MDedge Rheumatology

The rates of osteopenia and osteoporosis among individuals with psoriatic arthritis are comparable to those seen in the general population, research suggests.

The cohort study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that clinicians are likely to refer patients for bone mineral density (BMD) testing based on osteoporosis risk factors or psoriatic arthritis disease severity markers.

Timothy S.H. Kwok, MD, of the University of Toronto, and coauthors wrote that previous research suggested a possible link between psoriatic arthritis and osteoporosis or osteopenia. However, no cohort studies appear to have examined this association.

The study involved 201 individuals with psoriatic arthritis attending a single specialist clinic, who were enrolled in a longitudinal study of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and who were also referred for BMD testing with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Of these participants, 13% had a BMD in the osteoporotic range, 45% were in the osteopenic range, and 42% were in the normal range for BMD. The prevalence of osteoporosis observed in the general population aged 50 or above, observed in an earlier large prospective study, ranged from 7% to 16%, and osteopenia ranged from 27% to 46%.

“Our study suggests that patients with PsA have similar BMDs compared to the general population,” the authors wrote.

Researchers did note the suggestion that patients with polyarthritis had lower BMDs over time. Because of the small number of events, this did not achieve statistical significance, but “this relationship warrants further research, given that multiple cohort studies have independently demonstrated polyarticular onset of disease predicting clinical deformities and erosive disease in PsA,” they wrote.

They also saw that patients with increased body mass index had a significant 21% lower odds of having a BMD in the osteoporotic range, while those using biologics had a significant 83% lower odds.

Among participants with BMD scores in the osteopenic or osteoporotic range, these scores were seen in the lumbar spine in 63% of measurements, the femoral neck in 88%, and the total hip in 39%. Mean T-scores for the lumbar spine were –0.30±0.32, and for the femoral neck were –1.10±1.04 and the total hip, –0.45±0.42.

The study also examined what factors were associated with referral for BMD testing. They found that increasing age, menopause, elevated acute phase reactants, or use of biologics, methotrexate, and systemic glucocorticoids were associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing BMD testing.

Noting that the latest Canadian clinical practice guidelines on BMD testing advise that age, menopause, and use of systemic glucocorticoids use are risk factors that should prompt testing, the authors suggested clinicians were using a combination of traditional osteoporosis risk factors and markers of psoriatic disease severity to underpin their decision to refer.

However, they commented that none of the factors associated with a higher likelihood of having a BMD test were actually associated with lower BMD scores.

“This suggests that clinicians may be over-screening patients with PsA for osteopenia/osteoporosis, as they do not appear to be at baseline higher risk for lower BMD scores than the general population,” they wrote. “This is of importance, as there are currently no formal recommendations with regards to the optimal interval or time to commence BMD testing within the recent major PsA guidelines.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Kwok TSH et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec 16. doi: 10.1002/acr.24538.

The rates of osteopenia and osteoporosis among individuals with psoriatic arthritis are comparable to those seen in the general population, research suggests.

The cohort study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that clinicians are likely to refer patients for bone mineral density (BMD) testing based on osteoporosis risk factors or psoriatic arthritis disease severity markers.

Timothy S.H. Kwok, MD, of the University of Toronto, and coauthors wrote that previous research suggested a possible link between psoriatic arthritis and osteoporosis or osteopenia. However, no cohort studies appear to have examined this association.

The study involved 201 individuals with psoriatic arthritis attending a single specialist clinic, who were enrolled in a longitudinal study of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and who were also referred for BMD testing with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Of these participants, 13% had a BMD in the osteoporotic range, 45% were in the osteopenic range, and 42% were in the normal range for BMD. The prevalence of osteoporosis observed in the general population aged 50 or above, observed in an earlier large prospective study, ranged from 7% to 16%, and osteopenia ranged from 27% to 46%.

“Our study suggests that patients with PsA have similar BMDs compared to the general population,” the authors wrote.

Researchers did note the suggestion that patients with polyarthritis had lower BMDs over time. Because of the small number of events, this did not achieve statistical significance, but “this relationship warrants further research, given that multiple cohort studies have independently demonstrated polyarticular onset of disease predicting clinical deformities and erosive disease in PsA,” they wrote.

They also saw that patients with increased body mass index had a significant 21% lower odds of having a BMD in the osteoporotic range, while those using biologics had a significant 83% lower odds.

Among participants with BMD scores in the osteopenic or osteoporotic range, these scores were seen in the lumbar spine in 63% of measurements, the femoral neck in 88%, and the total hip in 39%. Mean T-scores for the lumbar spine were –0.30±0.32, and for the femoral neck were –1.10±1.04 and the total hip, –0.45±0.42.

The study also examined what factors were associated with referral for BMD testing. They found that increasing age, menopause, elevated acute phase reactants, or use of biologics, methotrexate, and systemic glucocorticoids were associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing BMD testing.

Noting that the latest Canadian clinical practice guidelines on BMD testing advise that age, menopause, and use of systemic glucocorticoids use are risk factors that should prompt testing, the authors suggested clinicians were using a combination of traditional osteoporosis risk factors and markers of psoriatic disease severity to underpin their decision to refer.

However, they commented that none of the factors associated with a higher likelihood of having a BMD test were actually associated with lower BMD scores.

“This suggests that clinicians may be over-screening patients with PsA for osteopenia/osteoporosis, as they do not appear to be at baseline higher risk for lower BMD scores than the general population,” they wrote. “This is of importance, as there are currently no formal recommendations with regards to the optimal interval or time to commence BMD testing within the recent major PsA guidelines.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Kwok TSH et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec 16. doi: 10.1002/acr.24538.

The rates of osteopenia and osteoporosis among individuals with psoriatic arthritis are comparable to those seen in the general population, research suggests.

The cohort study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that clinicians are likely to refer patients for bone mineral density (BMD) testing based on osteoporosis risk factors or psoriatic arthritis disease severity markers.

Timothy S.H. Kwok, MD, of the University of Toronto, and coauthors wrote that previous research suggested a possible link between psoriatic arthritis and osteoporosis or osteopenia. However, no cohort studies appear to have examined this association.

The study involved 201 individuals with psoriatic arthritis attending a single specialist clinic, who were enrolled in a longitudinal study of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and who were also referred for BMD testing with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Of these participants, 13% had a BMD in the osteoporotic range, 45% were in the osteopenic range, and 42% were in the normal range for BMD. The prevalence of osteoporosis observed in the general population aged 50 or above, observed in an earlier large prospective study, ranged from 7% to 16%, and osteopenia ranged from 27% to 46%.

“Our study suggests that patients with PsA have similar BMDs compared to the general population,” the authors wrote.

Researchers did note the suggestion that patients with polyarthritis had lower BMDs over time. Because of the small number of events, this did not achieve statistical significance, but “this relationship warrants further research, given that multiple cohort studies have independently demonstrated polyarticular onset of disease predicting clinical deformities and erosive disease in PsA,” they wrote.

They also saw that patients with increased body mass index had a significant 21% lower odds of having a BMD in the osteoporotic range, while those using biologics had a significant 83% lower odds.

Among participants with BMD scores in the osteopenic or osteoporotic range, these scores were seen in the lumbar spine in 63% of measurements, the femoral neck in 88%, and the total hip in 39%. Mean T-scores for the lumbar spine were –0.30±0.32, and for the femoral neck were –1.10±1.04 and the total hip, –0.45±0.42.

The study also examined what factors were associated with referral for BMD testing. They found that increasing age, menopause, elevated acute phase reactants, or use of biologics, methotrexate, and systemic glucocorticoids were associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing BMD testing.

Noting that the latest Canadian clinical practice guidelines on BMD testing advise that age, menopause, and use of systemic glucocorticoids use are risk factors that should prompt testing, the authors suggested clinicians were using a combination of traditional osteoporosis risk factors and markers of psoriatic disease severity to underpin their decision to refer.

However, they commented that none of the factors associated with a higher likelihood of having a BMD test were actually associated with lower BMD scores.

“This suggests that clinicians may be over-screening patients with PsA for osteopenia/osteoporosis, as they do not appear to be at baseline higher risk for lower BMD scores than the general population,” they wrote. “This is of importance, as there are currently no formal recommendations with regards to the optimal interval or time to commence BMD testing within the recent major PsA guidelines.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Kwok TSH et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec 16. doi: 10.1002/acr.24538.

Maintaining an average hydroxychloroquine whole blood level above 1,068 ng/mL significantly reduced the risk of thrombosis in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus, based on data from 739 patients.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a common treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); studies suggest that it may protect against thrombosis, but the optimal dosing for this purpose remains unknown, wrote Michelle Petri, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers examined data on HCQ levels from 739 adults with SLE who were part of the Hopkins Lupus Cohort, a longitudinal study of outcomes in SLE patients. Of these, 38 (5.1%) developed thrombosis during 2,330 person-years of follow-up.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

The average age of the patients at the time HCQ measurements began was 43 years, 93% were female, and 46% were White. Patients visited a clinic every 3 months, and HCQ levels were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

“Between-person and within-person correlation coefficients were used to measure the strength of the linear association between HCQ blood levels and commonly prescribed HCQ doses from 4.5 to 6.5 mg/kg,” the researchers said.

Higher doses of HCQ have been associated with increased risk for retinopathy, and current guidelines recommend using less than 5 mg/kg of ideal body weight, the researchers said. “Importantly, there was no correlation between the prescribed dose and the hydroxychloroquine blood level over the range (4.5 to 6.5 mg/kg) used in clinical practice, highlighting the need for personalized hydroxychloroquine drug level-guided therapy and dose adjustment,” they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and potential confounding from variables not included in the model, as well as the small sample size, single site, and single rheumatologist involved in the study, the researchers noted.

The results suggest that aiming for a blood HCQ level of 1,068 ng/mL can be done safely to help prevent thrombosis in patients with SLE, the researchers said. “Routine clinical integration of hydroxychloroquine blood level measurement offers an opportunity for personalized drug dosing and risk management beyond rigid empirical dosing recommendations in patients with SLE,” they concluded.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Petri M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Jan 6. doi: 10.1002/ART.41621.

Maintaining an average hydroxychloroquine whole blood level above 1,068 ng/mL significantly reduced the risk of thrombosis in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus, based on data from 739 patients.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a common treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); studies suggest that it may protect against thrombosis, but the optimal dosing for this purpose remains unknown, wrote Michelle Petri, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers examined data on HCQ levels from 739 adults with SLE who were part of the Hopkins Lupus Cohort, a longitudinal study of outcomes in SLE patients. Of these, 38 (5.1%) developed thrombosis during 2,330 person-years of follow-up.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

The average age of the patients at the time HCQ measurements began was 43 years, 93% were female, and 46% were White. Patients visited a clinic every 3 months, and HCQ levels were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

“Between-person and within-person correlation coefficients were used to measure the strength of the linear association between HCQ blood levels and commonly prescribed HCQ doses from 4.5 to 6.5 mg/kg,” the researchers said.

Higher doses of HCQ have been associated with increased risk for retinopathy, and current guidelines recommend using less than 5 mg/kg of ideal body weight, the researchers said. “Importantly, there was no correlation between the prescribed dose and the hydroxychloroquine blood level over the range (4.5 to 6.5 mg/kg) used in clinical practice, highlighting the need for personalized hydroxychloroquine drug level-guided therapy and dose adjustment,” they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and potential confounding from variables not included in the model, as well as the small sample size, single site, and single rheumatologist involved in the study, the researchers noted.

The results suggest that aiming for a blood HCQ level of 1,068 ng/mL can be done safely to help prevent thrombosis in patients with SLE, the researchers said. “Routine clinical integration of hydroxychloroquine blood level measurement offers an opportunity for personalized drug dosing and risk management beyond rigid empirical dosing recommendations in patients with SLE,” they concluded.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Petri M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Jan 6. doi: 10.1002/ART.41621.

Maintaining an average hydroxychloroquine whole blood level above 1,068 ng/mL significantly reduced the risk of thrombosis in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus, based on data from 739 patients.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a common treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); studies suggest that it may protect against thrombosis, but the optimal dosing for this purpose remains unknown, wrote Michelle Petri, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers examined data on HCQ levels from 739 adults with SLE who were part of the Hopkins Lupus Cohort, a longitudinal study of outcomes in SLE patients. Of these, 38 (5.1%) developed thrombosis during 2,330 person-years of follow-up.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

The average age of the patients at the time HCQ measurements began was 43 years, 93% were female, and 46% were White. Patients visited a clinic every 3 months, and HCQ levels were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

“Between-person and within-person correlation coefficients were used to measure the strength of the linear association between HCQ blood levels and commonly prescribed HCQ doses from 4.5 to 6.5 mg/kg,” the researchers said.

Higher doses of HCQ have been associated with increased risk for retinopathy, and current guidelines recommend using less than 5 mg/kg of ideal body weight, the researchers said. “Importantly, there was no correlation between the prescribed dose and the hydroxychloroquine blood level over the range (4.5 to 6.5 mg/kg) used in clinical practice, highlighting the need for personalized hydroxychloroquine drug level-guided therapy and dose adjustment,” they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and potential confounding from variables not included in the model, as well as the small sample size, single site, and single rheumatologist involved in the study, the researchers noted.

The results suggest that aiming for a blood HCQ level of 1,068 ng/mL can be done safely to help prevent thrombosis in patients with SLE, the researchers said. “Routine clinical integration of hydroxychloroquine blood level measurement offers an opportunity for personalized drug dosing and risk management beyond rigid empirical dosing recommendations in patients with SLE,” they concluded.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Petri M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Jan 6. doi: 10.1002/ART.41621.

A proposal to delay administration of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines – suggested as a strategy to boost the number of people who get some degree of protection from a single immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines – is inciting a strong debate among clinicians and public health officials.

Proponents argue that getting some degree of protection to a greater number of Americans is worthwhile, particularly as case numbers and hospitalizations continue to rise and with the emergence of a more contagious variant.

Opponents raise concerns about diverting from the two-dose schedule evaluated in clinical trials, including a lack of data on long-term protection from a single dose. They also suggest a longer interval between dosing could increase resistance of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It is time to consider delaying the second dose, Robert M. Wachter, MD, at the University of California San Francisco, and Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, at Brown University in Providence, R.I., wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post Jan. 3. 

The two experts state that supply constraints, distribution bottlenecks, and hundreds of thousands of new infections daily prompted them to change their stance on administering COVID-19 vaccines according to the two-dose clinical trial regimen. Furthermore, they cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests 80%-90% efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection following one dose of the Moderna vaccine. 

Not everyone agrees one dose is a good idea. “Clinical trials with specific schedules for vaccine dosing – that’s the whole basis of the scientific evidence,” Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

After one dose “the immune system is learning, but it’s not ideal. That’s why you need the second dose,” Dr. Bottazzi said. “I appreciate the urgency and the anxiety ... but the data support [that] clinical efficacy requires two doses.”

Another proposed strategy to extend the current supply of COVID-19 vaccines to more Americans involves splitting the current dosage of the Moderna vaccine in half. Officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are reportedly considering this approach. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any dosing change.
 

Agreeing to disagree

Dr. Wachter shared a link to his opinion piece on Twitter, stating that “We both came to this view because of the slow rollout & the new variant. But it’s a tough call and reasonable people will disagree.”

As predicted, the tweet elicited a number of strong opinions.

“There are no correct answers but there’s data deficiency, plenty of fodder and need for healthy, intellectual debate. That wouldn’t be occurring if there was an ample supply of vaccines,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, tweeted on Jan. 3.

“If the problem were with the supply of the vaccine, one might make an argument for focusing on 1st dose. But the problem is in distribution of the vaccine & giving actual doses,” John Grohol, PsyD, tweeted.

“Right now we don’t have a supply issue, we have a distribution issue,” Angela Shen, ScD, MPH, a research scientist in the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. Emergency use authorization for the Johnson & Johnson and other COVID-19 vaccines in development could further boost available supplies, she added.

“The clinical trials studied two doses,” Dr. Shen said. “We don’t have data that one dose is going to have lasting protection.” 
 

Does new variant change equation?

Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha, in their editorial, cited a quote from former boxing champion Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they’ve been punched in the mouth.” ‘Punches’ such as the new variant, the high number of cases and deaths in the United States, and other problems prompted them to advocate for the delayed dosing strategy.

“Appreciate the concern for the new variant – I think it’s worth noting that we’re punching ourselves in the mouth with the slow vaccine rollout, which is the first problem to solve,” Jake Quinton, MD, an internist at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, noted on Twitter.

 

Vaccine and public resistance raised

“I agree with the problem but not with the proposed solution, which is guesswork not based on data,” the Jan Grimm Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York responded to Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha on Twitter. “There ARE data though that show that 1 shot alone did not elicit sufficient T-cell nor antibody response. This might also lead to mutations resistant to the vaccines. Dangerous!”

Other physicians took to Twitter to point out that changing the recommendations at this point could further erode public confidence in COVID-19 immunization. For example, Deirdre Habermehl, MD, wrote, “We’ve spent months telling the public the best route is to follow the science and now without data think a course correction based on a guesstimate is ok? Public confidence is low enough and the real issue is logistics at this point.”

Dr. Shen and Dr. Bottazzi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A proposal to delay administration of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines – suggested as a strategy to boost the number of people who get some degree of protection from a single immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines – is inciting a strong debate among clinicians and public health officials.

Proponents argue that getting some degree of protection to a greater number of Americans is worthwhile, particularly as case numbers and hospitalizations continue to rise and with the emergence of a more contagious variant.

Opponents raise concerns about diverting from the two-dose schedule evaluated in clinical trials, including a lack of data on long-term protection from a single dose. They also suggest a longer interval between dosing could increase resistance of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It is time to consider delaying the second dose, Robert M. Wachter, MD, at the University of California San Francisco, and Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, at Brown University in Providence, R.I., wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post Jan. 3. 

The two experts state that supply constraints, distribution bottlenecks, and hundreds of thousands of new infections daily prompted them to change their stance on administering COVID-19 vaccines according to the two-dose clinical trial regimen. Furthermore, they cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests 80%-90% efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection following one dose of the Moderna vaccine. 

Not everyone agrees one dose is a good idea. “Clinical trials with specific schedules for vaccine dosing – that’s the whole basis of the scientific evidence,” Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

After one dose “the immune system is learning, but it’s not ideal. That’s why you need the second dose,” Dr. Bottazzi said. “I appreciate the urgency and the anxiety ... but the data support [that] clinical efficacy requires two doses.”

Another proposed strategy to extend the current supply of COVID-19 vaccines to more Americans involves splitting the current dosage of the Moderna vaccine in half. Officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are reportedly considering this approach. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any dosing change.
 

Agreeing to disagree

Dr. Wachter shared a link to his opinion piece on Twitter, stating that “We both came to this view because of the slow rollout & the new variant. But it’s a tough call and reasonable people will disagree.”

As predicted, the tweet elicited a number of strong opinions.

“There are no correct answers but there’s data deficiency, plenty of fodder and need for healthy, intellectual debate. That wouldn’t be occurring if there was an ample supply of vaccines,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, tweeted on Jan. 3.

“If the problem were with the supply of the vaccine, one might make an argument for focusing on 1st dose. But the problem is in distribution of the vaccine & giving actual doses,” John Grohol, PsyD, tweeted.

“Right now we don’t have a supply issue, we have a distribution issue,” Angela Shen, ScD, MPH, a research scientist in the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. Emergency use authorization for the Johnson & Johnson and other COVID-19 vaccines in development could further boost available supplies, she added.

“The clinical trials studied two doses,” Dr. Shen said. “We don’t have data that one dose is going to have lasting protection.” 
 

Does new variant change equation?

Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha, in their editorial, cited a quote from former boxing champion Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they’ve been punched in the mouth.” ‘Punches’ such as the new variant, the high number of cases and deaths in the United States, and other problems prompted them to advocate for the delayed dosing strategy.

“Appreciate the concern for the new variant – I think it’s worth noting that we’re punching ourselves in the mouth with the slow vaccine rollout, which is the first problem to solve,” Jake Quinton, MD, an internist at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, noted on Twitter.

 

Vaccine and public resistance raised

“I agree with the problem but not with the proposed solution, which is guesswork not based on data,” the Jan Grimm Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York responded to Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha on Twitter. “There ARE data though that show that 1 shot alone did not elicit sufficient T-cell nor antibody response. This might also lead to mutations resistant to the vaccines. Dangerous!”

Other physicians took to Twitter to point out that changing the recommendations at this point could further erode public confidence in COVID-19 immunization. For example, Deirdre Habermehl, MD, wrote, “We’ve spent months telling the public the best route is to follow the science and now without data think a course correction based on a guesstimate is ok? Public confidence is low enough and the real issue is logistics at this point.”

Dr. Shen and Dr. Bottazzi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A proposal to delay administration of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines – suggested as a strategy to boost the number of people who get some degree of protection from a single immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines – is inciting a strong debate among clinicians and public health officials.

Proponents argue that getting some degree of protection to a greater number of Americans is worthwhile, particularly as case numbers and hospitalizations continue to rise and with the emergence of a more contagious variant.

Opponents raise concerns about diverting from the two-dose schedule evaluated in clinical trials, including a lack of data on long-term protection from a single dose. They also suggest a longer interval between dosing could increase resistance of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It is time to consider delaying the second dose, Robert M. Wachter, MD, at the University of California San Francisco, and Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, at Brown University in Providence, R.I., wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post Jan. 3. 

The two experts state that supply constraints, distribution bottlenecks, and hundreds of thousands of new infections daily prompted them to change their stance on administering COVID-19 vaccines according to the two-dose clinical trial regimen. Furthermore, they cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests 80%-90% efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection following one dose of the Moderna vaccine. 

Not everyone agrees one dose is a good idea. “Clinical trials with specific schedules for vaccine dosing – that’s the whole basis of the scientific evidence,” Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

After one dose “the immune system is learning, but it’s not ideal. That’s why you need the second dose,” Dr. Bottazzi said. “I appreciate the urgency and the anxiety ... but the data support [that] clinical efficacy requires two doses.”

Another proposed strategy to extend the current supply of COVID-19 vaccines to more Americans involves splitting the current dosage of the Moderna vaccine in half. Officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are reportedly considering this approach. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any dosing change.
 

Agreeing to disagree

Dr. Wachter shared a link to his opinion piece on Twitter, stating that “We both came to this view because of the slow rollout & the new variant. But it’s a tough call and reasonable people will disagree.”

As predicted, the tweet elicited a number of strong opinions.

“There are no correct answers but there’s data deficiency, plenty of fodder and need for healthy, intellectual debate. That wouldn’t be occurring if there was an ample supply of vaccines,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, tweeted on Jan. 3.

“If the problem were with the supply of the vaccine, one might make an argument for focusing on 1st dose. But the problem is in distribution of the vaccine & giving actual doses,” John Grohol, PsyD, tweeted.

“Right now we don’t have a supply issue, we have a distribution issue,” Angela Shen, ScD, MPH, a research scientist in the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. Emergency use authorization for the Johnson & Johnson and other COVID-19 vaccines in development could further boost available supplies, she added.

“The clinical trials studied two doses,” Dr. Shen said. “We don’t have data that one dose is going to have lasting protection.” 
 

Does new variant change equation?

Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha, in their editorial, cited a quote from former boxing champion Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they’ve been punched in the mouth.” ‘Punches’ such as the new variant, the high number of cases and deaths in the United States, and other problems prompted them to advocate for the delayed dosing strategy.

“Appreciate the concern for the new variant – I think it’s worth noting that we’re punching ourselves in the mouth with the slow vaccine rollout, which is the first problem to solve,” Jake Quinton, MD, an internist at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, noted on Twitter.

 

Vaccine and public resistance raised

“I agree with the problem but not with the proposed solution, which is guesswork not based on data,” the Jan Grimm Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York responded to Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha on Twitter. “There ARE data though that show that 1 shot alone did not elicit sufficient T-cell nor antibody response. This might also lead to mutations resistant to the vaccines. Dangerous!”

Other physicians took to Twitter to point out that changing the recommendations at this point could further erode public confidence in COVID-19 immunization. For example, Deirdre Habermehl, MD, wrote, “We’ve spent months telling the public the best route is to follow the science and now without data think a course correction based on a guesstimate is ok? Public confidence is low enough and the real issue is logistics at this point.”

Dr. Shen and Dr. Bottazzi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SARS-CoV-2 can invade the brain and directly act on brain cells, causing neuroinflammation, new animal research suggests. Investigators injected spike 1 (S1), which is found on the tufts of the “red spikes” of the virus, into mice and found that it crossed the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and was taken up not only by brain regions and the brain space but also by other organs – specifically, the lungs, spleen, liver, and kidneys.

“We found that the S1 protein, which is the protein COVID-19 uses to ‘grab onto’ cells, crosses the BBB and is a good model of what the virus does when it enters the brain,” lead author William A. Banks, MD, professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“When proteins such as the S1 protein become detached from the virus, they can enter the brain and cause mayhem, causing the brain to release cytokines, which, in turn, cause inflammation and subsequent neurotoxicity,” said Dr. Banks, associate chief of staff and a researcher at the Puget Sound Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience.
 

Neurologic symptoms

COVID-19 is associated with a variety of central nervous system symptoms, including the loss of taste and smell, headaches, confusion, stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage, the investigators noted.

Dr. Banks explained that SARS-CoV-2 may enter the brain by crossing the BBB, acting directly on the brain centers responsible for other body functions. The respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 may therefore result partly from the invasion of the areas of the brain responsible for respiratory functions, not only from the virus’ action at the site of the lungs.

The researchers set out to assess whether a particular viral protein – S1, which is a subunit of the viral spike protein – could cross the BBB or enter other organs when injected into mice. They found that, when intravenously injected S1 (I-S1) was cleared from the blood, tissues in multiple organs, including the lung, spleen, kidney, and liver, took it up.

Notably, uptake of I-S1 was higher in the liver, “suggesting that this protein is cleared from the blood predominantly by the liver,” Dr. Banks said. In addition, uptake by the lungs is “important, because that’s where many of the effects of the virus are,” he added.

The researchers found that I-S1 in the brains of the mice was “mostly degraded” 30 minutes following injection. “This indicates that I-S1 enters the BBB intact but is eventually degraded in the brain,” they wrote.

Moreover, by 30 minutes, more than half of the I-S1 proteins had crossed the capillary wall and had fully entered into the brain parenchymal and interstitial fluid spaces, as well as other regions.
 

More severe outcomes in men

The researchers then induced an inflammatory state in the mice through injection of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and found that inflammation increased I-S1 uptake in both the brain and the lung (where uptake was increased by 101%). “These results show that inflammation could increase S1 toxicity for lung tissue by increasing its uptake,” the authors suggested. Moreover, inflammation also increased the entry of I-S1 into the brain, “likely due to BBB disruption.”

In human beings, male sex and APOE4 genotype are risk factors for both contracting COVID-19 and having a poor outcome, the authors noted. As a result, they examined I-S1 uptake in male and female mice that expressed human APOE3 or APOE4 (induced by a mouse ApoE promoter).

Multiple-comparison tests showed that among male mice that expressed human APOE3, the “fastest I-S1 uptake” was in the olfactory bulb, liver, and kidney. Female mice displayed increased APOE3 uptake in the spleen.

“This observation might relate to the increased susceptibility of men to more severe COVID-19 outcomes,” coauthor Jacob Raber, PhD, professor, departments of behavioral neuroscience, neurology, and radiation medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in a press release.

In addition to intravenous I-S1 injection, the researchers also investigated the effects of intranasal administration. They found that, although it also entered the brain, it did so at levels roughly 10 times lower than those induced by intravenous administration.
 

“Frightening tricks”

Dr. Banks said his laboratory has studied the BBB in conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, obesity, diabetes, and HIV. “Our experience with viruses is that they do an incredible number of things and have a frightening number of tricks,” he said. In this case, “the virus is probably causing inflammation by releasing cytokines elsewhere in the body that get into the brain through the BBB.” Conversely, “the virus itself may enter the brain by crossing the BBB and directly cause brain cells to release their own cytokines,” he added.

An additional finding of the study is that, whatever the S1 protein does in the brain is a model for what the entire virus itself does, because these proteins often bring the viruses along with them, he added.

Dr. Banks said the clinical implications of the findings are that antibodies from those who have already had COVID-19 could potentially be directed against S1. Similarly, he added, so can COVID-19 vaccines, which induce production of S1.

“When an antibody locks onto something, it prevents it from crossing the BBB,” Dr. Banks noted.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the study, Howard E. Gendelman, MD, Margaret R. Larson Professor of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases and professor and chair of the department of pharmacology and experimental neuroscience, University of Nebraska, Omaha, said the study is confirmatory.

“What this paper highlights, and we have known for a long time, is that COVID-19 is a systemic, not only a respiratory, disease involving many organs and tissues and can yield not only pulmonary problems but also a whole host of cardiac, brain, and kidney problems,” he said.

“So the fact that these proteins are getting in [the brain] and are able to induce a reaction in the brain itself, and this is part of the complex progressive nature of COVID-19, is an important finding,” added Dr. Gendelman, director of the center for neurodegenerative disorders at the university. He was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Gendelman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SARS-CoV-2 can invade the brain and directly act on brain cells, causing neuroinflammation, new animal research suggests. Investigators injected spike 1 (S1), which is found on the tufts of the “red spikes” of the virus, into mice and found that it crossed the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and was taken up not only by brain regions and the brain space but also by other organs – specifically, the lungs, spleen, liver, and kidneys.

“We found that the S1 protein, which is the protein COVID-19 uses to ‘grab onto’ cells, crosses the BBB and is a good model of what the virus does when it enters the brain,” lead author William A. Banks, MD, professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“When proteins such as the S1 protein become detached from the virus, they can enter the brain and cause mayhem, causing the brain to release cytokines, which, in turn, cause inflammation and subsequent neurotoxicity,” said Dr. Banks, associate chief of staff and a researcher at the Puget Sound Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience.
 

Neurologic symptoms

COVID-19 is associated with a variety of central nervous system symptoms, including the loss of taste and smell, headaches, confusion, stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage, the investigators noted.

Dr. Banks explained that SARS-CoV-2 may enter the brain by crossing the BBB, acting directly on the brain centers responsible for other body functions. The respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 may therefore result partly from the invasion of the areas of the brain responsible for respiratory functions, not only from the virus’ action at the site of the lungs.

The researchers set out to assess whether a particular viral protein – S1, which is a subunit of the viral spike protein – could cross the BBB or enter other organs when injected into mice. They found that, when intravenously injected S1 (I-S1) was cleared from the blood, tissues in multiple organs, including the lung, spleen, kidney, and liver, took it up.

Notably, uptake of I-S1 was higher in the liver, “suggesting that this protein is cleared from the blood predominantly by the liver,” Dr. Banks said. In addition, uptake by the lungs is “important, because that’s where many of the effects of the virus are,” he added.

The researchers found that I-S1 in the brains of the mice was “mostly degraded” 30 minutes following injection. “This indicates that I-S1 enters the BBB intact but is eventually degraded in the brain,” they wrote.

Moreover, by 30 minutes, more than half of the I-S1 proteins had crossed the capillary wall and had fully entered into the brain parenchymal and interstitial fluid spaces, as well as other regions.
 

More severe outcomes in men

The researchers then induced an inflammatory state in the mice through injection of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and found that inflammation increased I-S1 uptake in both the brain and the lung (where uptake was increased by 101%). “These results show that inflammation could increase S1 toxicity for lung tissue by increasing its uptake,” the authors suggested. Moreover, inflammation also increased the entry of I-S1 into the brain, “likely due to BBB disruption.”

In human beings, male sex and APOE4 genotype are risk factors for both contracting COVID-19 and having a poor outcome, the authors noted. As a result, they examined I-S1 uptake in male and female mice that expressed human APOE3 or APOE4 (induced by a mouse ApoE promoter).

Multiple-comparison tests showed that among male mice that expressed human APOE3, the “fastest I-S1 uptake” was in the olfactory bulb, liver, and kidney. Female mice displayed increased APOE3 uptake in the spleen.

“This observation might relate to the increased susceptibility of men to more severe COVID-19 outcomes,” coauthor Jacob Raber, PhD, professor, departments of behavioral neuroscience, neurology, and radiation medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in a press release.

In addition to intravenous I-S1 injection, the researchers also investigated the effects of intranasal administration. They found that, although it also entered the brain, it did so at levels roughly 10 times lower than those induced by intravenous administration.
 

“Frightening tricks”

Dr. Banks said his laboratory has studied the BBB in conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, obesity, diabetes, and HIV. “Our experience with viruses is that they do an incredible number of things and have a frightening number of tricks,” he said. In this case, “the virus is probably causing inflammation by releasing cytokines elsewhere in the body that get into the brain through the BBB.” Conversely, “the virus itself may enter the brain by crossing the BBB and directly cause brain cells to release their own cytokines,” he added.

An additional finding of the study is that, whatever the S1 protein does in the brain is a model for what the entire virus itself does, because these proteins often bring the viruses along with them, he added.

Dr. Banks said the clinical implications of the findings are that antibodies from those who have already had COVID-19 could potentially be directed against S1. Similarly, he added, so can COVID-19 vaccines, which induce production of S1.

“When an antibody locks onto something, it prevents it from crossing the BBB,” Dr. Banks noted.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the study, Howard E. Gendelman, MD, Margaret R. Larson Professor of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases and professor and chair of the department of pharmacology and experimental neuroscience, University of Nebraska, Omaha, said the study is confirmatory.

“What this paper highlights, and we have known for a long time, is that COVID-19 is a systemic, not only a respiratory, disease involving many organs and tissues and can yield not only pulmonary problems but also a whole host of cardiac, brain, and kidney problems,” he said.

“So the fact that these proteins are getting in [the brain] and are able to induce a reaction in the brain itself, and this is part of the complex progressive nature of COVID-19, is an important finding,” added Dr. Gendelman, director of the center for neurodegenerative disorders at the university. He was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Gendelman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SARS-CoV-2 can invade the brain and directly act on brain cells, causing neuroinflammation, new animal research suggests. Investigators injected spike 1 (S1), which is found on the tufts of the “red spikes” of the virus, into mice and found that it crossed the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and was taken up not only by brain regions and the brain space but also by other organs – specifically, the lungs, spleen, liver, and kidneys.

“We found that the S1 protein, which is the protein COVID-19 uses to ‘grab onto’ cells, crosses the BBB and is a good model of what the virus does when it enters the brain,” lead author William A. Banks, MD, professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“When proteins such as the S1 protein become detached from the virus, they can enter the brain and cause mayhem, causing the brain to release cytokines, which, in turn, cause inflammation and subsequent neurotoxicity,” said Dr. Banks, associate chief of staff and a researcher at the Puget Sound Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience.
 

Neurologic symptoms

COVID-19 is associated with a variety of central nervous system symptoms, including the loss of taste and smell, headaches, confusion, stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage, the investigators noted.

Dr. Banks explained that SARS-CoV-2 may enter the brain by crossing the BBB, acting directly on the brain centers responsible for other body functions. The respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 may therefore result partly from the invasion of the areas of the brain responsible for respiratory functions, not only from the virus’ action at the site of the lungs.

The researchers set out to assess whether a particular viral protein – S1, which is a subunit of the viral spike protein – could cross the BBB or enter other organs when injected into mice. They found that, when intravenously injected S1 (I-S1) was cleared from the blood, tissues in multiple organs, including the lung, spleen, kidney, and liver, took it up.

Notably, uptake of I-S1 was higher in the liver, “suggesting that this protein is cleared from the blood predominantly by the liver,” Dr. Banks said. In addition, uptake by the lungs is “important, because that’s where many of the effects of the virus are,” he added.

The researchers found that I-S1 in the brains of the mice was “mostly degraded” 30 minutes following injection. “This indicates that I-S1 enters the BBB intact but is eventually degraded in the brain,” they wrote.

Moreover, by 30 minutes, more than half of the I-S1 proteins had crossed the capillary wall and had fully entered into the brain parenchymal and interstitial fluid spaces, as well as other regions.
 

More severe outcomes in men

The researchers then induced an inflammatory state in the mice through injection of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and found that inflammation increased I-S1 uptake in both the brain and the lung (where uptake was increased by 101%). “These results show that inflammation could increase S1 toxicity for lung tissue by increasing its uptake,” the authors suggested. Moreover, inflammation also increased the entry of I-S1 into the brain, “likely due to BBB disruption.”

In human beings, male sex and APOE4 genotype are risk factors for both contracting COVID-19 and having a poor outcome, the authors noted. As a result, they examined I-S1 uptake in male and female mice that expressed human APOE3 or APOE4 (induced by a mouse ApoE promoter).

Multiple-comparison tests showed that among male mice that expressed human APOE3, the “fastest I-S1 uptake” was in the olfactory bulb, liver, and kidney. Female mice displayed increased APOE3 uptake in the spleen.

“This observation might relate to the increased susceptibility of men to more severe COVID-19 outcomes,” coauthor Jacob Raber, PhD, professor, departments of behavioral neuroscience, neurology, and radiation medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in a press release.

In addition to intravenous I-S1 injection, the researchers also investigated the effects of intranasal administration. They found that, although it also entered the brain, it did so at levels roughly 10 times lower than those induced by intravenous administration.
 

“Frightening tricks”

Dr. Banks said his laboratory has studied the BBB in conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, obesity, diabetes, and HIV. “Our experience with viruses is that they do an incredible number of things and have a frightening number of tricks,” he said. In this case, “the virus is probably causing inflammation by releasing cytokines elsewhere in the body that get into the brain through the BBB.” Conversely, “the virus itself may enter the brain by crossing the BBB and directly cause brain cells to release their own cytokines,” he added.

An additional finding of the study is that, whatever the S1 protein does in the brain is a model for what the entire virus itself does, because these proteins often bring the viruses along with them, he added.

Dr. Banks said the clinical implications of the findings are that antibodies from those who have already had COVID-19 could potentially be directed against S1. Similarly, he added, so can COVID-19 vaccines, which induce production of S1.

“When an antibody locks onto something, it prevents it from crossing the BBB,” Dr. Banks noted.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the study, Howard E. Gendelman, MD, Margaret R. Larson Professor of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases and professor and chair of the department of pharmacology and experimental neuroscience, University of Nebraska, Omaha, said the study is confirmatory.

“What this paper highlights, and we have known for a long time, is that COVID-19 is a systemic, not only a respiratory, disease involving many organs and tissues and can yield not only pulmonary problems but also a whole host of cardiac, brain, and kidney problems,” he said.

“So the fact that these proteins are getting in [the brain] and are able to induce a reaction in the brain itself, and this is part of the complex progressive nature of COVID-19, is an important finding,” added Dr. Gendelman, director of the center for neurodegenerative disorders at the university. He was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Gendelman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians who care for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) can now refer to a new set of strategies and points to consider from a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) task force in building a patient-centered approach to improve adherence to treatments.

Nonadherence to treatments is concerning given that 30%-80% of patients who have RMDs are thought to not follow a recommended treatment plan according to their physicians’ instructions, according to first author Valentin Ritschl of the Medical University of Vienna and colleagues.

“The problem of poor adherence is addressed in some EULAR recommendations/points to consider on the management of specific health conditions or on the role of professionals,” Mr. Ritschl said in an interview. “However, all these recommendations focus on limited aspects of nonadherence and do not cover the multifaceted nature of this phenomenon.”

Mr. Ritschl and colleagues conducted an extensive systematic literature review, the results of which they presented to a task force consisting of a panel of international experts hailing from 12 different countries. The task force included rheumatologists and other health professionals in rheumatology, as well as patient representatives.

The collaboration resulted in investigators crafting a definition of adherence in addition to drafting four overarching principles and nine points to consider, which were published Dec. 18 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

They defined adherence as “the extent to which a person’s behavior corresponds with the agreed prescription, of pharmacological or nonpharmacological treatments, by a health care provider.”

The four overarching principles emphasize the following concepts: that adherence affects outcomes in people who have RMDs; the importance of shared decision-making, with the understanding that the adherence describes the patient’s behavior “following an agreed prescription”; that numerous factors can affect adherence; and the notion of adherence being a dynamic process that, consequently, requires continuous evaluation.

Among the nine points to consider, Mr. Ritschl and coauthors encouraged all health care providers involved in caring for RMD patients to assume responsibility for promoting adherence. Practitioners should also strive to create an ongoing, open dialogue to discuss adherence, especially in cases in which the patient’s RMD is not well controlled. The patient-centered recommendations include taking into account the patient’s goals and preferences because these greatly contribute to the patient’s ability to adhere to any medication regimen. Another arm of that exploration also requires the medical professional to evaluate any circumstances that could bear a negative effect on the patient’s adherence – whether it be medication access issues related to cost or availability, or functional challenges such as memory, motivation, or complexity of the medication regimen.

SDI Productions/E+

Mr. Ritschl believed the task force’s recommendations will add value and help improve overall outcomes in RMD population management.

“Until today, there are no recommendations or points to consider developed in order to support our patients to be adherent to the agreed treatment plan,” he said. “In our project/initiative, we therefore developed for the first time points to consider to detect, assess, and manage nonadherence in people with RMDs.”

Additionally, the recommendations offer some strategic insights to help improve clinical trials because the deleterious effects of nonadherence also affect study results.

Looking ahead, Mr. Ritschl said randomized, controlled trials are necessary to test strategies that might improve adherence. He strongly emphasized the importance of designing future research studies that are heavily patient centered and effective for shared decision-making.

The project was funded by EULAR. Mr. Ritschl reported having no disclosures, but many of his coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Ritschl V et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Dec 18. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218986.

Clinicians who care for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) can now refer to a new set of strategies and points to consider from a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) task force in building a patient-centered approach to improve adherence to treatments.

Nonadherence to treatments is concerning given that 30%-80% of patients who have RMDs are thought to not follow a recommended treatment plan according to their physicians’ instructions, according to first author Valentin Ritschl of the Medical University of Vienna and colleagues.

“The problem of poor adherence is addressed in some EULAR recommendations/points to consider on the management of specific health conditions or on the role of professionals,” Mr. Ritschl said in an interview. “However, all these recommendations focus on limited aspects of nonadherence and do not cover the multifaceted nature of this phenomenon.”

Mr. Ritschl and colleagues conducted an extensive systematic literature review, the results of which they presented to a task force consisting of a panel of international experts hailing from 12 different countries. The task force included rheumatologists and other health professionals in rheumatology, as well as patient representatives.

The collaboration resulted in investigators crafting a definition of adherence in addition to drafting four overarching principles and nine points to consider, which were published Dec. 18 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

They defined adherence as “the extent to which a person’s behavior corresponds with the agreed prescription, of pharmacological or nonpharmacological treatments, by a health care provider.”

The four overarching principles emphasize the following concepts: that adherence affects outcomes in people who have RMDs; the importance of shared decision-making, with the understanding that the adherence describes the patient’s behavior “following an agreed prescription”; that numerous factors can affect adherence; and the notion of adherence being a dynamic process that, consequently, requires continuous evaluation.

Among the nine points to consider, Mr. Ritschl and coauthors encouraged all health care providers involved in caring for RMD patients to assume responsibility for promoting adherence. Practitioners should also strive to create an ongoing, open dialogue to discuss adherence, especially in cases in which the patient’s RMD is not well controlled. The patient-centered recommendations include taking into account the patient’s goals and preferences because these greatly contribute to the patient’s ability to adhere to any medication regimen. Another arm of that exploration also requires the medical professional to evaluate any circumstances that could bear a negative effect on the patient’s adherence – whether it be medication access issues related to cost or availability, or functional challenges such as memory, motivation, or complexity of the medication regimen.

SDI Productions/E+

Mr. Ritschl believed the task force’s recommendations will add value and help improve overall outcomes in RMD population management.

“Until today, there are no recommendations or points to consider developed in order to support our patients to be adherent to the agreed treatment plan,” he said. “In our project/initiative, we therefore developed for the first time points to consider to detect, assess, and manage nonadherence in people with RMDs.”

Additionally, the recommendations offer some strategic insights to help improve clinical trials because the deleterious effects of nonadherence also affect study results.

Looking ahead, Mr. Ritschl said randomized, controlled trials are necessary to test strategies that might improve adherence. He strongly emphasized the importance of designing future research studies that are heavily patient centered and effective for shared decision-making.

The project was funded by EULAR. Mr. Ritschl reported having no disclosures, but many of his coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Ritschl V et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Dec 18. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218986.

Clinicians who care for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) can now refer to a new set of strategies and points to consider from a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) task force in building a patient-centered approach to improve adherence to treatments.

Nonadherence to treatments is concerning given that 30%-80% of patients who have RMDs are thought to not follow a recommended treatment plan according to their physicians’ instructions, according to first author Valentin Ritschl of the Medical University of Vienna and colleagues.

“The problem of poor adherence is addressed in some EULAR recommendations/points to consider on the management of specific health conditions or on the role of professionals,” Mr. Ritschl said in an interview. “However, all these recommendations focus on limited aspects of nonadherence and do not cover the multifaceted nature of this phenomenon.”

Mr. Ritschl and colleagues conducted an extensive systematic literature review, the results of which they presented to a task force consisting of a panel of international experts hailing from 12 different countries. The task force included rheumatologists and other health professionals in rheumatology, as well as patient representatives.

The collaboration resulted in investigators crafting a definition of adherence in addition to drafting four overarching principles and nine points to consider, which were published Dec. 18 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

They defined adherence as “the extent to which a person’s behavior corresponds with the agreed prescription, of pharmacological or nonpharmacological treatments, by a health care provider.”

The four overarching principles emphasize the following concepts: that adherence affects outcomes in people who have RMDs; the importance of shared decision-making, with the understanding that the adherence describes the patient’s behavior “following an agreed prescription”; that numerous factors can affect adherence; and the notion of adherence being a dynamic process that, consequently, requires continuous evaluation.

Among the nine points to consider, Mr. Ritschl and coauthors encouraged all health care providers involved in caring for RMD patients to assume responsibility for promoting adherence. Practitioners should also strive to create an ongoing, open dialogue to discuss adherence, especially in cases in which the patient’s RMD is not well controlled. The patient-centered recommendations include taking into account the patient’s goals and preferences because these greatly contribute to the patient’s ability to adhere to any medication regimen. Another arm of that exploration also requires the medical professional to evaluate any circumstances that could bear a negative effect on the patient’s adherence – whether it be medication access issues related to cost or availability, or functional challenges such as memory, motivation, or complexity of the medication regimen.

SDI Productions/E+

Mr. Ritschl believed the task force’s recommendations will add value and help improve overall outcomes in RMD population management.

“Until today, there are no recommendations or points to consider developed in order to support our patients to be adherent to the agreed treatment plan,” he said. “In our project/initiative, we therefore developed for the first time points to consider to detect, assess, and manage nonadherence in people with RMDs.”

Additionally, the recommendations offer some strategic insights to help improve clinical trials because the deleterious effects of nonadherence also affect study results.

Looking ahead, Mr. Ritschl said randomized, controlled trials are necessary to test strategies that might improve adherence. He strongly emphasized the importance of designing future research studies that are heavily patient centered and effective for shared decision-making.

The project was funded by EULAR. Mr. Ritschl reported having no disclosures, but many of his coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Ritschl V et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Dec 18. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218986.

The United States started 2021 they way it ended 2020: Setting new records amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The country passed the 20 million mark for coronavirus cases on Friday, setting the mark sometime around noon, according to Johns Hopkins University’s COVID-19 tracker. The total is nearly twice as many as the next worst country – India, which has 10.28 million cases.

Along with the case count, more than 346,000 Americans have now died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That is 77% more fatalities than Brazil, which ranks second globally with 194,949 deaths.

More than 125,370 coronavirus patients were hospitalized on Thursday, the fourth record-setting day in a row, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Going by official tallies, it took 292 days for the United States to reach its first 10 million cases, and just 54 more days to double it, CNN reported.

Meanwhile, 12.41 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed in the United States as of Wednesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet only 2.8 million people have received the first of a two-shot regimen.

The slower-than-hoped-for rollout of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines comes as a new variant of the coronavirus has emerged in a third state. Florida officials announced a confirmed case of the new variant – believed to have originated in the United Kingdom – in Martin County in southeast Florida.

The state health department said on Twitter that the patient is a man in his 20s with no history of travel. The department said it is working with the CDC to investigate.

The variant has also been confirmed in cases in Colorado and California. It is believed to be more contagious. The BBC reported that the new variant increases the reproduction, or “R number,” by 0.4 and 0.7. The UK’s most recent R number has been estimated at 1.1-1.3, meaning anyone who has the coronavirus could be assumed to spread it to up to 1.3 people.

The R number needs to be below 1.0 for the spread of the virus to fall.

“There is a huge difference in how easily the variant virus spreads,” Professor Axel Gandy of London’s Imperial College told BBC News. “This is the most serious change in the virus since the epidemic began.”

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

The United States started 2021 they way it ended 2020: Setting new records amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The country passed the 20 million mark for coronavirus cases on Friday, setting the mark sometime around noon, according to Johns Hopkins University’s COVID-19 tracker. The total is nearly twice as many as the next worst country – India, which has 10.28 million cases.

Along with the case count, more than 346,000 Americans have now died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That is 77% more fatalities than Brazil, which ranks second globally with 194,949 deaths.

More than 125,370 coronavirus patients were hospitalized on Thursday, the fourth record-setting day in a row, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Going by official tallies, it took 292 days for the United States to reach its first 10 million cases, and just 54 more days to double it, CNN reported.

Meanwhile, 12.41 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed in the United States as of Wednesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet only 2.8 million people have received the first of a two-shot regimen.

The slower-than-hoped-for rollout of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines comes as a new variant of the coronavirus has emerged in a third state. Florida officials announced a confirmed case of the new variant – believed to have originated in the United Kingdom – in Martin County in southeast Florida.

The state health department said on Twitter that the patient is a man in his 20s with no history of travel. The department said it is working with the CDC to investigate.

The variant has also been confirmed in cases in Colorado and California. It is believed to be more contagious. The BBC reported that the new variant increases the reproduction, or “R number,” by 0.4 and 0.7. The UK’s most recent R number has been estimated at 1.1-1.3, meaning anyone who has the coronavirus could be assumed to spread it to up to 1.3 people.

The R number needs to be below 1.0 for the spread of the virus to fall.

“There is a huge difference in how easily the variant virus spreads,” Professor Axel Gandy of London’s Imperial College told BBC News. “This is the most serious change in the virus since the epidemic began.”

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

The United States started 2021 they way it ended 2020: Setting new records amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The country passed the 20 million mark for coronavirus cases on Friday, setting the mark sometime around noon, according to Johns Hopkins University’s COVID-19 tracker. The total is nearly twice as many as the next worst country – India, which has 10.28 million cases.

Along with the case count, more than 346,000 Americans have now died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That is 77% more fatalities than Brazil, which ranks second globally with 194,949 deaths.

More than 125,370 coronavirus patients were hospitalized on Thursday, the fourth record-setting day in a row, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Going by official tallies, it took 292 days for the United States to reach its first 10 million cases, and just 54 more days to double it, CNN reported.

Meanwhile, 12.41 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed in the United States as of Wednesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet only 2.8 million people have received the first of a two-shot regimen.

The slower-than-hoped-for rollout of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines comes as a new variant of the coronavirus has emerged in a third state. Florida officials announced a confirmed case of the new variant – believed to have originated in the United Kingdom – in Martin County in southeast Florida.

The state health department said on Twitter that the patient is a man in his 20s with no history of travel. The department said it is working with the CDC to investigate.

The variant has also been confirmed in cases in Colorado and California. It is believed to be more contagious. The BBC reported that the new variant increases the reproduction, or “R number,” by 0.4 and 0.7. The UK’s most recent R number has been estimated at 1.1-1.3, meaning anyone who has the coronavirus could be assumed to spread it to up to 1.3 people.

The R number needs to be below 1.0 for the spread of the virus to fall.

“There is a huge difference in how easily the variant virus spreads,” Professor Axel Gandy of London’s Imperial College told BBC News. “This is the most serious change in the virus since the epidemic began.”

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Lupus nephritis is a serious complication of lupus for which there is a great unmet therapeutic need. The first step to preserve kidney function is to identify kidney involvement with blood and urine tests, and to assess whether a kidney biopsy is needed. Dr. Richard Furie, Chief of Rheumatology at Northwell Health, shares recommendations for evaluating whether a patient is a candidate for kidney biopsy based on their protein/creatinine ratio and serologic activity.

Dr. Furie also reviews treatment options based on biopsy results, including steroids, immunosuppressive agents, and calcineurin inhibitors, as well as significant findings from the recent BLISS-LN, NOBILITY, and AURORA trials.

--

Chief of Rheumatology, Northwell Health
Professor, Center for Autoimmune, Musculoskeletal and Hematopoietic Diseases, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research
Professor of Medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell

Richard A. Furie, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a consultant for AstraZeneca; GlaxoSmithKline; Genentech; Biogen; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono.
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca; GlaxoSmithKline; Genentech; Biogen; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono.

Lupus nephritis is a serious complication of lupus for which there is a great unmet therapeutic need. The first step to preserve kidney function is to identify kidney involvement with blood and urine tests, and to assess whether a kidney biopsy is needed. Dr. Richard Furie, Chief of Rheumatology at Northwell Health, shares recommendations for evaluating whether a patient is a candidate for kidney biopsy based on their protein/creatinine ratio and serologic activity.

Dr. Furie also reviews treatment options based on biopsy results, including steroids, immunosuppressive agents, and calcineurin inhibitors, as well as significant findings from the recent BLISS-LN, NOBILITY, and AURORA trials.

--

Chief of Rheumatology, Northwell Health
Professor, Center for Autoimmune, Musculoskeletal and Hematopoietic Diseases, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research
Professor of Medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell

Richard A. Furie, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a consultant for AstraZeneca; GlaxoSmithKline; Genentech; Biogen; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono.
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca; GlaxoSmithKline; Genentech; Biogen; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono.

Lupus nephritis is a serious complication of lupus for which there is a great unmet therapeutic need. The first step to preserve kidney function is to identify kidney involvement with blood and urine tests, and to assess whether a kidney biopsy is needed. Dr. Richard Furie, Chief of Rheumatology at Northwell Health, shares recommendations for evaluating whether a patient is a candidate for kidney biopsy based on their protein/creatinine ratio and serologic activity.

Dr. Furie also reviews treatment options based on biopsy results, including steroids, immunosuppressive agents, and calcineurin inhibitors, as well as significant findings from the recent BLISS-LN, NOBILITY, and AURORA trials.

--

Chief of Rheumatology, Northwell Health
Professor, Center for Autoimmune, Musculoskeletal and Hematopoietic Diseases, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research
Professor of Medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell

Richard A. Furie, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a consultant for AstraZeneca; GlaxoSmithKline; Genentech; Biogen; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono.
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca; GlaxoSmithKline; Genentech; Biogen; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono.

The COVID-19 vaccine distribution process in the United States is moving more slowly than anticipated, falling short of Operation Warp Speed’s goal to vaccinate 20 million Americans by the end of the year.

If the current pace of vaccination continues, “it’s going to take years, not months, to vaccinate the American people,” President-elect Joe Biden said during a briefing Dec. 29.

In fact, at the current rate, it would take nearly 10 years to vaccinate enough Americans to bring the pandemic under control, according to NBC News. To reach 80% of the country by late June, 3 million people would need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine each day.

“As I long feared and warned, the effort to distribute and administer the vaccine is not progressing as it should,” Mr. Biden said, reemphasizing his pledge to get 100 million doses to Americans during his first 100 days as president.

So far, 11.4 million doses have been distributed and 2.1 million people have received a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most states have administered a fraction of the doses they’ve received, according to data compiled by The New York Times.

Federal officials have said there’s an “expected lag” between delivery of doses, shots going into arms, and the data being reported to the CDC, according to CNN. The Food and Drug Administration must assess each shipment for quality control, which has slowed down distribution, and the CDC data are just now beginning to include the Moderna vaccine, which the FDA authorized for emergency use on Dec. 18.

The 2.1 million number is “an underestimate,” Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, told NBC News Dec. 29. At the same time, the U.S. won’t meet the goal of vaccinating 20 million people in the next few days, he said.

Another 30 million doses will go out in January, Dr. Giroir said, followed by 50 million in February.

Some vaccine experts have said they’re not surprised by the speed of vaccine distribution.

“It had to go this way,” Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told STAT. “We had to trip and fall and stumble and figure this out.”

To speed up distribution in 2021, the federal government will need to help states, Mr. Biden said Dec. 29. He plans to use the Defense Authorization Act to ramp up production of vaccine supplies. Even still, the process will take months, he said.

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

The COVID-19 vaccine distribution process in the United States is moving more slowly than anticipated, falling short of Operation Warp Speed’s goal to vaccinate 20 million Americans by the end of the year.

If the current pace of vaccination continues, “it’s going to take years, not months, to vaccinate the American people,” President-elect Joe Biden said during a briefing Dec. 29.

In fact, at the current rate, it would take nearly 10 years to vaccinate enough Americans to bring the pandemic under control, according to NBC News. To reach 80% of the country by late June, 3 million people would need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine each day.

“As I long feared and warned, the effort to distribute and administer the vaccine is not progressing as it should,” Mr. Biden said, reemphasizing his pledge to get 100 million doses to Americans during his first 100 days as president.

So far, 11.4 million doses have been distributed and 2.1 million people have received a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most states have administered a fraction of the doses they’ve received, according to data compiled by The New York Times.

Federal officials have said there’s an “expected lag” between delivery of doses, shots going into arms, and the data being reported to the CDC, according to CNN. The Food and Drug Administration must assess each shipment for quality control, which has slowed down distribution, and the CDC data are just now beginning to include the Moderna vaccine, which the FDA authorized for emergency use on Dec. 18.

The 2.1 million number is “an underestimate,” Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, told NBC News Dec. 29. At the same time, the U.S. won’t meet the goal of vaccinating 20 million people in the next few days, he said.

Another 30 million doses will go out in January, Dr. Giroir said, followed by 50 million in February.

Some vaccine experts have said they’re not surprised by the speed of vaccine distribution.

“It had to go this way,” Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told STAT. “We had to trip and fall and stumble and figure this out.”

To speed up distribution in 2021, the federal government will need to help states, Mr. Biden said Dec. 29. He plans to use the Defense Authorization Act to ramp up production of vaccine supplies. Even still, the process will take months, he said.

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

The COVID-19 vaccine distribution process in the United States is moving more slowly than anticipated, falling short of Operation Warp Speed’s goal to vaccinate 20 million Americans by the end of the year.

If the current pace of vaccination continues, “it’s going to take years, not months, to vaccinate the American people,” President-elect Joe Biden said during a briefing Dec. 29.

In fact, at the current rate, it would take nearly 10 years to vaccinate enough Americans to bring the pandemic under control, according to NBC News. To reach 80% of the country by late June, 3 million people would need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine each day.

“As I long feared and warned, the effort to distribute and administer the vaccine is not progressing as it should,” Mr. Biden said, reemphasizing his pledge to get 100 million doses to Americans during his first 100 days as president.

So far, 11.4 million doses have been distributed and 2.1 million people have received a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most states have administered a fraction of the doses they’ve received, according to data compiled by The New York Times.

Federal officials have said there’s an “expected lag” between delivery of doses, shots going into arms, and the data being reported to the CDC, according to CNN. The Food and Drug Administration must assess each shipment for quality control, which has slowed down distribution, and the CDC data are just now beginning to include the Moderna vaccine, which the FDA authorized for emergency use on Dec. 18.

The 2.1 million number is “an underestimate,” Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, told NBC News Dec. 29. At the same time, the U.S. won’t meet the goal of vaccinating 20 million people in the next few days, he said.

Another 30 million doses will go out in January, Dr. Giroir said, followed by 50 million in February.

Some vaccine experts have said they’re not surprised by the speed of vaccine distribution.

“It had to go this way,” Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told STAT. “We had to trip and fall and stumble and figure this out.”

To speed up distribution in 2021, the federal government will need to help states, Mr. Biden said Dec. 29. He plans to use the Defense Authorization Act to ramp up production of vaccine supplies. Even still, the process will take months, he said.

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

A scoring system based on 10 parameters in a complete blood count with differential within 3 days of hospital presentation predict those with COVID-19 who are most likely to progress to critical illness, new evidence shows.

Advantages include prognosis based on a common and inexpensive clinical measure, as well as automatic generation of the score along with CBC results, noted investigators in the observational study conducted throughout 11 European hospitals.

“COVID-19 comes along with specific alterations in circulating blood cells that can be detected by a routine hematology analyzer, especially when that hematology analyzer is also capable to recognize activated immune cells and early circulating blood cells, such as erythroblast and immature granulocytes,” senior author Andre van der Ven, MD, PhD, infectious diseases specialist and professor of international health at Radboud University Medical Center’s Center for Infectious Diseases in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

Furthermore, Dr. van der Ven said, “these specific changes are also seen in the early course of COVID-19 disease, and more in those that will develop serious disease compared to those with mild disease.”

The study was published online Dec. 21 in the journal eLife.

The study is “almost instinctively correct. It’s basically what clinicians do informally with complete blood count … looking at a combination of results to get the gestalt of what patients are going through,” Samuel Reichberg, MD, PhD, associate medical director of the Northwell Health Core Laboratory in Lake Success, N.Y., said in an interview.

“This is something that begs to be done for COVID-19. I’m surprised no one has done this before,” he added.

Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues created an algorithm based on 1,587 CBC assays from 923 adults. They also validated the scoring system in a second cohort of 217 CBC measurements in 202 people. The findings were concordant – the score accurately predicted the need for critical care within 14 days in 70.5% of the development cohort and 72% of the validation group.

The scoring system was superior to any of the 10 parameters alone. Over 14 days, the majority of those classified as noncritical within the first 3 days remained clinically stable, whereas the “clinical illness” group progressed. Clinical severity peaked on day 6.

Most previous COVID-19 prognosis research was geographically limited, carried a high risk for bias and/or did not validate the findings, Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues noted.
 

Early identification, early intervention

The aim of the score is “to assist with objective risk stratification to support patient management decision-making early on, and thus facilitate timely interventions, such as need for ICU or not, before symptoms of severe illness become clinically overt, with the intention to improve patient outcomes, and not to predict mortality,” the investigators noted.

Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues developed the score based on adults presenting from Feb. 21 to April 6, with outcomes followed until June 9. Median age of the 982 patients was 71 years and approximately two-thirds were men. They used a Sysmex Europe XN-1000 (Hamburg, Germany) hemocytometric analyzer in the study.

Only 7% of this cohort was not admitted to a hospital. Another 74% were admitted to a general ward and the remaining 19% were transferred directly to the ICU.

The scoring system includes parameters for neutrophils, monocytes, red blood cells and immature granulocytes, and when available, reticulocyte and iron bioavailability measures.

The researchers report significant differences over time in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio between the critical illness and noncritical groups (P < .001), for example. They also found significant differences in hemoglobin levels between cohorts after day 5.

The system generates a score from 0 to 28. Sensitivity for correctly predicting the need for critical care increased from 62% on day 1 to 93% on day 6. 
 

A more objective assessment of risk

The study demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 infection is characterized by hemocytometric changes over time. These changes, reflected together in the prognostic score, could aid in the early identification of patients whose clinical course is more likely to deteriorate over time.

The findings also support other work that shows men are more likely to present to the hospital with COVID-19, and that older age and presence of comorbidities add to overall risk. “However,” the researchers noted, “not all young patients had a mild course, and not all old patients with comorbidities were critical.”

Therefore, the prognostic score can help identify patients at risk for severe progression outside other risk factors and “support individualized treatment decisions with objective data,” they added.

Dr. Reichberg called the concept of combining CBC parameters into one score “very valuable.” However, he added that incorporating an index into clinical practice “has historically been tricky.”

The results “probably have to be replicated,” Dr. Reichberg said.

He added that it is likely a CBC-based score will be combined with other measures. “I would like to see an index that combines all the tests we do [for COVID-19], including complete blood count.”

Dr. Van der Ven shared the next step in his research. “The algorithm should be installed on the hematology analyzers so the prognostic score will be automatically generated if a full blood count is asked for in a COVID-19 patient,” he said. “So implementation of score is the main focus now.”

Dr. van der Ven disclosed an ad hoc consultancy agreement with Sysmex Europe. Sysmex Europe provided the reagents in the study free of charge; no other funders were involved. Dr. Reichberg has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A scoring system based on 10 parameters in a complete blood count with differential within 3 days of hospital presentation predict those with COVID-19 who are most likely to progress to critical illness, new evidence shows.

Advantages include prognosis based on a common and inexpensive clinical measure, as well as automatic generation of the score along with CBC results, noted investigators in the observational study conducted throughout 11 European hospitals.

“COVID-19 comes along with specific alterations in circulating blood cells that can be detected by a routine hematology analyzer, especially when that hematology analyzer is also capable to recognize activated immune cells and early circulating blood cells, such as erythroblast and immature granulocytes,” senior author Andre van der Ven, MD, PhD, infectious diseases specialist and professor of international health at Radboud University Medical Center’s Center for Infectious Diseases in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

Furthermore, Dr. van der Ven said, “these specific changes are also seen in the early course of COVID-19 disease, and more in those that will develop serious disease compared to those with mild disease.”

The study was published online Dec. 21 in the journal eLife.

The study is “almost instinctively correct. It’s basically what clinicians do informally with complete blood count … looking at a combination of results to get the gestalt of what patients are going through,” Samuel Reichberg, MD, PhD, associate medical director of the Northwell Health Core Laboratory in Lake Success, N.Y., said in an interview.

“This is something that begs to be done for COVID-19. I’m surprised no one has done this before,” he added.

Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues created an algorithm based on 1,587 CBC assays from 923 adults. They also validated the scoring system in a second cohort of 217 CBC measurements in 202 people. The findings were concordant – the score accurately predicted the need for critical care within 14 days in 70.5% of the development cohort and 72% of the validation group.

The scoring system was superior to any of the 10 parameters alone. Over 14 days, the majority of those classified as noncritical within the first 3 days remained clinically stable, whereas the “clinical illness” group progressed. Clinical severity peaked on day 6.

Most previous COVID-19 prognosis research was geographically limited, carried a high risk for bias and/or did not validate the findings, Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues noted.
 

Early identification, early intervention

The aim of the score is “to assist with objective risk stratification to support patient management decision-making early on, and thus facilitate timely interventions, such as need for ICU or not, before symptoms of severe illness become clinically overt, with the intention to improve patient outcomes, and not to predict mortality,” the investigators noted.

Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues developed the score based on adults presenting from Feb. 21 to April 6, with outcomes followed until June 9. Median age of the 982 patients was 71 years and approximately two-thirds were men. They used a Sysmex Europe XN-1000 (Hamburg, Germany) hemocytometric analyzer in the study.

Only 7% of this cohort was not admitted to a hospital. Another 74% were admitted to a general ward and the remaining 19% were transferred directly to the ICU.

The scoring system includes parameters for neutrophils, monocytes, red blood cells and immature granulocytes, and when available, reticulocyte and iron bioavailability measures.

The researchers report significant differences over time in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio between the critical illness and noncritical groups (P < .001), for example. They also found significant differences in hemoglobin levels between cohorts after day 5.

The system generates a score from 0 to 28. Sensitivity for correctly predicting the need for critical care increased from 62% on day 1 to 93% on day 6. 
 

A more objective assessment of risk

The study demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 infection is characterized by hemocytometric changes over time. These changes, reflected together in the prognostic score, could aid in the early identification of patients whose clinical course is more likely to deteriorate over time.

The findings also support other work that shows men are more likely to present to the hospital with COVID-19, and that older age and presence of comorbidities add to overall risk. “However,” the researchers noted, “not all young patients had a mild course, and not all old patients with comorbidities were critical.”

Therefore, the prognostic score can help identify patients at risk for severe progression outside other risk factors and “support individualized treatment decisions with objective data,” they added.

Dr. Reichberg called the concept of combining CBC parameters into one score “very valuable.” However, he added that incorporating an index into clinical practice “has historically been tricky.”

The results “probably have to be replicated,” Dr. Reichberg said.

He added that it is likely a CBC-based score will be combined with other measures. “I would like to see an index that combines all the tests we do [for COVID-19], including complete blood count.”

Dr. Van der Ven shared the next step in his research. “The algorithm should be installed on the hematology analyzers so the prognostic score will be automatically generated if a full blood count is asked for in a COVID-19 patient,” he said. “So implementation of score is the main focus now.”

Dr. van der Ven disclosed an ad hoc consultancy agreement with Sysmex Europe. Sysmex Europe provided the reagents in the study free of charge; no other funders were involved. Dr. Reichberg has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A scoring system based on 10 parameters in a complete blood count with differential within 3 days of hospital presentation predict those with COVID-19 who are most likely to progress to critical illness, new evidence shows.

Advantages include prognosis based on a common and inexpensive clinical measure, as well as automatic generation of the score along with CBC results, noted investigators in the observational study conducted throughout 11 European hospitals.

“COVID-19 comes along with specific alterations in circulating blood cells that can be detected by a routine hematology analyzer, especially when that hematology analyzer is also capable to recognize activated immune cells and early circulating blood cells, such as erythroblast and immature granulocytes,” senior author Andre van der Ven, MD, PhD, infectious diseases specialist and professor of international health at Radboud University Medical Center’s Center for Infectious Diseases in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

Furthermore, Dr. van der Ven said, “these specific changes are also seen in the early course of COVID-19 disease, and more in those that will develop serious disease compared to those with mild disease.”

The study was published online Dec. 21 in the journal eLife.

The study is “almost instinctively correct. It’s basically what clinicians do informally with complete blood count … looking at a combination of results to get the gestalt of what patients are going through,” Samuel Reichberg, MD, PhD, associate medical director of the Northwell Health Core Laboratory in Lake Success, N.Y., said in an interview.

“This is something that begs to be done for COVID-19. I’m surprised no one has done this before,” he added.

Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues created an algorithm based on 1,587 CBC assays from 923 adults. They also validated the scoring system in a second cohort of 217 CBC measurements in 202 people. The findings were concordant – the score accurately predicted the need for critical care within 14 days in 70.5% of the development cohort and 72% of the validation group.

The scoring system was superior to any of the 10 parameters alone. Over 14 days, the majority of those classified as noncritical within the first 3 days remained clinically stable, whereas the “clinical illness” group progressed. Clinical severity peaked on day 6.

Most previous COVID-19 prognosis research was geographically limited, carried a high risk for bias and/or did not validate the findings, Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues noted.
 

Early identification, early intervention

The aim of the score is “to assist with objective risk stratification to support patient management decision-making early on, and thus facilitate timely interventions, such as need for ICU or not, before symptoms of severe illness become clinically overt, with the intention to improve patient outcomes, and not to predict mortality,” the investigators noted.

Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues developed the score based on adults presenting from Feb. 21 to April 6, with outcomes followed until June 9. Median age of the 982 patients was 71 years and approximately two-thirds were men. They used a Sysmex Europe XN-1000 (Hamburg, Germany) hemocytometric analyzer in the study.

Only 7% of this cohort was not admitted to a hospital. Another 74% were admitted to a general ward and the remaining 19% were transferred directly to the ICU.

The scoring system includes parameters for neutrophils, monocytes, red blood cells and immature granulocytes, and when available, reticulocyte and iron bioavailability measures.

The researchers report significant differences over time in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio between the critical illness and noncritical groups (P < .001), for example. They also found significant differences in hemoglobin levels between cohorts after day 5.

The system generates a score from 0 to 28. Sensitivity for correctly predicting the need for critical care increased from 62% on day 1 to 93% on day 6. 
 

A more objective assessment of risk

The study demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 infection is characterized by hemocytometric changes over time. These changes, reflected together in the prognostic score, could aid in the early identification of patients whose clinical course is more likely to deteriorate over time.

The findings also support other work that shows men are more likely to present to the hospital with COVID-19, and that older age and presence of comorbidities add to overall risk. “However,” the researchers noted, “not all young patients had a mild course, and not all old patients with comorbidities were critical.”

Therefore, the prognostic score can help identify patients at risk for severe progression outside other risk factors and “support individualized treatment decisions with objective data,” they added.

Dr. Reichberg called the concept of combining CBC parameters into one score “very valuable.” However, he added that incorporating an index into clinical practice “has historically been tricky.”

The results “probably have to be replicated,” Dr. Reichberg said.

He added that it is likely a CBC-based score will be combined with other measures. “I would like to see an index that combines all the tests we do [for COVID-19], including complete blood count.”

Dr. Van der Ven shared the next step in his research. “The algorithm should be installed on the hematology analyzers so the prognostic score will be automatically generated if a full blood count is asked for in a COVID-19 patient,” he said. “So implementation of score is the main focus now.”

Dr. van der Ven disclosed an ad hoc consultancy agreement with Sysmex Europe. Sysmex Europe provided the reagents in the study free of charge; no other funders were involved. Dr. Reichberg has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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