Alicia Ault

Patients with obesity or type 2 diabetes (T2D) who stuck with their medication for a year lost more weight with semaglutide than with liraglutide, a new study reported.

Researchers at the Cleveland Clinic reviewed records for 3389 adult patients with obesity who were prescribed one of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medications for either T2D or obesity between 2015 and 2022. They found that patients who took either semaglutide or liraglutide for obesity were more likely to lose weight than those prescribed the medications for T2D and that semaglutide was associated with greater weight loss.

The study, published in JAMA Network Open, identified “key characteristics that could inform the probability of achieving sustained weight loss of a magnitude large enough to provide clinically significant health benefits,” said lead author Hamlet Gasoyan, PhD, a staff investigator at the Center for Value-Based Care Research in the Department of Internal Medicine of Primary Care Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland.

Only about 40% of patients continued to take the medications at 1 year. Those who did not continue did not achieve the same level of weight loss, Dr. Gasoyan told this news organization. He and his colleagues will study the factors that lead patients to stop taking the medications in a future paper.

The results from the current paper give patients and clinicians reasonable expectations on the trajectory of weight loss when the drugs are prescribed for diabetes vs obesity, said Dr. Gasoyan, assistant professor of medicine at Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.
 

Semaglutide Superior

Because of the study’s timeframe, the majority of GLP-1s were prescribed for T2D. Liraglutide was approved (as Saxenda) for obesity in December 2020 and semaglutide (as Wegovy) for obesity in June 2021.

The authors were able to capture fills under the brand names and doses approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for obesity (Wegovy, 1.7 or 2.4 mg; Saxenda, 3.0 mg), as well as those approved for T2D (Ozempic, 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg; Victoza, 1.2 or 1.8 mg).

The researchers reported that among the 3389 patients, 1341 (39.6%) were prescribed semaglutide and 1444 (42.6%) were prescribed liraglutide for T2D. For obesity, 227 (6.7%) were prescribed liraglutide, and 377 (11.1%) were prescribed semaglutide.

Overall, those with diabetes had a −3.2% mean weight change compared with those with obesity who had a −5.9% mean weight change.

Semaglutide consistently outperformed liraglutide, particularly in obesity.

Overall, at 1 year, the mean percentage weight change among those with obesity was −5.1% with semaglutide compared with −2.2% with liraglutide (P < .001). 

At 1 year, among those with obesity who were persistent in semaglutide use (defined as 90-275 medication days) had a mean body weight of −12.9% vs −5.6% in those taking liraglutide.

Overall, about 40% of patients were persistent at 1 year. But the figure was higher for semaglutide (45.8%) and lower for liraglutide (35.6%).

Liraglutide requires daily injections compared with semaglutide that requires weekly injections. The authors did not study the reasons for medication adherence or discontinuation.

Key factors for achieving a greater than 10% weight loss — considered clinically meaningful — included taking semaglutide, receiving a GLP-1 for obesity, persistent medication use, high dosage, and being female.
 

Real-World Data Welcomed

Michael Weintraub, MD, an obesity medicine specialist and clinical assistant professor at NYU Langone Health, New York City, said that having real-world data on GLP-1 effectiveness has been much needed.

The researchers “did a really good job at stratifying these patients,” he told this news organization, saying that the study “adds to the literature in terms of what we might expect and what things we should look out for when we want to obtain the maximum degree of weight loss and attain overall better metabolic health for our patients.”

One strength: The researchers were able to capture when someone actually filled a prescription, he said. Clinicians don’t always know whether a prescription for a GLP-1 has been filled because patients might go without the drug because of insurance hurdles or supply issues, he said.

Dr. Weintraub was not surprised that the study showed that both GLP-1s produced more weight loss in those with obesity than in those with T2D, as that has become a common finding. No one has been able to explain why there is such a difference, said Dr. Weintraub. “As a field, we actually don’t know the reason behind that yet,” he said.

Given the small number of patients prescribed semaglutide for obesity, that “limits the generalizability,” he said.

Even so, semaglutide is increasingly proving superior, Dr. Weintraub said. “I would reach towards semaglutide every time either for individuals with type 2 diabetes or individuals with obesity,” he said. “The major limitation, though, is insurance coverage rather than, unfortunately, my clinical decision-making.”

He also still sees a role for liraglutide. It will go off patent soon and that could “lead to a lower price point and hopefully greater access for patients,” he said.

Dr. Gasoyan and Dr. Weintraub reported no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor reported receiving advisory board fees from Novo Nordisk and research funding from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study.
 

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

Patients with obesity or type 2 diabetes (T2D) who stuck with their medication for a year lost more weight with semaglutide than with liraglutide, a new study reported.

Researchers at the Cleveland Clinic reviewed records for 3389 adult patients with obesity who were prescribed one of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medications for either T2D or obesity between 2015 and 2022. They found that patients who took either semaglutide or liraglutide for obesity were more likely to lose weight than those prescribed the medications for T2D and that semaglutide was associated with greater weight loss.

The study, published in JAMA Network Open, identified “key characteristics that could inform the probability of achieving sustained weight loss of a magnitude large enough to provide clinically significant health benefits,” said lead author Hamlet Gasoyan, PhD, a staff investigator at the Center for Value-Based Care Research in the Department of Internal Medicine of Primary Care Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland.

Only about 40% of patients continued to take the medications at 1 year. Those who did not continue did not achieve the same level of weight loss, Dr. Gasoyan told this news organization. He and his colleagues will study the factors that lead patients to stop taking the medications in a future paper.

The results from the current paper give patients and clinicians reasonable expectations on the trajectory of weight loss when the drugs are prescribed for diabetes vs obesity, said Dr. Gasoyan, assistant professor of medicine at Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.
 

Semaglutide Superior

Because of the study’s timeframe, the majority of GLP-1s were prescribed for T2D. Liraglutide was approved (as Saxenda) for obesity in December 2020 and semaglutide (as Wegovy) for obesity in June 2021.

The authors were able to capture fills under the brand names and doses approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for obesity (Wegovy, 1.7 or 2.4 mg; Saxenda, 3.0 mg), as well as those approved for T2D (Ozempic, 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg; Victoza, 1.2 or 1.8 mg).

The researchers reported that among the 3389 patients, 1341 (39.6%) were prescribed semaglutide and 1444 (42.6%) were prescribed liraglutide for T2D. For obesity, 227 (6.7%) were prescribed liraglutide, and 377 (11.1%) were prescribed semaglutide.

Overall, those with diabetes had a −3.2% mean weight change compared with those with obesity who had a −5.9% mean weight change.

Semaglutide consistently outperformed liraglutide, particularly in obesity.

Overall, at 1 year, the mean percentage weight change among those with obesity was −5.1% with semaglutide compared with −2.2% with liraglutide (P < .001). 

At 1 year, among those with obesity who were persistent in semaglutide use (defined as 90-275 medication days) had a mean body weight of −12.9% vs −5.6% in those taking liraglutide.

Overall, about 40% of patients were persistent at 1 year. But the figure was higher for semaglutide (45.8%) and lower for liraglutide (35.6%).

Liraglutide requires daily injections compared with semaglutide that requires weekly injections. The authors did not study the reasons for medication adherence or discontinuation.

Key factors for achieving a greater than 10% weight loss — considered clinically meaningful — included taking semaglutide, receiving a GLP-1 for obesity, persistent medication use, high dosage, and being female.
 

Real-World Data Welcomed

Michael Weintraub, MD, an obesity medicine specialist and clinical assistant professor at NYU Langone Health, New York City, said that having real-world data on GLP-1 effectiveness has been much needed.

The researchers “did a really good job at stratifying these patients,” he told this news organization, saying that the study “adds to the literature in terms of what we might expect and what things we should look out for when we want to obtain the maximum degree of weight loss and attain overall better metabolic health for our patients.”

One strength: The researchers were able to capture when someone actually filled a prescription, he said. Clinicians don’t always know whether a prescription for a GLP-1 has been filled because patients might go without the drug because of insurance hurdles or supply issues, he said.

Dr. Weintraub was not surprised that the study showed that both GLP-1s produced more weight loss in those with obesity than in those with T2D, as that has become a common finding. No one has been able to explain why there is such a difference, said Dr. Weintraub. “As a field, we actually don’t know the reason behind that yet,” he said.

Given the small number of patients prescribed semaglutide for obesity, that “limits the generalizability,” he said.

Even so, semaglutide is increasingly proving superior, Dr. Weintraub said. “I would reach towards semaglutide every time either for individuals with type 2 diabetes or individuals with obesity,” he said. “The major limitation, though, is insurance coverage rather than, unfortunately, my clinical decision-making.”

He also still sees a role for liraglutide. It will go off patent soon and that could “lead to a lower price point and hopefully greater access for patients,” he said.

Dr. Gasoyan and Dr. Weintraub reported no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor reported receiving advisory board fees from Novo Nordisk and research funding from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study.
 

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

Patients with obesity or type 2 diabetes (T2D) who stuck with their medication for a year lost more weight with semaglutide than with liraglutide, a new study reported.

Researchers at the Cleveland Clinic reviewed records for 3389 adult patients with obesity who were prescribed one of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medications for either T2D or obesity between 2015 and 2022. They found that patients who took either semaglutide or liraglutide for obesity were more likely to lose weight than those prescribed the medications for T2D and that semaglutide was associated with greater weight loss.

The study, published in JAMA Network Open, identified “key characteristics that could inform the probability of achieving sustained weight loss of a magnitude large enough to provide clinically significant health benefits,” said lead author Hamlet Gasoyan, PhD, a staff investigator at the Center for Value-Based Care Research in the Department of Internal Medicine of Primary Care Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland.

Only about 40% of patients continued to take the medications at 1 year. Those who did not continue did not achieve the same level of weight loss, Dr. Gasoyan told this news organization. He and his colleagues will study the factors that lead patients to stop taking the medications in a future paper.

The results from the current paper give patients and clinicians reasonable expectations on the trajectory of weight loss when the drugs are prescribed for diabetes vs obesity, said Dr. Gasoyan, assistant professor of medicine at Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.
 

Semaglutide Superior

Because of the study’s timeframe, the majority of GLP-1s were prescribed for T2D. Liraglutide was approved (as Saxenda) for obesity in December 2020 and semaglutide (as Wegovy) for obesity in June 2021.

The authors were able to capture fills under the brand names and doses approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for obesity (Wegovy, 1.7 or 2.4 mg; Saxenda, 3.0 mg), as well as those approved for T2D (Ozempic, 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg; Victoza, 1.2 or 1.8 mg).

The researchers reported that among the 3389 patients, 1341 (39.6%) were prescribed semaglutide and 1444 (42.6%) were prescribed liraglutide for T2D. For obesity, 227 (6.7%) were prescribed liraglutide, and 377 (11.1%) were prescribed semaglutide.

Overall, those with diabetes had a −3.2% mean weight change compared with those with obesity who had a −5.9% mean weight change.

Semaglutide consistently outperformed liraglutide, particularly in obesity.

Overall, at 1 year, the mean percentage weight change among those with obesity was −5.1% with semaglutide compared with −2.2% with liraglutide (P < .001). 

At 1 year, among those with obesity who were persistent in semaglutide use (defined as 90-275 medication days) had a mean body weight of −12.9% vs −5.6% in those taking liraglutide.

Overall, about 40% of patients were persistent at 1 year. But the figure was higher for semaglutide (45.8%) and lower for liraglutide (35.6%).

Liraglutide requires daily injections compared with semaglutide that requires weekly injections. The authors did not study the reasons for medication adherence or discontinuation.

Key factors for achieving a greater than 10% weight loss — considered clinically meaningful — included taking semaglutide, receiving a GLP-1 for obesity, persistent medication use, high dosage, and being female.
 

Real-World Data Welcomed

Michael Weintraub, MD, an obesity medicine specialist and clinical assistant professor at NYU Langone Health, New York City, said that having real-world data on GLP-1 effectiveness has been much needed.

The researchers “did a really good job at stratifying these patients,” he told this news organization, saying that the study “adds to the literature in terms of what we might expect and what things we should look out for when we want to obtain the maximum degree of weight loss and attain overall better metabolic health for our patients.”

One strength: The researchers were able to capture when someone actually filled a prescription, he said. Clinicians don’t always know whether a prescription for a GLP-1 has been filled because patients might go without the drug because of insurance hurdles or supply issues, he said.

Dr. Weintraub was not surprised that the study showed that both GLP-1s produced more weight loss in those with obesity than in those with T2D, as that has become a common finding. No one has been able to explain why there is such a difference, said Dr. Weintraub. “As a field, we actually don’t know the reason behind that yet,” he said.

Given the small number of patients prescribed semaglutide for obesity, that “limits the generalizability,” he said.

Even so, semaglutide is increasingly proving superior, Dr. Weintraub said. “I would reach towards semaglutide every time either for individuals with type 2 diabetes or individuals with obesity,” he said. “The major limitation, though, is insurance coverage rather than, unfortunately, my clinical decision-making.”

He also still sees a role for liraglutide. It will go off patent soon and that could “lead to a lower price point and hopefully greater access for patients,” he said.

Dr. Gasoyan and Dr. Weintraub reported no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor reported receiving advisory board fees from Novo Nordisk and research funding from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study.
 

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision not to approve midomafetamine-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) puts the therapy’s near-term future in doubt, but officials say the rejection may not knock it out of contention as an eventual therapeutic tool for a variety of conditions.

In August the agency declined to approve the drug with currently available study data and requested that the company conduct an additional phase 3 trial. The agency’s action had potentially devastating consequences for MDMA-AT’s sponsor, Lykos Therapeutics, and was a huge disappointment for researchers, clinicians, and patients who were optimistic that it would be a new option for a condition that affects 13-17 million Americans.

For now, no other company is poised to imminently seek FDA approval for MDMA.

Despite the setback, research into MDMA that combines different psychotherapeutic approaches continues. Currently, there are seven US studies actively recruiting participants, and another 13 are registered with an eye toward starting recruitment, as reported on ClinicalTrials.gov.

The lack of FDA approval “actually increases the opportunity now for us to do trials,” said Michael Ostacher, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford Medicine in California. Researchers won’t have to be sponsored by Lykos to get access to MDMA.

“There’s a lot of energy and interest in doing these studies,” he said in an interview, adding that philanthropic organizations and Veterans Affairs (VA) are contributing funds to support such studies.

The VA provided a statement saying that it “intends to gather rigorous scientific evidence on the potential efficacy and safety of psychedelic compounds when used in conjunction with psychotherapy.” It also noted that “these studies will be conducted under stringent safety protocols and will mark the first time since the 1960’s that VA is funding research on such compounds.”

Rachel Yehuda, PhD, director of the Center for Psychedelic Therapy Research at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said in an interview that the FDA rejection “raises questions about how to keep the work going.”

Without the FDA’s imprimatur, MDMA remains a schedule 1 drug, which means it has no valid medical use.

“It’s a lot more complicated and expensive to work with a scheduled compound than to work with a compound that has been approved,” Dr. Yehuda said.

Also, without Lykos or another drug company sponsor, investigators have to find an acceptable MDMA source on their own, said Dr. Yehuda, who was an investigator on a study in which Lykos provided MDMA but was not involved in study design, data collection, analysis, or manuscript preparation.
 

Lykos in Disarray

Within a week of the FDA’s decision, Lykos announced it was cutting its staff by 75% and that Rick Doblin, PhD, the founder and president of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) that gave rise to Lykos, had resigned from the Lykos board.

A frequently controversial figure, Doblin has been attempting to legitimize MDMA as a therapy since the mid-1980s. He formed a public benefit corporation (PBC) in 2014 with an eye toward FDA approval. The PBC fully separated from MAPS in 2024 and became Lykos.

Although the FDA has left the door open to approval, Lykos has not released the agency’s complete response letter, so it’s not clear exactly what the FDA is seeking. In a statement, the company said it believes the issues “can be addressed with existing data, postapproval requirements, or through reference to the scientific literature.”

Lykos said in an email that it is working on “securing the meeting with the FDA” and that it “will work with the agency to determine what needs to be done to fulfill their requests.”

Soon after the FDA decision, Lykos was hit with another blow. The journal Psychopharmacology retracted an article that pooled six Lykos phase 2 studies, claiming the paper’s authors knew about unethical conduct before submission but did not inform the publisher.

Lykos said the issues could have been addressed through a correction and that it has filed a complaint with the Committee on Publication Ethics. It also noted that the misconduct at issue was reported to the FDA and Health Canada.

“However, we did not disclose the violations to the journal itself, an additional step we should have taken and regret not doing,” the company said. It added that the efficacy data in the paper were not part of the FDA submission.

Author Allison A. Feduccia, PhD, cofounder of Psychedelic Support, agreed with the retraction but disagreed with the wording. In a post on LinkedIn, she said she and other authors were not informed about the misconduct until years after the study’s submission.

Four authors — including Dr. Doblin — disagreed with the retraction.

Dr. Doblin said in a statement that he’d resigned from Lykos to escape the restrictions that came with being a fiduciary. “Now I can advocate and speak freely,” he said, adding that he could also return to his activist roots.

He predicted that Lykos would eventually gain FDA approval. But if Lykos can’t convince the agency, it have the necessary data already in hand; “potential FDA approval is now at least 2 years away, possibly more,” Dr. Doblin said in his statement.
 

Research Continues

Lykos is not the only company hoping to commercialize MDMA. Toronto-based Awakn Life Sciences has an MDMA preclinical development program for addiction. In addition, some companies are offering MDMA therapy through clinics, such as Numinus in Utah and Sunstone Therapies in Rockville, Maryland.

But Lykos was the closest to bringing a product to market. The company is still a sponsor of four MDMA-related clinical trials, three of which appear to be on hold. One study at the VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, that is actively recruiting is an open-label trial to assess MDMA-AT in combination with brief Cognitive-Behavioral Conjoint Therapy for PTSD.

Those studies are among 13 US trials listed in ClinicalTrials.gov that have not yet begun recruiting and 7 that are actively recruiting.

Among them is a study of MDMA plus exposure therapy, funded by and conducted at Emory University in Atlanta. One of the Emory principal investigators, Barbara Rothbaum, MD, has also been named to a Lykos’ panel that would help ensure oversight of MDMA-AT post FDA approval.

Dr. Ostacher is an investigator in a study planned at VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California, that will compare MDMA-AT with cognitive processing therapy in veterans with severe PTSD. He said it will be open label in an effort to minimize expectation bias and issues with blinding — both problems that tripped up the Lykos application. Although placebo-controlled trials are the gold standard, it’s not ideal when “the purpose of the drug is for it to change how you see the world and yourself,” Dr. Ostacher said.

The study aims to see whether MDMA-AT is better than “a much shorter, less onerous, but quite evidence-based psychotherapy for PTSD,” he said.

The FDA’s decision is not the end of the road, said Dr. Ostacher. “Even though I think this makes for an obvious delay, I don’t think that it’s a permanent one,” he said.

Dr. Yehuda also said she is not ready to give up.

“We don’t plan on stopping — we plan on finding a way,” she said.

“In our experience, this is a very powerful approach that helps a lot of people that haven’t found help using other approaches, and when it’s in the hands of really trusted, experienced, ethical clinicians in a trusted environment, this could be a real game changer for people who have not been able to find belief by traditional methods,” she said.

Dr. Ostacher reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Yahuda is the principal investigator on clinical trials for the Center for Psychedelic Psychotherapy and Trauma Research that are sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies and COMPASS Pathways.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision not to approve midomafetamine-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) puts the therapy’s near-term future in doubt, but officials say the rejection may not knock it out of contention as an eventual therapeutic tool for a variety of conditions.

In August the agency declined to approve the drug with currently available study data and requested that the company conduct an additional phase 3 trial. The agency’s action had potentially devastating consequences for MDMA-AT’s sponsor, Lykos Therapeutics, and was a huge disappointment for researchers, clinicians, and patients who were optimistic that it would be a new option for a condition that affects 13-17 million Americans.

For now, no other company is poised to imminently seek FDA approval for MDMA.

Despite the setback, research into MDMA that combines different psychotherapeutic approaches continues. Currently, there are seven US studies actively recruiting participants, and another 13 are registered with an eye toward starting recruitment, as reported on ClinicalTrials.gov.

The lack of FDA approval “actually increases the opportunity now for us to do trials,” said Michael Ostacher, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford Medicine in California. Researchers won’t have to be sponsored by Lykos to get access to MDMA.

“There’s a lot of energy and interest in doing these studies,” he said in an interview, adding that philanthropic organizations and Veterans Affairs (VA) are contributing funds to support such studies.

The VA provided a statement saying that it “intends to gather rigorous scientific evidence on the potential efficacy and safety of psychedelic compounds when used in conjunction with psychotherapy.” It also noted that “these studies will be conducted under stringent safety protocols and will mark the first time since the 1960’s that VA is funding research on such compounds.”

Rachel Yehuda, PhD, director of the Center for Psychedelic Therapy Research at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said in an interview that the FDA rejection “raises questions about how to keep the work going.”

Without the FDA’s imprimatur, MDMA remains a schedule 1 drug, which means it has no valid medical use.

“It’s a lot more complicated and expensive to work with a scheduled compound than to work with a compound that has been approved,” Dr. Yehuda said.

Also, without Lykos or another drug company sponsor, investigators have to find an acceptable MDMA source on their own, said Dr. Yehuda, who was an investigator on a study in which Lykos provided MDMA but was not involved in study design, data collection, analysis, or manuscript preparation.
 

Lykos in Disarray

Within a week of the FDA’s decision, Lykos announced it was cutting its staff by 75% and that Rick Doblin, PhD, the founder and president of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) that gave rise to Lykos, had resigned from the Lykos board.

A frequently controversial figure, Doblin has been attempting to legitimize MDMA as a therapy since the mid-1980s. He formed a public benefit corporation (PBC) in 2014 with an eye toward FDA approval. The PBC fully separated from MAPS in 2024 and became Lykos.

Although the FDA has left the door open to approval, Lykos has not released the agency’s complete response letter, so it’s not clear exactly what the FDA is seeking. In a statement, the company said it believes the issues “can be addressed with existing data, postapproval requirements, or through reference to the scientific literature.”

Lykos said in an email that it is working on “securing the meeting with the FDA” and that it “will work with the agency to determine what needs to be done to fulfill their requests.”

Soon after the FDA decision, Lykos was hit with another blow. The journal Psychopharmacology retracted an article that pooled six Lykos phase 2 studies, claiming the paper’s authors knew about unethical conduct before submission but did not inform the publisher.

Lykos said the issues could have been addressed through a correction and that it has filed a complaint with the Committee on Publication Ethics. It also noted that the misconduct at issue was reported to the FDA and Health Canada.

“However, we did not disclose the violations to the journal itself, an additional step we should have taken and regret not doing,” the company said. It added that the efficacy data in the paper were not part of the FDA submission.

Author Allison A. Feduccia, PhD, cofounder of Psychedelic Support, agreed with the retraction but disagreed with the wording. In a post on LinkedIn, she said she and other authors were not informed about the misconduct until years after the study’s submission.

Four authors — including Dr. Doblin — disagreed with the retraction.

Dr. Doblin said in a statement that he’d resigned from Lykos to escape the restrictions that came with being a fiduciary. “Now I can advocate and speak freely,” he said, adding that he could also return to his activist roots.

He predicted that Lykos would eventually gain FDA approval. But if Lykos can’t convince the agency, it have the necessary data already in hand; “potential FDA approval is now at least 2 years away, possibly more,” Dr. Doblin said in his statement.
 

Research Continues

Lykos is not the only company hoping to commercialize MDMA. Toronto-based Awakn Life Sciences has an MDMA preclinical development program for addiction. In addition, some companies are offering MDMA therapy through clinics, such as Numinus in Utah and Sunstone Therapies in Rockville, Maryland.

But Lykos was the closest to bringing a product to market. The company is still a sponsor of four MDMA-related clinical trials, three of which appear to be on hold. One study at the VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, that is actively recruiting is an open-label trial to assess MDMA-AT in combination with brief Cognitive-Behavioral Conjoint Therapy for PTSD.

Those studies are among 13 US trials listed in ClinicalTrials.gov that have not yet begun recruiting and 7 that are actively recruiting.

Among them is a study of MDMA plus exposure therapy, funded by and conducted at Emory University in Atlanta. One of the Emory principal investigators, Barbara Rothbaum, MD, has also been named to a Lykos’ panel that would help ensure oversight of MDMA-AT post FDA approval.

Dr. Ostacher is an investigator in a study planned at VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California, that will compare MDMA-AT with cognitive processing therapy in veterans with severe PTSD. He said it will be open label in an effort to minimize expectation bias and issues with blinding — both problems that tripped up the Lykos application. Although placebo-controlled trials are the gold standard, it’s not ideal when “the purpose of the drug is for it to change how you see the world and yourself,” Dr. Ostacher said.

The study aims to see whether MDMA-AT is better than “a much shorter, less onerous, but quite evidence-based psychotherapy for PTSD,” he said.

The FDA’s decision is not the end of the road, said Dr. Ostacher. “Even though I think this makes for an obvious delay, I don’t think that it’s a permanent one,” he said.

Dr. Yehuda also said she is not ready to give up.

“We don’t plan on stopping — we plan on finding a way,” she said.

“In our experience, this is a very powerful approach that helps a lot of people that haven’t found help using other approaches, and when it’s in the hands of really trusted, experienced, ethical clinicians in a trusted environment, this could be a real game changer for people who have not been able to find belief by traditional methods,” she said.

Dr. Ostacher reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Yahuda is the principal investigator on clinical trials for the Center for Psychedelic Psychotherapy and Trauma Research that are sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies and COMPASS Pathways.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision not to approve midomafetamine-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) puts the therapy’s near-term future in doubt, but officials say the rejection may not knock it out of contention as an eventual therapeutic tool for a variety of conditions.

In August the agency declined to approve the drug with currently available study data and requested that the company conduct an additional phase 3 trial. The agency’s action had potentially devastating consequences for MDMA-AT’s sponsor, Lykos Therapeutics, and was a huge disappointment for researchers, clinicians, and patients who were optimistic that it would be a new option for a condition that affects 13-17 million Americans.

For now, no other company is poised to imminently seek FDA approval for MDMA.

Despite the setback, research into MDMA that combines different psychotherapeutic approaches continues. Currently, there are seven US studies actively recruiting participants, and another 13 are registered with an eye toward starting recruitment, as reported on ClinicalTrials.gov.

The lack of FDA approval “actually increases the opportunity now for us to do trials,” said Michael Ostacher, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford Medicine in California. Researchers won’t have to be sponsored by Lykos to get access to MDMA.

“There’s a lot of energy and interest in doing these studies,” he said in an interview, adding that philanthropic organizations and Veterans Affairs (VA) are contributing funds to support such studies.

The VA provided a statement saying that it “intends to gather rigorous scientific evidence on the potential efficacy and safety of psychedelic compounds when used in conjunction with psychotherapy.” It also noted that “these studies will be conducted under stringent safety protocols and will mark the first time since the 1960’s that VA is funding research on such compounds.”

Rachel Yehuda, PhD, director of the Center for Psychedelic Therapy Research at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said in an interview that the FDA rejection “raises questions about how to keep the work going.”

Without the FDA’s imprimatur, MDMA remains a schedule 1 drug, which means it has no valid medical use.

“It’s a lot more complicated and expensive to work with a scheduled compound than to work with a compound that has been approved,” Dr. Yehuda said.

Also, without Lykos or another drug company sponsor, investigators have to find an acceptable MDMA source on their own, said Dr. Yehuda, who was an investigator on a study in which Lykos provided MDMA but was not involved in study design, data collection, analysis, or manuscript preparation.
 

Lykos in Disarray

Within a week of the FDA’s decision, Lykos announced it was cutting its staff by 75% and that Rick Doblin, PhD, the founder and president of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) that gave rise to Lykos, had resigned from the Lykos board.

A frequently controversial figure, Doblin has been attempting to legitimize MDMA as a therapy since the mid-1980s. He formed a public benefit corporation (PBC) in 2014 with an eye toward FDA approval. The PBC fully separated from MAPS in 2024 and became Lykos.

Although the FDA has left the door open to approval, Lykos has not released the agency’s complete response letter, so it’s not clear exactly what the FDA is seeking. In a statement, the company said it believes the issues “can be addressed with existing data, postapproval requirements, or through reference to the scientific literature.”

Lykos said in an email that it is working on “securing the meeting with the FDA” and that it “will work with the agency to determine what needs to be done to fulfill their requests.”

Soon after the FDA decision, Lykos was hit with another blow. The journal Psychopharmacology retracted an article that pooled six Lykos phase 2 studies, claiming the paper’s authors knew about unethical conduct before submission but did not inform the publisher.

Lykos said the issues could have been addressed through a correction and that it has filed a complaint with the Committee on Publication Ethics. It also noted that the misconduct at issue was reported to the FDA and Health Canada.

“However, we did not disclose the violations to the journal itself, an additional step we should have taken and regret not doing,” the company said. It added that the efficacy data in the paper were not part of the FDA submission.

Author Allison A. Feduccia, PhD, cofounder of Psychedelic Support, agreed with the retraction but disagreed with the wording. In a post on LinkedIn, she said she and other authors were not informed about the misconduct until years after the study’s submission.

Four authors — including Dr. Doblin — disagreed with the retraction.

Dr. Doblin said in a statement that he’d resigned from Lykos to escape the restrictions that came with being a fiduciary. “Now I can advocate and speak freely,” he said, adding that he could also return to his activist roots.

He predicted that Lykos would eventually gain FDA approval. But if Lykos can’t convince the agency, it have the necessary data already in hand; “potential FDA approval is now at least 2 years away, possibly more,” Dr. Doblin said in his statement.
 

Research Continues

Lykos is not the only company hoping to commercialize MDMA. Toronto-based Awakn Life Sciences has an MDMA preclinical development program for addiction. In addition, some companies are offering MDMA therapy through clinics, such as Numinus in Utah and Sunstone Therapies in Rockville, Maryland.

But Lykos was the closest to bringing a product to market. The company is still a sponsor of four MDMA-related clinical trials, three of which appear to be on hold. One study at the VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, that is actively recruiting is an open-label trial to assess MDMA-AT in combination with brief Cognitive-Behavioral Conjoint Therapy for PTSD.

Those studies are among 13 US trials listed in ClinicalTrials.gov that have not yet begun recruiting and 7 that are actively recruiting.

Among them is a study of MDMA plus exposure therapy, funded by and conducted at Emory University in Atlanta. One of the Emory principal investigators, Barbara Rothbaum, MD, has also been named to a Lykos’ panel that would help ensure oversight of MDMA-AT post FDA approval.

Dr. Ostacher is an investigator in a study planned at VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California, that will compare MDMA-AT with cognitive processing therapy in veterans with severe PTSD. He said it will be open label in an effort to minimize expectation bias and issues with blinding — both problems that tripped up the Lykos application. Although placebo-controlled trials are the gold standard, it’s not ideal when “the purpose of the drug is for it to change how you see the world and yourself,” Dr. Ostacher said.

The study aims to see whether MDMA-AT is better than “a much shorter, less onerous, but quite evidence-based psychotherapy for PTSD,” he said.

The FDA’s decision is not the end of the road, said Dr. Ostacher. “Even though I think this makes for an obvious delay, I don’t think that it’s a permanent one,” he said.

Dr. Yehuda also said she is not ready to give up.

“We don’t plan on stopping — we plan on finding a way,” she said.

“In our experience, this is a very powerful approach that helps a lot of people that haven’t found help using other approaches, and when it’s in the hands of really trusted, experienced, ethical clinicians in a trusted environment, this could be a real game changer for people who have not been able to find belief by traditional methods,” she said.

Dr. Ostacher reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Yahuda is the principal investigator on clinical trials for the Center for Psychedelic Psychotherapy and Trauma Research that are sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies and COMPASS Pathways.

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

Advocacy groups for patients with neurologic disorders have become a common feature in the landscape of drug and device development and federal research funding allocation.

On Capitol Hill, advocates have racked up some impressive legislative wins that aim to set a federal agenda for developing new medications.

At the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), advocacy groups played a significant role in several recent high-profile and controversial approvals for drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Such gains suggest these groups are growing in power. But with these wins come questions about whether large advocacy organizations — some of which receive significant industry funding — wield too much influence.

“You need to think very carefully about how you open these processes up to greater patient involvement,” Matthew S. McCoy, PhD, assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. It’s important not to “end up with a situation where it’s the best-connected, the most well-resourced, the most-savvy patient organizations that are able to exercise outsize influence.”

Just because a group has deep pockets does not mean that its priorities align with the disease burden. And not every patient population is represented by a professionalized patient advocacy organization, Dr. McCoy noted. “There is the potential for the rich to get richer.”
 

A Seat at the Table

Long ago, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) began giving patients a seat at the table, in part because of the path blazed by AIDS activists in the late 1980s and early 1990s, said Dr. McCoy.

Patient advocacy is often visible during FDA advisory committee meetings. The agency usually allows an hour, sometimes more, for members of the public to express support or concerns about the product being reviewed. Patients and caregivers — often aided by advocacy organizations — also submit hundreds, sometimes thousands, of letters before a product review.

The Alzheimer’s Association spent years advocating for approval of the anti-amyloid agent aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai). In 2020, the organization urged patients and caregivers to submit written and oral testimony to the FDA advisory panel that was reviewing the drug. Despite patients’ pleas, the panel ultimately declined to support the drug’s approval, citing safety concerns and limited evidence of efficacy.

As controversy swirled around the medication — which had the potential for life-threatening brain swelling — advocates continued to apply pressure. Going against the expert panel’s recommendation, in June 2021, the FDA granted accelerated approval prompting three of the panelists to resign in protest.

Aducanumab’s initial price — $56,000 a year — was seen as a major threat to the viability of Medicare. Still, the Alzheimer’s Association stood behind the decision to approve the drug. But by early 2024, Biogen/Eisai said they would stop selling aducanumab, citing other priorities.

Once again patient advocates showed up in March 2022 when the FDA advisers were reviewing Amylyx Pharmaceuticals’ ALS drug Relyvrio (sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol). Trials had showed limited efficacy, but patients testified they would accept greater risk for a chance to be treated with the drug. The committee ultimately voted against approval; 6 months later, the FDA approved Relyvrio anyway.

In April 2024, Amylyx removed Relyvrio from the market following phase 3 trial results that showed no difference between the treatment and placebo.

The drug manufacturer Sarepta Therapeutics, which develops treatments for genetic conditions such as DMD, has a history of working with — and funding — patient advocacy groups. The company encourages nonprofits to apply for grants or sponsorship on its website. At a 2016 advisory committee, when Sarepta was seeking approval of its first DMD therapy eteplirsen (Exondys 51), 52 speakers, most from patient advocacy groups, pleaded for the drug’s approval. When the panel voted no, Sarepta mobilized families to pressure the agency. Exondys was eventually approved.

In June, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, unilaterally gave final expanded approval to Sarepta Therapeutics’ gene therapy Elevidys for DMD. Dr. Marks overrode his own FDA reviewers, who said the product lacked substantial evidence of efficacy. He acknowledged the drug had not met its primary endpoint but said he found secondary and exploratory endpoints “compelling” and cited an unmet medical need.

In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, Aaron Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, the director of the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and a former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, questioned the approval stating that it undermined both public trust and manufacturers’ incentives to do the hard work of proving effectiveness.
 

Patient Voices the ‘Secret Sauce’

Drugmakers aren’t alone in seeing the value of having patients speak directly to government entities. When the Michael J. Fox Foundation wanted to gather cosponsors for the National Plan to End Parkinson’s Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law in July, it recruited and trained patients and caregivers for congressional meetings, said Ted Thompson, senior vice president of public policy at the foundation.

Having those individuals “making the personal case for how this disease affects their families ... was really the secret sauce,” in garnering a large number of cosponsors and getting legislation signed into law within 2 years of its introduction, Mr. Thompson told this news organization.

ALS advocacy groups launched a similar campaign to secure passage of the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act in 2021.

Both pieces of legislation seek to set a federal agenda for developing new therapies in neurodegenerative diseases, in part by directing the FDA and NIH to fund research, engage patients more directly, and form public-private partnerships and councils to spur innovation.

But some said patient advocates are still coming far too late to the party.

“By the time you hear from patient groups at the meetings at the FDA, often the best opportunities for their input are long past,” Leah Zoe Gibson Rand, DPhil, a research scientist with the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, told this news organization. There should be more focus on the patient perspective earlier in drug development and trial design.

“There are some things that the patient voice could uniquely tell the agency,” said Holly Fernandez Lynch, JD, associate professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania. Patients can give insight on what it means to live with a disease, what symptoms are particularly burdensome, and which endpoints matter.

But, she said, “listening to the patient voice cannot mean that FDA just steps aside and lets anything on the market that patients are willing to try.” Individuals “who lack good treatment options have a very good reason to want to try things that haven’t yet been proven.”

If the FDA allows drugs on the market just because patients are willing to try, “5 or 10 years down the road, it’s not at all clear that we would end up with drugs that are better, or drugs that work, or drugs that we know anything more about,” said Dr. Lynch.
 

Does Taking Industry Money Equal Conflicts of Interest?

Many patient advocacy organizations receive funding from drug companies, medical device makers, or other industry sources, but they aren’t always transparent about how much or from which companies, according to studies.

The Alzheimer’s Association continued to push for the approval of aducanumab, even as the group received millions of dollars from the drugmakers. The association was accused of failing to disclose the potential conflict. It still lobbied for approval, even after the FDA advisers in 2020 voted against the drug.

It is not uncommon for individuals who speak in favor of a product’s approval to receive money for transportation and/or lodging from the drug’s manufacturer. In 2018, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported in JAMA Internal Medicine that, between 2009 and 2017, a quarter of the speakers at the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee had conflicts of interest (COIs), mostly from industry, and that they were not disclosed in approximately 20% of the instances.

In a 2017 study of 104 large patient advocacy organizations published in The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported that 83% had received funds from industry. At least 39% had a current or former industry executive on the governing board, and 12% had a current or former industry executive in a board leadership position. Of the 104, 38 were focused on cancer and 13 on neurologic conditions. Of these, only 12% had published policies for managing institutional COIs.

Dr. McCoy emphasized the industry’s reliance on partnering with patient groups, particularly during FDA advisory committee meetings. “The sponsors wouldn’t be paying for patients to show up and give these testimonies if they didn’t think it made a difference. The audience isn’t just panel members; it’s also agency officials and maybe elected officials as well.”

“The Fox Foundation, with a $300 million-plus budget, gets about $5-$6 million a year from industry,” said Mr. Thompson. The money is earmarked for the organization’s Parkinson’s Disease Education Consortium; none goes toward advocacy. And, “the foundation has never specifically endorsed a product or device.”

When organizations that receive industry funding back a particular product, “it does appear to be [a conflict], and whether it is an actual one or not, appearances sometimes are all that matter,” said Mr. Thompson.

Dr. Lynch said accepting industry money “is a really significant conflict.” While advocates might need that money to fund advocacy efforts or make grants to advance research priorities, the acceptance might hinder willingness to demand evidence or to complain about a product’s price tag. “You don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you, right?”

Both Dr. McCoy and Dr. Lynch said patient groups — and individual patients — should at a minimum disclose industry funding, especially when speaking at an advisory committee.

Federal agencies and members of Congress actively seek patient input when considering legislation and funding priorities. But the individuals testifying at an advisory committee aren’t likely to represent all patients, and there’s a danger that they are just the loudest voices, said Dr. McCoy.

“We need to think more carefully about how we actually understand the preferences of a big, diverse patient population,” he said.

Dr. Lynch agreed.

Within the ALS community, “a lot of people who take different perspectives than some of those that are the leading voices get shouted down, and their voices get drowned out, and they get attacked on social media,” she said.

The group may be at the table, “but they’re just one voice at the table,” she said.

Dr. McCoy reported that his wife works for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, a patient advocacy organization. Dr. Rand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lynch received funding from Arnold Ventures and the Greenwall Foundation for work related to the FDA and patient advocacy.

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

Advocacy groups for patients with neurologic disorders have become a common feature in the landscape of drug and device development and federal research funding allocation.

On Capitol Hill, advocates have racked up some impressive legislative wins that aim to set a federal agenda for developing new medications.

At the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), advocacy groups played a significant role in several recent high-profile and controversial approvals for drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Such gains suggest these groups are growing in power. But with these wins come questions about whether large advocacy organizations — some of which receive significant industry funding — wield too much influence.

“You need to think very carefully about how you open these processes up to greater patient involvement,” Matthew S. McCoy, PhD, assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. It’s important not to “end up with a situation where it’s the best-connected, the most well-resourced, the most-savvy patient organizations that are able to exercise outsize influence.”

Just because a group has deep pockets does not mean that its priorities align with the disease burden. And not every patient population is represented by a professionalized patient advocacy organization, Dr. McCoy noted. “There is the potential for the rich to get richer.”
 

A Seat at the Table

Long ago, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) began giving patients a seat at the table, in part because of the path blazed by AIDS activists in the late 1980s and early 1990s, said Dr. McCoy.

Patient advocacy is often visible during FDA advisory committee meetings. The agency usually allows an hour, sometimes more, for members of the public to express support or concerns about the product being reviewed. Patients and caregivers — often aided by advocacy organizations — also submit hundreds, sometimes thousands, of letters before a product review.

The Alzheimer’s Association spent years advocating for approval of the anti-amyloid agent aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai). In 2020, the organization urged patients and caregivers to submit written and oral testimony to the FDA advisory panel that was reviewing the drug. Despite patients’ pleas, the panel ultimately declined to support the drug’s approval, citing safety concerns and limited evidence of efficacy.

As controversy swirled around the medication — which had the potential for life-threatening brain swelling — advocates continued to apply pressure. Going against the expert panel’s recommendation, in June 2021, the FDA granted accelerated approval prompting three of the panelists to resign in protest.

Aducanumab’s initial price — $56,000 a year — was seen as a major threat to the viability of Medicare. Still, the Alzheimer’s Association stood behind the decision to approve the drug. But by early 2024, Biogen/Eisai said they would stop selling aducanumab, citing other priorities.

Once again patient advocates showed up in March 2022 when the FDA advisers were reviewing Amylyx Pharmaceuticals’ ALS drug Relyvrio (sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol). Trials had showed limited efficacy, but patients testified they would accept greater risk for a chance to be treated with the drug. The committee ultimately voted against approval; 6 months later, the FDA approved Relyvrio anyway.

In April 2024, Amylyx removed Relyvrio from the market following phase 3 trial results that showed no difference between the treatment and placebo.

The drug manufacturer Sarepta Therapeutics, which develops treatments for genetic conditions such as DMD, has a history of working with — and funding — patient advocacy groups. The company encourages nonprofits to apply for grants or sponsorship on its website. At a 2016 advisory committee, when Sarepta was seeking approval of its first DMD therapy eteplirsen (Exondys 51), 52 speakers, most from patient advocacy groups, pleaded for the drug’s approval. When the panel voted no, Sarepta mobilized families to pressure the agency. Exondys was eventually approved.

In June, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, unilaterally gave final expanded approval to Sarepta Therapeutics’ gene therapy Elevidys for DMD. Dr. Marks overrode his own FDA reviewers, who said the product lacked substantial evidence of efficacy. He acknowledged the drug had not met its primary endpoint but said he found secondary and exploratory endpoints “compelling” and cited an unmet medical need.

In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, Aaron Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, the director of the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and a former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, questioned the approval stating that it undermined both public trust and manufacturers’ incentives to do the hard work of proving effectiveness.
 

Patient Voices the ‘Secret Sauce’

Drugmakers aren’t alone in seeing the value of having patients speak directly to government entities. When the Michael J. Fox Foundation wanted to gather cosponsors for the National Plan to End Parkinson’s Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law in July, it recruited and trained patients and caregivers for congressional meetings, said Ted Thompson, senior vice president of public policy at the foundation.

Having those individuals “making the personal case for how this disease affects their families ... was really the secret sauce,” in garnering a large number of cosponsors and getting legislation signed into law within 2 years of its introduction, Mr. Thompson told this news organization.

ALS advocacy groups launched a similar campaign to secure passage of the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act in 2021.

Both pieces of legislation seek to set a federal agenda for developing new therapies in neurodegenerative diseases, in part by directing the FDA and NIH to fund research, engage patients more directly, and form public-private partnerships and councils to spur innovation.

But some said patient advocates are still coming far too late to the party.

“By the time you hear from patient groups at the meetings at the FDA, often the best opportunities for their input are long past,” Leah Zoe Gibson Rand, DPhil, a research scientist with the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, told this news organization. There should be more focus on the patient perspective earlier in drug development and trial design.

“There are some things that the patient voice could uniquely tell the agency,” said Holly Fernandez Lynch, JD, associate professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania. Patients can give insight on what it means to live with a disease, what symptoms are particularly burdensome, and which endpoints matter.

But, she said, “listening to the patient voice cannot mean that FDA just steps aside and lets anything on the market that patients are willing to try.” Individuals “who lack good treatment options have a very good reason to want to try things that haven’t yet been proven.”

If the FDA allows drugs on the market just because patients are willing to try, “5 or 10 years down the road, it’s not at all clear that we would end up with drugs that are better, or drugs that work, or drugs that we know anything more about,” said Dr. Lynch.
 

Does Taking Industry Money Equal Conflicts of Interest?

Many patient advocacy organizations receive funding from drug companies, medical device makers, or other industry sources, but they aren’t always transparent about how much or from which companies, according to studies.

The Alzheimer’s Association continued to push for the approval of aducanumab, even as the group received millions of dollars from the drugmakers. The association was accused of failing to disclose the potential conflict. It still lobbied for approval, even after the FDA advisers in 2020 voted against the drug.

It is not uncommon for individuals who speak in favor of a product’s approval to receive money for transportation and/or lodging from the drug’s manufacturer. In 2018, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported in JAMA Internal Medicine that, between 2009 and 2017, a quarter of the speakers at the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee had conflicts of interest (COIs), mostly from industry, and that they were not disclosed in approximately 20% of the instances.

In a 2017 study of 104 large patient advocacy organizations published in The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported that 83% had received funds from industry. At least 39% had a current or former industry executive on the governing board, and 12% had a current or former industry executive in a board leadership position. Of the 104, 38 were focused on cancer and 13 on neurologic conditions. Of these, only 12% had published policies for managing institutional COIs.

Dr. McCoy emphasized the industry’s reliance on partnering with patient groups, particularly during FDA advisory committee meetings. “The sponsors wouldn’t be paying for patients to show up and give these testimonies if they didn’t think it made a difference. The audience isn’t just panel members; it’s also agency officials and maybe elected officials as well.”

“The Fox Foundation, with a $300 million-plus budget, gets about $5-$6 million a year from industry,” said Mr. Thompson. The money is earmarked for the organization’s Parkinson’s Disease Education Consortium; none goes toward advocacy. And, “the foundation has never specifically endorsed a product or device.”

When organizations that receive industry funding back a particular product, “it does appear to be [a conflict], and whether it is an actual one or not, appearances sometimes are all that matter,” said Mr. Thompson.

Dr. Lynch said accepting industry money “is a really significant conflict.” While advocates might need that money to fund advocacy efforts or make grants to advance research priorities, the acceptance might hinder willingness to demand evidence or to complain about a product’s price tag. “You don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you, right?”

Both Dr. McCoy and Dr. Lynch said patient groups — and individual patients — should at a minimum disclose industry funding, especially when speaking at an advisory committee.

Federal agencies and members of Congress actively seek patient input when considering legislation and funding priorities. But the individuals testifying at an advisory committee aren’t likely to represent all patients, and there’s a danger that they are just the loudest voices, said Dr. McCoy.

“We need to think more carefully about how we actually understand the preferences of a big, diverse patient population,” he said.

Dr. Lynch agreed.

Within the ALS community, “a lot of people who take different perspectives than some of those that are the leading voices get shouted down, and their voices get drowned out, and they get attacked on social media,” she said.

The group may be at the table, “but they’re just one voice at the table,” she said.

Dr. McCoy reported that his wife works for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, a patient advocacy organization. Dr. Rand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lynch received funding from Arnold Ventures and the Greenwall Foundation for work related to the FDA and patient advocacy.

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

Advocacy groups for patients with neurologic disorders have become a common feature in the landscape of drug and device development and federal research funding allocation.

On Capitol Hill, advocates have racked up some impressive legislative wins that aim to set a federal agenda for developing new medications.

At the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), advocacy groups played a significant role in several recent high-profile and controversial approvals for drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Such gains suggest these groups are growing in power. But with these wins come questions about whether large advocacy organizations — some of which receive significant industry funding — wield too much influence.

“You need to think very carefully about how you open these processes up to greater patient involvement,” Matthew S. McCoy, PhD, assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. It’s important not to “end up with a situation where it’s the best-connected, the most well-resourced, the most-savvy patient organizations that are able to exercise outsize influence.”

Just because a group has deep pockets does not mean that its priorities align with the disease burden. And not every patient population is represented by a professionalized patient advocacy organization, Dr. McCoy noted. “There is the potential for the rich to get richer.”
 

A Seat at the Table

Long ago, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) began giving patients a seat at the table, in part because of the path blazed by AIDS activists in the late 1980s and early 1990s, said Dr. McCoy.

Patient advocacy is often visible during FDA advisory committee meetings. The agency usually allows an hour, sometimes more, for members of the public to express support or concerns about the product being reviewed. Patients and caregivers — often aided by advocacy organizations — also submit hundreds, sometimes thousands, of letters before a product review.

The Alzheimer’s Association spent years advocating for approval of the anti-amyloid agent aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai). In 2020, the organization urged patients and caregivers to submit written and oral testimony to the FDA advisory panel that was reviewing the drug. Despite patients’ pleas, the panel ultimately declined to support the drug’s approval, citing safety concerns and limited evidence of efficacy.

As controversy swirled around the medication — which had the potential for life-threatening brain swelling — advocates continued to apply pressure. Going against the expert panel’s recommendation, in June 2021, the FDA granted accelerated approval prompting three of the panelists to resign in protest.

Aducanumab’s initial price — $56,000 a year — was seen as a major threat to the viability of Medicare. Still, the Alzheimer’s Association stood behind the decision to approve the drug. But by early 2024, Biogen/Eisai said they would stop selling aducanumab, citing other priorities.

Once again patient advocates showed up in March 2022 when the FDA advisers were reviewing Amylyx Pharmaceuticals’ ALS drug Relyvrio (sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol). Trials had showed limited efficacy, but patients testified they would accept greater risk for a chance to be treated with the drug. The committee ultimately voted against approval; 6 months later, the FDA approved Relyvrio anyway.

In April 2024, Amylyx removed Relyvrio from the market following phase 3 trial results that showed no difference between the treatment and placebo.

The drug manufacturer Sarepta Therapeutics, which develops treatments for genetic conditions such as DMD, has a history of working with — and funding — patient advocacy groups. The company encourages nonprofits to apply for grants or sponsorship on its website. At a 2016 advisory committee, when Sarepta was seeking approval of its first DMD therapy eteplirsen (Exondys 51), 52 speakers, most from patient advocacy groups, pleaded for the drug’s approval. When the panel voted no, Sarepta mobilized families to pressure the agency. Exondys was eventually approved.

In June, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, unilaterally gave final expanded approval to Sarepta Therapeutics’ gene therapy Elevidys for DMD. Dr. Marks overrode his own FDA reviewers, who said the product lacked substantial evidence of efficacy. He acknowledged the drug had not met its primary endpoint but said he found secondary and exploratory endpoints “compelling” and cited an unmet medical need.

In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, Aaron Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, the director of the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and a former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, questioned the approval stating that it undermined both public trust and manufacturers’ incentives to do the hard work of proving effectiveness.
 

Patient Voices the ‘Secret Sauce’

Drugmakers aren’t alone in seeing the value of having patients speak directly to government entities. When the Michael J. Fox Foundation wanted to gather cosponsors for the National Plan to End Parkinson’s Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law in July, it recruited and trained patients and caregivers for congressional meetings, said Ted Thompson, senior vice president of public policy at the foundation.

Having those individuals “making the personal case for how this disease affects their families ... was really the secret sauce,” in garnering a large number of cosponsors and getting legislation signed into law within 2 years of its introduction, Mr. Thompson told this news organization.

ALS advocacy groups launched a similar campaign to secure passage of the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act in 2021.

Both pieces of legislation seek to set a federal agenda for developing new therapies in neurodegenerative diseases, in part by directing the FDA and NIH to fund research, engage patients more directly, and form public-private partnerships and councils to spur innovation.

But some said patient advocates are still coming far too late to the party.

“By the time you hear from patient groups at the meetings at the FDA, often the best opportunities for their input are long past,” Leah Zoe Gibson Rand, DPhil, a research scientist with the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, told this news organization. There should be more focus on the patient perspective earlier in drug development and trial design.

“There are some things that the patient voice could uniquely tell the agency,” said Holly Fernandez Lynch, JD, associate professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania. Patients can give insight on what it means to live with a disease, what symptoms are particularly burdensome, and which endpoints matter.

But, she said, “listening to the patient voice cannot mean that FDA just steps aside and lets anything on the market that patients are willing to try.” Individuals “who lack good treatment options have a very good reason to want to try things that haven’t yet been proven.”

If the FDA allows drugs on the market just because patients are willing to try, “5 or 10 years down the road, it’s not at all clear that we would end up with drugs that are better, or drugs that work, or drugs that we know anything more about,” said Dr. Lynch.
 

Does Taking Industry Money Equal Conflicts of Interest?

Many patient advocacy organizations receive funding from drug companies, medical device makers, or other industry sources, but they aren’t always transparent about how much or from which companies, according to studies.

The Alzheimer’s Association continued to push for the approval of aducanumab, even as the group received millions of dollars from the drugmakers. The association was accused of failing to disclose the potential conflict. It still lobbied for approval, even after the FDA advisers in 2020 voted against the drug.

It is not uncommon for individuals who speak in favor of a product’s approval to receive money for transportation and/or lodging from the drug’s manufacturer. In 2018, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported in JAMA Internal Medicine that, between 2009 and 2017, a quarter of the speakers at the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee had conflicts of interest (COIs), mostly from industry, and that they were not disclosed in approximately 20% of the instances.

In a 2017 study of 104 large patient advocacy organizations published in The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. McCoy and colleagues reported that 83% had received funds from industry. At least 39% had a current or former industry executive on the governing board, and 12% had a current or former industry executive in a board leadership position. Of the 104, 38 were focused on cancer and 13 on neurologic conditions. Of these, only 12% had published policies for managing institutional COIs.

Dr. McCoy emphasized the industry’s reliance on partnering with patient groups, particularly during FDA advisory committee meetings. “The sponsors wouldn’t be paying for patients to show up and give these testimonies if they didn’t think it made a difference. The audience isn’t just panel members; it’s also agency officials and maybe elected officials as well.”

“The Fox Foundation, with a $300 million-plus budget, gets about $5-$6 million a year from industry,” said Mr. Thompson. The money is earmarked for the organization’s Parkinson’s Disease Education Consortium; none goes toward advocacy. And, “the foundation has never specifically endorsed a product or device.”

When organizations that receive industry funding back a particular product, “it does appear to be [a conflict], and whether it is an actual one or not, appearances sometimes are all that matter,” said Mr. Thompson.

Dr. Lynch said accepting industry money “is a really significant conflict.” While advocates might need that money to fund advocacy efforts or make grants to advance research priorities, the acceptance might hinder willingness to demand evidence or to complain about a product’s price tag. “You don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you, right?”

Both Dr. McCoy and Dr. Lynch said patient groups — and individual patients — should at a minimum disclose industry funding, especially when speaking at an advisory committee.

Federal agencies and members of Congress actively seek patient input when considering legislation and funding priorities. But the individuals testifying at an advisory committee aren’t likely to represent all patients, and there’s a danger that they are just the loudest voices, said Dr. McCoy.

“We need to think more carefully about how we actually understand the preferences of a big, diverse patient population,” he said.

Dr. Lynch agreed.

Within the ALS community, “a lot of people who take different perspectives than some of those that are the leading voices get shouted down, and their voices get drowned out, and they get attacked on social media,” she said.

The group may be at the table, “but they’re just one voice at the table,” she said.

Dr. McCoy reported that his wife works for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, a patient advocacy organization. Dr. Rand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lynch received funding from Arnold Ventures and the Greenwall Foundation for work related to the FDA and patient advocacy.

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

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked certification for two physicians known for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website. Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine. 

Dr. Marik is the chief scientific officer and Dr. Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.

Ivermectin was proven to not be of use in treating COVID. Studies purporting to show a benefit were later linked to errors, and some were found to have been based on potentially fraudulent research.

The ABIM declined to comment when asked by this news organization about its action. Its website indicates that “revoked” indicates “loss of certification due to disciplinary action for which ABIM has determined that the conduct underlying the sanction does not warrant a defined pathway for restoration of certification at the time of disciplinary sanction.”

In a statement emailed to this news organization, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.”

The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.”

Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik lost an appeal. 

In a 2023 statement, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”

“This isn’t a free speech question,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine’s Department of Population Health, New York City. “You do have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to practice outside of the standard of care boundaries,” he told this news organization.

The ABIM action “is the field standing up and saying, ‘These are the limits of what you can do,’” said Dr. Caplan. It means the profession is rejecting those “who are involved in things that harm patients or delay them getting accepted treatments,” he said. Caplan noted that a disciplinary action had been a long time in coming — 3 years since the first battles over ivermectin. 

Wendy Parmet, JD, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Boston, said that misinformation spread by physicians is especially harmful because it comes with an air of credibility.

“We certainly want people to be able to dissent,” Ms. Parmet told this news organization. To engender trust, any sanctions by a professional board should be done in a deliberative process with a strong evidentiary base, she said. 

“You want to leave sufficient room for discourse and discussion within the profession, and you don’t want the board to enforce a narrow, rigid orthodoxy,” she said. But in cases where people are “peddling information that is way outside the consensus” or are “profiting off of it, for the profession to take no action, that is, I think, detrimental also to the trust in the profession,” she said.

She was not surprised that Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik would fight to retain certification. “Board certification is an important, very worthwhile thing to have,” she said. “Losing it is not trivial.”

Dr. Kory, who is licensed in California, New York, and Wisconsin, “does not require this certification for his independent practice but is evaluating next steps with attorneys,” according to the statement from FLCCC.

Dr. Marik, whose Virginia medical license expired in 2022, “is no longer treating patients and has dedicated his time and efforts to the FLCCC Alliance,” the statement said.

Dr. Caplan served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and advisor for this news organization. Ms. Parmet reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked certification for two physicians known for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website. Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine. 

Dr. Marik is the chief scientific officer and Dr. Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.

Ivermectin was proven to not be of use in treating COVID. Studies purporting to show a benefit were later linked to errors, and some were found to have been based on potentially fraudulent research.

The ABIM declined to comment when asked by this news organization about its action. Its website indicates that “revoked” indicates “loss of certification due to disciplinary action for which ABIM has determined that the conduct underlying the sanction does not warrant a defined pathway for restoration of certification at the time of disciplinary sanction.”

In a statement emailed to this news organization, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.”

The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.”

Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik lost an appeal. 

In a 2023 statement, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”

“This isn’t a free speech question,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine’s Department of Population Health, New York City. “You do have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to practice outside of the standard of care boundaries,” he told this news organization.

The ABIM action “is the field standing up and saying, ‘These are the limits of what you can do,’” said Dr. Caplan. It means the profession is rejecting those “who are involved in things that harm patients or delay them getting accepted treatments,” he said. Caplan noted that a disciplinary action had been a long time in coming — 3 years since the first battles over ivermectin. 

Wendy Parmet, JD, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Boston, said that misinformation spread by physicians is especially harmful because it comes with an air of credibility.

“We certainly want people to be able to dissent,” Ms. Parmet told this news organization. To engender trust, any sanctions by a professional board should be done in a deliberative process with a strong evidentiary base, she said. 

“You want to leave sufficient room for discourse and discussion within the profession, and you don’t want the board to enforce a narrow, rigid orthodoxy,” she said. But in cases where people are “peddling information that is way outside the consensus” or are “profiting off of it, for the profession to take no action, that is, I think, detrimental also to the trust in the profession,” she said.

She was not surprised that Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik would fight to retain certification. “Board certification is an important, very worthwhile thing to have,” she said. “Losing it is not trivial.”

Dr. Kory, who is licensed in California, New York, and Wisconsin, “does not require this certification for his independent practice but is evaluating next steps with attorneys,” according to the statement from FLCCC.

Dr. Marik, whose Virginia medical license expired in 2022, “is no longer treating patients and has dedicated his time and efforts to the FLCCC Alliance,” the statement said.

Dr. Caplan served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and advisor for this news organization. Ms. Parmet reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked certification for two physicians known for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website. Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine. 

Dr. Marik is the chief scientific officer and Dr. Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.

Ivermectin was proven to not be of use in treating COVID. Studies purporting to show a benefit were later linked to errors, and some were found to have been based on potentially fraudulent research.

The ABIM declined to comment when asked by this news organization about its action. Its website indicates that “revoked” indicates “loss of certification due to disciplinary action for which ABIM has determined that the conduct underlying the sanction does not warrant a defined pathway for restoration of certification at the time of disciplinary sanction.”

In a statement emailed to this news organization, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.”

The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.”

Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik lost an appeal. 

In a 2023 statement, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”

“This isn’t a free speech question,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine’s Department of Population Health, New York City. “You do have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to practice outside of the standard of care boundaries,” he told this news organization.

The ABIM action “is the field standing up and saying, ‘These are the limits of what you can do,’” said Dr. Caplan. It means the profession is rejecting those “who are involved in things that harm patients or delay them getting accepted treatments,” he said. Caplan noted that a disciplinary action had been a long time in coming — 3 years since the first battles over ivermectin. 

Wendy Parmet, JD, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Boston, said that misinformation spread by physicians is especially harmful because it comes with an air of credibility.

“We certainly want people to be able to dissent,” Ms. Parmet told this news organization. To engender trust, any sanctions by a professional board should be done in a deliberative process with a strong evidentiary base, she said. 

“You want to leave sufficient room for discourse and discussion within the profession, and you don’t want the board to enforce a narrow, rigid orthodoxy,” she said. But in cases where people are “peddling information that is way outside the consensus” or are “profiting off of it, for the profession to take no action, that is, I think, detrimental also to the trust in the profession,” she said.

She was not surprised that Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik would fight to retain certification. “Board certification is an important, very worthwhile thing to have,” she said. “Losing it is not trivial.”

Dr. Kory, who is licensed in California, New York, and Wisconsin, “does not require this certification for his independent practice but is evaluating next steps with attorneys,” according to the statement from FLCCC.

Dr. Marik, whose Virginia medical license expired in 2022, “is no longer treating patients and has dedicated his time and efforts to the FLCCC Alliance,” the statement said.

Dr. Caplan served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and advisor for this news organization. Ms. Parmet reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new consensus statement recommended genetic testing for all categories of kidney diseases whenever a genetic cause is suspected and offered guidance on who to test, which tests are the most useful, and how to talk to patients about results.

The statement, published online in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases, is the work of four dozen authors — including patients, nephrologists, experts in clinical and laboratory genetics, kidney pathology, genetic counseling, and ethics. The experts were brought together by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) with the goal of broadening use and understanding of the tests.

About 10% or more of kidney diseases in adults and 70% of selected chronic kidney diseases (CKDs) in children have genetic causes. But nephrologists have reported a lack of education about genetic testing, and other barriers to wider use, including limited access to testing, cost, insurance coverage, and a small number of genetic counselors who are versed in kidney genetics.

Genetic testing “in the kidney field is a little less developed than in other fields,” said co–lead author Nora Franceschini, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, and a nephrologist who studies the genetic epidemiology of hypertension and kidney and cardiovascular diseases.

There are already many known variants that play a role in various kidney diseases and more are on the horizon, Dr. Franceschini told this news organization. More genetic tests will be available in the near future. “The workforce needs to be prepared,” she said.

The statement is an initial step that gets clinicians thinking about testing in a more systematic way, said Dr. Franceschini. “Genetic testing is just another test that physicians can use to complete the story when evaluating patients.

“I think clinicians are ready to implement” testing, said Dr. Franceschini. “We just need to have better guidance.”
 

Who, When, What to Test

The NKF statement is not the first to try to address gaps in use and knowledge. A European Renal Association Working Group published guidelines in 2022.

The NKF Working Group came up with 56 recommendations and separate algorithms to guide testing for adult and pediatric individuals who are considered at-risk (and currently asymptomatic) and for those who already have clinical disease.

Testing can help determine a cause if there’s an atypical clinical presentation, and it can help avoid biopsies, said the group. Tests can also guide choice of therapy.

For at-risk individuals, there are two broad situations in which testing might be considered: In family members of a patient who already has kidney disease and in potential kidney donors. But testing at-risk children younger than 18 years should only be done if there is an intervention available that could prevent, treat, or slow progression of disease, said the authors.

For patients with an established genetic diagnosis, at-risk family members should be tested with the known single-gene variant diagnostic instead of a broad panel, said the group.

Single-gene variant testing is most appropriate in situations when clinical disease is already evident or when there is known genetic disease in the family, according to the NKF panel. A large diagnostic panel that covers the many common genetic causes of kidney disease is recommended for the majority of patients.

The group recommended that apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) testing should be included in gene panels for CKD, and it should be offered to any patient “with clinical findings suggestive of APOL1-association nephropathy, regardless of race and ethnicity.”

High-risk APOL1 genotypes confer a 5- to 10-fold increased risk for CKD and are found in one out of seven individuals of African ancestry, which means the focus has largely been on testing those with that ancestry.

However, with many unknowns about APOL1, the NKF panel did not want to “profile” individuals and suggest that testing should not be based on skin color or race/ethnicity, said Dr. Franceschini.

In addition, only about 10% of those with the variant develop disease, so testing is not currently warranted for those who do not already have kidney disease, said the group.

They also recommended against the use of polygenic risk scores, saying that there are not enough data from diverse populations in genome-wide association studies for kidney disease or on their clinical utility.
 

More Education Needed; Many Barriers

The authors acknowledged that nephrologists generally receive little education in genetics and lack support for interpreting and discussing results.

“Nephrologists should be provided with training and best practice resources to interpret genetic testing and discuss the results with individuals and their families,” they wrote, adding that there’s a need for genomic medicine boards at academic centers that would be available to help nephrologists interpret results and plot clinical management.

The group did not, however, cite some of the other barriers to adoption of testing, including a limited number of sites offering testing, cost, and lack of insurance coverage for the diagnostics.

Medicare may cover genetic testing for kidney disease when an individual has symptoms and there is a Food and Drug Administration–approved test. Joseph Vassalotti, MD, chief medical officer for the NKF, said private insurance may cover the testing if the nephrologist deems it medically necessary, but that he usually confirms coverage before initiating testing. The often-used Renasight panel, which tests for 385 genes related to kidney diseases, costs $300-$400 out of pocket, Dr. Vassalotti told this news organization.

In a survey of 149 nephrologists conducted in 2021, both users (46%) and nonusers of the tests (69%) said that high cost was the most significant perceived barrier to implementing widespread testing. A third of users and almost two thirds of nonusers said that poor availability or lack of ease of testing was the second most significant barrier.

Clinics that test for kidney genes “are largely confined to large academic centers and some specialty clinics,” said Dominic Raj, MD, the Bert B. Brooks chair, and Divya Shankaranarayanan, MD, director of the Kidney Precision Medicine Clinic, both at George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Washington, DC, in an email.

Testing is also limited by cultural barriers, lack of genetic literacy, and patients’ concerns that a positive result could lead to a loss of health insurance coverage, said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan.
 

Paper Will Help Expand Use

A lack of consensus has also held back expansion. The new statement “may lead to increased and possibly judicious utilization of genetic testing in nephrology practices,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan. “Most importantly, the panel has given specific guidance as to what type of genetic test platform is likely to yield the best and most cost-effective yield.”

The most effective use is “in monogenic kidney diseases and to a lesser extent in oligogenic kidney disease,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan, adding that testing is of less-certain utility in polygenic kidney diseases, “where complex genetic and epigenetic factors determine the phenotype.”

Genetic testing might be especially useful “in atypical clinical presentations” and can help clinicians avoid unnecessary expensive and extensive investigations when multiple organ systems are involved, they said.

“Most importantly, [testing] might prevent unnecessary and potentially harmful treatment and enable targeted specific treatment, when available,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan.

Dr. Franceschini and Dr. Shankaranarayanan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Raj disclosed that he received consulting fees and honoraria from Novo Nordisk and is a national leader for the company’s Zeus trial, studying whether ziltivekimab reduces the risk for cardiovascular events in cardiovascular disease, CKD, and inflammation. He also participated in a study of Natera’s Renasight, a 385-gene panel for kidney disease.

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

A new consensus statement recommended genetic testing for all categories of kidney diseases whenever a genetic cause is suspected and offered guidance on who to test, which tests are the most useful, and how to talk to patients about results.

The statement, published online in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases, is the work of four dozen authors — including patients, nephrologists, experts in clinical and laboratory genetics, kidney pathology, genetic counseling, and ethics. The experts were brought together by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) with the goal of broadening use and understanding of the tests.

About 10% or more of kidney diseases in adults and 70% of selected chronic kidney diseases (CKDs) in children have genetic causes. But nephrologists have reported a lack of education about genetic testing, and other barriers to wider use, including limited access to testing, cost, insurance coverage, and a small number of genetic counselors who are versed in kidney genetics.

Genetic testing “in the kidney field is a little less developed than in other fields,” said co–lead author Nora Franceschini, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, and a nephrologist who studies the genetic epidemiology of hypertension and kidney and cardiovascular diseases.

There are already many known variants that play a role in various kidney diseases and more are on the horizon, Dr. Franceschini told this news organization. More genetic tests will be available in the near future. “The workforce needs to be prepared,” she said.

The statement is an initial step that gets clinicians thinking about testing in a more systematic way, said Dr. Franceschini. “Genetic testing is just another test that physicians can use to complete the story when evaluating patients.

“I think clinicians are ready to implement” testing, said Dr. Franceschini. “We just need to have better guidance.”
 

Who, When, What to Test

The NKF statement is not the first to try to address gaps in use and knowledge. A European Renal Association Working Group published guidelines in 2022.

The NKF Working Group came up with 56 recommendations and separate algorithms to guide testing for adult and pediatric individuals who are considered at-risk (and currently asymptomatic) and for those who already have clinical disease.

Testing can help determine a cause if there’s an atypical clinical presentation, and it can help avoid biopsies, said the group. Tests can also guide choice of therapy.

For at-risk individuals, there are two broad situations in which testing might be considered: In family members of a patient who already has kidney disease and in potential kidney donors. But testing at-risk children younger than 18 years should only be done if there is an intervention available that could prevent, treat, or slow progression of disease, said the authors.

For patients with an established genetic diagnosis, at-risk family members should be tested with the known single-gene variant diagnostic instead of a broad panel, said the group.

Single-gene variant testing is most appropriate in situations when clinical disease is already evident or when there is known genetic disease in the family, according to the NKF panel. A large diagnostic panel that covers the many common genetic causes of kidney disease is recommended for the majority of patients.

The group recommended that apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) testing should be included in gene panels for CKD, and it should be offered to any patient “with clinical findings suggestive of APOL1-association nephropathy, regardless of race and ethnicity.”

High-risk APOL1 genotypes confer a 5- to 10-fold increased risk for CKD and are found in one out of seven individuals of African ancestry, which means the focus has largely been on testing those with that ancestry.

However, with many unknowns about APOL1, the NKF panel did not want to “profile” individuals and suggest that testing should not be based on skin color or race/ethnicity, said Dr. Franceschini.

In addition, only about 10% of those with the variant develop disease, so testing is not currently warranted for those who do not already have kidney disease, said the group.

They also recommended against the use of polygenic risk scores, saying that there are not enough data from diverse populations in genome-wide association studies for kidney disease or on their clinical utility.
 

More Education Needed; Many Barriers

The authors acknowledged that nephrologists generally receive little education in genetics and lack support for interpreting and discussing results.

“Nephrologists should be provided with training and best practice resources to interpret genetic testing and discuss the results with individuals and their families,” they wrote, adding that there’s a need for genomic medicine boards at academic centers that would be available to help nephrologists interpret results and plot clinical management.

The group did not, however, cite some of the other barriers to adoption of testing, including a limited number of sites offering testing, cost, and lack of insurance coverage for the diagnostics.

Medicare may cover genetic testing for kidney disease when an individual has symptoms and there is a Food and Drug Administration–approved test. Joseph Vassalotti, MD, chief medical officer for the NKF, said private insurance may cover the testing if the nephrologist deems it medically necessary, but that he usually confirms coverage before initiating testing. The often-used Renasight panel, which tests for 385 genes related to kidney diseases, costs $300-$400 out of pocket, Dr. Vassalotti told this news organization.

In a survey of 149 nephrologists conducted in 2021, both users (46%) and nonusers of the tests (69%) said that high cost was the most significant perceived barrier to implementing widespread testing. A third of users and almost two thirds of nonusers said that poor availability or lack of ease of testing was the second most significant barrier.

Clinics that test for kidney genes “are largely confined to large academic centers and some specialty clinics,” said Dominic Raj, MD, the Bert B. Brooks chair, and Divya Shankaranarayanan, MD, director of the Kidney Precision Medicine Clinic, both at George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Washington, DC, in an email.

Testing is also limited by cultural barriers, lack of genetic literacy, and patients’ concerns that a positive result could lead to a loss of health insurance coverage, said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan.
 

Paper Will Help Expand Use

A lack of consensus has also held back expansion. The new statement “may lead to increased and possibly judicious utilization of genetic testing in nephrology practices,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan. “Most importantly, the panel has given specific guidance as to what type of genetic test platform is likely to yield the best and most cost-effective yield.”

The most effective use is “in monogenic kidney diseases and to a lesser extent in oligogenic kidney disease,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan, adding that testing is of less-certain utility in polygenic kidney diseases, “where complex genetic and epigenetic factors determine the phenotype.”

Genetic testing might be especially useful “in atypical clinical presentations” and can help clinicians avoid unnecessary expensive and extensive investigations when multiple organ systems are involved, they said.

“Most importantly, [testing] might prevent unnecessary and potentially harmful treatment and enable targeted specific treatment, when available,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan.

Dr. Franceschini and Dr. Shankaranarayanan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Raj disclosed that he received consulting fees and honoraria from Novo Nordisk and is a national leader for the company’s Zeus trial, studying whether ziltivekimab reduces the risk for cardiovascular events in cardiovascular disease, CKD, and inflammation. He also participated in a study of Natera’s Renasight, a 385-gene panel for kidney disease.

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

A new consensus statement recommended genetic testing for all categories of kidney diseases whenever a genetic cause is suspected and offered guidance on who to test, which tests are the most useful, and how to talk to patients about results.

The statement, published online in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases, is the work of four dozen authors — including patients, nephrologists, experts in clinical and laboratory genetics, kidney pathology, genetic counseling, and ethics. The experts were brought together by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) with the goal of broadening use and understanding of the tests.

About 10% or more of kidney diseases in adults and 70% of selected chronic kidney diseases (CKDs) in children have genetic causes. But nephrologists have reported a lack of education about genetic testing, and other barriers to wider use, including limited access to testing, cost, insurance coverage, and a small number of genetic counselors who are versed in kidney genetics.

Genetic testing “in the kidney field is a little less developed than in other fields,” said co–lead author Nora Franceschini, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, and a nephrologist who studies the genetic epidemiology of hypertension and kidney and cardiovascular diseases.

There are already many known variants that play a role in various kidney diseases and more are on the horizon, Dr. Franceschini told this news organization. More genetic tests will be available in the near future. “The workforce needs to be prepared,” she said.

The statement is an initial step that gets clinicians thinking about testing in a more systematic way, said Dr. Franceschini. “Genetic testing is just another test that physicians can use to complete the story when evaluating patients.

“I think clinicians are ready to implement” testing, said Dr. Franceschini. “We just need to have better guidance.”
 

Who, When, What to Test

The NKF statement is not the first to try to address gaps in use and knowledge. A European Renal Association Working Group published guidelines in 2022.

The NKF Working Group came up with 56 recommendations and separate algorithms to guide testing for adult and pediatric individuals who are considered at-risk (and currently asymptomatic) and for those who already have clinical disease.

Testing can help determine a cause if there’s an atypical clinical presentation, and it can help avoid biopsies, said the group. Tests can also guide choice of therapy.

For at-risk individuals, there are two broad situations in which testing might be considered: In family members of a patient who already has kidney disease and in potential kidney donors. But testing at-risk children younger than 18 years should only be done if there is an intervention available that could prevent, treat, or slow progression of disease, said the authors.

For patients with an established genetic diagnosis, at-risk family members should be tested with the known single-gene variant diagnostic instead of a broad panel, said the group.

Single-gene variant testing is most appropriate in situations when clinical disease is already evident or when there is known genetic disease in the family, according to the NKF panel. A large diagnostic panel that covers the many common genetic causes of kidney disease is recommended for the majority of patients.

The group recommended that apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) testing should be included in gene panels for CKD, and it should be offered to any patient “with clinical findings suggestive of APOL1-association nephropathy, regardless of race and ethnicity.”

High-risk APOL1 genotypes confer a 5- to 10-fold increased risk for CKD and are found in one out of seven individuals of African ancestry, which means the focus has largely been on testing those with that ancestry.

However, with many unknowns about APOL1, the NKF panel did not want to “profile” individuals and suggest that testing should not be based on skin color or race/ethnicity, said Dr. Franceschini.

In addition, only about 10% of those with the variant develop disease, so testing is not currently warranted for those who do not already have kidney disease, said the group.

They also recommended against the use of polygenic risk scores, saying that there are not enough data from diverse populations in genome-wide association studies for kidney disease or on their clinical utility.
 

More Education Needed; Many Barriers

The authors acknowledged that nephrologists generally receive little education in genetics and lack support for interpreting and discussing results.

“Nephrologists should be provided with training and best practice resources to interpret genetic testing and discuss the results with individuals and their families,” they wrote, adding that there’s a need for genomic medicine boards at academic centers that would be available to help nephrologists interpret results and plot clinical management.

The group did not, however, cite some of the other barriers to adoption of testing, including a limited number of sites offering testing, cost, and lack of insurance coverage for the diagnostics.

Medicare may cover genetic testing for kidney disease when an individual has symptoms and there is a Food and Drug Administration–approved test. Joseph Vassalotti, MD, chief medical officer for the NKF, said private insurance may cover the testing if the nephrologist deems it medically necessary, but that he usually confirms coverage before initiating testing. The often-used Renasight panel, which tests for 385 genes related to kidney diseases, costs $300-$400 out of pocket, Dr. Vassalotti told this news organization.

In a survey of 149 nephrologists conducted in 2021, both users (46%) and nonusers of the tests (69%) said that high cost was the most significant perceived barrier to implementing widespread testing. A third of users and almost two thirds of nonusers said that poor availability or lack of ease of testing was the second most significant barrier.

Clinics that test for kidney genes “are largely confined to large academic centers and some specialty clinics,” said Dominic Raj, MD, the Bert B. Brooks chair, and Divya Shankaranarayanan, MD, director of the Kidney Precision Medicine Clinic, both at George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Washington, DC, in an email.

Testing is also limited by cultural barriers, lack of genetic literacy, and patients’ concerns that a positive result could lead to a loss of health insurance coverage, said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan.
 

Paper Will Help Expand Use

A lack of consensus has also held back expansion. The new statement “may lead to increased and possibly judicious utilization of genetic testing in nephrology practices,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan. “Most importantly, the panel has given specific guidance as to what type of genetic test platform is likely to yield the best and most cost-effective yield.”

The most effective use is “in monogenic kidney diseases and to a lesser extent in oligogenic kidney disease,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan, adding that testing is of less-certain utility in polygenic kidney diseases, “where complex genetic and epigenetic factors determine the phenotype.”

Genetic testing might be especially useful “in atypical clinical presentations” and can help clinicians avoid unnecessary expensive and extensive investigations when multiple organ systems are involved, they said.

“Most importantly, [testing] might prevent unnecessary and potentially harmful treatment and enable targeted specific treatment, when available,” said Dr. Raj and Dr. Shankaranarayanan.

Dr. Franceschini and Dr. Shankaranarayanan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Raj disclosed that he received consulting fees and honoraria from Novo Nordisk and is a national leader for the company’s Zeus trial, studying whether ziltivekimab reduces the risk for cardiovascular events in cardiovascular disease, CKD, and inflammation. He also participated in a study of Natera’s Renasight, a 385-gene panel for kidney disease.

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

Illicit use of the veterinary tranquilizer xylazine continues to spread across the United States. The drug, which is increasingly mixed with fentanyl, often fails to respond to the opioid overdose reversal medication naloxone and can cause severe necrotic lesions.

A report released by Millennium Health, a specialty lab that provides medication monitoring for pain management, drug treatment, and behavioral and substance use disorder treatment centers across the country, showed the number of urine specimens collected and tested at the US drug treatment centers were positive for xylazine in the most recent 6 months.

As previously reported by this news organization, in late 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a communication alerting clinicians about the special management required for opioid overdoses tainted with xylazine, which is also known as “tranq” or “tranq dope.”

Subsequently, in early 2023, The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy designated xylazine combined with fentanyl as an emerging threat to the United States.

Both the FDA and the Drug Enforcement Administration have taken steps to try to stop trafficking of the combination. However, despite these efforts, xylazine use has continued to spread.

The Millennium Health Signals report showed that the greatest increase in xylazine use was largely in the western United States. In the first 6 months of 2023, 3% of urine drug tests (UDTs) in Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, and Alaska were positive for xylazine. From November 2023 to April 2024, this rose to 8%, a 147% increase. In the Mountain West, xylazine-positive UDTs increased from 2% in 2023 to 4% in 2024, an increase of 94%. In addition to growth in the West, the report showed that xylazine use increased by more than 100% in New England — from 14% in 2023 to 28% in 2024.

Nationally, 16% of all urine specimens were positive for xylazine from late 2023 to April 2024, up slightly from 14% from April to October 2023.

Xylazine use was highest in the East and in the mid-Atlantic United States. Still, positivity rates in the mid-Atlantic dropped from 44% to 33%. The states included in that group were New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey. East North Central states (Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois) also experienced a decline in positive tests from 32% to 30%.

The South Atlantic states, which include Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, had a 17% increase in positivity — from 22% to 26%.

From April 2023 to April 2024 state-level UDT positivity rates were 40% in Pennsylvania, 37% in New York, and 35% in Ohio. But rates vary by locality. In Clermont and Hamilton counties in Ohio — both in the Cincinnati area — about 70% of specimens were positive for xylazine.

About one third of specimens in Maryland and South Carolina contained xylazine.

“Because xylazine exposure remains a significant challenge in the East and is a growing concern in the West, clinicians across the US need to be prepared to recognize and address the consequences of xylazine use — like diminished responses to naloxone and severe skin wounds that may lead to amputation — among people who use fentanyl,” Millennium Health Chief Clinical Officer Angela Huskey, PharmD, said in a press release.

The Health Signals Alert analyzed more than 50,000 fentanyl-positive UDT specimens collected between April 12, 2023, and April 11, 2024. Millennium Health researchers analyzed xylazine positivity rates in fentanyl-positive UDT specimens by the US Census Division and state.

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

Illicit use of the veterinary tranquilizer xylazine continues to spread across the United States. The drug, which is increasingly mixed with fentanyl, often fails to respond to the opioid overdose reversal medication naloxone and can cause severe necrotic lesions.

A report released by Millennium Health, a specialty lab that provides medication monitoring for pain management, drug treatment, and behavioral and substance use disorder treatment centers across the country, showed the number of urine specimens collected and tested at the US drug treatment centers were positive for xylazine in the most recent 6 months.

As previously reported by this news organization, in late 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a communication alerting clinicians about the special management required for opioid overdoses tainted with xylazine, which is also known as “tranq” or “tranq dope.”

Subsequently, in early 2023, The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy designated xylazine combined with fentanyl as an emerging threat to the United States.

Both the FDA and the Drug Enforcement Administration have taken steps to try to stop trafficking of the combination. However, despite these efforts, xylazine use has continued to spread.

The Millennium Health Signals report showed that the greatest increase in xylazine use was largely in the western United States. In the first 6 months of 2023, 3% of urine drug tests (UDTs) in Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, and Alaska were positive for xylazine. From November 2023 to April 2024, this rose to 8%, a 147% increase. In the Mountain West, xylazine-positive UDTs increased from 2% in 2023 to 4% in 2024, an increase of 94%. In addition to growth in the West, the report showed that xylazine use increased by more than 100% in New England — from 14% in 2023 to 28% in 2024.

Nationally, 16% of all urine specimens were positive for xylazine from late 2023 to April 2024, up slightly from 14% from April to October 2023.

Xylazine use was highest in the East and in the mid-Atlantic United States. Still, positivity rates in the mid-Atlantic dropped from 44% to 33%. The states included in that group were New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey. East North Central states (Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois) also experienced a decline in positive tests from 32% to 30%.

The South Atlantic states, which include Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, had a 17% increase in positivity — from 22% to 26%.

From April 2023 to April 2024 state-level UDT positivity rates were 40% in Pennsylvania, 37% in New York, and 35% in Ohio. But rates vary by locality. In Clermont and Hamilton counties in Ohio — both in the Cincinnati area — about 70% of specimens were positive for xylazine.

About one third of specimens in Maryland and South Carolina contained xylazine.

“Because xylazine exposure remains a significant challenge in the East and is a growing concern in the West, clinicians across the US need to be prepared to recognize and address the consequences of xylazine use — like diminished responses to naloxone and severe skin wounds that may lead to amputation — among people who use fentanyl,” Millennium Health Chief Clinical Officer Angela Huskey, PharmD, said in a press release.

The Health Signals Alert analyzed more than 50,000 fentanyl-positive UDT specimens collected between April 12, 2023, and April 11, 2024. Millennium Health researchers analyzed xylazine positivity rates in fentanyl-positive UDT specimens by the US Census Division and state.

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

Illicit use of the veterinary tranquilizer xylazine continues to spread across the United States. The drug, which is increasingly mixed with fentanyl, often fails to respond to the opioid overdose reversal medication naloxone and can cause severe necrotic lesions.

A report released by Millennium Health, a specialty lab that provides medication monitoring for pain management, drug treatment, and behavioral and substance use disorder treatment centers across the country, showed the number of urine specimens collected and tested at the US drug treatment centers were positive for xylazine in the most recent 6 months.

As previously reported by this news organization, in late 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a communication alerting clinicians about the special management required for opioid overdoses tainted with xylazine, which is also known as “tranq” or “tranq dope.”

Subsequently, in early 2023, The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy designated xylazine combined with fentanyl as an emerging threat to the United States.

Both the FDA and the Drug Enforcement Administration have taken steps to try to stop trafficking of the combination. However, despite these efforts, xylazine use has continued to spread.

The Millennium Health Signals report showed that the greatest increase in xylazine use was largely in the western United States. In the first 6 months of 2023, 3% of urine drug tests (UDTs) in Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, and Alaska were positive for xylazine. From November 2023 to April 2024, this rose to 8%, a 147% increase. In the Mountain West, xylazine-positive UDTs increased from 2% in 2023 to 4% in 2024, an increase of 94%. In addition to growth in the West, the report showed that xylazine use increased by more than 100% in New England — from 14% in 2023 to 28% in 2024.

Nationally, 16% of all urine specimens were positive for xylazine from late 2023 to April 2024, up slightly from 14% from April to October 2023.

Xylazine use was highest in the East and in the mid-Atlantic United States. Still, positivity rates in the mid-Atlantic dropped from 44% to 33%. The states included in that group were New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey. East North Central states (Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois) also experienced a decline in positive tests from 32% to 30%.

The South Atlantic states, which include Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, had a 17% increase in positivity — from 22% to 26%.

From April 2023 to April 2024 state-level UDT positivity rates were 40% in Pennsylvania, 37% in New York, and 35% in Ohio. But rates vary by locality. In Clermont and Hamilton counties in Ohio — both in the Cincinnati area — about 70% of specimens were positive for xylazine.

About one third of specimens in Maryland and South Carolina contained xylazine.

“Because xylazine exposure remains a significant challenge in the East and is a growing concern in the West, clinicians across the US need to be prepared to recognize and address the consequences of xylazine use — like diminished responses to naloxone and severe skin wounds that may lead to amputation — among people who use fentanyl,” Millennium Health Chief Clinical Officer Angela Huskey, PharmD, said in a press release.

The Health Signals Alert analyzed more than 50,000 fentanyl-positive UDT specimens collected between April 12, 2023, and April 11, 2024. Millennium Health researchers analyzed xylazine positivity rates in fentanyl-positive UDT specimens by the US Census Division and state.

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

Experts say the US Supreme Court’s ruling Friday to overturn the decades-old “Chevron doctrine” could severely restrict the ability of federal agencies to regulate all aspects of healthcare.

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, wrote on X, “my worry is that it will paralyze policymaking in healthcare and other areas,” because “Congress will try to fill in more details, making it harder to pass legislation.” He also wrote that federal agencies “will become very cautious in using their regulatory authority.”

In their 6-3 opinion reversing the “Chevron doctrine” — which has been followed since a 1984 Court opinion — the Justices said that the judiciary should no longer have to defer to federal agency interpretations of laws. Existing federal law “requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” said the Court, in stating why Chevron should be overruled.

Writing for the majority in the combined cases — Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo — Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote that “agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said the decision was a judicial power grab and would result in a “jolt to the legal system.” She was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The opinion will have many repercussions, said lawyer and Supreme Court watcher Amy Howe. The Chevron ruling has been “one of the most important rulings on federal administrative law, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times,” she wrote on her blog.

For example, without the long-standing deference to agencies under Chevron, healthcare providers may have more opportunities to challenge how federal officials set Medicare reimbursement for hospital procedures or prescription drugs, Baker Donelson healthcare attorneys McKenna Cloud and Thomas Barnard wrote in an analysis.

Seventeen health organizations issued a joint statement signaling their disappointment. 

“We anticipate that today’s ruling will cause significant disruption to publicly funded health insurance programs, to the stability of this country’s healthcare and food and drug review systems, and to the health and well-being of the patients and consumers we serve,” wrote the organizations, which included American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, ALS Association, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Child Neurology Foundation, Epilepsy Foundation, Muscular Dystrophy Association, National Health Law Program, Physicians for Social Responsibility, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and Truth Initiative.

“It’s much harder for agencies to exercise power without some power to interpret statues. This is big,” wrote Berkeley Law Professor Orin Kerr on X.
 

A New, Uncertain Landscape for Healthcare

In the original Chevron case, the Court ruled that federal agencies had relevant expertise and should be given deference in resolving ambiguities that Congress had not spelled out in legislation.

In Relentless and Loper Bright, the plaintiffs argued that federal agencies overstepped their authority by issuing a rule that required commercial fishing vessels to pay for professional observers to monitor their catch.

In a statement after Friday’s ruling, the Relentless plaintiffs’ attorneys said that the decision “will recalibrate the balance of power between agencies and courts” and “make it harder for those agencies to adopt regulatory programs that exceed the authority conferred on them by Congress.”

Some predicted chaos in the wake of the ruling.

“Overturning Chevron could invite legal challenges to any and all agency determinations of ambiguous statutes by any stakeholder, leaving individual courts with the impractical task of determining the ‘correct’ meaning of statutes without the benefit of requisite expertise, practical experience, or public engagement,” wrote Sahil Agrawal, MD, PhD, Joseph S. Ross, MD, and Reshma Ramachandran, MD, in JAMA in an opinion piece in March that considered the ramifications of overturning Chevron.

“The spillover effects for medicine and public health, in turn, will be consequential,” they wrote.

In an analysis published in April, the Kaiser Family Foundation noted many potential ramifications on patient and consumer protections in the health insurance market. For instance, courts could vacate current rules governing protections under the Affordable Care Act, including that health plans offer a range of free preventive health services, such as breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening.
 

Congressional, White House Reaction

Many legal observers said the ruling will have the effect of requiring Congress to write ever-more dense and exacting legislation to prevent agencies from interpreting any gaps.

Some members of Congress welcomed the decision.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said in a statement, “The Constitution vests Congress with the sole authority to make law,” adding, “the Supreme Court made it clear today that our system of government leaves no room for an unelected bureaucracy to co-opt this authority for itself.”

In a post on X, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) accused the Court of siding with “special interests and giant corporations.” Added Mr. Schumer, “Their headlong rush to overturn 40 years of precedent and impose their own radical views is appalling.”

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement that “While this decision undermines the ability of federal agencies to use their expertise as Congress intended to make government work for the people, the Biden-Harris Administration will not relent in our efforts to protect and serve every American.”

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

Experts say the US Supreme Court’s ruling Friday to overturn the decades-old “Chevron doctrine” could severely restrict the ability of federal agencies to regulate all aspects of healthcare.

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, wrote on X, “my worry is that it will paralyze policymaking in healthcare and other areas,” because “Congress will try to fill in more details, making it harder to pass legislation.” He also wrote that federal agencies “will become very cautious in using their regulatory authority.”

In their 6-3 opinion reversing the “Chevron doctrine” — which has been followed since a 1984 Court opinion — the Justices said that the judiciary should no longer have to defer to federal agency interpretations of laws. Existing federal law “requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” said the Court, in stating why Chevron should be overruled.

Writing for the majority in the combined cases — Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo — Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote that “agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said the decision was a judicial power grab and would result in a “jolt to the legal system.” She was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The opinion will have many repercussions, said lawyer and Supreme Court watcher Amy Howe. The Chevron ruling has been “one of the most important rulings on federal administrative law, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times,” she wrote on her blog.

For example, without the long-standing deference to agencies under Chevron, healthcare providers may have more opportunities to challenge how federal officials set Medicare reimbursement for hospital procedures or prescription drugs, Baker Donelson healthcare attorneys McKenna Cloud and Thomas Barnard wrote in an analysis.

Seventeen health organizations issued a joint statement signaling their disappointment. 

“We anticipate that today’s ruling will cause significant disruption to publicly funded health insurance programs, to the stability of this country’s healthcare and food and drug review systems, and to the health and well-being of the patients and consumers we serve,” wrote the organizations, which included American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, ALS Association, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Child Neurology Foundation, Epilepsy Foundation, Muscular Dystrophy Association, National Health Law Program, Physicians for Social Responsibility, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and Truth Initiative.

“It’s much harder for agencies to exercise power without some power to interpret statues. This is big,” wrote Berkeley Law Professor Orin Kerr on X.
 

A New, Uncertain Landscape for Healthcare

In the original Chevron case, the Court ruled that federal agencies had relevant expertise and should be given deference in resolving ambiguities that Congress had not spelled out in legislation.

In Relentless and Loper Bright, the plaintiffs argued that federal agencies overstepped their authority by issuing a rule that required commercial fishing vessels to pay for professional observers to monitor their catch.

In a statement after Friday’s ruling, the Relentless plaintiffs’ attorneys said that the decision “will recalibrate the balance of power between agencies and courts” and “make it harder for those agencies to adopt regulatory programs that exceed the authority conferred on them by Congress.”

Some predicted chaos in the wake of the ruling.

“Overturning Chevron could invite legal challenges to any and all agency determinations of ambiguous statutes by any stakeholder, leaving individual courts with the impractical task of determining the ‘correct’ meaning of statutes without the benefit of requisite expertise, practical experience, or public engagement,” wrote Sahil Agrawal, MD, PhD, Joseph S. Ross, MD, and Reshma Ramachandran, MD, in JAMA in an opinion piece in March that considered the ramifications of overturning Chevron.

“The spillover effects for medicine and public health, in turn, will be consequential,” they wrote.

In an analysis published in April, the Kaiser Family Foundation noted many potential ramifications on patient and consumer protections in the health insurance market. For instance, courts could vacate current rules governing protections under the Affordable Care Act, including that health plans offer a range of free preventive health services, such as breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening.
 

Congressional, White House Reaction

Many legal observers said the ruling will have the effect of requiring Congress to write ever-more dense and exacting legislation to prevent agencies from interpreting any gaps.

Some members of Congress welcomed the decision.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said in a statement, “The Constitution vests Congress with the sole authority to make law,” adding, “the Supreme Court made it clear today that our system of government leaves no room for an unelected bureaucracy to co-opt this authority for itself.”

In a post on X, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) accused the Court of siding with “special interests and giant corporations.” Added Mr. Schumer, “Their headlong rush to overturn 40 years of precedent and impose their own radical views is appalling.”

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement that “While this decision undermines the ability of federal agencies to use their expertise as Congress intended to make government work for the people, the Biden-Harris Administration will not relent in our efforts to protect and serve every American.”

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

Experts say the US Supreme Court’s ruling Friday to overturn the decades-old “Chevron doctrine” could severely restrict the ability of federal agencies to regulate all aspects of healthcare.

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, wrote on X, “my worry is that it will paralyze policymaking in healthcare and other areas,” because “Congress will try to fill in more details, making it harder to pass legislation.” He also wrote that federal agencies “will become very cautious in using their regulatory authority.”

In their 6-3 opinion reversing the “Chevron doctrine” — which has been followed since a 1984 Court opinion — the Justices said that the judiciary should no longer have to defer to federal agency interpretations of laws. Existing federal law “requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” said the Court, in stating why Chevron should be overruled.

Writing for the majority in the combined cases — Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo — Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote that “agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said the decision was a judicial power grab and would result in a “jolt to the legal system.” She was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The opinion will have many repercussions, said lawyer and Supreme Court watcher Amy Howe. The Chevron ruling has been “one of the most important rulings on federal administrative law, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times,” she wrote on her blog.

For example, without the long-standing deference to agencies under Chevron, healthcare providers may have more opportunities to challenge how federal officials set Medicare reimbursement for hospital procedures or prescription drugs, Baker Donelson healthcare attorneys McKenna Cloud and Thomas Barnard wrote in an analysis.

Seventeen health organizations issued a joint statement signaling their disappointment. 

“We anticipate that today’s ruling will cause significant disruption to publicly funded health insurance programs, to the stability of this country’s healthcare and food and drug review systems, and to the health and well-being of the patients and consumers we serve,” wrote the organizations, which included American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, ALS Association, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Child Neurology Foundation, Epilepsy Foundation, Muscular Dystrophy Association, National Health Law Program, Physicians for Social Responsibility, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and Truth Initiative.

“It’s much harder for agencies to exercise power without some power to interpret statues. This is big,” wrote Berkeley Law Professor Orin Kerr on X.
 

A New, Uncertain Landscape for Healthcare

In the original Chevron case, the Court ruled that federal agencies had relevant expertise and should be given deference in resolving ambiguities that Congress had not spelled out in legislation.

In Relentless and Loper Bright, the plaintiffs argued that federal agencies overstepped their authority by issuing a rule that required commercial fishing vessels to pay for professional observers to monitor their catch.

In a statement after Friday’s ruling, the Relentless plaintiffs’ attorneys said that the decision “will recalibrate the balance of power between agencies and courts” and “make it harder for those agencies to adopt regulatory programs that exceed the authority conferred on them by Congress.”

Some predicted chaos in the wake of the ruling.

“Overturning Chevron could invite legal challenges to any and all agency determinations of ambiguous statutes by any stakeholder, leaving individual courts with the impractical task of determining the ‘correct’ meaning of statutes without the benefit of requisite expertise, practical experience, or public engagement,” wrote Sahil Agrawal, MD, PhD, Joseph S. Ross, MD, and Reshma Ramachandran, MD, in JAMA in an opinion piece in March that considered the ramifications of overturning Chevron.

“The spillover effects for medicine and public health, in turn, will be consequential,” they wrote.

In an analysis published in April, the Kaiser Family Foundation noted many potential ramifications on patient and consumer protections in the health insurance market. For instance, courts could vacate current rules governing protections under the Affordable Care Act, including that health plans offer a range of free preventive health services, such as breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening.
 

Congressional, White House Reaction

Many legal observers said the ruling will have the effect of requiring Congress to write ever-more dense and exacting legislation to prevent agencies from interpreting any gaps.

Some members of Congress welcomed the decision.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said in a statement, “The Constitution vests Congress with the sole authority to make law,” adding, “the Supreme Court made it clear today that our system of government leaves no room for an unelected bureaucracy to co-opt this authority for itself.”

In a post on X, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) accused the Court of siding with “special interests and giant corporations.” Added Mr. Schumer, “Their headlong rush to overturn 40 years of precedent and impose their own radical views is appalling.”

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement that “While this decision undermines the ability of federal agencies to use their expertise as Congress intended to make government work for the people, the Biden-Harris Administration will not relent in our efforts to protect and serve every American.”

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

Two hospitals in California in recent months have been cited by state inspectors for allowing certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) to practice beyond their scope, leading to one hospital temporarily stopping use of CRNAs in surgeries.

In one case, a CRNA changed a physician’s order from general anesthesia to spinal anesthesia for a patient who later became unresponsive and had to be transferred to another hospital, according to The Modesto Bee.

The unusual situation highlights the ongoing, often contentious debate about the proper role of CRNAs in surgery amid widely varying state scope of practice laws.

Elizabeth Bamgbose, CRNA, past president of the California Association of Nurse Anesthetists (CANA), said that the absence of CRNAs at Doctors Medical Center (DMC) in Modesto, California, had led to the cancellation of hundreds of procedures. It was an unnecessary step, she said.

“It’s unfortunate that a single surveyor has taken it upon themselves to reinterpret state regulations and redefine a practice that was efficient and safe,” said Ms. Bamgbose, a member of the CANA practice committee.

In late May, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued an “immediate jeopardy” warning about DMC of Modesto. The state agency, like its counterparts in other states, acts on behalf of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in surveying healthcare facilities. CMS defines immediate jeopardy as “a situation in which entity noncompliance has placed the health and safety of recipients in its care at risk for serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death.”

The administrative warning comes with fines and requires the facility to submit an action plan to remediate the situation. The state determines through a follow-up survey whether the plan is sufficient for the facility to avoid being dropped from participation in Medicare and Medicaid.

Before the immediate jeopardy action was taken against DMC, the state had issued three previous such warnings in 2024, according to the CDPH enforcement actions dashboard.
 

CRNA Claims to Be in Charge

Stanislaus Surgical Hospital in Modesto, California, was the first facility to attract CDPH attention. It reportedly was cited in August 2023 and January 2024 surveys for a number of violations of the CMS conditions of participation, including allowing nurse anesthetists to practice beyond their scope.

According to The Modesto Bee, CDPH issued an “immediate jeopardy” order for Stanislaus in January.

The paper reported that state regulators took issue with a CRNA claiming to be the lead manager of the hospital’s anesthesia group, referring to herself as the “chief CRNA.”

Jennifer Banek, MSN, CRNA, a member of the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology board, declined comment on the Stanislaus hospital but said that “it would not be unusual for a nurse anesthetist to serve as a leader, especially (for a) rural or underserved population.”

In April, CMS informed Stanislaus it was being terminated from Medicare, but several Congressional representatives from the Modesto area asked CMS to reconsider. The agency eventually reversed the sanction, The Modesto Bee reported.

CDPH subsequently cited DMC for CRNA scope of practice issues. A department spokesman said that CDPH teams went to DMC “to investigate practices that may not be compliant with state and federal requirements.” The agency declined to comment further until its investigations were complete.

CDPH is monitoring DMC to ensure the hospital complies with state requirements and will return for an unannounced follow-up survey “so it can provide safe, high-quality care to patients that need it,” the spokesperson said.

Although DMC would not confirm it on the record, the immediate jeopardy order led to the removal of all CRNAs, according to Ms. Banek, Ms. Bamgbose, and The Modesto Bee.

The hospital said in a statement that it is working with CDPH to address its concerns and will await a follow-up survey. “Our hospital will continue to fully participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs during this process.”
 

Scope of Practice Confusion?

Federal and state laws and hospital bylaws all prescribe what falls within the scope of practice for a CRNA, but uncertainty remains.

Twenty-five states — including California — have legally opted out of the federal CMS requirement that a physician supervise CRNAs.

But that does not supersede state laws or hospital bylaws governing practice, said American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) president Ronald Harter, MD.

Five states — Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon — have laws that allow nurse anesthetists to practice without physician oversight or involvement, said Dr. Harter, professor of anesthesiology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio.

“There’s a lot of various opinions on what exactly constitutes scope of practice of a nurse anesthetist,” Dr. Harter said. “The vast majority of them work under the direction of an anesthesiologist, and in those settings, it’s typically very clear to everybody who performs what tasks within the care team,” he said.

It’s less common for nurse anesthetists to work totally independent of physician oversight, he said.

Ms. Bamgbose, however, said there is no California statute requiring physician supervision of CRNAs.

The ASA maintains that CRNAs should always be under the supervision of a physician, which can be an anesthesiologist, obstetrician, gastroenterologist, surgeon, or other physician conducting a procedure. An anesthesiologist does not necessarily have to be physically on site, but in those circumstances, the physician conducting the procedure would be, said Dr. Harter.

Nurse anesthetists are “excellent advanced practice nurses,” Dr. Harter said. “But they haven’t been to medical school; they haven’t conducted a residency in anesthesiology. [They] don’t have the medical knowledge and skills that are required to manage the medical problems that patients either bring to the OR with them or that can arise during the time that they’re under anesthesia.”
 

Filling a Gap

Nurse anesthetists see things differently.

CRNAs, by virtue of their certification, can “practice to the full extent and to the full scope, which is complete service of anesthesia,” said Ms. Bamgbose. “You can practice independently of anyone, any type of supervision,” she said.

She acknowledges that “the bylaws of any institution will govern the scope at which any healthcare professional can practice at that institution.”

Most nurse anesthetists see themselves as independent practitioners.

Seventy-five percent of CRNAs who responded to a 2023 Medscape Medical News survey said they practice independently. But even Ms. Banek said that often, the meaning of “independent” is in the eye of the beholder. “It could mean different things to various providers, especially depending on the state that they are residing in,” she said.

Ms. Banek and Ms. Bamgbose said that CRNAs can help fill a gap in anesthesiology services in underserved areas.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates there are currently 32,530 anesthesiologists in the United States, with California employing the largest number, at about 5300. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimated the number at 42,263 in 2022. But the federal Health Resources and Services Administration projects a shortage of 6300 anesthesiologists over the next 15 years.

Some 61,000 CRNAs are currently practicing, with 2400 graduating each year. They are required to be board-certified and are recredentialed every 4 years. By 2025, all will be required to have a doctoral degree. Most have already achieved that status, said Ms. Banek.

“Nurse anesthetists provide care predominantly to rural and underserved areas,” she said, adding, “In many rural hospitals across the country and in all three branches of the military, CRNAs practice autonomously.”

There are 3000 CRNAs in California, said Ms. Bamgbose. Nurse anesthetists are the only anesthesiology professionals in four of 58 California counties, she said.

Ms. Banek said she had heard that some 200 cases were canceled in 1 week at DMC due to the lack of CRNAs. Having physician supervision, which she called redundant, “is really creating a barrier to care,” she said.

“We have countless state and national studies that show the safety and efficacy of our practice,” said Ms. Bamgbose. “To interrupt that care ... is incredibly disruptive to the system.”

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

Two hospitals in California in recent months have been cited by state inspectors for allowing certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) to practice beyond their scope, leading to one hospital temporarily stopping use of CRNAs in surgeries.

In one case, a CRNA changed a physician’s order from general anesthesia to spinal anesthesia for a patient who later became unresponsive and had to be transferred to another hospital, according to The Modesto Bee.

The unusual situation highlights the ongoing, often contentious debate about the proper role of CRNAs in surgery amid widely varying state scope of practice laws.

Elizabeth Bamgbose, CRNA, past president of the California Association of Nurse Anesthetists (CANA), said that the absence of CRNAs at Doctors Medical Center (DMC) in Modesto, California, had led to the cancellation of hundreds of procedures. It was an unnecessary step, she said.

“It’s unfortunate that a single surveyor has taken it upon themselves to reinterpret state regulations and redefine a practice that was efficient and safe,” said Ms. Bamgbose, a member of the CANA practice committee.

In late May, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued an “immediate jeopardy” warning about DMC of Modesto. The state agency, like its counterparts in other states, acts on behalf of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in surveying healthcare facilities. CMS defines immediate jeopardy as “a situation in which entity noncompliance has placed the health and safety of recipients in its care at risk for serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death.”

The administrative warning comes with fines and requires the facility to submit an action plan to remediate the situation. The state determines through a follow-up survey whether the plan is sufficient for the facility to avoid being dropped from participation in Medicare and Medicaid.

Before the immediate jeopardy action was taken against DMC, the state had issued three previous such warnings in 2024, according to the CDPH enforcement actions dashboard.
 

CRNA Claims to Be in Charge

Stanislaus Surgical Hospital in Modesto, California, was the first facility to attract CDPH attention. It reportedly was cited in August 2023 and January 2024 surveys for a number of violations of the CMS conditions of participation, including allowing nurse anesthetists to practice beyond their scope.

According to The Modesto Bee, CDPH issued an “immediate jeopardy” order for Stanislaus in January.

The paper reported that state regulators took issue with a CRNA claiming to be the lead manager of the hospital’s anesthesia group, referring to herself as the “chief CRNA.”

Jennifer Banek, MSN, CRNA, a member of the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology board, declined comment on the Stanislaus hospital but said that “it would not be unusual for a nurse anesthetist to serve as a leader, especially (for a) rural or underserved population.”

In April, CMS informed Stanislaus it was being terminated from Medicare, but several Congressional representatives from the Modesto area asked CMS to reconsider. The agency eventually reversed the sanction, The Modesto Bee reported.

CDPH subsequently cited DMC for CRNA scope of practice issues. A department spokesman said that CDPH teams went to DMC “to investigate practices that may not be compliant with state and federal requirements.” The agency declined to comment further until its investigations were complete.

CDPH is monitoring DMC to ensure the hospital complies with state requirements and will return for an unannounced follow-up survey “so it can provide safe, high-quality care to patients that need it,” the spokesperson said.

Although DMC would not confirm it on the record, the immediate jeopardy order led to the removal of all CRNAs, according to Ms. Banek, Ms. Bamgbose, and The Modesto Bee.

The hospital said in a statement that it is working with CDPH to address its concerns and will await a follow-up survey. “Our hospital will continue to fully participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs during this process.”
 

Scope of Practice Confusion?

Federal and state laws and hospital bylaws all prescribe what falls within the scope of practice for a CRNA, but uncertainty remains.

Twenty-five states — including California — have legally opted out of the federal CMS requirement that a physician supervise CRNAs.

But that does not supersede state laws or hospital bylaws governing practice, said American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) president Ronald Harter, MD.

Five states — Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon — have laws that allow nurse anesthetists to practice without physician oversight or involvement, said Dr. Harter, professor of anesthesiology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio.

“There’s a lot of various opinions on what exactly constitutes scope of practice of a nurse anesthetist,” Dr. Harter said. “The vast majority of them work under the direction of an anesthesiologist, and in those settings, it’s typically very clear to everybody who performs what tasks within the care team,” he said.

It’s less common for nurse anesthetists to work totally independent of physician oversight, he said.

Ms. Bamgbose, however, said there is no California statute requiring physician supervision of CRNAs.

The ASA maintains that CRNAs should always be under the supervision of a physician, which can be an anesthesiologist, obstetrician, gastroenterologist, surgeon, or other physician conducting a procedure. An anesthesiologist does not necessarily have to be physically on site, but in those circumstances, the physician conducting the procedure would be, said Dr. Harter.

Nurse anesthetists are “excellent advanced practice nurses,” Dr. Harter said. “But they haven’t been to medical school; they haven’t conducted a residency in anesthesiology. [They] don’t have the medical knowledge and skills that are required to manage the medical problems that patients either bring to the OR with them or that can arise during the time that they’re under anesthesia.”
 

Filling a Gap

Nurse anesthetists see things differently.

CRNAs, by virtue of their certification, can “practice to the full extent and to the full scope, which is complete service of anesthesia,” said Ms. Bamgbose. “You can practice independently of anyone, any type of supervision,” she said.

She acknowledges that “the bylaws of any institution will govern the scope at which any healthcare professional can practice at that institution.”

Most nurse anesthetists see themselves as independent practitioners.

Seventy-five percent of CRNAs who responded to a 2023 Medscape Medical News survey said they practice independently. But even Ms. Banek said that often, the meaning of “independent” is in the eye of the beholder. “It could mean different things to various providers, especially depending on the state that they are residing in,” she said.

Ms. Banek and Ms. Bamgbose said that CRNAs can help fill a gap in anesthesiology services in underserved areas.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates there are currently 32,530 anesthesiologists in the United States, with California employing the largest number, at about 5300. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimated the number at 42,263 in 2022. But the federal Health Resources and Services Administration projects a shortage of 6300 anesthesiologists over the next 15 years.

Some 61,000 CRNAs are currently practicing, with 2400 graduating each year. They are required to be board-certified and are recredentialed every 4 years. By 2025, all will be required to have a doctoral degree. Most have already achieved that status, said Ms. Banek.

“Nurse anesthetists provide care predominantly to rural and underserved areas,” she said, adding, “In many rural hospitals across the country and in all three branches of the military, CRNAs practice autonomously.”

There are 3000 CRNAs in California, said Ms. Bamgbose. Nurse anesthetists are the only anesthesiology professionals in four of 58 California counties, she said.

Ms. Banek said she had heard that some 200 cases were canceled in 1 week at DMC due to the lack of CRNAs. Having physician supervision, which she called redundant, “is really creating a barrier to care,” she said.

“We have countless state and national studies that show the safety and efficacy of our practice,” said Ms. Bamgbose. “To interrupt that care ... is incredibly disruptive to the system.”

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

Two hospitals in California in recent months have been cited by state inspectors for allowing certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) to practice beyond their scope, leading to one hospital temporarily stopping use of CRNAs in surgeries.

In one case, a CRNA changed a physician’s order from general anesthesia to spinal anesthesia for a patient who later became unresponsive and had to be transferred to another hospital, according to The Modesto Bee.

The unusual situation highlights the ongoing, often contentious debate about the proper role of CRNAs in surgery amid widely varying state scope of practice laws.

Elizabeth Bamgbose, CRNA, past president of the California Association of Nurse Anesthetists (CANA), said that the absence of CRNAs at Doctors Medical Center (DMC) in Modesto, California, had led to the cancellation of hundreds of procedures. It was an unnecessary step, she said.

“It’s unfortunate that a single surveyor has taken it upon themselves to reinterpret state regulations and redefine a practice that was efficient and safe,” said Ms. Bamgbose, a member of the CANA practice committee.

In late May, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued an “immediate jeopardy” warning about DMC of Modesto. The state agency, like its counterparts in other states, acts on behalf of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in surveying healthcare facilities. CMS defines immediate jeopardy as “a situation in which entity noncompliance has placed the health and safety of recipients in its care at risk for serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death.”

The administrative warning comes with fines and requires the facility to submit an action plan to remediate the situation. The state determines through a follow-up survey whether the plan is sufficient for the facility to avoid being dropped from participation in Medicare and Medicaid.

Before the immediate jeopardy action was taken against DMC, the state had issued three previous such warnings in 2024, according to the CDPH enforcement actions dashboard.
 

CRNA Claims to Be in Charge

Stanislaus Surgical Hospital in Modesto, California, was the first facility to attract CDPH attention. It reportedly was cited in August 2023 and January 2024 surveys for a number of violations of the CMS conditions of participation, including allowing nurse anesthetists to practice beyond their scope.

According to The Modesto Bee, CDPH issued an “immediate jeopardy” order for Stanislaus in January.

The paper reported that state regulators took issue with a CRNA claiming to be the lead manager of the hospital’s anesthesia group, referring to herself as the “chief CRNA.”

Jennifer Banek, MSN, CRNA, a member of the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology board, declined comment on the Stanislaus hospital but said that “it would not be unusual for a nurse anesthetist to serve as a leader, especially (for a) rural or underserved population.”

In April, CMS informed Stanislaus it was being terminated from Medicare, but several Congressional representatives from the Modesto area asked CMS to reconsider. The agency eventually reversed the sanction, The Modesto Bee reported.

CDPH subsequently cited DMC for CRNA scope of practice issues. A department spokesman said that CDPH teams went to DMC “to investigate practices that may not be compliant with state and federal requirements.” The agency declined to comment further until its investigations were complete.

CDPH is monitoring DMC to ensure the hospital complies with state requirements and will return for an unannounced follow-up survey “so it can provide safe, high-quality care to patients that need it,” the spokesperson said.

Although DMC would not confirm it on the record, the immediate jeopardy order led to the removal of all CRNAs, according to Ms. Banek, Ms. Bamgbose, and The Modesto Bee.

The hospital said in a statement that it is working with CDPH to address its concerns and will await a follow-up survey. “Our hospital will continue to fully participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs during this process.”
 

Scope of Practice Confusion?

Federal and state laws and hospital bylaws all prescribe what falls within the scope of practice for a CRNA, but uncertainty remains.

Twenty-five states — including California — have legally opted out of the federal CMS requirement that a physician supervise CRNAs.

But that does not supersede state laws or hospital bylaws governing practice, said American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) president Ronald Harter, MD.

Five states — Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon — have laws that allow nurse anesthetists to practice without physician oversight or involvement, said Dr. Harter, professor of anesthesiology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio.

“There’s a lot of various opinions on what exactly constitutes scope of practice of a nurse anesthetist,” Dr. Harter said. “The vast majority of them work under the direction of an anesthesiologist, and in those settings, it’s typically very clear to everybody who performs what tasks within the care team,” he said.

It’s less common for nurse anesthetists to work totally independent of physician oversight, he said.

Ms. Bamgbose, however, said there is no California statute requiring physician supervision of CRNAs.

The ASA maintains that CRNAs should always be under the supervision of a physician, which can be an anesthesiologist, obstetrician, gastroenterologist, surgeon, or other physician conducting a procedure. An anesthesiologist does not necessarily have to be physically on site, but in those circumstances, the physician conducting the procedure would be, said Dr. Harter.

Nurse anesthetists are “excellent advanced practice nurses,” Dr. Harter said. “But they haven’t been to medical school; they haven’t conducted a residency in anesthesiology. [They] don’t have the medical knowledge and skills that are required to manage the medical problems that patients either bring to the OR with them or that can arise during the time that they’re under anesthesia.”
 

Filling a Gap

Nurse anesthetists see things differently.

CRNAs, by virtue of their certification, can “practice to the full extent and to the full scope, which is complete service of anesthesia,” said Ms. Bamgbose. “You can practice independently of anyone, any type of supervision,” she said.

She acknowledges that “the bylaws of any institution will govern the scope at which any healthcare professional can practice at that institution.”

Most nurse anesthetists see themselves as independent practitioners.

Seventy-five percent of CRNAs who responded to a 2023 Medscape Medical News survey said they practice independently. But even Ms. Banek said that often, the meaning of “independent” is in the eye of the beholder. “It could mean different things to various providers, especially depending on the state that they are residing in,” she said.

Ms. Banek and Ms. Bamgbose said that CRNAs can help fill a gap in anesthesiology services in underserved areas.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates there are currently 32,530 anesthesiologists in the United States, with California employing the largest number, at about 5300. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimated the number at 42,263 in 2022. But the federal Health Resources and Services Administration projects a shortage of 6300 anesthesiologists over the next 15 years.

Some 61,000 CRNAs are currently practicing, with 2400 graduating each year. They are required to be board-certified and are recredentialed every 4 years. By 2025, all will be required to have a doctoral degree. Most have already achieved that status, said Ms. Banek.

“Nurse anesthetists provide care predominantly to rural and underserved areas,” she said, adding, “In many rural hospitals across the country and in all three branches of the military, CRNAs practice autonomously.”

There are 3000 CRNAs in California, said Ms. Bamgbose. Nurse anesthetists are the only anesthesiology professionals in four of 58 California counties, she said.

Ms. Banek said she had heard that some 200 cases were canceled in 1 week at DMC due to the lack of CRNAs. Having physician supervision, which she called redundant, “is really creating a barrier to care,” she said.

“We have countless state and national studies that show the safety and efficacy of our practice,” said Ms. Bamgbose. “To interrupt that care ... is incredibly disruptive to the system.”

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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