 28.4% of patients, which also reached statistical significance (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99).

Aviña-Zubieta, an author of one of the previous studies finding a reduction in gout flares with SGLT2i, said, “many patients do not want to start gout therapy until they start having more acute attacks. ... So, for a lot of people, it’s a burden taking another pill to prevent one attack. But, if you don’t treat it over time, the attacks come more often. So, can we still delay the initiation of therapy? If you’re not having that many flares, you’re decreasing the burden of the disease and polypharmacy, which I think is the potential benefit in the long run if you already have an indication for the therapy for diabetes. ... These data are supporting that.” 

Indeed, Challener said these data can help in counseling patients. “Taking your SGLT2i for your heart failure and your diabetes is also providing some benefit for your gout, and we know that there is also cardiac benefit when gout is controlled.” 

Challener and Aviña-Zubieta had no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduced the need for urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and gout flare therapies in people who had both type 2 diabetes (T2D) and gout, new research has found.

Data from a large US claims database showed that SGLT2i use was associated with a 31% lower rate of initiation of ULT. “This provides further support for the use of SLGT2i therapy in patients with gout, particularly those with high-risk multimorbidity and polypharmacy,” Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The first agent of the SGLT2i class, dapagliflozin, was initially approved in the United States a decade ago for treating T2D. Since then, several other “flozins” have become available, and some have also received additional indications for heart failure and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. Several prior studies have linked SGLT2i use with lower rates of gout flares as well as lower likelihood of developing gout in the first place, although not all studies have found this benefit.

Asked about the clinical implications of the new data, Challener said in an interview that “I don’t think we’re quite at the point where this is changing gout management per se, but this just helps us understand that [SGT2is] may have a role at some point, maybe as a combination on top of another agent. Or, in some patients, it really may be enough if they’re already on an SGLT2i where we don’t need to jump to adding allopurinol. Maybe they have tophi, but they were just started on an SGLT2i and they’re not flaring. Typically, you would start those patients on allopurinol, but you could potentially just monitor them if they were just started on one of those [SGLT2i] agents.” 

Asked to comment, session moderator J. Antonio Aviña-Zubieta, MD, PhD, head of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and senior scientist at Arthritis Research Canada, said in an interview: “What I can see possibly happening when there’s more evidence is that SGLT2is may be used or even become standard of care as an adjuvant therapy to decrease flares, and by that, decrease the risk of complications.”

 

Reductions in ULT, Flares, and Healthcare Visits

The new study used administrative health data from the multicenter TriNetX Diamond network of electronic medical record and claims data from 92 healthcare sites with 212 million patients. Among those with both T2D and gout who were not taking ULT at baseline, a total of 16,104 initiated SGLT2is and 16,046 initiated glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA).

Propensity score matching was conducted for demographics including age, race, and sex; comorbidities; use of emergency, inpatient, and critical care services; medications; labs; and body mass index. That yielded 11,800 individuals each in the SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA groups.

Over 5 years, 9.9% of the SGLT2i group vs 13.4% of those using GLP-1 RA had initiated ULT, a significant difference with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75). The risk for initiation of colchicine for gout flares was 4.7% with SGLT2i vs 6.0% for GLP-1 RA — also a significant difference with an HR of 0.74 (0.65-0.83).

Medical visits for gout occurred in 28.0% vs 28.4% of patients, which also reached statistical significance (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99).

Aviña-Zubieta, an author of one of the previous studies finding a reduction in gout flares with SGLT2i, said, “many patients do not want to start gout therapy until they start having more acute attacks. ... So, for a lot of people, it’s a burden taking another pill to prevent one attack. But, if you don’t treat it over time, the attacks come more often. So, can we still delay the initiation of therapy? If you’re not having that many flares, you’re decreasing the burden of the disease and polypharmacy, which I think is the potential benefit in the long run if you already have an indication for the therapy for diabetes. ... These data are supporting that.” 

Indeed, Challener said these data can help in counseling patients. “Taking your SGLT2i for your heart failure and your diabetes is also providing some benefit for your gout, and we know that there is also cardiac benefit when gout is controlled.” 

Challener and Aviña-Zubieta had no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduced the need for urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and gout flare therapies in people who had both type 2 diabetes (T2D) and gout, new research has found.

Data from a large US claims database showed that SGLT2i use was associated with a 31% lower rate of initiation of ULT. “This provides further support for the use of SLGT2i therapy in patients with gout, particularly those with high-risk multimorbidity and polypharmacy,” Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The first agent of the SGLT2i class, dapagliflozin, was initially approved in the United States a decade ago for treating T2D. Since then, several other “flozins” have become available, and some have also received additional indications for heart failure and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. Several prior studies have linked SGLT2i use with lower rates of gout flares as well as lower likelihood of developing gout in the first place, although not all studies have found this benefit.

Asked about the clinical implications of the new data, Challener said in an interview that “I don’t think we’re quite at the point where this is changing gout management per se, but this just helps us understand that [SGT2is] may have a role at some point, maybe as a combination on top of another agent. Or, in some patients, it really may be enough if they’re already on an SGLT2i where we don’t need to jump to adding allopurinol. Maybe they have tophi, but they were just started on an SGLT2i and they’re not flaring. Typically, you would start those patients on allopurinol, but you could potentially just monitor them if they were just started on one of those [SGLT2i] agents.” 

Asked to comment, session moderator J. Antonio Aviña-Zubieta, MD, PhD, head of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and senior scientist at Arthritis Research Canada, said in an interview: “What I can see possibly happening when there’s more evidence is that SGLT2is may be used or even become standard of care as an adjuvant therapy to decrease flares, and by that, decrease the risk of complications.”

 

Reductions in ULT, Flares, and Healthcare Visits

The new study used administrative health data from the multicenter TriNetX Diamond network of electronic medical record and claims data from 92 healthcare sites with 212 million patients. Among those with both T2D and gout who were not taking ULT at baseline, a total of 16,104 initiated SGLT2is and 16,046 initiated glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA).

Propensity score matching was conducted for demographics including age, race, and sex; comorbidities; use of emergency, inpatient, and critical care services; medications; labs; and body mass index. That yielded 11,800 individuals each in the SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA groups.

Over 5 years, 9.9% of the SGLT2i group vs 13.4% of those using GLP-1 RA had initiated ULT, a significant difference with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75). The risk for initiation of colchicine for gout flares was 4.7% with SGLT2i vs 6.0% for GLP-1 RA — also a significant difference with an HR of 0.74 (0.65-0.83).

Medical visits for gout occurred in 28.0% vs 28.4% of patients, which also reached statistical significance (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99).

Aviña-Zubieta, an author of one of the previous studies finding a reduction in gout flares with SGLT2i, said, “many patients do not want to start gout therapy until they start having more acute attacks. ... So, for a lot of people, it’s a burden taking another pill to prevent one attack. But, if you don’t treat it over time, the attacks come more often. So, can we still delay the initiation of therapy? If you’re not having that many flares, you’re decreasing the burden of the disease and polypharmacy, which I think is the potential benefit in the long run if you already have an indication for the therapy for diabetes. ... These data are supporting that.” 

Indeed, Challener said these data can help in counseling patients. “Taking your SGLT2i for your heart failure and your diabetes is also providing some benefit for your gout, and we know that there is also cardiac benefit when gout is controlled.” 

Challener and Aviña-Zubieta had no disclosures.

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

I’m just back from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

In part 2 of this series, I’m offering my highlights from this year’s meeting. (Part 1 is available here.) They are not presented in any particular order, but instead I am sharing what I found to be the most exciting among the thousands of abstracts and presentations. 

 

Performing Capsule Endoscopy in Patients Taking GLP-1s 

We’ve heard a lot about glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and the possibility that they might contribute to an increased risk for retained gastric contents and aspiration during endoscopy.

In the first study I’d like to highlight, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, investigated video capsule endoscopy in patients with diabetes who were taking GLP-1 RAs vs a control group with diabetes not taking GLP-1 Ras. Patients in this retrospective matched cohort study were well balanced for demographics and diabetes-related characteristics.

Researchers found that in 7% of the 68 patients in the GLP-1 RA cohort, the video capsule endoscopy actually failed to pass through the stomach, whereas it passed successfully in all 68 patients in the control group (P =.06). The GLP-1 RA cohort had a longer transit time by a factor of almost four times (P <.001).

Multivariate analysis also showed that gastric transit time was approximately 80 minutes longer in the GLP-1 RA cohort (P <.001). Interestingly, 23.5% (16 of 68 patients) in the GLP-1 RA group experienced incomplete passage of the video capsule endoscopy through the small intestine, which was significantly higher than the proportion observed in the control group (4.4%; P <.01). 

We need to look at potential strategies to mitigate these effects. Be aware of these results as you perform capsule endoscopy in patients taking GLP-1 RAs. 

 

Barrett Esophagus On the Rise in the Young 

The second study that caught my eye revealed the increasing incidence of young-onset Barrett esophagus (BE).

This population-based study used data obtained from TriNetX, a multi-institutional national database that offers a composite of health records from 88 healthcare organizations. Eligible patients had to have a negative upper esophagogastroduodenoscopy for BE prior to subsequently developing BE. Researchers stratified patients as to whether they were younger (< 50 years) or older (≥ 50 years), with further age ranges analyzed within those groups. 

Young-onset BE accounted for 20% of all incident cases. The majority (94%) had nondysplastic BE. The incidence rate was not significantly different depending on whether patients were in the 45- to 49-year or 50- to 54-year age group. 

Regression analysis revealed that there was a significantly increased trend for young-onset BE with hiatal hernia (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), smoking (OR, 2.3), White race (OR, 2.3), obstructive sleep apnea (OR, 2.2), male gender (OR, 2.0), and — at relatively lower risk levels — gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms (OR, 1.2) and body mass index (OR, 1.1). The researchers did not analyze patients based on the presence of obesity, which is one of the risk factors for BE mentioned in national guidelines.

Results also showed that 6% of those with young-onset BE had BE-related neoplasia. 

ACG guidelines recommend screening for BE beginning at age 50 in those with some of the risk factors noted in this study, including the presence of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. However, doing so may not capture the growing number of patients with young-onset BE. 

We’ve seen a similar rise in rates of young-onset colorectal cancer, which has caused us to reevaluate our screening methods. Maybe we should do this for BE as well, specifically for patients presenting with these risk factors. 

There’s a caveat to be aware of, which comes from my personal experience. I was biopsied for short-segment BE, and because it came up on my health record, it increased my life insurance premiums. This was because I was identified as having the risk profile of, essentially, an otherwise healthy smoker. 

Dr Nicholas J. Shaheen and colleagues published a study several years ago showing that many insurance companies would not certify young, otherwise healthy people once diagnosed with BE. This is something to be aware of when you start to screen for BE, especially among younger patients.

 

A Novel Biologic for Eosinophilic Esophagitis 

The next study presented results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of cendakimab, a biologic agent in development for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

Dupilumab, which is an anti–interleukin (IL)-4 antibody, is the first treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of EoE. Cendakimab, in turn, is a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes IL-13, a cytokine that plays a key role in EoE. 

The study was led by Dr Evan Dellon from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dellon and colleagues analyzed two different dosing regimens of cendakimab — 360 mg once weekly for 48 weeks, or 360 mg once weekly for 24 weeks followed by 360 mg every other week for 24 weeks — vs placebo for 48 weeks. 

There was a significant effect for both cendakimab regimens in terms of symptom improvement and histologic response. There wasn’t much difference between participants that maintained once-weekly dosing and those who switched over to receive cendakimab every other week at 24 weeks. Only a minimal number of serious adverse events leading to discontinuation were noted in the study, with no notable difference between the treatment groups. 

I think we’ll probably see this drug become available to us soon after it goes through the FDA review process, at which point it will add to our ability to use formative biologics in patients with EoE.

 

No Clear Benefit to Adding Bezlotoxumab to Fecal Microbiota Transplantation 

Next was a very interesting study, and I think a clinically relevant one, about using fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) alone or in combination with bezlotoxumab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection.

Bezlotoxumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to C difficile toxin B. This drug has been studied and is approved for use, but it’s also extremely expensive, at a cost of approximately $4000 per dose. 

Patients with IBD were eligible for inclusion if they had had two or more episodes of C difficile infection. They were then randomized in a 1:1 ration to receive either a single infusion of bezlotoxumab or placebo prior to FMT. The primary endpoint was C difficile infection recurrence within 8 weeks, which was defined as diarrhea plus a positive enzyme immunoassay toxin test. The secondary outcome was C difficile decolonization following treatment. 

Researchers observed no statistically significant difference between the two cohorts. Steroid use prior to FMT significantly increased the risk for ongoing C difficile colonization (P =.03). 

In summary, this is a case where it doesn’t seem that more is better. Bezlotoxumab didn’t add much, which calls into question the justification for its combined use with FMT. 

 

Additional Positive Data for Seladelpar in Primary Biliary Cholangitis and Cirrhosis 

Reassuring findings were presented on seladelpar, which was granted accelerated approval by the FDA in August. 

Seladelpar is a selective peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor delta agonist that works in biliary cholangitis by regulating the genes involved in blocking biliary bile acid synthesis and controlling inflammation and fibrosis. 

Results from the phase 3 RESPONSE trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in February reporting on the use of seladelpar in primary biliary cholangitis.

Whereas the RESPONSE trial removed decompensated patients, the ongoing phase 3 ASSURE trial results presented at this year’s meeting included patients with compensated cirrhosis. Approximately 94% of the patients in this study had Child-Pugh class A and 6% had class B cirrhosis. Eligibility required that patients had an inadequate response or were intolerant to ursodeoxycholic acid. Patients were administered open-label seladelpar 10 mg orally daily and followed for up to 1 year.

The good news is that there were no safety signals, which is reassuring news for our patients with compensated cirrhosis. 

 

Advantages to Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination in IBD 

Another study that offered results certainly worthy of attention dealt with vaccination recommendations in patients with IBD. 

Vaccination for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is now available in the United States. Its use was recommended for patients with IBD as early as 2021 per the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology’s clinical practice guideline, which discusses both live and nonlive vaccines. We should be aggressive in recommending this vaccine to our patients with IBD, but we haven’t really had one until recently. 

Researchers behind this retrospective cohort study used the TriNetX database, which includes over 100 million unique patient charts. They identified patients with IBD, who were then divided into two groups according to whether they received the RSV vaccine or not. 

Although this analysis was conducted in patients > 60 years of age, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends RSV vaccination for all those over the age of 75 years, as well as for those 60-74 years old based on severity of risk. 

For the primary endpoint of risk for RSV pneumonia, the OR was dramatically better in those who were vaccinated, with an approximately 80% risk reduction. Additionally, vaccinated patients experienced risk reductions of approximately 60% for acute respiratory failure, 50% for hospital inpatient admission, and 70% for requiring intensive care unit services. 

This is a strong study showing not only that RSV vaccine did not exacerbate IBD but also that it improved outcomes in these patients. There’s a live-attenuated RSV vaccination that’s administered intranasally, which wouldn’t be used in your biologic or immunosuppressed patients with IBD, but the intramuscularly administered RSV vaccine doesn’t have any risk.

I think we can immediately begin recommending the RSV vaccine for our patients with IBD, particularly in those 60 years of age or older.

 

The Impact of Palliative Care Consultations in Decompensated Cirrhosis 

The next study I’d like to highlight offers important data on the impact of palliative care consultation on 30- and 90-day readmission in patients with decompensated cirrhosis, which is a major cause of morbidity and mortality.

Researchers queried the National Readmissions Database over a 10-year period (2010-2019) to determine whether patients received a palliative care consult during index admission. They drew on a population of over 1.6 million patients admitted with decompensated cirrhosis. 

Of this group, only 7.4% received a palliative care consultation at the index admission. But if they had this consultation, it was associated with a dramatic effect on readmission at 30 and 90 days. There was statistically significant risk reduction of approximately 70% for both 30- and 90-day readmission compared with those who didn’t receive the palliative consult (P <.001).

The take-home message here is to get a palliative care consult with these patients when they come in. Your hospital will unquestionably experience value in this reduction in readmission, especially considering that readmission within 30 days may not even be covered. Look at these results and start to take advantage of this valuable consultation.

 

Auxora: A Novel Treatment for Acute Pancreatitis 

The last study for discussion offered very interesting data related to a drug called Auxora, a calcium release–activated calcium-channel inhibitor.

There is growing data that overactive calcium release–activated calcium channels aggravate acute pancreatitis and accelerate systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).

Acute pancreatitis with necrosis encompasses both local and systemic inflammation and is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. It is estimated that among patients with acute pancreatitis, 20%-30% have pancreatic necrosis, 30% develop infection, and 25% develop organ failure. 

The presence of SIRS seems to herald the activation of these complex inflammatory pathways, which then leads to organ failure and necrosis, which can potentially be stemmed through this calcium channel inhibitor. Phase 2 studies of Auxora found that its use was associated with significant reduction in the risk for progression.

This subsequent phase 3 study looked at patients with acute pancreatitis and accompanying grade ≥ 2 SIRS criteria. They were randomized to receive placebo or Auxora at doses of 2 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, or 0.5 mg/kg, which was administered intravenously over 4 hours for 3 consecutive days. 

The primary endpoint was time to solid food tolerance, which was defined as eating ≥ 50% of a ≥ 500-calorie low-fat solid meal without increased abdominal pain or emesis, which is an important target because we always aim for enteral nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis. The key secondary endpoint was severe respiratory failure, which was defined as invasive mechanical ventilation or ≥ 48 hours of either high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. 

The primary endpoint was dramatically improved among those receiving Auxora, who achieved early onset of refeed. It appears that the high-dose 2 mg/kg may be the most beneficial in achieving improvement. 

There were no patients with suspected or unexpected adverse events in the study population. Additionally, no patients receiving Auxora at any dose level went on to develop respiratory failure. 

The present results show that Auxora decreases the time for solid food tolerance, as well as the rates of respiratory failure and necrotizing pancreatitis in patients presenting with two or more SIRS criteria. We’ll certainly look forward to more data, but it provides hope for a new treatment for acute pancreatitis.

There were lots of intriguing data presented at ACG 2024. Obviously, we’d like to see them evolve in subsequent journal manuscripts. 

Some of the take-home messages I presented are actionable now, whereas for others, we’ll have to wait and see what the final data show as well as the results of ongoing FDA approval before applying them. 

 

Dr Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He reported serving in an advisory position with ISOTHRIVE. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

I’m just back from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

In part 2 of this series, I’m offering my highlights from this year’s meeting. (Part 1 is available here.) They are not presented in any particular order, but instead I am sharing what I found to be the most exciting among the thousands of abstracts and presentations. 

 

Performing Capsule Endoscopy in Patients Taking GLP-1s 

We’ve heard a lot about glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and the possibility that they might contribute to an increased risk for retained gastric contents and aspiration during endoscopy.

In the first study I’d like to highlight, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, investigated video capsule endoscopy in patients with diabetes who were taking GLP-1 RAs vs a control group with diabetes not taking GLP-1 Ras. Patients in this retrospective matched cohort study were well balanced for demographics and diabetes-related characteristics.

Researchers found that in 7% of the 68 patients in the GLP-1 RA cohort, the video capsule endoscopy actually failed to pass through the stomach, whereas it passed successfully in all 68 patients in the control group (P =.06). The GLP-1 RA cohort had a longer transit time by a factor of almost four times (P <.001).

Multivariate analysis also showed that gastric transit time was approximately 80 minutes longer in the GLP-1 RA cohort (P <.001). Interestingly, 23.5% (16 of 68 patients) in the GLP-1 RA group experienced incomplete passage of the video capsule endoscopy through the small intestine, which was significantly higher than the proportion observed in the control group (4.4%; P <.01). 

We need to look at potential strategies to mitigate these effects. Be aware of these results as you perform capsule endoscopy in patients taking GLP-1 RAs. 

 

Barrett Esophagus On the Rise in the Young 

The second study that caught my eye revealed the increasing incidence of young-onset Barrett esophagus (BE).

This population-based study used data obtained from TriNetX, a multi-institutional national database that offers a composite of health records from 88 healthcare organizations. Eligible patients had to have a negative upper esophagogastroduodenoscopy for BE prior to subsequently developing BE. Researchers stratified patients as to whether they were younger (< 50 years) or older (≥ 50 years), with further age ranges analyzed within those groups. 

Young-onset BE accounted for 20% of all incident cases. The majority (94%) had nondysplastic BE. The incidence rate was not significantly different depending on whether patients were in the 45- to 49-year or 50- to 54-year age group. 

Regression analysis revealed that there was a significantly increased trend for young-onset BE with hiatal hernia (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), smoking (OR, 2.3), White race (OR, 2.3), obstructive sleep apnea (OR, 2.2), male gender (OR, 2.0), and — at relatively lower risk levels — gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms (OR, 1.2) and body mass index (OR, 1.1). The researchers did not analyze patients based on the presence of obesity, which is one of the risk factors for BE mentioned in national guidelines.

Results also showed that 6% of those with young-onset BE had BE-related neoplasia. 

ACG guidelines recommend screening for BE beginning at age 50 in those with some of the risk factors noted in this study, including the presence of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. However, doing so may not capture the growing number of patients with young-onset BE. 

We’ve seen a similar rise in rates of young-onset colorectal cancer, which has caused us to reevaluate our screening methods. Maybe we should do this for BE as well, specifically for patients presenting with these risk factors. 

There’s a caveat to be aware of, which comes from my personal experience. I was biopsied for short-segment BE, and because it came up on my health record, it increased my life insurance premiums. This was because I was identified as having the risk profile of, essentially, an otherwise healthy smoker. 

Dr Nicholas J. Shaheen and colleagues published a study several years ago showing that many insurance companies would not certify young, otherwise healthy people once diagnosed with BE. This is something to be aware of when you start to screen for BE, especially among younger patients.

 

A Novel Biologic for Eosinophilic Esophagitis 

The next study presented results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of cendakimab, a biologic agent in development for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

Dupilumab, which is an anti–interleukin (IL)-4 antibody, is the first treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of EoE. Cendakimab, in turn, is a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes IL-13, a cytokine that plays a key role in EoE. 

The study was led by Dr Evan Dellon from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dellon and colleagues analyzed two different dosing regimens of cendakimab — 360 mg once weekly for 48 weeks, or 360 mg once weekly for 24 weeks followed by 360 mg every other week for 24 weeks — vs placebo for 48 weeks. 

There was a significant effect for both cendakimab regimens in terms of symptom improvement and histologic response. There wasn’t much difference between participants that maintained once-weekly dosing and those who switched over to receive cendakimab every other week at 24 weeks. Only a minimal number of serious adverse events leading to discontinuation were noted in the study, with no notable difference between the treatment groups. 

I think we’ll probably see this drug become available to us soon after it goes through the FDA review process, at which point it will add to our ability to use formative biologics in patients with EoE.

 

No Clear Benefit to Adding Bezlotoxumab to Fecal Microbiota Transplantation 

Next was a very interesting study, and I think a clinically relevant one, about using fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) alone or in combination with bezlotoxumab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection.

Bezlotoxumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to C difficile toxin B. This drug has been studied and is approved for use, but it’s also extremely expensive, at a cost of approximately $4000 per dose. 

Patients with IBD were eligible for inclusion if they had had two or more episodes of C difficile infection. They were then randomized in a 1:1 ration to receive either a single infusion of bezlotoxumab or placebo prior to FMT. The primary endpoint was C difficile infection recurrence within 8 weeks, which was defined as diarrhea plus a positive enzyme immunoassay toxin test. The secondary outcome was C difficile decolonization following treatment. 

Researchers observed no statistically significant difference between the two cohorts. Steroid use prior to FMT significantly increased the risk for ongoing C difficile colonization (P =.03). 

In summary, this is a case where it doesn’t seem that more is better. Bezlotoxumab didn’t add much, which calls into question the justification for its combined use with FMT. 

 

Additional Positive Data for Seladelpar in Primary Biliary Cholangitis and Cirrhosis 

Reassuring findings were presented on seladelpar, which was granted accelerated approval by the FDA in August. 

Seladelpar is a selective peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor delta agonist that works in biliary cholangitis by regulating the genes involved in blocking biliary bile acid synthesis and controlling inflammation and fibrosis. 

Results from the phase 3 RESPONSE trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in February reporting on the use of seladelpar in primary biliary cholangitis.

Whereas the RESPONSE trial removed decompensated patients, the ongoing phase 3 ASSURE trial results presented at this year’s meeting included patients with compensated cirrhosis. Approximately 94% of the patients in this study had Child-Pugh class A and 6% had class B cirrhosis. Eligibility required that patients had an inadequate response or were intolerant to ursodeoxycholic acid. Patients were administered open-label seladelpar 10 mg orally daily and followed for up to 1 year.

The good news is that there were no safety signals, which is reassuring news for our patients with compensated cirrhosis. 

 

Advantages to Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination in IBD 

Another study that offered results certainly worthy of attention dealt with vaccination recommendations in patients with IBD. 

Vaccination for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is now available in the United States. Its use was recommended for patients with IBD as early as 2021 per the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology’s clinical practice guideline, which discusses both live and nonlive vaccines. We should be aggressive in recommending this vaccine to our patients with IBD, but we haven’t really had one until recently. 

Researchers behind this retrospective cohort study used the TriNetX database, which includes over 100 million unique patient charts. They identified patients with IBD, who were then divided into two groups according to whether they received the RSV vaccine or not. 

Although this analysis was conducted in patients > 60 years of age, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends RSV vaccination for all those over the age of 75 years, as well as for those 60-74 years old based on severity of risk. 

For the primary endpoint of risk for RSV pneumonia, the OR was dramatically better in those who were vaccinated, with an approximately 80% risk reduction. Additionally, vaccinated patients experienced risk reductions of approximately 60% for acute respiratory failure, 50% for hospital inpatient admission, and 70% for requiring intensive care unit services. 

This is a strong study showing not only that RSV vaccine did not exacerbate IBD but also that it improved outcomes in these patients. There’s a live-attenuated RSV vaccination that’s administered intranasally, which wouldn’t be used in your biologic or immunosuppressed patients with IBD, but the intramuscularly administered RSV vaccine doesn’t have any risk.

I think we can immediately begin recommending the RSV vaccine for our patients with IBD, particularly in those 60 years of age or older.

 

The Impact of Palliative Care Consultations in Decompensated Cirrhosis 

The next study I’d like to highlight offers important data on the impact of palliative care consultation on 30- and 90-day readmission in patients with decompensated cirrhosis, which is a major cause of morbidity and mortality.

Researchers queried the National Readmissions Database over a 10-year period (2010-2019) to determine whether patients received a palliative care consult during index admission. They drew on a population of over 1.6 million patients admitted with decompensated cirrhosis. 

Of this group, only 7.4% received a palliative care consultation at the index admission. But if they had this consultation, it was associated with a dramatic effect on readmission at 30 and 90 days. There was statistically significant risk reduction of approximately 70% for both 30- and 90-day readmission compared with those who didn’t receive the palliative consult (P <.001).

The take-home message here is to get a palliative care consult with these patients when they come in. Your hospital will unquestionably experience value in this reduction in readmission, especially considering that readmission within 30 days may not even be covered. Look at these results and start to take advantage of this valuable consultation.

 

Auxora: A Novel Treatment for Acute Pancreatitis 

The last study for discussion offered very interesting data related to a drug called Auxora, a calcium release–activated calcium-channel inhibitor.

There is growing data that overactive calcium release–activated calcium channels aggravate acute pancreatitis and accelerate systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).

Acute pancreatitis with necrosis encompasses both local and systemic inflammation and is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. It is estimated that among patients with acute pancreatitis, 20%-30% have pancreatic necrosis, 30% develop infection, and 25% develop organ failure. 

The presence of SIRS seems to herald the activation of these complex inflammatory pathways, which then leads to organ failure and necrosis, which can potentially be stemmed through this calcium channel inhibitor. Phase 2 studies of Auxora found that its use was associated with significant reduction in the risk for progression.

This subsequent phase 3 study looked at patients with acute pancreatitis and accompanying grade ≥ 2 SIRS criteria. They were randomized to receive placebo or Auxora at doses of 2 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, or 0.5 mg/kg, which was administered intravenously over 4 hours for 3 consecutive days. 

The primary endpoint was time to solid food tolerance, which was defined as eating ≥ 50% of a ≥ 500-calorie low-fat solid meal without increased abdominal pain or emesis, which is an important target because we always aim for enteral nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis. The key secondary endpoint was severe respiratory failure, which was defined as invasive mechanical ventilation or ≥ 48 hours of either high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. 

The primary endpoint was dramatically improved among those receiving Auxora, who achieved early onset of refeed. It appears that the high-dose 2 mg/kg may be the most beneficial in achieving improvement. 

There were no patients with suspected or unexpected adverse events in the study population. Additionally, no patients receiving Auxora at any dose level went on to develop respiratory failure. 

The present results show that Auxora decreases the time for solid food tolerance, as well as the rates of respiratory failure and necrotizing pancreatitis in patients presenting with two or more SIRS criteria. We’ll certainly look forward to more data, but it provides hope for a new treatment for acute pancreatitis.

There were lots of intriguing data presented at ACG 2024. Obviously, we’d like to see them evolve in subsequent journal manuscripts. 

Some of the take-home messages I presented are actionable now, whereas for others, we’ll have to wait and see what the final data show as well as the results of ongoing FDA approval before applying them. 

 

Dr Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He reported serving in an advisory position with ISOTHRIVE. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

I’m just back from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

In part 2 of this series, I’m offering my highlights from this year’s meeting. (Part 1 is available here.) They are not presented in any particular order, but instead I am sharing what I found to be the most exciting among the thousands of abstracts and presentations. 

 

Performing Capsule Endoscopy in Patients Taking GLP-1s 

We’ve heard a lot about glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and the possibility that they might contribute to an increased risk for retained gastric contents and aspiration during endoscopy.

In the first study I’d like to highlight, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, investigated video capsule endoscopy in patients with diabetes who were taking GLP-1 RAs vs a control group with diabetes not taking GLP-1 Ras. Patients in this retrospective matched cohort study were well balanced for demographics and diabetes-related characteristics.

Researchers found that in 7% of the 68 patients in the GLP-1 RA cohort, the video capsule endoscopy actually failed to pass through the stomach, whereas it passed successfully in all 68 patients in the control group (P =.06). The GLP-1 RA cohort had a longer transit time by a factor of almost four times (P <.001).

Multivariate analysis also showed that gastric transit time was approximately 80 minutes longer in the GLP-1 RA cohort (P <.001). Interestingly, 23.5% (16 of 68 patients) in the GLP-1 RA group experienced incomplete passage of the video capsule endoscopy through the small intestine, which was significantly higher than the proportion observed in the control group (4.4%; P <.01). 

We need to look at potential strategies to mitigate these effects. Be aware of these results as you perform capsule endoscopy in patients taking GLP-1 RAs. 

 

Barrett Esophagus On the Rise in the Young 

The second study that caught my eye revealed the increasing incidence of young-onset Barrett esophagus (BE).

This population-based study used data obtained from TriNetX, a multi-institutional national database that offers a composite of health records from 88 healthcare organizations. Eligible patients had to have a negative upper esophagogastroduodenoscopy for BE prior to subsequently developing BE. Researchers stratified patients as to whether they were younger (< 50 years) or older (≥ 50 years), with further age ranges analyzed within those groups. 

Young-onset BE accounted for 20% of all incident cases. The majority (94%) had nondysplastic BE. The incidence rate was not significantly different depending on whether patients were in the 45- to 49-year or 50- to 54-year age group. 

Regression analysis revealed that there was a significantly increased trend for young-onset BE with hiatal hernia (odds ratio [OR], 2.6), smoking (OR, 2.3), White race (OR, 2.3), obstructive sleep apnea (OR, 2.2), male gender (OR, 2.0), and — at relatively lower risk levels — gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms (OR, 1.2) and body mass index (OR, 1.1). The researchers did not analyze patients based on the presence of obesity, which is one of the risk factors for BE mentioned in national guidelines.

Results also showed that 6% of those with young-onset BE had BE-related neoplasia. 

ACG guidelines recommend screening for BE beginning at age 50 in those with some of the risk factors noted in this study, including the presence of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms. However, doing so may not capture the growing number of patients with young-onset BE. 

We’ve seen a similar rise in rates of young-onset colorectal cancer, which has caused us to reevaluate our screening methods. Maybe we should do this for BE as well, specifically for patients presenting with these risk factors. 

There’s a caveat to be aware of, which comes from my personal experience. I was biopsied for short-segment BE, and because it came up on my health record, it increased my life insurance premiums. This was because I was identified as having the risk profile of, essentially, an otherwise healthy smoker. 

Dr Nicholas J. Shaheen and colleagues published a study several years ago showing that many insurance companies would not certify young, otherwise healthy people once diagnosed with BE. This is something to be aware of when you start to screen for BE, especially among younger patients.

 

A Novel Biologic for Eosinophilic Esophagitis 

The next study presented results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of cendakimab, a biologic agent in development for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

Dupilumab, which is an anti–interleukin (IL)-4 antibody, is the first treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of EoE. Cendakimab, in turn, is a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes IL-13, a cytokine that plays a key role in EoE. 

The study was led by Dr Evan Dellon from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dellon and colleagues analyzed two different dosing regimens of cendakimab — 360 mg once weekly for 48 weeks, or 360 mg once weekly for 24 weeks followed by 360 mg every other week for 24 weeks — vs placebo for 48 weeks. 

There was a significant effect for both cendakimab regimens in terms of symptom improvement and histologic response. There wasn’t much difference between participants that maintained once-weekly dosing and those who switched over to receive cendakimab every other week at 24 weeks. Only a minimal number of serious adverse events leading to discontinuation were noted in the study, with no notable difference between the treatment groups. 

I think we’ll probably see this drug become available to us soon after it goes through the FDA review process, at which point it will add to our ability to use formative biologics in patients with EoE.

 

No Clear Benefit to Adding Bezlotoxumab to Fecal Microbiota Transplantation 

Next was a very interesting study, and I think a clinically relevant one, about using fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) alone or in combination with bezlotoxumab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection.

Bezlotoxumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to C difficile toxin B. This drug has been studied and is approved for use, but it’s also extremely expensive, at a cost of approximately $4000 per dose. 

Patients with IBD were eligible for inclusion if they had had two or more episodes of C difficile infection. They were then randomized in a 1:1 ration to receive either a single infusion of bezlotoxumab or placebo prior to FMT. The primary endpoint was C difficile infection recurrence within 8 weeks, which was defined as diarrhea plus a positive enzyme immunoassay toxin test. The secondary outcome was C difficile decolonization following treatment. 

Researchers observed no statistically significant difference between the two cohorts. Steroid use prior to FMT significantly increased the risk for ongoing C difficile colonization (P =.03). 

In summary, this is a case where it doesn’t seem that more is better. Bezlotoxumab didn’t add much, which calls into question the justification for its combined use with FMT. 

 

Additional Positive Data for Seladelpar in Primary Biliary Cholangitis and Cirrhosis 

Reassuring findings were presented on seladelpar, which was granted accelerated approval by the FDA in August. 

Seladelpar is a selective peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor delta agonist that works in biliary cholangitis by regulating the genes involved in blocking biliary bile acid synthesis and controlling inflammation and fibrosis. 

Results from the phase 3 RESPONSE trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in February reporting on the use of seladelpar in primary biliary cholangitis.

Whereas the RESPONSE trial removed decompensated patients, the ongoing phase 3 ASSURE trial results presented at this year’s meeting included patients with compensated cirrhosis. Approximately 94% of the patients in this study had Child-Pugh class A and 6% had class B cirrhosis. Eligibility required that patients had an inadequate response or were intolerant to ursodeoxycholic acid. Patients were administered open-label seladelpar 10 mg orally daily and followed for up to 1 year.

The good news is that there were no safety signals, which is reassuring news for our patients with compensated cirrhosis. 

 

Advantages to Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination in IBD 

Another study that offered results certainly worthy of attention dealt with vaccination recommendations in patients with IBD. 

Vaccination for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is now available in the United States. Its use was recommended for patients with IBD as early as 2021 per the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology’s clinical practice guideline, which discusses both live and nonlive vaccines. We should be aggressive in recommending this vaccine to our patients with IBD, but we haven’t really had one until recently. 

Researchers behind this retrospective cohort study used the TriNetX database, which includes over 100 million unique patient charts. They identified patients with IBD, who were then divided into two groups according to whether they received the RSV vaccine or not. 

Although this analysis was conducted in patients > 60 years of age, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends RSV vaccination for all those over the age of 75 years, as well as for those 60-74 years old based on severity of risk. 

For the primary endpoint of risk for RSV pneumonia, the OR was dramatically better in those who were vaccinated, with an approximately 80% risk reduction. Additionally, vaccinated patients experienced risk reductions of approximately 60% for acute respiratory failure, 50% for hospital inpatient admission, and 70% for requiring intensive care unit services. 

This is a strong study showing not only that RSV vaccine did not exacerbate IBD but also that it improved outcomes in these patients. There’s a live-attenuated RSV vaccination that’s administered intranasally, which wouldn’t be used in your biologic or immunosuppressed patients with IBD, but the intramuscularly administered RSV vaccine doesn’t have any risk.

I think we can immediately begin recommending the RSV vaccine for our patients with IBD, particularly in those 60 years of age or older.

 

The Impact of Palliative Care Consultations in Decompensated Cirrhosis 

The next study I’d like to highlight offers important data on the impact of palliative care consultation on 30- and 90-day readmission in patients with decompensated cirrhosis, which is a major cause of morbidity and mortality.

Researchers queried the National Readmissions Database over a 10-year period (2010-2019) to determine whether patients received a palliative care consult during index admission. They drew on a population of over 1.6 million patients admitted with decompensated cirrhosis. 

Of this group, only 7.4% received a palliative care consultation at the index admission. But if they had this consultation, it was associated with a dramatic effect on readmission at 30 and 90 days. There was statistically significant risk reduction of approximately 70% for both 30- and 90-day readmission compared with those who didn’t receive the palliative consult (P <.001).

The take-home message here is to get a palliative care consult with these patients when they come in. Your hospital will unquestionably experience value in this reduction in readmission, especially considering that readmission within 30 days may not even be covered. Look at these results and start to take advantage of this valuable consultation.

 

Auxora: A Novel Treatment for Acute Pancreatitis 

The last study for discussion offered very interesting data related to a drug called Auxora, a calcium release–activated calcium-channel inhibitor.

There is growing data that overactive calcium release–activated calcium channels aggravate acute pancreatitis and accelerate systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).

Acute pancreatitis with necrosis encompasses both local and systemic inflammation and is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. It is estimated that among patients with acute pancreatitis, 20%-30% have pancreatic necrosis, 30% develop infection, and 25% develop organ failure. 

The presence of SIRS seems to herald the activation of these complex inflammatory pathways, which then leads to organ failure and necrosis, which can potentially be stemmed through this calcium channel inhibitor. Phase 2 studies of Auxora found that its use was associated with significant reduction in the risk for progression.

This subsequent phase 3 study looked at patients with acute pancreatitis and accompanying grade ≥ 2 SIRS criteria. They were randomized to receive placebo or Auxora at doses of 2 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, or 0.5 mg/kg, which was administered intravenously over 4 hours for 3 consecutive days. 

The primary endpoint was time to solid food tolerance, which was defined as eating ≥ 50% of a ≥ 500-calorie low-fat solid meal without increased abdominal pain or emesis, which is an important target because we always aim for enteral nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis. The key secondary endpoint was severe respiratory failure, which was defined as invasive mechanical ventilation or ≥ 48 hours of either high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. 

The primary endpoint was dramatically improved among those receiving Auxora, who achieved early onset of refeed. It appears that the high-dose 2 mg/kg may be the most beneficial in achieving improvement. 

There were no patients with suspected or unexpected adverse events in the study population. Additionally, no patients receiving Auxora at any dose level went on to develop respiratory failure. 

The present results show that Auxora decreases the time for solid food tolerance, as well as the rates of respiratory failure and necrotizing pancreatitis in patients presenting with two or more SIRS criteria. We’ll certainly look forward to more data, but it provides hope for a new treatment for acute pancreatitis.

There were lots of intriguing data presented at ACG 2024. Obviously, we’d like to see them evolve in subsequent journal manuscripts. 

Some of the take-home messages I presented are actionable now, whereas for others, we’ll have to wait and see what the final data show as well as the results of ongoing FDA approval before applying them. 

 

Dr Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He reported serving in an advisory position with ISOTHRIVE. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Conditions like diabetes and dementia are common in patients who are admitted to long-term care facilities, but aggressive management of these conditions in long-term care residents is not recommended, according to a presentation given at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.

Hospitalizations for hypoglycemia are risky for patients with diabetes who are residents of long-term care facilities, particularly those aged 75 years or older, said Adam Gurau, MD, a family physician in Toronto. Gurau completed a fellowship in care of the elderly at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, Canada.

“A lot of studies have shown diabetes-related hospitalizations,” said Gurau. He cited a 2014 study that found that hypoglycemia hospitalization rates were twice as high in older patients (age, 75 years or older) as in younger patients (age, 65-74 years).

“It is important to keep in mind that our residents in long-term care are at increasing risk for hypoglycemia, and we really should try to reduce [this risk] and not use dangerous medications or potentially dangerous [means of] diabetes management,” said Gurau.

A Canadian study that examined the composite risk for emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or death within 30 days of reaching intensive glycemic control with high-risk agents (such as insulin or sulfonylureas) suggested little benefit and possible harm in using these agents in adults aged 75 years or older.

In addition, current guidelines on diabetes management encourage a different approach. “Looking at some of the more recent North American guidelines, many of them actually now recommend relaxing glycemic targets to reduce overtreatment and prevent hypoglycemia,” said Gurau.

 

Deprescribing Medications

Medication reviews present opportunities for taking a global view of a patient’s treatments and determining whether any drug can be removed from the list. “What we want to do is optimize medications,” said Gurau. “We’re not talking about adding medications. We’re talking about removing medications, which is, I think, what we should be doing.”

Some research suggests that patients are open to deprescribing. One survey examined older adults (mean age, 79.1 years) with three or more chronic conditions who had been prescribed at least five medications. The researchers found that most participants (77%) were willing to deprescribe one or more medicines if a doctor advised that it was possible. “General practitioners may be able to increase deprescribing by building trust with their patients and communicating evidence about the risks of medication use,” the researchers wrote.

About 62% of seniors living in a residential care home have a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or another dementia, according to the Alzheimer Society of Canada. Evidence suggests that nonpharmacologic approaches, such as massage and touch therapy and music, can manage neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as aggression and agitation, that are associated with dementia in older adults, noted Gurau.

“We want to focus on nonpharmacologic approaches for many of these [long-term care] residents,” said Gurau. “We have to do as much as we can to exhaust all the nonpharmacologic approaches.”

 

Preventing Hospitalizations

Another challenge to tackle in long-term care is the unnecessary transfer of residents to hospital emergency departments, according to Gurau. “In many situations, it’s worth trying as hard as we can to treat them in the nursing home, as opposed to having them go to hospital.”

Researchers estimated that 25% of the transfers from long-term care facilities in Canada to hospital emergency departments in 2014 were potentially preventable.

Urinary tract infections accounted for 30% of hospital emergency department visits for potentially preventable conditions by older patients who are residents in long-term care, according to 2013-2014 data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

“There are lots of downsides to going to the hospital [from long-term care],” Gurau told this news organization. “There are risks for infections, risks for increasing delirium and agitation [in patients with dementia], and risks for other behavior that can really impact somebody’s life.”

Gurau reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Conditions like diabetes and dementia are common in patients who are admitted to long-term care facilities, but aggressive management of these conditions in long-term care residents is not recommended, according to a presentation given at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.

Hospitalizations for hypoglycemia are risky for patients with diabetes who are residents of long-term care facilities, particularly those aged 75 years or older, said Adam Gurau, MD, a family physician in Toronto. Gurau completed a fellowship in care of the elderly at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, Canada.

“A lot of studies have shown diabetes-related hospitalizations,” said Gurau. He cited a 2014 study that found that hypoglycemia hospitalization rates were twice as high in older patients (age, 75 years or older) as in younger patients (age, 65-74 years).

“It is important to keep in mind that our residents in long-term care are at increasing risk for hypoglycemia, and we really should try to reduce [this risk] and not use dangerous medications or potentially dangerous [means of] diabetes management,” said Gurau.

A Canadian study that examined the composite risk for emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or death within 30 days of reaching intensive glycemic control with high-risk agents (such as insulin or sulfonylureas) suggested little benefit and possible harm in using these agents in adults aged 75 years or older.

In addition, current guidelines on diabetes management encourage a different approach. “Looking at some of the more recent North American guidelines, many of them actually now recommend relaxing glycemic targets to reduce overtreatment and prevent hypoglycemia,” said Gurau.

 

Deprescribing Medications

Medication reviews present opportunities for taking a global view of a patient’s treatments and determining whether any drug can be removed from the list. “What we want to do is optimize medications,” said Gurau. “We’re not talking about adding medications. We’re talking about removing medications, which is, I think, what we should be doing.”

Some research suggests that patients are open to deprescribing. One survey examined older adults (mean age, 79.1 years) with three or more chronic conditions who had been prescribed at least five medications. The researchers found that most participants (77%) were willing to deprescribe one or more medicines if a doctor advised that it was possible. “General practitioners may be able to increase deprescribing by building trust with their patients and communicating evidence about the risks of medication use,” the researchers wrote.

About 62% of seniors living in a residential care home have a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or another dementia, according to the Alzheimer Society of Canada. Evidence suggests that nonpharmacologic approaches, such as massage and touch therapy and music, can manage neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as aggression and agitation, that are associated with dementia in older adults, noted Gurau.

“We want to focus on nonpharmacologic approaches for many of these [long-term care] residents,” said Gurau. “We have to do as much as we can to exhaust all the nonpharmacologic approaches.”

 

Preventing Hospitalizations

Another challenge to tackle in long-term care is the unnecessary transfer of residents to hospital emergency departments, according to Gurau. “In many situations, it’s worth trying as hard as we can to treat them in the nursing home, as opposed to having them go to hospital.”

Researchers estimated that 25% of the transfers from long-term care facilities in Canada to hospital emergency departments in 2014 were potentially preventable.

Urinary tract infections accounted for 30% of hospital emergency department visits for potentially preventable conditions by older patients who are residents in long-term care, according to 2013-2014 data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

“There are lots of downsides to going to the hospital [from long-term care],” Gurau told this news organization. “There are risks for infections, risks for increasing delirium and agitation [in patients with dementia], and risks for other behavior that can really impact somebody’s life.”

Gurau reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Conditions like diabetes and dementia are common in patients who are admitted to long-term care facilities, but aggressive management of these conditions in long-term care residents is not recommended, according to a presentation given at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.

Hospitalizations for hypoglycemia are risky for patients with diabetes who are residents of long-term care facilities, particularly those aged 75 years or older, said Adam Gurau, MD, a family physician in Toronto. Gurau completed a fellowship in care of the elderly at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, Canada.

“A lot of studies have shown diabetes-related hospitalizations,” said Gurau. He cited a 2014 study that found that hypoglycemia hospitalization rates were twice as high in older patients (age, 75 years or older) as in younger patients (age, 65-74 years).

“It is important to keep in mind that our residents in long-term care are at increasing risk for hypoglycemia, and we really should try to reduce [this risk] and not use dangerous medications or potentially dangerous [means of] diabetes management,” said Gurau.

A Canadian study that examined the composite risk for emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or death within 30 days of reaching intensive glycemic control with high-risk agents (such as insulin or sulfonylureas) suggested little benefit and possible harm in using these agents in adults aged 75 years or older.

In addition, current guidelines on diabetes management encourage a different approach. “Looking at some of the more recent North American guidelines, many of them actually now recommend relaxing glycemic targets to reduce overtreatment and prevent hypoglycemia,” said Gurau.

 

Deprescribing Medications

Medication reviews present opportunities for taking a global view of a patient’s treatments and determining whether any drug can be removed from the list. “What we want to do is optimize medications,” said Gurau. “We’re not talking about adding medications. We’re talking about removing medications, which is, I think, what we should be doing.”

Some research suggests that patients are open to deprescribing. One survey examined older adults (mean age, 79.1 years) with three or more chronic conditions who had been prescribed at least five medications. The researchers found that most participants (77%) were willing to deprescribe one or more medicines if a doctor advised that it was possible. “General practitioners may be able to increase deprescribing by building trust with their patients and communicating evidence about the risks of medication use,” the researchers wrote.

About 62% of seniors living in a residential care home have a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or another dementia, according to the Alzheimer Society of Canada. Evidence suggests that nonpharmacologic approaches, such as massage and touch therapy and music, can manage neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as aggression and agitation, that are associated with dementia in older adults, noted Gurau.

“We want to focus on nonpharmacologic approaches for many of these [long-term care] residents,” said Gurau. “We have to do as much as we can to exhaust all the nonpharmacologic approaches.”

 

Preventing Hospitalizations

Another challenge to tackle in long-term care is the unnecessary transfer of residents to hospital emergency departments, according to Gurau. “In many situations, it’s worth trying as hard as we can to treat them in the nursing home, as opposed to having them go to hospital.”

Researchers estimated that 25% of the transfers from long-term care facilities in Canada to hospital emergency departments in 2014 were potentially preventable.

Urinary tract infections accounted for 30% of hospital emergency department visits for potentially preventable conditions by older patients who are residents in long-term care, according to 2013-2014 data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

“There are lots of downsides to going to the hospital [from long-term care],” Gurau told this news organization. “There are risks for infections, risks for increasing delirium and agitation [in patients with dementia], and risks for other behavior that can really impact somebody’s life.”

Gurau reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have 26% higher nulliparity rates and give birth at more advanced ages despite similar family aspirations and higher rates of fertility treatment. Later PCOS diagnosis is associated with double the rate of advanced maternal age at childbirth.

METHODOLOGY:

• A prospective cohort study followed 14,247 Australian women from 1996 (age, 18-23 years) to 2021 (age, 43-48 years), comparing 981 women with self-reported PCOS against 13,266 without PCOS.
• Participants completed surveys approximately every 3 years, with data collection including childbirth events, fertility issues, and treatment history from 20 weeks of gestational age, including stillbirths.
• Analysis focused on comparing parity, maternal age at deliveries, and factors associated with advanced maternal age between groups, with adjustments made for education level, area of residence, marital status, body mass index group, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with women without PCOS, those with PCOS had fewer births (1.9 ± 1.2 vs 1.7 ± 1.3; P < .001) and higher nulliparity rates (18% vs 23%; P = .003).
• PCOS was associated with increased odds of advanced maternal age at first childbirth (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.04-1.75) and higher rates of gestational diabetes (aOR, 3.90; 95% CI, 2.99-5.10).
• Late PCOS diagnosis was linked to increased odds of advanced maternal age at first childbirth (aOR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.22-3.22), emphasizing the importance of early diagnosis.
• Compared with women without PCOS, those with PCOS were older at first childbirth (28.8 ± 5.5 vs 29.5 ± 5.5 years) and second childbirth (31.1 ± 5.0 vs 32.1 ± 5.2 years) (P < .001 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women with PCOS have increased infertility and have higher rates of seeking and using ovulation induction and IVF than those without PCOS. Moreover, women with PCOS are older at both first and second childbirth, have longer interconception periods, are of advanced maternal age, and have higher nulliparity and lower fecundity compared with women without PCOS,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Maria Forslund, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg in Sweden. It was published online in American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on self-reported PCOS diagnosis, though these data were previously validated in the cohort. While dropouts from the study were common, a previous modeling study showed no serious bias in estimates of associations between risk factors and health outcomes in the longitudinal models.

DISCLOSURES:

Forslund received support from the Swedish Medical Society (SLS-984944; SLS986952). The study was funded by the Australian Government’s Department of Health and Aged Care. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have 26% higher nulliparity rates and give birth at more advanced ages despite similar family aspirations and higher rates of fertility treatment. Later PCOS diagnosis is associated with double the rate of advanced maternal age at childbirth.

METHODOLOGY:

• A prospective cohort study followed 14,247 Australian women from 1996 (age, 18-23 years) to 2021 (age, 43-48 years), comparing 981 women with self-reported PCOS against 13,266 without PCOS.
• Participants completed surveys approximately every 3 years, with data collection including childbirth events, fertility issues, and treatment history from 20 weeks of gestational age, including stillbirths.
• Analysis focused on comparing parity, maternal age at deliveries, and factors associated with advanced maternal age between groups, with adjustments made for education level, area of residence, marital status, body mass index group, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with women without PCOS, those with PCOS had fewer births (1.9 ± 1.2 vs 1.7 ± 1.3; P < .001) and higher nulliparity rates (18% vs 23%; P = .003).
• PCOS was associated with increased odds of advanced maternal age at first childbirth (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.04-1.75) and higher rates of gestational diabetes (aOR, 3.90; 95% CI, 2.99-5.10).
• Late PCOS diagnosis was linked to increased odds of advanced maternal age at first childbirth (aOR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.22-3.22), emphasizing the importance of early diagnosis.
• Compared with women without PCOS, those with PCOS were older at first childbirth (28.8 ± 5.5 vs 29.5 ± 5.5 years) and second childbirth (31.1 ± 5.0 vs 32.1 ± 5.2 years) (P < .001 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women with PCOS have increased infertility and have higher rates of seeking and using ovulation induction and IVF than those without PCOS. Moreover, women with PCOS are older at both first and second childbirth, have longer interconception periods, are of advanced maternal age, and have higher nulliparity and lower fecundity compared with women without PCOS,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Maria Forslund, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg in Sweden. It was published online in American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on self-reported PCOS diagnosis, though these data were previously validated in the cohort. While dropouts from the study were common, a previous modeling study showed no serious bias in estimates of associations between risk factors and health outcomes in the longitudinal models.

DISCLOSURES:

Forslund received support from the Swedish Medical Society (SLS-984944; SLS986952). The study was funded by the Australian Government’s Department of Health and Aged Care. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have 26% higher nulliparity rates and give birth at more advanced ages despite similar family aspirations and higher rates of fertility treatment. Later PCOS diagnosis is associated with double the rate of advanced maternal age at childbirth.

METHODOLOGY:

• A prospective cohort study followed 14,247 Australian women from 1996 (age, 18-23 years) to 2021 (age, 43-48 years), comparing 981 women with self-reported PCOS against 13,266 without PCOS.
• Participants completed surveys approximately every 3 years, with data collection including childbirth events, fertility issues, and treatment history from 20 weeks of gestational age, including stillbirths.
• Analysis focused on comparing parity, maternal age at deliveries, and factors associated with advanced maternal age between groups, with adjustments made for education level, area of residence, marital status, body mass index group, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with women without PCOS, those with PCOS had fewer births (1.9 ± 1.2 vs 1.7 ± 1.3; P < .001) and higher nulliparity rates (18% vs 23%; P = .003).
• PCOS was associated with increased odds of advanced maternal age at first childbirth (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.04-1.75) and higher rates of gestational diabetes (aOR, 3.90; 95% CI, 2.99-5.10).
• Late PCOS diagnosis was linked to increased odds of advanced maternal age at first childbirth (aOR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.22-3.22), emphasizing the importance of early diagnosis.
• Compared with women without PCOS, those with PCOS were older at first childbirth (28.8 ± 5.5 vs 29.5 ± 5.5 years) and second childbirth (31.1 ± 5.0 vs 32.1 ± 5.2 years) (P < .001 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women with PCOS have increased infertility and have higher rates of seeking and using ovulation induction and IVF than those without PCOS. Moreover, women with PCOS are older at both first and second childbirth, have longer interconception periods, are of advanced maternal age, and have higher nulliparity and lower fecundity compared with women without PCOS,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Maria Forslund, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg in Sweden. It was published online in American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on self-reported PCOS diagnosis, though these data were previously validated in the cohort. While dropouts from the study were common, a previous modeling study showed no serious bias in estimates of associations between risk factors and health outcomes in the longitudinal models.

DISCLOSURES:

Forslund received support from the Swedish Medical Society (SLS-984944; SLS986952). The study was funded by the Australian Government’s Department of Health and Aged Care. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Supplementation with vitamin D and calcium can reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure in older individuals with overweight, particularly in those with a body mass index (BMI) > 30 and those diagnosed with hypertension.

METHODOLOGY:

• Large cohort data have provided epidemiologic evidence linking vitamin D deficiency to a higher risk for cardiovascular disorders, including hypertension; however, evidence on the beneficial effects of vitamin D supplementation on blood pressure outcomes remains inconclusive.
• A post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the effect of two doses of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) on blood pressure in individuals aged 65 years or older with a BMI > 25 and serum vitamin D levels of 10-30 ng/mL.
• A total of 221 participants were recruited through outpatient departments, clinics, and advertisements in the greater Beirut area and received calcium supplementation in combination with either a low dose (600 IU/d, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine [IOM]) or a high dose (3750 IU/d) of vitamin D3.
• Blood pressure measurements were taken at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using a SureSigns VS3 monitor.
• Participants were also stratified by BMI and hypertension status to assess the effects of vitamin D and calcium on blood pressure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly reduced with vitamin D supplementation in the overall cohort (mean difference, 3.5 and 2.8 mm Hg, respectively; P = .005 and P = .002, respectively), with the effect more prominent in those in the high-dose vitamin D group.
• Participants with a BMI > 30 experienced reductions in both systolic and diastolic blood pressures in the overall cohort (P < .0001 and P = .01, respectively); although the systolic blood pressure was significantly reduced with both high- and low-dose vitamin D, the diastolic blood pressure decreased in the high-dose group only.
• Patients with hypertension benefited from all doses of vitamin D, regardless of the BMI.
• Systolic blood pressure at 6 and 12 months was significantly predicted by BMI and baseline systolic blood pressure measurements, although not by the dose of vitamin D received.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study found vitamin D supplementation may decrease blood pressure in specific subgroups such as older people, people with obesity, and possibly those with low vitamin D levels,” said study author Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan, MD, MPH, of the American University of Beirut Medical Center in Beirut, Lebanon, said in a news release. “High vitamin D doses compared to the IOM’s recommended daily dose did not provide additional health benefits.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Maya Rahme, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Calcium Metabolism and Osteoporosis Program, World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Metabolic Bone Disorders, American University of Beirut Medical Center in Beirut, Lebanon. It was published online in Journal of the Endocrine Society.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the exploratory nature of the analyses and the low power of the subgroup analyses. Additionally, the study focused on older individuals who were sedentary and had overweight, many of whom had prediabetes — conditions known to influence blood pressure. The possible effect of calcium alone on blood pressure reduction was also unclear.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the American University of Beirut, St Joseph University, and the Lebanese Council for National Scientific Research. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Supplementation with vitamin D and calcium can reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure in older individuals with overweight, particularly in those with a body mass index (BMI) > 30 and those diagnosed with hypertension.

METHODOLOGY:

• Large cohort data have provided epidemiologic evidence linking vitamin D deficiency to a higher risk for cardiovascular disorders, including hypertension; however, evidence on the beneficial effects of vitamin D supplementation on blood pressure outcomes remains inconclusive.
• A post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the effect of two doses of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) on blood pressure in individuals aged 65 years or older with a BMI > 25 and serum vitamin D levels of 10-30 ng/mL.
• A total of 221 participants were recruited through outpatient departments, clinics, and advertisements in the greater Beirut area and received calcium supplementation in combination with either a low dose (600 IU/d, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine [IOM]) or a high dose (3750 IU/d) of vitamin D3.
• Blood pressure measurements were taken at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using a SureSigns VS3 monitor.
• Participants were also stratified by BMI and hypertension status to assess the effects of vitamin D and calcium on blood pressure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly reduced with vitamin D supplementation in the overall cohort (mean difference, 3.5 and 2.8 mm Hg, respectively; P = .005 and P = .002, respectively), with the effect more prominent in those in the high-dose vitamin D group.
• Participants with a BMI > 30 experienced reductions in both systolic and diastolic blood pressures in the overall cohort (P < .0001 and P = .01, respectively); although the systolic blood pressure was significantly reduced with both high- and low-dose vitamin D, the diastolic blood pressure decreased in the high-dose group only.
• Patients with hypertension benefited from all doses of vitamin D, regardless of the BMI.
• Systolic blood pressure at 6 and 12 months was significantly predicted by BMI and baseline systolic blood pressure measurements, although not by the dose of vitamin D received.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study found vitamin D supplementation may decrease blood pressure in specific subgroups such as older people, people with obesity, and possibly those with low vitamin D levels,” said study author Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan, MD, MPH, of the American University of Beirut Medical Center in Beirut, Lebanon, said in a news release. “High vitamin D doses compared to the IOM’s recommended daily dose did not provide additional health benefits.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Maya Rahme, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Calcium Metabolism and Osteoporosis Program, World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Metabolic Bone Disorders, American University of Beirut Medical Center in Beirut, Lebanon. It was published online in Journal of the Endocrine Society.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the exploratory nature of the analyses and the low power of the subgroup analyses. Additionally, the study focused on older individuals who were sedentary and had overweight, many of whom had prediabetes — conditions known to influence blood pressure. The possible effect of calcium alone on blood pressure reduction was also unclear.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the American University of Beirut, St Joseph University, and the Lebanese Council for National Scientific Research. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Supplementation with vitamin D and calcium can reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure in older individuals with overweight, particularly in those with a body mass index (BMI) > 30 and those diagnosed with hypertension.

METHODOLOGY:

• Large cohort data have provided epidemiologic evidence linking vitamin D deficiency to a higher risk for cardiovascular disorders, including hypertension; however, evidence on the beneficial effects of vitamin D supplementation on blood pressure outcomes remains inconclusive.
• A post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the effect of two doses of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) on blood pressure in individuals aged 65 years or older with a BMI > 25 and serum vitamin D levels of 10-30 ng/mL.
• A total of 221 participants were recruited through outpatient departments, clinics, and advertisements in the greater Beirut area and received calcium supplementation in combination with either a low dose (600 IU/d, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine [IOM]) or a high dose (3750 IU/d) of vitamin D3.
• Blood pressure measurements were taken at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using a SureSigns VS3 monitor.
• Participants were also stratified by BMI and hypertension status to assess the effects of vitamin D and calcium on blood pressure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly reduced with vitamin D supplementation in the overall cohort (mean difference, 3.5 and 2.8 mm Hg, respectively; P = .005 and P = .002, respectively), with the effect more prominent in those in the high-dose vitamin D group.
• Participants with a BMI > 30 experienced reductions in both systolic and diastolic blood pressures in the overall cohort (P < .0001 and P = .01, respectively); although the systolic blood pressure was significantly reduced with both high- and low-dose vitamin D, the diastolic blood pressure decreased in the high-dose group only.
• Patients with hypertension benefited from all doses of vitamin D, regardless of the BMI.
• Systolic blood pressure at 6 and 12 months was significantly predicted by BMI and baseline systolic blood pressure measurements, although not by the dose of vitamin D received.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study found vitamin D supplementation may decrease blood pressure in specific subgroups such as older people, people with obesity, and possibly those with low vitamin D levels,” said study author Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan, MD, MPH, of the American University of Beirut Medical Center in Beirut, Lebanon, said in a news release. “High vitamin D doses compared to the IOM’s recommended daily dose did not provide additional health benefits.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Maya Rahme, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Calcium Metabolism and Osteoporosis Program, World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Metabolic Bone Disorders, American University of Beirut Medical Center in Beirut, Lebanon. It was published online in Journal of the Endocrine Society.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s limitations included the exploratory nature of the analyses and the low power of the subgroup analyses. Additionally, the study focused on older individuals who were sedentary and had overweight, many of whom had prediabetes — conditions known to influence blood pressure. The possible effect of calcium alone on blood pressure reduction was also unclear.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the American University of Beirut, St Joseph University, and the Lebanese Council for National Scientific Research. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Weight loss treatments aren’t reaching many of the people who need them most because of coverage barriers, new data suggested.

Findings from three studies presented at The Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2024 meeting illustrate different aspects of the problem.

One, presented by Alissa S. Chen, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral fellow at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, found that people with obesity, particularly those with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and those who are Black and Hispanic, have high rates of cost-related prescription drug rationing. Those findings were simultaneously published as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

“The implications are that structural barriers impede access to medications for Black and Hispanic adults with obesity, which might worsen if there’s not expanding coverage for GLP-1 RAs [glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists], and it’s possible that broader insurance coverage could ameliorate some of these issues,” Chen said.

She noted that patients don’t always volunteer that information. “In my clinical practice, I always start by saying something like, ‘I have a lot of patients who can’t afford their medications. In the last week, was there a time [you didn’t take your medications due to cost]?’ ”

State Medicaid programs vary widely in the degree to which they cover weight loss treatments. But not a single one covers all modalities — nutrition counseling (NC), intensive behavioral therapy (IBT), obesity medications (OMs), and metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) — without restrictions or limitations, and only seven states cover them all with restrictions, according to a dual presentation by Christine Gallagher, MPAff, associate director for research and policy with the STOP Obesity Alliance at George Washington University, Washington, DC, and Tracy Zvenyach, PhD, MS, RN, director of policy strategy and alliances at the Obesity Action Coalition, also in Washington, DC.

Detailed Medicaid coverage data for each state are posted on the STOP Obesity Alliance website. (As of now, Medicare doesn’t cover medications specifically for obesity at all.)

A third presentation, by Treah Haggerty, MD, of the Department of Family Medicine and director of the Pediatric Medical Weight Management program at West Virginia University, Morgantown, was of a qualitative descriptive study exploring the impact on 22 individuals enrolled in a medical weight loss management program whose state employee insurance carrier made a policy decision to stop covering all anti-OMs in March 2024. All had been prescribed GLP-1 agonists for weight loss, and the decision forced most to stop using them.

Those findings were published in the September 2024 issue of Obesity Pillars.

“Patients perceive the discontinuation of anti-obesity medication coverage as stigmatizing and unjust, leading to feelings of hopelessness and fear. With more insurance companies denying coverage for these costly medications, more information is needed to identify best ways to address the loss of coverage with patients. Clinical management of these patients should incorporate evidence-based obesity treatments while navigating insurance constraints,” Haggerty said.

 

Create a Safe Space to Discuss the Barriers

Asked to comment, Session Moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, chief population health officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, told Medscape Medical News, “Health systems and payers are determining what can and can’t be covered, and at the end of the day, it frequently comes down to finances…I think the big challenge is really identifying patients who may have the greatest need. ... If we have limited resources, how and where should we be directing those resources? I would say the current system hasn’t really answered that question or identified patients for whom we would say that the cost truly is less than either the financial or long-term health benefits.”

But Clark said, “When some of these newer anti-obesity medications are able to go generic and be less expensive, which will happen eventually, I think things will change ... and in the future, there will be more options on the market as well.”

In the meantime, he advised that clinicians “try to have conversations with patients about these barriers, acknowledge that these barriers exist, and create a safe space to discuss those barriers. ... Let’s see where we are right now, and let’s come up with a plan.”

 

People With Obesity More Susceptible to Drug Rationing

Chen reported on a sample of 51,720 adults who participated in the 2020-2022 National Health Interview Survey who did not have diabetes and who used at least one prescription medication of any type. Of those, 80% were White, 9.7% were Hispanic, and 9.7% were Black, and 33.9% overall had obesity.

Cost-related prescription rationing, defined as any self-reported skipping, taking less, or delaying filling a prescription to save money, was reported by 8.3% of those with obesity vs 5.9% without. After adjustment, rationing among those with obesity was significantly associated with younger age (aged 18-44 years), female sex, lower incomes, lack of health insurance coverage, and CVD.

The adjusted estimated probability of cost-related prescription drug rationing was 7.4% for those with CVD vs 4.4% for those without. By race/ethnicity, the proportions reporting rationing were 7.7%, 9.8%, and 10.7% for White, Black, and Hispanics, respectively.

“Given that few insurance providers cover GLP-1 RAs for obesity, cost-related prescription drug rationing could be exacerbated if patients were prescribed GLP-1 RAs at their current price of more than $1000 a month,” Chen noted, adding that the high prices could worsen health disparities among Black and Hispanic individuals with obesity.

 

Medicaid Coverage Lacking for All Obesity Treatments

For their project, Gallagher and Zvenyach delved into a database that aggregates Medicaid manuals, fee schedules, statutes, regulations, and preferred drug lists for each US state, both for Medicaid fee for service and top Medicaid managed care plans, in order to determine 2024 levels of coverage for NC, IBT, OMs, and MBS for adults with obesity.

No state provides coverage for all those treatments without either limitations — such as body mass index (BMI) cutoffs, age, or “comorbidity regardless of body mass index (BMI)” for OM and MBS — or outright restrictions, such as “proof of failed attempts.” And only seven states provide coverage for the four modalities “with limitations”: California, Arizona, New Mexico, South Carolina, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.

Twenty-two states don’t cover NC, although just one state doesn’t cover IBT. Overall, 37 states don’t cover OMs, and other states ranged considerably in various restrictions and limitations for OMs and MBS. Only four states fully covered the surgery without limitations or restrictions.

“The vast majority of states have significant barriers and conditions of coverage for obesity care,” Gallagher said.

Zvenyach added, “Most of the applied exclusions, limitations, or restrictions do not align with evidence-based practice standards or guidelines.”

 

When Coverage Stops, Hopelessness and Anger Emerge

Haggerty and colleagues’ research involved semi-structured interviews of the 22 participants — all of them women — who had lost their obesity medication coverage due to their insurers’ decision. Four themes emerged:

• 1. Feelings of hope replaced by hopelessness upon loss of medication coverage: One person said, “I’m afraid for my mental health. It’s tough to be in a situation where you’re never right. And it doesn’t matter what you do; it’s not going to work, and then to have just a glimmer of hope, a little spark of hey, look, this might help. And for someone else to take that away from you for no reason. I don’t know what am I supposed to do.”
• 2. Anger regarding the perceived injustice of anti-obesity medication coverage termination: For example, “They can pay for heart attacks, they could pay for me to have a stroke, they could pay for me to have diabetes, but they won’t let me have this one medicine that could take all of that away. Makes no sense.”
• 3. Perceptions of past and present stigma within the healthcare system and insurance company: “I’m not trying for vanity. I’m way too old to be a Victoria’s Secret model. I’m not trying to do it to be cute and skinny and hot. I just want to make it through a day of work and not be exhausted.”
• 4. Generational influences on obesity treatment: “I’m married, and my husband, since I’ve started this medicine, he’s been eating better. He’s been eating what I eat, and he’s been losing weight as well.”
• Some participants said they planned to cope in different ways, including trying to obtain compounded versions of the drugs from “spas” or online pharmacies, as well as skipping doses, reducing doses, or sharing medications — in other words, rationing.

Asked by this news organization what clinicians should keep in mind, Haggerty said, “that there are big barriers and that we need to take care of the patients within this system that has their arm tied behind their back.

Chen was funded by a grant from the National Institute on Aging outside the submitted work, and she was funded as a Yale National Clinician Scholar. A coauthor received grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Arnold Ventures. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from UpToDate and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Gallagher has received research funding from Altimmune, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Currax, Eli Lilly and Company, Found, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Structure Therapeutics, and WeightWatchers. Haggerty reported article publishing charge was provided by West Virginia Alliance for Creative Health Solutions. Zvenyach and Clark had no disclosures.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Weight loss treatments aren’t reaching many of the people who need them most because of coverage barriers, new data suggested.

Findings from three studies presented at The Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2024 meeting illustrate different aspects of the problem.

One, presented by Alissa S. Chen, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral fellow at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, found that people with obesity, particularly those with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and those who are Black and Hispanic, have high rates of cost-related prescription drug rationing. Those findings were simultaneously published as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

“The implications are that structural barriers impede access to medications for Black and Hispanic adults with obesity, which might worsen if there’s not expanding coverage for GLP-1 RAs [glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists], and it’s possible that broader insurance coverage could ameliorate some of these issues,” Chen said.

She noted that patients don’t always volunteer that information. “In my clinical practice, I always start by saying something like, ‘I have a lot of patients who can’t afford their medications. In the last week, was there a time [you didn’t take your medications due to cost]?’ ”

State Medicaid programs vary widely in the degree to which they cover weight loss treatments. But not a single one covers all modalities — nutrition counseling (NC), intensive behavioral therapy (IBT), obesity medications (OMs), and metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) — without restrictions or limitations, and only seven states cover them all with restrictions, according to a dual presentation by Christine Gallagher, MPAff, associate director for research and policy with the STOP Obesity Alliance at George Washington University, Washington, DC, and Tracy Zvenyach, PhD, MS, RN, director of policy strategy and alliances at the Obesity Action Coalition, also in Washington, DC.

Detailed Medicaid coverage data for each state are posted on the STOP Obesity Alliance website. (As of now, Medicare doesn’t cover medications specifically for obesity at all.)

A third presentation, by Treah Haggerty, MD, of the Department of Family Medicine and director of the Pediatric Medical Weight Management program at West Virginia University, Morgantown, was of a qualitative descriptive study exploring the impact on 22 individuals enrolled in a medical weight loss management program whose state employee insurance carrier made a policy decision to stop covering all anti-OMs in March 2024. All had been prescribed GLP-1 agonists for weight loss, and the decision forced most to stop using them.

Those findings were published in the September 2024 issue of Obesity Pillars.

“Patients perceive the discontinuation of anti-obesity medication coverage as stigmatizing and unjust, leading to feelings of hopelessness and fear. With more insurance companies denying coverage for these costly medications, more information is needed to identify best ways to address the loss of coverage with patients. Clinical management of these patients should incorporate evidence-based obesity treatments while navigating insurance constraints,” Haggerty said.

 

Create a Safe Space to Discuss the Barriers

Asked to comment, Session Moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, chief population health officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, told Medscape Medical News, “Health systems and payers are determining what can and can’t be covered, and at the end of the day, it frequently comes down to finances…I think the big challenge is really identifying patients who may have the greatest need. ... If we have limited resources, how and where should we be directing those resources? I would say the current system hasn’t really answered that question or identified patients for whom we would say that the cost truly is less than either the financial or long-term health benefits.”

But Clark said, “When some of these newer anti-obesity medications are able to go generic and be less expensive, which will happen eventually, I think things will change ... and in the future, there will be more options on the market as well.”

In the meantime, he advised that clinicians “try to have conversations with patients about these barriers, acknowledge that these barriers exist, and create a safe space to discuss those barriers. ... Let’s see where we are right now, and let’s come up with a plan.”

 

People With Obesity More Susceptible to Drug Rationing

Chen reported on a sample of 51,720 adults who participated in the 2020-2022 National Health Interview Survey who did not have diabetes and who used at least one prescription medication of any type. Of those, 80% were White, 9.7% were Hispanic, and 9.7% were Black, and 33.9% overall had obesity.

Cost-related prescription rationing, defined as any self-reported skipping, taking less, or delaying filling a prescription to save money, was reported by 8.3% of those with obesity vs 5.9% without. After adjustment, rationing among those with obesity was significantly associated with younger age (aged 18-44 years), female sex, lower incomes, lack of health insurance coverage, and CVD.

The adjusted estimated probability of cost-related prescription drug rationing was 7.4% for those with CVD vs 4.4% for those without. By race/ethnicity, the proportions reporting rationing were 7.7%, 9.8%, and 10.7% for White, Black, and Hispanics, respectively.

“Given that few insurance providers cover GLP-1 RAs for obesity, cost-related prescription drug rationing could be exacerbated if patients were prescribed GLP-1 RAs at their current price of more than $1000 a month,” Chen noted, adding that the high prices could worsen health disparities among Black and Hispanic individuals with obesity.

 

Medicaid Coverage Lacking for All Obesity Treatments

For their project, Gallagher and Zvenyach delved into a database that aggregates Medicaid manuals, fee schedules, statutes, regulations, and preferred drug lists for each US state, both for Medicaid fee for service and top Medicaid managed care plans, in order to determine 2024 levels of coverage for NC, IBT, OMs, and MBS for adults with obesity.

No state provides coverage for all those treatments without either limitations — such as body mass index (BMI) cutoffs, age, or “comorbidity regardless of body mass index (BMI)” for OM and MBS — or outright restrictions, such as “proof of failed attempts.” And only seven states provide coverage for the four modalities “with limitations”: California, Arizona, New Mexico, South Carolina, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.

Twenty-two states don’t cover NC, although just one state doesn’t cover IBT. Overall, 37 states don’t cover OMs, and other states ranged considerably in various restrictions and limitations for OMs and MBS. Only four states fully covered the surgery without limitations or restrictions.

“The vast majority of states have significant barriers and conditions of coverage for obesity care,” Gallagher said.

Zvenyach added, “Most of the applied exclusions, limitations, or restrictions do not align with evidence-based practice standards or guidelines.”

 

When Coverage Stops, Hopelessness and Anger Emerge

Haggerty and colleagues’ research involved semi-structured interviews of the 22 participants — all of them women — who had lost their obesity medication coverage due to their insurers’ decision. Four themes emerged:

• 1. Feelings of hope replaced by hopelessness upon loss of medication coverage: One person said, “I’m afraid for my mental health. It’s tough to be in a situation where you’re never right. And it doesn’t matter what you do; it’s not going to work, and then to have just a glimmer of hope, a little spark of hey, look, this might help. And for someone else to take that away from you for no reason. I don’t know what am I supposed to do.”
• 2. Anger regarding the perceived injustice of anti-obesity medication coverage termination: For example, “They can pay for heart attacks, they could pay for me to have a stroke, they could pay for me to have diabetes, but they won’t let me have this one medicine that could take all of that away. Makes no sense.”
• 3. Perceptions of past and present stigma within the healthcare system and insurance company: “I’m not trying for vanity. I’m way too old to be a Victoria’s Secret model. I’m not trying to do it to be cute and skinny and hot. I just want to make it through a day of work and not be exhausted.”
• 4. Generational influences on obesity treatment: “I’m married, and my husband, since I’ve started this medicine, he’s been eating better. He’s been eating what I eat, and he’s been losing weight as well.”
• Some participants said they planned to cope in different ways, including trying to obtain compounded versions of the drugs from “spas” or online pharmacies, as well as skipping doses, reducing doses, or sharing medications — in other words, rationing.

Asked by this news organization what clinicians should keep in mind, Haggerty said, “that there are big barriers and that we need to take care of the patients within this system that has their arm tied behind their back.

Chen was funded by a grant from the National Institute on Aging outside the submitted work, and she was funded as a Yale National Clinician Scholar. A coauthor received grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Arnold Ventures. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from UpToDate and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Gallagher has received research funding from Altimmune, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Currax, Eli Lilly and Company, Found, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Structure Therapeutics, and WeightWatchers. Haggerty reported article publishing charge was provided by West Virginia Alliance for Creative Health Solutions. Zvenyach and Clark had no disclosures.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Weight loss treatments aren’t reaching many of the people who need them most because of coverage barriers, new data suggested.

Findings from three studies presented at The Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2024 meeting illustrate different aspects of the problem.

One, presented by Alissa S. Chen, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral fellow at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, found that people with obesity, particularly those with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and those who are Black and Hispanic, have high rates of cost-related prescription drug rationing. Those findings were simultaneously published as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

“The implications are that structural barriers impede access to medications for Black and Hispanic adults with obesity, which might worsen if there’s not expanding coverage for GLP-1 RAs [glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists], and it’s possible that broader insurance coverage could ameliorate some of these issues,” Chen said.

She noted that patients don’t always volunteer that information. “In my clinical practice, I always start by saying something like, ‘I have a lot of patients who can’t afford their medications. In the last week, was there a time [you didn’t take your medications due to cost]?’ ”

State Medicaid programs vary widely in the degree to which they cover weight loss treatments. But not a single one covers all modalities — nutrition counseling (NC), intensive behavioral therapy (IBT), obesity medications (OMs), and metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) — without restrictions or limitations, and only seven states cover them all with restrictions, according to a dual presentation by Christine Gallagher, MPAff, associate director for research and policy with the STOP Obesity Alliance at George Washington University, Washington, DC, and Tracy Zvenyach, PhD, MS, RN, director of policy strategy and alliances at the Obesity Action Coalition, also in Washington, DC.

Detailed Medicaid coverage data for each state are posted on the STOP Obesity Alliance website. (As of now, Medicare doesn’t cover medications specifically for obesity at all.)

A third presentation, by Treah Haggerty, MD, of the Department of Family Medicine and director of the Pediatric Medical Weight Management program at West Virginia University, Morgantown, was of a qualitative descriptive study exploring the impact on 22 individuals enrolled in a medical weight loss management program whose state employee insurance carrier made a policy decision to stop covering all anti-OMs in March 2024. All had been prescribed GLP-1 agonists for weight loss, and the decision forced most to stop using them.

Those findings were published in the September 2024 issue of Obesity Pillars.

“Patients perceive the discontinuation of anti-obesity medication coverage as stigmatizing and unjust, leading to feelings of hopelessness and fear. With more insurance companies denying coverage for these costly medications, more information is needed to identify best ways to address the loss of coverage with patients. Clinical management of these patients should incorporate evidence-based obesity treatments while navigating insurance constraints,” Haggerty said.

 

Create a Safe Space to Discuss the Barriers

Asked to comment, Session Moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, chief population health officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, told Medscape Medical News, “Health systems and payers are determining what can and can’t be covered, and at the end of the day, it frequently comes down to finances…I think the big challenge is really identifying patients who may have the greatest need. ... If we have limited resources, how and where should we be directing those resources? I would say the current system hasn’t really answered that question or identified patients for whom we would say that the cost truly is less than either the financial or long-term health benefits.”

But Clark said, “When some of these newer anti-obesity medications are able to go generic and be less expensive, which will happen eventually, I think things will change ... and in the future, there will be more options on the market as well.”

In the meantime, he advised that clinicians “try to have conversations with patients about these barriers, acknowledge that these barriers exist, and create a safe space to discuss those barriers. ... Let’s see where we are right now, and let’s come up with a plan.”

 

People With Obesity More Susceptible to Drug Rationing

Chen reported on a sample of 51,720 adults who participated in the 2020-2022 National Health Interview Survey who did not have diabetes and who used at least one prescription medication of any type. Of those, 80% were White, 9.7% were Hispanic, and 9.7% were Black, and 33.9% overall had obesity.

Cost-related prescription rationing, defined as any self-reported skipping, taking less, or delaying filling a prescription to save money, was reported by 8.3% of those with obesity vs 5.9% without. After adjustment, rationing among those with obesity was significantly associated with younger age (aged 18-44 years), female sex, lower incomes, lack of health insurance coverage, and CVD.

The adjusted estimated probability of cost-related prescription drug rationing was 7.4% for those with CVD vs 4.4% for those without. By race/ethnicity, the proportions reporting rationing were 7.7%, 9.8%, and 10.7% for White, Black, and Hispanics, respectively.

“Given that few insurance providers cover GLP-1 RAs for obesity, cost-related prescription drug rationing could be exacerbated if patients were prescribed GLP-1 RAs at their current price of more than $1000 a month,” Chen noted, adding that the high prices could worsen health disparities among Black and Hispanic individuals with obesity.

 

Medicaid Coverage Lacking for All Obesity Treatments

For their project, Gallagher and Zvenyach delved into a database that aggregates Medicaid manuals, fee schedules, statutes, regulations, and preferred drug lists for each US state, both for Medicaid fee for service and top Medicaid managed care plans, in order to determine 2024 levels of coverage for NC, IBT, OMs, and MBS for adults with obesity.

No state provides coverage for all those treatments without either limitations — such as body mass index (BMI) cutoffs, age, or “comorbidity regardless of body mass index (BMI)” for OM and MBS — or outright restrictions, such as “proof of failed attempts.” And only seven states provide coverage for the four modalities “with limitations”: California, Arizona, New Mexico, South Carolina, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.

Twenty-two states don’t cover NC, although just one state doesn’t cover IBT. Overall, 37 states don’t cover OMs, and other states ranged considerably in various restrictions and limitations for OMs and MBS. Only four states fully covered the surgery without limitations or restrictions.

“The vast majority of states have significant barriers and conditions of coverage for obesity care,” Gallagher said.

Zvenyach added, “Most of the applied exclusions, limitations, or restrictions do not align with evidence-based practice standards or guidelines.”

 

When Coverage Stops, Hopelessness and Anger Emerge

Haggerty and colleagues’ research involved semi-structured interviews of the 22 participants — all of them women — who had lost their obesity medication coverage due to their insurers’ decision. Four themes emerged:

• 1. Feelings of hope replaced by hopelessness upon loss of medication coverage: One person said, “I’m afraid for my mental health. It’s tough to be in a situation where you’re never right. And it doesn’t matter what you do; it’s not going to work, and then to have just a glimmer of hope, a little spark of hey, look, this might help. And for someone else to take that away from you for no reason. I don’t know what am I supposed to do.”
• 2. Anger regarding the perceived injustice of anti-obesity medication coverage termination: For example, “They can pay for heart attacks, they could pay for me to have a stroke, they could pay for me to have diabetes, but they won’t let me have this one medicine that could take all of that away. Makes no sense.”
• 3. Perceptions of past and present stigma within the healthcare system and insurance company: “I’m not trying for vanity. I’m way too old to be a Victoria’s Secret model. I’m not trying to do it to be cute and skinny and hot. I just want to make it through a day of work and not be exhausted.”
• 4. Generational influences on obesity treatment: “I’m married, and my husband, since I’ve started this medicine, he’s been eating better. He’s been eating what I eat, and he’s been losing weight as well.”
• Some participants said they planned to cope in different ways, including trying to obtain compounded versions of the drugs from “spas” or online pharmacies, as well as skipping doses, reducing doses, or sharing medications — in other words, rationing.

Asked by this news organization what clinicians should keep in mind, Haggerty said, “that there are big barriers and that we need to take care of the patients within this system that has their arm tied behind their back.

Chen was funded by a grant from the National Institute on Aging outside the submitted work, and she was funded as a Yale National Clinician Scholar. A coauthor received grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Arnold Ventures. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from UpToDate and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Gallagher has received research funding from Altimmune, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Currax, Eli Lilly and Company, Found, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Structure Therapeutics, and WeightWatchers. Haggerty reported article publishing charge was provided by West Virginia Alliance for Creative Health Solutions. Zvenyach and Clark had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Long-term treatment with TransCon parathyroid hormone (PTH), a replacement therapy for hypoparathyroidism, demonstrates sustained efficacy and safety in patients with hypoparathyroidism over 52 weeks, with 95% of participants able to discontinue conventional therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Conventional therapy for hypoparathyroidism (active vitamin D and elemental calcium) alleviates symptoms of hypocalcemia, but it does not improve insufficient PTH levels and is linked to long-term complications, such as nephrocalcinosis, nephrolithiasis, and renal dysfunction.
• This phase 3 (PaTHway) trial aimed to investigate the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of TransCon PTH (palopegteriparatide) in adults with hypoparathyroidism.
• Overall, 82 patients with chronic hypoparathyroidism (mean age, 48.6 years; 78% women; 93% White) were randomly assigned to receive TransCon PTH or placebo, both coadministered with conventional therapy for 26 weeks.
• At the 26-week visit, patients who completed the blinded treatment (n = 79) were assigned to receive only TransCon PTH with conventional therapy in an ongoing 156-week open-label extension.
• For this analysis at week 52, the main efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients (n = 78) with normal serum calcium levels (8.3-10.6 mg/dL) and independence from conventional therapy (active vitamin D and therapeutic doses of calcium); safety assessments included serum chemistries, 24-hour urine calcium excretion, and treatment-emergent adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 52, the majority of the patients receiving TransCon PTH achieved normal serum calcium levels within the normal range (86%) and independence from conventional therapy (95%). None required active vitamin D.
• In secondary endpoints, patients receiving TransCon PTH showed sustained improvement in Hypoparathyroidism Patient Experience Scale scores, reflecting better symptom management, enhanced functioning, and overall well-being through week 52.
• At week 52, the mean 24-hour urine calcium excretion in patients first randomized to TransCon PTH was 185.1 mg/d, remaining well below the upper limit of normal (≤ 250 mg/d), while the placebo group mean fell to 223.1 mg/d during the open-label extension of TransCon PTH.
• TransCon PTH was well-tolerated, with most treatment-emergent adverse events being mild or moderate and none leading to treatment discontinuation.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that TransCon PTH may improve outcomes and advance the standard of care for adults living with hypoparathyroidism,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bart L. Clarke, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included the open-label design during the extension period, which may have introduced bias in patient-reported outcomes. Additionally, the study population was predominantly women and White, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings. Further research is needed to assess the long-term effects of TransCon PTH on renal complications. One patient died of fatal cardiac arrest deemed unrelated to the study drug.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Ascendis Pharma A/S. Seven authors declared being current or former employees of Ascendis Pharma. The other authors declared receiving grants, research funding, honoraria, serving as consultants, advisory board members, study investigators, and other ties with Ascendis Pharma and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Long-term treatment with TransCon parathyroid hormone (PTH), a replacement therapy for hypoparathyroidism, demonstrates sustained efficacy and safety in patients with hypoparathyroidism over 52 weeks, with 95% of participants able to discontinue conventional therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Conventional therapy for hypoparathyroidism (active vitamin D and elemental calcium) alleviates symptoms of hypocalcemia, but it does not improve insufficient PTH levels and is linked to long-term complications, such as nephrocalcinosis, nephrolithiasis, and renal dysfunction.
• This phase 3 (PaTHway) trial aimed to investigate the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of TransCon PTH (palopegteriparatide) in adults with hypoparathyroidism.
• Overall, 82 patients with chronic hypoparathyroidism (mean age, 48.6 years; 78% women; 93% White) were randomly assigned to receive TransCon PTH or placebo, both coadministered with conventional therapy for 26 weeks.
• At the 26-week visit, patients who completed the blinded treatment (n = 79) were assigned to receive only TransCon PTH with conventional therapy in an ongoing 156-week open-label extension.
• For this analysis at week 52, the main efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients (n = 78) with normal serum calcium levels (8.3-10.6 mg/dL) and independence from conventional therapy (active vitamin D and therapeutic doses of calcium); safety assessments included serum chemistries, 24-hour urine calcium excretion, and treatment-emergent adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 52, the majority of the patients receiving TransCon PTH achieved normal serum calcium levels within the normal range (86%) and independence from conventional therapy (95%). None required active vitamin D.
• In secondary endpoints, patients receiving TransCon PTH showed sustained improvement in Hypoparathyroidism Patient Experience Scale scores, reflecting better symptom management, enhanced functioning, and overall well-being through week 52.
• At week 52, the mean 24-hour urine calcium excretion in patients first randomized to TransCon PTH was 185.1 mg/d, remaining well below the upper limit of normal (≤ 250 mg/d), while the placebo group mean fell to 223.1 mg/d during the open-label extension of TransCon PTH.
• TransCon PTH was well-tolerated, with most treatment-emergent adverse events being mild or moderate and none leading to treatment discontinuation.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that TransCon PTH may improve outcomes and advance the standard of care for adults living with hypoparathyroidism,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bart L. Clarke, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included the open-label design during the extension period, which may have introduced bias in patient-reported outcomes. Additionally, the study population was predominantly women and White, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings. Further research is needed to assess the long-term effects of TransCon PTH on renal complications. One patient died of fatal cardiac arrest deemed unrelated to the study drug.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Ascendis Pharma A/S. Seven authors declared being current or former employees of Ascendis Pharma. The other authors declared receiving grants, research funding, honoraria, serving as consultants, advisory board members, study investigators, and other ties with Ascendis Pharma and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Long-term treatment with TransCon parathyroid hormone (PTH), a replacement therapy for hypoparathyroidism, demonstrates sustained efficacy and safety in patients with hypoparathyroidism over 52 weeks, with 95% of participants able to discontinue conventional therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Conventional therapy for hypoparathyroidism (active vitamin D and elemental calcium) alleviates symptoms of hypocalcemia, but it does not improve insufficient PTH levels and is linked to long-term complications, such as nephrocalcinosis, nephrolithiasis, and renal dysfunction.
• This phase 3 (PaTHway) trial aimed to investigate the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of TransCon PTH (palopegteriparatide) in adults with hypoparathyroidism.
• Overall, 82 patients with chronic hypoparathyroidism (mean age, 48.6 years; 78% women; 93% White) were randomly assigned to receive TransCon PTH or placebo, both coadministered with conventional therapy for 26 weeks.
• At the 26-week visit, patients who completed the blinded treatment (n = 79) were assigned to receive only TransCon PTH with conventional therapy in an ongoing 156-week open-label extension.
• For this analysis at week 52, the main efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients (n = 78) with normal serum calcium levels (8.3-10.6 mg/dL) and independence from conventional therapy (active vitamin D and therapeutic doses of calcium); safety assessments included serum chemistries, 24-hour urine calcium excretion, and treatment-emergent adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 52, the majority of the patients receiving TransCon PTH achieved normal serum calcium levels within the normal range (86%) and independence from conventional therapy (95%). None required active vitamin D.
• In secondary endpoints, patients receiving TransCon PTH showed sustained improvement in Hypoparathyroidism Patient Experience Scale scores, reflecting better symptom management, enhanced functioning, and overall well-being through week 52.
• At week 52, the mean 24-hour urine calcium excretion in patients first randomized to TransCon PTH was 185.1 mg/d, remaining well below the upper limit of normal (≤ 250 mg/d), while the placebo group mean fell to 223.1 mg/d during the open-label extension of TransCon PTH.
• TransCon PTH was well-tolerated, with most treatment-emergent adverse events being mild or moderate and none leading to treatment discontinuation.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that TransCon PTH may improve outcomes and advance the standard of care for adults living with hypoparathyroidism,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bart L. Clarke, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included the open-label design during the extension period, which may have introduced bias in patient-reported outcomes. Additionally, the study population was predominantly women and White, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings. Further research is needed to assess the long-term effects of TransCon PTH on renal complications. One patient died of fatal cardiac arrest deemed unrelated to the study drug.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Ascendis Pharma A/S. Seven authors declared being current or former employees of Ascendis Pharma. The other authors declared receiving grants, research funding, honoraria, serving as consultants, advisory board members, study investigators, and other ties with Ascendis Pharma and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The 340B Drug Pricing Program began as a noble endeavor, a lifeline designed to help safety-net providers deliver affordable care to America’s most vulnerable populations. However, over the years, this well-intentioned program has strayed from its original purpose, becoming a lucrative space where profits often outweigh patients. Loopholes, lax oversight, and unchecked expansion have allowed some powerful players, such as certain disproportionate share hospitals and their “child sites” as well as for-profit pharmacies, to exploit the system. What was once a program to uplift underserved communities now risks becoming a case study in how good intentions can go astray without accountability.

What exactly is this “340B program” that has captured headlines and the interest of legislatures around the country? What ensures that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to participate in this program? How lucrative is it? How have underserved populations benefited and how is that measured? 
 

The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established in 1992 under the Public Health Service Act. Its primary goal is to enable covered entities (such as hospitals and clinics serving low-income and uninsured patients) to purchase outpatient drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers at significantly reduced prices in order to support their care of the low-income and underserved populations. Drug makers are required to participate in this program as a condition of their participation in Medicaid and Medicare Part B and offer these steep discounts to covered entities if they want their medications to be available to 38% of patients nationwide. 

The hospitals that make up 78% of the program’s spending are known as disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). These hospitals must be nonprofit and have at least an 11.75% “disproportionate” share of low-income Medicare or Medicaid inpatients. The other types of non-hospital entities qualifying for 340B pricing are known as initial “federal grantees.” Some examples include federally qualified health centers (FQHC), Ryan White HIV/AIDS program grantees, and other types of specialized clinics, such as hemophilia treatment centers. It needs to be noted up front that it is not these initial non-hospital federal grantees that need more oversight or reform, since according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2023 report they make up only 22% of all program spending. It is the large, predominantly DSH health systems that are profiting immensely through exponential growth of their clinics and contract pharmacies. However, these health systems have not been able to show exactly who are their eligible patients and how they have been benefiting them.

When the 340B program was established to offer financial relief to hospitals and clinics taking care of the uninsured, it allowed them to save 20%-50% on drug purchases, which could be reinvested in patient care services. It was hoped that savings from the program could be used to provide free or low-cost medications, free vaccines, and other essential health services, essentially allowing safety-net providers to serve their communities despite financial constraints. The initial grantees are fulfilling that mission, but there are concerns regarding DSHs. (See the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organization’s 340B explanatory statement and policy position for more.)

 

Why Should Independent Practice Physicians Care About This?

Independent doctors should care about the lack of oversight in the 340B program because it affects healthcare costs, patient assistance, market competition, and access to affordable care for underserved and uninsured patients.

It also plays a strong hand in the healthcare consolidation that continues to threaten private physician practices. These acquisitions threaten the viability of independent practices in a variety of specialties across the United States, including rheumatology. HRSA allows 340B-covered entities to register their off-campus outpatient facilities, or child sites, under their 340B designation. Covered entities can acquire drugs at the 340B price, while imposing markups on the reimbursement they submit to private insurance. The additional revenue these covered entities can pocket provides them with a cash flow advantage that physician practices and outpatient clinics will never be able to actualize. This uneven playing field may make rheumatology practices more susceptible to hospital acquisitions. In fact, between 2016 and 2022, large 340B hospitals were responsible for approximately 80% of hospital acquisitions.

Perhaps the most important reason that we should all be concerned about the trajectory of this well-meaning program is that we have seen patients with hospital debt being sued by DSHs who receive 340B discounts so that they can take care of the low-income patients they are suing. We have seen Medicaid patients be turned away from a DSH clinic after being discharged from that hospital, because the hospital had reached its disproportionate share (11.75%) of inpatient Medicare and Medicaid patients. While not illegal, that type of behavior by covered entities is WRONG! Oversight and reform are needed if the 340B program is going to live up to its purpose and not be just another well-intentioned program not fulfilling its mission.

 

Areas of Concern

There has been controversy regarding the limited oversight of the 340B program by HRSA, leading to abuse of the program. There are deep concerns regarding a lack of transparency in how savings from the program are being used, and there are concerns about the challenges associated with accurate tracking and reporting of 340B discounts, possibly leading to the duplication of discounts for both Medicaid and 340B. For example, a “duplicate discount” occurs if a manufacturer sells medications to a DSH at the 340B price and later pays a Medicaid rebate on the same drug. The extent of duplicate discounts in the 340B program is unknown. However, an audit of 1,536 cases conducted by HRSA between 2012 and 2019 found 429 instances of noncompliance related to duplicate discounts, which is nearly 30% of cases.

DSHs and their contracted pharmacies have been accused of exploiting the program by increasing the number of contract pharmacies and expanding the number of offsite outpatient clinics to maximize profits. As of mid-2024, the number of 340B contract pharmacies, counted by Drug Channels Institute (DCI), numbered 32,883 unique locations. According to DCI, the top five pharmacies in the program happen also to be among the top pharmacy revenue generators and are “for-profit.” They are CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Express Scripts, and Optum RX. Additionally, a study in JAMA Health Forum showed that, from 2011 to 2019, contract pharmacies in areas with the lowest income decreased by 5.6% while those in the most affluent neighborhoods grew by 5%. 

There also has been tremendous growth in the number of covered entities in the 340B program, which grew from just over 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2020. Before 2004, DSHs made up less than 10% of these entities, but by 2020, they accounted for over 60%. Another study shows that DSHs are expanding their offsite outpatient clinics (“child clinics”) into the affluent neighborhoods serving commercially insured patients who are not low income, to capture the high commercial reimbursements for medications they acquired at steeply discounted prices. This clearly is diverting care away from the intended beneficiaries of the 340B program. 

Furthermore, DSHs have been acquiring specialty practices that prescribe some of the most expensive drugs, in order to take advantage of commercial reimbursement for medications that were acquired at the 340B discount price. Independent oncology practices have complained specifically about this happening in their area, where in some cases the DSHs have “stolen” their patients to profit off of the 340B pricing margins. This has the unintended consequence of increasing government spending, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed price markups at 340B eligible hospitals were 6.59 times as high as those in independent physician practices after accounting for drug, patient, and geographic factors.

 

Legal Challenges and Legislation

On May 21, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a unanimous decision in favor of drug manufacturers, finding that certain manufacturer restrictions on the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B drug pricing program are permissible. The court’s decision follows a lower court (3rd Circuit) ruling which concluded that the 340B statute does not require manufacturers to deliver 340B drugs to an “unlimited number of contract pharmacies.” We’re still awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court on a similar issue. If the 7th Circuit agrees with the government, creating a split decision, there is an increase in the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take up the case.

Johnson & Johnson has also sued the federal government for blocking their proposed use of a rebate model for DSHs that purchase through 340B two of its medications, Stelara and Xarelto, whose maximum fair price was negotiated through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. J&J states this would ensure that the claims are actually acquired and dispensed by a covered 340B entity, as well as ensuring there are no duplicate discounts as statutorily required by the IRA. When initially proposed, HRSA threatened to remove J&J’s access to Medicare and Medicaid if it pursued this change. J&J’s suit challenges that decision.

However, seven states (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia) have been active on this issue, passing laws to prevent manufacturers from limiting contract pharmacies’ ability to acquire 340B-discounted drugs. The model legislation also bans restrictions on the “number, location, ownership, or type of 340B contract pharmacy.”

It should also be noted that there are states that are looking for ways to encourage certain independent private practice specialties (such as gastroenterology and rheumatology) to see Medicaid patients, as well as increase testing for sexually transmitted diseases, by offering the possibility of obtaining 340B pricing in their clinics. 

Shifting our focus to Congress, six bipartisan Senators, known as the Group of 6, are working to modernize the 340B program, which hasn’t been updated since the original law in 1992. In 2024, legislation was introduced (see here and here) to reform a number of the features of the 340B drug discount program, including transparency, contract pharmacy requirements, and federal agency oversight.

 

Who’s Guarding the Hen House?

The Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General over the last 5-10 years have asked HRSA to better define an “eligible” patient, to have more specifics concerning hospital eligibility criteria, and to have better oversight of the program to avoid duplicate discounts. HRSA has said that it doesn’t have the ability or the funding to achieve some of these goals. Consequently, little has been done on any of these fronts, creating frustration among pharmaceutical manufacturers and those calling for more oversight of the program to ensure that eligible patients are receiving the benefit of 340B pricing. Again, these frustrations are not pointed at the initial federally qualified centers or “grantees.”

HRSA now audits 200 covered entities a year, which is less than 2% of entities participating in the 340B program. HRSA expects the 340B entities themselves to have an oversight committee in place to ensure compliance with program requirements. 

So essentially, the fox is guarding the hen house?

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The 340B Drug Pricing Program began as a noble endeavor, a lifeline designed to help safety-net providers deliver affordable care to America’s most vulnerable populations. However, over the years, this well-intentioned program has strayed from its original purpose, becoming a lucrative space where profits often outweigh patients. Loopholes, lax oversight, and unchecked expansion have allowed some powerful players, such as certain disproportionate share hospitals and their “child sites” as well as for-profit pharmacies, to exploit the system. What was once a program to uplift underserved communities now risks becoming a case study in how good intentions can go astray without accountability.

What exactly is this “340B program” that has captured headlines and the interest of legislatures around the country? What ensures that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to participate in this program? How lucrative is it? How have underserved populations benefited and how is that measured? 
 

The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established in 1992 under the Public Health Service Act. Its primary goal is to enable covered entities (such as hospitals and clinics serving low-income and uninsured patients) to purchase outpatient drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers at significantly reduced prices in order to support their care of the low-income and underserved populations. Drug makers are required to participate in this program as a condition of their participation in Medicaid and Medicare Part B and offer these steep discounts to covered entities if they want their medications to be available to 38% of patients nationwide. 

The hospitals that make up 78% of the program’s spending are known as disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). These hospitals must be nonprofit and have at least an 11.75% “disproportionate” share of low-income Medicare or Medicaid inpatients. The other types of non-hospital entities qualifying for 340B pricing are known as initial “federal grantees.” Some examples include federally qualified health centers (FQHC), Ryan White HIV/AIDS program grantees, and other types of specialized clinics, such as hemophilia treatment centers. It needs to be noted up front that it is not these initial non-hospital federal grantees that need more oversight or reform, since according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2023 report they make up only 22% of all program spending. It is the large, predominantly DSH health systems that are profiting immensely through exponential growth of their clinics and contract pharmacies. However, these health systems have not been able to show exactly who are their eligible patients and how they have been benefiting them.

When the 340B program was established to offer financial relief to hospitals and clinics taking care of the uninsured, it allowed them to save 20%-50% on drug purchases, which could be reinvested in patient care services. It was hoped that savings from the program could be used to provide free or low-cost medications, free vaccines, and other essential health services, essentially allowing safety-net providers to serve their communities despite financial constraints. The initial grantees are fulfilling that mission, but there are concerns regarding DSHs. (See the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organization’s 340B explanatory statement and policy position for more.)

 

Why Should Independent Practice Physicians Care About This?

Independent doctors should care about the lack of oversight in the 340B program because it affects healthcare costs, patient assistance, market competition, and access to affordable care for underserved and uninsured patients.

It also plays a strong hand in the healthcare consolidation that continues to threaten private physician practices. These acquisitions threaten the viability of independent practices in a variety of specialties across the United States, including rheumatology. HRSA allows 340B-covered entities to register their off-campus outpatient facilities, or child sites, under their 340B designation. Covered entities can acquire drugs at the 340B price, while imposing markups on the reimbursement they submit to private insurance. The additional revenue these covered entities can pocket provides them with a cash flow advantage that physician practices and outpatient clinics will never be able to actualize. This uneven playing field may make rheumatology practices more susceptible to hospital acquisitions. In fact, between 2016 and 2022, large 340B hospitals were responsible for approximately 80% of hospital acquisitions.

Perhaps the most important reason that we should all be concerned about the trajectory of this well-meaning program is that we have seen patients with hospital debt being sued by DSHs who receive 340B discounts so that they can take care of the low-income patients they are suing. We have seen Medicaid patients be turned away from a DSH clinic after being discharged from that hospital, because the hospital had reached its disproportionate share (11.75%) of inpatient Medicare and Medicaid patients. While not illegal, that type of behavior by covered entities is WRONG! Oversight and reform are needed if the 340B program is going to live up to its purpose and not be just another well-intentioned program not fulfilling its mission.

 

Areas of Concern

There has been controversy regarding the limited oversight of the 340B program by HRSA, leading to abuse of the program. There are deep concerns regarding a lack of transparency in how savings from the program are being used, and there are concerns about the challenges associated with accurate tracking and reporting of 340B discounts, possibly leading to the duplication of discounts for both Medicaid and 340B. For example, a “duplicate discount” occurs if a manufacturer sells medications to a DSH at the 340B price and later pays a Medicaid rebate on the same drug. The extent of duplicate discounts in the 340B program is unknown. However, an audit of 1,536 cases conducted by HRSA between 2012 and 2019 found 429 instances of noncompliance related to duplicate discounts, which is nearly 30% of cases.

DSHs and their contracted pharmacies have been accused of exploiting the program by increasing the number of contract pharmacies and expanding the number of offsite outpatient clinics to maximize profits. As of mid-2024, the number of 340B contract pharmacies, counted by Drug Channels Institute (DCI), numbered 32,883 unique locations. According to DCI, the top five pharmacies in the program happen also to be among the top pharmacy revenue generators and are “for-profit.” They are CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Express Scripts, and Optum RX. Additionally, a study in JAMA Health Forum showed that, from 2011 to 2019, contract pharmacies in areas with the lowest income decreased by 5.6% while those in the most affluent neighborhoods grew by 5%. 

There also has been tremendous growth in the number of covered entities in the 340B program, which grew from just over 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2020. Before 2004, DSHs made up less than 10% of these entities, but by 2020, they accounted for over 60%. Another study shows that DSHs are expanding their offsite outpatient clinics (“child clinics”) into the affluent neighborhoods serving commercially insured patients who are not low income, to capture the high commercial reimbursements for medications they acquired at steeply discounted prices. This clearly is diverting care away from the intended beneficiaries of the 340B program. 

Furthermore, DSHs have been acquiring specialty practices that prescribe some of the most expensive drugs, in order to take advantage of commercial reimbursement for medications that were acquired at the 340B discount price. Independent oncology practices have complained specifically about this happening in their area, where in some cases the DSHs have “stolen” their patients to profit off of the 340B pricing margins. This has the unintended consequence of increasing government spending, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed price markups at 340B eligible hospitals were 6.59 times as high as those in independent physician practices after accounting for drug, patient, and geographic factors.

 

Legal Challenges and Legislation

On May 21, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a unanimous decision in favor of drug manufacturers, finding that certain manufacturer restrictions on the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B drug pricing program are permissible. The court’s decision follows a lower court (3rd Circuit) ruling which concluded that the 340B statute does not require manufacturers to deliver 340B drugs to an “unlimited number of contract pharmacies.” We’re still awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court on a similar issue. If the 7th Circuit agrees with the government, creating a split decision, there is an increase in the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take up the case.

Johnson & Johnson has also sued the federal government for blocking their proposed use of a rebate model for DSHs that purchase through 340B two of its medications, Stelara and Xarelto, whose maximum fair price was negotiated through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. J&J states this would ensure that the claims are actually acquired and dispensed by a covered 340B entity, as well as ensuring there are no duplicate discounts as statutorily required by the IRA. When initially proposed, HRSA threatened to remove J&J’s access to Medicare and Medicaid if it pursued this change. J&J’s suit challenges that decision.

However, seven states (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia) have been active on this issue, passing laws to prevent manufacturers from limiting contract pharmacies’ ability to acquire 340B-discounted drugs. The model legislation also bans restrictions on the “number, location, ownership, or type of 340B contract pharmacy.”

It should also be noted that there are states that are looking for ways to encourage certain independent private practice specialties (such as gastroenterology and rheumatology) to see Medicaid patients, as well as increase testing for sexually transmitted diseases, by offering the possibility of obtaining 340B pricing in their clinics. 

Shifting our focus to Congress, six bipartisan Senators, known as the Group of 6, are working to modernize the 340B program, which hasn’t been updated since the original law in 1992. In 2024, legislation was introduced (see here and here) to reform a number of the features of the 340B drug discount program, including transparency, contract pharmacy requirements, and federal agency oversight.

 

Who’s Guarding the Hen House?

The Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General over the last 5-10 years have asked HRSA to better define an “eligible” patient, to have more specifics concerning hospital eligibility criteria, and to have better oversight of the program to avoid duplicate discounts. HRSA has said that it doesn’t have the ability or the funding to achieve some of these goals. Consequently, little has been done on any of these fronts, creating frustration among pharmaceutical manufacturers and those calling for more oversight of the program to ensure that eligible patients are receiving the benefit of 340B pricing. Again, these frustrations are not pointed at the initial federally qualified centers or “grantees.”

HRSA now audits 200 covered entities a year, which is less than 2% of entities participating in the 340B program. HRSA expects the 340B entities themselves to have an oversight committee in place to ensure compliance with program requirements. 

So essentially, the fox is guarding the hen house?

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The 340B Drug Pricing Program began as a noble endeavor, a lifeline designed to help safety-net providers deliver affordable care to America’s most vulnerable populations. However, over the years, this well-intentioned program has strayed from its original purpose, becoming a lucrative space where profits often outweigh patients. Loopholes, lax oversight, and unchecked expansion have allowed some powerful players, such as certain disproportionate share hospitals and their “child sites” as well as for-profit pharmacies, to exploit the system. What was once a program to uplift underserved communities now risks becoming a case study in how good intentions can go astray without accountability.

What exactly is this “340B program” that has captured headlines and the interest of legislatures around the country? What ensures that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to participate in this program? How lucrative is it? How have underserved populations benefited and how is that measured? 
 

The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established in 1992 under the Public Health Service Act. Its primary goal is to enable covered entities (such as hospitals and clinics serving low-income and uninsured patients) to purchase outpatient drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers at significantly reduced prices in order to support their care of the low-income and underserved populations. Drug makers are required to participate in this program as a condition of their participation in Medicaid and Medicare Part B and offer these steep discounts to covered entities if they want their medications to be available to 38% of patients nationwide. 

The hospitals that make up 78% of the program’s spending are known as disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). These hospitals must be nonprofit and have at least an 11.75% “disproportionate” share of low-income Medicare or Medicaid inpatients. The other types of non-hospital entities qualifying for 340B pricing are known as initial “federal grantees.” Some examples include federally qualified health centers (FQHC), Ryan White HIV/AIDS program grantees, and other types of specialized clinics, such as hemophilia treatment centers. It needs to be noted up front that it is not these initial non-hospital federal grantees that need more oversight or reform, since according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2023 report they make up only 22% of all program spending. It is the large, predominantly DSH health systems that are profiting immensely through exponential growth of their clinics and contract pharmacies. However, these health systems have not been able to show exactly who are their eligible patients and how they have been benefiting them.

When the 340B program was established to offer financial relief to hospitals and clinics taking care of the uninsured, it allowed them to save 20%-50% on drug purchases, which could be reinvested in patient care services. It was hoped that savings from the program could be used to provide free or low-cost medications, free vaccines, and other essential health services, essentially allowing safety-net providers to serve their communities despite financial constraints. The initial grantees are fulfilling that mission, but there are concerns regarding DSHs. (See the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organization’s 340B explanatory statement and policy position for more.)

 

Why Should Independent Practice Physicians Care About This?

Independent doctors should care about the lack of oversight in the 340B program because it affects healthcare costs, patient assistance, market competition, and access to affordable care for underserved and uninsured patients.

It also plays a strong hand in the healthcare consolidation that continues to threaten private physician practices. These acquisitions threaten the viability of independent practices in a variety of specialties across the United States, including rheumatology. HRSA allows 340B-covered entities to register their off-campus outpatient facilities, or child sites, under their 340B designation. Covered entities can acquire drugs at the 340B price, while imposing markups on the reimbursement they submit to private insurance. The additional revenue these covered entities can pocket provides them with a cash flow advantage that physician practices and outpatient clinics will never be able to actualize. This uneven playing field may make rheumatology practices more susceptible to hospital acquisitions. In fact, between 2016 and 2022, large 340B hospitals were responsible for approximately 80% of hospital acquisitions.

Perhaps the most important reason that we should all be concerned about the trajectory of this well-meaning program is that we have seen patients with hospital debt being sued by DSHs who receive 340B discounts so that they can take care of the low-income patients they are suing. We have seen Medicaid patients be turned away from a DSH clinic after being discharged from that hospital, because the hospital had reached its disproportionate share (11.75%) of inpatient Medicare and Medicaid patients. While not illegal, that type of behavior by covered entities is WRONG! Oversight and reform are needed if the 340B program is going to live up to its purpose and not be just another well-intentioned program not fulfilling its mission.

 

Areas of Concern

There has been controversy regarding the limited oversight of the 340B program by HRSA, leading to abuse of the program. There are deep concerns regarding a lack of transparency in how savings from the program are being used, and there are concerns about the challenges associated with accurate tracking and reporting of 340B discounts, possibly leading to the duplication of discounts for both Medicaid and 340B. For example, a “duplicate discount” occurs if a manufacturer sells medications to a DSH at the 340B price and later pays a Medicaid rebate on the same drug. The extent of duplicate discounts in the 340B program is unknown. However, an audit of 1,536 cases conducted by HRSA between 2012 and 2019 found 429 instances of noncompliance related to duplicate discounts, which is nearly 30% of cases.

DSHs and their contracted pharmacies have been accused of exploiting the program by increasing the number of contract pharmacies and expanding the number of offsite outpatient clinics to maximize profits. As of mid-2024, the number of 340B contract pharmacies, counted by Drug Channels Institute (DCI), numbered 32,883 unique locations. According to DCI, the top five pharmacies in the program happen also to be among the top pharmacy revenue generators and are “for-profit.” They are CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Express Scripts, and Optum RX. Additionally, a study in JAMA Health Forum showed that, from 2011 to 2019, contract pharmacies in areas with the lowest income decreased by 5.6% while those in the most affluent neighborhoods grew by 5%. 

There also has been tremendous growth in the number of covered entities in the 340B program, which grew from just over 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2020. Before 2004, DSHs made up less than 10% of these entities, but by 2020, they accounted for over 60%. Another study shows that DSHs are expanding their offsite outpatient clinics (“child clinics”) into the affluent neighborhoods serving commercially insured patients who are not low income, to capture the high commercial reimbursements for medications they acquired at steeply discounted prices. This clearly is diverting care away from the intended beneficiaries of the 340B program. 

Furthermore, DSHs have been acquiring specialty practices that prescribe some of the most expensive drugs, in order to take advantage of commercial reimbursement for medications that were acquired at the 340B discount price. Independent oncology practices have complained specifically about this happening in their area, where in some cases the DSHs have “stolen” their patients to profit off of the 340B pricing margins. This has the unintended consequence of increasing government spending, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed price markups at 340B eligible hospitals were 6.59 times as high as those in independent physician practices after accounting for drug, patient, and geographic factors.

 

Legal Challenges and Legislation

On May 21, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a unanimous decision in favor of drug manufacturers, finding that certain manufacturer restrictions on the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B drug pricing program are permissible. The court’s decision follows a lower court (3rd Circuit) ruling which concluded that the 340B statute does not require manufacturers to deliver 340B drugs to an “unlimited number of contract pharmacies.” We’re still awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court on a similar issue. If the 7th Circuit agrees with the government, creating a split decision, there is an increase in the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take up the case.

Johnson & Johnson has also sued the federal government for blocking their proposed use of a rebate model for DSHs that purchase through 340B two of its medications, Stelara and Xarelto, whose maximum fair price was negotiated through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. J&J states this would ensure that the claims are actually acquired and dispensed by a covered 340B entity, as well as ensuring there are no duplicate discounts as statutorily required by the IRA. When initially proposed, HRSA threatened to remove J&J’s access to Medicare and Medicaid if it pursued this change. J&J’s suit challenges that decision.

However, seven states (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia) have been active on this issue, passing laws to prevent manufacturers from limiting contract pharmacies’ ability to acquire 340B-discounted drugs. The model legislation also bans restrictions on the “number, location, ownership, or type of 340B contract pharmacy.”

It should also be noted that there are states that are looking for ways to encourage certain independent private practice specialties (such as gastroenterology and rheumatology) to see Medicaid patients, as well as increase testing for sexually transmitted diseases, by offering the possibility of obtaining 340B pricing in their clinics. 

Shifting our focus to Congress, six bipartisan Senators, known as the Group of 6, are working to modernize the 340B program, which hasn’t been updated since the original law in 1992. In 2024, legislation was introduced (see here and here) to reform a number of the features of the 340B drug discount program, including transparency, contract pharmacy requirements, and federal agency oversight.

 

Who’s Guarding the Hen House?

The Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General over the last 5-10 years have asked HRSA to better define an “eligible” patient, to have more specifics concerning hospital eligibility criteria, and to have better oversight of the program to avoid duplicate discounts. HRSA has said that it doesn’t have the ability or the funding to achieve some of these goals. Consequently, little has been done on any of these fronts, creating frustration among pharmaceutical manufacturers and those calling for more oversight of the program to ensure that eligible patients are receiving the benefit of 340B pricing. Again, these frustrations are not pointed at the initial federally qualified centers or “grantees.”

HRSA now audits 200 covered entities a year, which is less than 2% of entities participating in the 340B program. HRSA expects the 340B entities themselves to have an oversight committee in place to ensure compliance with program requirements. 

So essentially, the fox is guarding the hen house?

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.