Two biomarkers could potentially indicate which children with SARS-CoV-2 infection will develop severe disease, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“Most children with COVID-19 present with common symptoms, such as fever, vomiting, and abdominal pain, which are very similar to other common viruses,” said senior researcher Usha Sethuraman, MD, professor of pediatric emergency medicine at Central Michigan University in Detroit.

“It is impossible, in many instances, to predict which child, even after identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is going to develop severe consequences, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome [MIS-C] or severe pneumonia,” she said in an interview.

“In fact, many of these kids have been sent home the first time around as they appeared clinically well, only to return a couple of days later in cardiogenic shock and requiring invasive interventions,” she added. “It would be invaluable to have the ability to know which child is likely to develop severe infection so appropriate disposition can be made and treatment initiated.”

In their prospective observational cohort study, Dr. Sethuraman and her colleagues collected saliva samples from children and adolescents when they were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. They assessed the saliva for micro (mi)RNAs, which are small noncoding RNAs that help regulate gene expression and are “thought to play a role in the regulation of inflammation following an infection,” the researchers write in their poster.

Of the 129 young people assessed, 32 (25%) developed severe infection and 97 (75%) did not. The researchers defined severe infection as an MIS-C diagnosis, death in the 30 days after diagnosis, or the need for at least 2 L of oxygen, inotropes, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

The expression of 63 miRNAs was significantly different between young people who developed severe infection and those who did not (P < .05). In cases of severe disease, expression was downregulated for 38 of the 63 miRNAs (60%).

“A model of six miRNAs was able to discriminate between severe and nonsevere infections with high sensitivity and accuracy in a preliminary analysis,” Dr. Sethuraman reported. “While salivary miRNA has been shown in other studies to help differentiate persistent concussion in children, we did not expect them to be downregulated in children with severe COVID-19.”

The significant differences in miRNA expression in those with and without severe disease is “striking,” despite this being an interim analysis in a fairly small sample size, said Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

“It will be interesting to see if these findings persist when larger numbers are analyzed,” she told this news organization. “Biomarkers that can predict potential severity can be very useful in making risk and management determinations. A child who has the biomarkers that indicate increased severity can be monitored more closely and complications can be preempted and prevented.”

The largest difference between severe and nonsevere cases was in the expression of miRNA 4495. In addition, miRNA 6125 appears to have prognostic potential, the researchers conclude. And three cytokines from saliva samples were elevated in cases of severe infection, but cytokine levels could not distinguish between severe and nonsevere infections, Dr. Sethuraman said.

If further research confirms these findings and determines that these miRNAs truly can provide insight into the likely course of an infection, it “would be a game changer, clinically,” she added, particularly because saliva samples are less invasive and less painful than blood draws.

The potential applications of these biomarkers could extend beyond children admitted to the hospital, Dr. Mohandas noted.

“For example, it would be a noninvasive and easy method to predict potential severity in a child seen in the emergency room and could help with deciding between observation, admission to the general floor, or admission to the ICU,” she told this news organization. “However, this test is not easily or routinely available at present, and cost and accessibility will be the main factors that will have to be overcome before it can be used for this purpose.”

These findings are preliminary, from a small sample, and require confirmation and validation, Dr. Sethuraman cautioned. And the team only analyzed saliva collected at diagnosis, so they have no data on potential changes in cytokines or miRNAs that occur as the disease progresses.

The next step is to “better characterize what happens with time to these profiles,” she explained. “The role of age, race, and gender differences in saliva biomarker profiles needs additional investigation as well.”

It would also be interesting to see whether varied expression of miRNAs “can help differentiate the various complications after COVID-19, like acute respiratory failure, MIS-C, and long COVID,” said Dr. Mohandas. “That would mean it could be used not only to potentially predict severity, but also to predict longer-term outcomes.”

This study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) program. Coauthor Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, reports being a paid consultant for Quadrant Biosciences.

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

Two biomarkers could potentially indicate which children with SARS-CoV-2 infection will develop severe disease, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“Most children with COVID-19 present with common symptoms, such as fever, vomiting, and abdominal pain, which are very similar to other common viruses,” said senior researcher Usha Sethuraman, MD, professor of pediatric emergency medicine at Central Michigan University in Detroit.

“It is impossible, in many instances, to predict which child, even after identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is going to develop severe consequences, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome [MIS-C] or severe pneumonia,” she said in an interview.

“In fact, many of these kids have been sent home the first time around as they appeared clinically well, only to return a couple of days later in cardiogenic shock and requiring invasive interventions,” she added. “It would be invaluable to have the ability to know which child is likely to develop severe infection so appropriate disposition can be made and treatment initiated.”

In their prospective observational cohort study, Dr. Sethuraman and her colleagues collected saliva samples from children and adolescents when they were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. They assessed the saliva for micro (mi)RNAs, which are small noncoding RNAs that help regulate gene expression and are “thought to play a role in the regulation of inflammation following an infection,” the researchers write in their poster.

Of the 129 young people assessed, 32 (25%) developed severe infection and 97 (75%) did not. The researchers defined severe infection as an MIS-C diagnosis, death in the 30 days after diagnosis, or the need for at least 2 L of oxygen, inotropes, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

The expression of 63 miRNAs was significantly different between young people who developed severe infection and those who did not (P < .05). In cases of severe disease, expression was downregulated for 38 of the 63 miRNAs (60%).

“A model of six miRNAs was able to discriminate between severe and nonsevere infections with high sensitivity and accuracy in a preliminary analysis,” Dr. Sethuraman reported. “While salivary miRNA has been shown in other studies to help differentiate persistent concussion in children, we did not expect them to be downregulated in children with severe COVID-19.”

The significant differences in miRNA expression in those with and without severe disease is “striking,” despite this being an interim analysis in a fairly small sample size, said Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

“It will be interesting to see if these findings persist when larger numbers are analyzed,” she told this news organization. “Biomarkers that can predict potential severity can be very useful in making risk and management determinations. A child who has the biomarkers that indicate increased severity can be monitored more closely and complications can be preempted and prevented.”

The largest difference between severe and nonsevere cases was in the expression of miRNA 4495. In addition, miRNA 6125 appears to have prognostic potential, the researchers conclude. And three cytokines from saliva samples were elevated in cases of severe infection, but cytokine levels could not distinguish between severe and nonsevere infections, Dr. Sethuraman said.

If further research confirms these findings and determines that these miRNAs truly can provide insight into the likely course of an infection, it “would be a game changer, clinically,” she added, particularly because saliva samples are less invasive and less painful than blood draws.

The potential applications of these biomarkers could extend beyond children admitted to the hospital, Dr. Mohandas noted.

“For example, it would be a noninvasive and easy method to predict potential severity in a child seen in the emergency room and could help with deciding between observation, admission to the general floor, or admission to the ICU,” she told this news organization. “However, this test is not easily or routinely available at present, and cost and accessibility will be the main factors that will have to be overcome before it can be used for this purpose.”

These findings are preliminary, from a small sample, and require confirmation and validation, Dr. Sethuraman cautioned. And the team only analyzed saliva collected at diagnosis, so they have no data on potential changes in cytokines or miRNAs that occur as the disease progresses.

The next step is to “better characterize what happens with time to these profiles,” she explained. “The role of age, race, and gender differences in saliva biomarker profiles needs additional investigation as well.”

It would also be interesting to see whether varied expression of miRNAs “can help differentiate the various complications after COVID-19, like acute respiratory failure, MIS-C, and long COVID,” said Dr. Mohandas. “That would mean it could be used not only to potentially predict severity, but also to predict longer-term outcomes.”

This study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) program. Coauthor Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, reports being a paid consultant for Quadrant Biosciences.

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

Two biomarkers could potentially indicate which children with SARS-CoV-2 infection will develop severe disease, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“Most children with COVID-19 present with common symptoms, such as fever, vomiting, and abdominal pain, which are very similar to other common viruses,” said senior researcher Usha Sethuraman, MD, professor of pediatric emergency medicine at Central Michigan University in Detroit.

“It is impossible, in many instances, to predict which child, even after identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is going to develop severe consequences, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome [MIS-C] or severe pneumonia,” she said in an interview.

“In fact, many of these kids have been sent home the first time around as they appeared clinically well, only to return a couple of days later in cardiogenic shock and requiring invasive interventions,” she added. “It would be invaluable to have the ability to know which child is likely to develop severe infection so appropriate disposition can be made and treatment initiated.”

In their prospective observational cohort study, Dr. Sethuraman and her colleagues collected saliva samples from children and adolescents when they were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. They assessed the saliva for micro (mi)RNAs, which are small noncoding RNAs that help regulate gene expression and are “thought to play a role in the regulation of inflammation following an infection,” the researchers write in their poster.

Of the 129 young people assessed, 32 (25%) developed severe infection and 97 (75%) did not. The researchers defined severe infection as an MIS-C diagnosis, death in the 30 days after diagnosis, or the need for at least 2 L of oxygen, inotropes, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

The expression of 63 miRNAs was significantly different between young people who developed severe infection and those who did not (P < .05). In cases of severe disease, expression was downregulated for 38 of the 63 miRNAs (60%).

“A model of six miRNAs was able to discriminate between severe and nonsevere infections with high sensitivity and accuracy in a preliminary analysis,” Dr. Sethuraman reported. “While salivary miRNA has been shown in other studies to help differentiate persistent concussion in children, we did not expect them to be downregulated in children with severe COVID-19.”

The significant differences in miRNA expression in those with and without severe disease is “striking,” despite this being an interim analysis in a fairly small sample size, said Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

“It will be interesting to see if these findings persist when larger numbers are analyzed,” she told this news organization. “Biomarkers that can predict potential severity can be very useful in making risk and management determinations. A child who has the biomarkers that indicate increased severity can be monitored more closely and complications can be preempted and prevented.”

The largest difference between severe and nonsevere cases was in the expression of miRNA 4495. In addition, miRNA 6125 appears to have prognostic potential, the researchers conclude. And three cytokines from saliva samples were elevated in cases of severe infection, but cytokine levels could not distinguish between severe and nonsevere infections, Dr. Sethuraman said.

If further research confirms these findings and determines that these miRNAs truly can provide insight into the likely course of an infection, it “would be a game changer, clinically,” she added, particularly because saliva samples are less invasive and less painful than blood draws.

The potential applications of these biomarkers could extend beyond children admitted to the hospital, Dr. Mohandas noted.

“For example, it would be a noninvasive and easy method to predict potential severity in a child seen in the emergency room and could help with deciding between observation, admission to the general floor, or admission to the ICU,” she told this news organization. “However, this test is not easily or routinely available at present, and cost and accessibility will be the main factors that will have to be overcome before it can be used for this purpose.”

These findings are preliminary, from a small sample, and require confirmation and validation, Dr. Sethuraman cautioned. And the team only analyzed saliva collected at diagnosis, so they have no data on potential changes in cytokines or miRNAs that occur as the disease progresses.

The next step is to “better characterize what happens with time to these profiles,” she explained. “The role of age, race, and gender differences in saliva biomarker profiles needs additional investigation as well.”

It would also be interesting to see whether varied expression of miRNAs “can help differentiate the various complications after COVID-19, like acute respiratory failure, MIS-C, and long COVID,” said Dr. Mohandas. “That would mean it could be used not only to potentially predict severity, but also to predict longer-term outcomes.”

This study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) program. Coauthor Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, reports being a paid consultant for Quadrant Biosciences.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee on Oct. 15 voted 19-0 to authorize second doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost immunity. It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
 

Johnson &amp; Johnson

In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.

It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.

Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.

In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.

This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
 

Limited data

The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.

These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.

But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.

Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.

“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”

“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.

She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.

But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.

“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.

Who needs a second dose?

On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.

COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.

The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.

Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.

The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.

“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
 

Trying to avoid confusion

Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.

“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.

Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.

Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.

“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.

Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.

“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
 

This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee on Oct. 15 voted 19-0 to authorize second doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost immunity. It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
 

Johnson &amp; Johnson

In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.

It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.

Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.

In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.

This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
 

Limited data

The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.

These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.

But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.

Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.

“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”

“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.

She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.

But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.

“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.

Who needs a second dose?

On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.

COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.

The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.

Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.

The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.

“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
 

Trying to avoid confusion

Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.

“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.

Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.

Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.

“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.

Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.

“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
 

This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee on Oct. 15 voted 19-0 to authorize second doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost immunity. It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
 

Johnson &amp; Johnson

In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.

It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.

Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.

In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.

This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
 

Limited data

The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.

These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.

But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.

Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.

“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”

“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.

She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.

But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.

“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.

Who needs a second dose?

On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.

COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.

The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.

Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.

The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.

“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
 

Trying to avoid confusion

Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.

“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.

Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.

Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.

“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.

Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.

“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
 

This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) have a twofold increased risk for COVID-related hospitalization and death even after vaccination, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data on over 10,000 vaccinated individuals with various SUDs and almost 600,000 vaccinated individuals without an SUD. They found about twice as many individuals with an SUD had a breakthrough COVID-19 infection as their counterparts without an SUD, at 7% versus 3.6%, respectively.

Worrisome phase

SUDs are “often associated with multiple comorbid conditions that are known risk factors for severe outcome of COVID-19 infection,” the investigators note.

Research published early in the pandemic showed patients with SUDs, including alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, opioid, and tobacco use disorders, were “at increased risk for COVID-19 infection and associated severe outcomes, especially among African Americans,” they add.

To date, no research has focused on the potential risk for COVID in individuals with SUDs following vaccination. In addition, although vaccines are “very effective,” breakthrough infections have been recorded, “highlighting the need to identify populations that might be most vulnerable, as we have entered a worrisome new phase of the pandemic,” the authors write.

For the study, researchers used a data analytics platform that included de-identified information from 63 health care organizations across the U.S. to estimate the risk for breakthrough COVID-19 among vaccinated patients with SUD (n = 30,183; mean age 59.3, 51.4% male, 63.2% White, 26.2% African American), compared with vaccinated individuals without SUDs (n = 549,189; mean age 54.7, 43.2% male, 63.4% White, 14.3% African American) between December 2020 and August 2021.

They also conducted statistical analyses to examine how the rate of breakthrough cases changed over that timeframe.

The cohorts were matched by demographics, adverse socioeconomic determinants of health, lifetime medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and vaccine type.

Among vaccinated SUD patients, three-quarters received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, one-fifth received the Moderna vaccine, and 3.3% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

In contrast, among the vaccinated non-SUD population, almost all (88.2%) received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 10% received Moderna, and only 1.2% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
 

Underlying drivers

The prevalence of adverse socioeconomic determinants of health was higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (7.9% vs. 1.2%, respectively). Moreover, vaccinated patients with SUD had a higher lifetime prevalence of all comorbidities as well as transplants (all Ps < .001).

The risk for breakthrough infection was significantly higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (all Ps < .001).

After controlling for adverse socioeconomic determinants of health and comorbid medical conditions, the risk for breakthrough infection “no longer differed in SUD compared to non-SUD cohorts, except for patients with cannabis use disorder, who remained at significantly increased risk,” the authors report.

In both populations, the rate of breakthrough infections “steadily increased” between January and August 2021.

The risk for hospitalization and death was higher among those with breakthrough infections, compared with those in the matched cohort without breakthrough infections, but the risk for hospitalization and death were higher in the SUD compared with the non-SUD population.

In the SUD patients, after matching an array of demographic, socioeconomic, and medical factors as well as vaccine type, only cannabis use disorder was associated with a higher risk in African Americans, compared with matched Caucasians (HR = 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.51).

“When we adjusted the data to account for comorbidities and for socioeconomic background, we no longer saw a difference between those with substance use disorders and those without – the only exception to this was for people with cannabis use disorder,” said Dr. Volkow.

“This suggests that these factors, which are often associated with substance use disorders, are likely the underlying drivers for the increased risk,” she continued.

She added that it is important for other studies to investigate why individuals with cannabis use disorder had a higher risk for breakthrough infections.
 

Good news, bad news

Commenting for this news organization, Anna Lembke, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said the study is important and contains good news and bad news.

The good news, she said, “is that, after controlling for comorbidities and socioeconomic variables, patients with SUDs are no more likely than patients without SUDs to get COVID after getting vaccinated, and the bad news is that if vaccinated patients with SUDs do get COVID, they’re more likely to end up hospitalized or die from it,” said Dr. Lembke, who was not involved with the study.

“The take-home message for clinicians is that if your vaccinated patient with an SUD gets COVID, be on the alert for a more complicated medical outcome and a higher risk of death,” warned Dr. Lembke.

This study was supported by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse, the U.S. National Institute of Aging, and the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative (CTSC) of Cleveland. No disclosures were listed on the original study. Dr. Lembke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) have a twofold increased risk for COVID-related hospitalization and death even after vaccination, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data on over 10,000 vaccinated individuals with various SUDs and almost 600,000 vaccinated individuals without an SUD. They found about twice as many individuals with an SUD had a breakthrough COVID-19 infection as their counterparts without an SUD, at 7% versus 3.6%, respectively.

Worrisome phase

SUDs are “often associated with multiple comorbid conditions that are known risk factors for severe outcome of COVID-19 infection,” the investigators note.

Research published early in the pandemic showed patients with SUDs, including alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, opioid, and tobacco use disorders, were “at increased risk for COVID-19 infection and associated severe outcomes, especially among African Americans,” they add.

To date, no research has focused on the potential risk for COVID in individuals with SUDs following vaccination. In addition, although vaccines are “very effective,” breakthrough infections have been recorded, “highlighting the need to identify populations that might be most vulnerable, as we have entered a worrisome new phase of the pandemic,” the authors write.

For the study, researchers used a data analytics platform that included de-identified information from 63 health care organizations across the U.S. to estimate the risk for breakthrough COVID-19 among vaccinated patients with SUD (n = 30,183; mean age 59.3, 51.4% male, 63.2% White, 26.2% African American), compared with vaccinated individuals without SUDs (n = 549,189; mean age 54.7, 43.2% male, 63.4% White, 14.3% African American) between December 2020 and August 2021.

They also conducted statistical analyses to examine how the rate of breakthrough cases changed over that timeframe.

The cohorts were matched by demographics, adverse socioeconomic determinants of health, lifetime medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and vaccine type.

Among vaccinated SUD patients, three-quarters received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, one-fifth received the Moderna vaccine, and 3.3% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

In contrast, among the vaccinated non-SUD population, almost all (88.2%) received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 10% received Moderna, and only 1.2% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
 

Underlying drivers

The prevalence of adverse socioeconomic determinants of health was higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (7.9% vs. 1.2%, respectively). Moreover, vaccinated patients with SUD had a higher lifetime prevalence of all comorbidities as well as transplants (all Ps < .001).

The risk for breakthrough infection was significantly higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (all Ps < .001).

After controlling for adverse socioeconomic determinants of health and comorbid medical conditions, the risk for breakthrough infection “no longer differed in SUD compared to non-SUD cohorts, except for patients with cannabis use disorder, who remained at significantly increased risk,” the authors report.

In both populations, the rate of breakthrough infections “steadily increased” between January and August 2021.

The risk for hospitalization and death was higher among those with breakthrough infections, compared with those in the matched cohort without breakthrough infections, but the risk for hospitalization and death were higher in the SUD compared with the non-SUD population.

In the SUD patients, after matching an array of demographic, socioeconomic, and medical factors as well as vaccine type, only cannabis use disorder was associated with a higher risk in African Americans, compared with matched Caucasians (HR = 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.51).

“When we adjusted the data to account for comorbidities and for socioeconomic background, we no longer saw a difference between those with substance use disorders and those without – the only exception to this was for people with cannabis use disorder,” said Dr. Volkow.

“This suggests that these factors, which are often associated with substance use disorders, are likely the underlying drivers for the increased risk,” she continued.

She added that it is important for other studies to investigate why individuals with cannabis use disorder had a higher risk for breakthrough infections.
 

Good news, bad news

Commenting for this news organization, Anna Lembke, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said the study is important and contains good news and bad news.

The good news, she said, “is that, after controlling for comorbidities and socioeconomic variables, patients with SUDs are no more likely than patients without SUDs to get COVID after getting vaccinated, and the bad news is that if vaccinated patients with SUDs do get COVID, they’re more likely to end up hospitalized or die from it,” said Dr. Lembke, who was not involved with the study.

“The take-home message for clinicians is that if your vaccinated patient with an SUD gets COVID, be on the alert for a more complicated medical outcome and a higher risk of death,” warned Dr. Lembke.

This study was supported by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse, the U.S. National Institute of Aging, and the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative (CTSC) of Cleveland. No disclosures were listed on the original study. Dr. Lembke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) have a twofold increased risk for COVID-related hospitalization and death even after vaccination, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data on over 10,000 vaccinated individuals with various SUDs and almost 600,000 vaccinated individuals without an SUD. They found about twice as many individuals with an SUD had a breakthrough COVID-19 infection as their counterparts without an SUD, at 7% versus 3.6%, respectively.

Worrisome phase

SUDs are “often associated with multiple comorbid conditions that are known risk factors for severe outcome of COVID-19 infection,” the investigators note.

Research published early in the pandemic showed patients with SUDs, including alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, opioid, and tobacco use disorders, were “at increased risk for COVID-19 infection and associated severe outcomes, especially among African Americans,” they add.

To date, no research has focused on the potential risk for COVID in individuals with SUDs following vaccination. In addition, although vaccines are “very effective,” breakthrough infections have been recorded, “highlighting the need to identify populations that might be most vulnerable, as we have entered a worrisome new phase of the pandemic,” the authors write.

For the study, researchers used a data analytics platform that included de-identified information from 63 health care organizations across the U.S. to estimate the risk for breakthrough COVID-19 among vaccinated patients with SUD (n = 30,183; mean age 59.3, 51.4% male, 63.2% White, 26.2% African American), compared with vaccinated individuals without SUDs (n = 549,189; mean age 54.7, 43.2% male, 63.4% White, 14.3% African American) between December 2020 and August 2021.

They also conducted statistical analyses to examine how the rate of breakthrough cases changed over that timeframe.

The cohorts were matched by demographics, adverse socioeconomic determinants of health, lifetime medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and vaccine type.

Among vaccinated SUD patients, three-quarters received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, one-fifth received the Moderna vaccine, and 3.3% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

In contrast, among the vaccinated non-SUD population, almost all (88.2%) received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 10% received Moderna, and only 1.2% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
 

Underlying drivers

The prevalence of adverse socioeconomic determinants of health was higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (7.9% vs. 1.2%, respectively). Moreover, vaccinated patients with SUD had a higher lifetime prevalence of all comorbidities as well as transplants (all Ps < .001).

The risk for breakthrough infection was significantly higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (all Ps < .001).

After controlling for adverse socioeconomic determinants of health and comorbid medical conditions, the risk for breakthrough infection “no longer differed in SUD compared to non-SUD cohorts, except for patients with cannabis use disorder, who remained at significantly increased risk,” the authors report.

In both populations, the rate of breakthrough infections “steadily increased” between January and August 2021.

The risk for hospitalization and death was higher among those with breakthrough infections, compared with those in the matched cohort without breakthrough infections, but the risk for hospitalization and death were higher in the SUD compared with the non-SUD population.

In the SUD patients, after matching an array of demographic, socioeconomic, and medical factors as well as vaccine type, only cannabis use disorder was associated with a higher risk in African Americans, compared with matched Caucasians (HR = 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.51).

“When we adjusted the data to account for comorbidities and for socioeconomic background, we no longer saw a difference between those with substance use disorders and those without – the only exception to this was for people with cannabis use disorder,” said Dr. Volkow.

“This suggests that these factors, which are often associated with substance use disorders, are likely the underlying drivers for the increased risk,” she continued.

She added that it is important for other studies to investigate why individuals with cannabis use disorder had a higher risk for breakthrough infections.
 

Good news, bad news

Commenting for this news organization, Anna Lembke, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said the study is important and contains good news and bad news.

The good news, she said, “is that, after controlling for comorbidities and socioeconomic variables, patients with SUDs are no more likely than patients without SUDs to get COVID after getting vaccinated, and the bad news is that if vaccinated patients with SUDs do get COVID, they’re more likely to end up hospitalized or die from it,” said Dr. Lembke, who was not involved with the study.

“The take-home message for clinicians is that if your vaccinated patient with an SUD gets COVID, be on the alert for a more complicated medical outcome and a higher risk of death,” warned Dr. Lembke.

This study was supported by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse, the U.S. National Institute of Aging, and the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative (CTSC) of Cleveland. No disclosures were listed on the original study. Dr. Lembke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ready access to maternity services in rural areas is not a given, yet access to obstetric hospitals is associated with decreased rates of preterm birth and neonatal/perinatal mortality.

Little is known, however, about the availability of obstetric centers with respect to birth volume, geographic distribution among states, proximity of obstetric hospitals, and urban adjacency.

“This knowledge is fundamental to inform clinical and policy efforts to optimize perinatal regionalization, care delivery, and outcomes,” wrote Sara C. Handley, MD, MSCE, of the Roberts Center for Pediatric Research at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and colleagues, who undertook to fill that information gap in a study. It was published online Oct. 8 in JAMA Network Open.

Her group found birth volumes varied among obstetric hospitals, with many low-volume facilities located in rural, even isolated, areas, which suggests a need to ensure better access to perinatal care for women in these locations.

Using American Hospital Association data, the researchers examined the birth volumes and geographic distributions of 3,207 maternity hospitals from 2010 to 2018. In a cohort of 34,054,951 births, 56.8% occurred in high-volume obstetric facilities, and 37.4% in low-volume hospitals. Among the latter, 18.9% were isolated in location and not within 30 miles of any other obstetric hospital.

Most infants (19,327,487) were born in hospitals with more than 2,000 births per year, the study found, but a substantial 2,528,259, or 7.4%, were born in low-volume centers reporting 10 to 500 births annually.

“We were surprised by the number of low-volume hospitals and the number of births in low-volume hospitals,” Dr. Handley said in an interview. Many low-volume hospitals are in rural areas, which may require patients to drive long distances. These hospitals are at high risk of closure and such closures may further increase travel time.

Among low-volume hospitals, 23.9% were within the study proximity threshold of 30 miles of a hospital with more than 2,000 deliveries per year. “And when you’re in labor, even 30 miles is a long drive,” Dr. Handley said.

According to the authors, these findings highlight the need to balance care availability and sufficient patient volume by ensuring access and referral to high-quality perinatal care. They suggest perinatal care regionalization policies need review to improve maternal and infant outcomes.

But although the need is pressing, meeting it will not happen quickly, Dr. Handley said. “Change will require buy-in from multiple stakeholders and investment at many levels.”

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has previously raised the alarm about general health disparities among women in underserved rural communities.

Anne L. Banfield, MD, director of women’s health services at Davis Medical Center in the mountain town of Elkins, W.V., is one obstetrician/gynecologist who is all too familiar with the problem of shrinking perinatal facilities. “Closures have impacted services,” she said in an interview, noting that one hospital in her region closed its birthing unit because of financial considerations. “The next closest facility to ours is 20 miles to the west and more than 60 miles in any other direction,” she said. “And geography can create challenges. Because we’re located in the mountains, it can take 2 hours to get to our facility.”

The hope is that these findings will inform discussions on regionalization policy for perinatal care to improve maternal and infant outcomes and address concerns about isolated obstetric hospitals, the authors said.

Dr. Banfield emphasized that obstetric facilities should be made a priority even if they’re less profitable than other services and not a major contributor to the bottom line. But that will require rethinking reimbursement models to align with community needs. “Everyone has a mother – no one springs from a pod – but the fact is, we’re not paying enough for maternal health care,” she said.

A top priority, she noted, is attracting sufficient staff; not only doctors, but also nurses and midwives with the skill sets required for perinatal care, which differ from those of general surgery and outpatient services. “We have to make financial changes to make this care feasible,” Dr. Banfield said.

In similar recent research, a study published online in the October issue of Health Affairs, showed that with rural hospitals facing increased financial distress, they may merge with other hospitals/systems, potentially reducing service lines that are less profitable or that duplicate services offered by the acquiring institution. Among those often on the chopping block is perinatal care.

“Our analysis of rural hospital discharge data found that merged hospitals were more likely than independent hospitals to eliminate maternal, neonatal, and also surgical care,” lead author Lan Liang, PhD, senior economist at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) in Rockville, Md., said in an interview. This finding was consistent with previous AHRQ research using hospital self-reports, she added.

The study sample comprised 172 rural hospitals that merged during the period 2009-2016 in 32 states and 549 nonmerged comparison hospitals. In the premerger period, 74.5% of hospitals that merged provided maternal/neonatal care. This percentage decreased to 61.1% in the postmerger period. In contrast, the percentage of comparison hospitals providing these services remained stable during both periods (64.3% and 65.1%, respectively).

After weighting and adjusting for variables, the researchers found that from the premerger period to 1 year post merger, the percentage of hospitals providing these services decreased by 6.7 percentage points more for merged than for comparison hospitals (P = .06).

In the second year post merger, the percentage of hospitals providing maternal/neonatal services decreased by 7.2 percentage points more for merged than for comparison hospitals (P = .09).

“We did not, however, see a reduction in the volume of maternity services in rural communities, which suggests that women are just traveling farther to give birth,” Dr. Liang said.

Although mergers might salvage hospitals’ sustainability, the authors wrote, they do not necessarily mean that service lines are retained or that hospitals are as responsive to community needs as they were before the merger.

The analysis concluded that continuing access to maternal/neonatal care in rural areas is not a given. “Stakeholders, including payers, policy makers, and community-based organizations, need to monitor the availability of maternity services to ensure women have options in childbirth providers,” Dr. Liang said.

She and her associates called for payer-supported, multi-stakeholder initiatives to transform rural health care to be both financially sustainable and responsive to population needs.

The study by Dr. Handley and colleagues was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Eunice Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). Dr. Handley reported grants from the NIH outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported grants from, variously, the NIH, the NICHD, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The study by Dr. Liang and associates was supported by the AHRQ’s Center for Financing, Access, and Cost Trends, and the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. The authors disclosed no competing interests.

Ready access to maternity services in rural areas is not a given, yet access to obstetric hospitals is associated with decreased rates of preterm birth and neonatal/perinatal mortality.

Little is known, however, about the availability of obstetric centers with respect to birth volume, geographic distribution among states, proximity of obstetric hospitals, and urban adjacency.

“This knowledge is fundamental to inform clinical and policy efforts to optimize perinatal regionalization, care delivery, and outcomes,” wrote Sara C. Handley, MD, MSCE, of the Roberts Center for Pediatric Research at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and colleagues, who undertook to fill that information gap in a study. It was published online Oct. 8 in JAMA Network Open.

Her group found birth volumes varied among obstetric hospitals, with many low-volume facilities located in rural, even isolated, areas, which suggests a need to ensure better access to perinatal care for women in these locations.

Using American Hospital Association data, the researchers examined the birth volumes and geographic distributions of 3,207 maternity hospitals from 2010 to 2018. In a cohort of 34,054,951 births, 56.8% occurred in high-volume obstetric facilities, and 37.4% in low-volume hospitals. Among the latter, 18.9% were isolated in location and not within 30 miles of any other obstetric hospital.

Most infants (19,327,487) were born in hospitals with more than 2,000 births per year, the study found, but a substantial 2,528,259, or 7.4%, were born in low-volume centers reporting 10 to 500 births annually.

“We were surprised by the number of low-volume hospitals and the number of births in low-volume hospitals,” Dr. Handley said in an interview. Many low-volume hospitals are in rural areas, which may require patients to drive long distances. These hospitals are at high risk of closure and such closures may further increase travel time.

Among low-volume hospitals, 23.9% were within the study proximity threshold of 30 miles of a hospital with more than 2,000 deliveries per year. “And when you’re in labor, even 30 miles is a long drive,” Dr. Handley said.

According to the authors, these findings highlight the need to balance care availability and sufficient patient volume by ensuring access and referral to high-quality perinatal care. They suggest perinatal care regionalization policies need review to improve maternal and infant outcomes.

But although the need is pressing, meeting it will not happen quickly, Dr. Handley said. “Change will require buy-in from multiple stakeholders and investment at many levels.”

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has previously raised the alarm about general health disparities among women in underserved rural communities.

Anne L. Banfield, MD, director of women’s health services at Davis Medical Center in the mountain town of Elkins, W.V., is one obstetrician/gynecologist who is all too familiar with the problem of shrinking perinatal facilities. “Closures have impacted services,” she said in an interview, noting that one hospital in her region closed its birthing unit because of financial considerations. “The next closest facility to ours is 20 miles to the west and more than 60 miles in any other direction,” she said. “And geography can create challenges. Because we’re located in the mountains, it can take 2 hours to get to our facility.”

The hope is that these findings will inform discussions on regionalization policy for perinatal care to improve maternal and infant outcomes and address concerns about isolated obstetric hospitals, the authors said.

Dr. Banfield emphasized that obstetric facilities should be made a priority even if they’re less profitable than other services and not a major contributor to the bottom line. But that will require rethinking reimbursement models to align with community needs. “Everyone has a mother – no one springs from a pod – but the fact is, we’re not paying enough for maternal health care,” she said.

A top priority, she noted, is attracting sufficient staff; not only doctors, but also nurses and midwives with the skill sets required for perinatal care, which differ from those of general surgery and outpatient services. “We have to make financial changes to make this care feasible,” Dr. Banfield said.

In similar recent research, a study published online in the October issue of Health Affairs, showed that with rural hospitals facing increased financial distress, they may merge with other hospitals/systems, potentially reducing service lines that are less profitable or that duplicate services offered by the acquiring institution. Among those often on the chopping block is perinatal care.

“Our analysis of rural hospital discharge data found that merged hospitals were more likely than independent hospitals to eliminate maternal, neonatal, and also surgical care,” lead author Lan Liang, PhD, senior economist at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) in Rockville, Md., said in an interview. This finding was consistent with previous AHRQ research using hospital self-reports, she added.

The study sample comprised 172 rural hospitals that merged during the period 2009-2016 in 32 states and 549 nonmerged comparison hospitals. In the premerger period, 74.5% of hospitals that merged provided maternal/neonatal care. This percentage decreased to 61.1% in the postmerger period. In contrast, the percentage of comparison hospitals providing these services remained stable during both periods (64.3% and 65.1%, respectively).

After weighting and adjusting for variables, the researchers found that from the premerger period to 1 year post merger, the percentage of hospitals providing these services decreased by 6.7 percentage points more for merged than for comparison hospitals (P = .06).

In the second year post merger, the percentage of hospitals providing maternal/neonatal services decreased by 7.2 percentage points more for merged than for comparison hospitals (P = .09).

“We did not, however, see a reduction in the volume of maternity services in rural communities, which suggests that women are just traveling farther to give birth,” Dr. Liang said.

Although mergers might salvage hospitals’ sustainability, the authors wrote, they do not necessarily mean that service lines are retained or that hospitals are as responsive to community needs as they were before the merger.

The analysis concluded that continuing access to maternal/neonatal care in rural areas is not a given. “Stakeholders, including payers, policy makers, and community-based organizations, need to monitor the availability of maternity services to ensure women have options in childbirth providers,” Dr. Liang said.

She and her associates called for payer-supported, multi-stakeholder initiatives to transform rural health care to be both financially sustainable and responsive to population needs.

The study by Dr. Handley and colleagues was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Eunice Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). Dr. Handley reported grants from the NIH outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported grants from, variously, the NIH, the NICHD, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The study by Dr. Liang and associates was supported by the AHRQ’s Center for Financing, Access, and Cost Trends, and the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. The authors disclosed no competing interests.

Ready access to maternity services in rural areas is not a given, yet access to obstetric hospitals is associated with decreased rates of preterm birth and neonatal/perinatal mortality.

Little is known, however, about the availability of obstetric centers with respect to birth volume, geographic distribution among states, proximity of obstetric hospitals, and urban adjacency.

“This knowledge is fundamental to inform clinical and policy efforts to optimize perinatal regionalization, care delivery, and outcomes,” wrote Sara C. Handley, MD, MSCE, of the Roberts Center for Pediatric Research at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and colleagues, who undertook to fill that information gap in a study. It was published online Oct. 8 in JAMA Network Open.

Her group found birth volumes varied among obstetric hospitals, with many low-volume facilities located in rural, even isolated, areas, which suggests a need to ensure better access to perinatal care for women in these locations.

Using American Hospital Association data, the researchers examined the birth volumes and geographic distributions of 3,207 maternity hospitals from 2010 to 2018. In a cohort of 34,054,951 births, 56.8% occurred in high-volume obstetric facilities, and 37.4% in low-volume hospitals. Among the latter, 18.9% were isolated in location and not within 30 miles of any other obstetric hospital.

Most infants (19,327,487) were born in hospitals with more than 2,000 births per year, the study found, but a substantial 2,528,259, or 7.4%, were born in low-volume centers reporting 10 to 500 births annually.

“We were surprised by the number of low-volume hospitals and the number of births in low-volume hospitals,” Dr. Handley said in an interview. Many low-volume hospitals are in rural areas, which may require patients to drive long distances. These hospitals are at high risk of closure and such closures may further increase travel time.

Among low-volume hospitals, 23.9% were within the study proximity threshold of 30 miles of a hospital with more than 2,000 deliveries per year. “And when you’re in labor, even 30 miles is a long drive,” Dr. Handley said.

According to the authors, these findings highlight the need to balance care availability and sufficient patient volume by ensuring access and referral to high-quality perinatal care. They suggest perinatal care regionalization policies need review to improve maternal and infant outcomes.

But although the need is pressing, meeting it will not happen quickly, Dr. Handley said. “Change will require buy-in from multiple stakeholders and investment at many levels.”

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has previously raised the alarm about general health disparities among women in underserved rural communities.

Anne L. Banfield, MD, director of women’s health services at Davis Medical Center in the mountain town of Elkins, W.V., is one obstetrician/gynecologist who is all too familiar with the problem of shrinking perinatal facilities. “Closures have impacted services,” she said in an interview, noting that one hospital in her region closed its birthing unit because of financial considerations. “The next closest facility to ours is 20 miles to the west and more than 60 miles in any other direction,” she said. “And geography can create challenges. Because we’re located in the mountains, it can take 2 hours to get to our facility.”

The hope is that these findings will inform discussions on regionalization policy for perinatal care to improve maternal and infant outcomes and address concerns about isolated obstetric hospitals, the authors said.

Dr. Banfield emphasized that obstetric facilities should be made a priority even if they’re less profitable than other services and not a major contributor to the bottom line. But that will require rethinking reimbursement models to align with community needs. “Everyone has a mother – no one springs from a pod – but the fact is, we’re not paying enough for maternal health care,” she said.

A top priority, she noted, is attracting sufficient staff; not only doctors, but also nurses and midwives with the skill sets required for perinatal care, which differ from those of general surgery and outpatient services. “We have to make financial changes to make this care feasible,” Dr. Banfield said.

In similar recent research, a study published online in the October issue of Health Affairs, showed that with rural hospitals facing increased financial distress, they may merge with other hospitals/systems, potentially reducing service lines that are less profitable or that duplicate services offered by the acquiring institution. Among those often on the chopping block is perinatal care.

“Our analysis of rural hospital discharge data found that merged hospitals were more likely than independent hospitals to eliminate maternal, neonatal, and also surgical care,” lead author Lan Liang, PhD, senior economist at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) in Rockville, Md., said in an interview. This finding was consistent with previous AHRQ research using hospital self-reports, she added.

The study sample comprised 172 rural hospitals that merged during the period 2009-2016 in 32 states and 549 nonmerged comparison hospitals. In the premerger period, 74.5% of hospitals that merged provided maternal/neonatal care. This percentage decreased to 61.1% in the postmerger period. In contrast, the percentage of comparison hospitals providing these services remained stable during both periods (64.3% and 65.1%, respectively).

After weighting and adjusting for variables, the researchers found that from the premerger period to 1 year post merger, the percentage of hospitals providing these services decreased by 6.7 percentage points more for merged than for comparison hospitals (P = .06).

In the second year post merger, the percentage of hospitals providing maternal/neonatal services decreased by 7.2 percentage points more for merged than for comparison hospitals (P = .09).

“We did not, however, see a reduction in the volume of maternity services in rural communities, which suggests that women are just traveling farther to give birth,” Dr. Liang said.

Although mergers might salvage hospitals’ sustainability, the authors wrote, they do not necessarily mean that service lines are retained or that hospitals are as responsive to community needs as they were before the merger.

The analysis concluded that continuing access to maternal/neonatal care in rural areas is not a given. “Stakeholders, including payers, policy makers, and community-based organizations, need to monitor the availability of maternity services to ensure women have options in childbirth providers,” Dr. Liang said.

She and her associates called for payer-supported, multi-stakeholder initiatives to transform rural health care to be both financially sustainable and responsive to population needs.

The study by Dr. Handley and colleagues was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Eunice Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). Dr. Handley reported grants from the NIH outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported grants from, variously, the NIH, the NICHD, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The study by Dr. Liang and associates was supported by the AHRQ’s Center for Financing, Access, and Cost Trends, and the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. The authors disclosed no competing interests.

New data from two phase 3 studies found that in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), the new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody drug, ublituximab, is associated with significant improvement in the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score, a measure of disability, compared with teriflunomide (Aubagio).

The results were presented by Lawrence Steinman, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).   

Main results from the ULTIMATE I and II phase 3 trials, reported previously, showed a significant reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR) over a 96-week period (22 months) with ublituximab versus teriflunomide, as well as significant reductions in MRI lesions and improvements in the number of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA).

Data from these two trials are being used to support a recent approval application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ublituximab to treat patients with relapsing remitting MS.

Although ublituximab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability improvement compared with teriflunomide, there was no significant difference between the two groups in confirmed disability progression.

Another ULTIMATE investigator, University of California, San Francisco neurologist Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, explained that the measures of confirmed disability improvement and confirmed disability progression used in MS clinical trials are based on changes in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). But he pointed out that this scale is a challenging score to use, as it typically changes very slightly over the course of a trial. He adds that the scale can also be variable.  

“Because confirmed disability worsening was not met as one of the secondary endpoints, one of the critiques of these trials could be that there wasn’t an effect of ublituximab. But worsening disability was rare in both treatment arms, so it would be very difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a difference without much greater numbers of patients being included,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score was an alternative, more sensitive, measure of disability that includes three different tests: the 9-hole peg test, which assesses upper arm mobility; the timed 25-foot walk test, which gauges walking ability; and the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT), a measure of attention and processing.

He reported results showing that ublituximab significantly improved the MFSC score in ULTIMATE I by 76% and by 89% in ULTIMATE II, compared with teriflunomide. In ULTIMATE 1, the MSFC score improved by 0.266 points during the 96-week trial in the teriflunomide group and by 0.469 points in the ublituximab group (P = .048). In ULTIMATE II, the MSFC score improved by 0.275 points in the teriflunomide group and by 0.521 points in the ublituximab group (P = .017).

These changes were driven by improvements in the 9-hole peg test and the timed 25-foot walk test, with no difference seen in the PASAT test.

Asked how ublituximab compares with other anti-CD20 antibodies already in use such as ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), Dr. Cree noted that ublituximab is associated with fewer infusion reactions, so it can be infused more quickly. It is given over just 1 hour, compared with several hours needed for the ocrelizumab infusion.

“In the ULTIMATE studies the only reaction with ublituximab during infusion was a mild increase in temperature, and this can be minimized by pretreatment with acetaminophen. The allergic-type reactions of itchiness and scratchiness seen with ocrelizumab infusions were far less common with ublituximab.”

Dr. Cree attributes this to the glycol-engineering of the ublituximab antibody, which he says “allows the cytokines released from the B cells to be metabolized within phagocytes rather than to be released into the bloodstream.”

The ULTIMATE trials were funded by TG Therapeutics.

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

New data from two phase 3 studies found that in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), the new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody drug, ublituximab, is associated with significant improvement in the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score, a measure of disability, compared with teriflunomide (Aubagio).

The results were presented by Lawrence Steinman, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).   

Main results from the ULTIMATE I and II phase 3 trials, reported previously, showed a significant reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR) over a 96-week period (22 months) with ublituximab versus teriflunomide, as well as significant reductions in MRI lesions and improvements in the number of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA).

Data from these two trials are being used to support a recent approval application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ublituximab to treat patients with relapsing remitting MS.

Although ublituximab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability improvement compared with teriflunomide, there was no significant difference between the two groups in confirmed disability progression.

Another ULTIMATE investigator, University of California, San Francisco neurologist Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, explained that the measures of confirmed disability improvement and confirmed disability progression used in MS clinical trials are based on changes in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). But he pointed out that this scale is a challenging score to use, as it typically changes very slightly over the course of a trial. He adds that the scale can also be variable.  

“Because confirmed disability worsening was not met as one of the secondary endpoints, one of the critiques of these trials could be that there wasn’t an effect of ublituximab. But worsening disability was rare in both treatment arms, so it would be very difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a difference without much greater numbers of patients being included,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score was an alternative, more sensitive, measure of disability that includes three different tests: the 9-hole peg test, which assesses upper arm mobility; the timed 25-foot walk test, which gauges walking ability; and the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT), a measure of attention and processing.

He reported results showing that ublituximab significantly improved the MFSC score in ULTIMATE I by 76% and by 89% in ULTIMATE II, compared with teriflunomide. In ULTIMATE 1, the MSFC score improved by 0.266 points during the 96-week trial in the teriflunomide group and by 0.469 points in the ublituximab group (P = .048). In ULTIMATE II, the MSFC score improved by 0.275 points in the teriflunomide group and by 0.521 points in the ublituximab group (P = .017).

These changes were driven by improvements in the 9-hole peg test and the timed 25-foot walk test, with no difference seen in the PASAT test.

Asked how ublituximab compares with other anti-CD20 antibodies already in use such as ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), Dr. Cree noted that ublituximab is associated with fewer infusion reactions, so it can be infused more quickly. It is given over just 1 hour, compared with several hours needed for the ocrelizumab infusion.

“In the ULTIMATE studies the only reaction with ublituximab during infusion was a mild increase in temperature, and this can be minimized by pretreatment with acetaminophen. The allergic-type reactions of itchiness and scratchiness seen with ocrelizumab infusions were far less common with ublituximab.”

Dr. Cree attributes this to the glycol-engineering of the ublituximab antibody, which he says “allows the cytokines released from the B cells to be metabolized within phagocytes rather than to be released into the bloodstream.”

The ULTIMATE trials were funded by TG Therapeutics.

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

New data from two phase 3 studies found that in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), the new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody drug, ublituximab, is associated with significant improvement in the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score, a measure of disability, compared with teriflunomide (Aubagio).

The results were presented by Lawrence Steinman, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).   

Main results from the ULTIMATE I and II phase 3 trials, reported previously, showed a significant reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR) over a 96-week period (22 months) with ublituximab versus teriflunomide, as well as significant reductions in MRI lesions and improvements in the number of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA).

Data from these two trials are being used to support a recent approval application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ublituximab to treat patients with relapsing remitting MS.

Although ublituximab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability improvement compared with teriflunomide, there was no significant difference between the two groups in confirmed disability progression.

Another ULTIMATE investigator, University of California, San Francisco neurologist Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, explained that the measures of confirmed disability improvement and confirmed disability progression used in MS clinical trials are based on changes in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). But he pointed out that this scale is a challenging score to use, as it typically changes very slightly over the course of a trial. He adds that the scale can also be variable.  

“Because confirmed disability worsening was not met as one of the secondary endpoints, one of the critiques of these trials could be that there wasn’t an effect of ublituximab. But worsening disability was rare in both treatment arms, so it would be very difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a difference without much greater numbers of patients being included,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score was an alternative, more sensitive, measure of disability that includes three different tests: the 9-hole peg test, which assesses upper arm mobility; the timed 25-foot walk test, which gauges walking ability; and the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT), a measure of attention and processing.

He reported results showing that ublituximab significantly improved the MFSC score in ULTIMATE I by 76% and by 89% in ULTIMATE II, compared with teriflunomide. In ULTIMATE 1, the MSFC score improved by 0.266 points during the 96-week trial in the teriflunomide group and by 0.469 points in the ublituximab group (P = .048). In ULTIMATE II, the MSFC score improved by 0.275 points in the teriflunomide group and by 0.521 points in the ublituximab group (P = .017).

These changes were driven by improvements in the 9-hole peg test and the timed 25-foot walk test, with no difference seen in the PASAT test.

Asked how ublituximab compares with other anti-CD20 antibodies already in use such as ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), Dr. Cree noted that ublituximab is associated with fewer infusion reactions, so it can be infused more quickly. It is given over just 1 hour, compared with several hours needed for the ocrelizumab infusion.

“In the ULTIMATE studies the only reaction with ublituximab during infusion was a mild increase in temperature, and this can be minimized by pretreatment with acetaminophen. The allergic-type reactions of itchiness and scratchiness seen with ocrelizumab infusions were far less common with ublituximab.”

Dr. Cree attributes this to the glycol-engineering of the ublituximab antibody, which he says “allows the cytokines released from the B cells to be metabolized within phagocytes rather than to be released into the bloodstream.”

The ULTIMATE trials were funded by TG Therapeutics.

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

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency has recommended that the oral Janus kinase 1 inhibitor abrocitinib be granted marketing authorization in the European Union for treating atopic dermatitis (AD).

The full indication is for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy, according to a summary of the opinion, made on Oct. 14. It will be available as 50-mg, 100-mg, and 200-mg tablets, will be marketed under the name Cibinqo, and “should be prescribed by physicians experienced in the treatment of atopic dermatitis,” the statement said.

“The benefits of Cibinqo are its ability to improve the skin condition as measured by improvements in the Investigator’s Global Assessment 0/1 and Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 response and to reduce itching in patients with atopic dermatitis,” according to the opinion. The most common side effects of abrocitinib are nausea, headache, acne, herpes simplex, increased blood creatine phosphokinase, vomiting, dizziness, and upper abdominal pain, the statement said, and infections are the most serious.

Abrocitinib was first approved for AD in the United Kingdom and in Japan in September, and is under review at the Food and Drug Administration for this indication. The first JAK inhibitor approved for AD in the United States is topical ruxolitinib (Opzelura), approved in September, for the short-term, noncontinuous chronic treatment of mild to moderate AD in nonimmunocompromised patients aged 12 years and older whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription treatments, “or when those therapies are not advisable.”
 

[email protected]

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency has recommended that the oral Janus kinase 1 inhibitor abrocitinib be granted marketing authorization in the European Union for treating atopic dermatitis (AD).

The full indication is for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy, according to a summary of the opinion, made on Oct. 14. It will be available as 50-mg, 100-mg, and 200-mg tablets, will be marketed under the name Cibinqo, and “should be prescribed by physicians experienced in the treatment of atopic dermatitis,” the statement said.

“The benefits of Cibinqo are its ability to improve the skin condition as measured by improvements in the Investigator’s Global Assessment 0/1 and Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 response and to reduce itching in patients with atopic dermatitis,” according to the opinion. The most common side effects of abrocitinib are nausea, headache, acne, herpes simplex, increased blood creatine phosphokinase, vomiting, dizziness, and upper abdominal pain, the statement said, and infections are the most serious.

Abrocitinib was first approved for AD in the United Kingdom and in Japan in September, and is under review at the Food and Drug Administration for this indication. The first JAK inhibitor approved for AD in the United States is topical ruxolitinib (Opzelura), approved in September, for the short-term, noncontinuous chronic treatment of mild to moderate AD in nonimmunocompromised patients aged 12 years and older whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription treatments, “or when those therapies are not advisable.”
 

[email protected]

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency has recommended that the oral Janus kinase 1 inhibitor abrocitinib be granted marketing authorization in the European Union for treating atopic dermatitis (AD).

The full indication is for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy, according to a summary of the opinion, made on Oct. 14. It will be available as 50-mg, 100-mg, and 200-mg tablets, will be marketed under the name Cibinqo, and “should be prescribed by physicians experienced in the treatment of atopic dermatitis,” the statement said.

“The benefits of Cibinqo are its ability to improve the skin condition as measured by improvements in the Investigator’s Global Assessment 0/1 and Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 response and to reduce itching in patients with atopic dermatitis,” according to the opinion. The most common side effects of abrocitinib are nausea, headache, acne, herpes simplex, increased blood creatine phosphokinase, vomiting, dizziness, and upper abdominal pain, the statement said, and infections are the most serious.

Abrocitinib was first approved for AD in the United Kingdom and in Japan in September, and is under review at the Food and Drug Administration for this indication. The first JAK inhibitor approved for AD in the United States is topical ruxolitinib (Opzelura), approved in September, for the short-term, noncontinuous chronic treatment of mild to moderate AD in nonimmunocompromised patients aged 12 years and older whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription treatments, “or when those therapies are not advisable.”
 

[email protected]

An 8-month high-intensity resistance and impact training program (HiRIT, Onero) led to greater gains in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and leg/back strength than a low-intensity Pilates-based program (Buff Bones).
 

BeyondImages/Getty Images

These findings are from the Medication and Exercise for Osteoporosis (MEDEX-OP) trial, which included 115 postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Patients were randomly assigned to attend either the HiRIT or Pilates-based exercise program. The participants attended supervised 45-min sessions twice weekly.

HiRIT was better than the low-intensity Pilates-based exercise program for enhancing bone mass, muscle strength, functional performance, and stature, the researchers reported. The low-intensity program did improve function, but to a lesser extent

Of the 115 participants, most (86) were not taking osteoporosis medicine. For the 29 women who were receiving it, the medication appeared to enhance the effect of exercise.

Melanie Fischbacher, PhD candidate, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, presented these findings in an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; the study was also published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The study’s senior author, Belinda R. Beck, PhD, director of the Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia, developed the Onero HiRIT program and has licensed it to others in Australia.

“It is a very effective program and we have shown it can be undertaken safely, but it must be supervised because of the heavy weights and high-risk clientele,” Beck stressed to this news organization.

“This is not a program you should just hand to a patient and tell them to do in a gym,” she said.

“Both forms of exercise in our study were beneficial for functional outcomes but Onero improved back extensor strength, mobility and stature considerably more than Buff Bones,” Ms. Fischbacher said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “the contribution of functional capacity to risk of falling and fracture cannot be overstated, and bone medications do not address function,” she noted.

“More trials combining bone medication and bone-targeted exercise are needed,” the researchers concluded.

Compliance stands out, study supports high-intensity exercise

Kristen M. Beavers, PhD, MPH, RD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization that participant compliance in the study really stands out.

“Compliance to an 8-month, 2 day/week high-intensity resistance training program among older women with low bone mass was quite good in this study [>80%], with very few adverse events reported,” said Dr. Beavers, of the department of health and exercise science, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, N.C.

“A lot of individuals wouldn’t even consider recommending this type/intensity of exercise to this population, because they are worried it is too risky and/or the uptake will be low,” she said.

Although the benefit in BMD and strength wasn’t seen universally across all bone/muscle outcomes assessed, the findings do reinforce the idea that high-intensity exercise is more efficacious for bone health than low-intensity exercise, she noted.

“The possible additive effect of high-intensity exercise when combined with medication is worth confirming in larger, adequately designed/powered studies,” according to Dr. Beavers.

“The general consensus in the field is that higher-intensity exercise is more osteogenic than low-intensity exercise, but improving muscle mass, quality, and function (including balance) are also important to reduce the risk of falls, which is a major contributor to incident fracture,” she noted.

Exercise, even low-intensity exercise, reduces the risk for falls, as shown in a recent meta-analysis, she added. This is something antiresorptive medications don’t do.
 

Building on the LIFTMOR and LIFTMOR-M Trials

Previously, the Australian group showed that HiRIT is efficacious and safe for bone formation in individuals with low to very low bone mass – in postmenopausal women in the LIFTMOR study (J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Oct 4 .doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3284), and in men in the LIFTMOR-M study.

The current study compared two exercise programs. The researchers randomly assigned 86 women who were not taking antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (42) or low-intensity (44) exercise program. They also assigned 29 women who were receiving antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (15) or low-intensity (14) exercise program.

In the high-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (12), risedronate (2) or alendronate (1). In the low-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (9), risedronate (1), alendronate (3), or zoledronic acid (1).

The mean age of the women was 64-68 years. The mean lumbar spine T score was –1.5 to –2.3, and the mean femoral neck T score was –1.7 to –2.0 (determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) .

The HiRIT training program consisted of three free-weight resistance training exercises (deadlift, back squat, overhead press), one high-impact exercise (jump drop), and two balance exercises. The exercises varied each session.

The low-intensity training consisted of bone-specific Pilates-based exercises performed on the mat; standing weight-bearing exercise with 1-kg dumbbells; and impact exercises, such as heel drops and stomping.

At 8 months, compared with women in the low-intensity exercise program, those in the HiRIT program demonstrated greater improvement in lumbar spine BMD (1.9% vs. 0.1%) and stature (0.2 cm vs. 0.0 cm), muscle strength, and functional performance.

Functional performance improved with both exercise programs, but the HiRIT program led to greater leg and back muscle strength and better results in the five times sit-to-stand test (P < .05).

HiRIT plus bone medication improved BMD at the femoral neck and total hip, whereas HiRIT alone did not. Low-intensity exercise plus bone medication improved BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip, whereas low-intensity exercise alone did not.

The retention rate was 90%. The rate of exercise compliance was 83% in the high-intensity group and 82% in the low-intensity group.

Thirty falls were reported by 24 participants (21%). One fracture occurred in each exercise group. Three adverse events occurred in the low-intensity group, and four occurred in the high-intensity group.

Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic and sells licenses to the Onero program. The other researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An 8-month high-intensity resistance and impact training program (HiRIT, Onero) led to greater gains in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and leg/back strength than a low-intensity Pilates-based program (Buff Bones).
 

BeyondImages/Getty Images

These findings are from the Medication and Exercise for Osteoporosis (MEDEX-OP) trial, which included 115 postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Patients were randomly assigned to attend either the HiRIT or Pilates-based exercise program. The participants attended supervised 45-min sessions twice weekly.

HiRIT was better than the low-intensity Pilates-based exercise program for enhancing bone mass, muscle strength, functional performance, and stature, the researchers reported. The low-intensity program did improve function, but to a lesser extent

Of the 115 participants, most (86) were not taking osteoporosis medicine. For the 29 women who were receiving it, the medication appeared to enhance the effect of exercise.

Melanie Fischbacher, PhD candidate, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, presented these findings in an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; the study was also published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The study’s senior author, Belinda R. Beck, PhD, director of the Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia, developed the Onero HiRIT program and has licensed it to others in Australia.

“It is a very effective program and we have shown it can be undertaken safely, but it must be supervised because of the heavy weights and high-risk clientele,” Beck stressed to this news organization.

“This is not a program you should just hand to a patient and tell them to do in a gym,” she said.

“Both forms of exercise in our study were beneficial for functional outcomes but Onero improved back extensor strength, mobility and stature considerably more than Buff Bones,” Ms. Fischbacher said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “the contribution of functional capacity to risk of falling and fracture cannot be overstated, and bone medications do not address function,” she noted.

“More trials combining bone medication and bone-targeted exercise are needed,” the researchers concluded.

Compliance stands out, study supports high-intensity exercise

Kristen M. Beavers, PhD, MPH, RD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization that participant compliance in the study really stands out.

“Compliance to an 8-month, 2 day/week high-intensity resistance training program among older women with low bone mass was quite good in this study [>80%], with very few adverse events reported,” said Dr. Beavers, of the department of health and exercise science, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, N.C.

“A lot of individuals wouldn’t even consider recommending this type/intensity of exercise to this population, because they are worried it is too risky and/or the uptake will be low,” she said.

Although the benefit in BMD and strength wasn’t seen universally across all bone/muscle outcomes assessed, the findings do reinforce the idea that high-intensity exercise is more efficacious for bone health than low-intensity exercise, she noted.

“The possible additive effect of high-intensity exercise when combined with medication is worth confirming in larger, adequately designed/powered studies,” according to Dr. Beavers.

“The general consensus in the field is that higher-intensity exercise is more osteogenic than low-intensity exercise, but improving muscle mass, quality, and function (including balance) are also important to reduce the risk of falls, which is a major contributor to incident fracture,” she noted.

Exercise, even low-intensity exercise, reduces the risk for falls, as shown in a recent meta-analysis, she added. This is something antiresorptive medications don’t do.
 

Building on the LIFTMOR and LIFTMOR-M Trials

Previously, the Australian group showed that HiRIT is efficacious and safe for bone formation in individuals with low to very low bone mass – in postmenopausal women in the LIFTMOR study (J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Oct 4 .doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3284), and in men in the LIFTMOR-M study.

The current study compared two exercise programs. The researchers randomly assigned 86 women who were not taking antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (42) or low-intensity (44) exercise program. They also assigned 29 women who were receiving antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (15) or low-intensity (14) exercise program.

In the high-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (12), risedronate (2) or alendronate (1). In the low-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (9), risedronate (1), alendronate (3), or zoledronic acid (1).

The mean age of the women was 64-68 years. The mean lumbar spine T score was –1.5 to –2.3, and the mean femoral neck T score was –1.7 to –2.0 (determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) .

The HiRIT training program consisted of three free-weight resistance training exercises (deadlift, back squat, overhead press), one high-impact exercise (jump drop), and two balance exercises. The exercises varied each session.

The low-intensity training consisted of bone-specific Pilates-based exercises performed on the mat; standing weight-bearing exercise with 1-kg dumbbells; and impact exercises, such as heel drops and stomping.

At 8 months, compared with women in the low-intensity exercise program, those in the HiRIT program demonstrated greater improvement in lumbar spine BMD (1.9% vs. 0.1%) and stature (0.2 cm vs. 0.0 cm), muscle strength, and functional performance.

Functional performance improved with both exercise programs, but the HiRIT program led to greater leg and back muscle strength and better results in the five times sit-to-stand test (P < .05).

HiRIT plus bone medication improved BMD at the femoral neck and total hip, whereas HiRIT alone did not. Low-intensity exercise plus bone medication improved BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip, whereas low-intensity exercise alone did not.

The retention rate was 90%. The rate of exercise compliance was 83% in the high-intensity group and 82% in the low-intensity group.

Thirty falls were reported by 24 participants (21%). One fracture occurred in each exercise group. Three adverse events occurred in the low-intensity group, and four occurred in the high-intensity group.

Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic and sells licenses to the Onero program. The other researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An 8-month high-intensity resistance and impact training program (HiRIT, Onero) led to greater gains in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and leg/back strength than a low-intensity Pilates-based program (Buff Bones).
 

BeyondImages/Getty Images

These findings are from the Medication and Exercise for Osteoporosis (MEDEX-OP) trial, which included 115 postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Patients were randomly assigned to attend either the HiRIT or Pilates-based exercise program. The participants attended supervised 45-min sessions twice weekly.

HiRIT was better than the low-intensity Pilates-based exercise program for enhancing bone mass, muscle strength, functional performance, and stature, the researchers reported. The low-intensity program did improve function, but to a lesser extent

Of the 115 participants, most (86) were not taking osteoporosis medicine. For the 29 women who were receiving it, the medication appeared to enhance the effect of exercise.

Melanie Fischbacher, PhD candidate, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, presented these findings in an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; the study was also published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The study’s senior author, Belinda R. Beck, PhD, director of the Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia, developed the Onero HiRIT program and has licensed it to others in Australia.

“It is a very effective program and we have shown it can be undertaken safely, but it must be supervised because of the heavy weights and high-risk clientele,” Beck stressed to this news organization.

“This is not a program you should just hand to a patient and tell them to do in a gym,” she said.

“Both forms of exercise in our study were beneficial for functional outcomes but Onero improved back extensor strength, mobility and stature considerably more than Buff Bones,” Ms. Fischbacher said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “the contribution of functional capacity to risk of falling and fracture cannot be overstated, and bone medications do not address function,” she noted.

“More trials combining bone medication and bone-targeted exercise are needed,” the researchers concluded.

Compliance stands out, study supports high-intensity exercise

Kristen M. Beavers, PhD, MPH, RD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization that participant compliance in the study really stands out.

“Compliance to an 8-month, 2 day/week high-intensity resistance training program among older women with low bone mass was quite good in this study [>80%], with very few adverse events reported,” said Dr. Beavers, of the department of health and exercise science, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, N.C.

“A lot of individuals wouldn’t even consider recommending this type/intensity of exercise to this population, because they are worried it is too risky and/or the uptake will be low,” she said.

Although the benefit in BMD and strength wasn’t seen universally across all bone/muscle outcomes assessed, the findings do reinforce the idea that high-intensity exercise is more efficacious for bone health than low-intensity exercise, she noted.

“The possible additive effect of high-intensity exercise when combined with medication is worth confirming in larger, adequately designed/powered studies,” according to Dr. Beavers.

“The general consensus in the field is that higher-intensity exercise is more osteogenic than low-intensity exercise, but improving muscle mass, quality, and function (including balance) are also important to reduce the risk of falls, which is a major contributor to incident fracture,” she noted.

Exercise, even low-intensity exercise, reduces the risk for falls, as shown in a recent meta-analysis, she added. This is something antiresorptive medications don’t do.
 

Building on the LIFTMOR and LIFTMOR-M Trials

Previously, the Australian group showed that HiRIT is efficacious and safe for bone formation in individuals with low to very low bone mass – in postmenopausal women in the LIFTMOR study (J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Oct 4 .doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3284), and in men in the LIFTMOR-M study.

The current study compared two exercise programs. The researchers randomly assigned 86 women who were not taking antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (42) or low-intensity (44) exercise program. They also assigned 29 women who were receiving antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (15) or low-intensity (14) exercise program.

In the high-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (12), risedronate (2) or alendronate (1). In the low-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (9), risedronate (1), alendronate (3), or zoledronic acid (1).

The mean age of the women was 64-68 years. The mean lumbar spine T score was –1.5 to –2.3, and the mean femoral neck T score was –1.7 to –2.0 (determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) .

The HiRIT training program consisted of three free-weight resistance training exercises (deadlift, back squat, overhead press), one high-impact exercise (jump drop), and two balance exercises. The exercises varied each session.

The low-intensity training consisted of bone-specific Pilates-based exercises performed on the mat; standing weight-bearing exercise with 1-kg dumbbells; and impact exercises, such as heel drops and stomping.

At 8 months, compared with women in the low-intensity exercise program, those in the HiRIT program demonstrated greater improvement in lumbar spine BMD (1.9% vs. 0.1%) and stature (0.2 cm vs. 0.0 cm), muscle strength, and functional performance.

Functional performance improved with both exercise programs, but the HiRIT program led to greater leg and back muscle strength and better results in the five times sit-to-stand test (P < .05).

HiRIT plus bone medication improved BMD at the femoral neck and total hip, whereas HiRIT alone did not. Low-intensity exercise plus bone medication improved BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip, whereas low-intensity exercise alone did not.

The retention rate was 90%. The rate of exercise compliance was 83% in the high-intensity group and 82% in the low-intensity group.

Thirty falls were reported by 24 participants (21%). One fracture occurred in each exercise group. Three adverse events occurred in the low-intensity group, and four occurred in the high-intensity group.

Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic and sells licenses to the Onero program. The other researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with functional neurological disorders demonstrate higher levels of depression and alexithymia – in addition to signs of an avoidant attachment style – compared with those with other neurological disorders and healthy controls, investigators report.

The pathological mechanism of functional neurological disorders (FND) remains poorly understood, but current models include both psychological and environmental factors, Sofia Cuoco, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Previous studies have suggested a relationship between attachment styles (AS) and psychiatric symptoms in FND patients but most have been limited to the FND population, noted Dr. Cuoco, of the University of Salerno, Italy, and colleagues. In FND, “it is unclear to what extent psychiatric features are explained by AS per se or are part of the FND spectrum,” they said.

To conduct the study, the investigators recruited 46 patients with FND, 34 patients with neurological disorders (ND) and 30 healthy controls. Demographic characteristics, including age, education, and gender, were similar among the groups. Overall, depression and alexithymia were significantly more prevalent in the FND group, compared with the other groups. Anxiety was more common in the FND group, compared with healthy controls, but similar compared with the ND group. Patients in the FND group reported significantly lower quality of life, compared with those in the other groups.

In a multivariate analysis aimed at examining AS and psychiatric features, the researchers found that the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire avoidance, Beck Depression Inventory, Somatic Affective, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale (TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings) were significant predictors of FND and accounted for about half of the variance.

The researchers also compared FND to functional seizures, and found that the TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale–Anxiety, and female gender were significant predictors of functional seizures.

The results were mainly in line with those from previous studies, the researchers said. However, “one of the novelties of this study is the inclusion of patients with other ND, whereby we demonstrated that FND patients were more depressed, anxious, and alexithymic than ND, which might suggest that these psychiatric features would not be merely reactive to physical symptoms,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of systematic interviews for personality disorders or traits, monitoring psychotropic medications, and conducting formal psychiatric assessments, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the heterogenous study population and absence of data on symptom severity, history of trauma, or other factors that might contributed to FND, they said.

However, the results suggest that avoidant AS might play an important role in the occurrence of psychiatric features in FND patients and should be considered in managing these conditions. More research is needed to explore the impact of attachment on pathophysiology with more complex instruments, such as the Adult Attachment Interview, Dr. Cuoco and colleagues said.

The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

Patients with functional neurological disorders demonstrate higher levels of depression and alexithymia – in addition to signs of an avoidant attachment style – compared with those with other neurological disorders and healthy controls, investigators report.

The pathological mechanism of functional neurological disorders (FND) remains poorly understood, but current models include both psychological and environmental factors, Sofia Cuoco, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Previous studies have suggested a relationship between attachment styles (AS) and psychiatric symptoms in FND patients but most have been limited to the FND population, noted Dr. Cuoco, of the University of Salerno, Italy, and colleagues. In FND, “it is unclear to what extent psychiatric features are explained by AS per se or are part of the FND spectrum,” they said.

To conduct the study, the investigators recruited 46 patients with FND, 34 patients with neurological disorders (ND) and 30 healthy controls. Demographic characteristics, including age, education, and gender, were similar among the groups. Overall, depression and alexithymia were significantly more prevalent in the FND group, compared with the other groups. Anxiety was more common in the FND group, compared with healthy controls, but similar compared with the ND group. Patients in the FND group reported significantly lower quality of life, compared with those in the other groups.

In a multivariate analysis aimed at examining AS and psychiatric features, the researchers found that the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire avoidance, Beck Depression Inventory, Somatic Affective, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale (TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings) were significant predictors of FND and accounted for about half of the variance.

The researchers also compared FND to functional seizures, and found that the TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale–Anxiety, and female gender were significant predictors of functional seizures.

The results were mainly in line with those from previous studies, the researchers said. However, “one of the novelties of this study is the inclusion of patients with other ND, whereby we demonstrated that FND patients were more depressed, anxious, and alexithymic than ND, which might suggest that these psychiatric features would not be merely reactive to physical symptoms,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of systematic interviews for personality disorders or traits, monitoring psychotropic medications, and conducting formal psychiatric assessments, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the heterogenous study population and absence of data on symptom severity, history of trauma, or other factors that might contributed to FND, they said.

However, the results suggest that avoidant AS might play an important role in the occurrence of psychiatric features in FND patients and should be considered in managing these conditions. More research is needed to explore the impact of attachment on pathophysiology with more complex instruments, such as the Adult Attachment Interview, Dr. Cuoco and colleagues said.

The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

Patients with functional neurological disorders demonstrate higher levels of depression and alexithymia – in addition to signs of an avoidant attachment style – compared with those with other neurological disorders and healthy controls, investigators report.

The pathological mechanism of functional neurological disorders (FND) remains poorly understood, but current models include both psychological and environmental factors, Sofia Cuoco, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Previous studies have suggested a relationship between attachment styles (AS) and psychiatric symptoms in FND patients but most have been limited to the FND population, noted Dr. Cuoco, of the University of Salerno, Italy, and colleagues. In FND, “it is unclear to what extent psychiatric features are explained by AS per se or are part of the FND spectrum,” they said.

To conduct the study, the investigators recruited 46 patients with FND, 34 patients with neurological disorders (ND) and 30 healthy controls. Demographic characteristics, including age, education, and gender, were similar among the groups. Overall, depression and alexithymia were significantly more prevalent in the FND group, compared with the other groups. Anxiety was more common in the FND group, compared with healthy controls, but similar compared with the ND group. Patients in the FND group reported significantly lower quality of life, compared with those in the other groups.

In a multivariate analysis aimed at examining AS and psychiatric features, the researchers found that the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire avoidance, Beck Depression Inventory, Somatic Affective, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale (TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings) were significant predictors of FND and accounted for about half of the variance.

The researchers also compared FND to functional seizures, and found that the TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale–Anxiety, and female gender were significant predictors of functional seizures.

The results were mainly in line with those from previous studies, the researchers said. However, “one of the novelties of this study is the inclusion of patients with other ND, whereby we demonstrated that FND patients were more depressed, anxious, and alexithymic than ND, which might suggest that these psychiatric features would not be merely reactive to physical symptoms,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of systematic interviews for personality disorders or traits, monitoring psychotropic medications, and conducting formal psychiatric assessments, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the heterogenous study population and absence of data on symptom severity, history of trauma, or other factors that might contributed to FND, they said.

However, the results suggest that avoidant AS might play an important role in the occurrence of psychiatric features in FND patients and should be considered in managing these conditions. More research is needed to explore the impact of attachment on pathophysiology with more complex instruments, such as the Adult Attachment Interview, Dr. Cuoco and colleagues said.

The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

COVID-19 has killed Native Americans at twice the rate of White Americans, underscoring the health inequities and deep-rooted distrust tribal nations have of federal government entities.

And yet, Native Americans have the highest vaccination rates of any major racial or ethnic group in the United States. Like many other tribal nations, the Navajo had to embrace Western science to reclaim its social customs and ceremonies. “We’re a very social culture, so having to isolate really impacted our mental health,” said Mary Hasbah Roessel, MD, DLFAPA, a Navajo psychiatrist who is affiliated with Santa Fe Indian Hospital in New Mexico.

The Navajo nation occupies the largest Native American reservation in the United States, spanning New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. As of mid-October, the nation had reported more than 34,000 COVID-19 cases and 1,400 deaths in its jurisdiction.

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Roessel described the partnerships that mobilized a nation of more than 250,000 individuals to get vaccinated.

Question: Why has the death rate been so high in the Navajo nation?

Answer: A lot of health disparities before the pandemic were blatantly revealed during COVID. Only 40% of people on the reservation had running water. Having to stay home and isolate led to food insecurity. Further insecurity issues affected our ability to stay healthy, such as having good sanitation. There’s a lot of poverty, a high unemployment rate. Some people had to go to work off reservation and were potentially bringing the virus home. A lot of generations live in the same household. Elders were vulnerable to getting the infection, and there was little ability to isolate if someone wasn’t having symptoms. Hospitals nearby didn’t have ICUs.

Therefore, the rate of cases skyrocketed early on. We were disproportionately affected. The Navajo nation per capita had the highest rate of cases in any state.
 

Q: What changes took place within the Navajo nation to get people vaccinated? What role did the federal Indian Health Service have in promoting this?

A: There had to be a shift in acceptance of the vaccinations. I think what particularly helped the Navajo nation was seeing the IHS rise up and provide access for treatments and vaccinations early on.

With the IHS, we went into a disaster response mode with all-hands-on deck meetings. We had to figure out how we could access mass vaccination clinics. Partnering with the Navajo Department of Health, we did that right away with hospitals and small clinics across the Navajo nation. Casinos owned by tribal entities that closed during COVID reopened and were used as vaccination clinics.

Vaccinations were sent to us fairly quickly. I ended up getting vaccinated in December 2020, when it was first rolled out.

Native and Navajo individuals have been reluctant to rely on government services. Because IHS came through with the vaccines, COVID reduced that stigma to access its services. Even the Navajo Department of Health partnered with the Indian Health Service to provide culturally relevant campaigns that explain why the vaccine is valuable.

I think because people were so impacted, they saw something valuable with the vaccine. Given the education and access, people were ready to get vaccinated. They realized if a whole household got vaccinated, they could see early on that they could be social again.
 

Q: What cultural factors have been contributing to this positive development?

A: In our Navajo culture, we’ve dealt with monsters before. We talk about that in terms of how we teach our young people to be strong and resilient. We talked about this virus as being another monster we had to tackle and control. The teaching was along those lines. We’ve dealt with this before, and we can handle it. We’re resilient. Our culture is very strong in that way. So how do we do it? We have to partner; we have to embrace Western medicine to return back to the ceremonies we want to have again and be social again. We focus on positive things, so if we see something as potentially positive, such as the vaccine, we see that and know that’s something to help us come into our life again.

Q: I would expect that protecting elders in the tribe would be a big incentive in taking the vaccine.

A: Yes, we didn’t want to lose our language and culture, and we wanted to protect our elders. Having a way to do that was very important as well. They were among the first to get vaccinated.

Q: What is the current vaccination rate in the Navajo nation?

A: I think it’s in the upper 80th percentile. It’s very high.

Q: What have been the biggest takeaways so far, and what are your hopes for the future?

A: Even though the Navajo Nation has been impacted and devastated with the loss of elders and knowledge keepers, we still have our culture and ceremonies intact to the point that we know we can be resilient get through this difficult time.

Through collaborations with the federal and state governments and the clinics, we see that things are different now. Going forward, my hope is these partnerships will continue, that we’ll build those relationships and not be so siloed in our care. When the New Mexico Department of Health rolled out its first vaccination clinic, for example, we jumped on and saw how they did it. We were then able to do our own, collaborating with the state.

We also saw how important our culture was, how it helped our Navajo people through these difficult times.

Dr. Roessel, a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, has special expertise in cultural psychiatry. Her childhood was spent growing up in the Navajo nation with her grandfather, who was a Navajo medicine man. Her psychiatric practice focuses on integrating Indigenous knowledge and principles.

References

American Public Media Research Lab. “The Color of Coronavirus: COVID-19 Deaths by Race and Ethnicity in the U.S.” 2021 Mar 5.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Demographic Characteristics of People Receiving COVID-19 Vaccinations in the United States.” Data as of 2021 Oct 14.

Navajo Nation. Indian Health Service. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

The Navajo Nation’s Office of the President and Vice President. “11 New Cases, 32,735 Recoveries, and Six Recent Deaths Related to COVID-19.” 2021 Oct 13.

Navajo Nation Government web page.

COVID-19 has killed Native Americans at twice the rate of White Americans, underscoring the health inequities and deep-rooted distrust tribal nations have of federal government entities.

And yet, Native Americans have the highest vaccination rates of any major racial or ethnic group in the United States. Like many other tribal nations, the Navajo had to embrace Western science to reclaim its social customs and ceremonies. “We’re a very social culture, so having to isolate really impacted our mental health,” said Mary Hasbah Roessel, MD, DLFAPA, a Navajo psychiatrist who is affiliated with Santa Fe Indian Hospital in New Mexico.

The Navajo nation occupies the largest Native American reservation in the United States, spanning New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. As of mid-October, the nation had reported more than 34,000 COVID-19 cases and 1,400 deaths in its jurisdiction.

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Roessel described the partnerships that mobilized a nation of more than 250,000 individuals to get vaccinated.

Question: Why has the death rate been so high in the Navajo nation?

Answer: A lot of health disparities before the pandemic were blatantly revealed during COVID. Only 40% of people on the reservation had running water. Having to stay home and isolate led to food insecurity. Further insecurity issues affected our ability to stay healthy, such as having good sanitation. There’s a lot of poverty, a high unemployment rate. Some people had to go to work off reservation and were potentially bringing the virus home. A lot of generations live in the same household. Elders were vulnerable to getting the infection, and there was little ability to isolate if someone wasn’t having symptoms. Hospitals nearby didn’t have ICUs.

Therefore, the rate of cases skyrocketed early on. We were disproportionately affected. The Navajo nation per capita had the highest rate of cases in any state.
 

Q: What changes took place within the Navajo nation to get people vaccinated? What role did the federal Indian Health Service have in promoting this?

A: There had to be a shift in acceptance of the vaccinations. I think what particularly helped the Navajo nation was seeing the IHS rise up and provide access for treatments and vaccinations early on.

With the IHS, we went into a disaster response mode with all-hands-on deck meetings. We had to figure out how we could access mass vaccination clinics. Partnering with the Navajo Department of Health, we did that right away with hospitals and small clinics across the Navajo nation. Casinos owned by tribal entities that closed during COVID reopened and were used as vaccination clinics.

Vaccinations were sent to us fairly quickly. I ended up getting vaccinated in December 2020, when it was first rolled out.

Native and Navajo individuals have been reluctant to rely on government services. Because IHS came through with the vaccines, COVID reduced that stigma to access its services. Even the Navajo Department of Health partnered with the Indian Health Service to provide culturally relevant campaigns that explain why the vaccine is valuable.

I think because people were so impacted, they saw something valuable with the vaccine. Given the education and access, people were ready to get vaccinated. They realized if a whole household got vaccinated, they could see early on that they could be social again.
 

Q: What cultural factors have been contributing to this positive development?

A: In our Navajo culture, we’ve dealt with monsters before. We talk about that in terms of how we teach our young people to be strong and resilient. We talked about this virus as being another monster we had to tackle and control. The teaching was along those lines. We’ve dealt with this before, and we can handle it. We’re resilient. Our culture is very strong in that way. So how do we do it? We have to partner; we have to embrace Western medicine to return back to the ceremonies we want to have again and be social again. We focus on positive things, so if we see something as potentially positive, such as the vaccine, we see that and know that’s something to help us come into our life again.

Q: I would expect that protecting elders in the tribe would be a big incentive in taking the vaccine.

A: Yes, we didn’t want to lose our language and culture, and we wanted to protect our elders. Having a way to do that was very important as well. They were among the first to get vaccinated.

Q: What is the current vaccination rate in the Navajo nation?

A: I think it’s in the upper 80th percentile. It’s very high.

Q: What have been the biggest takeaways so far, and what are your hopes for the future?

A: Even though the Navajo Nation has been impacted and devastated with the loss of elders and knowledge keepers, we still have our culture and ceremonies intact to the point that we know we can be resilient get through this difficult time.

Through collaborations with the federal and state governments and the clinics, we see that things are different now. Going forward, my hope is these partnerships will continue, that we’ll build those relationships and not be so siloed in our care. When the New Mexico Department of Health rolled out its first vaccination clinic, for example, we jumped on and saw how they did it. We were then able to do our own, collaborating with the state.

We also saw how important our culture was, how it helped our Navajo people through these difficult times.

Dr. Roessel, a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, has special expertise in cultural psychiatry. Her childhood was spent growing up in the Navajo nation with her grandfather, who was a Navajo medicine man. Her psychiatric practice focuses on integrating Indigenous knowledge and principles.

References

American Public Media Research Lab. “The Color of Coronavirus: COVID-19 Deaths by Race and Ethnicity in the U.S.” 2021 Mar 5.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Demographic Characteristics of People Receiving COVID-19 Vaccinations in the United States.” Data as of 2021 Oct 14.

Navajo Nation. Indian Health Service. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

The Navajo Nation’s Office of the President and Vice President. “11 New Cases, 32,735 Recoveries, and Six Recent Deaths Related to COVID-19.” 2021 Oct 13.

Navajo Nation Government web page.

COVID-19 has killed Native Americans at twice the rate of White Americans, underscoring the health inequities and deep-rooted distrust tribal nations have of federal government entities.

And yet, Native Americans have the highest vaccination rates of any major racial or ethnic group in the United States. Like many other tribal nations, the Navajo had to embrace Western science to reclaim its social customs and ceremonies. “We’re a very social culture, so having to isolate really impacted our mental health,” said Mary Hasbah Roessel, MD, DLFAPA, a Navajo psychiatrist who is affiliated with Santa Fe Indian Hospital in New Mexico.

The Navajo nation occupies the largest Native American reservation in the United States, spanning New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. As of mid-October, the nation had reported more than 34,000 COVID-19 cases and 1,400 deaths in its jurisdiction.

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Roessel described the partnerships that mobilized a nation of more than 250,000 individuals to get vaccinated.

Question: Why has the death rate been so high in the Navajo nation?

Answer: A lot of health disparities before the pandemic were blatantly revealed during COVID. Only 40% of people on the reservation had running water. Having to stay home and isolate led to food insecurity. Further insecurity issues affected our ability to stay healthy, such as having good sanitation. There’s a lot of poverty, a high unemployment rate. Some people had to go to work off reservation and were potentially bringing the virus home. A lot of generations live in the same household. Elders were vulnerable to getting the infection, and there was little ability to isolate if someone wasn’t having symptoms. Hospitals nearby didn’t have ICUs.

Therefore, the rate of cases skyrocketed early on. We were disproportionately affected. The Navajo nation per capita had the highest rate of cases in any state.
 

Q: What changes took place within the Navajo nation to get people vaccinated? What role did the federal Indian Health Service have in promoting this?

A: There had to be a shift in acceptance of the vaccinations. I think what particularly helped the Navajo nation was seeing the IHS rise up and provide access for treatments and vaccinations early on.

With the IHS, we went into a disaster response mode with all-hands-on deck meetings. We had to figure out how we could access mass vaccination clinics. Partnering with the Navajo Department of Health, we did that right away with hospitals and small clinics across the Navajo nation. Casinos owned by tribal entities that closed during COVID reopened and were used as vaccination clinics.

Vaccinations were sent to us fairly quickly. I ended up getting vaccinated in December 2020, when it was first rolled out.

Native and Navajo individuals have been reluctant to rely on government services. Because IHS came through with the vaccines, COVID reduced that stigma to access its services. Even the Navajo Department of Health partnered with the Indian Health Service to provide culturally relevant campaigns that explain why the vaccine is valuable.

I think because people were so impacted, they saw something valuable with the vaccine. Given the education and access, people were ready to get vaccinated. They realized if a whole household got vaccinated, they could see early on that they could be social again.
 

Q: What cultural factors have been contributing to this positive development?

A: In our Navajo culture, we’ve dealt with monsters before. We talk about that in terms of how we teach our young people to be strong and resilient. We talked about this virus as being another monster we had to tackle and control. The teaching was along those lines. We’ve dealt with this before, and we can handle it. We’re resilient. Our culture is very strong in that way. So how do we do it? We have to partner; we have to embrace Western medicine to return back to the ceremonies we want to have again and be social again. We focus on positive things, so if we see something as potentially positive, such as the vaccine, we see that and know that’s something to help us come into our life again.

Q: I would expect that protecting elders in the tribe would be a big incentive in taking the vaccine.

A: Yes, we didn’t want to lose our language and culture, and we wanted to protect our elders. Having a way to do that was very important as well. They were among the first to get vaccinated.

Q: What is the current vaccination rate in the Navajo nation?

A: I think it’s in the upper 80th percentile. It’s very high.

Q: What have been the biggest takeaways so far, and what are your hopes for the future?

A: Even though the Navajo Nation has been impacted and devastated with the loss of elders and knowledge keepers, we still have our culture and ceremonies intact to the point that we know we can be resilient get through this difficult time.

Through collaborations with the federal and state governments and the clinics, we see that things are different now. Going forward, my hope is these partnerships will continue, that we’ll build those relationships and not be so siloed in our care. When the New Mexico Department of Health rolled out its first vaccination clinic, for example, we jumped on and saw how they did it. We were then able to do our own, collaborating with the state.

We also saw how important our culture was, how it helped our Navajo people through these difficult times.

Dr. Roessel, a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, has special expertise in cultural psychiatry. Her childhood was spent growing up in the Navajo nation with her grandfather, who was a Navajo medicine man. Her psychiatric practice focuses on integrating Indigenous knowledge and principles.

References

American Public Media Research Lab. “The Color of Coronavirus: COVID-19 Deaths by Race and Ethnicity in the U.S.” 2021 Mar 5.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Demographic Characteristics of People Receiving COVID-19 Vaccinations in the United States.” Data as of 2021 Oct 14.

Navajo Nation. Indian Health Service. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

The Navajo Nation’s Office of the President and Vice President. “11 New Cases, 32,735 Recoveries, and Six Recent Deaths Related to COVID-19.” 2021 Oct 13.

Navajo Nation Government web page.

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

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

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

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

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

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