MDedge Rheumatology

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

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

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

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

Different calculations of risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

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

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

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

Different calculations of risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

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

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

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

Different calculations of risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obamacare on the blocks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obamacare on the blocks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obamacare on the blocks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Black patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are known to have significantly elevated risk for stroke and ischemic heart disease (IHD), compared with non-Black patients with SLE.

Now a team of investigators has identified SLE-specific predictors for major cardiovascular complications in Black patients, pointing to potential prevention strategies in this high-risk population.

Among Black patients in a study of 336 patients with incident SLE, discoid rash at the time of SLE diagnosis predicted a fivefold higher risk for stroke, and renal disorder at the time of diagnosis was associated with a twofold higher risk, compared with non-Black patients, but neither of these symptoms predicted elevated risk of IHD.

In contrast, neurologic disorders, including prior psychosis or seizure, were associated with a fourfold higher risk for IHD, and immunologic disorders including anti-DNA, anti-Smith, or antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with a nearly fivefold greater risk for IHD in Black patients, but neither of these comorbidities predicted strokes, reported Shivani Garg, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

“Our study was one of the first to highlight racial disparities in CVD subtypes, with a threefold higher stroke risk and 24-fold higher ischemic heart disease risk in Black patients with lupus. Compared to previous studies in Black populations, our study highlights different peak timing of early stroke and ischemic heart disease in our cohort,“ she said at a plenary session during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The study is one of the first to identify specific and unique SLE disease-related predictors of stroke and ischemic heart disease, she said.

Georgia Lupus Registry data

Dr. Garg and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin and Emory University in Atlanta drew on data from the Georgia Lupus Registry, a population-based registry of SLE patients from the Atlanta area. They identified patients diagnosed from 2002 through 2004 who had four or more ACR criteria for SLE, or three or more criteria plus a final diagnosis of SLE made by their board-certified rheumatologists.

The patients were matched to the Georgia Hospital Discharge Database and National Death Index from 2000 through 2013, with stroke- and IHD-related hospitalizations and deaths classified by the first three admission codes or cause-of-death codes.

Patients with transient ischemic attacks were included in the stroke category, and those with myocardial infarction and angina were included in the IHD category.

They identified 336 patients, 87% of whom were female, and 75% of whom were Black. The mean age at SLE diagnosis was 40 years. Among this cohort, there were 38 stroke-related events or deaths and 25 IHD-related events or deaths recorded from the period 2 years before through 14 years after an SLE diagnosis.
 

Early stroke, late IHD

The investigators first looked at the timing of stroke vs. IHD and found that a disproportionately high percentage of stroke events occurred in the second year after SLE diagnosis, whereas the peak of IHD-related events occurred in the 14^th year after diagnosis.

They then performed a race-stratified Cox proportional hazard analysis, and found a threefold higher risk for stroke in Black patients versus non-Black patients (P = .007) and a 24-fold higher risk for IHD (P < .0001).

In multivariate analysis, significant predictors of stroke were Black race with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.4 (P = .028), discoid rash (HR, 4.6; P = .0028), and renal disorder (HR, 2.4; P = .04). However, stroke was not predicted by age, sex, immunologic disorder, serositis, hematologic disorder, or ACR criteria total greater than four.

Significant predictors of IHD included age 65 and older (HR, 61; P = .0007), Black race (HR, 24; P = .004), neurologic disorder (HR, 4.0; P = .018), and immunologic disorder (HR, 4.7; P = .02). But IHD could not be predicted by oral ulcers, discoid rash, or ACR criteria more than four.

“In future studies, we will examine mechanisms that drive the different timing and predictors of CVD subtypes and disparities. We will also examine the impact of timely prevention in high-risk SLE subsets,” Dr. Garg said.
 

Managing CVD risk

Angus Worthing, MD, from Arthritis & Rheumatism Associates in Chevy Chase, Md., and Washington, D.C., who moderated a press briefing where Dr. Garg discussed her data, routinely treats patients of different racial backgrounds with lupus. When asked how he manages patients with SLE and suspected cardiovascular complications, Dr. Worthing said, “I tend to, in my practice – and these kinds of studies may change what I do – watch for symptoms that might reflect coronary artery disease or cerebrovascular disease, potentially looking at the smaller arteries in the hands and feet as clues, and I will refer promptly to a vascular surgery expert or cardiologist for screening,” he said.

Dr. Garg added that in her practice, she and colleagues treat high-risk subsets of patients, such as those with lupus nephritis or multiple comorbidities, with aggressive blood pressure control and monitoring, as well as smoking cessation recommendations and lipid monitoring. They also try to limit or, if possible, decrease steroid doses to reduce risk for cardiovascular side effects.

Support for the study came in part from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Garg and Dr. Worthing reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Garg S et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 433 .

Black patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are known to have significantly elevated risk for stroke and ischemic heart disease (IHD), compared with non-Black patients with SLE.

Now a team of investigators has identified SLE-specific predictors for major cardiovascular complications in Black patients, pointing to potential prevention strategies in this high-risk population.

Among Black patients in a study of 336 patients with incident SLE, discoid rash at the time of SLE diagnosis predicted a fivefold higher risk for stroke, and renal disorder at the time of diagnosis was associated with a twofold higher risk, compared with non-Black patients, but neither of these symptoms predicted elevated risk of IHD.

In contrast, neurologic disorders, including prior psychosis or seizure, were associated with a fourfold higher risk for IHD, and immunologic disorders including anti-DNA, anti-Smith, or antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with a nearly fivefold greater risk for IHD in Black patients, but neither of these comorbidities predicted strokes, reported Shivani Garg, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

“Our study was one of the first to highlight racial disparities in CVD subtypes, with a threefold higher stroke risk and 24-fold higher ischemic heart disease risk in Black patients with lupus. Compared to previous studies in Black populations, our study highlights different peak timing of early stroke and ischemic heart disease in our cohort,“ she said at a plenary session during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The study is one of the first to identify specific and unique SLE disease-related predictors of stroke and ischemic heart disease, she said.

Georgia Lupus Registry data

Dr. Garg and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin and Emory University in Atlanta drew on data from the Georgia Lupus Registry, a population-based registry of SLE patients from the Atlanta area. They identified patients diagnosed from 2002 through 2004 who had four or more ACR criteria for SLE, or three or more criteria plus a final diagnosis of SLE made by their board-certified rheumatologists.

The patients were matched to the Georgia Hospital Discharge Database and National Death Index from 2000 through 2013, with stroke- and IHD-related hospitalizations and deaths classified by the first three admission codes or cause-of-death codes.

Patients with transient ischemic attacks were included in the stroke category, and those with myocardial infarction and angina were included in the IHD category.

They identified 336 patients, 87% of whom were female, and 75% of whom were Black. The mean age at SLE diagnosis was 40 years. Among this cohort, there were 38 stroke-related events or deaths and 25 IHD-related events or deaths recorded from the period 2 years before through 14 years after an SLE diagnosis.
 

Early stroke, late IHD

The investigators first looked at the timing of stroke vs. IHD and found that a disproportionately high percentage of stroke events occurred in the second year after SLE diagnosis, whereas the peak of IHD-related events occurred in the 14^th year after diagnosis.

They then performed a race-stratified Cox proportional hazard analysis, and found a threefold higher risk for stroke in Black patients versus non-Black patients (P = .007) and a 24-fold higher risk for IHD (P < .0001).

In multivariate analysis, significant predictors of stroke were Black race with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.4 (P = .028), discoid rash (HR, 4.6; P = .0028), and renal disorder (HR, 2.4; P = .04). However, stroke was not predicted by age, sex, immunologic disorder, serositis, hematologic disorder, or ACR criteria total greater than four.

Significant predictors of IHD included age 65 and older (HR, 61; P = .0007), Black race (HR, 24; P = .004), neurologic disorder (HR, 4.0; P = .018), and immunologic disorder (HR, 4.7; P = .02). But IHD could not be predicted by oral ulcers, discoid rash, or ACR criteria more than four.

“In future studies, we will examine mechanisms that drive the different timing and predictors of CVD subtypes and disparities. We will also examine the impact of timely prevention in high-risk SLE subsets,” Dr. Garg said.
 

Managing CVD risk

Angus Worthing, MD, from Arthritis & Rheumatism Associates in Chevy Chase, Md., and Washington, D.C., who moderated a press briefing where Dr. Garg discussed her data, routinely treats patients of different racial backgrounds with lupus. When asked how he manages patients with SLE and suspected cardiovascular complications, Dr. Worthing said, “I tend to, in my practice – and these kinds of studies may change what I do – watch for symptoms that might reflect coronary artery disease or cerebrovascular disease, potentially looking at the smaller arteries in the hands and feet as clues, and I will refer promptly to a vascular surgery expert or cardiologist for screening,” he said.

Dr. Garg added that in her practice, she and colleagues treat high-risk subsets of patients, such as those with lupus nephritis or multiple comorbidities, with aggressive blood pressure control and monitoring, as well as smoking cessation recommendations and lipid monitoring. They also try to limit or, if possible, decrease steroid doses to reduce risk for cardiovascular side effects.

Support for the study came in part from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Garg and Dr. Worthing reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Garg S et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 433 .

Black patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are known to have significantly elevated risk for stroke and ischemic heart disease (IHD), compared with non-Black patients with SLE.

Now a team of investigators has identified SLE-specific predictors for major cardiovascular complications in Black patients, pointing to potential prevention strategies in this high-risk population.

Among Black patients in a study of 336 patients with incident SLE, discoid rash at the time of SLE diagnosis predicted a fivefold higher risk for stroke, and renal disorder at the time of diagnosis was associated with a twofold higher risk, compared with non-Black patients, but neither of these symptoms predicted elevated risk of IHD.

In contrast, neurologic disorders, including prior psychosis or seizure, were associated with a fourfold higher risk for IHD, and immunologic disorders including anti-DNA, anti-Smith, or antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with a nearly fivefold greater risk for IHD in Black patients, but neither of these comorbidities predicted strokes, reported Shivani Garg, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

“Our study was one of the first to highlight racial disparities in CVD subtypes, with a threefold higher stroke risk and 24-fold higher ischemic heart disease risk in Black patients with lupus. Compared to previous studies in Black populations, our study highlights different peak timing of early stroke and ischemic heart disease in our cohort,“ she said at a plenary session during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The study is one of the first to identify specific and unique SLE disease-related predictors of stroke and ischemic heart disease, she said.

Georgia Lupus Registry data

Dr. Garg and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin and Emory University in Atlanta drew on data from the Georgia Lupus Registry, a population-based registry of SLE patients from the Atlanta area. They identified patients diagnosed from 2002 through 2004 who had four or more ACR criteria for SLE, or three or more criteria plus a final diagnosis of SLE made by their board-certified rheumatologists.

The patients were matched to the Georgia Hospital Discharge Database and National Death Index from 2000 through 2013, with stroke- and IHD-related hospitalizations and deaths classified by the first three admission codes or cause-of-death codes.

Patients with transient ischemic attacks were included in the stroke category, and those with myocardial infarction and angina were included in the IHD category.

They identified 336 patients, 87% of whom were female, and 75% of whom were Black. The mean age at SLE diagnosis was 40 years. Among this cohort, there were 38 stroke-related events or deaths and 25 IHD-related events or deaths recorded from the period 2 years before through 14 years after an SLE diagnosis.
 

Early stroke, late IHD

The investigators first looked at the timing of stroke vs. IHD and found that a disproportionately high percentage of stroke events occurred in the second year after SLE diagnosis, whereas the peak of IHD-related events occurred in the 14^th year after diagnosis.

They then performed a race-stratified Cox proportional hazard analysis, and found a threefold higher risk for stroke in Black patients versus non-Black patients (P = .007) and a 24-fold higher risk for IHD (P < .0001).

In multivariate analysis, significant predictors of stroke were Black race with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.4 (P = .028), discoid rash (HR, 4.6; P = .0028), and renal disorder (HR, 2.4; P = .04). However, stroke was not predicted by age, sex, immunologic disorder, serositis, hematologic disorder, or ACR criteria total greater than four.

Significant predictors of IHD included age 65 and older (HR, 61; P = .0007), Black race (HR, 24; P = .004), neurologic disorder (HR, 4.0; P = .018), and immunologic disorder (HR, 4.7; P = .02). But IHD could not be predicted by oral ulcers, discoid rash, or ACR criteria more than four.

“In future studies, we will examine mechanisms that drive the different timing and predictors of CVD subtypes and disparities. We will also examine the impact of timely prevention in high-risk SLE subsets,” Dr. Garg said.
 

Managing CVD risk

Angus Worthing, MD, from Arthritis & Rheumatism Associates in Chevy Chase, Md., and Washington, D.C., who moderated a press briefing where Dr. Garg discussed her data, routinely treats patients of different racial backgrounds with lupus. When asked how he manages patients with SLE and suspected cardiovascular complications, Dr. Worthing said, “I tend to, in my practice – and these kinds of studies may change what I do – watch for symptoms that might reflect coronary artery disease or cerebrovascular disease, potentially looking at the smaller arteries in the hands and feet as clues, and I will refer promptly to a vascular surgery expert or cardiologist for screening,” he said.

Dr. Garg added that in her practice, she and colleagues treat high-risk subsets of patients, such as those with lupus nephritis or multiple comorbidities, with aggressive blood pressure control and monitoring, as well as smoking cessation recommendations and lipid monitoring. They also try to limit or, if possible, decrease steroid doses to reduce risk for cardiovascular side effects.

Support for the study came in part from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Garg and Dr. Worthing reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Garg S et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 433 .

Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who received transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) had a clinically significant reduction in musculoskeletal pain when compared with those who received sham stimulation during a brief pilot trial.

“Our study population included individuals with significant pain and exemplifies the unmet need for adequate control of pain and fatigue in SLE. Importantly, this was a double-blind, sham-controlled study and neither the subject nor assessor was aware of a subject’s intervention. Objective outcomes, that is, tender and swollen joint counts, were also significantly reduced in subjects receiving taVNS, compared with those receiving [sham stimulation]. The stimulation was well tolerated with no adverse events attributed to the intervention, and, clinical benefits continued after taVNS was stopped,” first author Cynthia Aranow, MD, and her colleagues at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., wrote in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Stimulation of the vagus nerve can be achieved through the ear via its auricular branch, which innervates the cymba concha in the outer ear. Past pilot studies of implanted VNS devices lasting 6 weeks to 6 months in patients with Crohn’s disease or rheumatoid arthritis have shown improvements in measures of disease activity as well as objective markers of inflammation, and a more recent trial testing a transcutaneous devices’s effect in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome found significant reductions in fatigue over a 26-day period, the investigators noted.

In the taVNS device study, the researchers recruited 18 patients with SLE who had musculoskeletal pain rated as 4 or higher on a 10-cm visual analog scale and randomized them in a 2:1 ratio to receive taVNS once per day for 5 minutes for 4 consecutive days versus sham stimulation. Patients were allowed to be on stable doses of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, and/or prednisone ≤ 10 mg/day, with no change of dose within 28 days prior to baseline. The study excluded patients who used tobacco or an anticholinergic medication and those with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia.

The 12 patients who received actual taVNS had a significantly greater reduction in their pain, compared with 6 sham-treated patients (–5.00 vs. 0.10; P = .049), with 10 of 12 and 1 of 6 having a clinical response (a reduction of at least 1.58 on a 10-cm visual analog scale from baseline to day 5). Stimulation-treated patients also reported significantly greater reductions in fatigue, with 10 of 12 achieving a meaningful reduction, defined as a 4-point improvement on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Subscale; none of the sham-treated patients experienced meaningful improvement of fatigue. The patients who received taVNS had resolution of all swollen and tender joints, compared with 5.3% of tender and 9.1% of swollen joints in sham-treated patients. Ex vivo lipopolysaccharide stimulation of whole-blood samples from taVNS-treated patients, however, showed no reductions of inflammatory mediators or chemokines in tests on day 5 and day 12.

The investigators reported that there were no adverse events attributed to taVNS, including no reports of headache, lightheadedness, tinnitus, ear irritation, or changes to the external skin of the outer ear.

The study was supported by a grant from the John and Marcia Goldman Foundation. One author reported a financial relationship with Set Point Medical and My String, and three authors reported having a provisional patent application titled “Auricular stimulation device, system and methods of use.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Aranow C et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Nov 3. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217872.

Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who received transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) had a clinically significant reduction in musculoskeletal pain when compared with those who received sham stimulation during a brief pilot trial.

“Our study population included individuals with significant pain and exemplifies the unmet need for adequate control of pain and fatigue in SLE. Importantly, this was a double-blind, sham-controlled study and neither the subject nor assessor was aware of a subject’s intervention. Objective outcomes, that is, tender and swollen joint counts, were also significantly reduced in subjects receiving taVNS, compared with those receiving [sham stimulation]. The stimulation was well tolerated with no adverse events attributed to the intervention, and, clinical benefits continued after taVNS was stopped,” first author Cynthia Aranow, MD, and her colleagues at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., wrote in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Stimulation of the vagus nerve can be achieved through the ear via its auricular branch, which innervates the cymba concha in the outer ear. Past pilot studies of implanted VNS devices lasting 6 weeks to 6 months in patients with Crohn’s disease or rheumatoid arthritis have shown improvements in measures of disease activity as well as objective markers of inflammation, and a more recent trial testing a transcutaneous devices’s effect in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome found significant reductions in fatigue over a 26-day period, the investigators noted.

In the taVNS device study, the researchers recruited 18 patients with SLE who had musculoskeletal pain rated as 4 or higher on a 10-cm visual analog scale and randomized them in a 2:1 ratio to receive taVNS once per day for 5 minutes for 4 consecutive days versus sham stimulation. Patients were allowed to be on stable doses of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, and/or prednisone ≤ 10 mg/day, with no change of dose within 28 days prior to baseline. The study excluded patients who used tobacco or an anticholinergic medication and those with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia.

The 12 patients who received actual taVNS had a significantly greater reduction in their pain, compared with 6 sham-treated patients (–5.00 vs. 0.10; P = .049), with 10 of 12 and 1 of 6 having a clinical response (a reduction of at least 1.58 on a 10-cm visual analog scale from baseline to day 5). Stimulation-treated patients also reported significantly greater reductions in fatigue, with 10 of 12 achieving a meaningful reduction, defined as a 4-point improvement on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Subscale; none of the sham-treated patients experienced meaningful improvement of fatigue. The patients who received taVNS had resolution of all swollen and tender joints, compared with 5.3% of tender and 9.1% of swollen joints in sham-treated patients. Ex vivo lipopolysaccharide stimulation of whole-blood samples from taVNS-treated patients, however, showed no reductions of inflammatory mediators or chemokines in tests on day 5 and day 12.

The investigators reported that there were no adverse events attributed to taVNS, including no reports of headache, lightheadedness, tinnitus, ear irritation, or changes to the external skin of the outer ear.

The study was supported by a grant from the John and Marcia Goldman Foundation. One author reported a financial relationship with Set Point Medical and My String, and three authors reported having a provisional patent application titled “Auricular stimulation device, system and methods of use.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Aranow C et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Nov 3. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217872.

Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who received transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) had a clinically significant reduction in musculoskeletal pain when compared with those who received sham stimulation during a brief pilot trial.

“Our study population included individuals with significant pain and exemplifies the unmet need for adequate control of pain and fatigue in SLE. Importantly, this was a double-blind, sham-controlled study and neither the subject nor assessor was aware of a subject’s intervention. Objective outcomes, that is, tender and swollen joint counts, were also significantly reduced in subjects receiving taVNS, compared with those receiving [sham stimulation]. The stimulation was well tolerated with no adverse events attributed to the intervention, and, clinical benefits continued after taVNS was stopped,” first author Cynthia Aranow, MD, and her colleagues at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., wrote in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Stimulation of the vagus nerve can be achieved through the ear via its auricular branch, which innervates the cymba concha in the outer ear. Past pilot studies of implanted VNS devices lasting 6 weeks to 6 months in patients with Crohn’s disease or rheumatoid arthritis have shown improvements in measures of disease activity as well as objective markers of inflammation, and a more recent trial testing a transcutaneous devices’s effect in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome found significant reductions in fatigue over a 26-day period, the investigators noted.

In the taVNS device study, the researchers recruited 18 patients with SLE who had musculoskeletal pain rated as 4 or higher on a 10-cm visual analog scale and randomized them in a 2:1 ratio to receive taVNS once per day for 5 minutes for 4 consecutive days versus sham stimulation. Patients were allowed to be on stable doses of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, and/or prednisone ≤ 10 mg/day, with no change of dose within 28 days prior to baseline. The study excluded patients who used tobacco or an anticholinergic medication and those with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia.

The 12 patients who received actual taVNS had a significantly greater reduction in their pain, compared with 6 sham-treated patients (–5.00 vs. 0.10; P = .049), with 10 of 12 and 1 of 6 having a clinical response (a reduction of at least 1.58 on a 10-cm visual analog scale from baseline to day 5). Stimulation-treated patients also reported significantly greater reductions in fatigue, with 10 of 12 achieving a meaningful reduction, defined as a 4-point improvement on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Subscale; none of the sham-treated patients experienced meaningful improvement of fatigue. The patients who received taVNS had resolution of all swollen and tender joints, compared with 5.3% of tender and 9.1% of swollen joints in sham-treated patients. Ex vivo lipopolysaccharide stimulation of whole-blood samples from taVNS-treated patients, however, showed no reductions of inflammatory mediators or chemokines in tests on day 5 and day 12.

The investigators reported that there were no adverse events attributed to taVNS, including no reports of headache, lightheadedness, tinnitus, ear irritation, or changes to the external skin of the outer ear.

The study was supported by a grant from the John and Marcia Goldman Foundation. One author reported a financial relationship with Set Point Medical and My String, and three authors reported having a provisional patent application titled “Auricular stimulation device, system and methods of use.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Aranow C et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Nov 3. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217872.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global survey polled patient experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hospitals stockpiled HCQ in the U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

Declined prescriptions have frustrated physicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global survey polled patient experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hospitals stockpiled HCQ in the U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

Declined prescriptions have frustrated physicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global survey polled patient experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hospitals stockpiled HCQ in the U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

Declined prescriptions have frustrated physicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tapinarof cream 1% applied once daily in patients with plaque psoriasis convincingly hit its primary and secondary endpoints and was well tolerated in two identical pivotal phase 3, randomized trials, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Tapinarof cream has the potential to be a first-in-class topical therapeutic aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulating agent and will provide physicians and patients with a novel nonsteroidal topical treatment option that’s effective and well tolerated,” predicted Dr. Lebwohl, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dermavant Sciences, the company developing topical tapinarof for treatment of atopic dermatitis as well as psoriasis, announced that upon completion of an ongoing long-term extension study the company plans to file for approval of the drug for psoriasis in 2021.

The two pivotal phase 3 trials, PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2, randomized a total of 1,025 patients with plaque psoriasis to once-daily tapinarof cream 1% or its vehicle. “This was a fairly difficult group of patients,” Dr. Lebwohl said. Roughly 80% had moderate psoriasis as defined by a baseline Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of 3, with the remainder split evenly between mild and severe disease. Participants averaged 8% body surface area involvement. Body mass index was on average greater than 31 kg/m².

The primary efficacy endpoint was a PGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – plus at least a 2-grade improvement in PGA from baseline at week 12. This was achieved in 35.4% of patients on tapinarof cream once daily in PSOARING 1 and 40.2% in PSOARING 2, compared with 6.0% and 6.3% of vehicle-treated controls, a highly significant difference (both P < .0001).

The prespecified secondary endpoint was a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score from baseline to week 12. The PASI 75 rates were 36.1% and 47.6% with tapinarof, significantly better than the 10.2% and 6.9% rates in controls.

The most common adverse event associated with tapinarof was folliculitis, which occurred in 20.6% of treated patients in PSOARING 1 and in 15.7% in PSOARING 2. More than 98% of cases were mild or moderate. The folliculitis led to study discontinuation in only 1.8% and 0.9% of subjects in the two trials.

The other noteworthy adverse event was contact dermatitis. It occurred in 3.8% and 4.7% of tapinarof-treated patients, again with low study discontinuation rates of 1.5% and 2.2%.

During the audience discussion, Linda Stein Gold, MD, lead investigator for PSOARING 2, was asked about this folliculitis. She said the mechanism is unclear, as is the best management. She encountered it in patients, didn’t treat it, and it went away on its own. It’s not a bacterial folliculitis; when cultured it invariably proved culture negative, she noted.

The comparative efficacy of tapinarof cream versus the potent and superpotent topical corticosteroids commonly used in the treatment of psoriasis hasn’t been evaluated in head-to-head studies. Her experience and that of the other investigators has been that tapinarof’s efficacy is comparably strong, “but we don’t have the steroid side effects,” said Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl said tapinarof, if approved, could help meet a major unmet need for new and better topical therapies for psoriasis.

“You keep hearing about all these biologic agents and small-molecule pills coming out, but the majority of patients still only need topical therapy,” he observed.

Moreover, even when patients with more severe disease achieve a PASI 75 or PASI 90 response with systemic therapy, they usually still need supplemental topical therapy to get them closer to the goal of clear skin.

The superpotent steroids that are the current mainstay of topical therapy come with predictable side effects that dictate a 2- to 4-week limit on their approved use. Also, they’re not supposed to be applied to the face or to intertriginous sites, including the groin, axillae, and under the breasts. In contrast, tapinarof has proved safe and effective in these sensitive areas.

Asked to predict how tapinarof is likely to be used in clinical practice, Dr. Lebwohl replied: “The efficacy was equivalent to strong topical steroids, so I think it could be used first line in place of topical steroids. And in particular, in patients with psoriasis at facial and intertriginous sites, I think an argument can be made for insisting that it be first line.”

He also expects that physicians will end up utilizing tapinarof for a varied group of steroid-responsive dermatoses beyond psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.

“It clearly reduces inflammation, which is why I would expect it would work well for those,” the dermatologist said.

The mechanism of action of tapinarof has been worked out. The drug enters the cell and binds to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, forming a complex that enters the nucleus. There it joins with the aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator, which regulates gene expression so as to reduce production of inflammatory cytokines while promoting an increase in skin barrier proteins, which is why tapinarof is also being developed as an atopic dermatitis therapy.

Dr. Lebwohl and Dr. Stein Gold reported receiving research funds from and serving as consultants to Dermavant Sciences as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Tapinarof cream 1% applied once daily in patients with plaque psoriasis convincingly hit its primary and secondary endpoints and was well tolerated in two identical pivotal phase 3, randomized trials, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Tapinarof cream has the potential to be a first-in-class topical therapeutic aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulating agent and will provide physicians and patients with a novel nonsteroidal topical treatment option that’s effective and well tolerated,” predicted Dr. Lebwohl, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dermavant Sciences, the company developing topical tapinarof for treatment of atopic dermatitis as well as psoriasis, announced that upon completion of an ongoing long-term extension study the company plans to file for approval of the drug for psoriasis in 2021.

The two pivotal phase 3 trials, PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2, randomized a total of 1,025 patients with plaque psoriasis to once-daily tapinarof cream 1% or its vehicle. “This was a fairly difficult group of patients,” Dr. Lebwohl said. Roughly 80% had moderate psoriasis as defined by a baseline Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of 3, with the remainder split evenly between mild and severe disease. Participants averaged 8% body surface area involvement. Body mass index was on average greater than 31 kg/m².

The primary efficacy endpoint was a PGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – plus at least a 2-grade improvement in PGA from baseline at week 12. This was achieved in 35.4% of patients on tapinarof cream once daily in PSOARING 1 and 40.2% in PSOARING 2, compared with 6.0% and 6.3% of vehicle-treated controls, a highly significant difference (both P < .0001).

The prespecified secondary endpoint was a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score from baseline to week 12. The PASI 75 rates were 36.1% and 47.6% with tapinarof, significantly better than the 10.2% and 6.9% rates in controls.

The most common adverse event associated with tapinarof was folliculitis, which occurred in 20.6% of treated patients in PSOARING 1 and in 15.7% in PSOARING 2. More than 98% of cases were mild or moderate. The folliculitis led to study discontinuation in only 1.8% and 0.9% of subjects in the two trials.

The other noteworthy adverse event was contact dermatitis. It occurred in 3.8% and 4.7% of tapinarof-treated patients, again with low study discontinuation rates of 1.5% and 2.2%.

During the audience discussion, Linda Stein Gold, MD, lead investigator for PSOARING 2, was asked about this folliculitis. She said the mechanism is unclear, as is the best management. She encountered it in patients, didn’t treat it, and it went away on its own. It’s not a bacterial folliculitis; when cultured it invariably proved culture negative, she noted.

The comparative efficacy of tapinarof cream versus the potent and superpotent topical corticosteroids commonly used in the treatment of psoriasis hasn’t been evaluated in head-to-head studies. Her experience and that of the other investigators has been that tapinarof’s efficacy is comparably strong, “but we don’t have the steroid side effects,” said Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl said tapinarof, if approved, could help meet a major unmet need for new and better topical therapies for psoriasis.

“You keep hearing about all these biologic agents and small-molecule pills coming out, but the majority of patients still only need topical therapy,” he observed.

Moreover, even when patients with more severe disease achieve a PASI 75 or PASI 90 response with systemic therapy, they usually still need supplemental topical therapy to get them closer to the goal of clear skin.

The superpotent steroids that are the current mainstay of topical therapy come with predictable side effects that dictate a 2- to 4-week limit on their approved use. Also, they’re not supposed to be applied to the face or to intertriginous sites, including the groin, axillae, and under the breasts. In contrast, tapinarof has proved safe and effective in these sensitive areas.

Asked to predict how tapinarof is likely to be used in clinical practice, Dr. Lebwohl replied: “The efficacy was equivalent to strong topical steroids, so I think it could be used first line in place of topical steroids. And in particular, in patients with psoriasis at facial and intertriginous sites, I think an argument can be made for insisting that it be first line.”

He also expects that physicians will end up utilizing tapinarof for a varied group of steroid-responsive dermatoses beyond psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.

“It clearly reduces inflammation, which is why I would expect it would work well for those,” the dermatologist said.

The mechanism of action of tapinarof has been worked out. The drug enters the cell and binds to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, forming a complex that enters the nucleus. There it joins with the aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator, which regulates gene expression so as to reduce production of inflammatory cytokines while promoting an increase in skin barrier proteins, which is why tapinarof is also being developed as an atopic dermatitis therapy.

Dr. Lebwohl and Dr. Stein Gold reported receiving research funds from and serving as consultants to Dermavant Sciences as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Tapinarof cream 1% applied once daily in patients with plaque psoriasis convincingly hit its primary and secondary endpoints and was well tolerated in two identical pivotal phase 3, randomized trials, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Tapinarof cream has the potential to be a first-in-class topical therapeutic aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulating agent and will provide physicians and patients with a novel nonsteroidal topical treatment option that’s effective and well tolerated,” predicted Dr. Lebwohl, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dermavant Sciences, the company developing topical tapinarof for treatment of atopic dermatitis as well as psoriasis, announced that upon completion of an ongoing long-term extension study the company plans to file for approval of the drug for psoriasis in 2021.

The two pivotal phase 3 trials, PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2, randomized a total of 1,025 patients with plaque psoriasis to once-daily tapinarof cream 1% or its vehicle. “This was a fairly difficult group of patients,” Dr. Lebwohl said. Roughly 80% had moderate psoriasis as defined by a baseline Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of 3, with the remainder split evenly between mild and severe disease. Participants averaged 8% body surface area involvement. Body mass index was on average greater than 31 kg/m².

The primary efficacy endpoint was a PGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – plus at least a 2-grade improvement in PGA from baseline at week 12. This was achieved in 35.4% of patients on tapinarof cream once daily in PSOARING 1 and 40.2% in PSOARING 2, compared with 6.0% and 6.3% of vehicle-treated controls, a highly significant difference (both P < .0001).

The prespecified secondary endpoint was a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score from baseline to week 12. The PASI 75 rates were 36.1% and 47.6% with tapinarof, significantly better than the 10.2% and 6.9% rates in controls.

The most common adverse event associated with tapinarof was folliculitis, which occurred in 20.6% of treated patients in PSOARING 1 and in 15.7% in PSOARING 2. More than 98% of cases were mild or moderate. The folliculitis led to study discontinuation in only 1.8% and 0.9% of subjects in the two trials.

The other noteworthy adverse event was contact dermatitis. It occurred in 3.8% and 4.7% of tapinarof-treated patients, again with low study discontinuation rates of 1.5% and 2.2%.

During the audience discussion, Linda Stein Gold, MD, lead investigator for PSOARING 2, was asked about this folliculitis. She said the mechanism is unclear, as is the best management. She encountered it in patients, didn’t treat it, and it went away on its own. It’s not a bacterial folliculitis; when cultured it invariably proved culture negative, she noted.

The comparative efficacy of tapinarof cream versus the potent and superpotent topical corticosteroids commonly used in the treatment of psoriasis hasn’t been evaluated in head-to-head studies. Her experience and that of the other investigators has been that tapinarof’s efficacy is comparably strong, “but we don’t have the steroid side effects,” said Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl said tapinarof, if approved, could help meet a major unmet need for new and better topical therapies for psoriasis.

“You keep hearing about all these biologic agents and small-molecule pills coming out, but the majority of patients still only need topical therapy,” he observed.

Moreover, even when patients with more severe disease achieve a PASI 75 or PASI 90 response with systemic therapy, they usually still need supplemental topical therapy to get them closer to the goal of clear skin.

The superpotent steroids that are the current mainstay of topical therapy come with predictable side effects that dictate a 2- to 4-week limit on their approved use. Also, they’re not supposed to be applied to the face or to intertriginous sites, including the groin, axillae, and under the breasts. In contrast, tapinarof has proved safe and effective in these sensitive areas.

Asked to predict how tapinarof is likely to be used in clinical practice, Dr. Lebwohl replied: “The efficacy was equivalent to strong topical steroids, so I think it could be used first line in place of topical steroids. And in particular, in patients with psoriasis at facial and intertriginous sites, I think an argument can be made for insisting that it be first line.”

He also expects that physicians will end up utilizing tapinarof for a varied group of steroid-responsive dermatoses beyond psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.

“It clearly reduces inflammation, which is why I would expect it would work well for those,” the dermatologist said.

The mechanism of action of tapinarof has been worked out. The drug enters the cell and binds to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, forming a complex that enters the nucleus. There it joins with the aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator, which regulates gene expression so as to reduce production of inflammatory cytokines while promoting an increase in skin barrier proteins, which is why tapinarof is also being developed as an atopic dermatitis therapy.

Dr. Lebwohl and Dr. Stein Gold reported receiving research funds from and serving as consultants to Dermavant Sciences as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

Address disparities that amplify risk

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

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

Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women

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

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

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

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

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

More data needed for informed counseling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Address disparities that amplify risk

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

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

Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women

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

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

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

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

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

More data needed for informed counseling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Address disparities that amplify risk

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

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

Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women

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

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

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

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

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

More data needed for informed counseling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new report of mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through umbilical cord blood adds to a small but growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted in utero.

Further, this case suggests such infections may not be easily detectable in neonates until days after birth.
 

The data

In a report published in the Journal of The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Isabelle Von Kohorn, MD, PhD, of Holy Cross Health in Silver Spring, Md., and colleagues, described a case of neonatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a boy delivered by C-section at 34 weeks to a mother diagnosed with COVID-19 some 14 hours before. The newborn was immediately removed to a neonatal ICU and reunited with his mother a week later, once the mother had recovered.

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues reported that, while the infant’s nasopharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative at 24 hours after birth, repeat molecular tests (using different assays) from 49 hours on were positive and indicated an increasing viral burden, although the infant never developed symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to being found in the nasopharynx, viral RNA also was detected in cord blood and in urine. No viral RNA was found in the placenta.

The circumstances of the birth, and the care taken to keep mother and her infant at a safe distance along with masking of the mother, made it “extremely unlikely” that the infant acquired his infection by the respiratory route, Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues wrote.

“While we cannot rule out microscopic maternal blood contamination of cord blood in this or any other delivery, cord blood collection procedures are designed to avoid gross contamination with maternal blood. Microscopic contamination would not explain the RNA levels observed in our patient’s cord blood,” they wrote.

Clinicians should note that a neonate born to a mother with COVID-19 may take time to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the investigators argued, though the current recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to test nasopharyngeal secretions of well newborns at 24 and 48 hours but not again in the absence of symptoms. “This case suggests that some cases of SARS-CoV-2 in newborns may be detectable only after 48 hours of life.”

The authors hypothesized that virus transmitted by cord blood “seeded the nasopharynx and required 2 days for incubation and replication sufficient for detection.”
 

Some perspective

In an interview, Andrea Edlow, MD, A maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, called the findings provocative if not definitive in establishing in utero or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the same way that a Nature Communications case report did in July 2020. In that case, of a baby born to a mother with COVID-19, virus was seen at high levels in the placenta.

With the current case, “the absence of detectable virus in the placenta is certainly inconsistent/confusing if the authors claim hematogenous spread from mother to baby,” Dr. Edlow commented, “but the authors do offer plausible explanations, such as examination of limited areas within the placenta (when we know infection is likely to be patchy) and possible degradation of RNA prior to attempting to measure placental viral presence.”

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the investigators disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Edlow had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Von Kohorn I et al. J Pediat Inf Dis Soc. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa127

A new report of mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through umbilical cord blood adds to a small but growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted in utero.

Further, this case suggests such infections may not be easily detectable in neonates until days after birth.
 

The data

In a report published in the Journal of The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Isabelle Von Kohorn, MD, PhD, of Holy Cross Health in Silver Spring, Md., and colleagues, described a case of neonatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a boy delivered by C-section at 34 weeks to a mother diagnosed with COVID-19 some 14 hours before. The newborn was immediately removed to a neonatal ICU and reunited with his mother a week later, once the mother had recovered.

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues reported that, while the infant’s nasopharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative at 24 hours after birth, repeat molecular tests (using different assays) from 49 hours on were positive and indicated an increasing viral burden, although the infant never developed symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to being found in the nasopharynx, viral RNA also was detected in cord blood and in urine. No viral RNA was found in the placenta.

The circumstances of the birth, and the care taken to keep mother and her infant at a safe distance along with masking of the mother, made it “extremely unlikely” that the infant acquired his infection by the respiratory route, Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues wrote.

“While we cannot rule out microscopic maternal blood contamination of cord blood in this or any other delivery, cord blood collection procedures are designed to avoid gross contamination with maternal blood. Microscopic contamination would not explain the RNA levels observed in our patient’s cord blood,” they wrote.

Clinicians should note that a neonate born to a mother with COVID-19 may take time to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the investigators argued, though the current recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to test nasopharyngeal secretions of well newborns at 24 and 48 hours but not again in the absence of symptoms. “This case suggests that some cases of SARS-CoV-2 in newborns may be detectable only after 48 hours of life.”

The authors hypothesized that virus transmitted by cord blood “seeded the nasopharynx and required 2 days for incubation and replication sufficient for detection.”
 

Some perspective

In an interview, Andrea Edlow, MD, A maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, called the findings provocative if not definitive in establishing in utero or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the same way that a Nature Communications case report did in July 2020. In that case, of a baby born to a mother with COVID-19, virus was seen at high levels in the placenta.

With the current case, “the absence of detectable virus in the placenta is certainly inconsistent/confusing if the authors claim hematogenous spread from mother to baby,” Dr. Edlow commented, “but the authors do offer plausible explanations, such as examination of limited areas within the placenta (when we know infection is likely to be patchy) and possible degradation of RNA prior to attempting to measure placental viral presence.”

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the investigators disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Edlow had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Von Kohorn I et al. J Pediat Inf Dis Soc. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa127

A new report of mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through umbilical cord blood adds to a small but growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted in utero.

Further, this case suggests such infections may not be easily detectable in neonates until days after birth.
 

The data

In a report published in the Journal of The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Isabelle Von Kohorn, MD, PhD, of Holy Cross Health in Silver Spring, Md., and colleagues, described a case of neonatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a boy delivered by C-section at 34 weeks to a mother diagnosed with COVID-19 some 14 hours before. The newborn was immediately removed to a neonatal ICU and reunited with his mother a week later, once the mother had recovered.

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues reported that, while the infant’s nasopharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative at 24 hours after birth, repeat molecular tests (using different assays) from 49 hours on were positive and indicated an increasing viral burden, although the infant never developed symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to being found in the nasopharynx, viral RNA also was detected in cord blood and in urine. No viral RNA was found in the placenta.

The circumstances of the birth, and the care taken to keep mother and her infant at a safe distance along with masking of the mother, made it “extremely unlikely” that the infant acquired his infection by the respiratory route, Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues wrote.

“While we cannot rule out microscopic maternal blood contamination of cord blood in this or any other delivery, cord blood collection procedures are designed to avoid gross contamination with maternal blood. Microscopic contamination would not explain the RNA levels observed in our patient’s cord blood,” they wrote.

Clinicians should note that a neonate born to a mother with COVID-19 may take time to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the investigators argued, though the current recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to test nasopharyngeal secretions of well newborns at 24 and 48 hours but not again in the absence of symptoms. “This case suggests that some cases of SARS-CoV-2 in newborns may be detectable only after 48 hours of life.”

The authors hypothesized that virus transmitted by cord blood “seeded the nasopharynx and required 2 days for incubation and replication sufficient for detection.”
 

Some perspective

In an interview, Andrea Edlow, MD, A maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, called the findings provocative if not definitive in establishing in utero or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the same way that a Nature Communications case report did in July 2020. In that case, of a baby born to a mother with COVID-19, virus was seen at high levels in the placenta.

With the current case, “the absence of detectable virus in the placenta is certainly inconsistent/confusing if the authors claim hematogenous spread from mother to baby,” Dr. Edlow commented, “but the authors do offer plausible explanations, such as examination of limited areas within the placenta (when we know infection is likely to be patchy) and possible degradation of RNA prior to attempting to measure placental viral presence.”

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the investigators disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Edlow had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Von Kohorn I et al. J Pediat Inf Dis Soc. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa127