New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

I’m speaking today about the ever-rising prominence of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced lung cancers. There are more and more data emerging suggesting that the neoadjuvant strategy is a better one.

Many of you saw the press release from Merck announcing that their randomized trial comparing chemo with chemo plus pembrolizumab in the neoadjuvant setting led to improved event-free survival and also improved pathologic complete response rate.

This comes in addition to the data from the AstraZeneca trial with durvalumab saying they’ve already achieved their endpoint of higher pathologic complete response rate vs. chemotherapy alone and also the data with nivolumab from Bristol-Myers Squibb saying that nivolumab plus chemotherapy leads to a better event-free survival and a better pathologic complete response rate. That information has led to Food and Drug Administration approval for their regimen.

We’re running the table with these very positive data, and I think it’s just a sign that the approach is safe and effective.

A huge question has come up. I just came from a meeting of lung cancer experts asking what to do if you have a patient with a small tumor, for example, a 3-cm tumor. Do you recommend immediate surgery followed by adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy, and then a checkpoint inhibitor if appropriate? Or do you proceed with neoadjuvant therapy if appropriate? The truth is that it’s a very difficult decision.

We have overwhelming data that the neoadjuvant approach works for that patient. Please remember that this is a clinically staged patient. This is not the patient after their surgery, where I think we have a very clear path. We have adjuvant data and adjuvant trials for those patients.

For the patient who’s in your office with a small tumor or a small tumor and only hilar lymphadenopathy, the decision there isn’t data driven, but rather it is experience driven. The data that are out there right now suggest that neoadjuvant therapy is a better way to go. Why is that?

Well, I think that the first reason is that it is probably a better regimen. I think many of you saw the recent clinical trial by Patel and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine with melanoma. It was an interesting trial. They gave a checkpoint inhibitor for 18 doses after surgery for melanoma versus three doses of checkpoint inhibitor, surgery, and then 15 doses of the checkpoint inhibitor.

It was 18 doses versus 18 doses, with the only difference being the three doses before surgery. Lo and behold, the three doses before surgery led to a better event-free survival.

There are preclinical data in lung cancer demonstrating that the same thing is true. Tina Cascone published on that years ago. We could talk about why, but it appears that neoadjuvant is just better.

There are other advantages to it as well. I think a big one is that all the information shows that it’s better tolerated, so you’re more likely to give all the drug. You can see if the drug isn’t working, and you can stop the drug. Also, if the drug is causing a side effect, you can see whether it’s working or not and use that decision to stop. It’s different than when you’re giving a drug in the adjuvant setting where you don’t really know whether it is working or not.

I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group. You need to weigh the pros and cons I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group coming in. It’s already an FDA-approved regimen with nivolumab and chemotherapy, and I think we’re moving to making that our standard of care now.

The way to handle it today, though, is to convene your multidisciplinary panel about every patient other than those with the tiniest of lung cancers and put your heads together to see what the best treatment is for that patient.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, both in New York. He disclosed ties with Ariad Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m speaking today about the ever-rising prominence of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced lung cancers. There are more and more data emerging suggesting that the neoadjuvant strategy is a better one.

Many of you saw the press release from Merck announcing that their randomized trial comparing chemo with chemo plus pembrolizumab in the neoadjuvant setting led to improved event-free survival and also improved pathologic complete response rate.

This comes in addition to the data from the AstraZeneca trial with durvalumab saying they’ve already achieved their endpoint of higher pathologic complete response rate vs. chemotherapy alone and also the data with nivolumab from Bristol-Myers Squibb saying that nivolumab plus chemotherapy leads to a better event-free survival and a better pathologic complete response rate. That information has led to Food and Drug Administration approval for their regimen.

We’re running the table with these very positive data, and I think it’s just a sign that the approach is safe and effective.

A huge question has come up. I just came from a meeting of lung cancer experts asking what to do if you have a patient with a small tumor, for example, a 3-cm tumor. Do you recommend immediate surgery followed by adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy, and then a checkpoint inhibitor if appropriate? Or do you proceed with neoadjuvant therapy if appropriate? The truth is that it’s a very difficult decision.

We have overwhelming data that the neoadjuvant approach works for that patient. Please remember that this is a clinically staged patient. This is not the patient after their surgery, where I think we have a very clear path. We have adjuvant data and adjuvant trials for those patients.

For the patient who’s in your office with a small tumor or a small tumor and only hilar lymphadenopathy, the decision there isn’t data driven, but rather it is experience driven. The data that are out there right now suggest that neoadjuvant therapy is a better way to go. Why is that?

Well, I think that the first reason is that it is probably a better regimen. I think many of you saw the recent clinical trial by Patel and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine with melanoma. It was an interesting trial. They gave a checkpoint inhibitor for 18 doses after surgery for melanoma versus three doses of checkpoint inhibitor, surgery, and then 15 doses of the checkpoint inhibitor.

It was 18 doses versus 18 doses, with the only difference being the three doses before surgery. Lo and behold, the three doses before surgery led to a better event-free survival.

There are preclinical data in lung cancer demonstrating that the same thing is true. Tina Cascone published on that years ago. We could talk about why, but it appears that neoadjuvant is just better.

There are other advantages to it as well. I think a big one is that all the information shows that it’s better tolerated, so you’re more likely to give all the drug. You can see if the drug isn’t working, and you can stop the drug. Also, if the drug is causing a side effect, you can see whether it’s working or not and use that decision to stop. It’s different than when you’re giving a drug in the adjuvant setting where you don’t really know whether it is working or not.

I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group. You need to weigh the pros and cons I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group coming in. It’s already an FDA-approved regimen with nivolumab and chemotherapy, and I think we’re moving to making that our standard of care now.

The way to handle it today, though, is to convene your multidisciplinary panel about every patient other than those with the tiniest of lung cancers and put your heads together to see what the best treatment is for that patient.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, both in New York. He disclosed ties with Ariad Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m speaking today about the ever-rising prominence of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced lung cancers. There are more and more data emerging suggesting that the neoadjuvant strategy is a better one.

Many of you saw the press release from Merck announcing that their randomized trial comparing chemo with chemo plus pembrolizumab in the neoadjuvant setting led to improved event-free survival and also improved pathologic complete response rate.

This comes in addition to the data from the AstraZeneca trial with durvalumab saying they’ve already achieved their endpoint of higher pathologic complete response rate vs. chemotherapy alone and also the data with nivolumab from Bristol-Myers Squibb saying that nivolumab plus chemotherapy leads to a better event-free survival and a better pathologic complete response rate. That information has led to Food and Drug Administration approval for their regimen.

We’re running the table with these very positive data, and I think it’s just a sign that the approach is safe and effective.

A huge question has come up. I just came from a meeting of lung cancer experts asking what to do if you have a patient with a small tumor, for example, a 3-cm tumor. Do you recommend immediate surgery followed by adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy, and then a checkpoint inhibitor if appropriate? Or do you proceed with neoadjuvant therapy if appropriate? The truth is that it’s a very difficult decision.

We have overwhelming data that the neoadjuvant approach works for that patient. Please remember that this is a clinically staged patient. This is not the patient after their surgery, where I think we have a very clear path. We have adjuvant data and adjuvant trials for those patients.

For the patient who’s in your office with a small tumor or a small tumor and only hilar lymphadenopathy, the decision there isn’t data driven, but rather it is experience driven. The data that are out there right now suggest that neoadjuvant therapy is a better way to go. Why is that?

Well, I think that the first reason is that it is probably a better regimen. I think many of you saw the recent clinical trial by Patel and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine with melanoma. It was an interesting trial. They gave a checkpoint inhibitor for 18 doses after surgery for melanoma versus three doses of checkpoint inhibitor, surgery, and then 15 doses of the checkpoint inhibitor.

It was 18 doses versus 18 doses, with the only difference being the three doses before surgery. Lo and behold, the three doses before surgery led to a better event-free survival.

There are preclinical data in lung cancer demonstrating that the same thing is true. Tina Cascone published on that years ago. We could talk about why, but it appears that neoadjuvant is just better.

There are other advantages to it as well. I think a big one is that all the information shows that it’s better tolerated, so you’re more likely to give all the drug. You can see if the drug isn’t working, and you can stop the drug. Also, if the drug is causing a side effect, you can see whether it’s working or not and use that decision to stop. It’s different than when you’re giving a drug in the adjuvant setting where you don’t really know whether it is working or not.

I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group. You need to weigh the pros and cons I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group coming in. It’s already an FDA-approved regimen with nivolumab and chemotherapy, and I think we’re moving to making that our standard of care now.

The way to handle it today, though, is to convene your multidisciplinary panel about every patient other than those with the tiniest of lung cancers and put your heads together to see what the best treatment is for that patient.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, both in New York. He disclosed ties with Ariad Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Key clinical point: Comparable prevalence rates of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) and those with in situ melanoma suggest that AD is not a risk factor for NAFLD.

Major finding: The prevalence rate of NAFLD was similar in patients with AD (24.1%) and those with in situ melanoma (23.2%), but it was significantly higher in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis (49.8%) compared with the other two groups (both P < .01). AD was not independently associated with NAFLD (adjusted odds ratio 1.02; 95% CI 0.78-1.26).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cross-sectional study including adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD (n = 144), moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis (n = 466), or in situ melanoma (n = 99).

Disclosures: This study was funded by European Union-Next Generation EU-NRRP M6C2-Investment 2.1 Enhancement and Strengthening of Biomedical Research in the National Health Service. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Maurelli M et al. Prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in adult individuals with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. J Clin Med. 2023;12(18):6057 (Sep 19). doi: 10.3390/jcm12186057

Key clinical point: Comparable prevalence rates of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) and those with in situ melanoma suggest that AD is not a risk factor for NAFLD.

Major finding: The prevalence rate of NAFLD was similar in patients with AD (24.1%) and those with in situ melanoma (23.2%), but it was significantly higher in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis (49.8%) compared with the other two groups (both P < .01). AD was not independently associated with NAFLD (adjusted odds ratio 1.02; 95% CI 0.78-1.26).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cross-sectional study including adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD (n = 144), moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis (n = 466), or in situ melanoma (n = 99).

Disclosures: This study was funded by European Union-Next Generation EU-NRRP M6C2-Investment 2.1 Enhancement and Strengthening of Biomedical Research in the National Health Service. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Maurelli M et al. Prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in adult individuals with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. J Clin Med. 2023;12(18):6057 (Sep 19). doi: 10.3390/jcm12186057

Key clinical point: Comparable prevalence rates of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) and those with in situ melanoma suggest that AD is not a risk factor for NAFLD.

Major finding: The prevalence rate of NAFLD was similar in patients with AD (24.1%) and those with in situ melanoma (23.2%), but it was significantly higher in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis (49.8%) compared with the other two groups (both P < .01). AD was not independently associated with NAFLD (adjusted odds ratio 1.02; 95% CI 0.78-1.26).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cross-sectional study including adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD (n = 144), moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis (n = 466), or in situ melanoma (n = 99).

Disclosures: This study was funded by European Union-Next Generation EU-NRRP M6C2-Investment 2.1 Enhancement and Strengthening of Biomedical Research in the National Health Service. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Maurelli M et al. Prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in adult individuals with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. J Clin Med. 2023;12(18):6057 (Sep 19). doi: 10.3390/jcm12186057

Key clinical point: Long-term dupilumab treatment provides sustained clinical benefits and acceptable safety in children age 6-11 years with uncontrolled severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: By week 52, 41% of patients achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, and 82% of patients achieved ≥75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index scores compared with the LIBERTY AD PEDS baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly of mild or moderate severity.

Study details: This analysis of data from the LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study included 321 children (age 6-11 years) with severe AD who previously participated in LIBERTY AD PEDS and received 300 mg dupilumab every 4 weeks or an up-titrated weight-tiered dose of 200 or 300 mg dupilumab every 2 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Seven authors declared being employees of or holding stocks or stock options in Sanofi or Regeneron. The other authors declared ties with various sources, including Sanofi and Regeneron.

Source: Cork MJ et al. Dupilumab safety and efficacy in a phase III open-label extension trial in children 6-11 years of age with severe atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2023 (Sep 26). doi: 10.1007/s13555-023-01016-9

Key clinical point: Long-term dupilumab treatment provides sustained clinical benefits and acceptable safety in children age 6-11 years with uncontrolled severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: By week 52, 41% of patients achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, and 82% of patients achieved ≥75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index scores compared with the LIBERTY AD PEDS baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly of mild or moderate severity.

Study details: This analysis of data from the LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study included 321 children (age 6-11 years) with severe AD who previously participated in LIBERTY AD PEDS and received 300 mg dupilumab every 4 weeks or an up-titrated weight-tiered dose of 200 or 300 mg dupilumab every 2 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Seven authors declared being employees of or holding stocks or stock options in Sanofi or Regeneron. The other authors declared ties with various sources, including Sanofi and Regeneron.

Source: Cork MJ et al. Dupilumab safety and efficacy in a phase III open-label extension trial in children 6-11 years of age with severe atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2023 (Sep 26). doi: 10.1007/s13555-023-01016-9

Key clinical point: Long-term dupilumab treatment provides sustained clinical benefits and acceptable safety in children age 6-11 years with uncontrolled severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: By week 52, 41% of patients achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, and 82% of patients achieved ≥75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index scores compared with the LIBERTY AD PEDS baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly of mild or moderate severity.

Study details: This analysis of data from the LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study included 321 children (age 6-11 years) with severe AD who previously participated in LIBERTY AD PEDS and received 300 mg dupilumab every 4 weeks or an up-titrated weight-tiered dose of 200 or 300 mg dupilumab every 2 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Seven authors declared being employees of or holding stocks or stock options in Sanofi or Regeneron. The other authors declared ties with various sources, including Sanofi and Regeneron.

Source: Cork MJ et al. Dupilumab safety and efficacy in a phase III open-label extension trial in children 6-11 years of age with severe atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2023 (Sep 26). doi: 10.1007/s13555-023-01016-9

Key clinical point: Tralokinumab led to clinically meaningful responses in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who failed to achieve an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 at 16 weeks without rescue medication.

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving tralokinumab vs placebo achieved ≥ 50% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index scores (33.0% vs 13.0%; P < .0001) and ≥ 3-point improvement in the itch Numerical Rating Scale scores (22.6% vs 9.4%; P < .0001).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of data from ECZTRA 1 and 2 trials included adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomized to receive tralokinumab (n = 966) or placebo (n = 362) and failed to achieve an IGA score of 0 or 1 at week 16 without rescue medication.

Disclosures: ECZTRA 1 and 2 were sponsored by LEO Pharma A/S, Denmark. Several authors declared ties with LEO Pharma, among others. T Mark declared being an employee and stockholder of LEO Pharma A/S.

Source: Simpson EL et al. Tralokinumab provides clinically meaningful responses at week 16 in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis who do not achieve IGA 0/1. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (Oct 7). doi: 10.1007/s40257-023-00817-0

Key clinical point: Tralokinumab led to clinically meaningful responses in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who failed to achieve an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 at 16 weeks without rescue medication.

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving tralokinumab vs placebo achieved ≥ 50% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index scores (33.0% vs 13.0%; P < .0001) and ≥ 3-point improvement in the itch Numerical Rating Scale scores (22.6% vs 9.4%; P < .0001).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of data from ECZTRA 1 and 2 trials included adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomized to receive tralokinumab (n = 966) or placebo (n = 362) and failed to achieve an IGA score of 0 or 1 at week 16 without rescue medication.

Disclosures: ECZTRA 1 and 2 were sponsored by LEO Pharma A/S, Denmark. Several authors declared ties with LEO Pharma, among others. T Mark declared being an employee and stockholder of LEO Pharma A/S.

Source: Simpson EL et al. Tralokinumab provides clinically meaningful responses at week 16 in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis who do not achieve IGA 0/1. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (Oct 7). doi: 10.1007/s40257-023-00817-0

Key clinical point: Tralokinumab led to clinically meaningful responses in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who failed to achieve an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 at 16 weeks without rescue medication.

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving tralokinumab vs placebo achieved ≥ 50% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index scores (33.0% vs 13.0%; P < .0001) and ≥ 3-point improvement in the itch Numerical Rating Scale scores (22.6% vs 9.4%; P < .0001).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of data from ECZTRA 1 and 2 trials included adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomized to receive tralokinumab (n = 966) or placebo (n = 362) and failed to achieve an IGA score of 0 or 1 at week 16 without rescue medication.

Disclosures: ECZTRA 1 and 2 were sponsored by LEO Pharma A/S, Denmark. Several authors declared ties with LEO Pharma, among others. T Mark declared being an employee and stockholder of LEO Pharma A/S.

Source: Simpson EL et al. Tralokinumab provides clinically meaningful responses at week 16 in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis who do not achieve IGA 0/1. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (Oct 7). doi: 10.1007/s40257-023-00817-0

Key clinical point: Methotrexate treatment decreased epidermal hyperplasia and altered the cutaneous expression of pruritus-related inflammatory cytokines and receptors, including interleukin-31 (IL-31) and IL-31 alpha receptor subunits (RA), in adults with moderate-to-severe refractory atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At 24 weeks of treatment, methotrexate led to a significant increase in IL-31RA expression in the epidermis (P = .016), decrease in IL-31 gene expression in lesional skin (P = .019), and reduction in the mean epidermal thickness (P = .021).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective cohort study including 12 adults with moderate-to-severe refractory AD who orally received 15 mg methotrexate per week and were matched with 10 control individuals without AD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Fundo de Apoio à Dermatologia de São Paulo, Brazil. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Samorano LP et al. Methotrexate for refractory adult atopic dermatitis leads to alterations in cutaneous IL-31 and IL-31RA expression. An Bras Dermatol. 2023 (Sep 18). doi: 10.1016/j.abd.2023.01.002

Key clinical point: Methotrexate treatment decreased epidermal hyperplasia and altered the cutaneous expression of pruritus-related inflammatory cytokines and receptors, including interleukin-31 (IL-31) and IL-31 alpha receptor subunits (RA), in adults with moderate-to-severe refractory atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At 24 weeks of treatment, methotrexate led to a significant increase in IL-31RA expression in the epidermis (P = .016), decrease in IL-31 gene expression in lesional skin (P = .019), and reduction in the mean epidermal thickness (P = .021).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective cohort study including 12 adults with moderate-to-severe refractory AD who orally received 15 mg methotrexate per week and were matched with 10 control individuals without AD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Fundo de Apoio à Dermatologia de São Paulo, Brazil. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Samorano LP et al. Methotrexate for refractory adult atopic dermatitis leads to alterations in cutaneous IL-31 and IL-31RA expression. An Bras Dermatol. 2023 (Sep 18). doi: 10.1016/j.abd.2023.01.002

Key clinical point: Methotrexate treatment decreased epidermal hyperplasia and altered the cutaneous expression of pruritus-related inflammatory cytokines and receptors, including interleukin-31 (IL-31) and IL-31 alpha receptor subunits (RA), in adults with moderate-to-severe refractory atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At 24 weeks of treatment, methotrexate led to a significant increase in IL-31RA expression in the epidermis (P = .016), decrease in IL-31 gene expression in lesional skin (P = .019), and reduction in the mean epidermal thickness (P = .021).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective cohort study including 12 adults with moderate-to-severe refractory AD who orally received 15 mg methotrexate per week and were matched with 10 control individuals without AD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Fundo de Apoio à Dermatologia de São Paulo, Brazil. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Samorano LP et al. Methotrexate for refractory adult atopic dermatitis leads to alterations in cutaneous IL-31 and IL-31RA expression. An Bras Dermatol. 2023 (Sep 18). doi: 10.1016/j.abd.2023.01.002

Key clinical point: Topical treatment with tacrolimus vs hydrocortisone was more efficacious in reducing inflammatory marker levels and had a better safety profile in children with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: After 3 weeks, patients receiving tacrolimus vs hydrocortisone showed a significantly greater decrease in the mean serum levels of IL-10 (P = .05), IL-17 (P = .021), and IL-23 (P = .03), lower rates of skin atrophy (P < .05), and higher but manageable incidences of mild-to-moderate transient stinging and erythema (P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective randomized clinical trial including 200 children with AD (age 2-16 years) who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 0.03% topical tacrolimus ointment or 1% hydrocortisone cream twice daily.

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

Source: Mohamed AA et al. A comparative randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus versus hydrocortisone as a topical treatment of atopic dermatitis in children. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1202325 (Sep 20). doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1202325

Key clinical point: Topical treatment with tacrolimus vs hydrocortisone was more efficacious in reducing inflammatory marker levels and had a better safety profile in children with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: After 3 weeks, patients receiving tacrolimus vs hydrocortisone showed a significantly greater decrease in the mean serum levels of IL-10 (P = .05), IL-17 (P = .021), and IL-23 (P = .03), lower rates of skin atrophy (P < .05), and higher but manageable incidences of mild-to-moderate transient stinging and erythema (P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective randomized clinical trial including 200 children with AD (age 2-16 years) who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 0.03% topical tacrolimus ointment or 1% hydrocortisone cream twice daily.

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

Source: Mohamed AA et al. A comparative randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus versus hydrocortisone as a topical treatment of atopic dermatitis in children. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1202325 (Sep 20). doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1202325

Key clinical point: Topical treatment with tacrolimus vs hydrocortisone was more efficacious in reducing inflammatory marker levels and had a better safety profile in children with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: After 3 weeks, patients receiving tacrolimus vs hydrocortisone showed a significantly greater decrease in the mean serum levels of IL-10 (P = .05), IL-17 (P = .021), and IL-23 (P = .03), lower rates of skin atrophy (P < .05), and higher but manageable incidences of mild-to-moderate transient stinging and erythema (P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective randomized clinical trial including 200 children with AD (age 2-16 years) who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 0.03% topical tacrolimus ointment or 1% hydrocortisone cream twice daily.

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

Source: Mohamed AA et al. A comparative randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus versus hydrocortisone as a topical treatment of atopic dermatitis in children. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1202325 (Sep 20). doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1202325

Key clinical point: Atopic dermatitis (AD) negatively affects the prognosis, quality of life (QoL), and work life in young workers with occupational contact dermatitis (OCD).

Major finding: The prevalence of previously diagnosed AD was 41.8%. A higher proportion of workers with vs without AD experienced eczema during the last 3 months of response submission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.7; P < .001) and reported that OCD had negatively affected their choice of jobs and occupations (aOR 1.4; P < .001). Workers with vs without AD had significantly higher mean scores in the emotions (P < .01) and symptoms (P < .001) subscales of the Skindex-29 assessment of QoL.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective questionnaire-based study including 2392 workers age < 35 years with OCD who answered a question about being previously diagnosed with AD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Danish Working Environment Research Fund. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Dietz JB et al. Impact of atopic dermatitis on occupational contact dermatitis among young people: A retrospective cohort study. Contact Dermatitis. 2023 (Sep 26). doi: 10.1111/cod.14426

Key clinical point: Atopic dermatitis (AD) negatively affects the prognosis, quality of life (QoL), and work life in young workers with occupational contact dermatitis (OCD).

Major finding: The prevalence of previously diagnosed AD was 41.8%. A higher proportion of workers with vs without AD experienced eczema during the last 3 months of response submission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.7; P < .001) and reported that OCD had negatively affected their choice of jobs and occupations (aOR 1.4; P < .001). Workers with vs without AD had significantly higher mean scores in the emotions (P < .01) and symptoms (P < .001) subscales of the Skindex-29 assessment of QoL.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective questionnaire-based study including 2392 workers age < 35 years with OCD who answered a question about being previously diagnosed with AD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Danish Working Environment Research Fund. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Dietz JB et al. Impact of atopic dermatitis on occupational contact dermatitis among young people: A retrospective cohort study. Contact Dermatitis. 2023 (Sep 26). doi: 10.1111/cod.14426

Key clinical point: Atopic dermatitis (AD) negatively affects the prognosis, quality of life (QoL), and work life in young workers with occupational contact dermatitis (OCD).

Major finding: The prevalence of previously diagnosed AD was 41.8%. A higher proportion of workers with vs without AD experienced eczema during the last 3 months of response submission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.7; P < .001) and reported that OCD had negatively affected their choice of jobs and occupations (aOR 1.4; P < .001). Workers with vs without AD had significantly higher mean scores in the emotions (P < .01) and symptoms (P < .001) subscales of the Skindex-29 assessment of QoL.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective questionnaire-based study including 2392 workers age < 35 years with OCD who answered a question about being previously diagnosed with AD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Danish Working Environment Research Fund. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Dietz JB et al. Impact of atopic dermatitis on occupational contact dermatitis among young people: A retrospective cohort study. Contact Dermatitis. 2023 (Sep 26). doi: 10.1111/cod.14426

Key clinical point: Xyloglucan and pea protein (XG-PP)-based topical treatment shows safety and efficacy outcomes comparable with those of hydrocortisone in pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At 8 and 15 days of treatment, both XG-PP and hydrocortisone led to significant decreases in the AD Severity Index (ADSI) score (all P = .00001). Both treatment arms showed similar decrease in ADSI scores at 8 (P = .91) and 15 (P = .92) days. No adverse events were reported in the XG-PP treatment arm.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective multicenter study including 42 pediatric patients with mild-to-moderate AD (age 6 months-12 years) who were randomly assigned to receive either topical XG-PP-based cream or hydrocortisone twice daily for 14 consecutive days.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Novintethical Pharma SA. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sowlati M et al. Efficacy and tolerability of a novel topical treatment containing pea protein and xyloglucan in the management of atopic dermatitis in children: A prospective, multicenter clinical study. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2023 (Sep 23). doi: 10.1007/s13555-023-01035-6

Key clinical point: Xyloglucan and pea protein (XG-PP)-based topical treatment shows safety and efficacy outcomes comparable with those of hydrocortisone in pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At 8 and 15 days of treatment, both XG-PP and hydrocortisone led to significant decreases in the AD Severity Index (ADSI) score (all P = .00001). Both treatment arms showed similar decrease in ADSI scores at 8 (P = .91) and 15 (P = .92) days. No adverse events were reported in the XG-PP treatment arm.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective multicenter study including 42 pediatric patients with mild-to-moderate AD (age 6 months-12 years) who were randomly assigned to receive either topical XG-PP-based cream or hydrocortisone twice daily for 14 consecutive days.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Novintethical Pharma SA. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sowlati M et al. Efficacy and tolerability of a novel topical treatment containing pea protein and xyloglucan in the management of atopic dermatitis in children: A prospective, multicenter clinical study. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2023 (Sep 23). doi: 10.1007/s13555-023-01035-6

Key clinical point: Xyloglucan and pea protein (XG-PP)-based topical treatment shows safety and efficacy outcomes comparable with those of hydrocortisone in pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At 8 and 15 days of treatment, both XG-PP and hydrocortisone led to significant decreases in the AD Severity Index (ADSI) score (all P = .00001). Both treatment arms showed similar decrease in ADSI scores at 8 (P = .91) and 15 (P = .92) days. No adverse events were reported in the XG-PP treatment arm.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective multicenter study including 42 pediatric patients with mild-to-moderate AD (age 6 months-12 years) who were randomly assigned to receive either topical XG-PP-based cream or hydrocortisone twice daily for 14 consecutive days.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Novintethical Pharma SA. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sowlati M et al. Efficacy and tolerability of a novel topical treatment containing pea protein and xyloglucan in the management of atopic dermatitis in children: A prospective, multicenter clinical study. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2023 (Sep 23). doi: 10.1007/s13555-023-01035-6