MDedge Rheumatology

Key clinical point: Baricitinib maintained a stable safety profile with no new safety signals even with long-term exposure of up to 9.3 years in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient-years at risk for serious infections (incidence ratio [IR], 2.6; 95% CI, 2.33-2.86), herpes zoster (IR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.70-3.28), major adverse cardiovascular events (IR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.40-0.64), and malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (IR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.77-1.09) remained stable from previous report.

Study details: This was an integrated analysis of 9 randomized clinical trials and 1 long-term extension trial including 3,770 patients with RA who received any dose of baricitinib.

Disclosures: Eli Lilly and Company funded this research. W Deberdt, M Issa, JR Terres, and N Bello reported being employees and stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company. The other authors reported receiving grant/research assistance and consultancy/speakers’ fees from various companies including Eli Lilly.

Source: Taylor PC et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Oct 27. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221276.

Key clinical point: Baricitinib maintained a stable safety profile with no new safety signals even with long-term exposure of up to 9.3 years in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient-years at risk for serious infections (incidence ratio [IR], 2.6; 95% CI, 2.33-2.86), herpes zoster (IR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.70-3.28), major adverse cardiovascular events (IR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.40-0.64), and malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (IR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.77-1.09) remained stable from previous report.

Study details: This was an integrated analysis of 9 randomized clinical trials and 1 long-term extension trial including 3,770 patients with RA who received any dose of baricitinib.

Disclosures: Eli Lilly and Company funded this research. W Deberdt, M Issa, JR Terres, and N Bello reported being employees and stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company. The other authors reported receiving grant/research assistance and consultancy/speakers’ fees from various companies including Eli Lilly.

Source: Taylor PC et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Oct 27. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221276.

Key clinical point: Baricitinib maintained a stable safety profile with no new safety signals even with long-term exposure of up to 9.3 years in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient-years at risk for serious infections (incidence ratio [IR], 2.6; 95% CI, 2.33-2.86), herpes zoster (IR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.70-3.28), major adverse cardiovascular events (IR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.40-0.64), and malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (IR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.77-1.09) remained stable from previous report.

Study details: This was an integrated analysis of 9 randomized clinical trials and 1 long-term extension trial including 3,770 patients with RA who received any dose of baricitinib.

Disclosures: Eli Lilly and Company funded this research. W Deberdt, M Issa, JR Terres, and N Bello reported being employees and stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company. The other authors reported receiving grant/research assistance and consultancy/speakers’ fees from various companies including Eli Lilly.

Source: Taylor PC et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Oct 27. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221276.

Key clinical point: Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) monotherapy may increase the risk for progression of preexisting distal interphalangeal (DIP) osteoarthritis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), primarily by promoting osteophyte growth.

Major finding: Compared with conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) monotherapy, bDMARD monotherapy was associated with an increased risk for radiographic progression of existing DIP osteoarthritis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.07-1.69), with osteophyte progression (aHR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.11-2.74) being the most elevated osteoarthritis feature with bDMARD vs. csDMARD use.

Study details: This study included 2,234 adult patients with RA from a longitudinal Swiss registry of rheumatic diseases, who had at least 2 hand radiographs and were grouped into cohorts with (n=1,340) or without (n=894) DIP osteoarthritis at baseline.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by pharmaceutical companies like AbbVie, Amgen, and Gilead. All the authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Lechtenboehmer CA et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Oct 26. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02654-0.

Key clinical point: Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) monotherapy may increase the risk for progression of preexisting distal interphalangeal (DIP) osteoarthritis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), primarily by promoting osteophyte growth.

Major finding: Compared with conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) monotherapy, bDMARD monotherapy was associated with an increased risk for radiographic progression of existing DIP osteoarthritis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.07-1.69), with osteophyte progression (aHR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.11-2.74) being the most elevated osteoarthritis feature with bDMARD vs. csDMARD use.

Study details: This study included 2,234 adult patients with RA from a longitudinal Swiss registry of rheumatic diseases, who had at least 2 hand radiographs and were grouped into cohorts with (n=1,340) or without (n=894) DIP osteoarthritis at baseline.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by pharmaceutical companies like AbbVie, Amgen, and Gilead. All the authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Lechtenboehmer CA et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Oct 26. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02654-0.

Key clinical point: Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) monotherapy may increase the risk for progression of preexisting distal interphalangeal (DIP) osteoarthritis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), primarily by promoting osteophyte growth.

Major finding: Compared with conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) monotherapy, bDMARD monotherapy was associated with an increased risk for radiographic progression of existing DIP osteoarthritis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.07-1.69), with osteophyte progression (aHR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.11-2.74) being the most elevated osteoarthritis feature with bDMARD vs. csDMARD use.

Study details: This study included 2,234 adult patients with RA from a longitudinal Swiss registry of rheumatic diseases, who had at least 2 hand radiographs and were grouped into cohorts with (n=1,340) or without (n=894) DIP osteoarthritis at baseline.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by pharmaceutical companies like AbbVie, Amgen, and Gilead. All the authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Lechtenboehmer CA et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Oct 26. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02654-0.

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not show an increased risk for arthritis flare after completing 2 doses of mRNA (BNT162b2) or inactivated virus (CoronaVac) COVID-19 vaccination.

Major finding: There was no association between receiving 2 doses of mRNA vaccine (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73-1.01) or inactivated virus vaccine (aIRR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.02) and experiencing arthritis flares. The per-patient prescription and distribution of rheumatic drug prescriptions were similar for vaccinated and nonvaccinated patients (P > .1).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 5,493 patients with RA, of which 653 patients received mRNA vaccine, 671 patients received inactivated virus vaccine, and the remaining were nonvaccinated.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Food and Health Bureau (FHB), Hong Kong. The authors declared receiving research grants, consultancy fees, postdoctoral fellowship, speaker fees, and/ or honorarium from various sources including FHB.

Source: Li X et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Oct 22. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221571.

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not show an increased risk for arthritis flare after completing 2 doses of mRNA (BNT162b2) or inactivated virus (CoronaVac) COVID-19 vaccination.

Major finding: There was no association between receiving 2 doses of mRNA vaccine (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73-1.01) or inactivated virus vaccine (aIRR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.02) and experiencing arthritis flares. The per-patient prescription and distribution of rheumatic drug prescriptions were similar for vaccinated and nonvaccinated patients (P > .1).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 5,493 patients with RA, of which 653 patients received mRNA vaccine, 671 patients received inactivated virus vaccine, and the remaining were nonvaccinated.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Food and Health Bureau (FHB), Hong Kong. The authors declared receiving research grants, consultancy fees, postdoctoral fellowship, speaker fees, and/ or honorarium from various sources including FHB.

Source: Li X et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Oct 22. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221571.

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not show an increased risk for arthritis flare after completing 2 doses of mRNA (BNT162b2) or inactivated virus (CoronaVac) COVID-19 vaccination.

Major finding: There was no association between receiving 2 doses of mRNA vaccine (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73-1.01) or inactivated virus vaccine (aIRR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.02) and experiencing arthritis flares. The per-patient prescription and distribution of rheumatic drug prescriptions were similar for vaccinated and nonvaccinated patients (P > .1).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 5,493 patients with RA, of which 653 patients received mRNA vaccine, 671 patients received inactivated virus vaccine, and the remaining were nonvaccinated.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Food and Health Bureau (FHB), Hong Kong. The authors declared receiving research grants, consultancy fees, postdoctoral fellowship, speaker fees, and/ or honorarium from various sources including FHB.

Source: Li X et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Oct 22. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221571.

The newly detected Omicron COVID-19 variant may be highly infectious and less responsive to available vaccines than other variants, but it is too early to know how it compares to the Delta variant, top infectious disease official Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said Nov. 30.

Dr. Fauci, speaking at a White House COVID-19 briefing, said there’s a “very unusual constellation of changes” across the COVID-19 genome that indicates it is unlike any variant we have seen so far.

“This mutational profile is very different from other variants of interest and concern, and although some mutations are also found in Delta, this is not Delta,” Dr. Fauci said. “These mutations have been associated with increased transmissibility and immune evasion.”

Omicron is the fifth designated COVID-19 variant of concern.

Detected first in South Africa, Omicron has been found in 20 countries so far. There are no known cases yet in the United States, but it has been detected in Canada.

Omicron has more than 30 mutations to the spike protein, the part of the virus that binds to human cells, Dr. Fauci said.

Cross-protection from boosters

Though the mutations suggest there is increased transmission of this variant, he said it is too soon to know how this compares to the Delta variant. And although the vaccines may not be as effective against Omicron, Dr. Fauci said there will likely be some protection.

“Remember, as with other variants, although partial immune escape may occur, vaccines, particularly boosters, give a level of antibodies that even with variants like Delta give you a degree of cross-protection, particularly against severe disease,” he said.

“When we say that although these mutations suggest a diminution of protection and a degree of immune evasion, we still, from experience with Delta, can make a reasonable conclusion that you would not eliminate all protection against this particular variant,” Dr. Fauci said.

So far, there is no reason to believe Omicron will cause more severe illness than other variants of concern.

“Although some preliminary information from South Africa suggests no unusual symptoms associated with variant, we do not know, and it is too early to tell,” Dr. Fauci said.

He recommended that people continue to wear masks, wash hands, and avoid crowded indoor venues. Most importantly, he recommended that everyone get their vaccines and boosters.

“One thing has become clear over the last 20 months: We can’t predict the future, but we can be prepared for it,” CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said at the briefing. “We have far more tools to fight the variant today than we did at this time last year.”


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

The newly detected Omicron COVID-19 variant may be highly infectious and less responsive to available vaccines than other variants, but it is too early to know how it compares to the Delta variant, top infectious disease official Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said Nov. 30.

Dr. Fauci, speaking at a White House COVID-19 briefing, said there’s a “very unusual constellation of changes” across the COVID-19 genome that indicates it is unlike any variant we have seen so far.

“This mutational profile is very different from other variants of interest and concern, and although some mutations are also found in Delta, this is not Delta,” Dr. Fauci said. “These mutations have been associated with increased transmissibility and immune evasion.”

Omicron is the fifth designated COVID-19 variant of concern.

Detected first in South Africa, Omicron has been found in 20 countries so far. There are no known cases yet in the United States, but it has been detected in Canada.

Omicron has more than 30 mutations to the spike protein, the part of the virus that binds to human cells, Dr. Fauci said.

Cross-protection from boosters

Though the mutations suggest there is increased transmission of this variant, he said it is too soon to know how this compares to the Delta variant. And although the vaccines may not be as effective against Omicron, Dr. Fauci said there will likely be some protection.

“Remember, as with other variants, although partial immune escape may occur, vaccines, particularly boosters, give a level of antibodies that even with variants like Delta give you a degree of cross-protection, particularly against severe disease,” he said.

“When we say that although these mutations suggest a diminution of protection and a degree of immune evasion, we still, from experience with Delta, can make a reasonable conclusion that you would not eliminate all protection against this particular variant,” Dr. Fauci said.

So far, there is no reason to believe Omicron will cause more severe illness than other variants of concern.

“Although some preliminary information from South Africa suggests no unusual symptoms associated with variant, we do not know, and it is too early to tell,” Dr. Fauci said.

He recommended that people continue to wear masks, wash hands, and avoid crowded indoor venues. Most importantly, he recommended that everyone get their vaccines and boosters.

“One thing has become clear over the last 20 months: We can’t predict the future, but we can be prepared for it,” CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said at the briefing. “We have far more tools to fight the variant today than we did at this time last year.”


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

The newly detected Omicron COVID-19 variant may be highly infectious and less responsive to available vaccines than other variants, but it is too early to know how it compares to the Delta variant, top infectious disease official Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said Nov. 30.

Dr. Fauci, speaking at a White House COVID-19 briefing, said there’s a “very unusual constellation of changes” across the COVID-19 genome that indicates it is unlike any variant we have seen so far.

“This mutational profile is very different from other variants of interest and concern, and although some mutations are also found in Delta, this is not Delta,” Dr. Fauci said. “These mutations have been associated with increased transmissibility and immune evasion.”

Omicron is the fifth designated COVID-19 variant of concern.

Detected first in South Africa, Omicron has been found in 20 countries so far. There are no known cases yet in the United States, but it has been detected in Canada.

Omicron has more than 30 mutations to the spike protein, the part of the virus that binds to human cells, Dr. Fauci said.

Cross-protection from boosters

Though the mutations suggest there is increased transmission of this variant, he said it is too soon to know how this compares to the Delta variant. And although the vaccines may not be as effective against Omicron, Dr. Fauci said there will likely be some protection.

“Remember, as with other variants, although partial immune escape may occur, vaccines, particularly boosters, give a level of antibodies that even with variants like Delta give you a degree of cross-protection, particularly against severe disease,” he said.

“When we say that although these mutations suggest a diminution of protection and a degree of immune evasion, we still, from experience with Delta, can make a reasonable conclusion that you would not eliminate all protection against this particular variant,” Dr. Fauci said.

So far, there is no reason to believe Omicron will cause more severe illness than other variants of concern.

“Although some preliminary information from South Africa suggests no unusual symptoms associated with variant, we do not know, and it is too early to tell,” Dr. Fauci said.

He recommended that people continue to wear masks, wash hands, and avoid crowded indoor venues. Most importantly, he recommended that everyone get their vaccines and boosters.

“One thing has become clear over the last 20 months: We can’t predict the future, but we can be prepared for it,” CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said at the briefing. “We have far more tools to fight the variant today than we did at this time last year.”


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

An antiviral pill from Merck may help some high-risk patients survive a COVID-19 infection or help them stay out of the hospital, even though the risks of taking the drug aren’t yet fully known, according to a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on its regulatory decisions for these types of drugs.

The FDA’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted to authorize the drug molnupiravir, voting 13 to 10 to support emergency use, which requires a medication to meet a lower standard of evidence than does full approval.

The FDA is not bound by the committee’s vote but typically follows its advice.

If authorized by the agency, molnupiravir would be the first antiviral agent available as a pill to treat COVID-19. Other therapies to treat the infection are available — monoclonal antibodies and the drug remdesivir — but they are given by infusion.

The United Kingdom has already authorized the use of Merck’s drug.

“This was clearly a difficult decision,” said committee member Michael Green, MD, a pediatric infectious disease expert at the University of Pittsburg School of Medicine.

Green said he voted yes, and that the drug’s ability to prevent deaths in the study weighed heavily on his decision. He said given uncertainties around the drug both the company and FDA should keep a close eye on patients taking the drug going forward.

“Should an alternative oral agent become available that had a better safety profile and equal or better efficacy profile, the agency might reconsider its authorization,” he said.

Others didn’t agree that the drug should be allowed onto the market.

“I voted no,” said Jennifer Le, PharmD, a professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of California. Dr. Le said the modest benefit of the medication didn’t outweigh all the potential safety issues. “I think I just need more efficacy and safety data,” she said.

Initial results from the first half of people enrolled in the clinical trial found the pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19.

But later results, released just days before the meeting, showed that the drug’s effectiveness had dropped to about 30%.

In the updated analysis, 48 patients out of the 709 who were taking the drug were hospitalized or died within 29 days compared to 68 out of 699 who randomly got the placebo. There was one death in the group that got molnupiravir compared to nine in the placebo group. Nearly all those deaths occurred during the first phase of the study.

On Nov. 30 Merck explained that the drug’s efficacy appeared to fall, in part, because the placebo group had experienced fewer hospitalizations and deaths than expected during the second half of the study, making the drug look less beneficial by comparison.

The company said it wasn’t sure why patients in the placebo group had fared so much better in later trial enrollments.

“The efficacy of this product is not overwhelmingly good,” said committee member David Hardy, MD, an infectious disease expert at Charles Drew University School of Medicine in Los Angeles. “And I think that makes all of us a little uncomfortable about whether this is an advanced therapeutic because it’s an oral medication rather than an intravenous medication,” he said during the panel’s deliberations.

“I think we have to be very careful about how we’re going to allow people to use this,” Dr. Hardy said.

Many who voted for authorization thought use of the drug should be restricted to unvaccinated people who were at high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, the same population enrolled in the clinical trial. People in the trial were considered at higher risk if they were over age 60, had cancer, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were obese, or had heart disease or diabetes.

There are some significant limitations of the study that may affect how the drug is used. Vaccinated people couldn’t enroll in the study, so it’s not known if the medication would have any benefit for them. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated. The study found no additional benefit of the medication compared to the placebo in people who had detectable antibodies, presumably from a prior infection.

Animal studies found that the drug — which kills the virus by forcing it to make errors as it copies its genetic material inside cells — could disrupt bone formation. For that reason, the manufacturer and the FDA agreed that it should not be used in anyone younger than age 18.

Animal studies also indicated that the drug could cause birth defects. For that reason, the company said the drug shouldn’t be given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding and said doctors should make sure women of childbearing age aren’t pregnant before taking the medication.

Some members of the panel felt that pregnant women and their doctors should be given the choice of whether or not to use the drug, given that pregnant women are at high risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and infused therapies may not be available in all settings.

Other members of the committee said they were uncomfortable authorizing the drug given its potential to mutate the virus.

The drug, which forces the virus to mutate as it copies its RNA, eventually causes the virus to make so many errors in its genetic material that it can no longer make more of itself and the immune system clears it out of the body.

But it takes a few days to work — the drug is designed to be taken for 5 consecutive days -- and studies of the viral loads of patients taking the drug show that through the first 2 days, viral loads remain detectable as these mutations occur.

Studies by the FDA show some of those mutations in the spike protein are the same ones that have helped the virus become more transmissible and escape the protection of vaccines.

So the question is whether someone taking the medication could develop a dangerous mutation and then infect someone else, sparking the spread of a new variant.

Nicholas Kartsonis, MD, a vice president at Merck, said that the company was still analyzing data.

“Even if the probability is very low — 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 -- that this drug would induce an escape mutant for which the vaccines we have would not cover, that would be catastrophic for the whole world, actually,” said committee member James Hildreth, MD, an immunologist and president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville. “Do you have sufficient data on the likelihood of that happening?” he asked Dr. Kartsonis of Merck.

“So we don’t,” Dr. Kartsonis said.

He said, in theory, the risk of mutation with molnupiravir is the same as seen with the use of vaccines or monoclonal antibody therapies. Dr. Hildreth wasn’t satisfied with that answer.

“With all respect, the mechanism of your drug is to drive [genetic mutations], so it’s not the same as the vaccine. It’s not the same as monoclonal antibodies,” he said.

Dr. Hildreth later said he didn’t feel comfortable voting for authorization given the uncertainties around escape mutants. He voted no.

“It was an easy vote for me,” he said.

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

An antiviral pill from Merck may help some high-risk patients survive a COVID-19 infection or help them stay out of the hospital, even though the risks of taking the drug aren’t yet fully known, according to a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on its regulatory decisions for these types of drugs.

The FDA’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted to authorize the drug molnupiravir, voting 13 to 10 to support emergency use, which requires a medication to meet a lower standard of evidence than does full approval.

The FDA is not bound by the committee’s vote but typically follows its advice.

If authorized by the agency, molnupiravir would be the first antiviral agent available as a pill to treat COVID-19. Other therapies to treat the infection are available — monoclonal antibodies and the drug remdesivir — but they are given by infusion.

The United Kingdom has already authorized the use of Merck’s drug.

“This was clearly a difficult decision,” said committee member Michael Green, MD, a pediatric infectious disease expert at the University of Pittsburg School of Medicine.

Green said he voted yes, and that the drug’s ability to prevent deaths in the study weighed heavily on his decision. He said given uncertainties around the drug both the company and FDA should keep a close eye on patients taking the drug going forward.

“Should an alternative oral agent become available that had a better safety profile and equal or better efficacy profile, the agency might reconsider its authorization,” he said.

Others didn’t agree that the drug should be allowed onto the market.

“I voted no,” said Jennifer Le, PharmD, a professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of California. Dr. Le said the modest benefit of the medication didn’t outweigh all the potential safety issues. “I think I just need more efficacy and safety data,” she said.

Initial results from the first half of people enrolled in the clinical trial found the pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19.

But later results, released just days before the meeting, showed that the drug’s effectiveness had dropped to about 30%.

In the updated analysis, 48 patients out of the 709 who were taking the drug were hospitalized or died within 29 days compared to 68 out of 699 who randomly got the placebo. There was one death in the group that got molnupiravir compared to nine in the placebo group. Nearly all those deaths occurred during the first phase of the study.

On Nov. 30 Merck explained that the drug’s efficacy appeared to fall, in part, because the placebo group had experienced fewer hospitalizations and deaths than expected during the second half of the study, making the drug look less beneficial by comparison.

The company said it wasn’t sure why patients in the placebo group had fared so much better in later trial enrollments.

“The efficacy of this product is not overwhelmingly good,” said committee member David Hardy, MD, an infectious disease expert at Charles Drew University School of Medicine in Los Angeles. “And I think that makes all of us a little uncomfortable about whether this is an advanced therapeutic because it’s an oral medication rather than an intravenous medication,” he said during the panel’s deliberations.

“I think we have to be very careful about how we’re going to allow people to use this,” Dr. Hardy said.

Many who voted for authorization thought use of the drug should be restricted to unvaccinated people who were at high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, the same population enrolled in the clinical trial. People in the trial were considered at higher risk if they were over age 60, had cancer, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were obese, or had heart disease or diabetes.

There are some significant limitations of the study that may affect how the drug is used. Vaccinated people couldn’t enroll in the study, so it’s not known if the medication would have any benefit for them. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated. The study found no additional benefit of the medication compared to the placebo in people who had detectable antibodies, presumably from a prior infection.

Animal studies found that the drug — which kills the virus by forcing it to make errors as it copies its genetic material inside cells — could disrupt bone formation. For that reason, the manufacturer and the FDA agreed that it should not be used in anyone younger than age 18.

Animal studies also indicated that the drug could cause birth defects. For that reason, the company said the drug shouldn’t be given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding and said doctors should make sure women of childbearing age aren’t pregnant before taking the medication.

Some members of the panel felt that pregnant women and their doctors should be given the choice of whether or not to use the drug, given that pregnant women are at high risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and infused therapies may not be available in all settings.

Other members of the committee said they were uncomfortable authorizing the drug given its potential to mutate the virus.

The drug, which forces the virus to mutate as it copies its RNA, eventually causes the virus to make so many errors in its genetic material that it can no longer make more of itself and the immune system clears it out of the body.

But it takes a few days to work — the drug is designed to be taken for 5 consecutive days -- and studies of the viral loads of patients taking the drug show that through the first 2 days, viral loads remain detectable as these mutations occur.

Studies by the FDA show some of those mutations in the spike protein are the same ones that have helped the virus become more transmissible and escape the protection of vaccines.

So the question is whether someone taking the medication could develop a dangerous mutation and then infect someone else, sparking the spread of a new variant.

Nicholas Kartsonis, MD, a vice president at Merck, said that the company was still analyzing data.

“Even if the probability is very low — 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 -- that this drug would induce an escape mutant for which the vaccines we have would not cover, that would be catastrophic for the whole world, actually,” said committee member James Hildreth, MD, an immunologist and president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville. “Do you have sufficient data on the likelihood of that happening?” he asked Dr. Kartsonis of Merck.

“So we don’t,” Dr. Kartsonis said.

He said, in theory, the risk of mutation with molnupiravir is the same as seen with the use of vaccines or monoclonal antibody therapies. Dr. Hildreth wasn’t satisfied with that answer.

“With all respect, the mechanism of your drug is to drive [genetic mutations], so it’s not the same as the vaccine. It’s not the same as monoclonal antibodies,” he said.

Dr. Hildreth later said he didn’t feel comfortable voting for authorization given the uncertainties around escape mutants. He voted no.

“It was an easy vote for me,” he said.

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

An antiviral pill from Merck may help some high-risk patients survive a COVID-19 infection or help them stay out of the hospital, even though the risks of taking the drug aren’t yet fully known, according to a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on its regulatory decisions for these types of drugs.

The FDA’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted to authorize the drug molnupiravir, voting 13 to 10 to support emergency use, which requires a medication to meet a lower standard of evidence than does full approval.

The FDA is not bound by the committee’s vote but typically follows its advice.

If authorized by the agency, molnupiravir would be the first antiviral agent available as a pill to treat COVID-19. Other therapies to treat the infection are available — monoclonal antibodies and the drug remdesivir — but they are given by infusion.

The United Kingdom has already authorized the use of Merck’s drug.

“This was clearly a difficult decision,” said committee member Michael Green, MD, a pediatric infectious disease expert at the University of Pittsburg School of Medicine.

Green said he voted yes, and that the drug’s ability to prevent deaths in the study weighed heavily on his decision. He said given uncertainties around the drug both the company and FDA should keep a close eye on patients taking the drug going forward.

“Should an alternative oral agent become available that had a better safety profile and equal or better efficacy profile, the agency might reconsider its authorization,” he said.

Others didn’t agree that the drug should be allowed onto the market.

“I voted no,” said Jennifer Le, PharmD, a professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of California. Dr. Le said the modest benefit of the medication didn’t outweigh all the potential safety issues. “I think I just need more efficacy and safety data,” she said.

Initial results from the first half of people enrolled in the clinical trial found the pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19.

But later results, released just days before the meeting, showed that the drug’s effectiveness had dropped to about 30%.

In the updated analysis, 48 patients out of the 709 who were taking the drug were hospitalized or died within 29 days compared to 68 out of 699 who randomly got the placebo. There was one death in the group that got molnupiravir compared to nine in the placebo group. Nearly all those deaths occurred during the first phase of the study.

On Nov. 30 Merck explained that the drug’s efficacy appeared to fall, in part, because the placebo group had experienced fewer hospitalizations and deaths than expected during the second half of the study, making the drug look less beneficial by comparison.

The company said it wasn’t sure why patients in the placebo group had fared so much better in later trial enrollments.

“The efficacy of this product is not overwhelmingly good,” said committee member David Hardy, MD, an infectious disease expert at Charles Drew University School of Medicine in Los Angeles. “And I think that makes all of us a little uncomfortable about whether this is an advanced therapeutic because it’s an oral medication rather than an intravenous medication,” he said during the panel’s deliberations.

“I think we have to be very careful about how we’re going to allow people to use this,” Dr. Hardy said.

Many who voted for authorization thought use of the drug should be restricted to unvaccinated people who were at high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, the same population enrolled in the clinical trial. People in the trial were considered at higher risk if they were over age 60, had cancer, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were obese, or had heart disease or diabetes.

There are some significant limitations of the study that may affect how the drug is used. Vaccinated people couldn’t enroll in the study, so it’s not known if the medication would have any benefit for them. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated. The study found no additional benefit of the medication compared to the placebo in people who had detectable antibodies, presumably from a prior infection.

Animal studies found that the drug — which kills the virus by forcing it to make errors as it copies its genetic material inside cells — could disrupt bone formation. For that reason, the manufacturer and the FDA agreed that it should not be used in anyone younger than age 18.

Animal studies also indicated that the drug could cause birth defects. For that reason, the company said the drug shouldn’t be given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding and said doctors should make sure women of childbearing age aren’t pregnant before taking the medication.

Some members of the panel felt that pregnant women and their doctors should be given the choice of whether or not to use the drug, given that pregnant women are at high risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and infused therapies may not be available in all settings.

Other members of the committee said they were uncomfortable authorizing the drug given its potential to mutate the virus.

The drug, which forces the virus to mutate as it copies its RNA, eventually causes the virus to make so many errors in its genetic material that it can no longer make more of itself and the immune system clears it out of the body.

But it takes a few days to work — the drug is designed to be taken for 5 consecutive days -- and studies of the viral loads of patients taking the drug show that through the first 2 days, viral loads remain detectable as these mutations occur.

Studies by the FDA show some of those mutations in the spike protein are the same ones that have helped the virus become more transmissible and escape the protection of vaccines.

So the question is whether someone taking the medication could develop a dangerous mutation and then infect someone else, sparking the spread of a new variant.

Nicholas Kartsonis, MD, a vice president at Merck, said that the company was still analyzing data.

“Even if the probability is very low — 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 -- that this drug would induce an escape mutant for which the vaccines we have would not cover, that would be catastrophic for the whole world, actually,” said committee member James Hildreth, MD, an immunologist and president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville. “Do you have sufficient data on the likelihood of that happening?” he asked Dr. Kartsonis of Merck.

“So we don’t,” Dr. Kartsonis said.

He said, in theory, the risk of mutation with molnupiravir is the same as seen with the use of vaccines or monoclonal antibody therapies. Dr. Hildreth wasn’t satisfied with that answer.

“With all respect, the mechanism of your drug is to drive [genetic mutations], so it’s not the same as the vaccine. It’s not the same as monoclonal antibodies,” he said.

Dr. Hildreth later said he didn’t feel comfortable voting for authorization given the uncertainties around escape mutants. He voted no.

“It was an easy vote for me,” he said.

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

Merck’s antiviral pill for COVID-19, molnupiravir, appears to be far less effective than early results from the clinical trial first suggested.

According to an analysis by scientists at the Food and Drug Administration, the experimental pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 by about 30%, compared to a placebo, and the pill showed no benefit for people with antibodies against COVID-19 from prior infection.

The updated analysis showed 48 hospitalizations or deaths among study participants who were randomly assigned to take the antiviral drug, compared to 68 among those who took a placebo.

Those results come from the full set of 1,433 patients who were randomized in the clinical trial, which just became available last week.

Initial results from the first 775 patients enrolled in the clinical trial, which were issued in a company news release in October, had said the drug cut the risk of hospitalization or death for patients at high risk of severe disease by about 50%.

Merck has been producing millions of doses of molnupiravir, which is the first antiviral pill to treat COVID-19 infections. The United Kingdom’s drug regulator authorized use of the medication in early November. The company said it expected to distribute the medication globally by the end of 2021.

In October, two Indian drug companies halted late-stage clinical trials of a generic version of molnupiravir after the studies failed to find any benefit to patients with moderate COVID-19. Trials in patients with milder symptoms are still ongoing.

On Nov. 27, the New England Journal of Medicine postponed its planned early release of the molnupiravir study results, citing “new information.”

The medication is designed to be given as four pills taken every 12 hours for 5 days. It’s most effective when taken within the first few days of new symptoms, something that requires convenient and affordable testing.

The new results seem to put molnupiravir far below the effectiveness of existing treatments.

The infused monoclonal antibody cocktail REGEN-COV, which the FDA has already authorized for emergency use, is about 85% effective at preventing hospitalization or death in patients who are at risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and it appears to be just as effective in people who already have antibodies against COVID-19, which is why it is being given to both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, the FDA said.

In early November, Pfizer said its experimental antiviral pill Paxlovid cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 89%.

In briefing documents posted ahead of an advisory committee meeting Nov. 30, the FDA highlights other potential safety issues with the Merck drug, which works by causing the virus to make mistakes as it copies itself, eventually causing the virus to mutate itself to death.

The agency has asked the advisory committee to weigh in on the right patient population for the drug: Should pregnant women get it? Could the drug harm a developing fetus?

Should vaccinated people with breakthrough infections get it? Would it work for them? People with reduced immune function are more likely to get a breakthrough infection. They’re also more likely to shed virus for a longer period of time, making them perfect incubators for variants. What could happen if we give this type of patient a drug that increases mutations?

And what about mutations caused by the medication? Could they increase the potential for more variants? The agency concluded the risk of this happening was low.

In animal studies, the drug impacted bone formation. For this reason, the agency has agreed with the drug company that molnupiravir should not be given to anyone under the age of 18.

Aside from these concerns, the FDA says there were no major safety issues among people who took part in the clinical trial, though they acknowledge that number is small.

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

Merck’s antiviral pill for COVID-19, molnupiravir, appears to be far less effective than early results from the clinical trial first suggested.

According to an analysis by scientists at the Food and Drug Administration, the experimental pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 by about 30%, compared to a placebo, and the pill showed no benefit for people with antibodies against COVID-19 from prior infection.

The updated analysis showed 48 hospitalizations or deaths among study participants who were randomly assigned to take the antiviral drug, compared to 68 among those who took a placebo.

Those results come from the full set of 1,433 patients who were randomized in the clinical trial, which just became available last week.

Initial results from the first 775 patients enrolled in the clinical trial, which were issued in a company news release in October, had said the drug cut the risk of hospitalization or death for patients at high risk of severe disease by about 50%.

Merck has been producing millions of doses of molnupiravir, which is the first antiviral pill to treat COVID-19 infections. The United Kingdom’s drug regulator authorized use of the medication in early November. The company said it expected to distribute the medication globally by the end of 2021.

In October, two Indian drug companies halted late-stage clinical trials of a generic version of molnupiravir after the studies failed to find any benefit to patients with moderate COVID-19. Trials in patients with milder symptoms are still ongoing.

On Nov. 27, the New England Journal of Medicine postponed its planned early release of the molnupiravir study results, citing “new information.”

The medication is designed to be given as four pills taken every 12 hours for 5 days. It’s most effective when taken within the first few days of new symptoms, something that requires convenient and affordable testing.

The new results seem to put molnupiravir far below the effectiveness of existing treatments.

The infused monoclonal antibody cocktail REGEN-COV, which the FDA has already authorized for emergency use, is about 85% effective at preventing hospitalization or death in patients who are at risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and it appears to be just as effective in people who already have antibodies against COVID-19, which is why it is being given to both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, the FDA said.

In early November, Pfizer said its experimental antiviral pill Paxlovid cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 89%.

In briefing documents posted ahead of an advisory committee meeting Nov. 30, the FDA highlights other potential safety issues with the Merck drug, which works by causing the virus to make mistakes as it copies itself, eventually causing the virus to mutate itself to death.

The agency has asked the advisory committee to weigh in on the right patient population for the drug: Should pregnant women get it? Could the drug harm a developing fetus?

Should vaccinated people with breakthrough infections get it? Would it work for them? People with reduced immune function are more likely to get a breakthrough infection. They’re also more likely to shed virus for a longer period of time, making them perfect incubators for variants. What could happen if we give this type of patient a drug that increases mutations?

And what about mutations caused by the medication? Could they increase the potential for more variants? The agency concluded the risk of this happening was low.

In animal studies, the drug impacted bone formation. For this reason, the agency has agreed with the drug company that molnupiravir should not be given to anyone under the age of 18.

Aside from these concerns, the FDA says there were no major safety issues among people who took part in the clinical trial, though they acknowledge that number is small.

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

Merck’s antiviral pill for COVID-19, molnupiravir, appears to be far less effective than early results from the clinical trial first suggested.

According to an analysis by scientists at the Food and Drug Administration, the experimental pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 by about 30%, compared to a placebo, and the pill showed no benefit for people with antibodies against COVID-19 from prior infection.

The updated analysis showed 48 hospitalizations or deaths among study participants who were randomly assigned to take the antiviral drug, compared to 68 among those who took a placebo.

Those results come from the full set of 1,433 patients who were randomized in the clinical trial, which just became available last week.

Initial results from the first 775 patients enrolled in the clinical trial, which were issued in a company news release in October, had said the drug cut the risk of hospitalization or death for patients at high risk of severe disease by about 50%.

Merck has been producing millions of doses of molnupiravir, which is the first antiviral pill to treat COVID-19 infections. The United Kingdom’s drug regulator authorized use of the medication in early November. The company said it expected to distribute the medication globally by the end of 2021.

In October, two Indian drug companies halted late-stage clinical trials of a generic version of molnupiravir after the studies failed to find any benefit to patients with moderate COVID-19. Trials in patients with milder symptoms are still ongoing.

On Nov. 27, the New England Journal of Medicine postponed its planned early release of the molnupiravir study results, citing “new information.”

The medication is designed to be given as four pills taken every 12 hours for 5 days. It’s most effective when taken within the first few days of new symptoms, something that requires convenient and affordable testing.

The new results seem to put molnupiravir far below the effectiveness of existing treatments.

The infused monoclonal antibody cocktail REGEN-COV, which the FDA has already authorized for emergency use, is about 85% effective at preventing hospitalization or death in patients who are at risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and it appears to be just as effective in people who already have antibodies against COVID-19, which is why it is being given to both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, the FDA said.

In early November, Pfizer said its experimental antiviral pill Paxlovid cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 89%.

In briefing documents posted ahead of an advisory committee meeting Nov. 30, the FDA highlights other potential safety issues with the Merck drug, which works by causing the virus to make mistakes as it copies itself, eventually causing the virus to mutate itself to death.

The agency has asked the advisory committee to weigh in on the right patient population for the drug: Should pregnant women get it? Could the drug harm a developing fetus?

Should vaccinated people with breakthrough infections get it? Would it work for them? People with reduced immune function are more likely to get a breakthrough infection. They’re also more likely to shed virus for a longer period of time, making them perfect incubators for variants. What could happen if we give this type of patient a drug that increases mutations?

And what about mutations caused by the medication? Could they increase the potential for more variants? The agency concluded the risk of this happening was low.

In animal studies, the drug impacted bone formation. For this reason, the agency has agreed with the drug company that molnupiravir should not be given to anyone under the age of 18.

Aside from these concerns, the FDA says there were no major safety issues among people who took part in the clinical trial, though they acknowledge that number is small.

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

Ramy Sedhom, MD, a medical oncologist and a palliative care physician at Penn Medicine Princeton Health in Plainsboro, N.J., will always wonder if prior authorization refusals led to his patient’s death.

The patient had advanced gastric cancer and the insurer initially denied a PET scan to rule out metastatic disease. When the scan was eventually allowed, it revealed that the cancer had spread.

Standard treatment would have been difficult for the patient, an older individual with comorbidities. But Dr. Sedhom knew that a European study had reported equal efficacy and fewer side effects with a reduced chemotherapy regimen, and he thought that was the best approach in this situation.

The insurer disagreed with Dr. Sedhom’s decision and, while the two argued, the patient’s symptoms worsened. He was admitted to the hospital, where he experienced a decline in function, common for older patients. “Long story short, he was never able to seek treatment and then transitioned to hospice,” Dr. Sedhom said. “It was one of those situations where there was a 3- to 4-week delay in what should have been standard care.”

That course of events is not an outlier but everyday life for physicians trying to navigate insurers’ prior authorization rules before they can treat their patients. Nearly 4 years after major organizations — American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Medical Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and others — signed a consensus statement agreeing to improve the prior authorization process, physicians say little progress has been made.

Indeed, 83% of physicians say that the number of prior authorizations required for prescription medications and medical services has increased over the last 5 years, according to survey results released earlier this year.

“It’s decidedly worse — there’s no question about it,” said Andrew R. Spector, MD, a neurologist and sleep medicine specialist at Duke Health in Durham, N.C. “Drugs that I used to get without prior authorizations now require them.”

When Vignesh I. Doraiswamy, MD, an internal medicine hospitalist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, discharged a patient with Clostridioides difficile infection, he followed clinical guidelines to prescribe vancomycin for 10 to 14 days. “And the insurance company said, ‘Well, yeah, we only authorize about 5 days,’ which just makes no sense,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “There’s nowhere in any literature that says 5 days is sufficient. What worries me is that is the standard of care we are supposed to give and yet we are unable to.”

Yash B. Jobanputra, MD, a cardiology fellow at Saint Vincent Hospital in Worcester, Mass., laments that prior authorization is used in situations that simply do not make common sense. During his residency, a woman who had tested positive for the BRCA gene mutation with a strong family history of breast cancer needed a breast ultrasound and an MRI scan every 6 months to 1 year. Despite the documentation that she was at extremely high risk for developing breast cancer, he had to go through prior authorization every time she was due for new images.

“I had to call the insurance company, they would put me on hold, I would wait to speak to a physician — and the end response would be, ‘Yeah, this is what needs to be done,’” he said. “But having established her positive status once should be enough really. I shouldn’t have to go through the circus all over again.”

Prior authorization is also being used for routine diagnostics, such as a Holter monitor for patients complaining of heart palpitations. “Depending on the insurance, for some patients we can give it to them in the clinic right away,” Dr. Jobanputra said. “Whereas some others we have to wait until we get prior authorization from the insurance company and the patient has to come back again to the hospital to get the monitor. That is a delay in patient care.”

The delays also extend to emergency care, Dr. Doraiswamy said. He cites the example of a heart attack patient who needed an emergency heart catheterization but ran into a prior authorization delay. “I just said, ‘Try your best not to get stressed’ which is not easy for a patient finding out their stay wasn’t covered when they had just been through a heart attack,” he said. “Then I spent 20 to 30 minutes — most of it on hold — to answer the question ‘Why did this patient need to get admitted?’ “

Physicians feel disrespected because that type of prior authorization hassle is just busywork. “Rarely is a valid stay that was initially denied, not eventually accepted,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “But why couldn’t they have just seen that the guy had a heart attack and he obviously needed to be in the hospital?”

For Dr. Spector, the Duke Health sleep medicine specialist, prior authorization is not just a speed bump, it’s a full stop. Insurers have started mandating a multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) to confirm narcolepsy before covering medication to treat the condition. “We know that the MSLT is very often wrong,” he said. “There are a lot of times we’re dealing with patients with narcolepsy who simply don’t meet the testing criteria that the insurance requires, and payers will not accept our clinical judgment.”

In his view, the prior authorization landscape is worsening — and not only because a “faulty test” is being used to deny treatment. “The appeal process is worse,” Dr. Spector said. “I used to be able to get on the phone and do a peer-to-peer review with a physician who I could reason with… but that doesn’t happen anymore. There is virtually no way to bypass these blanket rules.”

Other survey findings also stand in direct contradiction of the 2018 consensus agreement:

A large majority (87%) of physicians report that prior authorization interferes with continuity of care, even though the industry groups agreed that patients should be protected from treatment disruption when there is a formulary or treatment-coverage change.

Despite a consensus to encourage transparency and easy accessibility of prior authorization requirements, 68% of physicians reported that it is difficult to determine whether a prescription medication requires prior authorization, and 58% report that it’s difficult for medical services.

Phone and fax are the most commonly used methods for completing prior authorizations, despite agreement that electronic prior authorization, using existing national standard transactions, should be accelerated. Fewer than one quarter of physicians said that their electronic health record system supports electronic prior authorization for prescription medications.

Dr. Spector wants to see legislation that forces insurers to live up to some of the tenets of the 2018 consensus statement. In September, a new Texas law went into effect, exempting physicians from prior authorization if, during the previous six months, 90% of their treatments met an insurer›s medical necessity criteria. In January, the recently approved Prior Authorization Reform Act in Illinois will reduce the number of services subject to prior authorization, mandate a prior authorization decision within 5 days, and set disciplinary measures for health plans that do not comply, among other things.

“What gives me hope is that at least somewhere in the country, somebody is doing something,” Dr. Spector said. “And if it goes well, maybe other insurers will adopt it. I’m really hoping they demonstrate that the money they can save on the administration of all the appeals and prior authorization paperwork can actually go into caring for patients.”

In addition to state-level action, reform may also be advancing at the federal level. In October, a bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate that mirrors a prior authorization reform bill introduced in the House of Representatives last May. Both bills have broad bipartisan support; the House bill has more than 235 co-sponsors.

In an interview with this news organization, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) said it is “very realistic” that the bill will become law during this session of Congress. “We do think this bill will get marked up in committee and hopefully we can get it to the floor either as a stand-alone bill where we know we have the votes to pass it or as part of a larger legislative package,” he said.

If approved, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 would require that Medicare Advantage plans minimize the use of prior authorization for routinely approved services; require real-time decisions for certain requests; report the extent of their use of prior authorization and their rate of approvals or denials, among other things; and establish an electronic prior authorization system.

Medicare Advantage plans are private insurers that are regulated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which will create the specific rules and penalties associated with the reforms, if they become law. “One would presume that a condition of being a Medicare Advantage plan is that you’re going to have to comply with these new regulations,” said Katie Orrico, senior vice president of health policy and advocacy for the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AANS/CNS). “So they will have some amount of teeth in the form of a mandate.”

The AANS and CNS are part of the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of 14 national physician specialty organizations. Winning prior authorization reform in the Medicare Advantage plans is part of its bigger strategy. “If those commercial plans have to follow a set of rules and processes for Medicare, then why not just expand those same processes to all other parts of their business?” Ms. Orrico said. 

Despite his frustration with their prior authorization processes, Dr. Doraiswamy, the Ohio State hospitalist, agrees that working to improve insurers’ practices is the best way forward. “It’s so easy to make them look like these evil, giant conglomerations that exist solely to suck money and not care about anyone’s health, but I don’t know if that’s necessarily the case,” he said. “We really have to figure out how best to work with insurance companies to make sure that, while they are profit-generating institutions, that [profit] shouldn’t come at the cost of patient care.”

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

Ramy Sedhom, MD, a medical oncologist and a palliative care physician at Penn Medicine Princeton Health in Plainsboro, N.J., will always wonder if prior authorization refusals led to his patient’s death.

The patient had advanced gastric cancer and the insurer initially denied a PET scan to rule out metastatic disease. When the scan was eventually allowed, it revealed that the cancer had spread.

Standard treatment would have been difficult for the patient, an older individual with comorbidities. But Dr. Sedhom knew that a European study had reported equal efficacy and fewer side effects with a reduced chemotherapy regimen, and he thought that was the best approach in this situation.

The insurer disagreed with Dr. Sedhom’s decision and, while the two argued, the patient’s symptoms worsened. He was admitted to the hospital, where he experienced a decline in function, common for older patients. “Long story short, he was never able to seek treatment and then transitioned to hospice,” Dr. Sedhom said. “It was one of those situations where there was a 3- to 4-week delay in what should have been standard care.”

That course of events is not an outlier but everyday life for physicians trying to navigate insurers’ prior authorization rules before they can treat their patients. Nearly 4 years after major organizations — American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Medical Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and others — signed a consensus statement agreeing to improve the prior authorization process, physicians say little progress has been made.

Indeed, 83% of physicians say that the number of prior authorizations required for prescription medications and medical services has increased over the last 5 years, according to survey results released earlier this year.

“It’s decidedly worse — there’s no question about it,” said Andrew R. Spector, MD, a neurologist and sleep medicine specialist at Duke Health in Durham, N.C. “Drugs that I used to get without prior authorizations now require them.”

When Vignesh I. Doraiswamy, MD, an internal medicine hospitalist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, discharged a patient with Clostridioides difficile infection, he followed clinical guidelines to prescribe vancomycin for 10 to 14 days. “And the insurance company said, ‘Well, yeah, we only authorize about 5 days,’ which just makes no sense,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “There’s nowhere in any literature that says 5 days is sufficient. What worries me is that is the standard of care we are supposed to give and yet we are unable to.”

Yash B. Jobanputra, MD, a cardiology fellow at Saint Vincent Hospital in Worcester, Mass., laments that prior authorization is used in situations that simply do not make common sense. During his residency, a woman who had tested positive for the BRCA gene mutation with a strong family history of breast cancer needed a breast ultrasound and an MRI scan every 6 months to 1 year. Despite the documentation that she was at extremely high risk for developing breast cancer, he had to go through prior authorization every time she was due for new images.

“I had to call the insurance company, they would put me on hold, I would wait to speak to a physician — and the end response would be, ‘Yeah, this is what needs to be done,’” he said. “But having established her positive status once should be enough really. I shouldn’t have to go through the circus all over again.”

Prior authorization is also being used for routine diagnostics, such as a Holter monitor for patients complaining of heart palpitations. “Depending on the insurance, for some patients we can give it to them in the clinic right away,” Dr. Jobanputra said. “Whereas some others we have to wait until we get prior authorization from the insurance company and the patient has to come back again to the hospital to get the monitor. That is a delay in patient care.”

The delays also extend to emergency care, Dr. Doraiswamy said. He cites the example of a heart attack patient who needed an emergency heart catheterization but ran into a prior authorization delay. “I just said, ‘Try your best not to get stressed’ which is not easy for a patient finding out their stay wasn’t covered when they had just been through a heart attack,” he said. “Then I spent 20 to 30 minutes — most of it on hold — to answer the question ‘Why did this patient need to get admitted?’ “

Physicians feel disrespected because that type of prior authorization hassle is just busywork. “Rarely is a valid stay that was initially denied, not eventually accepted,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “But why couldn’t they have just seen that the guy had a heart attack and he obviously needed to be in the hospital?”

For Dr. Spector, the Duke Health sleep medicine specialist, prior authorization is not just a speed bump, it’s a full stop. Insurers have started mandating a multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) to confirm narcolepsy before covering medication to treat the condition. “We know that the MSLT is very often wrong,” he said. “There are a lot of times we’re dealing with patients with narcolepsy who simply don’t meet the testing criteria that the insurance requires, and payers will not accept our clinical judgment.”

In his view, the prior authorization landscape is worsening — and not only because a “faulty test” is being used to deny treatment. “The appeal process is worse,” Dr. Spector said. “I used to be able to get on the phone and do a peer-to-peer review with a physician who I could reason with… but that doesn’t happen anymore. There is virtually no way to bypass these blanket rules.”

Other survey findings also stand in direct contradiction of the 2018 consensus agreement:

A large majority (87%) of physicians report that prior authorization interferes with continuity of care, even though the industry groups agreed that patients should be protected from treatment disruption when there is a formulary or treatment-coverage change.

Despite a consensus to encourage transparency and easy accessibility of prior authorization requirements, 68% of physicians reported that it is difficult to determine whether a prescription medication requires prior authorization, and 58% report that it’s difficult for medical services.

Phone and fax are the most commonly used methods for completing prior authorizations, despite agreement that electronic prior authorization, using existing national standard transactions, should be accelerated. Fewer than one quarter of physicians said that their electronic health record system supports electronic prior authorization for prescription medications.

Dr. Spector wants to see legislation that forces insurers to live up to some of the tenets of the 2018 consensus statement. In September, a new Texas law went into effect, exempting physicians from prior authorization if, during the previous six months, 90% of their treatments met an insurer›s medical necessity criteria. In January, the recently approved Prior Authorization Reform Act in Illinois will reduce the number of services subject to prior authorization, mandate a prior authorization decision within 5 days, and set disciplinary measures for health plans that do not comply, among other things.

“What gives me hope is that at least somewhere in the country, somebody is doing something,” Dr. Spector said. “And if it goes well, maybe other insurers will adopt it. I’m really hoping they demonstrate that the money they can save on the administration of all the appeals and prior authorization paperwork can actually go into caring for patients.”

In addition to state-level action, reform may also be advancing at the federal level. In October, a bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate that mirrors a prior authorization reform bill introduced in the House of Representatives last May. Both bills have broad bipartisan support; the House bill has more than 235 co-sponsors.

In an interview with this news organization, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) said it is “very realistic” that the bill will become law during this session of Congress. “We do think this bill will get marked up in committee and hopefully we can get it to the floor either as a stand-alone bill where we know we have the votes to pass it or as part of a larger legislative package,” he said.

If approved, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 would require that Medicare Advantage plans minimize the use of prior authorization for routinely approved services; require real-time decisions for certain requests; report the extent of their use of prior authorization and their rate of approvals or denials, among other things; and establish an electronic prior authorization system.

Medicare Advantage plans are private insurers that are regulated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which will create the specific rules and penalties associated with the reforms, if they become law. “One would presume that a condition of being a Medicare Advantage plan is that you’re going to have to comply with these new regulations,” said Katie Orrico, senior vice president of health policy and advocacy for the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AANS/CNS). “So they will have some amount of teeth in the form of a mandate.”

The AANS and CNS are part of the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of 14 national physician specialty organizations. Winning prior authorization reform in the Medicare Advantage plans is part of its bigger strategy. “If those commercial plans have to follow a set of rules and processes for Medicare, then why not just expand those same processes to all other parts of their business?” Ms. Orrico said. 

Despite his frustration with their prior authorization processes, Dr. Doraiswamy, the Ohio State hospitalist, agrees that working to improve insurers’ practices is the best way forward. “It’s so easy to make them look like these evil, giant conglomerations that exist solely to suck money and not care about anyone’s health, but I don’t know if that’s necessarily the case,” he said. “We really have to figure out how best to work with insurance companies to make sure that, while they are profit-generating institutions, that [profit] shouldn’t come at the cost of patient care.”

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

Ramy Sedhom, MD, a medical oncologist and a palliative care physician at Penn Medicine Princeton Health in Plainsboro, N.J., will always wonder if prior authorization refusals led to his patient’s death.

The patient had advanced gastric cancer and the insurer initially denied a PET scan to rule out metastatic disease. When the scan was eventually allowed, it revealed that the cancer had spread.

Standard treatment would have been difficult for the patient, an older individual with comorbidities. But Dr. Sedhom knew that a European study had reported equal efficacy and fewer side effects with a reduced chemotherapy regimen, and he thought that was the best approach in this situation.

The insurer disagreed with Dr. Sedhom’s decision and, while the two argued, the patient’s symptoms worsened. He was admitted to the hospital, where he experienced a decline in function, common for older patients. “Long story short, he was never able to seek treatment and then transitioned to hospice,” Dr. Sedhom said. “It was one of those situations where there was a 3- to 4-week delay in what should have been standard care.”

That course of events is not an outlier but everyday life for physicians trying to navigate insurers’ prior authorization rules before they can treat their patients. Nearly 4 years after major organizations — American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Medical Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and others — signed a consensus statement agreeing to improve the prior authorization process, physicians say little progress has been made.

Indeed, 83% of physicians say that the number of prior authorizations required for prescription medications and medical services has increased over the last 5 years, according to survey results released earlier this year.

“It’s decidedly worse — there’s no question about it,” said Andrew R. Spector, MD, a neurologist and sleep medicine specialist at Duke Health in Durham, N.C. “Drugs that I used to get without prior authorizations now require them.”

When Vignesh I. Doraiswamy, MD, an internal medicine hospitalist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, discharged a patient with Clostridioides difficile infection, he followed clinical guidelines to prescribe vancomycin for 10 to 14 days. “And the insurance company said, ‘Well, yeah, we only authorize about 5 days,’ which just makes no sense,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “There’s nowhere in any literature that says 5 days is sufficient. What worries me is that is the standard of care we are supposed to give and yet we are unable to.”

Yash B. Jobanputra, MD, a cardiology fellow at Saint Vincent Hospital in Worcester, Mass., laments that prior authorization is used in situations that simply do not make common sense. During his residency, a woman who had tested positive for the BRCA gene mutation with a strong family history of breast cancer needed a breast ultrasound and an MRI scan every 6 months to 1 year. Despite the documentation that she was at extremely high risk for developing breast cancer, he had to go through prior authorization every time she was due for new images.

“I had to call the insurance company, they would put me on hold, I would wait to speak to a physician — and the end response would be, ‘Yeah, this is what needs to be done,’” he said. “But having established her positive status once should be enough really. I shouldn’t have to go through the circus all over again.”

Prior authorization is also being used for routine diagnostics, such as a Holter monitor for patients complaining of heart palpitations. “Depending on the insurance, for some patients we can give it to them in the clinic right away,” Dr. Jobanputra said. “Whereas some others we have to wait until we get prior authorization from the insurance company and the patient has to come back again to the hospital to get the monitor. That is a delay in patient care.”

The delays also extend to emergency care, Dr. Doraiswamy said. He cites the example of a heart attack patient who needed an emergency heart catheterization but ran into a prior authorization delay. “I just said, ‘Try your best not to get stressed’ which is not easy for a patient finding out their stay wasn’t covered when they had just been through a heart attack,” he said. “Then I spent 20 to 30 minutes — most of it on hold — to answer the question ‘Why did this patient need to get admitted?’ “

Physicians feel disrespected because that type of prior authorization hassle is just busywork. “Rarely is a valid stay that was initially denied, not eventually accepted,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “But why couldn’t they have just seen that the guy had a heart attack and he obviously needed to be in the hospital?”

For Dr. Spector, the Duke Health sleep medicine specialist, prior authorization is not just a speed bump, it’s a full stop. Insurers have started mandating a multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) to confirm narcolepsy before covering medication to treat the condition. “We know that the MSLT is very often wrong,” he said. “There are a lot of times we’re dealing with patients with narcolepsy who simply don’t meet the testing criteria that the insurance requires, and payers will not accept our clinical judgment.”

In his view, the prior authorization landscape is worsening — and not only because a “faulty test” is being used to deny treatment. “The appeal process is worse,” Dr. Spector said. “I used to be able to get on the phone and do a peer-to-peer review with a physician who I could reason with… but that doesn’t happen anymore. There is virtually no way to bypass these blanket rules.”

Other survey findings also stand in direct contradiction of the 2018 consensus agreement:

A large majority (87%) of physicians report that prior authorization interferes with continuity of care, even though the industry groups agreed that patients should be protected from treatment disruption when there is a formulary or treatment-coverage change.

Despite a consensus to encourage transparency and easy accessibility of prior authorization requirements, 68% of physicians reported that it is difficult to determine whether a prescription medication requires prior authorization, and 58% report that it’s difficult for medical services.

Phone and fax are the most commonly used methods for completing prior authorizations, despite agreement that electronic prior authorization, using existing national standard transactions, should be accelerated. Fewer than one quarter of physicians said that their electronic health record system supports electronic prior authorization for prescription medications.

Dr. Spector wants to see legislation that forces insurers to live up to some of the tenets of the 2018 consensus statement. In September, a new Texas law went into effect, exempting physicians from prior authorization if, during the previous six months, 90% of their treatments met an insurer›s medical necessity criteria. In January, the recently approved Prior Authorization Reform Act in Illinois will reduce the number of services subject to prior authorization, mandate a prior authorization decision within 5 days, and set disciplinary measures for health plans that do not comply, among other things.

“What gives me hope is that at least somewhere in the country, somebody is doing something,” Dr. Spector said. “And if it goes well, maybe other insurers will adopt it. I’m really hoping they demonstrate that the money they can save on the administration of all the appeals and prior authorization paperwork can actually go into caring for patients.”

In addition to state-level action, reform may also be advancing at the federal level. In October, a bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate that mirrors a prior authorization reform bill introduced in the House of Representatives last May. Both bills have broad bipartisan support; the House bill has more than 235 co-sponsors.

In an interview with this news organization, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) said it is “very realistic” that the bill will become law during this session of Congress. “We do think this bill will get marked up in committee and hopefully we can get it to the floor either as a stand-alone bill where we know we have the votes to pass it or as part of a larger legislative package,” he said.

If approved, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 would require that Medicare Advantage plans minimize the use of prior authorization for routinely approved services; require real-time decisions for certain requests; report the extent of their use of prior authorization and their rate of approvals or denials, among other things; and establish an electronic prior authorization system.

Medicare Advantage plans are private insurers that are regulated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which will create the specific rules and penalties associated with the reforms, if they become law. “One would presume that a condition of being a Medicare Advantage plan is that you’re going to have to comply with these new regulations,” said Katie Orrico, senior vice president of health policy and advocacy for the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AANS/CNS). “So they will have some amount of teeth in the form of a mandate.”

The AANS and CNS are part of the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of 14 national physician specialty organizations. Winning prior authorization reform in the Medicare Advantage plans is part of its bigger strategy. “If those commercial plans have to follow a set of rules and processes for Medicare, then why not just expand those same processes to all other parts of their business?” Ms. Orrico said. 

Despite his frustration with their prior authorization processes, Dr. Doraiswamy, the Ohio State hospitalist, agrees that working to improve insurers’ practices is the best way forward. “It’s so easy to make them look like these evil, giant conglomerations that exist solely to suck money and not care about anyone’s health, but I don’t know if that’s necessarily the case,” he said. “We really have to figure out how best to work with insurance companies to make sure that, while they are profit-generating institutions, that [profit] shouldn’t come at the cost of patient care.”

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

COVID-19 cases are rising across 40 states and territories, setting the United States up for a rough fifth surge of the pandemic.

“A significant rise in cases just before Thanksgiving is not what we want to be seeing,” said Stephen Kissler, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher and data modeler at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Kissler said he’d rather see increases in daily cases coming 2 weeks after busy travel periods, as that would mean they could come back down as people returned to their routines.

Seeing big increases in cases ahead of the holidays, he said, “is sort of like adding fuel to an already raging fire.”

Last winter, vaccines hadn’t been rolled out as the nation prepared for Thanksgiving. COVID-19 was burning through family gatherings.

But now that two-thirds of Americans over age 5 are fully vaccinated and booster doses are approved for all adults, will a rise in cases translate, once again, into a strain on our still thinly stretched healthcare system?

Experts say the vaccines are keeping people out of the hospital, which will help. And new antiviral pills are coming that seem to be able to cut a COVID-19 infection off at the knees, at least according to early data. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel meets next week to discuss the first application for a pill by Merck.

But experts caution that the coming surge will almost certainly tax hospitals again, especially in areas with lower vaccination rates.

And even states where blood testing shows that significant numbers of people have antibodies after a COVID-19 infection aren’t out of the woods, in part because we still don’t know how long the immunity generated by infection may last.
 

“Erosion of immunity”

“It’s hard to know how much risk is out there,” said Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, who has been modeling the trajectory of the pandemic.

“We’re estimating, unfortunately, and we have for many weeks now, that there is an erosion of immunity,” Dr. Shaman said. “I think it could get bad. How bad? I’m not sure.”

Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, agrees.

Because there are so few studies on how long immunity from natural infection lasts, Dr. Mokdad and his colleagues are assuming that waning immunity after infection happens at least as quickly as it does after vaccination.

Their model is predicting that the average number of daily cases will peak at around 100,000, with another 100,000 going undetected, and will stay at that level until the end of January, as some states recover from their surges and others pick up steam.

While the number of daily deaths won’t climb to the heights seen during the summer surge, Dr. Mokdad said their model is predicting that daily deaths will climb again to about 1,200 a day.

“We are almost there right now, and it will be with us for a while,” he said. “We are predicting 881,000 deaths by March 1.”

The United States has currently recorded 773,000 COVID-19 deaths, so Dr. Mokdad is predicting about 120,000 more deaths between now and then.

He said his model shows that more than half of those deaths could be prevented if 95% of Americans wore their masks while in close proximity to strangers.

Currently, only about 36% of Americans are consistently wearing masks, according to surveys. While people are moving around more now, mobility is at prepandemic levels in some states.

“The rise that you are seeing right now is high mobility and low mask wearing in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The solution, he said, is for all adults to get another dose of vaccine — he doesn’t like calling it a booster.

“Because they’re vaccinated and they have two doses they have a false sense of security that they are protected. We needed to come ahead of it immediately and say you need a third dose, and we were late to do so,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

COVID-19 cases are rising across 40 states and territories, setting the United States up for a rough fifth surge of the pandemic.

“A significant rise in cases just before Thanksgiving is not what we want to be seeing,” said Stephen Kissler, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher and data modeler at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Kissler said he’d rather see increases in daily cases coming 2 weeks after busy travel periods, as that would mean they could come back down as people returned to their routines.

Seeing big increases in cases ahead of the holidays, he said, “is sort of like adding fuel to an already raging fire.”

Last winter, vaccines hadn’t been rolled out as the nation prepared for Thanksgiving. COVID-19 was burning through family gatherings.

But now that two-thirds of Americans over age 5 are fully vaccinated and booster doses are approved for all adults, will a rise in cases translate, once again, into a strain on our still thinly stretched healthcare system?

Experts say the vaccines are keeping people out of the hospital, which will help. And new antiviral pills are coming that seem to be able to cut a COVID-19 infection off at the knees, at least according to early data. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel meets next week to discuss the first application for a pill by Merck.

But experts caution that the coming surge will almost certainly tax hospitals again, especially in areas with lower vaccination rates.

And even states where blood testing shows that significant numbers of people have antibodies after a COVID-19 infection aren’t out of the woods, in part because we still don’t know how long the immunity generated by infection may last.
 

“Erosion of immunity”

“It’s hard to know how much risk is out there,” said Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, who has been modeling the trajectory of the pandemic.

“We’re estimating, unfortunately, and we have for many weeks now, that there is an erosion of immunity,” Dr. Shaman said. “I think it could get bad. How bad? I’m not sure.”

Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, agrees.

Because there are so few studies on how long immunity from natural infection lasts, Dr. Mokdad and his colleagues are assuming that waning immunity after infection happens at least as quickly as it does after vaccination.

Their model is predicting that the average number of daily cases will peak at around 100,000, with another 100,000 going undetected, and will stay at that level until the end of January, as some states recover from their surges and others pick up steam.

While the number of daily deaths won’t climb to the heights seen during the summer surge, Dr. Mokdad said their model is predicting that daily deaths will climb again to about 1,200 a day.

“We are almost there right now, and it will be with us for a while,” he said. “We are predicting 881,000 deaths by March 1.”

The United States has currently recorded 773,000 COVID-19 deaths, so Dr. Mokdad is predicting about 120,000 more deaths between now and then.

He said his model shows that more than half of those deaths could be prevented if 95% of Americans wore their masks while in close proximity to strangers.

Currently, only about 36% of Americans are consistently wearing masks, according to surveys. While people are moving around more now, mobility is at prepandemic levels in some states.

“The rise that you are seeing right now is high mobility and low mask wearing in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The solution, he said, is for all adults to get another dose of vaccine — he doesn’t like calling it a booster.

“Because they’re vaccinated and they have two doses they have a false sense of security that they are protected. We needed to come ahead of it immediately and say you need a third dose, and we were late to do so,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

COVID-19 cases are rising across 40 states and territories, setting the United States up for a rough fifth surge of the pandemic.

“A significant rise in cases just before Thanksgiving is not what we want to be seeing,” said Stephen Kissler, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher and data modeler at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Kissler said he’d rather see increases in daily cases coming 2 weeks after busy travel periods, as that would mean they could come back down as people returned to their routines.

Seeing big increases in cases ahead of the holidays, he said, “is sort of like adding fuel to an already raging fire.”

Last winter, vaccines hadn’t been rolled out as the nation prepared for Thanksgiving. COVID-19 was burning through family gatherings.

But now that two-thirds of Americans over age 5 are fully vaccinated and booster doses are approved for all adults, will a rise in cases translate, once again, into a strain on our still thinly stretched healthcare system?

Experts say the vaccines are keeping people out of the hospital, which will help. And new antiviral pills are coming that seem to be able to cut a COVID-19 infection off at the knees, at least according to early data. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel meets next week to discuss the first application for a pill by Merck.

But experts caution that the coming surge will almost certainly tax hospitals again, especially in areas with lower vaccination rates.

And even states where blood testing shows that significant numbers of people have antibodies after a COVID-19 infection aren’t out of the woods, in part because we still don’t know how long the immunity generated by infection may last.
 

“Erosion of immunity”

“It’s hard to know how much risk is out there,” said Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, who has been modeling the trajectory of the pandemic.

“We’re estimating, unfortunately, and we have for many weeks now, that there is an erosion of immunity,” Dr. Shaman said. “I think it could get bad. How bad? I’m not sure.”

Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, agrees.

Because there are so few studies on how long immunity from natural infection lasts, Dr. Mokdad and his colleagues are assuming that waning immunity after infection happens at least as quickly as it does after vaccination.

Their model is predicting that the average number of daily cases will peak at around 100,000, with another 100,000 going undetected, and will stay at that level until the end of January, as some states recover from their surges and others pick up steam.

While the number of daily deaths won’t climb to the heights seen during the summer surge, Dr. Mokdad said their model is predicting that daily deaths will climb again to about 1,200 a day.

“We are almost there right now, and it will be with us for a while,” he said. “We are predicting 881,000 deaths by March 1.”

The United States has currently recorded 773,000 COVID-19 deaths, so Dr. Mokdad is predicting about 120,000 more deaths between now and then.

He said his model shows that more than half of those deaths could be prevented if 95% of Americans wore their masks while in close proximity to strangers.

Currently, only about 36% of Americans are consistently wearing masks, according to surveys. While people are moving around more now, mobility is at prepandemic levels in some states.

“The rise that you are seeing right now is high mobility and low mask wearing in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The solution, he said, is for all adults to get another dose of vaccine — he doesn’t like calling it a booster.

“Because they’re vaccinated and they have two doses they have a false sense of security that they are protected. We needed to come ahead of it immediately and say you need a third dose, and we were late to do so,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

Clinical assessment for pulmonary disease and malignancy in patients with dermatomyositis should not be replaced with serologic tests at this time, according to Jeffrey P. Callen, MD.

That’s because the validity and reproducibility of testing in commercial laboratories remain questionable, Dr. Callen, professor of medicine and chief of the division of dermatology at the University of Louisville, Ky., said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “The testing in research laboratories is not widely available and the results are often delayed by weeks to months,” he said.

In addition, while the associations between antibody results and risks of malignancy or pulmonary disease are “statistically valid,” he said, “there are patients with disease in whom antibodies are not present and those without associated disease in whom the testing was positive.” For example, there are patients positive for anti–transition initiation factor (TIF)-1gamma but don’t have a malignancy, “and the ones with anti-MDA-5 tend to have pulmonary disease, but there are patients with anti-MDA-5 who don’t have pulmonary disease.”

Compared with patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, patients with dermatomyositis tend to have more itching and they tend of have fewer serologic abnormalities, such as anti-Ro/SS-A antibody, “but there is overlap,” Dr. Callen said. “The reason to differentiate cutaneous lupus erythematosus from dermatomyositis is because we think that patients who have amyopathic dermatomyositis still have an increased risk of having or developing an internal malignancy,” he added. Another differentiating point that is substantive is the presence of Gottron papules.

In a recent development related to antibody testing, researchers demonstrated that the IgG2 isotype of anti-TIF-1gamma antibodies is a biomarker of cancer and mortality in adult dermatomyositis.

According to population-based studies, about 20%-25% of dermatomyositis patients have had, have, or will develop a cancer (Lancet 2001;357: 96-100). Amyopathic dermatomyositis patients may also have cancer. Polymyositis patients generally have lower rates and their risk of subsequent malignancy is much closer to that of the general population, suggesting that the presence of the association is due to a “diagnostic suspicion bias,” Dr. Callen said.

A large-scale multicenter cohort study that set out to identify the risk factors and prognosis of patients with cancer-associated myositis found that ovarian cancer seems to be overrepresented. The only serologic abnormality that was statistically significant was anti-TIF-1gamma antibody (P less than .001). Patients with cancer-associated myositis also have less overall survival compared with those with non–cancer-associated myositis (P = .004), with malignancy being the primary cause of death (P less than .001).

In what is believed to be the largest study of its kind, Dr. Callen and colleagues retrospectively examined the prevalence of malignancy and screening practices in 400 dermatomyositis patients. Of the 400 patients, 48 (12%) had malignancies, and 21 cancers (40%) were diagnosed within 1 year of the dermatomyositis diagnosis. Both classic dermatomyositis and amyopathic dermatomyositis were associated with cancer, and 27 patients (6.8%) had a cancer at the time of diagnosis. Of those, 59% were asymptomatic; their cancers were discovered with CT scans, suggesting that “blind” screening is effective in identifying cancers in DM patients.

Dr. Callen’s malignancy evaluation includes chest x-ray, CT of the chest and abdomen, stool Hematest in all dermatomyositis patients; a mammogram, pelvic ultrasound and/or CT of the pelvis in women; and age, race or ethnicity-related testing. “I generally reevaluate patients annually for 3 years, because data from epidemiologic studies suggest that after 3 years [from the initial diagnosis], the rates of malignancy return toward normal,” he said. “I also evaluate any new symptom that might be suggestive of malignancy. The remaining issue is how to handle a patient in remission for several years, but who develops a relapse. What I do is perform another malignancy assessment.”

According to results from a meta-analysis of risk factors and systematic review of screening approaches, factors that increase malignancy risk include dermatomyositis subtype (risk ratio, 2.21), older age (weighted mean difference 11.19), male gender (RR, 1.53), dysphagia (RR, 2.09), cutaneous necrosis (RR, 2.73), and positive anti-TIF-1gamma (RR, 4.41).

Factors associated with a decreased risk of malignancy include polymyositis (RR, 0.49), clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis subtypes (RR, 0.44), Raynaud’s phenomenon (RR, 0.61), interstitial lung disease (RR, 0.49), very high serum creatine kinase (WMD –1189.96) or lactate dehydrogenase levels (WMD –336.53), and anti-Jo1 (RR, 0.45) or anti-EJ (RR, 0.17) positivity.

The analysis also found that CT scanning of the thorax, abdomen and pelvis appeared to yield a high proportion of underlying asymptomatic cancers. Limited evidence relating to the utility of tumor markers and 18F-FDG PET/CT was available.

As for treatment, the use of tofacitinib for cutaneous lesions of dermatomyositis has been suggested in various studies. In a recent open-label study of 10 patients with dermatomyositis who took extended release the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib 11 mg daily for 12 weeks, half experienced moderate improvement in disease activity, and the other half experienced minimal improvement. JAK inhibitors have been used in patients with juvenile dermatomyositis.

Dr. Callen’s treatment approach with dermatomyositis patients includes recommendations for sunscreens and protective clothing, plus assessment of vitamin D levels. “I will use topical emollients, corticosteroids, and calcineurin inhibitors,” he said. “Antimalarials might be used. I generally reach for methotrexate or mycophenolate mofetil relatively early. IVIG has also been studied.” Off-label therapies that have been used include dapsone, thalidomide, leflunomide, sirolimus, chlorambucil, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, apremilast, tofacitinib, lenabasum, and low-dose naltrexone.

Dr. Callen disclosed that he is a consultant to Genentech and is a member of the safety monitoring committee for Principia Biopharma. He holds equity in Celgene, Pfizer, 3M, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Procter & Gamble, Gilead, Allergen, and Amgen.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Clinical assessment for pulmonary disease and malignancy in patients with dermatomyositis should not be replaced with serologic tests at this time, according to Jeffrey P. Callen, MD.

That’s because the validity and reproducibility of testing in commercial laboratories remain questionable, Dr. Callen, professor of medicine and chief of the division of dermatology at the University of Louisville, Ky., said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “The testing in research laboratories is not widely available and the results are often delayed by weeks to months,” he said.

In addition, while the associations between antibody results and risks of malignancy or pulmonary disease are “statistically valid,” he said, “there are patients with disease in whom antibodies are not present and those without associated disease in whom the testing was positive.” For example, there are patients positive for anti–transition initiation factor (TIF)-1gamma but don’t have a malignancy, “and the ones with anti-MDA-5 tend to have pulmonary disease, but there are patients with anti-MDA-5 who don’t have pulmonary disease.”

Compared with patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, patients with dermatomyositis tend to have more itching and they tend of have fewer serologic abnormalities, such as anti-Ro/SS-A antibody, “but there is overlap,” Dr. Callen said. “The reason to differentiate cutaneous lupus erythematosus from dermatomyositis is because we think that patients who have amyopathic dermatomyositis still have an increased risk of having or developing an internal malignancy,” he added. Another differentiating point that is substantive is the presence of Gottron papules.

In a recent development related to antibody testing, researchers demonstrated that the IgG2 isotype of anti-TIF-1gamma antibodies is a biomarker of cancer and mortality in adult dermatomyositis.

According to population-based studies, about 20%-25% of dermatomyositis patients have had, have, or will develop a cancer (Lancet 2001;357: 96-100). Amyopathic dermatomyositis patients may also have cancer. Polymyositis patients generally have lower rates and their risk of subsequent malignancy is much closer to that of the general population, suggesting that the presence of the association is due to a “diagnostic suspicion bias,” Dr. Callen said.

A large-scale multicenter cohort study that set out to identify the risk factors and prognosis of patients with cancer-associated myositis found that ovarian cancer seems to be overrepresented. The only serologic abnormality that was statistically significant was anti-TIF-1gamma antibody (P less than .001). Patients with cancer-associated myositis also have less overall survival compared with those with non–cancer-associated myositis (P = .004), with malignancy being the primary cause of death (P less than .001).

In what is believed to be the largest study of its kind, Dr. Callen and colleagues retrospectively examined the prevalence of malignancy and screening practices in 400 dermatomyositis patients. Of the 400 patients, 48 (12%) had malignancies, and 21 cancers (40%) were diagnosed within 1 year of the dermatomyositis diagnosis. Both classic dermatomyositis and amyopathic dermatomyositis were associated with cancer, and 27 patients (6.8%) had a cancer at the time of diagnosis. Of those, 59% were asymptomatic; their cancers were discovered with CT scans, suggesting that “blind” screening is effective in identifying cancers in DM patients.

Dr. Callen’s malignancy evaluation includes chest x-ray, CT of the chest and abdomen, stool Hematest in all dermatomyositis patients; a mammogram, pelvic ultrasound and/or CT of the pelvis in women; and age, race or ethnicity-related testing. “I generally reevaluate patients annually for 3 years, because data from epidemiologic studies suggest that after 3 years [from the initial diagnosis], the rates of malignancy return toward normal,” he said. “I also evaluate any new symptom that might be suggestive of malignancy. The remaining issue is how to handle a patient in remission for several years, but who develops a relapse. What I do is perform another malignancy assessment.”

According to results from a meta-analysis of risk factors and systematic review of screening approaches, factors that increase malignancy risk include dermatomyositis subtype (risk ratio, 2.21), older age (weighted mean difference 11.19), male gender (RR, 1.53), dysphagia (RR, 2.09), cutaneous necrosis (RR, 2.73), and positive anti-TIF-1gamma (RR, 4.41).

Factors associated with a decreased risk of malignancy include polymyositis (RR, 0.49), clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis subtypes (RR, 0.44), Raynaud’s phenomenon (RR, 0.61), interstitial lung disease (RR, 0.49), very high serum creatine kinase (WMD –1189.96) or lactate dehydrogenase levels (WMD –336.53), and anti-Jo1 (RR, 0.45) or anti-EJ (RR, 0.17) positivity.

The analysis also found that CT scanning of the thorax, abdomen and pelvis appeared to yield a high proportion of underlying asymptomatic cancers. Limited evidence relating to the utility of tumor markers and 18F-FDG PET/CT was available.

As for treatment, the use of tofacitinib for cutaneous lesions of dermatomyositis has been suggested in various studies. In a recent open-label study of 10 patients with dermatomyositis who took extended release the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib 11 mg daily for 12 weeks, half experienced moderate improvement in disease activity, and the other half experienced minimal improvement. JAK inhibitors have been used in patients with juvenile dermatomyositis.

Dr. Callen’s treatment approach with dermatomyositis patients includes recommendations for sunscreens and protective clothing, plus assessment of vitamin D levels. “I will use topical emollients, corticosteroids, and calcineurin inhibitors,” he said. “Antimalarials might be used. I generally reach for methotrexate or mycophenolate mofetil relatively early. IVIG has also been studied.” Off-label therapies that have been used include dapsone, thalidomide, leflunomide, sirolimus, chlorambucil, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, apremilast, tofacitinib, lenabasum, and low-dose naltrexone.

Dr. Callen disclosed that he is a consultant to Genentech and is a member of the safety monitoring committee for Principia Biopharma. He holds equity in Celgene, Pfizer, 3M, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Procter & Gamble, Gilead, Allergen, and Amgen.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Clinical assessment for pulmonary disease and malignancy in patients with dermatomyositis should not be replaced with serologic tests at this time, according to Jeffrey P. Callen, MD.

That’s because the validity and reproducibility of testing in commercial laboratories remain questionable, Dr. Callen, professor of medicine and chief of the division of dermatology at the University of Louisville, Ky., said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “The testing in research laboratories is not widely available and the results are often delayed by weeks to months,” he said.

In addition, while the associations between antibody results and risks of malignancy or pulmonary disease are “statistically valid,” he said, “there are patients with disease in whom antibodies are not present and those without associated disease in whom the testing was positive.” For example, there are patients positive for anti–transition initiation factor (TIF)-1gamma but don’t have a malignancy, “and the ones with anti-MDA-5 tend to have pulmonary disease, but there are patients with anti-MDA-5 who don’t have pulmonary disease.”

Compared with patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, patients with dermatomyositis tend to have more itching and they tend of have fewer serologic abnormalities, such as anti-Ro/SS-A antibody, “but there is overlap,” Dr. Callen said. “The reason to differentiate cutaneous lupus erythematosus from dermatomyositis is because we think that patients who have amyopathic dermatomyositis still have an increased risk of having or developing an internal malignancy,” he added. Another differentiating point that is substantive is the presence of Gottron papules.

In a recent development related to antibody testing, researchers demonstrated that the IgG2 isotype of anti-TIF-1gamma antibodies is a biomarker of cancer and mortality in adult dermatomyositis.

According to population-based studies, about 20%-25% of dermatomyositis patients have had, have, or will develop a cancer (Lancet 2001;357: 96-100). Amyopathic dermatomyositis patients may also have cancer. Polymyositis patients generally have lower rates and their risk of subsequent malignancy is much closer to that of the general population, suggesting that the presence of the association is due to a “diagnostic suspicion bias,” Dr. Callen said.

A large-scale multicenter cohort study that set out to identify the risk factors and prognosis of patients with cancer-associated myositis found that ovarian cancer seems to be overrepresented. The only serologic abnormality that was statistically significant was anti-TIF-1gamma antibody (P less than .001). Patients with cancer-associated myositis also have less overall survival compared with those with non–cancer-associated myositis (P = .004), with malignancy being the primary cause of death (P less than .001).

In what is believed to be the largest study of its kind, Dr. Callen and colleagues retrospectively examined the prevalence of malignancy and screening practices in 400 dermatomyositis patients. Of the 400 patients, 48 (12%) had malignancies, and 21 cancers (40%) were diagnosed within 1 year of the dermatomyositis diagnosis. Both classic dermatomyositis and amyopathic dermatomyositis were associated with cancer, and 27 patients (6.8%) had a cancer at the time of diagnosis. Of those, 59% were asymptomatic; their cancers were discovered with CT scans, suggesting that “blind” screening is effective in identifying cancers in DM patients.

Dr. Callen’s malignancy evaluation includes chest x-ray, CT of the chest and abdomen, stool Hematest in all dermatomyositis patients; a mammogram, pelvic ultrasound and/or CT of the pelvis in women; and age, race or ethnicity-related testing. “I generally reevaluate patients annually for 3 years, because data from epidemiologic studies suggest that after 3 years [from the initial diagnosis], the rates of malignancy return toward normal,” he said. “I also evaluate any new symptom that might be suggestive of malignancy. The remaining issue is how to handle a patient in remission for several years, but who develops a relapse. What I do is perform another malignancy assessment.”

According to results from a meta-analysis of risk factors and systematic review of screening approaches, factors that increase malignancy risk include dermatomyositis subtype (risk ratio, 2.21), older age (weighted mean difference 11.19), male gender (RR, 1.53), dysphagia (RR, 2.09), cutaneous necrosis (RR, 2.73), and positive anti-TIF-1gamma (RR, 4.41).

Factors associated with a decreased risk of malignancy include polymyositis (RR, 0.49), clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis subtypes (RR, 0.44), Raynaud’s phenomenon (RR, 0.61), interstitial lung disease (RR, 0.49), very high serum creatine kinase (WMD –1189.96) or lactate dehydrogenase levels (WMD –336.53), and anti-Jo1 (RR, 0.45) or anti-EJ (RR, 0.17) positivity.

The analysis also found that CT scanning of the thorax, abdomen and pelvis appeared to yield a high proportion of underlying asymptomatic cancers. Limited evidence relating to the utility of tumor markers and 18F-FDG PET/CT was available.

As for treatment, the use of tofacitinib for cutaneous lesions of dermatomyositis has been suggested in various studies. In a recent open-label study of 10 patients with dermatomyositis who took extended release the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib 11 mg daily for 12 weeks, half experienced moderate improvement in disease activity, and the other half experienced minimal improvement. JAK inhibitors have been used in patients with juvenile dermatomyositis.

Dr. Callen’s treatment approach with dermatomyositis patients includes recommendations for sunscreens and protective clothing, plus assessment of vitamin D levels. “I will use topical emollients, corticosteroids, and calcineurin inhibitors,” he said. “Antimalarials might be used. I generally reach for methotrexate or mycophenolate mofetil relatively early. IVIG has also been studied.” Off-label therapies that have been used include dapsone, thalidomide, leflunomide, sirolimus, chlorambucil, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, apremilast, tofacitinib, lenabasum, and low-dose naltrexone.

Dr. Callen disclosed that he is a consultant to Genentech and is a member of the safety monitoring committee for Principia Biopharma. He holds equity in Celgene, Pfizer, 3M, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Procter & Gamble, Gilead, Allergen, and Amgen.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

More than half of patients with axial spondyloarthritis in a survey of ArthritisPower Registry participants said they discussed a change in treatment with their doctor at their most recent visit, and these discussions were about changing medication or increasing the dose in more than two-thirds of instances.

The cross-sectional survey, published in ACR Open Rheumatology, is believed to be the first “to look at treatment decision-making from the patient perspective, meaning this is our first quantitative analysis to examine how patients think about important disease management decisions and communicate with their doctor about their care,” W. Benjamin Nowell, PhD, director of patient-centered research at CreakyJoints and principal investigator of the ArthritisPower registry, said in a news release.

“This study makes it clear that there are unmet treatment needs in the axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] patient community,” senior author Jessica A. Walsh, MD, rheumatologist and associate professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in the release. “In the future, we need to identify the tools that this specific arthritis community needs to ensure that shared decision-making about disease management and treatment escalation is working effectively between the patient and the provider.”
 

Survey results

Of the survey’s 274 participants with physician-diagnosed axSpA, 57% said they discussed treatment change at their last physician visit, and nearly half of the time it was brought up by the patient. About 80% of patients in the survey said they researched treatment changes before the visit.

The most common discussion points were about changing medicines or increasing dose (69%), compared with reducing dose (28%) or switching treatments (39%). Another 12% of respondents entered free-text responses to an “other” option with things such as exercise, physical therapy, surgery, waiting on results, insurance, and pregnancy.

Close to half (47%) of the patients were taking biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), followed by prescription NSAIDs (44%), steroids (16%), or conventional synthetic DMARDs (11%). Half of all patients said they also took prescription muscle relaxers, nerve pain medications or antidepressants, and opioids.

More than half (55%) of patients taking a bDMARD were at least somewhat satisfied with their treatment for axSpA, and about half were satisfied with their control of axSpA-related pain.

Of the 12% of patients in the survey who reported being very satisfied overall with their treatment, 77% were taking a bDMARD, and these bDMARD users said that they prioritized the prevention of long-term consequences and their physician’s advice in their decision-making process.

A large percentage – 43% – said they were somewhat or very dissatisfied with treatment, and nearly two-thirds of these patients had discussed treatment change at their last physician visit.

A large majority of patients who discussed a treatment change agreed to it (85%), most often because their disease was not controlled by their previous treatment or because they thought it could be better controlled by a change in treatment.

The survey respondents were about 50 years old on average, and most were women (87%) and White (85%). They experienced a delay in diagnosis averaging more than 10 years from first onset of axSpA symptoms to initial axSpA diagnosis by a physician.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. The study was also indirectly partially supported by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute for ArthritisPower. Dr. Nowell reported receiving grants/contracts from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and PCORI and is an employee of the Global Healthy Living Foundation. The GHLF receives grants, sponsorships, and contracts from pharmaceutical manufacturers and private foundations. Five authors are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly. Two authors reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

More than half of patients with axial spondyloarthritis in a survey of ArthritisPower Registry participants said they discussed a change in treatment with their doctor at their most recent visit, and these discussions were about changing medication or increasing the dose in more than two-thirds of instances.

The cross-sectional survey, published in ACR Open Rheumatology, is believed to be the first “to look at treatment decision-making from the patient perspective, meaning this is our first quantitative analysis to examine how patients think about important disease management decisions and communicate with their doctor about their care,” W. Benjamin Nowell, PhD, director of patient-centered research at CreakyJoints and principal investigator of the ArthritisPower registry, said in a news release.

“This study makes it clear that there are unmet treatment needs in the axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] patient community,” senior author Jessica A. Walsh, MD, rheumatologist and associate professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in the release. “In the future, we need to identify the tools that this specific arthritis community needs to ensure that shared decision-making about disease management and treatment escalation is working effectively between the patient and the provider.”
 

Survey results

Of the survey’s 274 participants with physician-diagnosed axSpA, 57% said they discussed treatment change at their last physician visit, and nearly half of the time it was brought up by the patient. About 80% of patients in the survey said they researched treatment changes before the visit.

The most common discussion points were about changing medicines or increasing dose (69%), compared with reducing dose (28%) or switching treatments (39%). Another 12% of respondents entered free-text responses to an “other” option with things such as exercise, physical therapy, surgery, waiting on results, insurance, and pregnancy.

Close to half (47%) of the patients were taking biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), followed by prescription NSAIDs (44%), steroids (16%), or conventional synthetic DMARDs (11%). Half of all patients said they also took prescription muscle relaxers, nerve pain medications or antidepressants, and opioids.

More than half (55%) of patients taking a bDMARD were at least somewhat satisfied with their treatment for axSpA, and about half were satisfied with their control of axSpA-related pain.

Of the 12% of patients in the survey who reported being very satisfied overall with their treatment, 77% were taking a bDMARD, and these bDMARD users said that they prioritized the prevention of long-term consequences and their physician’s advice in their decision-making process.

A large percentage – 43% – said they were somewhat or very dissatisfied with treatment, and nearly two-thirds of these patients had discussed treatment change at their last physician visit.

A large majority of patients who discussed a treatment change agreed to it (85%), most often because their disease was not controlled by their previous treatment or because they thought it could be better controlled by a change in treatment.

The survey respondents were about 50 years old on average, and most were women (87%) and White (85%). They experienced a delay in diagnosis averaging more than 10 years from first onset of axSpA symptoms to initial axSpA diagnosis by a physician.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. The study was also indirectly partially supported by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute for ArthritisPower. Dr. Nowell reported receiving grants/contracts from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and PCORI and is an employee of the Global Healthy Living Foundation. The GHLF receives grants, sponsorships, and contracts from pharmaceutical manufacturers and private foundations. Five authors are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly. Two authors reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

More than half of patients with axial spondyloarthritis in a survey of ArthritisPower Registry participants said they discussed a change in treatment with their doctor at their most recent visit, and these discussions were about changing medication or increasing the dose in more than two-thirds of instances.

The cross-sectional survey, published in ACR Open Rheumatology, is believed to be the first “to look at treatment decision-making from the patient perspective, meaning this is our first quantitative analysis to examine how patients think about important disease management decisions and communicate with their doctor about their care,” W. Benjamin Nowell, PhD, director of patient-centered research at CreakyJoints and principal investigator of the ArthritisPower registry, said in a news release.

“This study makes it clear that there are unmet treatment needs in the axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] patient community,” senior author Jessica A. Walsh, MD, rheumatologist and associate professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in the release. “In the future, we need to identify the tools that this specific arthritis community needs to ensure that shared decision-making about disease management and treatment escalation is working effectively between the patient and the provider.”
 

Survey results

Of the survey’s 274 participants with physician-diagnosed axSpA, 57% said they discussed treatment change at their last physician visit, and nearly half of the time it was brought up by the patient. About 80% of patients in the survey said they researched treatment changes before the visit.

The most common discussion points were about changing medicines or increasing dose (69%), compared with reducing dose (28%) or switching treatments (39%). Another 12% of respondents entered free-text responses to an “other” option with things such as exercise, physical therapy, surgery, waiting on results, insurance, and pregnancy.

Close to half (47%) of the patients were taking biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), followed by prescription NSAIDs (44%), steroids (16%), or conventional synthetic DMARDs (11%). Half of all patients said they also took prescription muscle relaxers, nerve pain medications or antidepressants, and opioids.

More than half (55%) of patients taking a bDMARD were at least somewhat satisfied with their treatment for axSpA, and about half were satisfied with their control of axSpA-related pain.

Of the 12% of patients in the survey who reported being very satisfied overall with their treatment, 77% were taking a bDMARD, and these bDMARD users said that they prioritized the prevention of long-term consequences and their physician’s advice in their decision-making process.

A large percentage – 43% – said they were somewhat or very dissatisfied with treatment, and nearly two-thirds of these patients had discussed treatment change at their last physician visit.

A large majority of patients who discussed a treatment change agreed to it (85%), most often because their disease was not controlled by their previous treatment or because they thought it could be better controlled by a change in treatment.

The survey respondents were about 50 years old on average, and most were women (87%) and White (85%). They experienced a delay in diagnosis averaging more than 10 years from first onset of axSpA symptoms to initial axSpA diagnosis by a physician.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. The study was also indirectly partially supported by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute for ArthritisPower. Dr. Nowell reported receiving grants/contracts from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and PCORI and is an employee of the Global Healthy Living Foundation. The GHLF receives grants, sponsorships, and contracts from pharmaceutical manufacturers and private foundations. Five authors are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly. Two authors reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.