CHEST Physician

Clinicians treating patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) have had to face the possibility that their patients may be particularly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and perhaps at greater risk of worse outcomes from COVID-19. But early results suggest that social distance measures and perhaps the younger average age of individuals with CF have prevented a severe impact on this patient population.

Not all of the news is good. Some research suggests that posttransplant individuals may be at greater risk of severe outcomes. However, researchers warned that the data are too sparse to draw firm conclusions, and ongoing analyses of patient registries and other sources should lend greater insight into the burden of COVID-19 among individuals with CF. Those were some of the conclusions presented at a session of the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference.

D.B. Sanders, MD, who is a pediatric pulmonologist at Riley Hospital for Children and the Indiana University, both in Indianapolis, presented data from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s Patient Registry, which includes patients in the United States. As in other populations, he showed that health care use has gone down among individuals with CF. From April to September 2019, 81% of clinical encounters were in the clinic and 12% in the hospital. Over the same period in 2020, those numbers dropped to 35% and 4%, respectively, with 30% by phone or computer. In-person health care use rebounded somewhat between July 1 and Sept. 16, with 53% of encounters at the clinic, 5% at the hospital, and 28% conducted virtually. There were also dips in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) and microbiology testing, from about 90% occurring during health encounters at the end of 2019 to fewer than 10% of encounters by April.

As of Aug. 17, Dr. Sanders reported that 3,048 individuals with CF had been tested for COVID-19, with 174 positive results.

Racial and ethnic disparities in positive test results seen in other populations were also observable among individuals with CF. Several groups made up a higher proportion of COVID-19–positive CF patients than the general CF population, including Hispanics (18% vs. 9%), Blacks (7% vs. 5%), and individuals with FEV₁ value less than 40% predicted (14% vs. 8%).

As of Sept. 17, there had been 51 hospitalizations and two deaths in the United States among 212 individuals with CF who tested positive for COVID-19, with increasing numbers that mirror trends in the U.S. population. One death occurred in a patient with advanced lung disease, the other in a post–lung transplant patient. “Thankfully [the numbers are] not higher, but this is being followed very closely,” said Dr. Sanders during his presentation.

One encouraging bit of news was that hospitalizations among individuals with CF have dropped since the start of the pandemic. “I think this shows how good our families are at socially distancing, wearing masks, and now that they not being exposed to viruses, I think we’re seeing the fruits of this with fewer hospitalizations,” said Dr. Sanders. He noted that it’s possible some of the decline could have been to reluctance to go to the hospital, and the introduction of triple combination cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator modulator therapy has also likely contributed. “We were already seeing fewer hospitalizations even before the pandemic hit,” he said.

At the session, Rebecca Cosgriff, director of data and quality improvement at the Cystic Fibrosis Trust in the United Kingdom, presented an international perspective on COVID-19 cases among individuals with CF. At the beginning of the pandemic, the Cystic Fibrosis Global Registry Harmonization Group recruited country coordinators to collect anonymized data on infections, hospitalizations, and other outcomes. In April, the group published its initial findings from 40 cases in eight countries, which concluded that these cases generally resembled the broader population in clinical course, which assuaged initial fears.

Ms. Cosgriff reported on results from a second round of data collection with a cutoff date of June 19, which expanded to 19 countries and included many from South America and more in Europe. The network encompassed about 85,000 individuals with CF, and tallied 181 cases of COVID-19. A total of 149 cases were nontransplant, and 32 were posttransplant (28 lung only). Fully 15% of the nontransplant group were over age 40 years, compared with 41% in the transplant group. Homozygous F508del mutations were more common in the posttransplant group (59% vs. 36%). However, lung function, as estimated by the best FEV₁ measured in the previous year prior to infection, differed between the nontransplant (73%) and posttransplant (80%) COVID-19 patients.

Across all age groups, hospitalizations were more common in patients with best FEV₁ percentage predicted values less than 70% (P = .001). Ms. Cosgriff also expressed concern about the posttransplant group. “Across all outcomes that might be indicative of infection severity – hospitalization, ICU admission, new supplementary oxygen, and non-invasive ventilation – the proportion of the posttransplant group was higher across the board,” she said during her presentation.

There were seven deaths. Ms. Cosgriff noted that there were too few deaths to analyze trends, but she presented a slide showing characteristics of deceased patients. “Factors like being post–lung transplant, being male, having less FEV₁ than predicted, being over 40, or having CF-related diabetes, all appear pretty frequently amongst the cohort of people who died,” she said.

Overall, the results of these surveys are encouraging, suggesting that early fears that COVID-19 cases could be more severe among individuals with CF may not have been borne out so far. Dr. Sanders noted in his talk that there aren’t enough cases in the U.S. cohort to show links to risk factors with statistical significance. “But thankfully we’re not seeing a host of negative outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Sanders and Ms Cosgriff have no relevant financial disclosures.

Clinicians treating patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) have had to face the possibility that their patients may be particularly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and perhaps at greater risk of worse outcomes from COVID-19. But early results suggest that social distance measures and perhaps the younger average age of individuals with CF have prevented a severe impact on this patient population.

Not all of the news is good. Some research suggests that posttransplant individuals may be at greater risk of severe outcomes. However, researchers warned that the data are too sparse to draw firm conclusions, and ongoing analyses of patient registries and other sources should lend greater insight into the burden of COVID-19 among individuals with CF. Those were some of the conclusions presented at a session of the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference.

D.B. Sanders, MD, who is a pediatric pulmonologist at Riley Hospital for Children and the Indiana University, both in Indianapolis, presented data from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s Patient Registry, which includes patients in the United States. As in other populations, he showed that health care use has gone down among individuals with CF. From April to September 2019, 81% of clinical encounters were in the clinic and 12% in the hospital. Over the same period in 2020, those numbers dropped to 35% and 4%, respectively, with 30% by phone or computer. In-person health care use rebounded somewhat between July 1 and Sept. 16, with 53% of encounters at the clinic, 5% at the hospital, and 28% conducted virtually. There were also dips in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) and microbiology testing, from about 90% occurring during health encounters at the end of 2019 to fewer than 10% of encounters by April.

As of Aug. 17, Dr. Sanders reported that 3,048 individuals with CF had been tested for COVID-19, with 174 positive results.

Racial and ethnic disparities in positive test results seen in other populations were also observable among individuals with CF. Several groups made up a higher proportion of COVID-19–positive CF patients than the general CF population, including Hispanics (18% vs. 9%), Blacks (7% vs. 5%), and individuals with FEV₁ value less than 40% predicted (14% vs. 8%).

As of Sept. 17, there had been 51 hospitalizations and two deaths in the United States among 212 individuals with CF who tested positive for COVID-19, with increasing numbers that mirror trends in the U.S. population. One death occurred in a patient with advanced lung disease, the other in a post–lung transplant patient. “Thankfully [the numbers are] not higher, but this is being followed very closely,” said Dr. Sanders during his presentation.

One encouraging bit of news was that hospitalizations among individuals with CF have dropped since the start of the pandemic. “I think this shows how good our families are at socially distancing, wearing masks, and now that they not being exposed to viruses, I think we’re seeing the fruits of this with fewer hospitalizations,” said Dr. Sanders. He noted that it’s possible some of the decline could have been to reluctance to go to the hospital, and the introduction of triple combination cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator modulator therapy has also likely contributed. “We were already seeing fewer hospitalizations even before the pandemic hit,” he said.

At the session, Rebecca Cosgriff, director of data and quality improvement at the Cystic Fibrosis Trust in the United Kingdom, presented an international perspective on COVID-19 cases among individuals with CF. At the beginning of the pandemic, the Cystic Fibrosis Global Registry Harmonization Group recruited country coordinators to collect anonymized data on infections, hospitalizations, and other outcomes. In April, the group published its initial findings from 40 cases in eight countries, which concluded that these cases generally resembled the broader population in clinical course, which assuaged initial fears.

Ms. Cosgriff reported on results from a second round of data collection with a cutoff date of June 19, which expanded to 19 countries and included many from South America and more in Europe. The network encompassed about 85,000 individuals with CF, and tallied 181 cases of COVID-19. A total of 149 cases were nontransplant, and 32 were posttransplant (28 lung only). Fully 15% of the nontransplant group were over age 40 years, compared with 41% in the transplant group. Homozygous F508del mutations were more common in the posttransplant group (59% vs. 36%). However, lung function, as estimated by the best FEV₁ measured in the previous year prior to infection, differed between the nontransplant (73%) and posttransplant (80%) COVID-19 patients.

Across all age groups, hospitalizations were more common in patients with best FEV₁ percentage predicted values less than 70% (P = .001). Ms. Cosgriff also expressed concern about the posttransplant group. “Across all outcomes that might be indicative of infection severity – hospitalization, ICU admission, new supplementary oxygen, and non-invasive ventilation – the proportion of the posttransplant group was higher across the board,” she said during her presentation.

There were seven deaths. Ms. Cosgriff noted that there were too few deaths to analyze trends, but she presented a slide showing characteristics of deceased patients. “Factors like being post–lung transplant, being male, having less FEV₁ than predicted, being over 40, or having CF-related diabetes, all appear pretty frequently amongst the cohort of people who died,” she said.

Overall, the results of these surveys are encouraging, suggesting that early fears that COVID-19 cases could be more severe among individuals with CF may not have been borne out so far. Dr. Sanders noted in his talk that there aren’t enough cases in the U.S. cohort to show links to risk factors with statistical significance. “But thankfully we’re not seeing a host of negative outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Sanders and Ms Cosgriff have no relevant financial disclosures.

Clinicians treating patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) have had to face the possibility that their patients may be particularly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and perhaps at greater risk of worse outcomes from COVID-19. But early results suggest that social distance measures and perhaps the younger average age of individuals with CF have prevented a severe impact on this patient population.

Not all of the news is good. Some research suggests that posttransplant individuals may be at greater risk of severe outcomes. However, researchers warned that the data are too sparse to draw firm conclusions, and ongoing analyses of patient registries and other sources should lend greater insight into the burden of COVID-19 among individuals with CF. Those were some of the conclusions presented at a session of the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference.

D.B. Sanders, MD, who is a pediatric pulmonologist at Riley Hospital for Children and the Indiana University, both in Indianapolis, presented data from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation’s Patient Registry, which includes patients in the United States. As in other populations, he showed that health care use has gone down among individuals with CF. From April to September 2019, 81% of clinical encounters were in the clinic and 12% in the hospital. Over the same period in 2020, those numbers dropped to 35% and 4%, respectively, with 30% by phone or computer. In-person health care use rebounded somewhat between July 1 and Sept. 16, with 53% of encounters at the clinic, 5% at the hospital, and 28% conducted virtually. There were also dips in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) and microbiology testing, from about 90% occurring during health encounters at the end of 2019 to fewer than 10% of encounters by April.

As of Aug. 17, Dr. Sanders reported that 3,048 individuals with CF had been tested for COVID-19, with 174 positive results.

Racial and ethnic disparities in positive test results seen in other populations were also observable among individuals with CF. Several groups made up a higher proportion of COVID-19–positive CF patients than the general CF population, including Hispanics (18% vs. 9%), Blacks (7% vs. 5%), and individuals with FEV₁ value less than 40% predicted (14% vs. 8%).

As of Sept. 17, there had been 51 hospitalizations and two deaths in the United States among 212 individuals with CF who tested positive for COVID-19, with increasing numbers that mirror trends in the U.S. population. One death occurred in a patient with advanced lung disease, the other in a post–lung transplant patient. “Thankfully [the numbers are] not higher, but this is being followed very closely,” said Dr. Sanders during his presentation.

One encouraging bit of news was that hospitalizations among individuals with CF have dropped since the start of the pandemic. “I think this shows how good our families are at socially distancing, wearing masks, and now that they not being exposed to viruses, I think we’re seeing the fruits of this with fewer hospitalizations,” said Dr. Sanders. He noted that it’s possible some of the decline could have been to reluctance to go to the hospital, and the introduction of triple combination cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator modulator therapy has also likely contributed. “We were already seeing fewer hospitalizations even before the pandemic hit,” he said.

At the session, Rebecca Cosgriff, director of data and quality improvement at the Cystic Fibrosis Trust in the United Kingdom, presented an international perspective on COVID-19 cases among individuals with CF. At the beginning of the pandemic, the Cystic Fibrosis Global Registry Harmonization Group recruited country coordinators to collect anonymized data on infections, hospitalizations, and other outcomes. In April, the group published its initial findings from 40 cases in eight countries, which concluded that these cases generally resembled the broader population in clinical course, which assuaged initial fears.

Ms. Cosgriff reported on results from a second round of data collection with a cutoff date of June 19, which expanded to 19 countries and included many from South America and more in Europe. The network encompassed about 85,000 individuals with CF, and tallied 181 cases of COVID-19. A total of 149 cases were nontransplant, and 32 were posttransplant (28 lung only). Fully 15% of the nontransplant group were over age 40 years, compared with 41% in the transplant group. Homozygous F508del mutations were more common in the posttransplant group (59% vs. 36%). However, lung function, as estimated by the best FEV₁ measured in the previous year prior to infection, differed between the nontransplant (73%) and posttransplant (80%) COVID-19 patients.

Across all age groups, hospitalizations were more common in patients with best FEV₁ percentage predicted values less than 70% (P = .001). Ms. Cosgriff also expressed concern about the posttransplant group. “Across all outcomes that might be indicative of infection severity – hospitalization, ICU admission, new supplementary oxygen, and non-invasive ventilation – the proportion of the posttransplant group was higher across the board,” she said during her presentation.

There were seven deaths. Ms. Cosgriff noted that there were too few deaths to analyze trends, but she presented a slide showing characteristics of deceased patients. “Factors like being post–lung transplant, being male, having less FEV₁ than predicted, being over 40, or having CF-related diabetes, all appear pretty frequently amongst the cohort of people who died,” she said.

Overall, the results of these surveys are encouraging, suggesting that early fears that COVID-19 cases could be more severe among individuals with CF may not have been borne out so far. Dr. Sanders noted in his talk that there aren’t enough cases in the U.S. cohort to show links to risk factors with statistical significance. “But thankfully we’re not seeing a host of negative outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Sanders and Ms Cosgriff have no relevant financial disclosures.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is recruiting 8,000 volunteers for the Phase 3 clinical trials of at least four COVID-19 vaccine candidates at 20 federal medical facilities across the United States, according to officials with the VA and Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s initiative to fast-track a coronavirus vaccine.

The largely unpublicized effort follows a Department of Defense announcement in September that it has partnered with AstraZeneca to recruit volunteers at five of its medical facilities, which are separate from the VA system. DOD is also is in talks with developers of other vaccine candidates, although officials won’t say which ones.

Both federal departments have long experience in medical research and diverse populations – a crucial component of effective clinical trials, said J. Stephen Morrison, senior vice president and director of global health policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan think tank in Washington.

Since active troops are essential to national security, and veterans are extremely vulnerable to COVID-19, both departments have a vested interest in supporting the development of safe, effective vaccines, Mr. Morrison said.

“On the DOD active servicemen and -women side, it’s a question of making sure they’re ready, they are protected,” Mr. Morrison said. “With VA, their population, all elderly and infirm with underlying conditions, they could really be suffering if we don’t get a vaccine.”

According to a VA website, of its 20 medical centers involved, 17 would be part of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine trial, while the three others are recruiting – or have completed recruitment – for advanced-stage trials for Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer vaccines.

Matthew Hepburn, MD, head of vaccine development at Operation Warp Speed, said the VA effort lets veterans contribute to the overall well-being of the country.

“This is another way they can continue to serve in this way, fighting the pandemic as a volunteer,” Dr. Hepburn said during a discussion of vaccine and therapeutics development hosted by the Heritage Foundation on Oct. 27.

It’s not unusual for the military to participate in multicenter trials for treatments of ailments as diverse as cancer and trauma. Historically, many vaccines have been tested first by the military.

In the general population, clinicians often have difficulty recruiting African Americans and other minorities for medical research, and “the military provides a rich opportunity to find volunteers for those groups,” said retired Rear Adm. Thomas Cullison, MD, a doctor and former deputy surgeon general for the Navy.

Military health facilities are held to the same standards as private research facilities, he said.

No service members will be required to participate in the COVID vaccine trials. All volunteers will be paid by the developer.

Support for routine vaccinations runs high in the military, but some have expressed concerns about new vaccines and mandatory inoculations, especially for anthrax. In a 2002 federal study, 85% of those who received that vaccine reported an adverse reaction, with just under half noticing minor redness at the injection site. But nearly a quarter of the side effects reported were more systemic, including fevers, chills, fatigue and joint pain.

That survey of a small group of National Guard and Reserve members found that, while 73% said they believe immunizations are effective, two-thirds said they did not support the mandatory anthrax program, and 6 in 10 said they were not satisfied with the information they were given on the vaccines.

To quell concerns over the military’s role in supporting COVID vaccine development, the Pentagon has reiterated that troops or their dependents interested in participating in the research must provide voluntary written consent, and they will be allowed to take part only if they will be in the same location for the length of the research, expected to last at least 2 years.

In addition, active-duty members such as new recruits and boot camp participants will not be allowed to volunteer because they are “considered vulnerable from an ethical and regulatory standpoint,” an official said.

At the VA, officials are seeking to recruit healthy veterans aged 18-65 years old who are not pregnant and may be at risk for exposure. As with trials conducted in civilian facilities, participants will be paid by the developer, VA spokesperson Christina Noel said.

Also, VA nurses and caseworkers also are being asked to identify their sickest, highest-risk patients to determine who should be at the top of the list once a vaccine is approved, according to a VA nurse and other health officials who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak with the press.

The U.S. military has a long history of contributing to research on vaccines, including a key role in developing inoculations against yellow fever and adenovirus, and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research is developing its own vaccine against the coronavirus.

Some segments of the population remain skeptical of federal medical experiments. A survey by AP-NORC in May found that Black people are particularly reluctant to get the coronavirus vaccine. Many have concerns about federal research in part because of associations with the infamous Tuskegee Institute syphilis experiments, in which U.S. Public Health Service officials intentionally withheld a cure from Black men infected with the disease.

But Mr. Morrison, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the Defense Department and VA are a “natural fit” for the COVID vaccine trials.

“DOD has lots of expertise. They know how to vaccinate; they know how to reach communities. They have a whole science infrastructure and research-and-development infrastructure. And when you are thinking what the mission of VA is, [VA] sees this is part of their mission,” Mr. Morrison said.

The Defense Department announced its agreement with AstraZeneca in September, shortly before the drugmaker’s vaccine trial was put on hold to study a serious medical condition that one participant reported. That research was approved by the Food and Drug Administration to begin again Oct. 23. The military plans to restart its efforts to recruit 3,000 volunteers.

The Pentagon has also signed an agreement with another vaccine developer, the head of the Defense Health Agency, Army Lt. Gen. Ronald Place, told reporters Oct. 8. He wouldn’t provide the company’s name.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) have called, unsuccessfully, for the Senate Armed Services Committee to investigate what they say is a lack of Pentagon transparency on its role in vaccine development and distribution. The Defense Department has awarded more than $6 billion in Operation Warp Speed contracts through an intermediary, Advanced Technology International, and the two senators want more information about those contracts.

“There may well be a valuable role for DoD officials in [Operation Warp Speed] – particularly given the department’s logistical capacity,” they wrote to the committee chair and ranking member. “But it is important that Congress conduct appropriate oversight of, and understand, DoD’s activities in this area.”

Neither department has disclosed the financial arrangements they have made with developers to support the vaccine research.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is recruiting 8,000 volunteers for the Phase 3 clinical trials of at least four COVID-19 vaccine candidates at 20 federal medical facilities across the United States, according to officials with the VA and Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s initiative to fast-track a coronavirus vaccine.

The largely unpublicized effort follows a Department of Defense announcement in September that it has partnered with AstraZeneca to recruit volunteers at five of its medical facilities, which are separate from the VA system. DOD is also is in talks with developers of other vaccine candidates, although officials won’t say which ones.

Both federal departments have long experience in medical research and diverse populations – a crucial component of effective clinical trials, said J. Stephen Morrison, senior vice president and director of global health policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan think tank in Washington.

Since active troops are essential to national security, and veterans are extremely vulnerable to COVID-19, both departments have a vested interest in supporting the development of safe, effective vaccines, Mr. Morrison said.

“On the DOD active servicemen and -women side, it’s a question of making sure they’re ready, they are protected,” Mr. Morrison said. “With VA, their population, all elderly and infirm with underlying conditions, they could really be suffering if we don’t get a vaccine.”

According to a VA website, of its 20 medical centers involved, 17 would be part of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine trial, while the three others are recruiting – or have completed recruitment – for advanced-stage trials for Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer vaccines.

Matthew Hepburn, MD, head of vaccine development at Operation Warp Speed, said the VA effort lets veterans contribute to the overall well-being of the country.

“This is another way they can continue to serve in this way, fighting the pandemic as a volunteer,” Dr. Hepburn said during a discussion of vaccine and therapeutics development hosted by the Heritage Foundation on Oct. 27.

It’s not unusual for the military to participate in multicenter trials for treatments of ailments as diverse as cancer and trauma. Historically, many vaccines have been tested first by the military.

In the general population, clinicians often have difficulty recruiting African Americans and other minorities for medical research, and “the military provides a rich opportunity to find volunteers for those groups,” said retired Rear Adm. Thomas Cullison, MD, a doctor and former deputy surgeon general for the Navy.

Military health facilities are held to the same standards as private research facilities, he said.

No service members will be required to participate in the COVID vaccine trials. All volunteers will be paid by the developer.

Support for routine vaccinations runs high in the military, but some have expressed concerns about new vaccines and mandatory inoculations, especially for anthrax. In a 2002 federal study, 85% of those who received that vaccine reported an adverse reaction, with just under half noticing minor redness at the injection site. But nearly a quarter of the side effects reported were more systemic, including fevers, chills, fatigue and joint pain.

That survey of a small group of National Guard and Reserve members found that, while 73% said they believe immunizations are effective, two-thirds said they did not support the mandatory anthrax program, and 6 in 10 said they were not satisfied with the information they were given on the vaccines.

To quell concerns over the military’s role in supporting COVID vaccine development, the Pentagon has reiterated that troops or their dependents interested in participating in the research must provide voluntary written consent, and they will be allowed to take part only if they will be in the same location for the length of the research, expected to last at least 2 years.

In addition, active-duty members such as new recruits and boot camp participants will not be allowed to volunteer because they are “considered vulnerable from an ethical and regulatory standpoint,” an official said.

At the VA, officials are seeking to recruit healthy veterans aged 18-65 years old who are not pregnant and may be at risk for exposure. As with trials conducted in civilian facilities, participants will be paid by the developer, VA spokesperson Christina Noel said.

Also, VA nurses and caseworkers also are being asked to identify their sickest, highest-risk patients to determine who should be at the top of the list once a vaccine is approved, according to a VA nurse and other health officials who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak with the press.

The U.S. military has a long history of contributing to research on vaccines, including a key role in developing inoculations against yellow fever and adenovirus, and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research is developing its own vaccine against the coronavirus.

Some segments of the population remain skeptical of federal medical experiments. A survey by AP-NORC in May found that Black people are particularly reluctant to get the coronavirus vaccine. Many have concerns about federal research in part because of associations with the infamous Tuskegee Institute syphilis experiments, in which U.S. Public Health Service officials intentionally withheld a cure from Black men infected with the disease.

But Mr. Morrison, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the Defense Department and VA are a “natural fit” for the COVID vaccine trials.

“DOD has lots of expertise. They know how to vaccinate; they know how to reach communities. They have a whole science infrastructure and research-and-development infrastructure. And when you are thinking what the mission of VA is, [VA] sees this is part of their mission,” Mr. Morrison said.

The Defense Department announced its agreement with AstraZeneca in September, shortly before the drugmaker’s vaccine trial was put on hold to study a serious medical condition that one participant reported. That research was approved by the Food and Drug Administration to begin again Oct. 23. The military plans to restart its efforts to recruit 3,000 volunteers.

The Pentagon has also signed an agreement with another vaccine developer, the head of the Defense Health Agency, Army Lt. Gen. Ronald Place, told reporters Oct. 8. He wouldn’t provide the company’s name.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) have called, unsuccessfully, for the Senate Armed Services Committee to investigate what they say is a lack of Pentagon transparency on its role in vaccine development and distribution. The Defense Department has awarded more than $6 billion in Operation Warp Speed contracts through an intermediary, Advanced Technology International, and the two senators want more information about those contracts.

“There may well be a valuable role for DoD officials in [Operation Warp Speed] – particularly given the department’s logistical capacity,” they wrote to the committee chair and ranking member. “But it is important that Congress conduct appropriate oversight of, and understand, DoD’s activities in this area.”

Neither department has disclosed the financial arrangements they have made with developers to support the vaccine research.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is recruiting 8,000 volunteers for the Phase 3 clinical trials of at least four COVID-19 vaccine candidates at 20 federal medical facilities across the United States, according to officials with the VA and Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s initiative to fast-track a coronavirus vaccine.

The largely unpublicized effort follows a Department of Defense announcement in September that it has partnered with AstraZeneca to recruit volunteers at five of its medical facilities, which are separate from the VA system. DOD is also is in talks with developers of other vaccine candidates, although officials won’t say which ones.

Both federal departments have long experience in medical research and diverse populations – a crucial component of effective clinical trials, said J. Stephen Morrison, senior vice president and director of global health policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan think tank in Washington.

Since active troops are essential to national security, and veterans are extremely vulnerable to COVID-19, both departments have a vested interest in supporting the development of safe, effective vaccines, Mr. Morrison said.

“On the DOD active servicemen and -women side, it’s a question of making sure they’re ready, they are protected,” Mr. Morrison said. “With VA, their population, all elderly and infirm with underlying conditions, they could really be suffering if we don’t get a vaccine.”

According to a VA website, of its 20 medical centers involved, 17 would be part of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine trial, while the three others are recruiting – or have completed recruitment – for advanced-stage trials for Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer vaccines.

Matthew Hepburn, MD, head of vaccine development at Operation Warp Speed, said the VA effort lets veterans contribute to the overall well-being of the country.

“This is another way they can continue to serve in this way, fighting the pandemic as a volunteer,” Dr. Hepburn said during a discussion of vaccine and therapeutics development hosted by the Heritage Foundation on Oct. 27.

It’s not unusual for the military to participate in multicenter trials for treatments of ailments as diverse as cancer and trauma. Historically, many vaccines have been tested first by the military.

In the general population, clinicians often have difficulty recruiting African Americans and other minorities for medical research, and “the military provides a rich opportunity to find volunteers for those groups,” said retired Rear Adm. Thomas Cullison, MD, a doctor and former deputy surgeon general for the Navy.

Military health facilities are held to the same standards as private research facilities, he said.

No service members will be required to participate in the COVID vaccine trials. All volunteers will be paid by the developer.

Support for routine vaccinations runs high in the military, but some have expressed concerns about new vaccines and mandatory inoculations, especially for anthrax. In a 2002 federal study, 85% of those who received that vaccine reported an adverse reaction, with just under half noticing minor redness at the injection site. But nearly a quarter of the side effects reported were more systemic, including fevers, chills, fatigue and joint pain.

That survey of a small group of National Guard and Reserve members found that, while 73% said they believe immunizations are effective, two-thirds said they did not support the mandatory anthrax program, and 6 in 10 said they were not satisfied with the information they were given on the vaccines.

To quell concerns over the military’s role in supporting COVID vaccine development, the Pentagon has reiterated that troops or their dependents interested in participating in the research must provide voluntary written consent, and they will be allowed to take part only if they will be in the same location for the length of the research, expected to last at least 2 years.

In addition, active-duty members such as new recruits and boot camp participants will not be allowed to volunteer because they are “considered vulnerable from an ethical and regulatory standpoint,” an official said.

At the VA, officials are seeking to recruit healthy veterans aged 18-65 years old who are not pregnant and may be at risk for exposure. As with trials conducted in civilian facilities, participants will be paid by the developer, VA spokesperson Christina Noel said.

Also, VA nurses and caseworkers also are being asked to identify their sickest, highest-risk patients to determine who should be at the top of the list once a vaccine is approved, according to a VA nurse and other health officials who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak with the press.

The U.S. military has a long history of contributing to research on vaccines, including a key role in developing inoculations against yellow fever and adenovirus, and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research is developing its own vaccine against the coronavirus.

Some segments of the population remain skeptical of federal medical experiments. A survey by AP-NORC in May found that Black people are particularly reluctant to get the coronavirus vaccine. Many have concerns about federal research in part because of associations with the infamous Tuskegee Institute syphilis experiments, in which U.S. Public Health Service officials intentionally withheld a cure from Black men infected with the disease.

But Mr. Morrison, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the Defense Department and VA are a “natural fit” for the COVID vaccine trials.

“DOD has lots of expertise. They know how to vaccinate; they know how to reach communities. They have a whole science infrastructure and research-and-development infrastructure. And when you are thinking what the mission of VA is, [VA] sees this is part of their mission,” Mr. Morrison said.

The Defense Department announced its agreement with AstraZeneca in September, shortly before the drugmaker’s vaccine trial was put on hold to study a serious medical condition that one participant reported. That research was approved by the Food and Drug Administration to begin again Oct. 23. The military plans to restart its efforts to recruit 3,000 volunteers.

The Pentagon has also signed an agreement with another vaccine developer, the head of the Defense Health Agency, Army Lt. Gen. Ronald Place, told reporters Oct. 8. He wouldn’t provide the company’s name.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) have called, unsuccessfully, for the Senate Armed Services Committee to investigate what they say is a lack of Pentagon transparency on its role in vaccine development and distribution. The Defense Department has awarded more than $6 billion in Operation Warp Speed contracts through an intermediary, Advanced Technology International, and the two senators want more information about those contracts.

“There may well be a valuable role for DoD officials in [Operation Warp Speed] – particularly given the department’s logistical capacity,” they wrote to the committee chair and ranking member. “But it is important that Congress conduct appropriate oversight of, and understand, DoD’s activities in this area.”

Neither department has disclosed the financial arrangements they have made with developers to support the vaccine research.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in a case that, for the third time in eight years, could result in the justices striking down the Affordable Care Act.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The case, California v. Texas, is the result of a change to the health law made by Congress in 2017. As part of a major tax bill, Congress reduced to zero the penalty for not having health insurance. But it was that penalty – a tax – that the high court ruled made the law constitutional in a 2012 decision, argues a group of Republican state attorneys general. Without the tax, they say in their suit, the rest of the law must fall, too.

After originally contending that the entire law should not be struck down when the suit was filed in 2018, the Trump administration changed course in 2019 and joined the GOP officials who brought the case.

Here are some key questions and answers about the case.
 

What are the possibilities for how the court could rule?

There is a long list of ways this could play out.

The justices could declare the entire law unconstitutional – which is what a federal district judge in Texas ruled in December 2018. But legal experts say that’s not the most likely outcome of this case.

First, the court may avoid deciding the case on its merits entirely by ruling that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to sue. The central issue in the case is whether the requirement in the law to have insurance – which remains even though Congress eliminated the penalty or tax – is constitutional. But states are not subject to the so-called individual mandate, so some analysts suggest the Republican officials have no standing. In addition, questions have been raised about the individual plaintiffs in the case, two consultants from Texas who argue that they felt compelled to buy insurance even without a possible penalty.

The court could also rule that, by eliminating the penalty but not the rest of the mandate (which Congress could not do in that 2017 tax bill for procedural reasons), lawmakers “didn’t mean to coerce anyone to do anything, and so there’s no constitutional problem,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said in a recent webinar for the NIHCM Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, and the University of Southern California’s Center for Health Journalism.

Or, said Bagley, the court could rule that, without the tax, the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not. In that case, the justices might strike the mandate only, which would have basically no impact.

It gets more complicated if the court decides that, as the plaintiffs argue, the individual mandate language without the penalty is unconstitutional and so closely tied to other parts of the law that some of them must fall as well.

Even there the court has choices. One option would be, as the Trump administration originally argued, to strike down the mandate and just the pieces of the law most closely related to it – which happen to include the insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions, an extremely popular provision of the law. The two parts are connected because the original purpose of the mandate was to make sure enough healthy people sign up for insurance to offset the added costs to insurers of sicker people.

Another option, of course, would be for the court to follow the lead of the Texas judge and strike down the entire law.

While that’s not the most likely outcome, said Bagley, if it happens it could be “a hot mess” for the nation’s entire health care system. As just one example, he said, “every hospital is getting paid pursuant to changes made by the ACA. How do you even go about making payments if the thing that you are looking to guide what those payments ought to be is itself invalid?”
 

What impact will new Justice Amy Coney Barrett have?

Perhaps a lot. Before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, most court observers thought the case was highly unlikely to result in the entire law being struck down. That’s because Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law in 2012, and again when it was challenged in a less sweeping way in 2015.

But with Barrett replacing Ginsburg, even if Roberts joined the court’s remaining three liberals they could still be outvoted by the other five conservatives. Barrett was coy about her views on the Affordable Care Act during her confirmation hearings in October, but she has written that she thinks Roberts was wrong to uphold the law in 2012.
 

Could a new president and Congress make the case go away?

Many have suggested that, if Joe Biden assumes the presidency, his Justice Department could simply drop the case. But the administration did not bring the case; the GOP state officials did. And while normally the Justice Department’s job is to defend existing laws in court, in this case the ACA is being defended by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. A new administration could change that position, but that’s not the same as dropping the case.

Congress, on the other hand, could easily make the case moot. It could add back even a nominal financial penalty for not having insurance. It could eliminate the mandate altogether, although that would require 60 votes in the Senate under current rules. Congress could also pass a “severability” provision saying that, if any portion of the law is struck down, the rest should remain.

“The problem is not technical,” said Bagley. “It’s political.”
 

What is the timeline for a decision? Could the court delay implementation of its ruling?

The court usually hears oral arguments in a case months before it issues a decision. Unless the decision is unanimous or turns out to be very simple, Bagley said, he would expect to see an opinion “sometime in the spring.”

As to whether the court could find some or all of the law unconstitutional but delay when its decision takes effect, Bagley said that happened from time to time as recently as the 1970s. “That practice has been more or less abandoned,” he said, but in the case of a law so large, “you could imagine the Supreme Court using its discretion to say the decision wouldn’t take effect immediately.”

If the court does invalidate the entire ACA, Congress could act to fix things, but it’s unclear if it will be able to, especially if Republicans still control the Senate. If the justices strike the law, Bagley said, “I honestly think the likeliest outcome is that Congress runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, doesn’t come to a deal, and we’re back to where we were before 2010” when the ACA passed.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in a case that, for the third time in eight years, could result in the justices striking down the Affordable Care Act.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The case, California v. Texas, is the result of a change to the health law made by Congress in 2017. As part of a major tax bill, Congress reduced to zero the penalty for not having health insurance. But it was that penalty – a tax – that the high court ruled made the law constitutional in a 2012 decision, argues a group of Republican state attorneys general. Without the tax, they say in their suit, the rest of the law must fall, too.

After originally contending that the entire law should not be struck down when the suit was filed in 2018, the Trump administration changed course in 2019 and joined the GOP officials who brought the case.

Here are some key questions and answers about the case.
 

What are the possibilities for how the court could rule?

There is a long list of ways this could play out.

The justices could declare the entire law unconstitutional – which is what a federal district judge in Texas ruled in December 2018. But legal experts say that’s not the most likely outcome of this case.

First, the court may avoid deciding the case on its merits entirely by ruling that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to sue. The central issue in the case is whether the requirement in the law to have insurance – which remains even though Congress eliminated the penalty or tax – is constitutional. But states are not subject to the so-called individual mandate, so some analysts suggest the Republican officials have no standing. In addition, questions have been raised about the individual plaintiffs in the case, two consultants from Texas who argue that they felt compelled to buy insurance even without a possible penalty.

The court could also rule that, by eliminating the penalty but not the rest of the mandate (which Congress could not do in that 2017 tax bill for procedural reasons), lawmakers “didn’t mean to coerce anyone to do anything, and so there’s no constitutional problem,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said in a recent webinar for the NIHCM Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, and the University of Southern California’s Center for Health Journalism.

Or, said Bagley, the court could rule that, without the tax, the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not. In that case, the justices might strike the mandate only, which would have basically no impact.

It gets more complicated if the court decides that, as the plaintiffs argue, the individual mandate language without the penalty is unconstitutional and so closely tied to other parts of the law that some of them must fall as well.

Even there the court has choices. One option would be, as the Trump administration originally argued, to strike down the mandate and just the pieces of the law most closely related to it – which happen to include the insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions, an extremely popular provision of the law. The two parts are connected because the original purpose of the mandate was to make sure enough healthy people sign up for insurance to offset the added costs to insurers of sicker people.

Another option, of course, would be for the court to follow the lead of the Texas judge and strike down the entire law.

While that’s not the most likely outcome, said Bagley, if it happens it could be “a hot mess” for the nation’s entire health care system. As just one example, he said, “every hospital is getting paid pursuant to changes made by the ACA. How do you even go about making payments if the thing that you are looking to guide what those payments ought to be is itself invalid?”
 

What impact will new Justice Amy Coney Barrett have?

Perhaps a lot. Before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, most court observers thought the case was highly unlikely to result in the entire law being struck down. That’s because Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law in 2012, and again when it was challenged in a less sweeping way in 2015.

But with Barrett replacing Ginsburg, even if Roberts joined the court’s remaining three liberals they could still be outvoted by the other five conservatives. Barrett was coy about her views on the Affordable Care Act during her confirmation hearings in October, but she has written that she thinks Roberts was wrong to uphold the law in 2012.
 

Could a new president and Congress make the case go away?

Many have suggested that, if Joe Biden assumes the presidency, his Justice Department could simply drop the case. But the administration did not bring the case; the GOP state officials did. And while normally the Justice Department’s job is to defend existing laws in court, in this case the ACA is being defended by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. A new administration could change that position, but that’s not the same as dropping the case.

Congress, on the other hand, could easily make the case moot. It could add back even a nominal financial penalty for not having insurance. It could eliminate the mandate altogether, although that would require 60 votes in the Senate under current rules. Congress could also pass a “severability” provision saying that, if any portion of the law is struck down, the rest should remain.

“The problem is not technical,” said Bagley. “It’s political.”
 

What is the timeline for a decision? Could the court delay implementation of its ruling?

The court usually hears oral arguments in a case months before it issues a decision. Unless the decision is unanimous or turns out to be very simple, Bagley said, he would expect to see an opinion “sometime in the spring.”

As to whether the court could find some or all of the law unconstitutional but delay when its decision takes effect, Bagley said that happened from time to time as recently as the 1970s. “That practice has been more or less abandoned,” he said, but in the case of a law so large, “you could imagine the Supreme Court using its discretion to say the decision wouldn’t take effect immediately.”

If the court does invalidate the entire ACA, Congress could act to fix things, but it’s unclear if it will be able to, especially if Republicans still control the Senate. If the justices strike the law, Bagley said, “I honestly think the likeliest outcome is that Congress runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, doesn’t come to a deal, and we’re back to where we were before 2010” when the ACA passed.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in a case that, for the third time in eight years, could result in the justices striking down the Affordable Care Act.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The case, California v. Texas, is the result of a change to the health law made by Congress in 2017. As part of a major tax bill, Congress reduced to zero the penalty for not having health insurance. But it was that penalty – a tax – that the high court ruled made the law constitutional in a 2012 decision, argues a group of Republican state attorneys general. Without the tax, they say in their suit, the rest of the law must fall, too.

After originally contending that the entire law should not be struck down when the suit was filed in 2018, the Trump administration changed course in 2019 and joined the GOP officials who brought the case.

Here are some key questions and answers about the case.
 

What are the possibilities for how the court could rule?

There is a long list of ways this could play out.

The justices could declare the entire law unconstitutional – which is what a federal district judge in Texas ruled in December 2018. But legal experts say that’s not the most likely outcome of this case.

First, the court may avoid deciding the case on its merits entirely by ruling that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to sue. The central issue in the case is whether the requirement in the law to have insurance – which remains even though Congress eliminated the penalty or tax – is constitutional. But states are not subject to the so-called individual mandate, so some analysts suggest the Republican officials have no standing. In addition, questions have been raised about the individual plaintiffs in the case, two consultants from Texas who argue that they felt compelled to buy insurance even without a possible penalty.

The court could also rule that, by eliminating the penalty but not the rest of the mandate (which Congress could not do in that 2017 tax bill for procedural reasons), lawmakers “didn’t mean to coerce anyone to do anything, and so there’s no constitutional problem,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said in a recent webinar for the NIHCM Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, and the University of Southern California’s Center for Health Journalism.

Or, said Bagley, the court could rule that, without the tax, the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not. In that case, the justices might strike the mandate only, which would have basically no impact.

It gets more complicated if the court decides that, as the plaintiffs argue, the individual mandate language without the penalty is unconstitutional and so closely tied to other parts of the law that some of them must fall as well.

Even there the court has choices. One option would be, as the Trump administration originally argued, to strike down the mandate and just the pieces of the law most closely related to it – which happen to include the insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions, an extremely popular provision of the law. The two parts are connected because the original purpose of the mandate was to make sure enough healthy people sign up for insurance to offset the added costs to insurers of sicker people.

Another option, of course, would be for the court to follow the lead of the Texas judge and strike down the entire law.

While that’s not the most likely outcome, said Bagley, if it happens it could be “a hot mess” for the nation’s entire health care system. As just one example, he said, “every hospital is getting paid pursuant to changes made by the ACA. How do you even go about making payments if the thing that you are looking to guide what those payments ought to be is itself invalid?”
 

What impact will new Justice Amy Coney Barrett have?

Perhaps a lot. Before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, most court observers thought the case was highly unlikely to result in the entire law being struck down. That’s because Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law in 2012, and again when it was challenged in a less sweeping way in 2015.

But with Barrett replacing Ginsburg, even if Roberts joined the court’s remaining three liberals they could still be outvoted by the other five conservatives. Barrett was coy about her views on the Affordable Care Act during her confirmation hearings in October, but she has written that she thinks Roberts was wrong to uphold the law in 2012.
 

Could a new president and Congress make the case go away?

Many have suggested that, if Joe Biden assumes the presidency, his Justice Department could simply drop the case. But the administration did not bring the case; the GOP state officials did. And while normally the Justice Department’s job is to defend existing laws in court, in this case the ACA is being defended by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. A new administration could change that position, but that’s not the same as dropping the case.

Congress, on the other hand, could easily make the case moot. It could add back even a nominal financial penalty for not having insurance. It could eliminate the mandate altogether, although that would require 60 votes in the Senate under current rules. Congress could also pass a “severability” provision saying that, if any portion of the law is struck down, the rest should remain.

“The problem is not technical,” said Bagley. “It’s political.”
 

What is the timeline for a decision? Could the court delay implementation of its ruling?

The court usually hears oral arguments in a case months before it issues a decision. Unless the decision is unanimous or turns out to be very simple, Bagley said, he would expect to see an opinion “sometime in the spring.”

As to whether the court could find some or all of the law unconstitutional but delay when its decision takes effect, Bagley said that happened from time to time as recently as the 1970s. “That practice has been more or less abandoned,” he said, but in the case of a law so large, “you could imagine the Supreme Court using its discretion to say the decision wouldn’t take effect immediately.”

If the court does invalidate the entire ACA, Congress could act to fix things, but it’s unclear if it will be able to, especially if Republicans still control the Senate. If the justices strike the law, Bagley said, “I honestly think the likeliest outcome is that Congress runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, doesn’t come to a deal, and we’re back to where we were before 2010” when the ACA passed.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Pregnant women with interstitial lung disease (ILD) related to autoimmune disease may not need to terminate their pregnancies if they have close monitoring before, during, and after pregnancy with a multidisciplinary team of physicians, new research suggests.

Senior author Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., explained during a press conference at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that women with ILD are often advised by obstetricians or rheumatologists to avoid conception or terminate their pregnancies, though evidence for that has been based on small studies of 9-15 patients that have had mixed results.

“Many of these pregnancies were delivered 20-30 years ago, definitely with different rheumatic and obstetric care than we can provide now,” she said. “It’s really time to rethink our approach to interstitial lung disease and pregnancy.”

This study showed that while adverse pregnancy outcomes are common in these women, overall maternal morbidity and mortality are low.

ILD may be a secondary disease in people who have scleroderma, lupus, and sarcoidosis.

Largest study to date

This Pfizer-sponsored retrospective study of 67 pregnant women is the largest to date, and it analyzed 94 pregnancies (including five sets of twins).

Sarah Rae Easter, MD, maternal-fetal medicine doctor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, called the work “exciting” as the researchers were able to look back at a large number of cases for a rare condition for more than 20 years.

“Their data provides much-needed evidence to provide some reassurance for women affected by this type of pulmonary disease regarding the relative safety of pregnancy,” she said in an interview.
 

Study spanned 23 years

The researchers reviewed pregnancy records in patients diagnosed with ILD secondary to autoimmune disease at Duke University Health System from January 1996 to July 2019.

They classified the severity of ILD based on two standard breathing tests – forced vital capacity and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide.

Overall, 69% of the women were diagnosed with sarcoidosis and the remaining 31% had a connective tissue disease associated with ILD (CTD-ILD). Of those measured for ILD severity, 11% were severe, 25% were moderate, 50% were mild, and 14% were normal. Their average maternal age was 32.1 and 83% were Black.

While 70% of the pregnancies resulted in live births, 9% were terminated. The remainder resulted in miscarriage or stillbirth.

Researchers reported a 15% rate of preeclampsia, a 34% rate of the composite measure PROMISSE-Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (APO), and a 15% rate of PROMISSE-APO SEVERE. Patients with severe disease had the highest rates of PROMISSE-APO (P = .03 across groups).

(PROMISSE stands for the Predictors of Pregnancy Outcome: Biomarkers in Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus study.)

None of the women died

Dr. Clowse said it was a pleasant surprise to find that none of the women died, though patients with severe ILD had more adverse outcomes. Only 2.1% were treated in an intensive care unit during or soon after delivery. In 4.2%, ILD patients had significant shortness of breath due to fluid volume overload around the time of delivery.

For the women who had normal-to-moderate lung disease, Dr. Clowse said, “they really had remarkably good outcomes, really pretty comparable to the general population. About 15% delivered preterm and about 20% suffered a pregnancy loss.”

Dr. Easter, who was not involved with the study, noted the large number of Black women in the cohort.

“Focusing in on improving outcomes for Black and Brown women related to pregnancy in our country is a much-needed undertaking,” Dr. Easter said.

Being able to quote percentages from this research, based on a good-sized study “at least gives people a benchmark about what kind of risk they are willing to assume for themselves,” she said.

For providers, being able to place this rare disease within the spectrum of other diseases where there is more data is also very helpful, she said.

Dr. Clowse said in an interview that the preponderance of Black women in the study was a surprise but may be explained by two factors: Sarcoidosis is seen more frequently in Black women and in the study area in North Carolina there is a large population of Black women.

“Also, our patients with more severe lupus, the ones who are more likely to have interstitial lung disease, are often Black and that’s likely contributing as well,” she said.
 

Multidisciplinary teams advised

Dr. Clowse emphasized that women with ILD need multidisciplinary teams in pregnancy and should be managed at tertiary care centers where there is a full complement of obstetric and internal medicine experts.

“We do recommend evaluating the severity of their lungs and their heart disease around the time of pregnancy and during pregnancy if they have shortness of breath,” she said.

“We currently recommend that these patients with moderate or severe disease stay in the hospital for up to a week, just for monitoring,” she said.

Dr. Easter said having that kind of access to a large academic healthcare center should be an important part of the decision-making.

Patients need to think about whether they would have access to care similar to what the researchers are describing when they are making the decision to pursue or continue pregnancy, she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Dr. Clowse reported relationships with UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. Dr. Easter has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women with interstitial lung disease (ILD) related to autoimmune disease may not need to terminate their pregnancies if they have close monitoring before, during, and after pregnancy with a multidisciplinary team of physicians, new research suggests.

Senior author Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., explained during a press conference at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that women with ILD are often advised by obstetricians or rheumatologists to avoid conception or terminate their pregnancies, though evidence for that has been based on small studies of 9-15 patients that have had mixed results.

“Many of these pregnancies were delivered 20-30 years ago, definitely with different rheumatic and obstetric care than we can provide now,” she said. “It’s really time to rethink our approach to interstitial lung disease and pregnancy.”

This study showed that while adverse pregnancy outcomes are common in these women, overall maternal morbidity and mortality are low.

ILD may be a secondary disease in people who have scleroderma, lupus, and sarcoidosis.

Largest study to date

This Pfizer-sponsored retrospective study of 67 pregnant women is the largest to date, and it analyzed 94 pregnancies (including five sets of twins).

Sarah Rae Easter, MD, maternal-fetal medicine doctor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, called the work “exciting” as the researchers were able to look back at a large number of cases for a rare condition for more than 20 years.

“Their data provides much-needed evidence to provide some reassurance for women affected by this type of pulmonary disease regarding the relative safety of pregnancy,” she said in an interview.
 

Study spanned 23 years

The researchers reviewed pregnancy records in patients diagnosed with ILD secondary to autoimmune disease at Duke University Health System from January 1996 to July 2019.

They classified the severity of ILD based on two standard breathing tests – forced vital capacity and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide.

Overall, 69% of the women were diagnosed with sarcoidosis and the remaining 31% had a connective tissue disease associated with ILD (CTD-ILD). Of those measured for ILD severity, 11% were severe, 25% were moderate, 50% were mild, and 14% were normal. Their average maternal age was 32.1 and 83% were Black.

While 70% of the pregnancies resulted in live births, 9% were terminated. The remainder resulted in miscarriage or stillbirth.

Researchers reported a 15% rate of preeclampsia, a 34% rate of the composite measure PROMISSE-Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (APO), and a 15% rate of PROMISSE-APO SEVERE. Patients with severe disease had the highest rates of PROMISSE-APO (P = .03 across groups).

(PROMISSE stands for the Predictors of Pregnancy Outcome: Biomarkers in Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus study.)

None of the women died

Dr. Clowse said it was a pleasant surprise to find that none of the women died, though patients with severe ILD had more adverse outcomes. Only 2.1% were treated in an intensive care unit during or soon after delivery. In 4.2%, ILD patients had significant shortness of breath due to fluid volume overload around the time of delivery.

For the women who had normal-to-moderate lung disease, Dr. Clowse said, “they really had remarkably good outcomes, really pretty comparable to the general population. About 15% delivered preterm and about 20% suffered a pregnancy loss.”

Dr. Easter, who was not involved with the study, noted the large number of Black women in the cohort.

“Focusing in on improving outcomes for Black and Brown women related to pregnancy in our country is a much-needed undertaking,” Dr. Easter said.

Being able to quote percentages from this research, based on a good-sized study “at least gives people a benchmark about what kind of risk they are willing to assume for themselves,” she said.

For providers, being able to place this rare disease within the spectrum of other diseases where there is more data is also very helpful, she said.

Dr. Clowse said in an interview that the preponderance of Black women in the study was a surprise but may be explained by two factors: Sarcoidosis is seen more frequently in Black women and in the study area in North Carolina there is a large population of Black women.

“Also, our patients with more severe lupus, the ones who are more likely to have interstitial lung disease, are often Black and that’s likely contributing as well,” she said.
 

Multidisciplinary teams advised

Dr. Clowse emphasized that women with ILD need multidisciplinary teams in pregnancy and should be managed at tertiary care centers where there is a full complement of obstetric and internal medicine experts.

“We do recommend evaluating the severity of their lungs and their heart disease around the time of pregnancy and during pregnancy if they have shortness of breath,” she said.

“We currently recommend that these patients with moderate or severe disease stay in the hospital for up to a week, just for monitoring,” she said.

Dr. Easter said having that kind of access to a large academic healthcare center should be an important part of the decision-making.

Patients need to think about whether they would have access to care similar to what the researchers are describing when they are making the decision to pursue or continue pregnancy, she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Dr. Clowse reported relationships with UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. Dr. Easter has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women with interstitial lung disease (ILD) related to autoimmune disease may not need to terminate their pregnancies if they have close monitoring before, during, and after pregnancy with a multidisciplinary team of physicians, new research suggests.

Senior author Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., explained during a press conference at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that women with ILD are often advised by obstetricians or rheumatologists to avoid conception or terminate their pregnancies, though evidence for that has been based on small studies of 9-15 patients that have had mixed results.

“Many of these pregnancies were delivered 20-30 years ago, definitely with different rheumatic and obstetric care than we can provide now,” she said. “It’s really time to rethink our approach to interstitial lung disease and pregnancy.”

This study showed that while adverse pregnancy outcomes are common in these women, overall maternal morbidity and mortality are low.

ILD may be a secondary disease in people who have scleroderma, lupus, and sarcoidosis.

Largest study to date

This Pfizer-sponsored retrospective study of 67 pregnant women is the largest to date, and it analyzed 94 pregnancies (including five sets of twins).

Sarah Rae Easter, MD, maternal-fetal medicine doctor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, called the work “exciting” as the researchers were able to look back at a large number of cases for a rare condition for more than 20 years.

“Their data provides much-needed evidence to provide some reassurance for women affected by this type of pulmonary disease regarding the relative safety of pregnancy,” she said in an interview.
 

Study spanned 23 years

The researchers reviewed pregnancy records in patients diagnosed with ILD secondary to autoimmune disease at Duke University Health System from January 1996 to July 2019.

They classified the severity of ILD based on two standard breathing tests – forced vital capacity and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide.

Overall, 69% of the women were diagnosed with sarcoidosis and the remaining 31% had a connective tissue disease associated with ILD (CTD-ILD). Of those measured for ILD severity, 11% were severe, 25% were moderate, 50% were mild, and 14% were normal. Their average maternal age was 32.1 and 83% were Black.

While 70% of the pregnancies resulted in live births, 9% were terminated. The remainder resulted in miscarriage or stillbirth.

Researchers reported a 15% rate of preeclampsia, a 34% rate of the composite measure PROMISSE-Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (APO), and a 15% rate of PROMISSE-APO SEVERE. Patients with severe disease had the highest rates of PROMISSE-APO (P = .03 across groups).

(PROMISSE stands for the Predictors of Pregnancy Outcome: Biomarkers in Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus study.)

None of the women died

Dr. Clowse said it was a pleasant surprise to find that none of the women died, though patients with severe ILD had more adverse outcomes. Only 2.1% were treated in an intensive care unit during or soon after delivery. In 4.2%, ILD patients had significant shortness of breath due to fluid volume overload around the time of delivery.

For the women who had normal-to-moderate lung disease, Dr. Clowse said, “they really had remarkably good outcomes, really pretty comparable to the general population. About 15% delivered preterm and about 20% suffered a pregnancy loss.”

Dr. Easter, who was not involved with the study, noted the large number of Black women in the cohort.

“Focusing in on improving outcomes for Black and Brown women related to pregnancy in our country is a much-needed undertaking,” Dr. Easter said.

Being able to quote percentages from this research, based on a good-sized study “at least gives people a benchmark about what kind of risk they are willing to assume for themselves,” she said.

For providers, being able to place this rare disease within the spectrum of other diseases where there is more data is also very helpful, she said.

Dr. Clowse said in an interview that the preponderance of Black women in the study was a surprise but may be explained by two factors: Sarcoidosis is seen more frequently in Black women and in the study area in North Carolina there is a large population of Black women.

“Also, our patients with more severe lupus, the ones who are more likely to have interstitial lung disease, are often Black and that’s likely contributing as well,” she said.
 

Multidisciplinary teams advised

Dr. Clowse emphasized that women with ILD need multidisciplinary teams in pregnancy and should be managed at tertiary care centers where there is a full complement of obstetric and internal medicine experts.

“We do recommend evaluating the severity of their lungs and their heart disease around the time of pregnancy and during pregnancy if they have shortness of breath,” she said.

“We currently recommend that these patients with moderate or severe disease stay in the hospital for up to a week, just for monitoring,” she said.

Dr. Easter said having that kind of access to a large academic healthcare center should be an important part of the decision-making.

Patients need to think about whether they would have access to care similar to what the researchers are describing when they are making the decision to pursue or continue pregnancy, she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Dr. Clowse reported relationships with UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. Dr. Easter has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among people with COVID-19, those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had an elevated 30-day risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury, compared to a group without rheumatic diseases at 4 months in a match-controlled study.

When investigators expanded the study to 6 months, the difference in need for mechanical ventilation disappeared. However, relative risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) emerged as 74% higher among people with COVID-19 and with rheumatic disease, said Kristin D’Silva, MD, who presented the findings during a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. She noted that rheumatic disease itself could contribute to VTE risk.

Comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and asthma were more common among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). After adjustment for comorbidities, “the risks of hospitalization and ICU admission were attenuated, suggesting comorbidities are likely key mediators of the increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes observed in SARDs patients versus comparators,” Dr. D’Silva, a rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

“The risk of venous thromboembolism persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities,” Dr. D’Silva said. Patients with SARDs should be closely monitored for VTE during COVID-19 infection, she added. “Patients with significant cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic comorbidities should be closely monitored for severe COVID-19.”

At the same time, a systematic review of 15 published studies revealed a low incidence of COVID-19 infection among people with rheumatic disease. Furthermore, most experienced a mild clinical course and low mortality, Akhil Sood, MD, said when presenting results of his poster at the meeting.

Underlying immunosuppression, chronic inflammation, comorbidities, and disparities based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic status could predispose people with rheumatic disease to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. However, the risks and outcomes of COVID-19 infection among this population “are not well understood,” said Dr. Sood, a second-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

Dr. D’Silva and colleagues examined a COVID-19 population and compared 716 people with SARDs and another 716 people from the general public at 4 months, as well as 2,379 people each in similar groups at 6 months. They used real-time electronic medical record data from the TriNetX research network to identify ICD-10 codes for inflammatory arthritis, connective tissue diseases, and systemic vasculitis. They also used ICD-10 codes and positive PCR tests to identify people with COVID-19.

Mean age was 57 years and women accounted for 79% of both groups evaluated at 4 months. Those with SARDs were 23% more likely to be hospitalized (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.50). This group was 75% more likely to be admitted to the ICU (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75), 77% more likely to require mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.06-2.96), and 83% more likely to experience acute kidney injury (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00).

Risk of death was not significantly higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.73-1.86).

When Dr. D’Silva expanded the study to more people at 6 months, they added additional 30-day outcomes of interest: renal replacement therapy, VTE, and ischemic stroke. Risk of need for renal replacement therapy, for example, was 81% higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.07). Risk of stroke was not significantly different between groups.The improvement in mechanical ventilation risk between 4 and 6 months was not completely unexpected, Dr. D’Silva said. The relative risk dropped from 1.77 to 1.05. “This is not particularly surprising given national trends in the general population reporting decreased severe outcomes of COVID-19 including mortality as the pandemic progresses. This is likely multifactorial including changes in COVID-19 management (such as increasing use of nonintubated prone positioning rather than early intubation and treatments such as dexamethasone and remdesivir), decreased strain on hospitals and staffing compared to the early crisis phase of the pandemic, and higher testing capacity leading to detection of milder cases.”

When the 6-month analysis was further adjusted for comorbidities and a history of prior hospitalization within 1 year, only risk for acute kidney injury and VTE remained significant with relative risks of 1.33 and 1.60, respectively, likely because comorbidities are causal intermediates of COVID-19 30-day outcomes rather than confounders.

When asked to comment on the results, session comoderator Victoria K. Shanmugam, MD, said in an interview that the study “is of great interest both to rheumatologists and to patients with rheumatic disease.”

The higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and heart failure “is an important finding with implications for how our patients navigate risk during this pandemic,” said Dr. Shanmugam, director of the division of rheumatology at George Washington University in Washington.
 

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

The 15 observational studies in the systematic review included 11,815 participants. A total of 179, or 1.5%, tested positive for COVID-19.

“The incidence of COVID-19 infection among patients with rheumatic disease was low,” Dr. Sood said.

Within the COVID-19-positive group, almost 50% required hospitalization, 10% required ICU admission, and 8% died. The pooled event rate for hospitalization was 0.440 (95% CI, 0.296-0.596), while for ICU admission it was 0.132 (95% CI, 0.087-0.194) and for death it was 0.125 (95% CI, 0.082-0.182).
 

Different calculations of risk

The two studies seem to offer contradictory findings, but the disparities could be explained by study design differences. For example, Dr. D’Silva’s study evaluated a population with COVID-19 and compared those with SARDs versus a matched group from the general public. Dr. Sood and colleagues assessed study populations with rheumatic disease and assessed incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and difference in outcomes.

“We are asking very different questions,” Dr. D’Silva said.

“The study by D’Silva et al. was able to account for different factors to reduce confounding,” Dr. Sood said, adding that Dr. D’Silva and colleagues included a high proportion of minorities, compared with a less diverse population in the systematic review, which featured a large number of studies from Italy.

The authors of the two studies had no relevant financial disclosures to report.

SOURCES: D’Silva K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0430, and Sood A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0008.

Among people with COVID-19, those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had an elevated 30-day risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury, compared to a group without rheumatic diseases at 4 months in a match-controlled study.

When investigators expanded the study to 6 months, the difference in need for mechanical ventilation disappeared. However, relative risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) emerged as 74% higher among people with COVID-19 and with rheumatic disease, said Kristin D’Silva, MD, who presented the findings during a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. She noted that rheumatic disease itself could contribute to VTE risk.

Comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and asthma were more common among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). After adjustment for comorbidities, “the risks of hospitalization and ICU admission were attenuated, suggesting comorbidities are likely key mediators of the increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes observed in SARDs patients versus comparators,” Dr. D’Silva, a rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

“The risk of venous thromboembolism persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities,” Dr. D’Silva said. Patients with SARDs should be closely monitored for VTE during COVID-19 infection, she added. “Patients with significant cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic comorbidities should be closely monitored for severe COVID-19.”

At the same time, a systematic review of 15 published studies revealed a low incidence of COVID-19 infection among people with rheumatic disease. Furthermore, most experienced a mild clinical course and low mortality, Akhil Sood, MD, said when presenting results of his poster at the meeting.

Underlying immunosuppression, chronic inflammation, comorbidities, and disparities based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic status could predispose people with rheumatic disease to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. However, the risks and outcomes of COVID-19 infection among this population “are not well understood,” said Dr. Sood, a second-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

Dr. D’Silva and colleagues examined a COVID-19 population and compared 716 people with SARDs and another 716 people from the general public at 4 months, as well as 2,379 people each in similar groups at 6 months. They used real-time electronic medical record data from the TriNetX research network to identify ICD-10 codes for inflammatory arthritis, connective tissue diseases, and systemic vasculitis. They also used ICD-10 codes and positive PCR tests to identify people with COVID-19.

Mean age was 57 years and women accounted for 79% of both groups evaluated at 4 months. Those with SARDs were 23% more likely to be hospitalized (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.50). This group was 75% more likely to be admitted to the ICU (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75), 77% more likely to require mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.06-2.96), and 83% more likely to experience acute kidney injury (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00).

Risk of death was not significantly higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.73-1.86).

When Dr. D’Silva expanded the study to more people at 6 months, they added additional 30-day outcomes of interest: renal replacement therapy, VTE, and ischemic stroke. Risk of need for renal replacement therapy, for example, was 81% higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.07). Risk of stroke was not significantly different between groups.The improvement in mechanical ventilation risk between 4 and 6 months was not completely unexpected, Dr. D’Silva said. The relative risk dropped from 1.77 to 1.05. “This is not particularly surprising given national trends in the general population reporting decreased severe outcomes of COVID-19 including mortality as the pandemic progresses. This is likely multifactorial including changes in COVID-19 management (such as increasing use of nonintubated prone positioning rather than early intubation and treatments such as dexamethasone and remdesivir), decreased strain on hospitals and staffing compared to the early crisis phase of the pandemic, and higher testing capacity leading to detection of milder cases.”

When the 6-month analysis was further adjusted for comorbidities and a history of prior hospitalization within 1 year, only risk for acute kidney injury and VTE remained significant with relative risks of 1.33 and 1.60, respectively, likely because comorbidities are causal intermediates of COVID-19 30-day outcomes rather than confounders.

When asked to comment on the results, session comoderator Victoria K. Shanmugam, MD, said in an interview that the study “is of great interest both to rheumatologists and to patients with rheumatic disease.”

The higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and heart failure “is an important finding with implications for how our patients navigate risk during this pandemic,” said Dr. Shanmugam, director of the division of rheumatology at George Washington University in Washington.
 

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

The 15 observational studies in the systematic review included 11,815 participants. A total of 179, or 1.5%, tested positive for COVID-19.

“The incidence of COVID-19 infection among patients with rheumatic disease was low,” Dr. Sood said.

Within the COVID-19-positive group, almost 50% required hospitalization, 10% required ICU admission, and 8% died. The pooled event rate for hospitalization was 0.440 (95% CI, 0.296-0.596), while for ICU admission it was 0.132 (95% CI, 0.087-0.194) and for death it was 0.125 (95% CI, 0.082-0.182).
 

Different calculations of risk

The two studies seem to offer contradictory findings, but the disparities could be explained by study design differences. For example, Dr. D’Silva’s study evaluated a population with COVID-19 and compared those with SARDs versus a matched group from the general public. Dr. Sood and colleagues assessed study populations with rheumatic disease and assessed incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and difference in outcomes.

“We are asking very different questions,” Dr. D’Silva said.

“The study by D’Silva et al. was able to account for different factors to reduce confounding,” Dr. Sood said, adding that Dr. D’Silva and colleagues included a high proportion of minorities, compared with a less diverse population in the systematic review, which featured a large number of studies from Italy.

The authors of the two studies had no relevant financial disclosures to report.

SOURCES: D’Silva K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0430, and Sood A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0008.

Among people with COVID-19, those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had an elevated 30-day risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury, compared to a group without rheumatic diseases at 4 months in a match-controlled study.

When investigators expanded the study to 6 months, the difference in need for mechanical ventilation disappeared. However, relative risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) emerged as 74% higher among people with COVID-19 and with rheumatic disease, said Kristin D’Silva, MD, who presented the findings during a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. She noted that rheumatic disease itself could contribute to VTE risk.

Comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and asthma were more common among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). After adjustment for comorbidities, “the risks of hospitalization and ICU admission were attenuated, suggesting comorbidities are likely key mediators of the increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes observed in SARDs patients versus comparators,” Dr. D’Silva, a rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

“The risk of venous thromboembolism persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities,” Dr. D’Silva said. Patients with SARDs should be closely monitored for VTE during COVID-19 infection, she added. “Patients with significant cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic comorbidities should be closely monitored for severe COVID-19.”

At the same time, a systematic review of 15 published studies revealed a low incidence of COVID-19 infection among people with rheumatic disease. Furthermore, most experienced a mild clinical course and low mortality, Akhil Sood, MD, said when presenting results of his poster at the meeting.

Underlying immunosuppression, chronic inflammation, comorbidities, and disparities based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic status could predispose people with rheumatic disease to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. However, the risks and outcomes of COVID-19 infection among this population “are not well understood,” said Dr. Sood, a second-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

Dr. D’Silva and colleagues examined a COVID-19 population and compared 716 people with SARDs and another 716 people from the general public at 4 months, as well as 2,379 people each in similar groups at 6 months. They used real-time electronic medical record data from the TriNetX research network to identify ICD-10 codes for inflammatory arthritis, connective tissue diseases, and systemic vasculitis. They also used ICD-10 codes and positive PCR tests to identify people with COVID-19.

Mean age was 57 years and women accounted for 79% of both groups evaluated at 4 months. Those with SARDs were 23% more likely to be hospitalized (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.50). This group was 75% more likely to be admitted to the ICU (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75), 77% more likely to require mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.06-2.96), and 83% more likely to experience acute kidney injury (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00).

Risk of death was not significantly higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.73-1.86).

When Dr. D’Silva expanded the study to more people at 6 months, they added additional 30-day outcomes of interest: renal replacement therapy, VTE, and ischemic stroke. Risk of need for renal replacement therapy, for example, was 81% higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.07). Risk of stroke was not significantly different between groups.The improvement in mechanical ventilation risk between 4 and 6 months was not completely unexpected, Dr. D’Silva said. The relative risk dropped from 1.77 to 1.05. “This is not particularly surprising given national trends in the general population reporting decreased severe outcomes of COVID-19 including mortality as the pandemic progresses. This is likely multifactorial including changes in COVID-19 management (such as increasing use of nonintubated prone positioning rather than early intubation and treatments such as dexamethasone and remdesivir), decreased strain on hospitals and staffing compared to the early crisis phase of the pandemic, and higher testing capacity leading to detection of milder cases.”

When the 6-month analysis was further adjusted for comorbidities and a history of prior hospitalization within 1 year, only risk for acute kidney injury and VTE remained significant with relative risks of 1.33 and 1.60, respectively, likely because comorbidities are causal intermediates of COVID-19 30-day outcomes rather than confounders.

When asked to comment on the results, session comoderator Victoria K. Shanmugam, MD, said in an interview that the study “is of great interest both to rheumatologists and to patients with rheumatic disease.”

The higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and heart failure “is an important finding with implications for how our patients navigate risk during this pandemic,” said Dr. Shanmugam, director of the division of rheumatology at George Washington University in Washington.
 

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

The 15 observational studies in the systematic review included 11,815 participants. A total of 179, or 1.5%, tested positive for COVID-19.

“The incidence of COVID-19 infection among patients with rheumatic disease was low,” Dr. Sood said.

Within the COVID-19-positive group, almost 50% required hospitalization, 10% required ICU admission, and 8% died. The pooled event rate for hospitalization was 0.440 (95% CI, 0.296-0.596), while for ICU admission it was 0.132 (95% CI, 0.087-0.194) and for death it was 0.125 (95% CI, 0.082-0.182).
 

Different calculations of risk

The two studies seem to offer contradictory findings, but the disparities could be explained by study design differences. For example, Dr. D’Silva’s study evaluated a population with COVID-19 and compared those with SARDs versus a matched group from the general public. Dr. Sood and colleagues assessed study populations with rheumatic disease and assessed incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and difference in outcomes.

“We are asking very different questions,” Dr. D’Silva said.

“The study by D’Silva et al. was able to account for different factors to reduce confounding,” Dr. Sood said, adding that Dr. D’Silva and colleagues included a high proportion of minorities, compared with a less diverse population in the systematic review, which featured a large number of studies from Italy.

The authors of the two studies had no relevant financial disclosures to report.

SOURCES: D’Silva K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0430, and Sood A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0008.

Determining whether patients are fatigued or experiencing sleepiness is an important criterion when diagnosing hypersomnia, according to Ruth M. Benca, MD, PhD.

©Digitial Vision/Thinkstockphotos.com

Treatments for hypersomnia

The first priority for patients with hypersomnia is to avoid sleep deprivation and practice good sleep hygiene – factors that are important both in insomnia and hypersomnia. “Make sure that patients are having adequate time in bed and having regular hours of sleep,” Dr. Benca said.

For patients with comorbid psychiatric, medical and sleep disorders, focus on getting rid of medications that may cause sleepiness, including sedating medications and antidepressants, and consider using stimulants if appropriate. While there are Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for narcolepsy and some are approved for hypersomnia in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), none are officially approved to treat hypersomnia in psychiatric patients.

“Whenever we use these drugs for those reasons, we’re using them off label,” Dr. Benca said.

Modafinil/armodafinil, approved for narcolepsy, shift-work disorder, and OSA in Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, is one off-label option for patients with hypersomnia. “They are lower potency and less addictive than the amphetamines, [with] fewer side effects,” Dr. Benca explained, but should be prescribed with caution in some women because of potential reduced efficacy of oral contraceptives. Side effects of modafinil include headache, nausea, eosinophilia, diarrhea, dry mouth, and anorexia.

Methylphenidate is another option for hypersomnia, available in racemic mixture, pure D-isomer, and time-release formulations.

Patients taking methylphenidate may experience nervousness, insomnia, anorexia, nausea, dizziness, hypertension, hypotension, hypersensitivity reactions, tachycardia, and headache as side effects.

For patients with central nervous system hypersomnias, amphetamines can be used, with methamphetamines having a “very similar profile” and similar side effects, including insomnia, restlessness, tachycardia, dizziness, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, impotence, and rare cases of psychotic episodes.

Practice parameters released by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine in 2007 suggest that modafinil may have efficacy in idiopathic hypersomnia, Parkinson’s disease, myotonic dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis. The practice parameters also suggest hypersomnias of central origin can be treated with modafinil, amphetamine, methamphetamine, dextroamphetamine, and methylphenidate based on evidence or “long history of use” (Sleep. 2007;30:1705-11).

“Interestingly, there is no mention of psychiatric disorders in these practice parameters, and they report that there are mixed results using stimulants off label for sleepiness and fatigue in traumatic brain injury and poststroke fatigue,” Dr. Benca said.

Dr. Benca reported that she is a consultant to Eisai, Idorsia, Jazz, Merck, and Sunovion. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Determining whether patients are fatigued or experiencing sleepiness is an important criterion when diagnosing hypersomnia, according to Ruth M. Benca, MD, PhD.

©Digitial Vision/Thinkstockphotos.com

Treatments for hypersomnia

The first priority for patients with hypersomnia is to avoid sleep deprivation and practice good sleep hygiene – factors that are important both in insomnia and hypersomnia. “Make sure that patients are having adequate time in bed and having regular hours of sleep,” Dr. Benca said.

For patients with comorbid psychiatric, medical and sleep disorders, focus on getting rid of medications that may cause sleepiness, including sedating medications and antidepressants, and consider using stimulants if appropriate. While there are Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for narcolepsy and some are approved for hypersomnia in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), none are officially approved to treat hypersomnia in psychiatric patients.

“Whenever we use these drugs for those reasons, we’re using them off label,” Dr. Benca said.

Modafinil/armodafinil, approved for narcolepsy, shift-work disorder, and OSA in Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, is one off-label option for patients with hypersomnia. “They are lower potency and less addictive than the amphetamines, [with] fewer side effects,” Dr. Benca explained, but should be prescribed with caution in some women because of potential reduced efficacy of oral contraceptives. Side effects of modafinil include headache, nausea, eosinophilia, diarrhea, dry mouth, and anorexia.

Methylphenidate is another option for hypersomnia, available in racemic mixture, pure D-isomer, and time-release formulations.

Patients taking methylphenidate may experience nervousness, insomnia, anorexia, nausea, dizziness, hypertension, hypotension, hypersensitivity reactions, tachycardia, and headache as side effects.

For patients with central nervous system hypersomnias, amphetamines can be used, with methamphetamines having a “very similar profile” and similar side effects, including insomnia, restlessness, tachycardia, dizziness, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, impotence, and rare cases of psychotic episodes.

Practice parameters released by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine in 2007 suggest that modafinil may have efficacy in idiopathic hypersomnia, Parkinson’s disease, myotonic dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis. The practice parameters also suggest hypersomnias of central origin can be treated with modafinil, amphetamine, methamphetamine, dextroamphetamine, and methylphenidate based on evidence or “long history of use” (Sleep. 2007;30:1705-11).

“Interestingly, there is no mention of psychiatric disorders in these practice parameters, and they report that there are mixed results using stimulants off label for sleepiness and fatigue in traumatic brain injury and poststroke fatigue,” Dr. Benca said.

Dr. Benca reported that she is a consultant to Eisai, Idorsia, Jazz, Merck, and Sunovion. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Determining whether patients are fatigued or experiencing sleepiness is an important criterion when diagnosing hypersomnia, according to Ruth M. Benca, MD, PhD.

©Digitial Vision/Thinkstockphotos.com

Treatments for hypersomnia

The first priority for patients with hypersomnia is to avoid sleep deprivation and practice good sleep hygiene – factors that are important both in insomnia and hypersomnia. “Make sure that patients are having adequate time in bed and having regular hours of sleep,” Dr. Benca said.

For patients with comorbid psychiatric, medical and sleep disorders, focus on getting rid of medications that may cause sleepiness, including sedating medications and antidepressants, and consider using stimulants if appropriate. While there are Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for narcolepsy and some are approved for hypersomnia in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), none are officially approved to treat hypersomnia in psychiatric patients.

“Whenever we use these drugs for those reasons, we’re using them off label,” Dr. Benca said.

Modafinil/armodafinil, approved for narcolepsy, shift-work disorder, and OSA in Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, is one off-label option for patients with hypersomnia. “They are lower potency and less addictive than the amphetamines, [with] fewer side effects,” Dr. Benca explained, but should be prescribed with caution in some women because of potential reduced efficacy of oral contraceptives. Side effects of modafinil include headache, nausea, eosinophilia, diarrhea, dry mouth, and anorexia.

Methylphenidate is another option for hypersomnia, available in racemic mixture, pure D-isomer, and time-release formulations.

Patients taking methylphenidate may experience nervousness, insomnia, anorexia, nausea, dizziness, hypertension, hypotension, hypersensitivity reactions, tachycardia, and headache as side effects.

For patients with central nervous system hypersomnias, amphetamines can be used, with methamphetamines having a “very similar profile” and similar side effects, including insomnia, restlessness, tachycardia, dizziness, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, impotence, and rare cases of psychotic episodes.

Practice parameters released by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine in 2007 suggest that modafinil may have efficacy in idiopathic hypersomnia, Parkinson’s disease, myotonic dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis. The practice parameters also suggest hypersomnias of central origin can be treated with modafinil, amphetamine, methamphetamine, dextroamphetamine, and methylphenidate based on evidence or “long history of use” (Sleep. 2007;30:1705-11).

“Interestingly, there is no mention of psychiatric disorders in these practice parameters, and they report that there are mixed results using stimulants off label for sleepiness and fatigue in traumatic brain injury and poststroke fatigue,” Dr. Benca said.

Dr. Benca reported that she is a consultant to Eisai, Idorsia, Jazz, Merck, and Sunovion. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Joe Biden’s victory sets the stage for health care to become a high-profile priority of his presidency.

The former vice president has sketched out a big health agenda: ramping up the federal response to COVID-19, boosting the Affordable Care Act, creating a new “public option” to cover uninsured Americans, and expanding Medicare and Medicaid.

But the president-elect’s long to-do list on health is likely to face significant roadblocks in Congress and the courts, experts say.

For instance, Biden’s ambitious proposals on COVID-19 -- including his recent call for a national mask mandate -- could be waylaid by legal challenges and run into political hurdles on Capitol Hill, where he may face a divided Congress.

Joseph Antos, PhD, a health policy expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, predicts Biden will encounter the same type of congressional “gridlock situation” that President Barack Obama ran into during his second term.

“We have a situation that has been like this for a very, very long time -- lack of cooperation, lack of recognition that either party is capable of rising above their own electoral views to deal with problems that the country actually has.”

Antos also suggests that Biden may also face enormous political pressure to address the economic fallout from the coronavirus, including record unemployment and business closures, before anything else.

“I think it’s really going to be efforts that are intended to promote economic development and promote the economy,” he says.

In addition, Biden’s plans to expand Obamacare might face a new challenge from the Supreme Court in the year ahead. This month, the high court will take up a new case seeking to overturn the law.

Even so, experts say Biden’s plans on COVID-19 and expanding health care are likely to define his tenure in the White House as a central focus of his presidency.

“Health care will be at the very top of the list of the president’s priorities,” says Sabrina Corlette, JD, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. “I do think, however, that the administration is going to be very preoccupied with the response to COVID-19 and the economic fallout … particularly in the first year.”

Here’s a closer look at what we can expect from a Biden presidency.

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

Biden will move to federalize the response to COVID-19. He has said he will take back major responsibilities from the states -- such as setting national policies on mask wearing, social distancing, and the reopening of schools and businesses, based on CDC guidance. In the days leading up to the election, Biden called for a national mask mandate, after waffling on the issue throughout the summer.

He has said he will let public health science drive political policy. Biden is also planning to create his own task force to advise officials during the transition on managing the new surge in COVID-19 cases, vaccine safety and protecting at-risk populations, Politico reported this week. He received a virtual briefing on the pandemic from a panel of experts as he awaited the election’s outcome.

“I think we will no longer have this confused and contradictory public messaging,” Corlette says, “but I also think there will be humility and the recognition that the evidence is evolving -- that we don’t have all the answers, but we’re learning as we go.”

But national mandates on masks and social distancing will be challenging to enforce, experts say. They are also likely to face pushback from business interests, opposition from public officials in GOP-led states, and even legal challenges.

• Providing free COVID-19 testing for all Americans
• Hiring 100,000 contact tracers
• Eliminating out-of-pocket expenses for coronavirus treatment
• Delivering “sufficient” PPE for essential workers
• Supporting science-backed vaccines and medical treatments being developed
• Requiring the reopening of businesses, workplaces, and schools only after “sufficient” reductions in community transmission -- under evidence-based protocols put forward by the CDC
• Giving emergency paid leave for workers dislocated by the pandemic and more financial aid for workers, families, and small businesses
• Shoring up safeguards to protect at-risk Americans, including older people
• Boosting pay for health care workers on the front lines

Biden has not detailed how he would pay for many of these, beyond promising to force wealthy Americans to “pay their fair share” of taxes to help. He has proposed a tax increase on Americans making more than $400,000 a year, which would require congressional approval.

Antos says he expects Biden’s proposed COVID-19 action plan to be virtually the same as Trump’s in two areas: efforts to develop a vaccine and antiviral treatments.

The administration has spent some $225 million on COVID-19 testing efforts, with a particular focus on rural areas.

Trump launched Operation Warp Speed to fast-track a vaccine. As part of that, the federal government has contracted with six drug companies, spending nearly $11 billion. The operation aims to provide at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine by January 2021.

Antos would like to see “a more sophisticated approach to social distancing” from the president-elect that takes into account the different challenges facing Americans depending on their income, work situation, and other factors during the pandemic.

“There are a lot of people in this country where working from home is fine and their jobs are secure,” he notes. “It’s the person who used to work at a restaurant that closed, it’s the line worker at a factory that has severely cut back its hours. It’s basically lower-middle-class people, low-income people, middle-class people, and it’s not the elite.

“And the policies have not given enough consideration to the fact that their circumstances and their tradeoffs would differ from the tradeoffs of somebody who doesn’t have anything to worry about economically.

“So, what we need is a more supple policy [that] will give people the information they need and give them the financial support that they also need … so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families. And we basically haven’t done that.”

Obamacare on the blocks?

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up another case seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act could hand Biden’s health agenda a major setback -- and put the medical care for millions of Americans in jeopardy.

On Nov. 10, the high court will hear oral arguments on a lawsuit that would strike down all of Obamacare. A decision is not expected until next year.

The court has previously upheld the 2010 law, which Biden helped usher through Congress as vice president. But the addition of right-leaning Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the bench last month gives the court a clear conservative majority that could mean the end of Obamacare, legal experts say.

Republicans have opposed the law since its passage, but they have been unable to muster the votes to repeal it, or to pass an alternative

Antos, from the American Enterprise Institute, notes conservatives believe the law has increased costs for health care and insurance over the past decade, in part because of its protections for Americans with preexisting conditions and requiring insurers to provide comprehensive “gold-plated” policies.

“It’s driven up costs, offers plans that are not very strong, put high-risk folks into the same [insurance pool], which has increased costs for everyone, the employer mandate … these are all the reasons,” he says.

The Supreme Court isn’t expected to deliver a decision on the Affordable Care Act before the middle of next year. But the uncertainty will likely push back Biden’s proposals to expand on the law.

• As many as 133 million Americans -- roughly half the U.S. population -- with preexisting conditions could find it harder, if not impossible, to find affordable health insurance. That figure does not include Americans infected with COVID-19.
• About 165 million who require expensive treatments -- for cancer and other conditions -- would no longer be protected from huge costs for care by federal caps on out-of-pocket expenditures the Affordable Care Act requires.
• An estimated 21 million who now buy insurance through the Obamacare Marketplaces could lose their coverage.
• Another 12 million on Medicaid could find themselves without insurance.
• At least 2 million young adults ages 26 and under, now on their parents’ health policies, could be kicked off.
• Millions of people who use Medicare could face higher costs.
• Federal subsidies for lower-income Americans to buy policies would disappear.

Throughout the campaign, Biden repeatedly stressed the need to preserve the law’s provision barring insurance companies from refusing coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. It also outlaws charging higher premiums on the basis of health status, age, or gender.

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

He has proposed a variety of add-ons to the Affordable Care Act he says will “insure more than an estimated 97% of Americans,” according to the Biden campaign site.

Biden’s proposals include offering larger federal subsidies to help low- and middle-income Americans pay for policies purchased through Obamacare insurance Marketplaces.

The boldest of Biden’s proposals is the creation of a “public option” for insurance -- a Medicare-like program that small businesses and individuals could choose if they do not have coverage, cannot afford it, or don’t like their employer-based coverage.

It would also automatically enroll millions of uninsured Americans living in the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid, which covers low-income people.

But such a plan would require congressional approval -- including a “super majority” of 60 Senate votes to block a likely GOP filibuster. That will be a significant challenge Biden will have to overcome, with Congress so evenly divided.

The White House would also have to defeat heavy lobbying from some of the most influential industry interest groups in Washington, Corlette says.

“I’m not even confident they would get all the Democrat votes,” she says.

“So, it’s a going to be an uphill battle to get a public option passed.”

Taken together, Biden’s plans for expanding Obamacare are projected to cost $750 billion over 10 years. He has said much of that financing would come from increasing taxes on the wealthy.

That means it would likely require congressional approval, which Antos suggests is unlikely given the polarization on Capitol Hill.

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

Biden has called for a host of reforms targeting Medicare, Medicaid, and rising drug costs.

On Medicare, which primarily covers seniors 65 and older, Biden has proposed lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 60. That could extend Medicare to up to 20 million more Americans.

On Medicaid, the health care safety net for low-income and disabled Americans, the president-elect supports increased federal funding to states during the current economic crisis, and potentially beyond.

Medicare is likely to become a key focus of the new administration, in light of the pressures the pandemic is placing on Medicare funding.

In April, Medicare’s trustees said that the Part A trust fund for the program, which pays for hospital and inpatient care, could start to run dry in 2026.

But those projections did not include the impact of COVID-19. Some economists have since projected that Medicare Part A could become insolvent as early as 2022.

Medicare Part B, which pays for doctor and outpatient costs, is funded by general tax funding and beneficiary insurance premiums, so it is not in danger of drying up.

Adding to those pressures is an executive order Trump signed in August temporarily deferring payroll taxes, a primary funding vehicle for Medicare and Social Security.

Under these taxes, employees pay 6.2% of their earnings (on annual income up to $137,700) toward Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare taxes each pay period. Employers pay the same rate per paycheck, adding up to a combined 12.4% Social Security tax and 2.9% Medicare tax.

Biden has said he would reverse the tax cut when he takes office.

But to get a handle on Medicare and Medicaid funding issues, he is likely to need congressional support. Corlette and other experts say that could be a challenge while the nation remains in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition to his Medicare and Medicaid reforms, Biden has proposed several plans to lower drug prices, a subset of rising health care and insurance costs.

U.S. spending on prescription drugs has increased nearly 42% over the past decade -- from $253.1 billion in 2010 to $358.7 billion in 2020 (projected) -- according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In 2020, retail prices for 460 commonly prescribed drugs have spiked an average of 5.2%, according to new analysis by 3 Axis Advisors, a health research firm.

That’s more than double the projected rate of inflation.

To control drug costs, Biden supports legislation approved by the Democratic-led House of Representatives last year that would empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices with drug companies, as private insurers do.

Federal law now bars Medicare from negotiating prices on behalf of the 67.7 million Americans who use it. Drug companies and many GOP leaders argue that the current law is necessary to allow them to spend more on research and development of new medications.

In addition, Biden supports the idea of lifting bans on importing drugs from foreign countries with lower costs.

He also backs creating an independent review board to set price caps for new medications with no competitors; making high-quality generics more available; ending tax breaks for drug company advertising; and limiting their leeway in raising prices.

All of these proposals would likely require congressional approval and could face legal challenges in the courts.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Joe Biden’s victory sets the stage for health care to become a high-profile priority of his presidency.

The former vice president has sketched out a big health agenda: ramping up the federal response to COVID-19, boosting the Affordable Care Act, creating a new “public option” to cover uninsured Americans, and expanding Medicare and Medicaid.

But the president-elect’s long to-do list on health is likely to face significant roadblocks in Congress and the courts, experts say.

For instance, Biden’s ambitious proposals on COVID-19 -- including his recent call for a national mask mandate -- could be waylaid by legal challenges and run into political hurdles on Capitol Hill, where he may face a divided Congress.

Joseph Antos, PhD, a health policy expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, predicts Biden will encounter the same type of congressional “gridlock situation” that President Barack Obama ran into during his second term.

“We have a situation that has been like this for a very, very long time -- lack of cooperation, lack of recognition that either party is capable of rising above their own electoral views to deal with problems that the country actually has.”

Antos also suggests that Biden may also face enormous political pressure to address the economic fallout from the coronavirus, including record unemployment and business closures, before anything else.

“I think it’s really going to be efforts that are intended to promote economic development and promote the economy,” he says.

In addition, Biden’s plans to expand Obamacare might face a new challenge from the Supreme Court in the year ahead. This month, the high court will take up a new case seeking to overturn the law.

Even so, experts say Biden’s plans on COVID-19 and expanding health care are likely to define his tenure in the White House as a central focus of his presidency.

“Health care will be at the very top of the list of the president’s priorities,” says Sabrina Corlette, JD, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. “I do think, however, that the administration is going to be very preoccupied with the response to COVID-19 and the economic fallout … particularly in the first year.”

Here’s a closer look at what we can expect from a Biden presidency.

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

Biden will move to federalize the response to COVID-19. He has said he will take back major responsibilities from the states -- such as setting national policies on mask wearing, social distancing, and the reopening of schools and businesses, based on CDC guidance. In the days leading up to the election, Biden called for a national mask mandate, after waffling on the issue throughout the summer.

He has said he will let public health science drive political policy. Biden is also planning to create his own task force to advise officials during the transition on managing the new surge in COVID-19 cases, vaccine safety and protecting at-risk populations, Politico reported this week. He received a virtual briefing on the pandemic from a panel of experts as he awaited the election’s outcome.

“I think we will no longer have this confused and contradictory public messaging,” Corlette says, “but I also think there will be humility and the recognition that the evidence is evolving -- that we don’t have all the answers, but we’re learning as we go.”

But national mandates on masks and social distancing will be challenging to enforce, experts say. They are also likely to face pushback from business interests, opposition from public officials in GOP-led states, and even legal challenges.

• Providing free COVID-19 testing for all Americans
• Hiring 100,000 contact tracers
• Eliminating out-of-pocket expenses for coronavirus treatment
• Delivering “sufficient” PPE for essential workers
• Supporting science-backed vaccines and medical treatments being developed
• Requiring the reopening of businesses, workplaces, and schools only after “sufficient” reductions in community transmission -- under evidence-based protocols put forward by the CDC
• Giving emergency paid leave for workers dislocated by the pandemic and more financial aid for workers, families, and small businesses
• Shoring up safeguards to protect at-risk Americans, including older people
• Boosting pay for health care workers on the front lines

Biden has not detailed how he would pay for many of these, beyond promising to force wealthy Americans to “pay their fair share” of taxes to help. He has proposed a tax increase on Americans making more than $400,000 a year, which would require congressional approval.

Antos says he expects Biden’s proposed COVID-19 action plan to be virtually the same as Trump’s in two areas: efforts to develop a vaccine and antiviral treatments.

The administration has spent some $225 million on COVID-19 testing efforts, with a particular focus on rural areas.

Trump launched Operation Warp Speed to fast-track a vaccine. As part of that, the federal government has contracted with six drug companies, spending nearly $11 billion. The operation aims to provide at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine by January 2021.

Antos would like to see “a more sophisticated approach to social distancing” from the president-elect that takes into account the different challenges facing Americans depending on their income, work situation, and other factors during the pandemic.

“There are a lot of people in this country where working from home is fine and their jobs are secure,” he notes. “It’s the person who used to work at a restaurant that closed, it’s the line worker at a factory that has severely cut back its hours. It’s basically lower-middle-class people, low-income people, middle-class people, and it’s not the elite.

“And the policies have not given enough consideration to the fact that their circumstances and their tradeoffs would differ from the tradeoffs of somebody who doesn’t have anything to worry about economically.

“So, what we need is a more supple policy [that] will give people the information they need and give them the financial support that they also need … so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families. And we basically haven’t done that.”

Obamacare on the blocks?

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up another case seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act could hand Biden’s health agenda a major setback -- and put the medical care for millions of Americans in jeopardy.

On Nov. 10, the high court will hear oral arguments on a lawsuit that would strike down all of Obamacare. A decision is not expected until next year.

The court has previously upheld the 2010 law, which Biden helped usher through Congress as vice president. But the addition of right-leaning Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the bench last month gives the court a clear conservative majority that could mean the end of Obamacare, legal experts say.

Republicans have opposed the law since its passage, but they have been unable to muster the votes to repeal it, or to pass an alternative

Antos, from the American Enterprise Institute, notes conservatives believe the law has increased costs for health care and insurance over the past decade, in part because of its protections for Americans with preexisting conditions and requiring insurers to provide comprehensive “gold-plated” policies.

“It’s driven up costs, offers plans that are not very strong, put high-risk folks into the same [insurance pool], which has increased costs for everyone, the employer mandate … these are all the reasons,” he says.

The Supreme Court isn’t expected to deliver a decision on the Affordable Care Act before the middle of next year. But the uncertainty will likely push back Biden’s proposals to expand on the law.

• As many as 133 million Americans -- roughly half the U.S. population -- with preexisting conditions could find it harder, if not impossible, to find affordable health insurance. That figure does not include Americans infected with COVID-19.
• About 165 million who require expensive treatments -- for cancer and other conditions -- would no longer be protected from huge costs for care by federal caps on out-of-pocket expenditures the Affordable Care Act requires.
• An estimated 21 million who now buy insurance through the Obamacare Marketplaces could lose their coverage.
• Another 12 million on Medicaid could find themselves without insurance.
• At least 2 million young adults ages 26 and under, now on their parents’ health policies, could be kicked off.
• Millions of people who use Medicare could face higher costs.
• Federal subsidies for lower-income Americans to buy policies would disappear.

Throughout the campaign, Biden repeatedly stressed the need to preserve the law’s provision barring insurance companies from refusing coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. It also outlaws charging higher premiums on the basis of health status, age, or gender.

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

He has proposed a variety of add-ons to the Affordable Care Act he says will “insure more than an estimated 97% of Americans,” according to the Biden campaign site.

Biden’s proposals include offering larger federal subsidies to help low- and middle-income Americans pay for policies purchased through Obamacare insurance Marketplaces.

The boldest of Biden’s proposals is the creation of a “public option” for insurance -- a Medicare-like program that small businesses and individuals could choose if they do not have coverage, cannot afford it, or don’t like their employer-based coverage.

It would also automatically enroll millions of uninsured Americans living in the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid, which covers low-income people.

But such a plan would require congressional approval -- including a “super majority” of 60 Senate votes to block a likely GOP filibuster. That will be a significant challenge Biden will have to overcome, with Congress so evenly divided.

The White House would also have to defeat heavy lobbying from some of the most influential industry interest groups in Washington, Corlette says.

“I’m not even confident they would get all the Democrat votes,” she says.

“So, it’s a going to be an uphill battle to get a public option passed.”

Taken together, Biden’s plans for expanding Obamacare are projected to cost $750 billion over 10 years. He has said much of that financing would come from increasing taxes on the wealthy.

That means it would likely require congressional approval, which Antos suggests is unlikely given the polarization on Capitol Hill.

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

Biden has called for a host of reforms targeting Medicare, Medicaid, and rising drug costs.

On Medicare, which primarily covers seniors 65 and older, Biden has proposed lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 60. That could extend Medicare to up to 20 million more Americans.

On Medicaid, the health care safety net for low-income and disabled Americans, the president-elect supports increased federal funding to states during the current economic crisis, and potentially beyond.

Medicare is likely to become a key focus of the new administration, in light of the pressures the pandemic is placing on Medicare funding.

In April, Medicare’s trustees said that the Part A trust fund for the program, which pays for hospital and inpatient care, could start to run dry in 2026.

But those projections did not include the impact of COVID-19. Some economists have since projected that Medicare Part A could become insolvent as early as 2022.

Medicare Part B, which pays for doctor and outpatient costs, is funded by general tax funding and beneficiary insurance premiums, so it is not in danger of drying up.

Adding to those pressures is an executive order Trump signed in August temporarily deferring payroll taxes, a primary funding vehicle for Medicare and Social Security.

Under these taxes, employees pay 6.2% of their earnings (on annual income up to $137,700) toward Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare taxes each pay period. Employers pay the same rate per paycheck, adding up to a combined 12.4% Social Security tax and 2.9% Medicare tax.

Biden has said he would reverse the tax cut when he takes office.

But to get a handle on Medicare and Medicaid funding issues, he is likely to need congressional support. Corlette and other experts say that could be a challenge while the nation remains in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition to his Medicare and Medicaid reforms, Biden has proposed several plans to lower drug prices, a subset of rising health care and insurance costs.

U.S. spending on prescription drugs has increased nearly 42% over the past decade -- from $253.1 billion in 2010 to $358.7 billion in 2020 (projected) -- according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In 2020, retail prices for 460 commonly prescribed drugs have spiked an average of 5.2%, according to new analysis by 3 Axis Advisors, a health research firm.

That’s more than double the projected rate of inflation.

To control drug costs, Biden supports legislation approved by the Democratic-led House of Representatives last year that would empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices with drug companies, as private insurers do.

Federal law now bars Medicare from negotiating prices on behalf of the 67.7 million Americans who use it. Drug companies and many GOP leaders argue that the current law is necessary to allow them to spend more on research and development of new medications.

In addition, Biden supports the idea of lifting bans on importing drugs from foreign countries with lower costs.

He also backs creating an independent review board to set price caps for new medications with no competitors; making high-quality generics more available; ending tax breaks for drug company advertising; and limiting their leeway in raising prices.

All of these proposals would likely require congressional approval and could face legal challenges in the courts.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Joe Biden’s victory sets the stage for health care to become a high-profile priority of his presidency.

The former vice president has sketched out a big health agenda: ramping up the federal response to COVID-19, boosting the Affordable Care Act, creating a new “public option” to cover uninsured Americans, and expanding Medicare and Medicaid.

But the president-elect’s long to-do list on health is likely to face significant roadblocks in Congress and the courts, experts say.

For instance, Biden’s ambitious proposals on COVID-19 -- including his recent call for a national mask mandate -- could be waylaid by legal challenges and run into political hurdles on Capitol Hill, where he may face a divided Congress.

Joseph Antos, PhD, a health policy expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, predicts Biden will encounter the same type of congressional “gridlock situation” that President Barack Obama ran into during his second term.

“We have a situation that has been like this for a very, very long time -- lack of cooperation, lack of recognition that either party is capable of rising above their own electoral views to deal with problems that the country actually has.”

Antos also suggests that Biden may also face enormous political pressure to address the economic fallout from the coronavirus, including record unemployment and business closures, before anything else.

“I think it’s really going to be efforts that are intended to promote economic development and promote the economy,” he says.

In addition, Biden’s plans to expand Obamacare might face a new challenge from the Supreme Court in the year ahead. This month, the high court will take up a new case seeking to overturn the law.

Even so, experts say Biden’s plans on COVID-19 and expanding health care are likely to define his tenure in the White House as a central focus of his presidency.

“Health care will be at the very top of the list of the president’s priorities,” says Sabrina Corlette, JD, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. “I do think, however, that the administration is going to be very preoccupied with the response to COVID-19 and the economic fallout … particularly in the first year.”

Here’s a closer look at what we can expect from a Biden presidency.

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

Biden will move to federalize the response to COVID-19. He has said he will take back major responsibilities from the states -- such as setting national policies on mask wearing, social distancing, and the reopening of schools and businesses, based on CDC guidance. In the days leading up to the election, Biden called for a national mask mandate, after waffling on the issue throughout the summer.

He has said he will let public health science drive political policy. Biden is also planning to create his own task force to advise officials during the transition on managing the new surge in COVID-19 cases, vaccine safety and protecting at-risk populations, Politico reported this week. He received a virtual briefing on the pandemic from a panel of experts as he awaited the election’s outcome.

“I think we will no longer have this confused and contradictory public messaging,” Corlette says, “but I also think there will be humility and the recognition that the evidence is evolving -- that we don’t have all the answers, but we’re learning as we go.”

But national mandates on masks and social distancing will be challenging to enforce, experts say. They are also likely to face pushback from business interests, opposition from public officials in GOP-led states, and even legal challenges.

• Providing free COVID-19 testing for all Americans
• Hiring 100,000 contact tracers
• Eliminating out-of-pocket expenses for coronavirus treatment
• Delivering “sufficient” PPE for essential workers
• Supporting science-backed vaccines and medical treatments being developed
• Requiring the reopening of businesses, workplaces, and schools only after “sufficient” reductions in community transmission -- under evidence-based protocols put forward by the CDC
• Giving emergency paid leave for workers dislocated by the pandemic and more financial aid for workers, families, and small businesses
• Shoring up safeguards to protect at-risk Americans, including older people
• Boosting pay for health care workers on the front lines

Biden has not detailed how he would pay for many of these, beyond promising to force wealthy Americans to “pay their fair share” of taxes to help. He has proposed a tax increase on Americans making more than $400,000 a year, which would require congressional approval.

Antos says he expects Biden’s proposed COVID-19 action plan to be virtually the same as Trump’s in two areas: efforts to develop a vaccine and antiviral treatments.

The administration has spent some $225 million on COVID-19 testing efforts, with a particular focus on rural areas.

Trump launched Operation Warp Speed to fast-track a vaccine. As part of that, the federal government has contracted with six drug companies, spending nearly $11 billion. The operation aims to provide at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine by January 2021.

Antos would like to see “a more sophisticated approach to social distancing” from the president-elect that takes into account the different challenges facing Americans depending on their income, work situation, and other factors during the pandemic.

“There are a lot of people in this country where working from home is fine and their jobs are secure,” he notes. “It’s the person who used to work at a restaurant that closed, it’s the line worker at a factory that has severely cut back its hours. It’s basically lower-middle-class people, low-income people, middle-class people, and it’s not the elite.

“And the policies have not given enough consideration to the fact that their circumstances and their tradeoffs would differ from the tradeoffs of somebody who doesn’t have anything to worry about economically.

“So, what we need is a more supple policy [that] will give people the information they need and give them the financial support that they also need … so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families. And we basically haven’t done that.”

Obamacare on the blocks?

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up another case seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act could hand Biden’s health agenda a major setback -- and put the medical care for millions of Americans in jeopardy.

On Nov. 10, the high court will hear oral arguments on a lawsuit that would strike down all of Obamacare. A decision is not expected until next year.

The court has previously upheld the 2010 law, which Biden helped usher through Congress as vice president. But the addition of right-leaning Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the bench last month gives the court a clear conservative majority that could mean the end of Obamacare, legal experts say.

Republicans have opposed the law since its passage, but they have been unable to muster the votes to repeal it, or to pass an alternative

Antos, from the American Enterprise Institute, notes conservatives believe the law has increased costs for health care and insurance over the past decade, in part because of its protections for Americans with preexisting conditions and requiring insurers to provide comprehensive “gold-plated” policies.

“It’s driven up costs, offers plans that are not very strong, put high-risk folks into the same [insurance pool], which has increased costs for everyone, the employer mandate … these are all the reasons,” he says.

The Supreme Court isn’t expected to deliver a decision on the Affordable Care Act before the middle of next year. But the uncertainty will likely push back Biden’s proposals to expand on the law.

• As many as 133 million Americans -- roughly half the U.S. population -- with preexisting conditions could find it harder, if not impossible, to find affordable health insurance. That figure does not include Americans infected with COVID-19.
• About 165 million who require expensive treatments -- for cancer and other conditions -- would no longer be protected from huge costs for care by federal caps on out-of-pocket expenditures the Affordable Care Act requires.
• An estimated 21 million who now buy insurance through the Obamacare Marketplaces could lose their coverage.
• Another 12 million on Medicaid could find themselves without insurance.
• At least 2 million young adults ages 26 and under, now on their parents’ health policies, could be kicked off.
• Millions of people who use Medicare could face higher costs.
• Federal subsidies for lower-income Americans to buy policies would disappear.

Throughout the campaign, Biden repeatedly stressed the need to preserve the law’s provision barring insurance companies from refusing coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. It also outlaws charging higher premiums on the basis of health status, age, or gender.

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

He has proposed a variety of add-ons to the Affordable Care Act he says will “insure more than an estimated 97% of Americans,” according to the Biden campaign site.

Biden’s proposals include offering larger federal subsidies to help low- and middle-income Americans pay for policies purchased through Obamacare insurance Marketplaces.

The boldest of Biden’s proposals is the creation of a “public option” for insurance -- a Medicare-like program that small businesses and individuals could choose if they do not have coverage, cannot afford it, or don’t like their employer-based coverage.

It would also automatically enroll millions of uninsured Americans living in the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid, which covers low-income people.

But such a plan would require congressional approval -- including a “super majority” of 60 Senate votes to block a likely GOP filibuster. That will be a significant challenge Biden will have to overcome, with Congress so evenly divided.

The White House would also have to defeat heavy lobbying from some of the most influential industry interest groups in Washington, Corlette says.

“I’m not even confident they would get all the Democrat votes,” she says.

“So, it’s a going to be an uphill battle to get a public option passed.”

Taken together, Biden’s plans for expanding Obamacare are projected to cost $750 billion over 10 years. He has said much of that financing would come from increasing taxes on the wealthy.

That means it would likely require congressional approval, which Antos suggests is unlikely given the polarization on Capitol Hill.

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

Biden has called for a host of reforms targeting Medicare, Medicaid, and rising drug costs.

On Medicare, which primarily covers seniors 65 and older, Biden has proposed lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 60. That could extend Medicare to up to 20 million more Americans.

On Medicaid, the health care safety net for low-income and disabled Americans, the president-elect supports increased federal funding to states during the current economic crisis, and potentially beyond.

Medicare is likely to become a key focus of the new administration, in light of the pressures the pandemic is placing on Medicare funding.

In April, Medicare’s trustees said that the Part A trust fund for the program, which pays for hospital and inpatient care, could start to run dry in 2026.

But those projections did not include the impact of COVID-19. Some economists have since projected that Medicare Part A could become insolvent as early as 2022.

Medicare Part B, which pays for doctor and outpatient costs, is funded by general tax funding and beneficiary insurance premiums, so it is not in danger of drying up.

Adding to those pressures is an executive order Trump signed in August temporarily deferring payroll taxes, a primary funding vehicle for Medicare and Social Security.

Under these taxes, employees pay 6.2% of their earnings (on annual income up to $137,700) toward Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare taxes each pay period. Employers pay the same rate per paycheck, adding up to a combined 12.4% Social Security tax and 2.9% Medicare tax.

Biden has said he would reverse the tax cut when he takes office.

But to get a handle on Medicare and Medicaid funding issues, he is likely to need congressional support. Corlette and other experts say that could be a challenge while the nation remains in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition to his Medicare and Medicaid reforms, Biden has proposed several plans to lower drug prices, a subset of rising health care and insurance costs.

U.S. spending on prescription drugs has increased nearly 42% over the past decade -- from $253.1 billion in 2010 to $358.7 billion in 2020 (projected) -- according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In 2020, retail prices for 460 commonly prescribed drugs have spiked an average of 5.2%, according to new analysis by 3 Axis Advisors, a health research firm.

That’s more than double the projected rate of inflation.

To control drug costs, Biden supports legislation approved by the Democratic-led House of Representatives last year that would empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices with drug companies, as private insurers do.

Federal law now bars Medicare from negotiating prices on behalf of the 67.7 million Americans who use it. Drug companies and many GOP leaders argue that the current law is necessary to allow them to spend more on research and development of new medications.

In addition, Biden supports the idea of lifting bans on importing drugs from foreign countries with lower costs.

He also backs creating an independent review board to set price caps for new medications with no competitors; making high-quality generics more available; ending tax breaks for drug company advertising; and limiting their leeway in raising prices.

All of these proposals would likely require congressional approval and could face legal challenges in the courts.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Medication adherence remains a truly challenging issue. For most chronic diseases, up to 20%-30% of the pills that are prescribed are not taken. In the case of inhalers for asthma and COPD, patients miss over half of the prescribed doses.

There are many things that contribute to the problem of poor adherence, but people often just simply forget. Thankfully, there are tools designed to help remind patients of what they need to take and when. A survey of apps developed to help patients remember to take their medicines found more than 700 available in Apple and Android app stores.¹ Most apps focus on medication alerts, reminders, and medication logs.² A recent review showed that apps have some – yet limited – effectiveness in increasing adherence, with patient self-reported improvements of 7%-40%.³

Another perhaps more promising area of improving adherence involves high-tech advances in the way medications can be taken. Inhalers are a primary target as they are complicated devices. A patient has to breathe in at the correct time after the inhaler is actuated, and the inhaler works optimally only if the rate of inhalation is sufficient to carry the medication into the lungs.

A number of companies have developed attachments for inhalers (and even inhalers themselves) that can record when the medication is taken through a Bluetooth connection to a patient’s smartphone. These can also assess inspiratory flow. Reminders to take the medication are built into the app, and those reminders disappear if the medication is taken. Patients can receive feedback about the quality of their timing and inspiratory rate to maximize medication delivery to the lungs.⁴

We learned long ago that it is difficult to take medications three to four times a day, so extended-release tablets were developed to reduce the frequency to once or twice a day. A great deal of work is now being done behind the scenes to develop medications that decrease the need for patients to remember to take their medications. The best examples of this are the long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices, specifically IUDs and Nexplanon. Compared with traditional oral contraceptives that need to be taken daily, LARCs reduce the rate of pregnancy by five- to tenfold.

We also now have medications for osteoporosis that can be taken monthly, or even annually. When bisphosphonates were first developed for osteoporosis prevention, they needed to be taken daily. Then a weekly bisphosphonate was developed. Now there is a once-monthly oral bisphosphonate, Ibandronate, and even a once yearly IV bisphosphonate.

Exciting developments have also occurred in the management of diabetes. We may be tempted to take for granted how once-daily long-acting insulin, which releases insulin slowly over the course of a day, has revolutionized the diabetic treatment since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2000. Yet progress did not end there. The first GLP-1 receptor agonist for diabetes was approved in 2005 and was a twice-a-day medicine. Shortly afterward, a daily GLP-1 was approved, and now there are three once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers are now working on a once-weekly insulin,⁵ as well as an implantable GLP-1 receptor agonist that will need to be replaced every 6-12 months.⁶ Imagine your patient coming in once a year to replace his or her potent glucose lowering medication – one that offers a low incidence of hypoglycemia, maintains glucose control all year long, and requires no adherence to a complicated medication regimen.

Similar technology is being used to develop a once-yearly anti-HIV prophylactic medication delivery system.⁷ This could help prevent the spread of HIV in areas of the world where it may be difficult for people to take daily medications.⁷

The many technological advances we have described may help us reduce our likelihood of missing a dose of a medication. We are hopeful that progress in this area will continue, and that one day medication adherence will require even less effort from patients than it does today.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Tabi K et al. Mobile apps for medication management: Review and analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Sep 7(9):13608.

2. Park JYE et al. Mobile phone apps targeting medication adherence: Quality assessment and content analysis of user reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 31;7(1):e11919.

3. Pérez-Jover V et al. Mobile apps for increasing treatment adherence: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(6):e12505. doi: 10.2196/12505.

4. 4 Smart inhalers that could be lifesaving for people living with asthma & COPD. MyTherapy, July 11, 2019.

5. Rosenstock J et al. Once-weekly insulin for type 2 diabetes without previous insulin treatment. N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022474.

6. GLP-1 agonists: From 2 daily injections to 1 per week and beyond. DiaTribe, Jan. 10, 2018.

7. Long-acting HIV prevention tools. Hiv.gov, July 20, 2019.

Medication adherence remains a truly challenging issue. For most chronic diseases, up to 20%-30% of the pills that are prescribed are not taken. In the case of inhalers for asthma and COPD, patients miss over half of the prescribed doses.

There are many things that contribute to the problem of poor adherence, but people often just simply forget. Thankfully, there are tools designed to help remind patients of what they need to take and when. A survey of apps developed to help patients remember to take their medicines found more than 700 available in Apple and Android app stores.¹ Most apps focus on medication alerts, reminders, and medication logs.² A recent review showed that apps have some – yet limited – effectiveness in increasing adherence, with patient self-reported improvements of 7%-40%.³

Another perhaps more promising area of improving adherence involves high-tech advances in the way medications can be taken. Inhalers are a primary target as they are complicated devices. A patient has to breathe in at the correct time after the inhaler is actuated, and the inhaler works optimally only if the rate of inhalation is sufficient to carry the medication into the lungs.

A number of companies have developed attachments for inhalers (and even inhalers themselves) that can record when the medication is taken through a Bluetooth connection to a patient’s smartphone. These can also assess inspiratory flow. Reminders to take the medication are built into the app, and those reminders disappear if the medication is taken. Patients can receive feedback about the quality of their timing and inspiratory rate to maximize medication delivery to the lungs.⁴

We learned long ago that it is difficult to take medications three to four times a day, so extended-release tablets were developed to reduce the frequency to once or twice a day. A great deal of work is now being done behind the scenes to develop medications that decrease the need for patients to remember to take their medications. The best examples of this are the long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices, specifically IUDs and Nexplanon. Compared with traditional oral contraceptives that need to be taken daily, LARCs reduce the rate of pregnancy by five- to tenfold.

We also now have medications for osteoporosis that can be taken monthly, or even annually. When bisphosphonates were first developed for osteoporosis prevention, they needed to be taken daily. Then a weekly bisphosphonate was developed. Now there is a once-monthly oral bisphosphonate, Ibandronate, and even a once yearly IV bisphosphonate.

Exciting developments have also occurred in the management of diabetes. We may be tempted to take for granted how once-daily long-acting insulin, which releases insulin slowly over the course of a day, has revolutionized the diabetic treatment since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2000. Yet progress did not end there. The first GLP-1 receptor agonist for diabetes was approved in 2005 and was a twice-a-day medicine. Shortly afterward, a daily GLP-1 was approved, and now there are three once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers are now working on a once-weekly insulin,⁵ as well as an implantable GLP-1 receptor agonist that will need to be replaced every 6-12 months.⁶ Imagine your patient coming in once a year to replace his or her potent glucose lowering medication – one that offers a low incidence of hypoglycemia, maintains glucose control all year long, and requires no adherence to a complicated medication regimen.

Similar technology is being used to develop a once-yearly anti-HIV prophylactic medication delivery system.⁷ This could help prevent the spread of HIV in areas of the world where it may be difficult for people to take daily medications.⁷

The many technological advances we have described may help us reduce our likelihood of missing a dose of a medication. We are hopeful that progress in this area will continue, and that one day medication adherence will require even less effort from patients than it does today.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Tabi K et al. Mobile apps for medication management: Review and analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Sep 7(9):13608.

2. Park JYE et al. Mobile phone apps targeting medication adherence: Quality assessment and content analysis of user reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 31;7(1):e11919.

3. Pérez-Jover V et al. Mobile apps for increasing treatment adherence: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(6):e12505. doi: 10.2196/12505.

4. 4 Smart inhalers that could be lifesaving for people living with asthma & COPD. MyTherapy, July 11, 2019.

5. Rosenstock J et al. Once-weekly insulin for type 2 diabetes without previous insulin treatment. N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022474.

6. GLP-1 agonists: From 2 daily injections to 1 per week and beyond. DiaTribe, Jan. 10, 2018.

7. Long-acting HIV prevention tools. Hiv.gov, July 20, 2019.

Medication adherence remains a truly challenging issue. For most chronic diseases, up to 20%-30% of the pills that are prescribed are not taken. In the case of inhalers for asthma and COPD, patients miss over half of the prescribed doses.

There are many things that contribute to the problem of poor adherence, but people often just simply forget. Thankfully, there are tools designed to help remind patients of what they need to take and when. A survey of apps developed to help patients remember to take their medicines found more than 700 available in Apple and Android app stores.¹ Most apps focus on medication alerts, reminders, and medication logs.² A recent review showed that apps have some – yet limited – effectiveness in increasing adherence, with patient self-reported improvements of 7%-40%.³

Another perhaps more promising area of improving adherence involves high-tech advances in the way medications can be taken. Inhalers are a primary target as they are complicated devices. A patient has to breathe in at the correct time after the inhaler is actuated, and the inhaler works optimally only if the rate of inhalation is sufficient to carry the medication into the lungs.

A number of companies have developed attachments for inhalers (and even inhalers themselves) that can record when the medication is taken through a Bluetooth connection to a patient’s smartphone. These can also assess inspiratory flow. Reminders to take the medication are built into the app, and those reminders disappear if the medication is taken. Patients can receive feedback about the quality of their timing and inspiratory rate to maximize medication delivery to the lungs.⁴

We learned long ago that it is difficult to take medications three to four times a day, so extended-release tablets were developed to reduce the frequency to once or twice a day. A great deal of work is now being done behind the scenes to develop medications that decrease the need for patients to remember to take their medications. The best examples of this are the long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices, specifically IUDs and Nexplanon. Compared with traditional oral contraceptives that need to be taken daily, LARCs reduce the rate of pregnancy by five- to tenfold.

We also now have medications for osteoporosis that can be taken monthly, or even annually. When bisphosphonates were first developed for osteoporosis prevention, they needed to be taken daily. Then a weekly bisphosphonate was developed. Now there is a once-monthly oral bisphosphonate, Ibandronate, and even a once yearly IV bisphosphonate.

Exciting developments have also occurred in the management of diabetes. We may be tempted to take for granted how once-daily long-acting insulin, which releases insulin slowly over the course of a day, has revolutionized the diabetic treatment since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2000. Yet progress did not end there. The first GLP-1 receptor agonist for diabetes was approved in 2005 and was a twice-a-day medicine. Shortly afterward, a daily GLP-1 was approved, and now there are three once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers are now working on a once-weekly insulin,⁵ as well as an implantable GLP-1 receptor agonist that will need to be replaced every 6-12 months.⁶ Imagine your patient coming in once a year to replace his or her potent glucose lowering medication – one that offers a low incidence of hypoglycemia, maintains glucose control all year long, and requires no adherence to a complicated medication regimen.

Similar technology is being used to develop a once-yearly anti-HIV prophylactic medication delivery system.⁷ This could help prevent the spread of HIV in areas of the world where it may be difficult for people to take daily medications.⁷

The many technological advances we have described may help us reduce our likelihood of missing a dose of a medication. We are hopeful that progress in this area will continue, and that one day medication adherence will require even less effort from patients than it does today.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Tabi K et al. Mobile apps for medication management: Review and analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Sep 7(9):13608.

2. Park JYE et al. Mobile phone apps targeting medication adherence: Quality assessment and content analysis of user reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 31;7(1):e11919.

3. Pérez-Jover V et al. Mobile apps for increasing treatment adherence: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(6):e12505. doi: 10.2196/12505.

4. 4 Smart inhalers that could be lifesaving for people living with asthma & COPD. MyTherapy, July 11, 2019.

5. Rosenstock J et al. Once-weekly insulin for type 2 diabetes without previous insulin treatment. N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022474.

6. GLP-1 agonists: From 2 daily injections to 1 per week and beyond. DiaTribe, Jan. 10, 2018.

7. Long-acting HIV prevention tools. Hiv.gov, July 20, 2019.

New data document the global fallout for rheumatology patients when hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) supplies were being diverted to hospitals for COVID-19 patients.

Demand for HCQ soared on evidence-lacking claims that the drug was effective in treating and preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further research has since shown HCQ to be ineffective for COVID-19 and potentially harmful to patients.

But during the height of the COVID-19-related hype, patients worldwide with autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, had trouble getting the pills at all or couldn’t get as many as they needed for their chronic conditions.

Emily Sirotich, MSc, a PhD student at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., presented data at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology demonstrating that the severity of shortages differed widely.

Whereas 26.7% of rheumatology patients in Africa and 21.4% in southeast Asia said their pharmacy ran short of HCQ – which was originally developed as an antimalarial drug but has been found effective in treating some rheumatic diseases – only 6.8% of patients in the Americas and 2.1% in European regions reported the shortages.

“There are large regional disparities in access to antimalarials whether they were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or already existed,” she said in an interview.

Global survey polled patient experience

Ms. Sirotich’s team analyzed data from the Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey.

They found that from 9,393 respondents (average age 46.1 years and 90% female), 3,872 (41.2%) were taking antimalarials. Of these, 230 (6.2% globally) were unable to keep taking the drugs because their pharmacy ran out.

Researchers evaluated the effect of drug shortages on disease activity, mental health, and physical health by comparing mean values with two-sided independent t-tests to identify significant differences.

They found that patients who were unable to obtain antimalarials had significantly higher levels of rheumatic disease activity as well as poorer mental and physical health (all P < .001).

The survey was distributed online through patient support groups and on social media. Patients with rheumatic diseases or their parents anonymously entered data including their rheumatic disease diagnosis, medications, COVID-19 status, and disease outcomes.

Ms. Sirotich said they are currently gathering new data to see if the gaps in access to HCQ persist and whether the physical and mental consequences of not having the medications continue.

Hospitals stockpiled HCQ in the U.S.

Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), said in an interview that hospitals in the United States received large amounts of HCQ in late spring and early summer, donated by pharmaceutical companies for COVID-19 before the lack of evidence for efficacy became clear.

Hospitals found themselves sitting on large quantities of HCQ they couldn’t use while prescriptions for rheumatology outpatients were going unfilled.

It is only in recent months that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has given clear direction to hospitals on how to redistribute those supplies, Dr. Ganio said.

“There’s no good real good way to move a product from a hospital to a [drug store] down the street,” he said.

The Food and Drug Administration now lists the HCQ shortages as resolved.
 

Declined prescriptions have frustrated physicians

Brett Smith, DO, a pediatric and adult rheumatologist in Alcoa, Tenn., said he was frustrated by pharmacies declining his prescriptions for HCQ for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“I got notes from pharmacies that I should consider alternative agents,” he said in an interview. But the safety profiles of the alternatives were not as good, he said.

“Hydroxychloroquine has no risk of infection and no risk of malignancy, and they were proposing alternative agents that carry those risks,” he said.

“I had some people with RA who couldn’t get [HCQ] who had a substantial increase in swollen joints and pain without it,” he said.

Dr. Smith said some patients who use HCQ for off-label uses such as certain skin disorders still aren’t getting the drug, as off-label use has been discouraged to make sure those with lupus and RA have enough, he said.

Saira Sheikh, MD, director of the University of North Carolina Rheumatology Lupus Clinic in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that during the summer months pharmacists required additional documentation of the diagnosis of autoimmune disease, resulting in unnecessary delays even when patients had been on the medication for many years.

She said emerging research has found patient-reported barriers to filling prescriptions, interruptions in HCQ treatment, and reported emotional stress and anxiety related to medication access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This experience with HCQ during the COVID-19 pandemic teaches us that while swift action and progress to address the immediate threats of the pandemic should be commended, it is important that we move forward in a conscious manner, guided by an evidence base that comes from high-quality research, not from rushed judgments based on preliminary studies, or pressure from political leaders,” Dr. Sheikh said.

Ms. Sirotich, Dr. Smith, Dr. Sheikh, and Dr. Ganio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New data document the global fallout for rheumatology patients when hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) supplies were being diverted to hospitals for COVID-19 patients.

Demand for HCQ soared on evidence-lacking claims that the drug was effective in treating and preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further research has since shown HCQ to be ineffective for COVID-19 and potentially harmful to patients.

But during the height of the COVID-19-related hype, patients worldwide with autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, had trouble getting the pills at all or couldn’t get as many as they needed for their chronic conditions.

Emily Sirotich, MSc, a PhD student at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., presented data at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology demonstrating that the severity of shortages differed widely.

Whereas 26.7% of rheumatology patients in Africa and 21.4% in southeast Asia said their pharmacy ran short of HCQ – which was originally developed as an antimalarial drug but has been found effective in treating some rheumatic diseases – only 6.8% of patients in the Americas and 2.1% in European regions reported the shortages.

“There are large regional disparities in access to antimalarials whether they were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or already existed,” she said in an interview.

Global survey polled patient experience

Ms. Sirotich’s team analyzed data from the Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey.

They found that from 9,393 respondents (average age 46.1 years and 90% female), 3,872 (41.2%) were taking antimalarials. Of these, 230 (6.2% globally) were unable to keep taking the drugs because their pharmacy ran out.

Researchers evaluated the effect of drug shortages on disease activity, mental health, and physical health by comparing mean values with two-sided independent t-tests to identify significant differences.

They found that patients who were unable to obtain antimalarials had significantly higher levels of rheumatic disease activity as well as poorer mental and physical health (all P < .001).

The survey was distributed online through patient support groups and on social media. Patients with rheumatic diseases or their parents anonymously entered data including their rheumatic disease diagnosis, medications, COVID-19 status, and disease outcomes.

Ms. Sirotich said they are currently gathering new data to see if the gaps in access to HCQ persist and whether the physical and mental consequences of not having the medications continue.

Hospitals stockpiled HCQ in the U.S.

Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), said in an interview that hospitals in the United States received large amounts of HCQ in late spring and early summer, donated by pharmaceutical companies for COVID-19 before the lack of evidence for efficacy became clear.

Hospitals found themselves sitting on large quantities of HCQ they couldn’t use while prescriptions for rheumatology outpatients were going unfilled.

It is only in recent months that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has given clear direction to hospitals on how to redistribute those supplies, Dr. Ganio said.

“There’s no good real good way to move a product from a hospital to a [drug store] down the street,” he said.

The Food and Drug Administration now lists the HCQ shortages as resolved.
 

Declined prescriptions have frustrated physicians

Brett Smith, DO, a pediatric and adult rheumatologist in Alcoa, Tenn., said he was frustrated by pharmacies declining his prescriptions for HCQ for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“I got notes from pharmacies that I should consider alternative agents,” he said in an interview. But the safety profiles of the alternatives were not as good, he said.

“Hydroxychloroquine has no risk of infection and no risk of malignancy, and they were proposing alternative agents that carry those risks,” he said.

“I had some people with RA who couldn’t get [HCQ] who had a substantial increase in swollen joints and pain without it,” he said.

Dr. Smith said some patients who use HCQ for off-label uses such as certain skin disorders still aren’t getting the drug, as off-label use has been discouraged to make sure those with lupus and RA have enough, he said.

Saira Sheikh, MD, director of the University of North Carolina Rheumatology Lupus Clinic in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that during the summer months pharmacists required additional documentation of the diagnosis of autoimmune disease, resulting in unnecessary delays even when patients had been on the medication for many years.

She said emerging research has found patient-reported barriers to filling prescriptions, interruptions in HCQ treatment, and reported emotional stress and anxiety related to medication access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This experience with HCQ during the COVID-19 pandemic teaches us that while swift action and progress to address the immediate threats of the pandemic should be commended, it is important that we move forward in a conscious manner, guided by an evidence base that comes from high-quality research, not from rushed judgments based on preliminary studies, or pressure from political leaders,” Dr. Sheikh said.

Ms. Sirotich, Dr. Smith, Dr. Sheikh, and Dr. Ganio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New data document the global fallout for rheumatology patients when hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) supplies were being diverted to hospitals for COVID-19 patients.

Demand for HCQ soared on evidence-lacking claims that the drug was effective in treating and preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further research has since shown HCQ to be ineffective for COVID-19 and potentially harmful to patients.

But during the height of the COVID-19-related hype, patients worldwide with autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, had trouble getting the pills at all or couldn’t get as many as they needed for their chronic conditions.

Emily Sirotich, MSc, a PhD student at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., presented data at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology demonstrating that the severity of shortages differed widely.

Whereas 26.7% of rheumatology patients in Africa and 21.4% in southeast Asia said their pharmacy ran short of HCQ – which was originally developed as an antimalarial drug but has been found effective in treating some rheumatic diseases – only 6.8% of patients in the Americas and 2.1% in European regions reported the shortages.

“There are large regional disparities in access to antimalarials whether they were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or already existed,” she said in an interview.

Global survey polled patient experience

Ms. Sirotich’s team analyzed data from the Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey.

They found that from 9,393 respondents (average age 46.1 years and 90% female), 3,872 (41.2%) were taking antimalarials. Of these, 230 (6.2% globally) were unable to keep taking the drugs because their pharmacy ran out.

Researchers evaluated the effect of drug shortages on disease activity, mental health, and physical health by comparing mean values with two-sided independent t-tests to identify significant differences.

They found that patients who were unable to obtain antimalarials had significantly higher levels of rheumatic disease activity as well as poorer mental and physical health (all P < .001).

The survey was distributed online through patient support groups and on social media. Patients with rheumatic diseases or their parents anonymously entered data including their rheumatic disease diagnosis, medications, COVID-19 status, and disease outcomes.

Ms. Sirotich said they are currently gathering new data to see if the gaps in access to HCQ persist and whether the physical and mental consequences of not having the medications continue.

Hospitals stockpiled HCQ in the U.S.

Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), said in an interview that hospitals in the United States received large amounts of HCQ in late spring and early summer, donated by pharmaceutical companies for COVID-19 before the lack of evidence for efficacy became clear.

Hospitals found themselves sitting on large quantities of HCQ they couldn’t use while prescriptions for rheumatology outpatients were going unfilled.

It is only in recent months that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has given clear direction to hospitals on how to redistribute those supplies, Dr. Ganio said.

“There’s no good real good way to move a product from a hospital to a [drug store] down the street,” he said.

The Food and Drug Administration now lists the HCQ shortages as resolved.
 

Declined prescriptions have frustrated physicians

Brett Smith, DO, a pediatric and adult rheumatologist in Alcoa, Tenn., said he was frustrated by pharmacies declining his prescriptions for HCQ for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“I got notes from pharmacies that I should consider alternative agents,” he said in an interview. But the safety profiles of the alternatives were not as good, he said.

“Hydroxychloroquine has no risk of infection and no risk of malignancy, and they were proposing alternative agents that carry those risks,” he said.

“I had some people with RA who couldn’t get [HCQ] who had a substantial increase in swollen joints and pain without it,” he said.

Dr. Smith said some patients who use HCQ for off-label uses such as certain skin disorders still aren’t getting the drug, as off-label use has been discouraged to make sure those with lupus and RA have enough, he said.

Saira Sheikh, MD, director of the University of North Carolina Rheumatology Lupus Clinic in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that during the summer months pharmacists required additional documentation of the diagnosis of autoimmune disease, resulting in unnecessary delays even when patients had been on the medication for many years.

She said emerging research has found patient-reported barriers to filling prescriptions, interruptions in HCQ treatment, and reported emotional stress and anxiety related to medication access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This experience with HCQ during the COVID-19 pandemic teaches us that while swift action and progress to address the immediate threats of the pandemic should be commended, it is important that we move forward in a conscious manner, guided by an evidence base that comes from high-quality research, not from rushed judgments based on preliminary studies, or pressure from political leaders,” Dr. Sheikh said.

Ms. Sirotich, Dr. Smith, Dr. Sheikh, and Dr. Ganio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection posed increased risk for pregnant women in terms of severe disease and poor pregnancy outcomes including preterm birth, based on data from two studies published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In a study of birth and infant outcomes, rates of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks’ gestational age) were higher among women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections compared with the national average (12.9% vs. 10.2%) wrote Kate R. Woodworth, MD, and colleagues of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team.

The researchers collected information on pregnancy and infant outcomes from 16 jurisdictions through the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Mothers and Babies Network (SET-NET). The study included 5,252 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported during March 29–Oct. 14, 2020.

Overall, 12.9% of the 3,912 live births with known gestational age were preterm. A total of 610 infants were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 2.6% were positive. Most of these perinatal infections (85%) occurred among infants born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection within 1 week of delivery.

Half of the infants with positive test results were preterm, possibly reflecting higher screening rates in the ICU, the researchers said. “These findings also support the growing evidence that although severe COVID-19 does occur in neonates the majority of term neonates experience asymptomatic infection or mild disease; however, information on long term outcomes among exposed infants is unknown.”

Address disparities that amplify risk

The study findings were limited by several factors including inconsistent symptom reporting, overrepresentation of Hispanic women, and incomplete information on pregnancy loss, Dr. Woodworth and associates noted. However, the results add to the knowledge about the impact of COVID-19 disease on pregnancy by providing a large, population-based cohort with completed pregnancy outcomes as well as infant testing.

“SET-NET will continue to follow pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2 through completion of pregnancy and infants until age 6 months to guide clinical and public health practice,” the researchers noted. “Longer-term investigation into solutions to alleviate underlying inequities in social determinants of health associated with disparities in maternal morbidity, mortality, and adverse pregnancy outcomes, and effectively addressing these inequities, could reduce the prevalence of conditions and experiences that might amplify risks from COVID-19,” they added.

Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women

In a second study published in the MMWR, Laura D. Zambrano, PhD, and colleagues, also of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team, compared data on 23,434 reportedly pregnant and 386,028 nonpregnant women of reproductive age (15-44 years) with confirmed and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections reported to the CDC between Jan. 22, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020.

After adjustment for age, race, and underlying medical conditions, pregnant women with COVID-19 disease were significantly more likely than were nonpregnant women to be admitted to intensive care (10.5 per 1,000 cases vs. 3.9 per 1,000 cases), to receive invasive ventilation (2.9 vs. 1.1), receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.7 vs. 0.3) and to die (1.5 vs. 1.2).

“Irrespective of pregnancy status, ICU admissions, receipt of invasive ventilation, and death occurred more often among women aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24 years,” Dr. Zambrano and associates noted. In addition, non-Hispanic Black and Black women comprised 14.1% of the study population but accounted for 36.6% of deaths overall (9 in pregnant women and 167 in nonpregnant women).

The findings in the study of characteristics were limited by several factors including the voluntary reporting of COVID-19 cases, potential reporting bias, and inadequate time to assess severe cases, the researchers noted. However, “data from previous influenza pandemics, including 2009 H1N1, have shown that pregnant women are at increased risk for severe outcomes including death and the absolute risks for severe outcomes were higher than in this study of COVID-19 during pregnancy.”

“Pregnant women should be informed of their risk for severe COVID-19–associated illness and the warning signs of severe COVID-19,” Dr. Zambrano and associates said. “Providers who care for pregnant women should be familiar with guidelines for medical management of COVID-19, including considerations for management of COVID-19 in pregnancy.”

More data needed for informed counseling

“It is important to conduct research trials involving pregnant women so that we have reliable data regarding outcomes with which to counsel women,” Angela Bianco, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, said in an interview.

“Often pregnant women are excluded from research trials, but the impact of the current public health crisis affects all persons regardless of pregnancy status,” she said.

Dr. Bianco said that she was not surprised by the findings of either study. “In fact, our own research produced similar results.”

“These recent publications found that age-matched pregnant versus nonpregnant women had more severe manifestations of COVID-19, and specifically that pregnant women had a higher risk of requiring ventilation and intensive care admission, as well as higher risk of death,” she said. “Previous studies examining the effect of other SARS viruses have demonstrated that pregnancy is associated with worse outcomes; these findings are likely attributable to the relative state of immunosuppression in pregnancy.” Also, “one of these trials found a greater risk of premature birth in women with COVID-19; this may largely be attributable to iatrogenic delivery due to maternal illness as opposed to spontaneous preterm birth,” Dr. Bianco explained.

“Data are emerging regarding the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pregnancy outcomes, however information remains limited,” Dr. Bianco noted. “Clinicians need to make patients aware that SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of severe illness requiring intensive care and/or ventilatory support and even death; however, the precise rates remain unknown. “COVID-19 during pregnancy may result in a preterm birth, but at this time the rate of fetal infection remains unknown,” she said. “Clinicians need to reinforce the importance of physical distancing, mask use, and proper hand hygiene, particularly in this vulnerable population.”

Dr. Bianco emphasized: “Longitudinal studies assessing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection at various gestational age periods are needed, as at this time most of the available data includes women with SARS-CoV-2 infection around the time of delivery. Long-term infant outcomes are needed, as well as studies assessing the risk of fetal infection.”

The studies were supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bianco had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Woodworth KR et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e2; Zambrano LD et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e3.

SARS-CoV-2 infection posed increased risk for pregnant women in terms of severe disease and poor pregnancy outcomes including preterm birth, based on data from two studies published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In a study of birth and infant outcomes, rates of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks’ gestational age) were higher among women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections compared with the national average (12.9% vs. 10.2%) wrote Kate R. Woodworth, MD, and colleagues of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team.

The researchers collected information on pregnancy and infant outcomes from 16 jurisdictions through the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Mothers and Babies Network (SET-NET). The study included 5,252 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported during March 29–Oct. 14, 2020.

Overall, 12.9% of the 3,912 live births with known gestational age were preterm. A total of 610 infants were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 2.6% were positive. Most of these perinatal infections (85%) occurred among infants born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection within 1 week of delivery.

Half of the infants with positive test results were preterm, possibly reflecting higher screening rates in the ICU, the researchers said. “These findings also support the growing evidence that although severe COVID-19 does occur in neonates the majority of term neonates experience asymptomatic infection or mild disease; however, information on long term outcomes among exposed infants is unknown.”

Address disparities that amplify risk

The study findings were limited by several factors including inconsistent symptom reporting, overrepresentation of Hispanic women, and incomplete information on pregnancy loss, Dr. Woodworth and associates noted. However, the results add to the knowledge about the impact of COVID-19 disease on pregnancy by providing a large, population-based cohort with completed pregnancy outcomes as well as infant testing.

“SET-NET will continue to follow pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2 through completion of pregnancy and infants until age 6 months to guide clinical and public health practice,” the researchers noted. “Longer-term investigation into solutions to alleviate underlying inequities in social determinants of health associated with disparities in maternal morbidity, mortality, and adverse pregnancy outcomes, and effectively addressing these inequities, could reduce the prevalence of conditions and experiences that might amplify risks from COVID-19,” they added.

Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women

In a second study published in the MMWR, Laura D. Zambrano, PhD, and colleagues, also of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team, compared data on 23,434 reportedly pregnant and 386,028 nonpregnant women of reproductive age (15-44 years) with confirmed and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections reported to the CDC between Jan. 22, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020.

After adjustment for age, race, and underlying medical conditions, pregnant women with COVID-19 disease were significantly more likely than were nonpregnant women to be admitted to intensive care (10.5 per 1,000 cases vs. 3.9 per 1,000 cases), to receive invasive ventilation (2.9 vs. 1.1), receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.7 vs. 0.3) and to die (1.5 vs. 1.2).

“Irrespective of pregnancy status, ICU admissions, receipt of invasive ventilation, and death occurred more often among women aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24 years,” Dr. Zambrano and associates noted. In addition, non-Hispanic Black and Black women comprised 14.1% of the study population but accounted for 36.6% of deaths overall (9 in pregnant women and 167 in nonpregnant women).

The findings in the study of characteristics were limited by several factors including the voluntary reporting of COVID-19 cases, potential reporting bias, and inadequate time to assess severe cases, the researchers noted. However, “data from previous influenza pandemics, including 2009 H1N1, have shown that pregnant women are at increased risk for severe outcomes including death and the absolute risks for severe outcomes were higher than in this study of COVID-19 during pregnancy.”

“Pregnant women should be informed of their risk for severe COVID-19–associated illness and the warning signs of severe COVID-19,” Dr. Zambrano and associates said. “Providers who care for pregnant women should be familiar with guidelines for medical management of COVID-19, including considerations for management of COVID-19 in pregnancy.”

More data needed for informed counseling

“It is important to conduct research trials involving pregnant women so that we have reliable data regarding outcomes with which to counsel women,” Angela Bianco, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, said in an interview.

“Often pregnant women are excluded from research trials, but the impact of the current public health crisis affects all persons regardless of pregnancy status,” she said.

Dr. Bianco said that she was not surprised by the findings of either study. “In fact, our own research produced similar results.”

“These recent publications found that age-matched pregnant versus nonpregnant women had more severe manifestations of COVID-19, and specifically that pregnant women had a higher risk of requiring ventilation and intensive care admission, as well as higher risk of death,” she said. “Previous studies examining the effect of other SARS viruses have demonstrated that pregnancy is associated with worse outcomes; these findings are likely attributable to the relative state of immunosuppression in pregnancy.” Also, “one of these trials found a greater risk of premature birth in women with COVID-19; this may largely be attributable to iatrogenic delivery due to maternal illness as opposed to spontaneous preterm birth,” Dr. Bianco explained.

“Data are emerging regarding the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pregnancy outcomes, however information remains limited,” Dr. Bianco noted. “Clinicians need to make patients aware that SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of severe illness requiring intensive care and/or ventilatory support and even death; however, the precise rates remain unknown. “COVID-19 during pregnancy may result in a preterm birth, but at this time the rate of fetal infection remains unknown,” she said. “Clinicians need to reinforce the importance of physical distancing, mask use, and proper hand hygiene, particularly in this vulnerable population.”

Dr. Bianco emphasized: “Longitudinal studies assessing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection at various gestational age periods are needed, as at this time most of the available data includes women with SARS-CoV-2 infection around the time of delivery. Long-term infant outcomes are needed, as well as studies assessing the risk of fetal infection.”

The studies were supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bianco had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Woodworth KR et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e2; Zambrano LD et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e3.

SARS-CoV-2 infection posed increased risk for pregnant women in terms of severe disease and poor pregnancy outcomes including preterm birth, based on data from two studies published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In a study of birth and infant outcomes, rates of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks’ gestational age) were higher among women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections compared with the national average (12.9% vs. 10.2%) wrote Kate R. Woodworth, MD, and colleagues of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team.

The researchers collected information on pregnancy and infant outcomes from 16 jurisdictions through the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Mothers and Babies Network (SET-NET). The study included 5,252 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported during March 29–Oct. 14, 2020.

Overall, 12.9% of the 3,912 live births with known gestational age were preterm. A total of 610 infants were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 2.6% were positive. Most of these perinatal infections (85%) occurred among infants born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection within 1 week of delivery.

Half of the infants with positive test results were preterm, possibly reflecting higher screening rates in the ICU, the researchers said. “These findings also support the growing evidence that although severe COVID-19 does occur in neonates the majority of term neonates experience asymptomatic infection or mild disease; however, information on long term outcomes among exposed infants is unknown.”

Address disparities that amplify risk

The study findings were limited by several factors including inconsistent symptom reporting, overrepresentation of Hispanic women, and incomplete information on pregnancy loss, Dr. Woodworth and associates noted. However, the results add to the knowledge about the impact of COVID-19 disease on pregnancy by providing a large, population-based cohort with completed pregnancy outcomes as well as infant testing.

“SET-NET will continue to follow pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2 through completion of pregnancy and infants until age 6 months to guide clinical and public health practice,” the researchers noted. “Longer-term investigation into solutions to alleviate underlying inequities in social determinants of health associated with disparities in maternal morbidity, mortality, and adverse pregnancy outcomes, and effectively addressing these inequities, could reduce the prevalence of conditions and experiences that might amplify risks from COVID-19,” they added.

Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women

In a second study published in the MMWR, Laura D. Zambrano, PhD, and colleagues, also of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team, compared data on 23,434 reportedly pregnant and 386,028 nonpregnant women of reproductive age (15-44 years) with confirmed and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections reported to the CDC between Jan. 22, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020.

After adjustment for age, race, and underlying medical conditions, pregnant women with COVID-19 disease were significantly more likely than were nonpregnant women to be admitted to intensive care (10.5 per 1,000 cases vs. 3.9 per 1,000 cases), to receive invasive ventilation (2.9 vs. 1.1), receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.7 vs. 0.3) and to die (1.5 vs. 1.2).

“Irrespective of pregnancy status, ICU admissions, receipt of invasive ventilation, and death occurred more often among women aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24 years,” Dr. Zambrano and associates noted. In addition, non-Hispanic Black and Black women comprised 14.1% of the study population but accounted for 36.6% of deaths overall (9 in pregnant women and 167 in nonpregnant women).

The findings in the study of characteristics were limited by several factors including the voluntary reporting of COVID-19 cases, potential reporting bias, and inadequate time to assess severe cases, the researchers noted. However, “data from previous influenza pandemics, including 2009 H1N1, have shown that pregnant women are at increased risk for severe outcomes including death and the absolute risks for severe outcomes were higher than in this study of COVID-19 during pregnancy.”

“Pregnant women should be informed of their risk for severe COVID-19–associated illness and the warning signs of severe COVID-19,” Dr. Zambrano and associates said. “Providers who care for pregnant women should be familiar with guidelines for medical management of COVID-19, including considerations for management of COVID-19 in pregnancy.”

More data needed for informed counseling

“It is important to conduct research trials involving pregnant women so that we have reliable data regarding outcomes with which to counsel women,” Angela Bianco, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, said in an interview.

“Often pregnant women are excluded from research trials, but the impact of the current public health crisis affects all persons regardless of pregnancy status,” she said.

Dr. Bianco said that she was not surprised by the findings of either study. “In fact, our own research produced similar results.”

“These recent publications found that age-matched pregnant versus nonpregnant women had more severe manifestations of COVID-19, and specifically that pregnant women had a higher risk of requiring ventilation and intensive care admission, as well as higher risk of death,” she said. “Previous studies examining the effect of other SARS viruses have demonstrated that pregnancy is associated with worse outcomes; these findings are likely attributable to the relative state of immunosuppression in pregnancy.” Also, “one of these trials found a greater risk of premature birth in women with COVID-19; this may largely be attributable to iatrogenic delivery due to maternal illness as opposed to spontaneous preterm birth,” Dr. Bianco explained.

“Data are emerging regarding the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pregnancy outcomes, however information remains limited,” Dr. Bianco noted. “Clinicians need to make patients aware that SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of severe illness requiring intensive care and/or ventilatory support and even death; however, the precise rates remain unknown. “COVID-19 during pregnancy may result in a preterm birth, but at this time the rate of fetal infection remains unknown,” she said. “Clinicians need to reinforce the importance of physical distancing, mask use, and proper hand hygiene, particularly in this vulnerable population.”

Dr. Bianco emphasized: “Longitudinal studies assessing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection at various gestational age periods are needed, as at this time most of the available data includes women with SARS-CoV-2 infection around the time of delivery. Long-term infant outcomes are needed, as well as studies assessing the risk of fetal infection.”

The studies were supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bianco had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Woodworth KR et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e2; Zambrano LD et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e3.