News

Maternal primary antibody immunodeficiencies (PIDs) are tied to increased risk for psychiatric disorders and suicidality in offspring, new research suggests.

Results from a cohort study of more than 4.2 million individuals showed that offspring of mothers with PIDs had a 17% increased risk for a psychiatric disorder and a 20% increased risk for suicidal behavior, compared with their peers with mothers who did not have PIDs.

The risk was more pronounced in offspring of mothers with both PIDs and autoimmune diseases. These risks remained after strictly controlling for different covariates, such as the parents’ psychiatric history, offspring PIDs, and offspring autoimmune diseases.

The investigators, led by Josef Isung, MD, PhD, Centre for Psychiatry Research, department of clinical neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, noted that they could not “pinpoint a precise causal mechanism” underlying these findings.

Still, “the results add to the existing literature suggesting that the intrauterine immune environment may have implications for fetal neurodevelopment and that a compromised maternal immune system during pregnancy may be a risk factor for psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior in their offspring in the long term,” they wrote.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

‘Natural experiment’

Maternal immune activation (MIA) is “an overarching term for aberrant and disrupted immune activity in the mother during gestation [and] has long been of interest in relation to adverse health outcomes in the offspring,” Dr. Isung noted.

“In relation to negative psychiatric outcomes, there is an abundance of preclinical evidence that has shown a negative impact on offspring secondary to MIA. And in humans, there are several observational studies supporting this link,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Isung added that PIDs are “rare conditions” known to be associated with repeated infections and high rates of autoimmune diseases, causing substantial disability.

“PIDs represent an interesting ‘natural experiment’ for researchers to understand more about the association between immune system dysfunctions and mental health,” he said.

Dr. Isung’s group previously showed that individuals with PIDs have increased odds of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior. The link was more pronounced in women with PIDs – and was even more pronounced in those with both PIDs and autoimmune diseases.

In the current study, “we wanted to see whether offspring of individuals were differentially at risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior, depending on being offspring of mothers or fathers with PIDs,” Dr. Isung said.

“Our hypothesis was that mothers with PIDs would have an increased risk of having offspring with neuropsychiatric outcomes, and that this risk could be due to MIA,” he added.

The researchers turned to Swedish nationwide health and administrative registers. They analyzed data on all individuals with diagnoses of PIDs identified between 1973 and 2013. Offspring born prior to 2003 were included, and parent-offspring pairs in which both parents had a history of PIDs were excluded.

The final study sample consisted of 4,294,169 offspring (51.4% boys). Of these participants, 7,270 (0.17%) had a parent with PIDs.

The researchers identified lifetime records of 10 psychiatric disorders: obsessive-compulsive disorder, ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders, major depressive disorder and other mood disorders, anxiety and stress-related disorders, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorders.

The investigators included parental birth year, psychopathology, suicide attempts, suicide deaths, and autoimmune diseases as covariates, as well as offsprings’ birth year and gender.
 

Elucidation needed

Results showed that, of the 4,676 offspring of mothers with PID, 17.1% had a psychiatric disorder versus 12.7% of offspring of mothers without PIDs. This translated “into a 17% increased risk for offspring of mothers with PIDs in the fully adjusted model,” the investigators reported.

The risk was even higher for offspring of mothers who had not only PIDs but also one of six of the individual psychiatric disorders, with incident rate ratios ranging from 1.15 to 1.71.

Important piece of the puzzle?

In a comment, Michael Eriksen Benros, MD, PhD, professor of immunopsychiatry, department of immunology and microbiology, health, and medical sciences, University of Copenhagen, said this was a “high-quality study” that used a “rich data source.”

Dr. Benros, who is also head of research (biological and precision psychiatry) at the Copenhagen Research Centre for Mental Health, Copenhagen University Hospital, was not involved with the current study.

He noted that prior studies, including some conducted by his own group, have shown that maternal infections overall did not seem to be “specifically linked to mental disorders in the offspring.”

However, “specific maternal infections or specific brain-reactive antibodies during the pregnancy period have been shown to be associated with neurodevelopmental outcomes among the children,” such as intellectual disability, he said.

Regarding direct clinical implications of the study, “it is important to note that the increased risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidality in the offspring of mothers with PID were small,” Dr. Benros said.

“However, it adds an important part to the scientific puzzle regarding the role of maternal immune activation during pregnancy and the risk of mental disorders,” he added.

The study was funded by the Söderström König Foundation and the Fredrik and Ingrid Thuring Foundation. Neither Dr. Isung nor Dr. Benros reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Maternal primary antibody immunodeficiencies (PIDs) are tied to increased risk for psychiatric disorders and suicidality in offspring, new research suggests.

Results from a cohort study of more than 4.2 million individuals showed that offspring of mothers with PIDs had a 17% increased risk for a psychiatric disorder and a 20% increased risk for suicidal behavior, compared with their peers with mothers who did not have PIDs.

The risk was more pronounced in offspring of mothers with both PIDs and autoimmune diseases. These risks remained after strictly controlling for different covariates, such as the parents’ psychiatric history, offspring PIDs, and offspring autoimmune diseases.

The investigators, led by Josef Isung, MD, PhD, Centre for Psychiatry Research, department of clinical neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, noted that they could not “pinpoint a precise causal mechanism” underlying these findings.

Still, “the results add to the existing literature suggesting that the intrauterine immune environment may have implications for fetal neurodevelopment and that a compromised maternal immune system during pregnancy may be a risk factor for psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior in their offspring in the long term,” they wrote.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

‘Natural experiment’

Maternal immune activation (MIA) is “an overarching term for aberrant and disrupted immune activity in the mother during gestation [and] has long been of interest in relation to adverse health outcomes in the offspring,” Dr. Isung noted.

“In relation to negative psychiatric outcomes, there is an abundance of preclinical evidence that has shown a negative impact on offspring secondary to MIA. And in humans, there are several observational studies supporting this link,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Isung added that PIDs are “rare conditions” known to be associated with repeated infections and high rates of autoimmune diseases, causing substantial disability.

“PIDs represent an interesting ‘natural experiment’ for researchers to understand more about the association between immune system dysfunctions and mental health,” he said.

Dr. Isung’s group previously showed that individuals with PIDs have increased odds of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior. The link was more pronounced in women with PIDs – and was even more pronounced in those with both PIDs and autoimmune diseases.

In the current study, “we wanted to see whether offspring of individuals were differentially at risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior, depending on being offspring of mothers or fathers with PIDs,” Dr. Isung said.

“Our hypothesis was that mothers with PIDs would have an increased risk of having offspring with neuropsychiatric outcomes, and that this risk could be due to MIA,” he added.

The researchers turned to Swedish nationwide health and administrative registers. They analyzed data on all individuals with diagnoses of PIDs identified between 1973 and 2013. Offspring born prior to 2003 were included, and parent-offspring pairs in which both parents had a history of PIDs were excluded.

The final study sample consisted of 4,294,169 offspring (51.4% boys). Of these participants, 7,270 (0.17%) had a parent with PIDs.

The researchers identified lifetime records of 10 psychiatric disorders: obsessive-compulsive disorder, ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders, major depressive disorder and other mood disorders, anxiety and stress-related disorders, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorders.

The investigators included parental birth year, psychopathology, suicide attempts, suicide deaths, and autoimmune diseases as covariates, as well as offsprings’ birth year and gender.
 

Elucidation needed

Results showed that, of the 4,676 offspring of mothers with PID, 17.1% had a psychiatric disorder versus 12.7% of offspring of mothers without PIDs. This translated “into a 17% increased risk for offspring of mothers with PIDs in the fully adjusted model,” the investigators reported.

The risk was even higher for offspring of mothers who had not only PIDs but also one of six of the individual psychiatric disorders, with incident rate ratios ranging from 1.15 to 1.71.

Important piece of the puzzle?

In a comment, Michael Eriksen Benros, MD, PhD, professor of immunopsychiatry, department of immunology and microbiology, health, and medical sciences, University of Copenhagen, said this was a “high-quality study” that used a “rich data source.”

Dr. Benros, who is also head of research (biological and precision psychiatry) at the Copenhagen Research Centre for Mental Health, Copenhagen University Hospital, was not involved with the current study.

He noted that prior studies, including some conducted by his own group, have shown that maternal infections overall did not seem to be “specifically linked to mental disorders in the offspring.”

However, “specific maternal infections or specific brain-reactive antibodies during the pregnancy period have been shown to be associated with neurodevelopmental outcomes among the children,” such as intellectual disability, he said.

Regarding direct clinical implications of the study, “it is important to note that the increased risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidality in the offspring of mothers with PID were small,” Dr. Benros said.

“However, it adds an important part to the scientific puzzle regarding the role of maternal immune activation during pregnancy and the risk of mental disorders,” he added.

The study was funded by the Söderström König Foundation and the Fredrik and Ingrid Thuring Foundation. Neither Dr. Isung nor Dr. Benros reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Maternal primary antibody immunodeficiencies (PIDs) are tied to increased risk for psychiatric disorders and suicidality in offspring, new research suggests.

Results from a cohort study of more than 4.2 million individuals showed that offspring of mothers with PIDs had a 17% increased risk for a psychiatric disorder and a 20% increased risk for suicidal behavior, compared with their peers with mothers who did not have PIDs.

The risk was more pronounced in offspring of mothers with both PIDs and autoimmune diseases. These risks remained after strictly controlling for different covariates, such as the parents’ psychiatric history, offspring PIDs, and offspring autoimmune diseases.

The investigators, led by Josef Isung, MD, PhD, Centre for Psychiatry Research, department of clinical neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, noted that they could not “pinpoint a precise causal mechanism” underlying these findings.

Still, “the results add to the existing literature suggesting that the intrauterine immune environment may have implications for fetal neurodevelopment and that a compromised maternal immune system during pregnancy may be a risk factor for psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior in their offspring in the long term,” they wrote.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

‘Natural experiment’

Maternal immune activation (MIA) is “an overarching term for aberrant and disrupted immune activity in the mother during gestation [and] has long been of interest in relation to adverse health outcomes in the offspring,” Dr. Isung noted.

“In relation to negative psychiatric outcomes, there is an abundance of preclinical evidence that has shown a negative impact on offspring secondary to MIA. And in humans, there are several observational studies supporting this link,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Isung added that PIDs are “rare conditions” known to be associated with repeated infections and high rates of autoimmune diseases, causing substantial disability.

“PIDs represent an interesting ‘natural experiment’ for researchers to understand more about the association between immune system dysfunctions and mental health,” he said.

Dr. Isung’s group previously showed that individuals with PIDs have increased odds of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior. The link was more pronounced in women with PIDs – and was even more pronounced in those with both PIDs and autoimmune diseases.

In the current study, “we wanted to see whether offspring of individuals were differentially at risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior, depending on being offspring of mothers or fathers with PIDs,” Dr. Isung said.

“Our hypothesis was that mothers with PIDs would have an increased risk of having offspring with neuropsychiatric outcomes, and that this risk could be due to MIA,” he added.

The researchers turned to Swedish nationwide health and administrative registers. They analyzed data on all individuals with diagnoses of PIDs identified between 1973 and 2013. Offspring born prior to 2003 were included, and parent-offspring pairs in which both parents had a history of PIDs were excluded.

The final study sample consisted of 4,294,169 offspring (51.4% boys). Of these participants, 7,270 (0.17%) had a parent with PIDs.

The researchers identified lifetime records of 10 psychiatric disorders: obsessive-compulsive disorder, ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders, major depressive disorder and other mood disorders, anxiety and stress-related disorders, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorders.

The investigators included parental birth year, psychopathology, suicide attempts, suicide deaths, and autoimmune diseases as covariates, as well as offsprings’ birth year and gender.
 

Elucidation needed

Results showed that, of the 4,676 offspring of mothers with PID, 17.1% had a psychiatric disorder versus 12.7% of offspring of mothers without PIDs. This translated “into a 17% increased risk for offspring of mothers with PIDs in the fully adjusted model,” the investigators reported.

The risk was even higher for offspring of mothers who had not only PIDs but also one of six of the individual psychiatric disorders, with incident rate ratios ranging from 1.15 to 1.71.

Important piece of the puzzle?

In a comment, Michael Eriksen Benros, MD, PhD, professor of immunopsychiatry, department of immunology and microbiology, health, and medical sciences, University of Copenhagen, said this was a “high-quality study” that used a “rich data source.”

Dr. Benros, who is also head of research (biological and precision psychiatry) at the Copenhagen Research Centre for Mental Health, Copenhagen University Hospital, was not involved with the current study.

He noted that prior studies, including some conducted by his own group, have shown that maternal infections overall did not seem to be “specifically linked to mental disorders in the offspring.”

However, “specific maternal infections or specific brain-reactive antibodies during the pregnancy period have been shown to be associated with neurodevelopmental outcomes among the children,” such as intellectual disability, he said.

Regarding direct clinical implications of the study, “it is important to note that the increased risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidality in the offspring of mothers with PID were small,” Dr. Benros said.

“However, it adds an important part to the scientific puzzle regarding the role of maternal immune activation during pregnancy and the risk of mental disorders,” he added.

The study was funded by the Söderström König Foundation and the Fredrik and Ingrid Thuring Foundation. Neither Dr. Isung nor Dr. Benros reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Doctors are more likely to miss appendicitis in patients who are Black, research shows.

This phenomenon, first described in children, occurs in adults as well, according to a study published in JAMA Surgery.

Some hospitals fare better than others: Those with more diverse patient populations were less likely to have missed the diagnosis, the researchers found.

“We don’t think the amount of melanin in your skin predicts how you present with appendicitis,” said Jonathan Carter, MD, professor of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco. “There’s no biological explanation,” Dr. Carter, who wrote an invited commentary on the research, said in an interview. “It’s really what’s going on in the social environment of those emergency rooms.”

For the study, Anne Stey, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Northwestern University in Chicago and her colleagues analyzed data from more than 80,000 men and women in four states – Florida, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin – who underwent appendectomy in 2016-2017.

They identified those who had been seen for abdominal complaints at a hospital in the week before surgery but did not receive a diagnosis of appendicitis at that time, indicating a missed opportunity to intervene sooner.

Among Black patients, the proportion who had experienced this type of delay was 3.6%, whereas for White patients, it was 2.5%. For Hispanic patients, the share was 2.4%, while for Asian or Pacific Islander patients, the figure was 1.5%.

An analysis that controlled for patient and hospital variables found that among non-Hispanic Black patients, the rate of delayed diagnosis was 1.41 times higher than for non-Hispanic White patients (95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.63).

Other patient factors associated with delayed diagnosis included female sex, comorbidities, and living in a low-income zip code.

A key factor was where patients sought care. A delayed diagnosis of appendicitis was 3.51 times more likely for patients who went to hospitals where most patients are insured by Medicaid. Prior research has shown that “safety-net hospitals have fewer resources and may provide lower-quality care than hospitals with a larger private payer population,” Dr. Stey’s group writes.

On the other hand, going to a hospital with a more diverse patient population reduced the odds of a delayed diagnosis.

“Patients presenting to hospitals with a greater than 50% Black and Hispanic population were 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59-0.91) times less likely to have a delayed diagnosis, compared with patients presenting to hospitals with a less than 25% Black and Hispanic population,” the researchers report.

In the 30 days after discharge following appendectomy, Black patients returned to the hospital at a higher rate than White patients did (17.5% vs. 11.4%), indicating worse outcomes.

“Delayed diagnosis may account for some of the racial and ethnic disparities observed in outcomes after appendicitis,” according to the authors.

“It may be hospitals that are more used to serving racial-ethnic minority patients are better at diagnosing them, because they’re more culturally informed and have a better understanding of these patients,” Dr. Stey said in a news release about their findings.
 

Great masquerader

Diagnosing appendicitis can be challenging, Dr. Carter said. The early signs can be subtle, and the condition is sometimes called the great masquerader. It is not uncommon for patients to be diagnosed with gastroenteritis or pain associated with their menstrual period, for example, and sent home.

Scoring systems based on patients’ symptoms and liberal use of imaging have improved detection of appendicitis, but “no physician or health care system is perfect in the diagnosis,” he said.

The increased odds of delayed diagnosis for Black patients remained when the researchers focused on healthier patients who had fewer comorbidities, and it also held when they considered patients with private insurance in high-income areas, Dr. Carter noted.

“Once again, with this study we see the association of structural and systematic racism with access to health care, especially for Black patients, in emergency departments and hospitals,” he wrote. “We must redouble our efforts to become anti-racist in ourselves, our institutions, and our profession.”
 

‘Our health care system itself’

Elizabeth Garner, MD, MPH, a pharmaceutical executive who was not involved in the study, commented on Twitter that the study points to an underlying issue that has existed in medicine “for quite some time.”

“Minority populations are not taken as seriously as their white counterparts,” she wrote. “This needs to change.”

Measures of hospital quality need to be tied to health equity, according to Mofya Diallo, MD, MPH, of the department of anesthesiology at the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“Top hospitals should take pride in outcomes that do not vary based on race, income or literacy,” she tweeted in response to the study.

To better understand possible reasons for delayed diagnosis, future researchers could assess whether patients who are Black are less likely to receive a surgical consultation, imaging studies, or lab work, Dr. Carter told this news organization. He pointed to a recent analysis of patients insured by Medicare that found that Black patients were less likely than White patients to receive a surgical consultation after they were admitted with colorectal, general abdominal, hepatopancreatobiliary, intestinal obstruction, or upper gastrointestinal diagnoses.

While social determinants of health, such as income, education, housing, early childhood development, employment, and social inclusion, may account for a substantial portion of health outcomes, “Our health care system itself can be viewed as another social determinant of health,” Dr. Carter wrote. “Insurance coverage, health care professional availability, health care professional linguistic and cultural competency, and quality of care all have an effect on health outcomes.”

Dr. Stey was supported by grants from the American College of Surgeons and the National Institutes of Health.

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

Doctors are more likely to miss appendicitis in patients who are Black, research shows.

This phenomenon, first described in children, occurs in adults as well, according to a study published in JAMA Surgery.

Some hospitals fare better than others: Those with more diverse patient populations were less likely to have missed the diagnosis, the researchers found.

“We don’t think the amount of melanin in your skin predicts how you present with appendicitis,” said Jonathan Carter, MD, professor of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco. “There’s no biological explanation,” Dr. Carter, who wrote an invited commentary on the research, said in an interview. “It’s really what’s going on in the social environment of those emergency rooms.”

For the study, Anne Stey, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Northwestern University in Chicago and her colleagues analyzed data from more than 80,000 men and women in four states – Florida, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin – who underwent appendectomy in 2016-2017.

They identified those who had been seen for abdominal complaints at a hospital in the week before surgery but did not receive a diagnosis of appendicitis at that time, indicating a missed opportunity to intervene sooner.

Among Black patients, the proportion who had experienced this type of delay was 3.6%, whereas for White patients, it was 2.5%. For Hispanic patients, the share was 2.4%, while for Asian or Pacific Islander patients, the figure was 1.5%.

An analysis that controlled for patient and hospital variables found that among non-Hispanic Black patients, the rate of delayed diagnosis was 1.41 times higher than for non-Hispanic White patients (95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.63).

Other patient factors associated with delayed diagnosis included female sex, comorbidities, and living in a low-income zip code.

A key factor was where patients sought care. A delayed diagnosis of appendicitis was 3.51 times more likely for patients who went to hospitals where most patients are insured by Medicaid. Prior research has shown that “safety-net hospitals have fewer resources and may provide lower-quality care than hospitals with a larger private payer population,” Dr. Stey’s group writes.

On the other hand, going to a hospital with a more diverse patient population reduced the odds of a delayed diagnosis.

“Patients presenting to hospitals with a greater than 50% Black and Hispanic population were 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59-0.91) times less likely to have a delayed diagnosis, compared with patients presenting to hospitals with a less than 25% Black and Hispanic population,” the researchers report.

In the 30 days after discharge following appendectomy, Black patients returned to the hospital at a higher rate than White patients did (17.5% vs. 11.4%), indicating worse outcomes.

“Delayed diagnosis may account for some of the racial and ethnic disparities observed in outcomes after appendicitis,” according to the authors.

“It may be hospitals that are more used to serving racial-ethnic minority patients are better at diagnosing them, because they’re more culturally informed and have a better understanding of these patients,” Dr. Stey said in a news release about their findings.
 

Great masquerader

Diagnosing appendicitis can be challenging, Dr. Carter said. The early signs can be subtle, and the condition is sometimes called the great masquerader. It is not uncommon for patients to be diagnosed with gastroenteritis or pain associated with their menstrual period, for example, and sent home.

Scoring systems based on patients’ symptoms and liberal use of imaging have improved detection of appendicitis, but “no physician or health care system is perfect in the diagnosis,” he said.

The increased odds of delayed diagnosis for Black patients remained when the researchers focused on healthier patients who had fewer comorbidities, and it also held when they considered patients with private insurance in high-income areas, Dr. Carter noted.

“Once again, with this study we see the association of structural and systematic racism with access to health care, especially for Black patients, in emergency departments and hospitals,” he wrote. “We must redouble our efforts to become anti-racist in ourselves, our institutions, and our profession.”
 

‘Our health care system itself’

Elizabeth Garner, MD, MPH, a pharmaceutical executive who was not involved in the study, commented on Twitter that the study points to an underlying issue that has existed in medicine “for quite some time.”

“Minority populations are not taken as seriously as their white counterparts,” she wrote. “This needs to change.”

Measures of hospital quality need to be tied to health equity, according to Mofya Diallo, MD, MPH, of the department of anesthesiology at the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“Top hospitals should take pride in outcomes that do not vary based on race, income or literacy,” she tweeted in response to the study.

To better understand possible reasons for delayed diagnosis, future researchers could assess whether patients who are Black are less likely to receive a surgical consultation, imaging studies, or lab work, Dr. Carter told this news organization. He pointed to a recent analysis of patients insured by Medicare that found that Black patients were less likely than White patients to receive a surgical consultation after they were admitted with colorectal, general abdominal, hepatopancreatobiliary, intestinal obstruction, or upper gastrointestinal diagnoses.

While social determinants of health, such as income, education, housing, early childhood development, employment, and social inclusion, may account for a substantial portion of health outcomes, “Our health care system itself can be viewed as another social determinant of health,” Dr. Carter wrote. “Insurance coverage, health care professional availability, health care professional linguistic and cultural competency, and quality of care all have an effect on health outcomes.”

Dr. Stey was supported by grants from the American College of Surgeons and the National Institutes of Health.

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

Doctors are more likely to miss appendicitis in patients who are Black, research shows.

This phenomenon, first described in children, occurs in adults as well, according to a study published in JAMA Surgery.

Some hospitals fare better than others: Those with more diverse patient populations were less likely to have missed the diagnosis, the researchers found.

“We don’t think the amount of melanin in your skin predicts how you present with appendicitis,” said Jonathan Carter, MD, professor of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco. “There’s no biological explanation,” Dr. Carter, who wrote an invited commentary on the research, said in an interview. “It’s really what’s going on in the social environment of those emergency rooms.”

For the study, Anne Stey, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Northwestern University in Chicago and her colleagues analyzed data from more than 80,000 men and women in four states – Florida, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin – who underwent appendectomy in 2016-2017.

They identified those who had been seen for abdominal complaints at a hospital in the week before surgery but did not receive a diagnosis of appendicitis at that time, indicating a missed opportunity to intervene sooner.

Among Black patients, the proportion who had experienced this type of delay was 3.6%, whereas for White patients, it was 2.5%. For Hispanic patients, the share was 2.4%, while for Asian or Pacific Islander patients, the figure was 1.5%.

An analysis that controlled for patient and hospital variables found that among non-Hispanic Black patients, the rate of delayed diagnosis was 1.41 times higher than for non-Hispanic White patients (95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.63).

Other patient factors associated with delayed diagnosis included female sex, comorbidities, and living in a low-income zip code.

A key factor was where patients sought care. A delayed diagnosis of appendicitis was 3.51 times more likely for patients who went to hospitals where most patients are insured by Medicaid. Prior research has shown that “safety-net hospitals have fewer resources and may provide lower-quality care than hospitals with a larger private payer population,” Dr. Stey’s group writes.

On the other hand, going to a hospital with a more diverse patient population reduced the odds of a delayed diagnosis.

“Patients presenting to hospitals with a greater than 50% Black and Hispanic population were 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59-0.91) times less likely to have a delayed diagnosis, compared with patients presenting to hospitals with a less than 25% Black and Hispanic population,” the researchers report.

In the 30 days after discharge following appendectomy, Black patients returned to the hospital at a higher rate than White patients did (17.5% vs. 11.4%), indicating worse outcomes.

“Delayed diagnosis may account for some of the racial and ethnic disparities observed in outcomes after appendicitis,” according to the authors.

“It may be hospitals that are more used to serving racial-ethnic minority patients are better at diagnosing them, because they’re more culturally informed and have a better understanding of these patients,” Dr. Stey said in a news release about their findings.
 

Great masquerader

Diagnosing appendicitis can be challenging, Dr. Carter said. The early signs can be subtle, and the condition is sometimes called the great masquerader. It is not uncommon for patients to be diagnosed with gastroenteritis or pain associated with their menstrual period, for example, and sent home.

Scoring systems based on patients’ symptoms and liberal use of imaging have improved detection of appendicitis, but “no physician or health care system is perfect in the diagnosis,” he said.

The increased odds of delayed diagnosis for Black patients remained when the researchers focused on healthier patients who had fewer comorbidities, and it also held when they considered patients with private insurance in high-income areas, Dr. Carter noted.

“Once again, with this study we see the association of structural and systematic racism with access to health care, especially for Black patients, in emergency departments and hospitals,” he wrote. “We must redouble our efforts to become anti-racist in ourselves, our institutions, and our profession.”
 

‘Our health care system itself’

Elizabeth Garner, MD, MPH, a pharmaceutical executive who was not involved in the study, commented on Twitter that the study points to an underlying issue that has existed in medicine “for quite some time.”

“Minority populations are not taken as seriously as their white counterparts,” she wrote. “This needs to change.”

Measures of hospital quality need to be tied to health equity, according to Mofya Diallo, MD, MPH, of the department of anesthesiology at the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“Top hospitals should take pride in outcomes that do not vary based on race, income or literacy,” she tweeted in response to the study.

To better understand possible reasons for delayed diagnosis, future researchers could assess whether patients who are Black are less likely to receive a surgical consultation, imaging studies, or lab work, Dr. Carter told this news organization. He pointed to a recent analysis of patients insured by Medicare that found that Black patients were less likely than White patients to receive a surgical consultation after they were admitted with colorectal, general abdominal, hepatopancreatobiliary, intestinal obstruction, or upper gastrointestinal diagnoses.

While social determinants of health, such as income, education, housing, early childhood development, employment, and social inclusion, may account for a substantial portion of health outcomes, “Our health care system itself can be viewed as another social determinant of health,” Dr. Carter wrote. “Insurance coverage, health care professional availability, health care professional linguistic and cultural competency, and quality of care all have an effect on health outcomes.”

Dr. Stey was supported by grants from the American College of Surgeons and the National Institutes of Health.

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

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with high troponin levels are twice as likely to have cardiac abnormalities than those with normal troponin, with or without COVID-19, a multicenter U.K. study suggests.

The causes were diverse, myocarditis prevalence was lower than previously reported, and myocardial scar emerged as an independent risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes at 12 months.

“We know that multiorgan involvement in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is common ... and may result in acute myocardial injury, detected by an increase in cardiac troponin concentrations,” John P. Greenwood, PhD, of the University of Leeds (England), told this news organization. “Elevated cardiac troponin is associated with a worse prognosis.”

“Multiple mechanisms of myocardial injury have been proposed and ... mitigation or prevention strategies likely depend on the underpinning mechanisms,” he said. “The sequelae of scar may predispose to late events.”

The study, published online  in Circulation, also identified a new pattern of microinfarction on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, highlighting the pro-thrombotic nature of SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Greenwood said.
 

Injury patterns different

Three hundred and forty-two patients with COVID-19 and elevated troponin levels (COVID+/troponin+) across 25 centers were enrolled between June 2020 and March 2021 in COVID-HEART, deemed an “urgent public health study” in the United Kingdom. The aim was to characterize myocardial injury and its associations and sequelae in convalescent patients after hospitalization with COVID-19.

Enrollment took place during the Wuhan and Alpha waves of COVID-19: before vaccination and when dexamethasone and anticoagulant protocols were emerging. All participants underwent CMR at a median of 21 days after discharge.

Two prospective control groups also were recruited: 64 patients with COVID-19 and normal troponin levels (COVID+/troponin−) and 113 without COVID-19 or elevated troponin matched by age and cardiovascular comorbidities (COVID−/comorbidity+).

Overall, participants’ median age was 61 years and 69% were men. Common comorbidities included hypertension (47%), obesity (43%), and diabetes (25%).

The frequency of any heart abnormality – for example, left or right ventricular impairment, scar, or pericardial disease – was twice as great (61%) in COVID+/troponin+ cases, compared with controls (36% for COVID+/troponin− patients versus 31% for COVID−/comorbidity+ patients).

Specifically, more cases than controls had ventricular impairment (17.2% vs. 3.1% and 7.1%) or scar (42% vs. 7% and 23%).

The myocardial injury pattern differed between cases and controls, with cases more likely to have infarction (13% vs. 2% and 7%) or microinfarction (9% vs. 0% and 1%).

However, there was no between-group difference in nonischemic scar (13% vs. 5% and 14%).

The prevalence of probable recent myocarditis was 6.7% in cases, compared with 1.7% in controls without COVID-19 – “much lower” than in previous studies, Dr. Greenwood noted.

During follow-up, four COVID+/troponin+ patients (1.2%) died, and 34 (10%) experienced a subsequent major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; 10.2%), which was similar to controls (6.1%).

Myocardial scar, but not previous COVID-19 infection or troponin level, was an independent predictor of MACE (odds ratio, 2.25).

“These findings suggest that macroangiopathic and microangiopathic thrombosis may be the key pathologic process for myocardial injury in COVID-19 survivors,” the authors conclude.

Dr. Greenwood added, “We are currently analyzing the 6-month follow-up CMR scans, the quality-of-life questionnaires, and the 6-minute walk tests. These will give us great understanding of how the heart repairs after acute myocardial injury associated with COVID-19. It will also allow us to assess the impact on patient quality of life and functional capacity.”
 

‘Tour de force’

James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and a professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said, “This is a tour de force collaboration – obtaining this many MRIs across multiple centers in the pandemic is quite remarkable. The study highlights the multiple different processes that lead to cardiac injury in COVID patients, complements autopsy studies and prior smaller MRI studies, [and] also provides the best data on the rate of myocarditis to date among the subset of COVID patients with cardiac injury.”

Overall, he said, the findings “do support closer follow-up for patients who had COVID and elevated troponins. We need to see follow-up MRI results in this cohort, as well as longer term outcomes. We also need studies on newer, more benign variants that are likely to have lower rates of cardiac injury and even fewer MRI abnormalities.”

Matthias Stuber, PhD, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, both of Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland, noted in a related editorial, “We are also reminded that the clinical severity of COVID-19 is most often dictated by the presence of pre-existing comorbidity, with antecedent ischemic scar now added to the long list of bad actors. Although not the primary focus of the COVID-HEART study, the question of whether cardiac troponin levels should be checked routinely and universally during the index admission for COVID-19 remains unresolved,” they noted.

“In general, we are most effective as clinicians when we use tests to confirm or rule out the specific disease processes suspected by careful basic clinical assessment rather than in a shotgun manner among undifferentiated all-comers,” they conclude.

No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with high troponin levels are twice as likely to have cardiac abnormalities than those with normal troponin, with or without COVID-19, a multicenter U.K. study suggests.

The causes were diverse, myocarditis prevalence was lower than previously reported, and myocardial scar emerged as an independent risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes at 12 months.

“We know that multiorgan involvement in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is common ... and may result in acute myocardial injury, detected by an increase in cardiac troponin concentrations,” John P. Greenwood, PhD, of the University of Leeds (England), told this news organization. “Elevated cardiac troponin is associated with a worse prognosis.”

“Multiple mechanisms of myocardial injury have been proposed and ... mitigation or prevention strategies likely depend on the underpinning mechanisms,” he said. “The sequelae of scar may predispose to late events.”

The study, published online  in Circulation, also identified a new pattern of microinfarction on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, highlighting the pro-thrombotic nature of SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Greenwood said.
 

Injury patterns different

Three hundred and forty-two patients with COVID-19 and elevated troponin levels (COVID+/troponin+) across 25 centers were enrolled between June 2020 and March 2021 in COVID-HEART, deemed an “urgent public health study” in the United Kingdom. The aim was to characterize myocardial injury and its associations and sequelae in convalescent patients after hospitalization with COVID-19.

Enrollment took place during the Wuhan and Alpha waves of COVID-19: before vaccination and when dexamethasone and anticoagulant protocols were emerging. All participants underwent CMR at a median of 21 days after discharge.

Two prospective control groups also were recruited: 64 patients with COVID-19 and normal troponin levels (COVID+/troponin−) and 113 without COVID-19 or elevated troponin matched by age and cardiovascular comorbidities (COVID−/comorbidity+).

Overall, participants’ median age was 61 years and 69% were men. Common comorbidities included hypertension (47%), obesity (43%), and diabetes (25%).

The frequency of any heart abnormality – for example, left or right ventricular impairment, scar, or pericardial disease – was twice as great (61%) in COVID+/troponin+ cases, compared with controls (36% for COVID+/troponin− patients versus 31% for COVID−/comorbidity+ patients).

Specifically, more cases than controls had ventricular impairment (17.2% vs. 3.1% and 7.1%) or scar (42% vs. 7% and 23%).

The myocardial injury pattern differed between cases and controls, with cases more likely to have infarction (13% vs. 2% and 7%) or microinfarction (9% vs. 0% and 1%).

However, there was no between-group difference in nonischemic scar (13% vs. 5% and 14%).

The prevalence of probable recent myocarditis was 6.7% in cases, compared with 1.7% in controls without COVID-19 – “much lower” than in previous studies, Dr. Greenwood noted.

During follow-up, four COVID+/troponin+ patients (1.2%) died, and 34 (10%) experienced a subsequent major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; 10.2%), which was similar to controls (6.1%).

Myocardial scar, but not previous COVID-19 infection or troponin level, was an independent predictor of MACE (odds ratio, 2.25).

“These findings suggest that macroangiopathic and microangiopathic thrombosis may be the key pathologic process for myocardial injury in COVID-19 survivors,” the authors conclude.

Dr. Greenwood added, “We are currently analyzing the 6-month follow-up CMR scans, the quality-of-life questionnaires, and the 6-minute walk tests. These will give us great understanding of how the heart repairs after acute myocardial injury associated with COVID-19. It will also allow us to assess the impact on patient quality of life and functional capacity.”
 

‘Tour de force’

James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and a professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said, “This is a tour de force collaboration – obtaining this many MRIs across multiple centers in the pandemic is quite remarkable. The study highlights the multiple different processes that lead to cardiac injury in COVID patients, complements autopsy studies and prior smaller MRI studies, [and] also provides the best data on the rate of myocarditis to date among the subset of COVID patients with cardiac injury.”

Overall, he said, the findings “do support closer follow-up for patients who had COVID and elevated troponins. We need to see follow-up MRI results in this cohort, as well as longer term outcomes. We also need studies on newer, more benign variants that are likely to have lower rates of cardiac injury and even fewer MRI abnormalities.”

Matthias Stuber, PhD, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, both of Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland, noted in a related editorial, “We are also reminded that the clinical severity of COVID-19 is most often dictated by the presence of pre-existing comorbidity, with antecedent ischemic scar now added to the long list of bad actors. Although not the primary focus of the COVID-HEART study, the question of whether cardiac troponin levels should be checked routinely and universally during the index admission for COVID-19 remains unresolved,” they noted.

“In general, we are most effective as clinicians when we use tests to confirm or rule out the specific disease processes suspected by careful basic clinical assessment rather than in a shotgun manner among undifferentiated all-comers,” they conclude.

No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with high troponin levels are twice as likely to have cardiac abnormalities than those with normal troponin, with or without COVID-19, a multicenter U.K. study suggests.

The causes were diverse, myocarditis prevalence was lower than previously reported, and myocardial scar emerged as an independent risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes at 12 months.

“We know that multiorgan involvement in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is common ... and may result in acute myocardial injury, detected by an increase in cardiac troponin concentrations,” John P. Greenwood, PhD, of the University of Leeds (England), told this news organization. “Elevated cardiac troponin is associated with a worse prognosis.”

“Multiple mechanisms of myocardial injury have been proposed and ... mitigation or prevention strategies likely depend on the underpinning mechanisms,” he said. “The sequelae of scar may predispose to late events.”

The study, published online  in Circulation, also identified a new pattern of microinfarction on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, highlighting the pro-thrombotic nature of SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Greenwood said.
 

Injury patterns different

Three hundred and forty-two patients with COVID-19 and elevated troponin levels (COVID+/troponin+) across 25 centers were enrolled between June 2020 and March 2021 in COVID-HEART, deemed an “urgent public health study” in the United Kingdom. The aim was to characterize myocardial injury and its associations and sequelae in convalescent patients after hospitalization with COVID-19.

Enrollment took place during the Wuhan and Alpha waves of COVID-19: before vaccination and when dexamethasone and anticoagulant protocols were emerging. All participants underwent CMR at a median of 21 days after discharge.

Two prospective control groups also were recruited: 64 patients with COVID-19 and normal troponin levels (COVID+/troponin−) and 113 without COVID-19 or elevated troponin matched by age and cardiovascular comorbidities (COVID−/comorbidity+).

Overall, participants’ median age was 61 years and 69% were men. Common comorbidities included hypertension (47%), obesity (43%), and diabetes (25%).

The frequency of any heart abnormality – for example, left or right ventricular impairment, scar, or pericardial disease – was twice as great (61%) in COVID+/troponin+ cases, compared with controls (36% for COVID+/troponin− patients versus 31% for COVID−/comorbidity+ patients).

Specifically, more cases than controls had ventricular impairment (17.2% vs. 3.1% and 7.1%) or scar (42% vs. 7% and 23%).

The myocardial injury pattern differed between cases and controls, with cases more likely to have infarction (13% vs. 2% and 7%) or microinfarction (9% vs. 0% and 1%).

However, there was no between-group difference in nonischemic scar (13% vs. 5% and 14%).

The prevalence of probable recent myocarditis was 6.7% in cases, compared with 1.7% in controls without COVID-19 – “much lower” than in previous studies, Dr. Greenwood noted.

During follow-up, four COVID+/troponin+ patients (1.2%) died, and 34 (10%) experienced a subsequent major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; 10.2%), which was similar to controls (6.1%).

Myocardial scar, but not previous COVID-19 infection or troponin level, was an independent predictor of MACE (odds ratio, 2.25).

“These findings suggest that macroangiopathic and microangiopathic thrombosis may be the key pathologic process for myocardial injury in COVID-19 survivors,” the authors conclude.

Dr. Greenwood added, “We are currently analyzing the 6-month follow-up CMR scans, the quality-of-life questionnaires, and the 6-minute walk tests. These will give us great understanding of how the heart repairs after acute myocardial injury associated with COVID-19. It will also allow us to assess the impact on patient quality of life and functional capacity.”
 

‘Tour de force’

James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and a professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said, “This is a tour de force collaboration – obtaining this many MRIs across multiple centers in the pandemic is quite remarkable. The study highlights the multiple different processes that lead to cardiac injury in COVID patients, complements autopsy studies and prior smaller MRI studies, [and] also provides the best data on the rate of myocarditis to date among the subset of COVID patients with cardiac injury.”

Overall, he said, the findings “do support closer follow-up for patients who had COVID and elevated troponins. We need to see follow-up MRI results in this cohort, as well as longer term outcomes. We also need studies on newer, more benign variants that are likely to have lower rates of cardiac injury and even fewer MRI abnormalities.”

Matthias Stuber, PhD, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, both of Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland, noted in a related editorial, “We are also reminded that the clinical severity of COVID-19 is most often dictated by the presence of pre-existing comorbidity, with antecedent ischemic scar now added to the long list of bad actors. Although not the primary focus of the COVID-HEART study, the question of whether cardiac troponin levels should be checked routinely and universally during the index admission for COVID-19 remains unresolved,” they noted.

“In general, we are most effective as clinicians when we use tests to confirm or rule out the specific disease processes suspected by careful basic clinical assessment rather than in a shotgun manner among undifferentiated all-comers,” they conclude.

No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Physicians nationwide will be challenged by the “unwinding” of the federal public health emergency declared for the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.

A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.

The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.

The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.

Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.

The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”

The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
 

Patients’ questions

Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).

“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”

Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.

For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.

“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.

States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.

The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.

In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
 

The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients

The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.

After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.

But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).

People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.

“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
 

Future FDA actions

Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.

But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.

The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.

The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.

The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.

“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.

Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.

“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”

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

Physicians nationwide will be challenged by the “unwinding” of the federal public health emergency declared for the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.

A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.

The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.

The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.

Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.

The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”

The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
 

Patients’ questions

Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).

“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”

Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.

For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.

“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.

States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.

The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.

In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
 

The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients

The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.

After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.

But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).

People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.

“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
 

Future FDA actions

Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.

But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.

The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.

The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.

The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.

“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.

Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.

“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”

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

Physicians nationwide will be challenged by the “unwinding” of the federal public health emergency declared for the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.

A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.

The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.

The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.

Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.

The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”

The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
 

Patients’ questions

Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).

“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”

Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.

For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.

“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.

States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.

The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.

In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
 

The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients

The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.

After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.

But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).

People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.

“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
 

Future FDA actions

Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.

But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.

The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.

The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.

The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.

“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.

Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.

“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”

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

The rising national suicide rate is being driven by increases among younger people and among people of color, according to a new report. 

Significant increases in suicide occurred among Native American, Black and Hispanic people, with a startling rise among young Black people. Meanwhile, the rate of suicide among older people declined between 2018 and 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported.

In 2021, 48,183 people died by suicide in the United States, which equates to a suicide rate of 14.1 per 100,000 people. That level equals the 2018 suicide rate, which had seen a peak that was followed by declines associated with the pandemic.

Experts said rebounding suicide rates are common following times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicide declines have also occurred during times of war and natural disaster, when psychological resilience tends to increase and people work together to overcome shared adversity.

“That will wane, and then you will see rebounding in suicide rates. That is, in fact, what we feared would happen. And it has happened, at least in 2021,” Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, told the New York Times.

The new CDC report found that the largest increase was among Black people aged 10-24 years, who experienced a 36.6% increase in suicide rate between 2018 and 2021. While Black people experience mental illness at the same rates as that of the general population, historically they have disproportionately limited access to mental health care, according to the American Psychiatric Association.

CDC report authors noted that some of the biggest increases in suicide rates occurred among groups most affected by the pandemic. 

From 2018 to 2021, the suicide rate for people aged 25-44 increased among Native Americans by 33.7% and among Black people by 22.9%. Suicide increased among multiracial people by 20.6% and among Hispanic or Latinx people by 19.4%. Among White people of all ages, the suicide rate declined or remained steady.

“As the nation continues to respond to the short- and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, remaining vigilant in prevention efforts is critical, especially among disproportionately affected populations where longer-term impacts might compound preexisting inequities in suicide risk,” the CDC researchers wrote.

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

The rising national suicide rate is being driven by increases among younger people and among people of color, according to a new report. 

Significant increases in suicide occurred among Native American, Black and Hispanic people, with a startling rise among young Black people. Meanwhile, the rate of suicide among older people declined between 2018 and 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported.

In 2021, 48,183 people died by suicide in the United States, which equates to a suicide rate of 14.1 per 100,000 people. That level equals the 2018 suicide rate, which had seen a peak that was followed by declines associated with the pandemic.

Experts said rebounding suicide rates are common following times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicide declines have also occurred during times of war and natural disaster, when psychological resilience tends to increase and people work together to overcome shared adversity.

“That will wane, and then you will see rebounding in suicide rates. That is, in fact, what we feared would happen. And it has happened, at least in 2021,” Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, told the New York Times.

The new CDC report found that the largest increase was among Black people aged 10-24 years, who experienced a 36.6% increase in suicide rate between 2018 and 2021. While Black people experience mental illness at the same rates as that of the general population, historically they have disproportionately limited access to mental health care, according to the American Psychiatric Association.

CDC report authors noted that some of the biggest increases in suicide rates occurred among groups most affected by the pandemic. 

From 2018 to 2021, the suicide rate for people aged 25-44 increased among Native Americans by 33.7% and among Black people by 22.9%. Suicide increased among multiracial people by 20.6% and among Hispanic or Latinx people by 19.4%. Among White people of all ages, the suicide rate declined or remained steady.

“As the nation continues to respond to the short- and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, remaining vigilant in prevention efforts is critical, especially among disproportionately affected populations where longer-term impacts might compound preexisting inequities in suicide risk,” the CDC researchers wrote.

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

The rising national suicide rate is being driven by increases among younger people and among people of color, according to a new report. 

Significant increases in suicide occurred among Native American, Black and Hispanic people, with a startling rise among young Black people. Meanwhile, the rate of suicide among older people declined between 2018 and 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported.

In 2021, 48,183 people died by suicide in the United States, which equates to a suicide rate of 14.1 per 100,000 people. That level equals the 2018 suicide rate, which had seen a peak that was followed by declines associated with the pandemic.

Experts said rebounding suicide rates are common following times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Suicide declines have also occurred during times of war and natural disaster, when psychological resilience tends to increase and people work together to overcome shared adversity.

“That will wane, and then you will see rebounding in suicide rates. That is, in fact, what we feared would happen. And it has happened, at least in 2021,” Christine Moutier, MD, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, told the New York Times.

The new CDC report found that the largest increase was among Black people aged 10-24 years, who experienced a 36.6% increase in suicide rate between 2018 and 2021. While Black people experience mental illness at the same rates as that of the general population, historically they have disproportionately limited access to mental health care, according to the American Psychiatric Association.

CDC report authors noted that some of the biggest increases in suicide rates occurred among groups most affected by the pandemic. 

From 2018 to 2021, the suicide rate for people aged 25-44 increased among Native Americans by 33.7% and among Black people by 22.9%. Suicide increased among multiracial people by 20.6% and among Hispanic or Latinx people by 19.4%. Among White people of all ages, the suicide rate declined or remained steady.

“As the nation continues to respond to the short- and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, remaining vigilant in prevention efforts is critical, especially among disproportionately affected populations where longer-term impacts might compound preexisting inequities in suicide risk,” the CDC researchers wrote.

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

In May 2021, a nurse at UnitedHealthcare called a colleague to share some welcome news about a problem the two had been grappling with for weeks.

United provided the health insurance plan for students at Penn State University. It was a large and potentially lucrative account: lots of young, healthy students paying premiums in, not too many huge medical reimbursements going out.

But one student was costing United a lot of money. Christopher McNaughton suffered from a crippling case of ulcerative colitis – an ailment that caused him to develop severe arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, numbing fatigue, and life-threatening blood clots. His medical bills were running nearly $2 million a year.

United had flagged Mr. McNaughton’s case as a “high dollar account,” and the company was reviewing whether it needed to keep paying for the expensive cocktail of drugs crafted by a Mayo Clinic specialist that had brought Mr. McNaughton’s disease under control after he’d been through years of misery.

On the 2021 phone call, which was recorded by the company, nurse Victoria Kavanaugh told her colleague that a doctor contracted by United to review the case had concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was “not medically necessary.” Her colleague, Dave Opperman, reacted to the news with a long laugh.

“I knew that was coming,” said Mr. Opperman, who heads up a United subsidiary that brokered the health insurance contract between United and Penn State. “I did too,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied.

Mr. Opperman then complained about Mr. McNaughton’s mother, whom he referred to as “this woman,” for “screaming and yelling” and “throwing tantrums” during calls with United.

The pair agreed that any appeal of the United doctor’s denial of the treatment would be a waste of the family’s time and money.

“We’re still gonna say no,” Mr. Opperman said.

More than 200 million Americans are covered by private health insurance. But data from state and federal regulators shows that insurers reject about 1 in 7 claims for treatment. Many people, faced with fighting insurance companies, simply give up: One study found that Americans file formal appeals on only 0.1% of claims denied by insurers under the Affordable Care Act.

Insurers have wide discretion in crafting what is covered by their policies, beyond some basic services mandated by federal and state law. They often deny claims for services that they deem not “medically necessary.”

When United refused to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment for that reason, his family did something unusual. They fought back with a lawsuit, which uncovered a trove of materials, including internal emails and tape-recorded exchanges among company employees. Those records offer an extraordinary behind-the-scenes look at how one of America’s leading health care insurers relentlessly fought to reduce spending on care, even as its profits rose to record levels.

As United reviewed Mr. McNaughton’s treatment, he and his family were often in the dark about what was happening or their rights. Meanwhile, United employees misrepresented critical findings and ignored warnings from doctors about the risks of altering Mr. McNaughton’s drug plan.

At one point, court records show, United inaccurately reported to Penn State and the family that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to lower the doses of his medication. Another time, a doctor paid by United concluded that denying payments for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment could put his health at risk, but the company buried his report and did not consider its findings. The insurer did, however, consider a report submitted by a company doctor who rubber-stamped the recommendation of a United nurse to reject paying for the treatment.

United declined to answer specific questions about the case, even after Mr. McNaughton signed a release provided by the insurer to allow it to discuss details of his interactions with the company. United noted that it ultimately paid for all of Mr. McNaughton’s treatments. In a written response, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo wrote that the company’s guiding concern was Mr. McNaughton’s well-being.

“Mr. McNaughton’s treatment involves medication dosages that far exceed [Food and Drug Administration] guidelines,” the statement said. “In cases like this, we review treatment plans based on current clinical guidelines to help ensure patient safety.”

But the records reviewed by ProPublica show that United had another, equally urgent goal in dealing with Mr. McNaughton. In emails, officials calculated what Mr. McNaughton was costing them to keep his crippling disease at bay and how much they would save if they forced him to undergo a cheaper treatment that had already failed him. As the family pressed the company to back down, first through Penn State and then through a lawsuit, the United officials handling the case bristled.

“This is just unbelievable,” Ms. Kavanaugh said of Mr. McNaughton’s family in one call to discuss his case. ”They’re just really pushing the envelope, and I’m surprised, like I don’t even know what to say.”
 

The same meal every day

Now 31, Mr. McNaughton grew up in State College, Pa., just blocks from the Penn State campus. Both of his parents are faculty members at the university.

In the winter of 2014, Mr. McNaughton was halfway through his junior year at Bard College in New York. At 6 feet, 4 inches tall, he was a guard on the basketball team and had started most of the team’s games since the start of his sophomore year. He was majoring in psychology.

When Mr. McNaughton returned to school after the winter holiday break, he started to experience frequent bouts of bloody diarrhea. After just a few days on campus, he went home to State College, where doctors diagnosed him with a severe case of ulcerative colitis.

A chronic inflammatory bowel disease that causes swelling and ulcers in the digestive tract, ulcerative colitis has no cure, and ongoing treatment is needed to alleviate symptoms and prevent serious health complications. The majority of cases produce mild to moderate symptoms. Mr. McNaughton’s case was severe.

Treatments for ulcerative colitis include steroids and special drugs known as biologics that work to reduce inflammation in the large intestine.

Mr. McNaughton, however, failed to get meaningful relief from the drugs his doctors initially prescribed. He was experiencing bloody diarrhea up to 20 times a day, with such severe stomach pain that he spent much of his day curled up on a couch. He had little appetite and lost 50 pounds. Severe anemia left him fatigued. He suffered from other conditions related to his colitis, including crippling arthritis. He was hospitalized several times to treat dangerous blood clots.

For 2 years, in an effort to help alleviate his symptoms, he ate the same meals every day: Rice Chex cereal and scrambled eggs for breakfast, a cup of white rice with plain chicken breast for lunch, and a similar meal for dinner, occasionally swapping in tilapia.

His hometown doctors referred him to a specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, who tried unsuccessfully to bring his disease under control. That doctor ended up referring Mr. McNaughton to Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been ranked as the best gastroenterology hospital in the country every year since 1990 by U.S. News & World Report.

For his first visit with Dr. Loftus in May 2015, Mr. McNaughton and his mother, Janice Light, charted hospitals along the 900-mile drive from Pennsylvania to Minnesota in case they needed medical help along the way.

Mornings were the hardest. Mr. McNaughton often spent several hours in the bathroom at the start of the day. To prepare for his meeting with Dr. Loftus, he set his alarm for 3:30 a.m. so he could be ready for the 7:30 a.m. appointment. Even with that preparation, he had to stop twice to use a bathroom on the 5-minute walk from the hotel to the clinic. When they met, Dr. Loftus looked at Mr. McNaughton and told him that he appeared incapacitated. It was, he told the student, as if Mr. McNaughton were chained to the bathroom, with no outside life. He had not been able to return to school and spent most days indoors, managing his symptoms as best he could.

Mr. McNaughton had tried a number of medications by this point, none of which worked. This pattern would repeat itself during the first couple of years that Dr. Loftus treated him.

In addition to trying to find a treatment that would bring Mr. McNaughton’s colitis into remission, Dr. Loftus wanted to wean him off the steroid prednisone, which he had been taking since his initial diagnosis in 2014. The drug is commonly prescribed to colitis patients to control inflammation, but prolonged use can lead to severe side effects including cataracts, osteoporosis, increased risk of infection, and fatigue. Mr. McNaughton also experienced “moon face,” a side effect caused by the shifting of fat deposits that results in the face becoming puffy and rounder.

In 2018, Dr. Loftus and Mr. McNaughton decided to try an unusual regimen. Many patients with inflammatory bowel diseases such as colitis take a single biologic drug as treatment. Whereas traditional drugs are chemically synthesized, biologics are manufactured in living systems, such as plant or animal cells. A year’s supply of an individual biologic drug can cost up to $500,000. They are often given through infusions in a medical facility, which adds to the cost.

Mr. McNaughton had tried individual biologics, and then two in combination, without much success. He and Dr. Loftus then agreed to try two biologic drugs together at doses well above those recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. The federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimates one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label uses.

There are drawbacks to the practice. Since some uses and doses of particular drugs have not been extensively studied, the risks and efficacy of using them off-label are not well known. Also, some drug manufacturers have improperly pushed off-label usage of their products to boost sales despite little or no evidence to support their use in those situations. Like many leading experts and researchers in his field, Dr. Loftus has been paid to do consulting related to the biologic drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton. The payments related to those drugs have ranged from a total of $1,440 in 2020 to $51,235 in 2018. Dr. Loftus said much of his work with pharmaceutical companies was related to conducting clinical trials on new drugs.

In cases of off-label prescribing, patients are depending upon their doctors’ expertise and experience with the drug. “In this case, I was comfortable that the potential benefits to Chris outweighed the risks,” Dr. Loftus said.

There was evidence that the treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton might work, including studies that had found dual biologic therapy to be efficacious and safe. The two drugs he takes, Entyvio and Remicade, have the same purpose – to reduce inflammation in the large intestine – but each works differently in the body. Remicade, marketed by Janssen Biotech, targets a protein that causes inflammation. Entyvio, made by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, works by preventing an excess of white blood cells from entering into the gastrointestinal tract.

As for any suggestion by United doctors that his treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton was out of bounds or dangerous, Dr. Loftus said “my treatment of Chris was not clinically inappropriate – as was shown by Chris’ positive outcome.”

The unusual high-dose combination of two biologic drugs produced a remarkable change in Mr. McNaughton. He no longer had blood in his stool, and his trips to the bathroom were cut from 20 times a day to 3 or 4. He was able to eat different foods and put on weight. He had more energy. He tapered off prednisone.

“If you told me in 2015 that I would be living like this, I would have asked where do I sign up,” Mr. McNaughton said of the change he experienced with the new drug regimen.

When he first started the new treatment, Mr. McNaughton was covered under his family’s plan, and all his bills were paid. Mr. McNaughton enrolled at the university in 2020. Before switching to United’s plan for students, Mr. McNaughton and his parents consulted with a health advocacy service offered to faculty members. A benefits specialist assured them the drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton would be covered by United.

Mr. McNaughton joined the student plan in July 2020, and his infusions that month and the following month were paid for by United. In September, the insurer indicated payment on his claims was “pending,” something it did for his other claims that came in during the rest of the year.

Mr. McNaughton and his family were worried. They called United to make sure there wasn’t a problem; the insurer told them, they said, that it only needed to check his medical records. When the family called again, United told them it had the documentation needed, they said. United, in a court filing last year, said it received two calls from the family and each time indicated that all of the necessary medical records had not yet been received.

In January 2021, Mr. McNaughton received a new explanation of benefits for the prior months. All of the claims for his care, beginning in September, were no longer “pending.” They were stamped “DENIED.” The total outstanding bill for his treatment was $807,086.

When Mr. McNaughton’s mother reached a United customer service representative the next day to ask why bills that had been paid in the summer were being denied for the fall, the representative told her the account was being reviewed because of “a high dollar amount on the claims,” according to a recording of the call.


 

Misrepresentations

With United refusing to pay, the family was terrified of being stuck with medical bills that would bankrupt them and deprive Mr. McNaughton of treatment that they considered miraculous.

They turned to Penn State for help. Ms. Light and Mr. McNaughton’s father, David McNaughton, hoped their position as faculty members would make the school more willing to intervene on their behalf.

“After more than 30 years on faculty, my husband and I know that this is not how Penn State would want its students to be treated,” Ms. Light wrote to a school official in February 2021.

In response to questions from ProPublica, Penn State spokesperson Lisa Powers wrote that “supporting the health and well-being of our students is always of primary importance” and that “our hearts go out to any student and family impacted by a serious medical condition.” The university, she wrote, does “not comment on students’ individual circumstances or disclose information from their records.” Mr. McNaughton offered to grant Penn State whatever permissions it needed to speak about his case with ProPublica. The school, however, wrote that it would not comment “even if confidentiality has been waived.”

The family appealed to school administrators. Because the effectiveness of biologics wanes in some patients if doses are skipped, Mr. McNaughton and his parents were worried about even a delay in treatment. His doctor wrote that if he missed scheduled infusions of the drugs, there was “a high likelihood they would no longer be effective.”

During a conference call arranged by Penn State officials on March 5, 2021, United agreed to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s care through the end of the plan year that August. Penn State immediately notified the family of the “wonderful news” while also apologizing for “the stress this has caused Chris and your family.”

Behind the scenes, Mr. McNaughton’s review had “gone all the way to the top” at United’s student health plan division, Ms. Kavanaugh, the nurse, said in a recorded conversation.

The family’s relief was short-lived. A month later, United started another review of Mr. McNaughton’s care, overseen by Ms. Kavanaugh, to determine if it would pay for the treatment in the upcoming plan year.

The nurse sent the Mr. McNaughton case to a company called Medical Review Institute of America. Insurers often turn to companies like MRIoA to review coverage decisions involving expensive treatments or specialized care.

Ms. Kavanaugh, who was assigned to a special investigations unit at United, let her feelings about the matter be known in a recorded telephone call with a representative of MRIoA.

“This school apparently is a big client of ours,” she said. She then shared her opinion of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment. “Really this is a case of a kid who’s getting a drug way too much, like too much of a dose,” Ms. Kavanaugh said. She said it was “insane that they would even think that this is reasonable” and “to be honest with you, they’re awfully pushy considering that we are paying through the end of this school year.”

On a call with an outside contractor, the United nurse claimed Mr. McNaughton was on a higher dose of medication than the FDA approved, which is a common practice.

MRIoA sent the case to Vikas Pabby, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health and a professor at the university’s medical school. His May 2021 review of Mr. McNaughton’s case was just one of more than 300 Dr. Pabby did for MRIoA that month, for which he was paid $23,000 in total, according to a log of his work produced in the lawsuit.

In a May 4, 2021, report, Dr. Pabby concluded Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was not medically necessary, because United’s policies for the two drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton did not support using them in combination.

Insurers spell out what services they cover in plan policies, lengthy documents that can be confusing and difficult to understand. Many policies, such as Mr. McNaughton’s, contain a provision that treatments and procedures must be “medically necessary” in order to be covered. The definition of medically necessary differs by plan. Some don’t even define the term. Mr. McNaughton’s policy contains a five-part definition, including that the treatment must be “in accordance with the standards of good medical policy” and “the most appropriate supply or level of service which can be safely provided.”

Behind the scenes at United, Mr. Opperman and Ms. Kavanaugh agreed that if Mr. McNaughton were to appeal Dr. Pabby’s decision, the insurer would simply rule against him. “I just think it’s a waste of money and time to appeal and send it to another one when we know we’re gonna get the same answer,” Mr. Opperman said, according to a recording in court files. At Mr. Opperman’s urging, United decided to skip the usual appeals process and arrange for Dr. Pabby to have a so-called “peer-to-peer” discussion with Dr. Loftus, the Mayo physician treating Mr. McNaughton. Such a conversation, in which a patient’s doctor talks with an insurance company’s doctor to advocate for the prescribed treatment, usually occurs only after a customer has appealed a denial and the appeal has been rejected.

When Ms. Kavanaugh called Dr. Loftus’ office to set up a conversation with Dr. Pabby, she explained it was an urgent matter and had been requested by Mr. McNaughton. “You know I’ve just gotten to know Christopher,” she explained, although she had never spoken with him. “We’re trying to advocate and help and get this peer-to-peer set up.”

Mr. McNaughton, meanwhile, had no idea at the time that a United doctor had decided his treatment was unnecessary and that the insurer was trying to set up a phone call with his physician.

In the peer-to-peer conversation, Dr. Loftus told Dr. Pabby that Mr. McNaughton had “a very complicated case” and that lower doses had not worked for him, according to an internal MRIoA memo.

Following his conversation with Dr. Loftus, Dr. Pabby created a second report for United. He recommended the insurer pay for both drugs, but at reduced doses. He added new language saying that the safety of using both drugs at the higher levels “is not established.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh shared the May 12 decision from Dr. Pabby with others at United, her boss responded with an email calling it “great news.”

Then Mr. Opperman sent an email that puzzled the McNaughtons.

In it, Mr. Opperman claimed that Dr. Loftus and Dr. Pabby had agreed that Mr. McNaughton should be on significantly lower doses of both drugs. He said Dr. Loftus “will work with the patient to start titrating them down to a normal dose range.” Mr. Opperman wrote that United would cover Mr. McNaughton’s treatment in the coming year, but only at the reduced doses. Mr. Opperman did not respond to emails and phone messages seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton didn’t believe a word of it. He had already tried and failed treatment with those drugs at lower doses, and it was Dr. Loftus who had upped the doses, leading to his remission from severe colitis.

The only thing that made sense to Mr. McNaughton was that the treatment United said it would now pay for was dramatically cheaper – saving the company at least hundreds of thousands of dollars a year – than his prescribed treatment because it sliced the size of the doses by more than half.

When the family contacted Dr. Loftus for an explanation, they were outraged by what they heard. Dr. Loftus told them that he had never recommended lowering the dosage. In a letter, Dr. Loftus wrote that changing Mr. McNaughton’s treatment “would have serious detrimental effects on both his short term and long term health and could potentially involve life threatening complications. This would ultimately incur far greater medical costs. Chris was on the doses suggested by United Healthcare before, and they were not at all effective.”

It would not be until the lawsuit that it would become clear how Dr. Loftus’ conversations had been so seriously misrepresented.

Under questioning by Mr. McNaughton’s lawyers, Ms. Kavanaugh acknowledged that she was the source of the incorrect claim that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to a change in treatment.

“I incorrectly made an assumption that they had come to some sort of agreement,” she said in a deposition last August. “It was my first peer-to-peer. I did not realize that that simply does not occur.”

Ms. Kavanaugh did not respond to emails and telephone messages seeking comment.

When the McNaughtons first learned of Mr. Opperman’s inaccurate report of the phone call with Dr. Loftus, it unnerved them. They started to question if their case would be fairly reviewed.

“When we got the denial and they lied about what Dr. Loftus said, it just hit me that none of this matters,” Mr. McNaughton said. “They will just say or do anything to get rid of me. It delegitimized the entire review process. When I got that denial, I was crushed.”


 

A buried report

While the family tried to sort out the inaccurate report, United continued putting the McNaughton case in front of more company doctors.

On May 21, 2021, United sent the case to one of its own doctors, Nady Cates, MD, for an additional review. The review was marked “escalated issue.” Dr. Cates is a United medical director, a title used by many insurers for physicians who review cases. It is work he has been doing as an employee of health insurers since 1989 and at United since 2010. He has not practiced medicine since the early 1990s.

Dr. Cates, in a deposition, said he stopped seeing patients because of the long hours involved and because “AIDS was coming around then. I was seeing a lot of military folks who had venereal diseases, and I guess I was concerned about being exposed.” He transitioned to reviewing paperwork for the insurance industry, he said, because “I guess I was a chicken.”

When he had practiced, Dr. Cates said, he hadn’t treated patients with ulcerative colitis and had referred those cases to a gastroenterologist.

He said his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case primarily involved reading a United nurse’s recommendation to deny his care and making sure “that there wasn’t a decimal place that was out of line.” He said he copied and pasted the nurse’s recommendation and typed “agree” on his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case.

Dr. Cates said that he does about a hundred reviews a week. He said that in his reviews he typically checks to see if any medications are prescribed in accordance with the insurer’s guidelines, and if not, he denies it. United’s policies, he said, prevented him from considering that Mr. McNaughton had failed other treatments or that Dr. Loftus was a leading expert in his field.

“You are giving zero weight to the treating doctor’s opinion on the necessity of the treatment regimen?” a lawyer asked Dr. Cates in his deposition. He responded, “Yeah.”

Attempts to contact Dr. Cates for comment were unsuccessful.

At the same time Dr. Cates was looking at Mr. McNaughton’s case, yet another review was underway at MRIoA. United said it sent the case back to MRIoA after the insurer received the letter from Dr. Loftus warning of the life-threatening complications that might occur if the dosages were reduced.

On May 24, 2021, the new report requested by MRIoA arrived. It came to a completely different conclusion than all of the previous reviews.

Nitin Kumar, MD, a gastroenterologist in Illinois, concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s established treatment plan was not only medically necessary and appropriate but that lowering his doses “can result in a lack of effective therapy of Ulcerative Colitis, with complications of uncontrolled disease (including dysplasia leading to colorectal cancer), flare, hospitalization, need for surgery, and toxic megacolon.”

Unlike other doctors who produced reports for United, Dr. Kumar discussed the harm that Mr. McNaughton might suffer if United required him to change his treatment. “His disease is significantly severe, with diagnosis at a young age,” Dr. Kumar wrote. “He has failed every biologic medication class recommended by guidelines. Therefore, guidelines can no longer be applied in this case.” He cited six studies of patients using two biologic drugs together and wrote that they revealed no significant safety issues and found the therapy to be “broadly successful.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh learned of Dr. Kumar’s report, she quickly moved to quash it and get the case returned to Dr. Pabby, according to her deposition.

In a recorded telephone call, Ms. Kavanaugh told an MRIoA representative that “I had asked that this go back through Dr. Pabby, and it went through a different doctor and they had a much different result.” After further discussion, the MRIoA representative agreed to send the case back to Dr. Pabby. “I appreciate that,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied. “I just want to make sure, because, I mean, it’s obviously a very different result than what we’ve been getting on this case.”

MRIoA case notes show that at 7:04 a.m. on May 25, 2021, Dr. Pabby was assigned to take a look at the case for the third time. At 7:27 a.m., the notes indicate, Dr. Pabby again rejected Mr. McNaughton’s treatment plan. While noting it was “difficult to control” Mr. McNaughton’s ulcerative colitis, Dr. Pabby added that his doses “far exceed what is approved by literature” and that the “safety of the requested doses is not supported by literature.”

In a deposition, Ms. Kavanaugh said that after she opened the Kumar report and read that he was supporting Mr. McNaughton’s current treatment plan, she immediately spoke to her supervisor, who told her to call MRIoA and have the case sent back to Dr. Pabby for review.

Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t save a copy of the Kumar report, nor did she forward it to anyone at United or to officials at Penn State who had been inquiring about the McNaughton case. “I didn’t because it shouldn’t have existed,” she said. “It should have gone back to Dr. Pabby.”

When asked if the Kumar report caused her any concerns given his warning that Mr. McNaughton risked cancer or hospitalization if his regimen were changed, Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t read his full report. “I saw that it was not the correct doctor, I saw the initial outcome and I was asked to send it back,” she said. Ms. Kavanaugh added, “I have a lot of empathy for this member, but it needed to go back to the peer-to-peer reviewer.”

In a court filing, United said Ms. Kavanaugh was correct in insisting that Dr. Pabby conduct the review and that MRIoA confirmed that Dr. Pabby should have been the one doing the review.

The Kumar report was not provided to Mr. McNaughton when his lawyer, Jonathan M. Gesk, first asked United and MRIoA for any reviews of the case. Mr. Gesk discovered it by accident when he was listening to a recorded telephone call produced by United in which Ms. Kavanaugh mentioned a report number Mr. Gesk had not heard before. He then called MRIoA, which confirmed the report existed and eventually provided it to him.

Dr. Pabby asked ProPublica to direct any questions about his involvement in the matter to MRIoA. The company did not respond to questions from ProPublica about the case.
 

A sense of hopelessness

When Mr. McNaughton enrolled at Penn State in 2020, it brought a sense of normalcy that he had lost when he was first diagnosed with colitis. He still needed monthly hours-long infusions and suffered occasional flare-ups and symptoms, but he was attending classes in person and living a life similar to the one he had before his diagnosis.

It was a striking contrast to the previous 6 years, which he had spent largely confined to his parents’ house in State College. The frequent bouts of diarrhea made it difficult to go out. He didn’t talk much to friends and spent as much time as he could studying potential treatments and reviewing ongoing clinical trials. He tried to keep up with the occasional online course, but his disease made it difficult to make any real progress toward a degree.

United, in correspondence with Mr. McNaughton, noted that its review of his care was “not a treatment decision. Treatment decisions are made between you and your physician.” But by threatening not to pay for his medications, or only to pay for a different regimen, Mr. McNaughton said, United was in fact attempting to dictate his treatment. From his perspective, the insurer was playing doctor, making decisions without ever examining him or even speaking to him.

The idea of changing his treatment or stopping it altogether caused constant worry for Mr. McNaughton, exacerbating his colitis and triggering physical symptoms, according to his doctors. Those included a large ulcer on his leg and welts under his skin on his thighs and shin that made his leg muscles stiff and painful to the point where he couldn’t bend his leg or walk properly. There were daily migraines and severe stomach pain. “I was consumed with this situation,” Mr. McNaughton said. “My path was unconventional, but I was proud of myself for fighting back and finishing school and getting my life back on track. I thought they were singling me out. My biggest fear was going back to the hell.”

Mr. McNaughton said he contemplated suicide on several occasions, dreading a return to a life where he was housebound or hospitalized.

Mr. McNaughton and his parents talked about his possibly moving to Canada where his grandmother lived and seeking treatment there under the nation’s government health plan.

Dr. Loftus connected Mr. McNaughton with a psychologist who specializes in helping patients with chronic digestive diseases.

The psychologist, Tiffany Taft, PsyD, said Mr. McNaughton was not an unusual case. About one in three patients with diseases like colitis suffer from medical trauma or PTSD related to it, she said, often the result of issues related to getting appropriate treatment approved by insurers.

“You get into hopelessness,” she said of the depression that accompanies fighting with insurance companies over care. “They feel like ‘I can’t fix that. I am screwed.’ When you can’t control things with what an insurance company is doing, anxiety, PTSD and depression get mixed together.”

In the case of Mr. McNaughton, Dr. Taft said, he was being treated by one of the best gastroenterologists in the world, was doing well with his treatment, and then was suddenly notified he might be on the hook for nearly a million dollars in medical charges without access to his medications. “It sends you immediately into panic about all these horrific things that could happen,” Dr. Taft said. The physical and mental symptoms Mr. McNaughton suffered after his care was threatened were “triggered” by the stress he experienced, she said.

In early June 2021, United informed Mr. McNaughton in a letter that it would not cover the cost of his treatment regimen in the next academic year, starting in August. The insurer said it would pay only for a treatment plan that called for a significant reduction in the doses of the drugs he took.

United wrote that the decision came after his “records have been reviewed three times and the medical reviewers have concluded that the medication as prescribed does not meet the Medical Necessity requirement of the plan.”

In August 2021, Mr. McNaughton filed a federal lawsuit accusing United of acting in bad faith and unreasonably making treatment decisions based on financial concerns and not what was the best and most effective treatment. It claims United had a duty to find information that supported Mr. McNaughton’s claim for treatment rather than looking for ways to deny coverage.

United, in a court filing, said it did not breach any duty it owed to Mr. McNaughton and acted in good faith. On Sept. 20, 2021, a month after filing the lawsuit, and with United again balking at paying for his treatment, Mr. McNaughton asked a judge to grant a temporary restraining order requiring United to pay for his care. With the looming threat of a court hearing on the motion, United quickly agreed to cover the cost of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment through the end of the 2021-2022 academic year. It also dropped a demand requiring Mr. McNaughton to settle the matter as a condition of the insurer paying for his treatment as prescribed by Dr. Loftus, according to an email sent by United’s lawyer.
 

The cost of treatment

It is not surprising that insurers are carefully scrutinizing the care of patients treated with biologics, which are among the most expensive medications on the market. Biologics are considered specialty drugs, a class that includes the best-selling Humira, used to treat arthritis. Specialty drug spending in the United States is expected to reach $505 billion in 2023, according to an estimate from Optum, United’s health services division. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit that analyzes the value of drugs, found in 2020 that the biologic drugs used to treat patients like Mr. McNaughton are often effective but overpriced for their therapeutic benefit. To be judged cost-effective by ICER, the biologics should sell at a steep discount to their current market price, the panel found.

A panel convened by ICER to review its analysis cautioned that insurance coverage “should be structured to prevent situations in which patients are forced to choose a treatment approach on the basis of cost.” ICER also found examples where insurance company policies failed to keep pace with updates to clinical practice guidelines based on emerging research.

United officials did not make the cost of treatment an issue when discussing Mr. McNaughton’s care with Penn State administrators or the family.

Bill Truxal, the president of UnitedHealthcare StudentResources, the company’s student health plan division, told a Penn State official that the insurer wanted the “best for the student” and it had “nothing to do with cost,” according to notes the official took of the conversation.

Behind the scenes, however, the price of Mr. McNaughton’s care was front and center at United.

In one email, Mr. Opperman asked about the cost difference if the insurer insisted on paying only for greatly reduced doses of the biologic drugs. Ms. Kavanaugh responded that the insurer had paid $1.1 million in claims for Mr. McNaughton’s care as of the middle of May 2021. If the reduced doses had been in place, the amount would have been cut to $260,218, she wrote.

United was keeping close tabs on Mr. McNaughton at the highest levels of the company. On Aug. 2, 2021, Mr. Opperman notified Mr. Truxal and a United lawyer that Mr. McNaughton “has just purchased the plan again for the 21-22 school year.”

A month later, Ms. Kavanaugh shared another calculation with United executives showing that the insurer spent over $1.7 million on Mr. McNaughton in the prior plan year.

United officials strategized about how to best explain why it was reviewing Mr. McNaughton’s drug regimen, according to an internal email. They pointed to a justification often used by health insurers when denying claims. “As the cost of healthcare continues to climb to soaring heights, it has been determined that a judicious review of these drugs should be included” in order to “make healthcare more affordable for our members,” Ms. Kavanaugh offered as a potential talking point in an April 23, 2021, email.

Three days later, UnitedHealth Group filed an annual statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing its pay for top executives in the prior year. Then-CEO David Wichmann was paid $17.9 million in salary and other compensation in 2020. Wichmann retired early the following year, and his total compensation that year exceeded $140 million, according to calculations in a compensation database maintained by the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. The newspaper said the amount was the most paid to an executive in the state since it started tracking pay more than 2 decades ago. About $110 million of that total came from Wichmann exercising stock options accumulated during his stewardship.

The McNaughtons were well aware of the financial situation at United. They looked at publicly available financial results and annual reports. Last year, United reported a profit of $20.1 billion on revenues of $324.2 billion.

When discussing the case with Penn State, Ms. Light said, she told university administrators that United could pay for a year of her son’s treatment using just minutes’ worth of profit.
 

‘Betrayed’

Mr. McNaughton has been able to continue receiving his infusions for now, anyway. In October, United notified him it was once again reviewing his care, although the insurer quickly reversed course when his lawyer intervened. United, in a court filing, said the review was a mistake and that it had erred in putting Mr. McNaughton’s claims into pending status.

Mr. McNaughton said he is fortunate his parents were employed at the same school he was attending, which was critical in getting the attention of administrators there. But that help had its limits.

In June 2021, just a week after United told Mr. McNaughton it would not cover his treatment plan in the upcoming plan year, Penn State essentially walked away from the matter.

In an email to the McNaughtons and United, Penn State Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Andrea Dowhower wrote that administrators “have observed an unfortunate breakdown in communication” between Mr. McNaughton and his family and the university health insurance plan, “which appears from our perspective to have resulted in a standstill between the two parties.” While she proposed some potential steps to help settle the matter, she wrote that “Penn State’s role in this process is as a resource for students like Chris who, for whatever reason, have experienced difficulty navigating the complex world of health insurance.” The university’s role “is limited,” she wrote, and the school “simply must leave” the issue of the best treatment for Mr. McNaughton to “the appropriate health care professionals.”

In a statement, a Penn State spokesperson wrote that “as a third party in this arrangement, the University’s role is limited and Penn State officials can only help a student manage an issue based on information that a student/family, medical personnel, and/or insurance provider give – with the hope that all information is accurate and that the lines of communication remain open between the insured and the insurer.”

Penn State declined to provide financial information about the plan. However, the university and United share at least one tie that they have not publicly disclosed.

When the McNaughtons first reached out to the university for help, they were referred to the school’s student health insurance coordinator. The official, Heather Klinger, wrote in an email to the family in February 2021 that “I appreciate your trusting me to resolve this for you.”

In April 2022, United began paying Ms. Klinger’s salary, an arrangement which is not noted on the university website. Ms. Klinger appears in the online staff directory on the Penn State University Health Services web page, and has a university phone number, a university address, and a Penn State email listed as her contact. The school said she has maintained a part-time status with the university to allow her to access relevant data systems at both the university and United.

The university said students “benefit” from having a United employee to handle questions about insurance coverage and that the arrangement is “not uncommon” for student health plans.

The family was dismayed to learn that Ms. Klinger was now a full-time employee of United.

“We did feel betrayed,” Ms. Light said. Ms. Klinger did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton’s fight to maintain his treatment regimen has come at a cost of time, debilitating stress, and depression. “My biggest fear is realizing I might have to do this every year of my life,” he said.

Mr. McNaughton said one motivation for his lawsuit was to expose how insurers like United make decisions about what care they will pay for and what they will not. The case remains pending, a court docket shows.

He has been accepted to Penn State’s law school. He hopes to become a health care lawyer working for patients who find themselves in situations similar to his.

He plans to re-enroll in the United health care plan when he starts school next fall.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In May 2021, a nurse at UnitedHealthcare called a colleague to share some welcome news about a problem the two had been grappling with for weeks.

United provided the health insurance plan for students at Penn State University. It was a large and potentially lucrative account: lots of young, healthy students paying premiums in, not too many huge medical reimbursements going out.

But one student was costing United a lot of money. Christopher McNaughton suffered from a crippling case of ulcerative colitis – an ailment that caused him to develop severe arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, numbing fatigue, and life-threatening blood clots. His medical bills were running nearly $2 million a year.

United had flagged Mr. McNaughton’s case as a “high dollar account,” and the company was reviewing whether it needed to keep paying for the expensive cocktail of drugs crafted by a Mayo Clinic specialist that had brought Mr. McNaughton’s disease under control after he’d been through years of misery.

On the 2021 phone call, which was recorded by the company, nurse Victoria Kavanaugh told her colleague that a doctor contracted by United to review the case had concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was “not medically necessary.” Her colleague, Dave Opperman, reacted to the news with a long laugh.

“I knew that was coming,” said Mr. Opperman, who heads up a United subsidiary that brokered the health insurance contract between United and Penn State. “I did too,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied.

Mr. Opperman then complained about Mr. McNaughton’s mother, whom he referred to as “this woman,” for “screaming and yelling” and “throwing tantrums” during calls with United.

The pair agreed that any appeal of the United doctor’s denial of the treatment would be a waste of the family’s time and money.

“We’re still gonna say no,” Mr. Opperman said.

More than 200 million Americans are covered by private health insurance. But data from state and federal regulators shows that insurers reject about 1 in 7 claims for treatment. Many people, faced with fighting insurance companies, simply give up: One study found that Americans file formal appeals on only 0.1% of claims denied by insurers under the Affordable Care Act.

Insurers have wide discretion in crafting what is covered by their policies, beyond some basic services mandated by federal and state law. They often deny claims for services that they deem not “medically necessary.”

When United refused to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment for that reason, his family did something unusual. They fought back with a lawsuit, which uncovered a trove of materials, including internal emails and tape-recorded exchanges among company employees. Those records offer an extraordinary behind-the-scenes look at how one of America’s leading health care insurers relentlessly fought to reduce spending on care, even as its profits rose to record levels.

As United reviewed Mr. McNaughton’s treatment, he and his family were often in the dark about what was happening or their rights. Meanwhile, United employees misrepresented critical findings and ignored warnings from doctors about the risks of altering Mr. McNaughton’s drug plan.

At one point, court records show, United inaccurately reported to Penn State and the family that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to lower the doses of his medication. Another time, a doctor paid by United concluded that denying payments for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment could put his health at risk, but the company buried his report and did not consider its findings. The insurer did, however, consider a report submitted by a company doctor who rubber-stamped the recommendation of a United nurse to reject paying for the treatment.

United declined to answer specific questions about the case, even after Mr. McNaughton signed a release provided by the insurer to allow it to discuss details of his interactions with the company. United noted that it ultimately paid for all of Mr. McNaughton’s treatments. In a written response, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo wrote that the company’s guiding concern was Mr. McNaughton’s well-being.

“Mr. McNaughton’s treatment involves medication dosages that far exceed [Food and Drug Administration] guidelines,” the statement said. “In cases like this, we review treatment plans based on current clinical guidelines to help ensure patient safety.”

But the records reviewed by ProPublica show that United had another, equally urgent goal in dealing with Mr. McNaughton. In emails, officials calculated what Mr. McNaughton was costing them to keep his crippling disease at bay and how much they would save if they forced him to undergo a cheaper treatment that had already failed him. As the family pressed the company to back down, first through Penn State and then through a lawsuit, the United officials handling the case bristled.

“This is just unbelievable,” Ms. Kavanaugh said of Mr. McNaughton’s family in one call to discuss his case. ”They’re just really pushing the envelope, and I’m surprised, like I don’t even know what to say.”
 

The same meal every day

Now 31, Mr. McNaughton grew up in State College, Pa., just blocks from the Penn State campus. Both of his parents are faculty members at the university.

In the winter of 2014, Mr. McNaughton was halfway through his junior year at Bard College in New York. At 6 feet, 4 inches tall, he was a guard on the basketball team and had started most of the team’s games since the start of his sophomore year. He was majoring in psychology.

When Mr. McNaughton returned to school after the winter holiday break, he started to experience frequent bouts of bloody diarrhea. After just a few days on campus, he went home to State College, where doctors diagnosed him with a severe case of ulcerative colitis.

A chronic inflammatory bowel disease that causes swelling and ulcers in the digestive tract, ulcerative colitis has no cure, and ongoing treatment is needed to alleviate symptoms and prevent serious health complications. The majority of cases produce mild to moderate symptoms. Mr. McNaughton’s case was severe.

Treatments for ulcerative colitis include steroids and special drugs known as biologics that work to reduce inflammation in the large intestine.

Mr. McNaughton, however, failed to get meaningful relief from the drugs his doctors initially prescribed. He was experiencing bloody diarrhea up to 20 times a day, with such severe stomach pain that he spent much of his day curled up on a couch. He had little appetite and lost 50 pounds. Severe anemia left him fatigued. He suffered from other conditions related to his colitis, including crippling arthritis. He was hospitalized several times to treat dangerous blood clots.

For 2 years, in an effort to help alleviate his symptoms, he ate the same meals every day: Rice Chex cereal and scrambled eggs for breakfast, a cup of white rice with plain chicken breast for lunch, and a similar meal for dinner, occasionally swapping in tilapia.

His hometown doctors referred him to a specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, who tried unsuccessfully to bring his disease under control. That doctor ended up referring Mr. McNaughton to Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been ranked as the best gastroenterology hospital in the country every year since 1990 by U.S. News & World Report.

For his first visit with Dr. Loftus in May 2015, Mr. McNaughton and his mother, Janice Light, charted hospitals along the 900-mile drive from Pennsylvania to Minnesota in case they needed medical help along the way.

Mornings were the hardest. Mr. McNaughton often spent several hours in the bathroom at the start of the day. To prepare for his meeting with Dr. Loftus, he set his alarm for 3:30 a.m. so he could be ready for the 7:30 a.m. appointment. Even with that preparation, he had to stop twice to use a bathroom on the 5-minute walk from the hotel to the clinic. When they met, Dr. Loftus looked at Mr. McNaughton and told him that he appeared incapacitated. It was, he told the student, as if Mr. McNaughton were chained to the bathroom, with no outside life. He had not been able to return to school and spent most days indoors, managing his symptoms as best he could.

Mr. McNaughton had tried a number of medications by this point, none of which worked. This pattern would repeat itself during the first couple of years that Dr. Loftus treated him.

In addition to trying to find a treatment that would bring Mr. McNaughton’s colitis into remission, Dr. Loftus wanted to wean him off the steroid prednisone, which he had been taking since his initial diagnosis in 2014. The drug is commonly prescribed to colitis patients to control inflammation, but prolonged use can lead to severe side effects including cataracts, osteoporosis, increased risk of infection, and fatigue. Mr. McNaughton also experienced “moon face,” a side effect caused by the shifting of fat deposits that results in the face becoming puffy and rounder.

In 2018, Dr. Loftus and Mr. McNaughton decided to try an unusual regimen. Many patients with inflammatory bowel diseases such as colitis take a single biologic drug as treatment. Whereas traditional drugs are chemically synthesized, biologics are manufactured in living systems, such as plant or animal cells. A year’s supply of an individual biologic drug can cost up to $500,000. They are often given through infusions in a medical facility, which adds to the cost.

Mr. McNaughton had tried individual biologics, and then two in combination, without much success. He and Dr. Loftus then agreed to try two biologic drugs together at doses well above those recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. The federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimates one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label uses.

There are drawbacks to the practice. Since some uses and doses of particular drugs have not been extensively studied, the risks and efficacy of using them off-label are not well known. Also, some drug manufacturers have improperly pushed off-label usage of their products to boost sales despite little or no evidence to support their use in those situations. Like many leading experts and researchers in his field, Dr. Loftus has been paid to do consulting related to the biologic drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton. The payments related to those drugs have ranged from a total of $1,440 in 2020 to $51,235 in 2018. Dr. Loftus said much of his work with pharmaceutical companies was related to conducting clinical trials on new drugs.

In cases of off-label prescribing, patients are depending upon their doctors’ expertise and experience with the drug. “In this case, I was comfortable that the potential benefits to Chris outweighed the risks,” Dr. Loftus said.

There was evidence that the treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton might work, including studies that had found dual biologic therapy to be efficacious and safe. The two drugs he takes, Entyvio and Remicade, have the same purpose – to reduce inflammation in the large intestine – but each works differently in the body. Remicade, marketed by Janssen Biotech, targets a protein that causes inflammation. Entyvio, made by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, works by preventing an excess of white blood cells from entering into the gastrointestinal tract.

As for any suggestion by United doctors that his treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton was out of bounds or dangerous, Dr. Loftus said “my treatment of Chris was not clinically inappropriate – as was shown by Chris’ positive outcome.”

The unusual high-dose combination of two biologic drugs produced a remarkable change in Mr. McNaughton. He no longer had blood in his stool, and his trips to the bathroom were cut from 20 times a day to 3 or 4. He was able to eat different foods and put on weight. He had more energy. He tapered off prednisone.

“If you told me in 2015 that I would be living like this, I would have asked where do I sign up,” Mr. McNaughton said of the change he experienced with the new drug regimen.

When he first started the new treatment, Mr. McNaughton was covered under his family’s plan, and all his bills were paid. Mr. McNaughton enrolled at the university in 2020. Before switching to United’s plan for students, Mr. McNaughton and his parents consulted with a health advocacy service offered to faculty members. A benefits specialist assured them the drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton would be covered by United.

Mr. McNaughton joined the student plan in July 2020, and his infusions that month and the following month were paid for by United. In September, the insurer indicated payment on his claims was “pending,” something it did for his other claims that came in during the rest of the year.

Mr. McNaughton and his family were worried. They called United to make sure there wasn’t a problem; the insurer told them, they said, that it only needed to check his medical records. When the family called again, United told them it had the documentation needed, they said. United, in a court filing last year, said it received two calls from the family and each time indicated that all of the necessary medical records had not yet been received.

In January 2021, Mr. McNaughton received a new explanation of benefits for the prior months. All of the claims for his care, beginning in September, were no longer “pending.” They were stamped “DENIED.” The total outstanding bill for his treatment was $807,086.

When Mr. McNaughton’s mother reached a United customer service representative the next day to ask why bills that had been paid in the summer were being denied for the fall, the representative told her the account was being reviewed because of “a high dollar amount on the claims,” according to a recording of the call.


 

Misrepresentations

With United refusing to pay, the family was terrified of being stuck with medical bills that would bankrupt them and deprive Mr. McNaughton of treatment that they considered miraculous.

They turned to Penn State for help. Ms. Light and Mr. McNaughton’s father, David McNaughton, hoped their position as faculty members would make the school more willing to intervene on their behalf.

“After more than 30 years on faculty, my husband and I know that this is not how Penn State would want its students to be treated,” Ms. Light wrote to a school official in February 2021.

In response to questions from ProPublica, Penn State spokesperson Lisa Powers wrote that “supporting the health and well-being of our students is always of primary importance” and that “our hearts go out to any student and family impacted by a serious medical condition.” The university, she wrote, does “not comment on students’ individual circumstances or disclose information from their records.” Mr. McNaughton offered to grant Penn State whatever permissions it needed to speak about his case with ProPublica. The school, however, wrote that it would not comment “even if confidentiality has been waived.”

The family appealed to school administrators. Because the effectiveness of biologics wanes in some patients if doses are skipped, Mr. McNaughton and his parents were worried about even a delay in treatment. His doctor wrote that if he missed scheduled infusions of the drugs, there was “a high likelihood they would no longer be effective.”

During a conference call arranged by Penn State officials on March 5, 2021, United agreed to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s care through the end of the plan year that August. Penn State immediately notified the family of the “wonderful news” while also apologizing for “the stress this has caused Chris and your family.”

Behind the scenes, Mr. McNaughton’s review had “gone all the way to the top” at United’s student health plan division, Ms. Kavanaugh, the nurse, said in a recorded conversation.

The family’s relief was short-lived. A month later, United started another review of Mr. McNaughton’s care, overseen by Ms. Kavanaugh, to determine if it would pay for the treatment in the upcoming plan year.

The nurse sent the Mr. McNaughton case to a company called Medical Review Institute of America. Insurers often turn to companies like MRIoA to review coverage decisions involving expensive treatments or specialized care.

Ms. Kavanaugh, who was assigned to a special investigations unit at United, let her feelings about the matter be known in a recorded telephone call with a representative of MRIoA.

“This school apparently is a big client of ours,” she said. She then shared her opinion of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment. “Really this is a case of a kid who’s getting a drug way too much, like too much of a dose,” Ms. Kavanaugh said. She said it was “insane that they would even think that this is reasonable” and “to be honest with you, they’re awfully pushy considering that we are paying through the end of this school year.”

On a call with an outside contractor, the United nurse claimed Mr. McNaughton was on a higher dose of medication than the FDA approved, which is a common practice.

MRIoA sent the case to Vikas Pabby, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health and a professor at the university’s medical school. His May 2021 review of Mr. McNaughton’s case was just one of more than 300 Dr. Pabby did for MRIoA that month, for which he was paid $23,000 in total, according to a log of his work produced in the lawsuit.

In a May 4, 2021, report, Dr. Pabby concluded Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was not medically necessary, because United’s policies for the two drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton did not support using them in combination.

Insurers spell out what services they cover in plan policies, lengthy documents that can be confusing and difficult to understand. Many policies, such as Mr. McNaughton’s, contain a provision that treatments and procedures must be “medically necessary” in order to be covered. The definition of medically necessary differs by plan. Some don’t even define the term. Mr. McNaughton’s policy contains a five-part definition, including that the treatment must be “in accordance with the standards of good medical policy” and “the most appropriate supply or level of service which can be safely provided.”

Behind the scenes at United, Mr. Opperman and Ms. Kavanaugh agreed that if Mr. McNaughton were to appeal Dr. Pabby’s decision, the insurer would simply rule against him. “I just think it’s a waste of money and time to appeal and send it to another one when we know we’re gonna get the same answer,” Mr. Opperman said, according to a recording in court files. At Mr. Opperman’s urging, United decided to skip the usual appeals process and arrange for Dr. Pabby to have a so-called “peer-to-peer” discussion with Dr. Loftus, the Mayo physician treating Mr. McNaughton. Such a conversation, in which a patient’s doctor talks with an insurance company’s doctor to advocate for the prescribed treatment, usually occurs only after a customer has appealed a denial and the appeal has been rejected.

When Ms. Kavanaugh called Dr. Loftus’ office to set up a conversation with Dr. Pabby, she explained it was an urgent matter and had been requested by Mr. McNaughton. “You know I’ve just gotten to know Christopher,” she explained, although she had never spoken with him. “We’re trying to advocate and help and get this peer-to-peer set up.”

Mr. McNaughton, meanwhile, had no idea at the time that a United doctor had decided his treatment was unnecessary and that the insurer was trying to set up a phone call with his physician.

In the peer-to-peer conversation, Dr. Loftus told Dr. Pabby that Mr. McNaughton had “a very complicated case” and that lower doses had not worked for him, according to an internal MRIoA memo.

Following his conversation with Dr. Loftus, Dr. Pabby created a second report for United. He recommended the insurer pay for both drugs, but at reduced doses. He added new language saying that the safety of using both drugs at the higher levels “is not established.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh shared the May 12 decision from Dr. Pabby with others at United, her boss responded with an email calling it “great news.”

Then Mr. Opperman sent an email that puzzled the McNaughtons.

In it, Mr. Opperman claimed that Dr. Loftus and Dr. Pabby had agreed that Mr. McNaughton should be on significantly lower doses of both drugs. He said Dr. Loftus “will work with the patient to start titrating them down to a normal dose range.” Mr. Opperman wrote that United would cover Mr. McNaughton’s treatment in the coming year, but only at the reduced doses. Mr. Opperman did not respond to emails and phone messages seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton didn’t believe a word of it. He had already tried and failed treatment with those drugs at lower doses, and it was Dr. Loftus who had upped the doses, leading to his remission from severe colitis.

The only thing that made sense to Mr. McNaughton was that the treatment United said it would now pay for was dramatically cheaper – saving the company at least hundreds of thousands of dollars a year – than his prescribed treatment because it sliced the size of the doses by more than half.

When the family contacted Dr. Loftus for an explanation, they were outraged by what they heard. Dr. Loftus told them that he had never recommended lowering the dosage. In a letter, Dr. Loftus wrote that changing Mr. McNaughton’s treatment “would have serious detrimental effects on both his short term and long term health and could potentially involve life threatening complications. This would ultimately incur far greater medical costs. Chris was on the doses suggested by United Healthcare before, and they were not at all effective.”

It would not be until the lawsuit that it would become clear how Dr. Loftus’ conversations had been so seriously misrepresented.

Under questioning by Mr. McNaughton’s lawyers, Ms. Kavanaugh acknowledged that she was the source of the incorrect claim that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to a change in treatment.

“I incorrectly made an assumption that they had come to some sort of agreement,” she said in a deposition last August. “It was my first peer-to-peer. I did not realize that that simply does not occur.”

Ms. Kavanaugh did not respond to emails and telephone messages seeking comment.

When the McNaughtons first learned of Mr. Opperman’s inaccurate report of the phone call with Dr. Loftus, it unnerved them. They started to question if their case would be fairly reviewed.

“When we got the denial and they lied about what Dr. Loftus said, it just hit me that none of this matters,” Mr. McNaughton said. “They will just say or do anything to get rid of me. It delegitimized the entire review process. When I got that denial, I was crushed.”


 

A buried report

While the family tried to sort out the inaccurate report, United continued putting the McNaughton case in front of more company doctors.

On May 21, 2021, United sent the case to one of its own doctors, Nady Cates, MD, for an additional review. The review was marked “escalated issue.” Dr. Cates is a United medical director, a title used by many insurers for physicians who review cases. It is work he has been doing as an employee of health insurers since 1989 and at United since 2010. He has not practiced medicine since the early 1990s.

Dr. Cates, in a deposition, said he stopped seeing patients because of the long hours involved and because “AIDS was coming around then. I was seeing a lot of military folks who had venereal diseases, and I guess I was concerned about being exposed.” He transitioned to reviewing paperwork for the insurance industry, he said, because “I guess I was a chicken.”

When he had practiced, Dr. Cates said, he hadn’t treated patients with ulcerative colitis and had referred those cases to a gastroenterologist.

He said his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case primarily involved reading a United nurse’s recommendation to deny his care and making sure “that there wasn’t a decimal place that was out of line.” He said he copied and pasted the nurse’s recommendation and typed “agree” on his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case.

Dr. Cates said that he does about a hundred reviews a week. He said that in his reviews he typically checks to see if any medications are prescribed in accordance with the insurer’s guidelines, and if not, he denies it. United’s policies, he said, prevented him from considering that Mr. McNaughton had failed other treatments or that Dr. Loftus was a leading expert in his field.

“You are giving zero weight to the treating doctor’s opinion on the necessity of the treatment regimen?” a lawyer asked Dr. Cates in his deposition. He responded, “Yeah.”

Attempts to contact Dr. Cates for comment were unsuccessful.

At the same time Dr. Cates was looking at Mr. McNaughton’s case, yet another review was underway at MRIoA. United said it sent the case back to MRIoA after the insurer received the letter from Dr. Loftus warning of the life-threatening complications that might occur if the dosages were reduced.

On May 24, 2021, the new report requested by MRIoA arrived. It came to a completely different conclusion than all of the previous reviews.

Nitin Kumar, MD, a gastroenterologist in Illinois, concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s established treatment plan was not only medically necessary and appropriate but that lowering his doses “can result in a lack of effective therapy of Ulcerative Colitis, with complications of uncontrolled disease (including dysplasia leading to colorectal cancer), flare, hospitalization, need for surgery, and toxic megacolon.”

Unlike other doctors who produced reports for United, Dr. Kumar discussed the harm that Mr. McNaughton might suffer if United required him to change his treatment. “His disease is significantly severe, with diagnosis at a young age,” Dr. Kumar wrote. “He has failed every biologic medication class recommended by guidelines. Therefore, guidelines can no longer be applied in this case.” He cited six studies of patients using two biologic drugs together and wrote that they revealed no significant safety issues and found the therapy to be “broadly successful.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh learned of Dr. Kumar’s report, she quickly moved to quash it and get the case returned to Dr. Pabby, according to her deposition.

In a recorded telephone call, Ms. Kavanaugh told an MRIoA representative that “I had asked that this go back through Dr. Pabby, and it went through a different doctor and they had a much different result.” After further discussion, the MRIoA representative agreed to send the case back to Dr. Pabby. “I appreciate that,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied. “I just want to make sure, because, I mean, it’s obviously a very different result than what we’ve been getting on this case.”

MRIoA case notes show that at 7:04 a.m. on May 25, 2021, Dr. Pabby was assigned to take a look at the case for the third time. At 7:27 a.m., the notes indicate, Dr. Pabby again rejected Mr. McNaughton’s treatment plan. While noting it was “difficult to control” Mr. McNaughton’s ulcerative colitis, Dr. Pabby added that his doses “far exceed what is approved by literature” and that the “safety of the requested doses is not supported by literature.”

In a deposition, Ms. Kavanaugh said that after she opened the Kumar report and read that he was supporting Mr. McNaughton’s current treatment plan, she immediately spoke to her supervisor, who told her to call MRIoA and have the case sent back to Dr. Pabby for review.

Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t save a copy of the Kumar report, nor did she forward it to anyone at United or to officials at Penn State who had been inquiring about the McNaughton case. “I didn’t because it shouldn’t have existed,” she said. “It should have gone back to Dr. Pabby.”

When asked if the Kumar report caused her any concerns given his warning that Mr. McNaughton risked cancer or hospitalization if his regimen were changed, Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t read his full report. “I saw that it was not the correct doctor, I saw the initial outcome and I was asked to send it back,” she said. Ms. Kavanaugh added, “I have a lot of empathy for this member, but it needed to go back to the peer-to-peer reviewer.”

In a court filing, United said Ms. Kavanaugh was correct in insisting that Dr. Pabby conduct the review and that MRIoA confirmed that Dr. Pabby should have been the one doing the review.

The Kumar report was not provided to Mr. McNaughton when his lawyer, Jonathan M. Gesk, first asked United and MRIoA for any reviews of the case. Mr. Gesk discovered it by accident when he was listening to a recorded telephone call produced by United in which Ms. Kavanaugh mentioned a report number Mr. Gesk had not heard before. He then called MRIoA, which confirmed the report existed and eventually provided it to him.

Dr. Pabby asked ProPublica to direct any questions about his involvement in the matter to MRIoA. The company did not respond to questions from ProPublica about the case.
 

A sense of hopelessness

When Mr. McNaughton enrolled at Penn State in 2020, it brought a sense of normalcy that he had lost when he was first diagnosed with colitis. He still needed monthly hours-long infusions and suffered occasional flare-ups and symptoms, but he was attending classes in person and living a life similar to the one he had before his diagnosis.

It was a striking contrast to the previous 6 years, which he had spent largely confined to his parents’ house in State College. The frequent bouts of diarrhea made it difficult to go out. He didn’t talk much to friends and spent as much time as he could studying potential treatments and reviewing ongoing clinical trials. He tried to keep up with the occasional online course, but his disease made it difficult to make any real progress toward a degree.

United, in correspondence with Mr. McNaughton, noted that its review of his care was “not a treatment decision. Treatment decisions are made between you and your physician.” But by threatening not to pay for his medications, or only to pay for a different regimen, Mr. McNaughton said, United was in fact attempting to dictate his treatment. From his perspective, the insurer was playing doctor, making decisions without ever examining him or even speaking to him.

The idea of changing his treatment or stopping it altogether caused constant worry for Mr. McNaughton, exacerbating his colitis and triggering physical symptoms, according to his doctors. Those included a large ulcer on his leg and welts under his skin on his thighs and shin that made his leg muscles stiff and painful to the point where he couldn’t bend his leg or walk properly. There were daily migraines and severe stomach pain. “I was consumed with this situation,” Mr. McNaughton said. “My path was unconventional, but I was proud of myself for fighting back and finishing school and getting my life back on track. I thought they were singling me out. My biggest fear was going back to the hell.”

Mr. McNaughton said he contemplated suicide on several occasions, dreading a return to a life where he was housebound or hospitalized.

Mr. McNaughton and his parents talked about his possibly moving to Canada where his grandmother lived and seeking treatment there under the nation’s government health plan.

Dr. Loftus connected Mr. McNaughton with a psychologist who specializes in helping patients with chronic digestive diseases.

The psychologist, Tiffany Taft, PsyD, said Mr. McNaughton was not an unusual case. About one in three patients with diseases like colitis suffer from medical trauma or PTSD related to it, she said, often the result of issues related to getting appropriate treatment approved by insurers.

“You get into hopelessness,” she said of the depression that accompanies fighting with insurance companies over care. “They feel like ‘I can’t fix that. I am screwed.’ When you can’t control things with what an insurance company is doing, anxiety, PTSD and depression get mixed together.”

In the case of Mr. McNaughton, Dr. Taft said, he was being treated by one of the best gastroenterologists in the world, was doing well with his treatment, and then was suddenly notified he might be on the hook for nearly a million dollars in medical charges without access to his medications. “It sends you immediately into panic about all these horrific things that could happen,” Dr. Taft said. The physical and mental symptoms Mr. McNaughton suffered after his care was threatened were “triggered” by the stress he experienced, she said.

In early June 2021, United informed Mr. McNaughton in a letter that it would not cover the cost of his treatment regimen in the next academic year, starting in August. The insurer said it would pay only for a treatment plan that called for a significant reduction in the doses of the drugs he took.

United wrote that the decision came after his “records have been reviewed three times and the medical reviewers have concluded that the medication as prescribed does not meet the Medical Necessity requirement of the plan.”

In August 2021, Mr. McNaughton filed a federal lawsuit accusing United of acting in bad faith and unreasonably making treatment decisions based on financial concerns and not what was the best and most effective treatment. It claims United had a duty to find information that supported Mr. McNaughton’s claim for treatment rather than looking for ways to deny coverage.

United, in a court filing, said it did not breach any duty it owed to Mr. McNaughton and acted in good faith. On Sept. 20, 2021, a month after filing the lawsuit, and with United again balking at paying for his treatment, Mr. McNaughton asked a judge to grant a temporary restraining order requiring United to pay for his care. With the looming threat of a court hearing on the motion, United quickly agreed to cover the cost of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment through the end of the 2021-2022 academic year. It also dropped a demand requiring Mr. McNaughton to settle the matter as a condition of the insurer paying for his treatment as prescribed by Dr. Loftus, according to an email sent by United’s lawyer.
 

The cost of treatment

It is not surprising that insurers are carefully scrutinizing the care of patients treated with biologics, which are among the most expensive medications on the market. Biologics are considered specialty drugs, a class that includes the best-selling Humira, used to treat arthritis. Specialty drug spending in the United States is expected to reach $505 billion in 2023, according to an estimate from Optum, United’s health services division. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit that analyzes the value of drugs, found in 2020 that the biologic drugs used to treat patients like Mr. McNaughton are often effective but overpriced for their therapeutic benefit. To be judged cost-effective by ICER, the biologics should sell at a steep discount to their current market price, the panel found.

A panel convened by ICER to review its analysis cautioned that insurance coverage “should be structured to prevent situations in which patients are forced to choose a treatment approach on the basis of cost.” ICER also found examples where insurance company policies failed to keep pace with updates to clinical practice guidelines based on emerging research.

United officials did not make the cost of treatment an issue when discussing Mr. McNaughton’s care with Penn State administrators or the family.

Bill Truxal, the president of UnitedHealthcare StudentResources, the company’s student health plan division, told a Penn State official that the insurer wanted the “best for the student” and it had “nothing to do with cost,” according to notes the official took of the conversation.

Behind the scenes, however, the price of Mr. McNaughton’s care was front and center at United.

In one email, Mr. Opperman asked about the cost difference if the insurer insisted on paying only for greatly reduced doses of the biologic drugs. Ms. Kavanaugh responded that the insurer had paid $1.1 million in claims for Mr. McNaughton’s care as of the middle of May 2021. If the reduced doses had been in place, the amount would have been cut to $260,218, she wrote.

United was keeping close tabs on Mr. McNaughton at the highest levels of the company. On Aug. 2, 2021, Mr. Opperman notified Mr. Truxal and a United lawyer that Mr. McNaughton “has just purchased the plan again for the 21-22 school year.”

A month later, Ms. Kavanaugh shared another calculation with United executives showing that the insurer spent over $1.7 million on Mr. McNaughton in the prior plan year.

United officials strategized about how to best explain why it was reviewing Mr. McNaughton’s drug regimen, according to an internal email. They pointed to a justification often used by health insurers when denying claims. “As the cost of healthcare continues to climb to soaring heights, it has been determined that a judicious review of these drugs should be included” in order to “make healthcare more affordable for our members,” Ms. Kavanaugh offered as a potential talking point in an April 23, 2021, email.

Three days later, UnitedHealth Group filed an annual statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing its pay for top executives in the prior year. Then-CEO David Wichmann was paid $17.9 million in salary and other compensation in 2020. Wichmann retired early the following year, and his total compensation that year exceeded $140 million, according to calculations in a compensation database maintained by the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. The newspaper said the amount was the most paid to an executive in the state since it started tracking pay more than 2 decades ago. About $110 million of that total came from Wichmann exercising stock options accumulated during his stewardship.

The McNaughtons were well aware of the financial situation at United. They looked at publicly available financial results and annual reports. Last year, United reported a profit of $20.1 billion on revenues of $324.2 billion.

When discussing the case with Penn State, Ms. Light said, she told university administrators that United could pay for a year of her son’s treatment using just minutes’ worth of profit.
 

‘Betrayed’

Mr. McNaughton has been able to continue receiving his infusions for now, anyway. In October, United notified him it was once again reviewing his care, although the insurer quickly reversed course when his lawyer intervened. United, in a court filing, said the review was a mistake and that it had erred in putting Mr. McNaughton’s claims into pending status.

Mr. McNaughton said he is fortunate his parents were employed at the same school he was attending, which was critical in getting the attention of administrators there. But that help had its limits.

In June 2021, just a week after United told Mr. McNaughton it would not cover his treatment plan in the upcoming plan year, Penn State essentially walked away from the matter.

In an email to the McNaughtons and United, Penn State Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Andrea Dowhower wrote that administrators “have observed an unfortunate breakdown in communication” between Mr. McNaughton and his family and the university health insurance plan, “which appears from our perspective to have resulted in a standstill between the two parties.” While she proposed some potential steps to help settle the matter, she wrote that “Penn State’s role in this process is as a resource for students like Chris who, for whatever reason, have experienced difficulty navigating the complex world of health insurance.” The university’s role “is limited,” she wrote, and the school “simply must leave” the issue of the best treatment for Mr. McNaughton to “the appropriate health care professionals.”

In a statement, a Penn State spokesperson wrote that “as a third party in this arrangement, the University’s role is limited and Penn State officials can only help a student manage an issue based on information that a student/family, medical personnel, and/or insurance provider give – with the hope that all information is accurate and that the lines of communication remain open between the insured and the insurer.”

Penn State declined to provide financial information about the plan. However, the university and United share at least one tie that they have not publicly disclosed.

When the McNaughtons first reached out to the university for help, they were referred to the school’s student health insurance coordinator. The official, Heather Klinger, wrote in an email to the family in February 2021 that “I appreciate your trusting me to resolve this for you.”

In April 2022, United began paying Ms. Klinger’s salary, an arrangement which is not noted on the university website. Ms. Klinger appears in the online staff directory on the Penn State University Health Services web page, and has a university phone number, a university address, and a Penn State email listed as her contact. The school said she has maintained a part-time status with the university to allow her to access relevant data systems at both the university and United.

The university said students “benefit” from having a United employee to handle questions about insurance coverage and that the arrangement is “not uncommon” for student health plans.

The family was dismayed to learn that Ms. Klinger was now a full-time employee of United.

“We did feel betrayed,” Ms. Light said. Ms. Klinger did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton’s fight to maintain his treatment regimen has come at a cost of time, debilitating stress, and depression. “My biggest fear is realizing I might have to do this every year of my life,” he said.

Mr. McNaughton said one motivation for his lawsuit was to expose how insurers like United make decisions about what care they will pay for and what they will not. The case remains pending, a court docket shows.

He has been accepted to Penn State’s law school. He hopes to become a health care lawyer working for patients who find themselves in situations similar to his.

He plans to re-enroll in the United health care plan when he starts school next fall.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In May 2021, a nurse at UnitedHealthcare called a colleague to share some welcome news about a problem the two had been grappling with for weeks.

United provided the health insurance plan for students at Penn State University. It was a large and potentially lucrative account: lots of young, healthy students paying premiums in, not too many huge medical reimbursements going out.

But one student was costing United a lot of money. Christopher McNaughton suffered from a crippling case of ulcerative colitis – an ailment that caused him to develop severe arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, numbing fatigue, and life-threatening blood clots. His medical bills were running nearly $2 million a year.

United had flagged Mr. McNaughton’s case as a “high dollar account,” and the company was reviewing whether it needed to keep paying for the expensive cocktail of drugs crafted by a Mayo Clinic specialist that had brought Mr. McNaughton’s disease under control after he’d been through years of misery.

On the 2021 phone call, which was recorded by the company, nurse Victoria Kavanaugh told her colleague that a doctor contracted by United to review the case had concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was “not medically necessary.” Her colleague, Dave Opperman, reacted to the news with a long laugh.

“I knew that was coming,” said Mr. Opperman, who heads up a United subsidiary that brokered the health insurance contract between United and Penn State. “I did too,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied.

Mr. Opperman then complained about Mr. McNaughton’s mother, whom he referred to as “this woman,” for “screaming and yelling” and “throwing tantrums” during calls with United.

The pair agreed that any appeal of the United doctor’s denial of the treatment would be a waste of the family’s time and money.

“We’re still gonna say no,” Mr. Opperman said.

More than 200 million Americans are covered by private health insurance. But data from state and federal regulators shows that insurers reject about 1 in 7 claims for treatment. Many people, faced with fighting insurance companies, simply give up: One study found that Americans file formal appeals on only 0.1% of claims denied by insurers under the Affordable Care Act.

Insurers have wide discretion in crafting what is covered by their policies, beyond some basic services mandated by federal and state law. They often deny claims for services that they deem not “medically necessary.”

When United refused to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment for that reason, his family did something unusual. They fought back with a lawsuit, which uncovered a trove of materials, including internal emails and tape-recorded exchanges among company employees. Those records offer an extraordinary behind-the-scenes look at how one of America’s leading health care insurers relentlessly fought to reduce spending on care, even as its profits rose to record levels.

As United reviewed Mr. McNaughton’s treatment, he and his family were often in the dark about what was happening or their rights. Meanwhile, United employees misrepresented critical findings and ignored warnings from doctors about the risks of altering Mr. McNaughton’s drug plan.

At one point, court records show, United inaccurately reported to Penn State and the family that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to lower the doses of his medication. Another time, a doctor paid by United concluded that denying payments for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment could put his health at risk, but the company buried his report and did not consider its findings. The insurer did, however, consider a report submitted by a company doctor who rubber-stamped the recommendation of a United nurse to reject paying for the treatment.

United declined to answer specific questions about the case, even after Mr. McNaughton signed a release provided by the insurer to allow it to discuss details of his interactions with the company. United noted that it ultimately paid for all of Mr. McNaughton’s treatments. In a written response, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo wrote that the company’s guiding concern was Mr. McNaughton’s well-being.

“Mr. McNaughton’s treatment involves medication dosages that far exceed [Food and Drug Administration] guidelines,” the statement said. “In cases like this, we review treatment plans based on current clinical guidelines to help ensure patient safety.”

But the records reviewed by ProPublica show that United had another, equally urgent goal in dealing with Mr. McNaughton. In emails, officials calculated what Mr. McNaughton was costing them to keep his crippling disease at bay and how much they would save if they forced him to undergo a cheaper treatment that had already failed him. As the family pressed the company to back down, first through Penn State and then through a lawsuit, the United officials handling the case bristled.

“This is just unbelievable,” Ms. Kavanaugh said of Mr. McNaughton’s family in one call to discuss his case. ”They’re just really pushing the envelope, and I’m surprised, like I don’t even know what to say.”
 

The same meal every day

Now 31, Mr. McNaughton grew up in State College, Pa., just blocks from the Penn State campus. Both of his parents are faculty members at the university.

In the winter of 2014, Mr. McNaughton was halfway through his junior year at Bard College in New York. At 6 feet, 4 inches tall, he was a guard on the basketball team and had started most of the team’s games since the start of his sophomore year. He was majoring in psychology.

When Mr. McNaughton returned to school after the winter holiday break, he started to experience frequent bouts of bloody diarrhea. After just a few days on campus, he went home to State College, where doctors diagnosed him with a severe case of ulcerative colitis.

A chronic inflammatory bowel disease that causes swelling and ulcers in the digestive tract, ulcerative colitis has no cure, and ongoing treatment is needed to alleviate symptoms and prevent serious health complications. The majority of cases produce mild to moderate symptoms. Mr. McNaughton’s case was severe.

Treatments for ulcerative colitis include steroids and special drugs known as biologics that work to reduce inflammation in the large intestine.

Mr. McNaughton, however, failed to get meaningful relief from the drugs his doctors initially prescribed. He was experiencing bloody diarrhea up to 20 times a day, with such severe stomach pain that he spent much of his day curled up on a couch. He had little appetite and lost 50 pounds. Severe anemia left him fatigued. He suffered from other conditions related to his colitis, including crippling arthritis. He was hospitalized several times to treat dangerous blood clots.

For 2 years, in an effort to help alleviate his symptoms, he ate the same meals every day: Rice Chex cereal and scrambled eggs for breakfast, a cup of white rice with plain chicken breast for lunch, and a similar meal for dinner, occasionally swapping in tilapia.

His hometown doctors referred him to a specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, who tried unsuccessfully to bring his disease under control. That doctor ended up referring Mr. McNaughton to Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been ranked as the best gastroenterology hospital in the country every year since 1990 by U.S. News & World Report.

For his first visit with Dr. Loftus in May 2015, Mr. McNaughton and his mother, Janice Light, charted hospitals along the 900-mile drive from Pennsylvania to Minnesota in case they needed medical help along the way.

Mornings were the hardest. Mr. McNaughton often spent several hours in the bathroom at the start of the day. To prepare for his meeting with Dr. Loftus, he set his alarm for 3:30 a.m. so he could be ready for the 7:30 a.m. appointment. Even with that preparation, he had to stop twice to use a bathroom on the 5-minute walk from the hotel to the clinic. When they met, Dr. Loftus looked at Mr. McNaughton and told him that he appeared incapacitated. It was, he told the student, as if Mr. McNaughton were chained to the bathroom, with no outside life. He had not been able to return to school and spent most days indoors, managing his symptoms as best he could.

Mr. McNaughton had tried a number of medications by this point, none of which worked. This pattern would repeat itself during the first couple of years that Dr. Loftus treated him.

In addition to trying to find a treatment that would bring Mr. McNaughton’s colitis into remission, Dr. Loftus wanted to wean him off the steroid prednisone, which he had been taking since his initial diagnosis in 2014. The drug is commonly prescribed to colitis patients to control inflammation, but prolonged use can lead to severe side effects including cataracts, osteoporosis, increased risk of infection, and fatigue. Mr. McNaughton also experienced “moon face,” a side effect caused by the shifting of fat deposits that results in the face becoming puffy and rounder.

In 2018, Dr. Loftus and Mr. McNaughton decided to try an unusual regimen. Many patients with inflammatory bowel diseases such as colitis take a single biologic drug as treatment. Whereas traditional drugs are chemically synthesized, biologics are manufactured in living systems, such as plant or animal cells. A year’s supply of an individual biologic drug can cost up to $500,000. They are often given through infusions in a medical facility, which adds to the cost.

Mr. McNaughton had tried individual biologics, and then two in combination, without much success. He and Dr. Loftus then agreed to try two biologic drugs together at doses well above those recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. The federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimates one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label uses.

There are drawbacks to the practice. Since some uses and doses of particular drugs have not been extensively studied, the risks and efficacy of using them off-label are not well known. Also, some drug manufacturers have improperly pushed off-label usage of their products to boost sales despite little or no evidence to support their use in those situations. Like many leading experts and researchers in his field, Dr. Loftus has been paid to do consulting related to the biologic drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton. The payments related to those drugs have ranged from a total of $1,440 in 2020 to $51,235 in 2018. Dr. Loftus said much of his work with pharmaceutical companies was related to conducting clinical trials on new drugs.

In cases of off-label prescribing, patients are depending upon their doctors’ expertise and experience with the drug. “In this case, I was comfortable that the potential benefits to Chris outweighed the risks,” Dr. Loftus said.

There was evidence that the treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton might work, including studies that had found dual biologic therapy to be efficacious and safe. The two drugs he takes, Entyvio and Remicade, have the same purpose – to reduce inflammation in the large intestine – but each works differently in the body. Remicade, marketed by Janssen Biotech, targets a protein that causes inflammation. Entyvio, made by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, works by preventing an excess of white blood cells from entering into the gastrointestinal tract.

As for any suggestion by United doctors that his treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton was out of bounds or dangerous, Dr. Loftus said “my treatment of Chris was not clinically inappropriate – as was shown by Chris’ positive outcome.”

The unusual high-dose combination of two biologic drugs produced a remarkable change in Mr. McNaughton. He no longer had blood in his stool, and his trips to the bathroom were cut from 20 times a day to 3 or 4. He was able to eat different foods and put on weight. He had more energy. He tapered off prednisone.

“If you told me in 2015 that I would be living like this, I would have asked where do I sign up,” Mr. McNaughton said of the change he experienced with the new drug regimen.

When he first started the new treatment, Mr. McNaughton was covered under his family’s plan, and all his bills were paid. Mr. McNaughton enrolled at the university in 2020. Before switching to United’s plan for students, Mr. McNaughton and his parents consulted with a health advocacy service offered to faculty members. A benefits specialist assured them the drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton would be covered by United.

Mr. McNaughton joined the student plan in July 2020, and his infusions that month and the following month were paid for by United. In September, the insurer indicated payment on his claims was “pending,” something it did for his other claims that came in during the rest of the year.

Mr. McNaughton and his family were worried. They called United to make sure there wasn’t a problem; the insurer told them, they said, that it only needed to check his medical records. When the family called again, United told them it had the documentation needed, they said. United, in a court filing last year, said it received two calls from the family and each time indicated that all of the necessary medical records had not yet been received.

In January 2021, Mr. McNaughton received a new explanation of benefits for the prior months. All of the claims for his care, beginning in September, were no longer “pending.” They were stamped “DENIED.” The total outstanding bill for his treatment was $807,086.

When Mr. McNaughton’s mother reached a United customer service representative the next day to ask why bills that had been paid in the summer were being denied for the fall, the representative told her the account was being reviewed because of “a high dollar amount on the claims,” according to a recording of the call.


 

Misrepresentations

With United refusing to pay, the family was terrified of being stuck with medical bills that would bankrupt them and deprive Mr. McNaughton of treatment that they considered miraculous.

They turned to Penn State for help. Ms. Light and Mr. McNaughton’s father, David McNaughton, hoped their position as faculty members would make the school more willing to intervene on their behalf.

“After more than 30 years on faculty, my husband and I know that this is not how Penn State would want its students to be treated,” Ms. Light wrote to a school official in February 2021.

In response to questions from ProPublica, Penn State spokesperson Lisa Powers wrote that “supporting the health and well-being of our students is always of primary importance” and that “our hearts go out to any student and family impacted by a serious medical condition.” The university, she wrote, does “not comment on students’ individual circumstances or disclose information from their records.” Mr. McNaughton offered to grant Penn State whatever permissions it needed to speak about his case with ProPublica. The school, however, wrote that it would not comment “even if confidentiality has been waived.”

The family appealed to school administrators. Because the effectiveness of biologics wanes in some patients if doses are skipped, Mr. McNaughton and his parents were worried about even a delay in treatment. His doctor wrote that if he missed scheduled infusions of the drugs, there was “a high likelihood they would no longer be effective.”

During a conference call arranged by Penn State officials on March 5, 2021, United agreed to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s care through the end of the plan year that August. Penn State immediately notified the family of the “wonderful news” while also apologizing for “the stress this has caused Chris and your family.”

Behind the scenes, Mr. McNaughton’s review had “gone all the way to the top” at United’s student health plan division, Ms. Kavanaugh, the nurse, said in a recorded conversation.

The family’s relief was short-lived. A month later, United started another review of Mr. McNaughton’s care, overseen by Ms. Kavanaugh, to determine if it would pay for the treatment in the upcoming plan year.

The nurse sent the Mr. McNaughton case to a company called Medical Review Institute of America. Insurers often turn to companies like MRIoA to review coverage decisions involving expensive treatments or specialized care.

Ms. Kavanaugh, who was assigned to a special investigations unit at United, let her feelings about the matter be known in a recorded telephone call with a representative of MRIoA.

“This school apparently is a big client of ours,” she said. She then shared her opinion of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment. “Really this is a case of a kid who’s getting a drug way too much, like too much of a dose,” Ms. Kavanaugh said. She said it was “insane that they would even think that this is reasonable” and “to be honest with you, they’re awfully pushy considering that we are paying through the end of this school year.”

On a call with an outside contractor, the United nurse claimed Mr. McNaughton was on a higher dose of medication than the FDA approved, which is a common practice.

MRIoA sent the case to Vikas Pabby, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health and a professor at the university’s medical school. His May 2021 review of Mr. McNaughton’s case was just one of more than 300 Dr. Pabby did for MRIoA that month, for which he was paid $23,000 in total, according to a log of his work produced in the lawsuit.

In a May 4, 2021, report, Dr. Pabby concluded Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was not medically necessary, because United’s policies for the two drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton did not support using them in combination.

Insurers spell out what services they cover in plan policies, lengthy documents that can be confusing and difficult to understand. Many policies, such as Mr. McNaughton’s, contain a provision that treatments and procedures must be “medically necessary” in order to be covered. The definition of medically necessary differs by plan. Some don’t even define the term. Mr. McNaughton’s policy contains a five-part definition, including that the treatment must be “in accordance with the standards of good medical policy” and “the most appropriate supply or level of service which can be safely provided.”

Behind the scenes at United, Mr. Opperman and Ms. Kavanaugh agreed that if Mr. McNaughton were to appeal Dr. Pabby’s decision, the insurer would simply rule against him. “I just think it’s a waste of money and time to appeal and send it to another one when we know we’re gonna get the same answer,” Mr. Opperman said, according to a recording in court files. At Mr. Opperman’s urging, United decided to skip the usual appeals process and arrange for Dr. Pabby to have a so-called “peer-to-peer” discussion with Dr. Loftus, the Mayo physician treating Mr. McNaughton. Such a conversation, in which a patient’s doctor talks with an insurance company’s doctor to advocate for the prescribed treatment, usually occurs only after a customer has appealed a denial and the appeal has been rejected.

When Ms. Kavanaugh called Dr. Loftus’ office to set up a conversation with Dr. Pabby, she explained it was an urgent matter and had been requested by Mr. McNaughton. “You know I’ve just gotten to know Christopher,” she explained, although she had never spoken with him. “We’re trying to advocate and help and get this peer-to-peer set up.”

Mr. McNaughton, meanwhile, had no idea at the time that a United doctor had decided his treatment was unnecessary and that the insurer was trying to set up a phone call with his physician.

In the peer-to-peer conversation, Dr. Loftus told Dr. Pabby that Mr. McNaughton had “a very complicated case” and that lower doses had not worked for him, according to an internal MRIoA memo.

Following his conversation with Dr. Loftus, Dr. Pabby created a second report for United. He recommended the insurer pay for both drugs, but at reduced doses. He added new language saying that the safety of using both drugs at the higher levels “is not established.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh shared the May 12 decision from Dr. Pabby with others at United, her boss responded with an email calling it “great news.”

Then Mr. Opperman sent an email that puzzled the McNaughtons.

In it, Mr. Opperman claimed that Dr. Loftus and Dr. Pabby had agreed that Mr. McNaughton should be on significantly lower doses of both drugs. He said Dr. Loftus “will work with the patient to start titrating them down to a normal dose range.” Mr. Opperman wrote that United would cover Mr. McNaughton’s treatment in the coming year, but only at the reduced doses. Mr. Opperman did not respond to emails and phone messages seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton didn’t believe a word of it. He had already tried and failed treatment with those drugs at lower doses, and it was Dr. Loftus who had upped the doses, leading to his remission from severe colitis.

The only thing that made sense to Mr. McNaughton was that the treatment United said it would now pay for was dramatically cheaper – saving the company at least hundreds of thousands of dollars a year – than his prescribed treatment because it sliced the size of the doses by more than half.

When the family contacted Dr. Loftus for an explanation, they were outraged by what they heard. Dr. Loftus told them that he had never recommended lowering the dosage. In a letter, Dr. Loftus wrote that changing Mr. McNaughton’s treatment “would have serious detrimental effects on both his short term and long term health and could potentially involve life threatening complications. This would ultimately incur far greater medical costs. Chris was on the doses suggested by United Healthcare before, and they were not at all effective.”

It would not be until the lawsuit that it would become clear how Dr. Loftus’ conversations had been so seriously misrepresented.

Under questioning by Mr. McNaughton’s lawyers, Ms. Kavanaugh acknowledged that she was the source of the incorrect claim that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to a change in treatment.

“I incorrectly made an assumption that they had come to some sort of agreement,” she said in a deposition last August. “It was my first peer-to-peer. I did not realize that that simply does not occur.”

Ms. Kavanaugh did not respond to emails and telephone messages seeking comment.

When the McNaughtons first learned of Mr. Opperman’s inaccurate report of the phone call with Dr. Loftus, it unnerved them. They started to question if their case would be fairly reviewed.

“When we got the denial and they lied about what Dr. Loftus said, it just hit me that none of this matters,” Mr. McNaughton said. “They will just say or do anything to get rid of me. It delegitimized the entire review process. When I got that denial, I was crushed.”


 

A buried report

While the family tried to sort out the inaccurate report, United continued putting the McNaughton case in front of more company doctors.

On May 21, 2021, United sent the case to one of its own doctors, Nady Cates, MD, for an additional review. The review was marked “escalated issue.” Dr. Cates is a United medical director, a title used by many insurers for physicians who review cases. It is work he has been doing as an employee of health insurers since 1989 and at United since 2010. He has not practiced medicine since the early 1990s.

Dr. Cates, in a deposition, said he stopped seeing patients because of the long hours involved and because “AIDS was coming around then. I was seeing a lot of military folks who had venereal diseases, and I guess I was concerned about being exposed.” He transitioned to reviewing paperwork for the insurance industry, he said, because “I guess I was a chicken.”

When he had practiced, Dr. Cates said, he hadn’t treated patients with ulcerative colitis and had referred those cases to a gastroenterologist.

He said his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case primarily involved reading a United nurse’s recommendation to deny his care and making sure “that there wasn’t a decimal place that was out of line.” He said he copied and pasted the nurse’s recommendation and typed “agree” on his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case.

Dr. Cates said that he does about a hundred reviews a week. He said that in his reviews he typically checks to see if any medications are prescribed in accordance with the insurer’s guidelines, and if not, he denies it. United’s policies, he said, prevented him from considering that Mr. McNaughton had failed other treatments or that Dr. Loftus was a leading expert in his field.

“You are giving zero weight to the treating doctor’s opinion on the necessity of the treatment regimen?” a lawyer asked Dr. Cates in his deposition. He responded, “Yeah.”

Attempts to contact Dr. Cates for comment were unsuccessful.

At the same time Dr. Cates was looking at Mr. McNaughton’s case, yet another review was underway at MRIoA. United said it sent the case back to MRIoA after the insurer received the letter from Dr. Loftus warning of the life-threatening complications that might occur if the dosages were reduced.

On May 24, 2021, the new report requested by MRIoA arrived. It came to a completely different conclusion than all of the previous reviews.

Nitin Kumar, MD, a gastroenterologist in Illinois, concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s established treatment plan was not only medically necessary and appropriate but that lowering his doses “can result in a lack of effective therapy of Ulcerative Colitis, with complications of uncontrolled disease (including dysplasia leading to colorectal cancer), flare, hospitalization, need for surgery, and toxic megacolon.”

Unlike other doctors who produced reports for United, Dr. Kumar discussed the harm that Mr. McNaughton might suffer if United required him to change his treatment. “His disease is significantly severe, with diagnosis at a young age,” Dr. Kumar wrote. “He has failed every biologic medication class recommended by guidelines. Therefore, guidelines can no longer be applied in this case.” He cited six studies of patients using two biologic drugs together and wrote that they revealed no significant safety issues and found the therapy to be “broadly successful.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh learned of Dr. Kumar’s report, she quickly moved to quash it and get the case returned to Dr. Pabby, according to her deposition.

In a recorded telephone call, Ms. Kavanaugh told an MRIoA representative that “I had asked that this go back through Dr. Pabby, and it went through a different doctor and they had a much different result.” After further discussion, the MRIoA representative agreed to send the case back to Dr. Pabby. “I appreciate that,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied. “I just want to make sure, because, I mean, it’s obviously a very different result than what we’ve been getting on this case.”

MRIoA case notes show that at 7:04 a.m. on May 25, 2021, Dr. Pabby was assigned to take a look at the case for the third time. At 7:27 a.m., the notes indicate, Dr. Pabby again rejected Mr. McNaughton’s treatment plan. While noting it was “difficult to control” Mr. McNaughton’s ulcerative colitis, Dr. Pabby added that his doses “far exceed what is approved by literature” and that the “safety of the requested doses is not supported by literature.”

In a deposition, Ms. Kavanaugh said that after she opened the Kumar report and read that he was supporting Mr. McNaughton’s current treatment plan, she immediately spoke to her supervisor, who told her to call MRIoA and have the case sent back to Dr. Pabby for review.

Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t save a copy of the Kumar report, nor did she forward it to anyone at United or to officials at Penn State who had been inquiring about the McNaughton case. “I didn’t because it shouldn’t have existed,” she said. “It should have gone back to Dr. Pabby.”

When asked if the Kumar report caused her any concerns given his warning that Mr. McNaughton risked cancer or hospitalization if his regimen were changed, Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t read his full report. “I saw that it was not the correct doctor, I saw the initial outcome and I was asked to send it back,” she said. Ms. Kavanaugh added, “I have a lot of empathy for this member, but it needed to go back to the peer-to-peer reviewer.”

In a court filing, United said Ms. Kavanaugh was correct in insisting that Dr. Pabby conduct the review and that MRIoA confirmed that Dr. Pabby should have been the one doing the review.

The Kumar report was not provided to Mr. McNaughton when his lawyer, Jonathan M. Gesk, first asked United and MRIoA for any reviews of the case. Mr. Gesk discovered it by accident when he was listening to a recorded telephone call produced by United in which Ms. Kavanaugh mentioned a report number Mr. Gesk had not heard before. He then called MRIoA, which confirmed the report existed and eventually provided it to him.

Dr. Pabby asked ProPublica to direct any questions about his involvement in the matter to MRIoA. The company did not respond to questions from ProPublica about the case.
 

A sense of hopelessness

When Mr. McNaughton enrolled at Penn State in 2020, it brought a sense of normalcy that he had lost when he was first diagnosed with colitis. He still needed monthly hours-long infusions and suffered occasional flare-ups and symptoms, but he was attending classes in person and living a life similar to the one he had before his diagnosis.

It was a striking contrast to the previous 6 years, which he had spent largely confined to his parents’ house in State College. The frequent bouts of diarrhea made it difficult to go out. He didn’t talk much to friends and spent as much time as he could studying potential treatments and reviewing ongoing clinical trials. He tried to keep up with the occasional online course, but his disease made it difficult to make any real progress toward a degree.

United, in correspondence with Mr. McNaughton, noted that its review of his care was “not a treatment decision. Treatment decisions are made between you and your physician.” But by threatening not to pay for his medications, or only to pay for a different regimen, Mr. McNaughton said, United was in fact attempting to dictate his treatment. From his perspective, the insurer was playing doctor, making decisions without ever examining him or even speaking to him.

The idea of changing his treatment or stopping it altogether caused constant worry for Mr. McNaughton, exacerbating his colitis and triggering physical symptoms, according to his doctors. Those included a large ulcer on his leg and welts under his skin on his thighs and shin that made his leg muscles stiff and painful to the point where he couldn’t bend his leg or walk properly. There were daily migraines and severe stomach pain. “I was consumed with this situation,” Mr. McNaughton said. “My path was unconventional, but I was proud of myself for fighting back and finishing school and getting my life back on track. I thought they were singling me out. My biggest fear was going back to the hell.”

Mr. McNaughton said he contemplated suicide on several occasions, dreading a return to a life where he was housebound or hospitalized.

Mr. McNaughton and his parents talked about his possibly moving to Canada where his grandmother lived and seeking treatment there under the nation’s government health plan.

Dr. Loftus connected Mr. McNaughton with a psychologist who specializes in helping patients with chronic digestive diseases.

The psychologist, Tiffany Taft, PsyD, said Mr. McNaughton was not an unusual case. About one in three patients with diseases like colitis suffer from medical trauma or PTSD related to it, she said, often the result of issues related to getting appropriate treatment approved by insurers.

“You get into hopelessness,” she said of the depression that accompanies fighting with insurance companies over care. “They feel like ‘I can’t fix that. I am screwed.’ When you can’t control things with what an insurance company is doing, anxiety, PTSD and depression get mixed together.”

In the case of Mr. McNaughton, Dr. Taft said, he was being treated by one of the best gastroenterologists in the world, was doing well with his treatment, and then was suddenly notified he might be on the hook for nearly a million dollars in medical charges without access to his medications. “It sends you immediately into panic about all these horrific things that could happen,” Dr. Taft said. The physical and mental symptoms Mr. McNaughton suffered after his care was threatened were “triggered” by the stress he experienced, she said.

In early June 2021, United informed Mr. McNaughton in a letter that it would not cover the cost of his treatment regimen in the next academic year, starting in August. The insurer said it would pay only for a treatment plan that called for a significant reduction in the doses of the drugs he took.

United wrote that the decision came after his “records have been reviewed three times and the medical reviewers have concluded that the medication as prescribed does not meet the Medical Necessity requirement of the plan.”

In August 2021, Mr. McNaughton filed a federal lawsuit accusing United of acting in bad faith and unreasonably making treatment decisions based on financial concerns and not what was the best and most effective treatment. It claims United had a duty to find information that supported Mr. McNaughton’s claim for treatment rather than looking for ways to deny coverage.

United, in a court filing, said it did not breach any duty it owed to Mr. McNaughton and acted in good faith. On Sept. 20, 2021, a month after filing the lawsuit, and with United again balking at paying for his treatment, Mr. McNaughton asked a judge to grant a temporary restraining order requiring United to pay for his care. With the looming threat of a court hearing on the motion, United quickly agreed to cover the cost of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment through the end of the 2021-2022 academic year. It also dropped a demand requiring Mr. McNaughton to settle the matter as a condition of the insurer paying for his treatment as prescribed by Dr. Loftus, according to an email sent by United’s lawyer.
 

The cost of treatment

It is not surprising that insurers are carefully scrutinizing the care of patients treated with biologics, which are among the most expensive medications on the market. Biologics are considered specialty drugs, a class that includes the best-selling Humira, used to treat arthritis. Specialty drug spending in the United States is expected to reach $505 billion in 2023, according to an estimate from Optum, United’s health services division. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit that analyzes the value of drugs, found in 2020 that the biologic drugs used to treat patients like Mr. McNaughton are often effective but overpriced for their therapeutic benefit. To be judged cost-effective by ICER, the biologics should sell at a steep discount to their current market price, the panel found.

A panel convened by ICER to review its analysis cautioned that insurance coverage “should be structured to prevent situations in which patients are forced to choose a treatment approach on the basis of cost.” ICER also found examples where insurance company policies failed to keep pace with updates to clinical practice guidelines based on emerging research.

United officials did not make the cost of treatment an issue when discussing Mr. McNaughton’s care with Penn State administrators or the family.

Bill Truxal, the president of UnitedHealthcare StudentResources, the company’s student health plan division, told a Penn State official that the insurer wanted the “best for the student” and it had “nothing to do with cost,” according to notes the official took of the conversation.

Behind the scenes, however, the price of Mr. McNaughton’s care was front and center at United.

In one email, Mr. Opperman asked about the cost difference if the insurer insisted on paying only for greatly reduced doses of the biologic drugs. Ms. Kavanaugh responded that the insurer had paid $1.1 million in claims for Mr. McNaughton’s care as of the middle of May 2021. If the reduced doses had been in place, the amount would have been cut to $260,218, she wrote.

United was keeping close tabs on Mr. McNaughton at the highest levels of the company. On Aug. 2, 2021, Mr. Opperman notified Mr. Truxal and a United lawyer that Mr. McNaughton “has just purchased the plan again for the 21-22 school year.”

A month later, Ms. Kavanaugh shared another calculation with United executives showing that the insurer spent over $1.7 million on Mr. McNaughton in the prior plan year.

United officials strategized about how to best explain why it was reviewing Mr. McNaughton’s drug regimen, according to an internal email. They pointed to a justification often used by health insurers when denying claims. “As the cost of healthcare continues to climb to soaring heights, it has been determined that a judicious review of these drugs should be included” in order to “make healthcare more affordable for our members,” Ms. Kavanaugh offered as a potential talking point in an April 23, 2021, email.

Three days later, UnitedHealth Group filed an annual statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing its pay for top executives in the prior year. Then-CEO David Wichmann was paid $17.9 million in salary and other compensation in 2020. Wichmann retired early the following year, and his total compensation that year exceeded $140 million, according to calculations in a compensation database maintained by the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. The newspaper said the amount was the most paid to an executive in the state since it started tracking pay more than 2 decades ago. About $110 million of that total came from Wichmann exercising stock options accumulated during his stewardship.

The McNaughtons were well aware of the financial situation at United. They looked at publicly available financial results and annual reports. Last year, United reported a profit of $20.1 billion on revenues of $324.2 billion.

When discussing the case with Penn State, Ms. Light said, she told university administrators that United could pay for a year of her son’s treatment using just minutes’ worth of profit.
 

‘Betrayed’

Mr. McNaughton has been able to continue receiving his infusions for now, anyway. In October, United notified him it was once again reviewing his care, although the insurer quickly reversed course when his lawyer intervened. United, in a court filing, said the review was a mistake and that it had erred in putting Mr. McNaughton’s claims into pending status.

Mr. McNaughton said he is fortunate his parents were employed at the same school he was attending, which was critical in getting the attention of administrators there. But that help had its limits.

In June 2021, just a week after United told Mr. McNaughton it would not cover his treatment plan in the upcoming plan year, Penn State essentially walked away from the matter.

In an email to the McNaughtons and United, Penn State Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Andrea Dowhower wrote that administrators “have observed an unfortunate breakdown in communication” between Mr. McNaughton and his family and the university health insurance plan, “which appears from our perspective to have resulted in a standstill between the two parties.” While she proposed some potential steps to help settle the matter, she wrote that “Penn State’s role in this process is as a resource for students like Chris who, for whatever reason, have experienced difficulty navigating the complex world of health insurance.” The university’s role “is limited,” she wrote, and the school “simply must leave” the issue of the best treatment for Mr. McNaughton to “the appropriate health care professionals.”

In a statement, a Penn State spokesperson wrote that “as a third party in this arrangement, the University’s role is limited and Penn State officials can only help a student manage an issue based on information that a student/family, medical personnel, and/or insurance provider give – with the hope that all information is accurate and that the lines of communication remain open between the insured and the insurer.”

Penn State declined to provide financial information about the plan. However, the university and United share at least one tie that they have not publicly disclosed.

When the McNaughtons first reached out to the university for help, they were referred to the school’s student health insurance coordinator. The official, Heather Klinger, wrote in an email to the family in February 2021 that “I appreciate your trusting me to resolve this for you.”

In April 2022, United began paying Ms. Klinger’s salary, an arrangement which is not noted on the university website. Ms. Klinger appears in the online staff directory on the Penn State University Health Services web page, and has a university phone number, a university address, and a Penn State email listed as her contact. The school said she has maintained a part-time status with the university to allow her to access relevant data systems at both the university and United.

The university said students “benefit” from having a United employee to handle questions about insurance coverage and that the arrangement is “not uncommon” for student health plans.

The family was dismayed to learn that Ms. Klinger was now a full-time employee of United.

“We did feel betrayed,” Ms. Light said. Ms. Klinger did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton’s fight to maintain his treatment regimen has come at a cost of time, debilitating stress, and depression. “My biggest fear is realizing I might have to do this every year of my life,” he said.

Mr. McNaughton said one motivation for his lawsuit was to expose how insurers like United make decisions about what care they will pay for and what they will not. The case remains pending, a court docket shows.

He has been accepted to Penn State’s law school. He hopes to become a health care lawyer working for patients who find themselves in situations similar to his.

He plans to re-enroll in the United health care plan when he starts school next fall.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

A new vibrating pill shown to help relieve constipation is now available. 

The drug-free solution is designed for daily use. In a trial, the pill produced at least one additional weekly bowel movement for 41% of participants, compared with at least one additional bowel movement for 23% of participants who took a placebo pill. 

Vibrant was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in August but is just now becoming available for doctors to prescribe, the company announced Wednesday. 

Because it is not a drug, Vibrant is considered a class 2 medical device by the FDA, which is the same class as contact lenses.

Here’s how it works: Around bedtime, the pill is inserted in a pod to activate it, then swallowed. It travels the digestive tract and reaches the large intestine about 14 hours later. 

“Then it goes to work,” the company explained in a news release. “After it’s swallowed, it is active for about 2 hours, goes quiet for around 6, hours and then activates again for another 2 hours.”

“There are little vibrations for 3 seconds on, 3 seconds off,” said Cathy Collis, chief commercial officer for Israel-based Vibrant Gastro, in a statement.

The vibrations help trigger peristalsis, the wave-like muscle contractions that move food through the gastrointestinal tract, the company said. Decreased peristalsis is a cause of constipation, which is defined as having less than three bowel movements per week, according to the Cleveland Clinic. 

About 2.5 million people see their doctor each year for constipation. The pills are made of what the company called “medical-grade material” that is the same as what’s used to make gastroenterology cameras.

In the trial, most people did not report feeling the pill inside of them.

“A minority could feel it,” said Eamonn Quigley, MD, chief of gastroenterology at Houston Methodist Hospital, in a statement. “None of them felt it was being uncomfortable. And none of them stopped taking it because of that.”

Dr. Quigley helped test the capsules and does not have a financial stake in the company, according to Vibrant.

The pills do not dissolve inside a person’s body. Rather, “after they’ve done their job, the person’s body poops them out, and they’re flushed away,” the company said.  

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

A new vibrating pill shown to help relieve constipation is now available. 

The drug-free solution is designed for daily use. In a trial, the pill produced at least one additional weekly bowel movement for 41% of participants, compared with at least one additional bowel movement for 23% of participants who took a placebo pill. 

Vibrant was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in August but is just now becoming available for doctors to prescribe, the company announced Wednesday. 

Because it is not a drug, Vibrant is considered a class 2 medical device by the FDA, which is the same class as contact lenses.

Here’s how it works: Around bedtime, the pill is inserted in a pod to activate it, then swallowed. It travels the digestive tract and reaches the large intestine about 14 hours later. 

“Then it goes to work,” the company explained in a news release. “After it’s swallowed, it is active for about 2 hours, goes quiet for around 6, hours and then activates again for another 2 hours.”

“There are little vibrations for 3 seconds on, 3 seconds off,” said Cathy Collis, chief commercial officer for Israel-based Vibrant Gastro, in a statement.

The vibrations help trigger peristalsis, the wave-like muscle contractions that move food through the gastrointestinal tract, the company said. Decreased peristalsis is a cause of constipation, which is defined as having less than three bowel movements per week, according to the Cleveland Clinic. 

About 2.5 million people see their doctor each year for constipation. The pills are made of what the company called “medical-grade material” that is the same as what’s used to make gastroenterology cameras.

In the trial, most people did not report feeling the pill inside of them.

“A minority could feel it,” said Eamonn Quigley, MD, chief of gastroenterology at Houston Methodist Hospital, in a statement. “None of them felt it was being uncomfortable. And none of them stopped taking it because of that.”

Dr. Quigley helped test the capsules and does not have a financial stake in the company, according to Vibrant.

The pills do not dissolve inside a person’s body. Rather, “after they’ve done their job, the person’s body poops them out, and they’re flushed away,” the company said.  

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

A new vibrating pill shown to help relieve constipation is now available. 

The drug-free solution is designed for daily use. In a trial, the pill produced at least one additional weekly bowel movement for 41% of participants, compared with at least one additional bowel movement for 23% of participants who took a placebo pill. 

Vibrant was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in August but is just now becoming available for doctors to prescribe, the company announced Wednesday. 

Because it is not a drug, Vibrant is considered a class 2 medical device by the FDA, which is the same class as contact lenses.

Here’s how it works: Around bedtime, the pill is inserted in a pod to activate it, then swallowed. It travels the digestive tract and reaches the large intestine about 14 hours later. 

“Then it goes to work,” the company explained in a news release. “After it’s swallowed, it is active for about 2 hours, goes quiet for around 6, hours and then activates again for another 2 hours.”

“There are little vibrations for 3 seconds on, 3 seconds off,” said Cathy Collis, chief commercial officer for Israel-based Vibrant Gastro, in a statement.

The vibrations help trigger peristalsis, the wave-like muscle contractions that move food through the gastrointestinal tract, the company said. Decreased peristalsis is a cause of constipation, which is defined as having less than three bowel movements per week, according to the Cleveland Clinic. 

About 2.5 million people see their doctor each year for constipation. The pills are made of what the company called “medical-grade material” that is the same as what’s used to make gastroenterology cameras.

In the trial, most people did not report feeling the pill inside of them.

“A minority could feel it,” said Eamonn Quigley, MD, chief of gastroenterology at Houston Methodist Hospital, in a statement. “None of them felt it was being uncomfortable. And none of them stopped taking it because of that.”

Dr. Quigley helped test the capsules and does not have a financial stake in the company, according to Vibrant.

The pills do not dissolve inside a person’s body. Rather, “after they’ve done their job, the person’s body poops them out, and they’re flushed away,” the company said.  

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

Outpatient COVID-19 treatment with monoclonal antibodies or antiretroviral medications such as nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) administered to patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease led to lower odds of having severe outcomes when compared with similar patients who received no outpatient treatment in a real-world, retrospective analysis of cases.

The investigators found that there were nine hospitalizations or deaths (2.1%) among 426 patients who received outpatient treatment, compared with 49 (17.6%) among 278 who did not receive outpatient treatment, yielding an odds ratio of 0.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.25), after adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and kidney function. The study was published in Lancet Rheumatology.

“Across the board, there was a really strong association with receiving outpatient treatment and lower risk of severe COVID-19,” senior author Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “It is pretty powerful evidence that, in this high-risk group, that treatment still matters related to preventing severe COVID. We found almost all patients who had severe COVID-19, either hospitalized or who had died, were in the untreated group.”
 

Early outpatient treatment an important tool in patients with rheumatic disease

Dr. Sparks noted that he and his coinvestigators conducted the study because the benefit of outpatient COVID-19 treatments in individuals with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease was not adequately determined in clinical trials because they had infrequent enrollment of such patients.

The analysis included 704 patients with a mean age of 58.4 years who were seen at Mass General Brigham Integrated Health Care System, a multicenter health care system that includes 14 hospitals and primary care or specialty outpatient centers in the Boston area. A majority were female (76%) and White (84%). Nearly half had rheumatoid arthritis. Of the 704, 426 (61%) received outpatient treatment, which included nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 307), monoclonal antibodies (n = 105), molnupiravir (n = 5), remdesivir (n = 3), and combination treatment (n = 6).

The findings underline the need to individualize approaches to outpatient treatment in those who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 to fend off severe COVID-19, according to Dr. Sparks. “It seems if you are vaccinated and in the general population that you are way less likely to have severe COVID-19 in the current environment, but that doesn’t necessarily apply to some high-risk groups like patients on immunosuppression. There are still patients at risk of severe COVID-19, and some of them are in this group of rheumatic patients. This should be part of the discussion related to deciding whether or not to treat.”

Dr. Sparks noted that vaccination against COVID-19 confers protection against developing severe COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic disease as it does in the general population, but patients with rheumatic diseases remain at increased risk for severe presentation. “Certainly, the vaccines really help our patients too, but there’s still a bit of a gap between the risk for our patients with rheumatic diseases and the general population” in developing severe COVID-19.

Dr. Sparks said he hopes the results represent a “call to action” that even among vaccinated patients there are still some who have poor outcomes, and that early outpatient treatment appears to be an important tool in the fight against poor outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 

COVID-19 rebound

The study also reported on the phenomenon of COVID-19 rebound (recurrence of symptoms and test positivity after regimen completion) after oral outpatient SARS-CoV-2 treatment. “This [COVID-19 rebound] is a downside to treatment,” he said. COVID rebound was not infrequent: A total of 25 (8%) of 318 patients who received oral outpatient treatment had documented COVID-19 rebound.

“It was reassuring because we found no one who had rebound progressed to have severe COVID-19,” Dr. Sparks said. “On the other hand, [rebound] happened pretty frequently in our data, as 8% of patients are documented to have it.”

Dr. Sparks said he and coinvestigators speculate that more patients in the cohort may have experienced COVID-19 rebound but did not communicate this to their health care providers, and, as such, it was not documented in the medical record. The potential development of COVID-19 rebound “is something to counsel your patients about.” COVID-19 rebound is a phenomenon that is being most commonly observed with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as outpatient treatment.
 

Possible confounding factors in study

Katie Bechman, MBChB, clinical lecturer in rheumatology at King’s College London, who coauthored an accompanying editorial about the study and its findings, pointed out that the study is limited by its observational design.

“With any study that looks at the efficacy of treatment, especially in an observational cohort, you’re going to have to consider the unmeasured confounding and the difference between these two groups,” Dr. Bechman said. “I know that they did try to adjust for that in this study, but there’s always going to be factors that we can’t [control for]. That is something that needs to be considered. I think that’s always something we need to consider when we’re looking at observational data.”

In lieu of a randomized, controlled trial, Dr. Bechman noted that the study and its associated findings serve as “the best data we have,” and she described the results as “very informative and positive.”

She added that the large number of patients represents a strength of the study, as does the robust method employed for identifying which patients had COVID-19.

The learnings from this study with respect to outpatient treatment can be applied to more common illnesses that patients with rheumatic disease may develop, such as the flu, according to Dr. Bechman.

“One of the positive aspects from this pandemic is that we’ve learned a huge amount about how best to treat certain viruses and prevent them in patients,” she said. “It would be worth thinking towards the future, what we can do for illnesses that we see very commonly in these populations. There may be treatment regimens that we haven’t really considered until now. You could hypothesize that in the next couple of years, if we have an influenza breakout, that we should be providing some prehospital antiviral treatment to patients, especially the ones that are at high risk.”

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulted for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer unrelated to this work. Dr. Bechman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outpatient COVID-19 treatment with monoclonal antibodies or antiretroviral medications such as nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) administered to patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease led to lower odds of having severe outcomes when compared with similar patients who received no outpatient treatment in a real-world, retrospective analysis of cases.

The investigators found that there were nine hospitalizations or deaths (2.1%) among 426 patients who received outpatient treatment, compared with 49 (17.6%) among 278 who did not receive outpatient treatment, yielding an odds ratio of 0.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.25), after adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and kidney function. The study was published in Lancet Rheumatology.

“Across the board, there was a really strong association with receiving outpatient treatment and lower risk of severe COVID-19,” senior author Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “It is pretty powerful evidence that, in this high-risk group, that treatment still matters related to preventing severe COVID. We found almost all patients who had severe COVID-19, either hospitalized or who had died, were in the untreated group.”
 

Early outpatient treatment an important tool in patients with rheumatic disease

Dr. Sparks noted that he and his coinvestigators conducted the study because the benefit of outpatient COVID-19 treatments in individuals with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease was not adequately determined in clinical trials because they had infrequent enrollment of such patients.

The analysis included 704 patients with a mean age of 58.4 years who were seen at Mass General Brigham Integrated Health Care System, a multicenter health care system that includes 14 hospitals and primary care or specialty outpatient centers in the Boston area. A majority were female (76%) and White (84%). Nearly half had rheumatoid arthritis. Of the 704, 426 (61%) received outpatient treatment, which included nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 307), monoclonal antibodies (n = 105), molnupiravir (n = 5), remdesivir (n = 3), and combination treatment (n = 6).

The findings underline the need to individualize approaches to outpatient treatment in those who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 to fend off severe COVID-19, according to Dr. Sparks. “It seems if you are vaccinated and in the general population that you are way less likely to have severe COVID-19 in the current environment, but that doesn’t necessarily apply to some high-risk groups like patients on immunosuppression. There are still patients at risk of severe COVID-19, and some of them are in this group of rheumatic patients. This should be part of the discussion related to deciding whether or not to treat.”

Dr. Sparks noted that vaccination against COVID-19 confers protection against developing severe COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic disease as it does in the general population, but patients with rheumatic diseases remain at increased risk for severe presentation. “Certainly, the vaccines really help our patients too, but there’s still a bit of a gap between the risk for our patients with rheumatic diseases and the general population” in developing severe COVID-19.

Dr. Sparks said he hopes the results represent a “call to action” that even among vaccinated patients there are still some who have poor outcomes, and that early outpatient treatment appears to be an important tool in the fight against poor outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 

COVID-19 rebound

The study also reported on the phenomenon of COVID-19 rebound (recurrence of symptoms and test positivity after regimen completion) after oral outpatient SARS-CoV-2 treatment. “This [COVID-19 rebound] is a downside to treatment,” he said. COVID rebound was not infrequent: A total of 25 (8%) of 318 patients who received oral outpatient treatment had documented COVID-19 rebound.

“It was reassuring because we found no one who had rebound progressed to have severe COVID-19,” Dr. Sparks said. “On the other hand, [rebound] happened pretty frequently in our data, as 8% of patients are documented to have it.”

Dr. Sparks said he and coinvestigators speculate that more patients in the cohort may have experienced COVID-19 rebound but did not communicate this to their health care providers, and, as such, it was not documented in the medical record. The potential development of COVID-19 rebound “is something to counsel your patients about.” COVID-19 rebound is a phenomenon that is being most commonly observed with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as outpatient treatment.
 

Possible confounding factors in study

Katie Bechman, MBChB, clinical lecturer in rheumatology at King’s College London, who coauthored an accompanying editorial about the study and its findings, pointed out that the study is limited by its observational design.

“With any study that looks at the efficacy of treatment, especially in an observational cohort, you’re going to have to consider the unmeasured confounding and the difference between these two groups,” Dr. Bechman said. “I know that they did try to adjust for that in this study, but there’s always going to be factors that we can’t [control for]. That is something that needs to be considered. I think that’s always something we need to consider when we’re looking at observational data.”

In lieu of a randomized, controlled trial, Dr. Bechman noted that the study and its associated findings serve as “the best data we have,” and she described the results as “very informative and positive.”

She added that the large number of patients represents a strength of the study, as does the robust method employed for identifying which patients had COVID-19.

The learnings from this study with respect to outpatient treatment can be applied to more common illnesses that patients with rheumatic disease may develop, such as the flu, according to Dr. Bechman.

“One of the positive aspects from this pandemic is that we’ve learned a huge amount about how best to treat certain viruses and prevent them in patients,” she said. “It would be worth thinking towards the future, what we can do for illnesses that we see very commonly in these populations. There may be treatment regimens that we haven’t really considered until now. You could hypothesize that in the next couple of years, if we have an influenza breakout, that we should be providing some prehospital antiviral treatment to patients, especially the ones that are at high risk.”

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulted for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer unrelated to this work. Dr. Bechman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outpatient COVID-19 treatment with monoclonal antibodies or antiretroviral medications such as nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) administered to patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease led to lower odds of having severe outcomes when compared with similar patients who received no outpatient treatment in a real-world, retrospective analysis of cases.

The investigators found that there were nine hospitalizations or deaths (2.1%) among 426 patients who received outpatient treatment, compared with 49 (17.6%) among 278 who did not receive outpatient treatment, yielding an odds ratio of 0.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.25), after adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and kidney function. The study was published in Lancet Rheumatology.

“Across the board, there was a really strong association with receiving outpatient treatment and lower risk of severe COVID-19,” senior author Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “It is pretty powerful evidence that, in this high-risk group, that treatment still matters related to preventing severe COVID. We found almost all patients who had severe COVID-19, either hospitalized or who had died, were in the untreated group.”
 

Early outpatient treatment an important tool in patients with rheumatic disease

Dr. Sparks noted that he and his coinvestigators conducted the study because the benefit of outpatient COVID-19 treatments in individuals with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease was not adequately determined in clinical trials because they had infrequent enrollment of such patients.

The analysis included 704 patients with a mean age of 58.4 years who were seen at Mass General Brigham Integrated Health Care System, a multicenter health care system that includes 14 hospitals and primary care or specialty outpatient centers in the Boston area. A majority were female (76%) and White (84%). Nearly half had rheumatoid arthritis. Of the 704, 426 (61%) received outpatient treatment, which included nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 307), monoclonal antibodies (n = 105), molnupiravir (n = 5), remdesivir (n = 3), and combination treatment (n = 6).

The findings underline the need to individualize approaches to outpatient treatment in those who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 to fend off severe COVID-19, according to Dr. Sparks. “It seems if you are vaccinated and in the general population that you are way less likely to have severe COVID-19 in the current environment, but that doesn’t necessarily apply to some high-risk groups like patients on immunosuppression. There are still patients at risk of severe COVID-19, and some of them are in this group of rheumatic patients. This should be part of the discussion related to deciding whether or not to treat.”

Dr. Sparks noted that vaccination against COVID-19 confers protection against developing severe COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic disease as it does in the general population, but patients with rheumatic diseases remain at increased risk for severe presentation. “Certainly, the vaccines really help our patients too, but there’s still a bit of a gap between the risk for our patients with rheumatic diseases and the general population” in developing severe COVID-19.

Dr. Sparks said he hopes the results represent a “call to action” that even among vaccinated patients there are still some who have poor outcomes, and that early outpatient treatment appears to be an important tool in the fight against poor outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 

COVID-19 rebound

The study also reported on the phenomenon of COVID-19 rebound (recurrence of symptoms and test positivity after regimen completion) after oral outpatient SARS-CoV-2 treatment. “This [COVID-19 rebound] is a downside to treatment,” he said. COVID rebound was not infrequent: A total of 25 (8%) of 318 patients who received oral outpatient treatment had documented COVID-19 rebound.

“It was reassuring because we found no one who had rebound progressed to have severe COVID-19,” Dr. Sparks said. “On the other hand, [rebound] happened pretty frequently in our data, as 8% of patients are documented to have it.”

Dr. Sparks said he and coinvestigators speculate that more patients in the cohort may have experienced COVID-19 rebound but did not communicate this to their health care providers, and, as such, it was not documented in the medical record. The potential development of COVID-19 rebound “is something to counsel your patients about.” COVID-19 rebound is a phenomenon that is being most commonly observed with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as outpatient treatment.
 

Possible confounding factors in study

Katie Bechman, MBChB, clinical lecturer in rheumatology at King’s College London, who coauthored an accompanying editorial about the study and its findings, pointed out that the study is limited by its observational design.

“With any study that looks at the efficacy of treatment, especially in an observational cohort, you’re going to have to consider the unmeasured confounding and the difference between these two groups,” Dr. Bechman said. “I know that they did try to adjust for that in this study, but there’s always going to be factors that we can’t [control for]. That is something that needs to be considered. I think that’s always something we need to consider when we’re looking at observational data.”

In lieu of a randomized, controlled trial, Dr. Bechman noted that the study and its associated findings serve as “the best data we have,” and she described the results as “very informative and positive.”

She added that the large number of patients represents a strength of the study, as does the robust method employed for identifying which patients had COVID-19.

The learnings from this study with respect to outpatient treatment can be applied to more common illnesses that patients with rheumatic disease may develop, such as the flu, according to Dr. Bechman.

“One of the positive aspects from this pandemic is that we’ve learned a huge amount about how best to treat certain viruses and prevent them in patients,” she said. “It would be worth thinking towards the future, what we can do for illnesses that we see very commonly in these populations. There may be treatment regimens that we haven’t really considered until now. You could hypothesize that in the next couple of years, if we have an influenza breakout, that we should be providing some prehospital antiviral treatment to patients, especially the ones that are at high risk.”

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulted for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer unrelated to this work. Dr. Bechman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the STROKE AF study, among patients who had a stroke presumably caused by atherosclerosis, the rate of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was almost 22% at 3 years, as detected by continuous monitoring.

The 3-year results from the study were presented by Lee H. Schwamm, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Schwamm said the high rate of AFib detection in this study suggests that continuous monitoring for AFib should be considered for a larger population of stroke patients, rather than just those with cryptogenic stroke.

“We found a much higher rate of AF[ib] than we expected in this population of patients who have had an atherosclerotic stroke,” Dr. Schwamm said in an interview.

“These AF[ib] occurrences were found by a device, so they are known as ‘device-documented AF[ib].’ The patient is not generally aware of symptoms, but 67% of the AF[ib] episodes lasted for more than 1 hour, showing that this is not trivial AF[ib]. This is meaningful AF[ib],” he said.

Dr. Schwamm said the major question is whether these cases of AFib that are detected with a device warrant treatment with anticoagulation. He noted that, in this study, clinicians decided to provide anticoagulation to 70%-80% of patients in whom AFib was detected.

“If we think it deserves treatment, then we have to look for it. And if we care about finding AF[ib], we have no choice but to monitor continuously,” he said.

“If this data doesn’t convince you that AF[ib] is present in this population, I don’t think any data will. Because it is consistent, it accumulates over time and looks remarkably similar to a set of data that we have all become very comfortable with – the CRYSTAL-AF study in patients with cryptogenic stroke,” he stated.

Dr. Schwamm noted that the STROKE AF trial was not based on the cause of the index stroke; rather, it was asking whether there are risk factors that could contribute to the 25% stroke recurrence rate in this population that are not covered in current guidelines.

“I’m really trying to move away from the anchor that I was trained in, which is to figure out the cause of the last stroke to help decide how to prevent the next stroke, towards more of a probabilistic model – of what is all the information I have at my disposal and how do I act on it to prevent the next stroke? We have to start thinking differently about building models for future stroke risk and determining therapy based on that,” he commented.
 

Changing practice

ISC 2023 program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and moderator of the session at which the results were presented, discussed the STROKE AF results in a highlights presentation.

“To me as clinician, these results are even more relevant than those at 12 months,” Dr. Jovin said. “The lesson I took is that AF[ib] is even more prevalent than we thought. The burden of AF[ib] is significant in these patients, and it doesn’t seem to be limited to a particular time. These are very thought-provoking results which are going to change clinical practice. I think the threshold for long-term monitoring will be lower.”

Comoderator Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., added: “This study shows that the longer we monitor, the more patients with AF[ib] we are likely to pick up. And because in two-thirds of patients with AF[ib], it lasted longer than 1 hour, I do believe this was clinically relevant AF[ib]. The question now is, do we monitor everyone? I think it puts the burden on us to search for AF[ib] in our patients.”

In his presentation, Dr. Schwamm explained that, on the basis of the CRYSTAL-AF study, insertable cardiac monitoring devices are frequently used to identify poststroke AFib in patients with cryptogenic stroke. In the device-monitored arm of that study, AFib was detected in 12.4% of patients over 12 months versus 2.0% in the control arm.

“However, we don’t know how often AF[ib] is detected in other presumed stroke types – largely those due to atherosclerosis,” he said.

He pointed out that, at present, long-term monitoring post stroke for the detection of AFib is not currently recommended for patients with ischemic stroke, owing to presumed small-vessel occlusion or large-artery atherosclerosis.

“In these patients, we are not suspecting AF[ib] because we believe the cause of the stroke was not embolic. But we wanted to investigate what the AF[ib] risk is in these patients, who often have multiple stroke risk factors,” he said.

The trial enrolled 496 patients at 33 centers in the United States. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older or aged 50-59 years with at least one additional stroke risk factor and had an index stroke that was attributed to large-artery or small-vessel disease. Patients were randomly assigned either to continuous monitoring with the Reveal LINQ device (Medtronic) or to the control arm following site-specific standard of care for AFib detection.

Dr. Schwamm noted that usual care for these patients normally involves monitoring for just a few days while in hospital, but this picks up less than 5% of AFib occurrences.

Baseline characteristics of patients in the STROKE AF study showed that the enrolled population was at high risk for stroke, with a CHADSVASC score of 5. But the index strokes were generally small; the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 2.

Results at 12 months, reported 2 years ago, showed a 12.5% incidence of AFib with continuous monitoring versus 1.8% with standard of care (hazard ratio, 7.7; P < .001), rates similar to that found in the CRYSTAL-AF study.

By 3 years, the rate of detected AFib had risen to 21.7% in the continuous monitoring arm versus 2.4% in the control arm (HR, 10.0; P < .001).

“At 12 months, we were seven times more likely to detect AF[ib] with continuous monitoring in these patients, and by 3 years, it was 10 times more likely that AF would be detected with continuous monitoring. I think we’ve settled the question of the best way to find AF[ib] in these patients – it is with an inserted device,” Dr. Schwamm said.

“We have also shown that this is not a transient rise in AFib after the stroke which then diminishes over the next few years. It is a continuous and progressive detection of AF[ib].”

Dr. Schwamm pointed out that 88% of the recorded AFib episodes were asymptomatic. “So relying on patients self-reporting symptoms when deciding who to monitor is unreliable and not a sensible strategy.”

The median time to the first adjudicated AFib episode at 12-month follow-up was 99 days; at the 3-year follow-up, it was 284 days.

“This shows that 30 days of monitoring with an external patch is not sufficient to exclude the presence of AF[ib]. And this really argues for a strategy of immediate insertion of cardiac monitor placement if your goal is to look for AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm commented.
 

Is this clinically relevant AFib?

Dr. Schwamm acknowledged that there is a question of whether device-detected AFib should be thought about in the same way as clinically detected AFib with respect to future stroke risk.

He noted that, in this study, 67.4% of patients for whom AFib was detected by continuous monitoring (31 of 46 patients) had at least one episode of AFib that lasted more than 1 hour.

“This is not a trivial little squiggle of something on an EKG which then goes away. This is of significant duration that the cardiologist who adjudicated these rhythm strips felt confident was AF[ib].”

He added: “AF[ib] lasting more than 1 hour crosses the threshold for most practitioners I know to feel confident in treating the patient with anticoagulation. If it was symptomatic AF, this wouldn’t even be a question.”

Dr. Schwamm made the point that device-detected A AFib F has been accepted as worthy of treatment in patients after cryptogenic stroke.

“If we are honest with ourselves and if we have no hesitation in starting anticoagulation in a patient with cryptogenic stroke who has had device-detected AF 6 months later, should we decide that if the patient has had a lacunar stroke, we can ignore that same device-detected fibrillation?”

He put forward the idea that, at some level, all stroke is cryptogenic. “We never know for sure what the cause was. We have hypotheses, we have associations, but we don’t really know. So how much should we weigh that presumptive etiology in terms of how we interpret a rhythm disturbance of fibrillation?”

When looking for predictors of AFib in this study, the investigators found that patients were more likely to have an episode of AFib detected if they had one of the four following risk factors: congestive heart failure, left atrial enlargement, obesity, or QRS prolongation.

“In patients with any one of those four factors, 30% of those had device-detected AF[ib]. These are same predictors of AF[ib] that we are all accustomed to,” Dr. Schwamm said.
 

Shared decision-making

Dr. Schwamm said in an interview that, in his practice, for these patients, the decision as to whether to use continuous monitoring is made with the patient through shared decision-making.

“We discuss the chance that they could have AF[ib], and I suggest that it might be worth looking for it, but there are factors to be considered. There is a cost to the device, and reimbursement may depend on insurance coverage. Also, some patients may have strong feelings about having the chip implanted in their body.”

He says implanting the chip is easy. “It takes longer to check in at the front desk than to put the device in. It is injected under the skin. It just needs two stitches and a Band-Aid.” The device connects with a smartphone, and the results are interpreted by a cardiologist.

Dr. Schwamm pointed out that the optimal antithrombotic regimen for these patients in whom AFib is detected remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

“Do we just stick to antiplatelet therapy or advance to anticoagulation? In moving to an anticoagulant, are we providing less effective prevention for the atherosclerotic stroke risk at the expense of reducing the AF[ib]-related stroke risk? That may be a reasonable trade-off because we know the disability from AF[ib]-associated stroke is much higher.

“Or perhaps the optimal therapy is aspirin plus low-dose anticoagulant? Or left atrial appendage closure and an antiplatelet for patients at a higher risk of bleeding?” he said. “These are the really important questions we need to start asking.”

He added that he hopes a future study will address these questions, but he noted that it would have to be a large study, that it would have to first identify these patients and then randomly assign them to anticoagulation or to no treatment. “That is quite a major undertaking.”

In the highlights presentation, Dr. Jovin said he was uncertain of which of these patients in whom AFib is detected would benefit from anticoagulation. He said he would also like to see a randomized trial on this. But he added: “This would be challenging, as there is the issue of whether there would be equipoise to allow us to randomize to a placebo.”

Dr. Sansing agreed. “I think it would be a hard sell. I would have to think carefully about randomizing a patient to anticoagulation therapy or no therapy who has been found to have AF[ib].”

Dr. Schwamm noted that the current STROKE-AF study was not designed or powered to detect differences in stroke recurrence rates and that there was no difference in stroke recurrence rates between the two arms. There was also no randomization with regard to treatment; choice of medication was left to the discretion of the treating physician.

But he noted that only for 3 of the 34 patients with recurrent stroke in the continuous-monitor arm was AFib detected prior to the recurrent stroke, and only one of those three was receiving anticoagulation at the time of the recurrent stroke.

“These strokes were occurring in patients who did not have device-detected AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm said. “This is because the population in this study were loaded with stroke risk factors and are at risk of recurrent stroke, but we don’t have the opportunity in this study to really understand the significance of the recurrent strokes.”

The STROKE AF trial was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Schwamm is a consultant to Medtronic.

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

In the STROKE AF study, among patients who had a stroke presumably caused by atherosclerosis, the rate of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was almost 22% at 3 years, as detected by continuous monitoring.

The 3-year results from the study were presented by Lee H. Schwamm, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Schwamm said the high rate of AFib detection in this study suggests that continuous monitoring for AFib should be considered for a larger population of stroke patients, rather than just those with cryptogenic stroke.

“We found a much higher rate of AF[ib] than we expected in this population of patients who have had an atherosclerotic stroke,” Dr. Schwamm said in an interview.

“These AF[ib] occurrences were found by a device, so they are known as ‘device-documented AF[ib].’ The patient is not generally aware of symptoms, but 67% of the AF[ib] episodes lasted for more than 1 hour, showing that this is not trivial AF[ib]. This is meaningful AF[ib],” he said.

Dr. Schwamm said the major question is whether these cases of AFib that are detected with a device warrant treatment with anticoagulation. He noted that, in this study, clinicians decided to provide anticoagulation to 70%-80% of patients in whom AFib was detected.

“If we think it deserves treatment, then we have to look for it. And if we care about finding AF[ib], we have no choice but to monitor continuously,” he said.

“If this data doesn’t convince you that AF[ib] is present in this population, I don’t think any data will. Because it is consistent, it accumulates over time and looks remarkably similar to a set of data that we have all become very comfortable with – the CRYSTAL-AF study in patients with cryptogenic stroke,” he stated.

Dr. Schwamm noted that the STROKE AF trial was not based on the cause of the index stroke; rather, it was asking whether there are risk factors that could contribute to the 25% stroke recurrence rate in this population that are not covered in current guidelines.

“I’m really trying to move away from the anchor that I was trained in, which is to figure out the cause of the last stroke to help decide how to prevent the next stroke, towards more of a probabilistic model – of what is all the information I have at my disposal and how do I act on it to prevent the next stroke? We have to start thinking differently about building models for future stroke risk and determining therapy based on that,” he commented.
 

Changing practice

ISC 2023 program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and moderator of the session at which the results were presented, discussed the STROKE AF results in a highlights presentation.

“To me as clinician, these results are even more relevant than those at 12 months,” Dr. Jovin said. “The lesson I took is that AF[ib] is even more prevalent than we thought. The burden of AF[ib] is significant in these patients, and it doesn’t seem to be limited to a particular time. These are very thought-provoking results which are going to change clinical practice. I think the threshold for long-term monitoring will be lower.”

Comoderator Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., added: “This study shows that the longer we monitor, the more patients with AF[ib] we are likely to pick up. And because in two-thirds of patients with AF[ib], it lasted longer than 1 hour, I do believe this was clinically relevant AF[ib]. The question now is, do we monitor everyone? I think it puts the burden on us to search for AF[ib] in our patients.”

In his presentation, Dr. Schwamm explained that, on the basis of the CRYSTAL-AF study, insertable cardiac monitoring devices are frequently used to identify poststroke AFib in patients with cryptogenic stroke. In the device-monitored arm of that study, AFib was detected in 12.4% of patients over 12 months versus 2.0% in the control arm.

“However, we don’t know how often AF[ib] is detected in other presumed stroke types – largely those due to atherosclerosis,” he said.

He pointed out that, at present, long-term monitoring post stroke for the detection of AFib is not currently recommended for patients with ischemic stroke, owing to presumed small-vessel occlusion or large-artery atherosclerosis.

“In these patients, we are not suspecting AF[ib] because we believe the cause of the stroke was not embolic. But we wanted to investigate what the AF[ib] risk is in these patients, who often have multiple stroke risk factors,” he said.

The trial enrolled 496 patients at 33 centers in the United States. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older or aged 50-59 years with at least one additional stroke risk factor and had an index stroke that was attributed to large-artery or small-vessel disease. Patients were randomly assigned either to continuous monitoring with the Reveal LINQ device (Medtronic) or to the control arm following site-specific standard of care for AFib detection.

Dr. Schwamm noted that usual care for these patients normally involves monitoring for just a few days while in hospital, but this picks up less than 5% of AFib occurrences.

Baseline characteristics of patients in the STROKE AF study showed that the enrolled population was at high risk for stroke, with a CHADSVASC score of 5. But the index strokes were generally small; the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 2.

Results at 12 months, reported 2 years ago, showed a 12.5% incidence of AFib with continuous monitoring versus 1.8% with standard of care (hazard ratio, 7.7; P < .001), rates similar to that found in the CRYSTAL-AF study.

By 3 years, the rate of detected AFib had risen to 21.7% in the continuous monitoring arm versus 2.4% in the control arm (HR, 10.0; P < .001).

“At 12 months, we were seven times more likely to detect AF[ib] with continuous monitoring in these patients, and by 3 years, it was 10 times more likely that AF would be detected with continuous monitoring. I think we’ve settled the question of the best way to find AF[ib] in these patients – it is with an inserted device,” Dr. Schwamm said.

“We have also shown that this is not a transient rise in AFib after the stroke which then diminishes over the next few years. It is a continuous and progressive detection of AF[ib].”

Dr. Schwamm pointed out that 88% of the recorded AFib episodes were asymptomatic. “So relying on patients self-reporting symptoms when deciding who to monitor is unreliable and not a sensible strategy.”

The median time to the first adjudicated AFib episode at 12-month follow-up was 99 days; at the 3-year follow-up, it was 284 days.

“This shows that 30 days of monitoring with an external patch is not sufficient to exclude the presence of AF[ib]. And this really argues for a strategy of immediate insertion of cardiac monitor placement if your goal is to look for AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm commented.
 

Is this clinically relevant AFib?

Dr. Schwamm acknowledged that there is a question of whether device-detected AFib should be thought about in the same way as clinically detected AFib with respect to future stroke risk.

He noted that, in this study, 67.4% of patients for whom AFib was detected by continuous monitoring (31 of 46 patients) had at least one episode of AFib that lasted more than 1 hour.

“This is not a trivial little squiggle of something on an EKG which then goes away. This is of significant duration that the cardiologist who adjudicated these rhythm strips felt confident was AF[ib].”

He added: “AF[ib] lasting more than 1 hour crosses the threshold for most practitioners I know to feel confident in treating the patient with anticoagulation. If it was symptomatic AF, this wouldn’t even be a question.”

Dr. Schwamm made the point that device-detected A AFib F has been accepted as worthy of treatment in patients after cryptogenic stroke.

“If we are honest with ourselves and if we have no hesitation in starting anticoagulation in a patient with cryptogenic stroke who has had device-detected AF 6 months later, should we decide that if the patient has had a lacunar stroke, we can ignore that same device-detected fibrillation?”

He put forward the idea that, at some level, all stroke is cryptogenic. “We never know for sure what the cause was. We have hypotheses, we have associations, but we don’t really know. So how much should we weigh that presumptive etiology in terms of how we interpret a rhythm disturbance of fibrillation?”

When looking for predictors of AFib in this study, the investigators found that patients were more likely to have an episode of AFib detected if they had one of the four following risk factors: congestive heart failure, left atrial enlargement, obesity, or QRS prolongation.

“In patients with any one of those four factors, 30% of those had device-detected AF[ib]. These are same predictors of AF[ib] that we are all accustomed to,” Dr. Schwamm said.
 

Shared decision-making

Dr. Schwamm said in an interview that, in his practice, for these patients, the decision as to whether to use continuous monitoring is made with the patient through shared decision-making.

“We discuss the chance that they could have AF[ib], and I suggest that it might be worth looking for it, but there are factors to be considered. There is a cost to the device, and reimbursement may depend on insurance coverage. Also, some patients may have strong feelings about having the chip implanted in their body.”

He says implanting the chip is easy. “It takes longer to check in at the front desk than to put the device in. It is injected under the skin. It just needs two stitches and a Band-Aid.” The device connects with a smartphone, and the results are interpreted by a cardiologist.

Dr. Schwamm pointed out that the optimal antithrombotic regimen for these patients in whom AFib is detected remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

“Do we just stick to antiplatelet therapy or advance to anticoagulation? In moving to an anticoagulant, are we providing less effective prevention for the atherosclerotic stroke risk at the expense of reducing the AF[ib]-related stroke risk? That may be a reasonable trade-off because we know the disability from AF[ib]-associated stroke is much higher.

“Or perhaps the optimal therapy is aspirin plus low-dose anticoagulant? Or left atrial appendage closure and an antiplatelet for patients at a higher risk of bleeding?” he said. “These are the really important questions we need to start asking.”

He added that he hopes a future study will address these questions, but he noted that it would have to be a large study, that it would have to first identify these patients and then randomly assign them to anticoagulation or to no treatment. “That is quite a major undertaking.”

In the highlights presentation, Dr. Jovin said he was uncertain of which of these patients in whom AFib is detected would benefit from anticoagulation. He said he would also like to see a randomized trial on this. But he added: “This would be challenging, as there is the issue of whether there would be equipoise to allow us to randomize to a placebo.”

Dr. Sansing agreed. “I think it would be a hard sell. I would have to think carefully about randomizing a patient to anticoagulation therapy or no therapy who has been found to have AF[ib].”

Dr. Schwamm noted that the current STROKE-AF study was not designed or powered to detect differences in stroke recurrence rates and that there was no difference in stroke recurrence rates between the two arms. There was also no randomization with regard to treatment; choice of medication was left to the discretion of the treating physician.

But he noted that only for 3 of the 34 patients with recurrent stroke in the continuous-monitor arm was AFib detected prior to the recurrent stroke, and only one of those three was receiving anticoagulation at the time of the recurrent stroke.

“These strokes were occurring in patients who did not have device-detected AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm said. “This is because the population in this study were loaded with stroke risk factors and are at risk of recurrent stroke, but we don’t have the opportunity in this study to really understand the significance of the recurrent strokes.”

The STROKE AF trial was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Schwamm is a consultant to Medtronic.

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

In the STROKE AF study, among patients who had a stroke presumably caused by atherosclerosis, the rate of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was almost 22% at 3 years, as detected by continuous monitoring.

The 3-year results from the study were presented by Lee H. Schwamm, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Schwamm said the high rate of AFib detection in this study suggests that continuous monitoring for AFib should be considered for a larger population of stroke patients, rather than just those with cryptogenic stroke.

“We found a much higher rate of AF[ib] than we expected in this population of patients who have had an atherosclerotic stroke,” Dr. Schwamm said in an interview.

“These AF[ib] occurrences were found by a device, so they are known as ‘device-documented AF[ib].’ The patient is not generally aware of symptoms, but 67% of the AF[ib] episodes lasted for more than 1 hour, showing that this is not trivial AF[ib]. This is meaningful AF[ib],” he said.

Dr. Schwamm said the major question is whether these cases of AFib that are detected with a device warrant treatment with anticoagulation. He noted that, in this study, clinicians decided to provide anticoagulation to 70%-80% of patients in whom AFib was detected.

“If we think it deserves treatment, then we have to look for it. And if we care about finding AF[ib], we have no choice but to monitor continuously,” he said.

“If this data doesn’t convince you that AF[ib] is present in this population, I don’t think any data will. Because it is consistent, it accumulates over time and looks remarkably similar to a set of data that we have all become very comfortable with – the CRYSTAL-AF study in patients with cryptogenic stroke,” he stated.

Dr. Schwamm noted that the STROKE AF trial was not based on the cause of the index stroke; rather, it was asking whether there are risk factors that could contribute to the 25% stroke recurrence rate in this population that are not covered in current guidelines.

“I’m really trying to move away from the anchor that I was trained in, which is to figure out the cause of the last stroke to help decide how to prevent the next stroke, towards more of a probabilistic model – of what is all the information I have at my disposal and how do I act on it to prevent the next stroke? We have to start thinking differently about building models for future stroke risk and determining therapy based on that,” he commented.
 

Changing practice

ISC 2023 program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and moderator of the session at which the results were presented, discussed the STROKE AF results in a highlights presentation.

“To me as clinician, these results are even more relevant than those at 12 months,” Dr. Jovin said. “The lesson I took is that AF[ib] is even more prevalent than we thought. The burden of AF[ib] is significant in these patients, and it doesn’t seem to be limited to a particular time. These are very thought-provoking results which are going to change clinical practice. I think the threshold for long-term monitoring will be lower.”

Comoderator Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., added: “This study shows that the longer we monitor, the more patients with AF[ib] we are likely to pick up. And because in two-thirds of patients with AF[ib], it lasted longer than 1 hour, I do believe this was clinically relevant AF[ib]. The question now is, do we monitor everyone? I think it puts the burden on us to search for AF[ib] in our patients.”

In his presentation, Dr. Schwamm explained that, on the basis of the CRYSTAL-AF study, insertable cardiac monitoring devices are frequently used to identify poststroke AFib in patients with cryptogenic stroke. In the device-monitored arm of that study, AFib was detected in 12.4% of patients over 12 months versus 2.0% in the control arm.

“However, we don’t know how often AF[ib] is detected in other presumed stroke types – largely those due to atherosclerosis,” he said.

He pointed out that, at present, long-term monitoring post stroke for the detection of AFib is not currently recommended for patients with ischemic stroke, owing to presumed small-vessel occlusion or large-artery atherosclerosis.

“In these patients, we are not suspecting AF[ib] because we believe the cause of the stroke was not embolic. But we wanted to investigate what the AF[ib] risk is in these patients, who often have multiple stroke risk factors,” he said.

The trial enrolled 496 patients at 33 centers in the United States. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older or aged 50-59 years with at least one additional stroke risk factor and had an index stroke that was attributed to large-artery or small-vessel disease. Patients were randomly assigned either to continuous monitoring with the Reveal LINQ device (Medtronic) or to the control arm following site-specific standard of care for AFib detection.

Dr. Schwamm noted that usual care for these patients normally involves monitoring for just a few days while in hospital, but this picks up less than 5% of AFib occurrences.

Baseline characteristics of patients in the STROKE AF study showed that the enrolled population was at high risk for stroke, with a CHADSVASC score of 5. But the index strokes were generally small; the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 2.

Results at 12 months, reported 2 years ago, showed a 12.5% incidence of AFib with continuous monitoring versus 1.8% with standard of care (hazard ratio, 7.7; P < .001), rates similar to that found in the CRYSTAL-AF study.

By 3 years, the rate of detected AFib had risen to 21.7% in the continuous monitoring arm versus 2.4% in the control arm (HR, 10.0; P < .001).

“At 12 months, we were seven times more likely to detect AF[ib] with continuous monitoring in these patients, and by 3 years, it was 10 times more likely that AF would be detected with continuous monitoring. I think we’ve settled the question of the best way to find AF[ib] in these patients – it is with an inserted device,” Dr. Schwamm said.

“We have also shown that this is not a transient rise in AFib after the stroke which then diminishes over the next few years. It is a continuous and progressive detection of AF[ib].”

Dr. Schwamm pointed out that 88% of the recorded AFib episodes were asymptomatic. “So relying on patients self-reporting symptoms when deciding who to monitor is unreliable and not a sensible strategy.”

The median time to the first adjudicated AFib episode at 12-month follow-up was 99 days; at the 3-year follow-up, it was 284 days.

“This shows that 30 days of monitoring with an external patch is not sufficient to exclude the presence of AF[ib]. And this really argues for a strategy of immediate insertion of cardiac monitor placement if your goal is to look for AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm commented.
 

Is this clinically relevant AFib?

Dr. Schwamm acknowledged that there is a question of whether device-detected AFib should be thought about in the same way as clinically detected AFib with respect to future stroke risk.

He noted that, in this study, 67.4% of patients for whom AFib was detected by continuous monitoring (31 of 46 patients) had at least one episode of AFib that lasted more than 1 hour.

“This is not a trivial little squiggle of something on an EKG which then goes away. This is of significant duration that the cardiologist who adjudicated these rhythm strips felt confident was AF[ib].”

He added: “AF[ib] lasting more than 1 hour crosses the threshold for most practitioners I know to feel confident in treating the patient with anticoagulation. If it was symptomatic AF, this wouldn’t even be a question.”

Dr. Schwamm made the point that device-detected A AFib F has been accepted as worthy of treatment in patients after cryptogenic stroke.

“If we are honest with ourselves and if we have no hesitation in starting anticoagulation in a patient with cryptogenic stroke who has had device-detected AF 6 months later, should we decide that if the patient has had a lacunar stroke, we can ignore that same device-detected fibrillation?”

He put forward the idea that, at some level, all stroke is cryptogenic. “We never know for sure what the cause was. We have hypotheses, we have associations, but we don’t really know. So how much should we weigh that presumptive etiology in terms of how we interpret a rhythm disturbance of fibrillation?”

When looking for predictors of AFib in this study, the investigators found that patients were more likely to have an episode of AFib detected if they had one of the four following risk factors: congestive heart failure, left atrial enlargement, obesity, or QRS prolongation.

“In patients with any one of those four factors, 30% of those had device-detected AF[ib]. These are same predictors of AF[ib] that we are all accustomed to,” Dr. Schwamm said.
 

Shared decision-making

Dr. Schwamm said in an interview that, in his practice, for these patients, the decision as to whether to use continuous monitoring is made with the patient through shared decision-making.

“We discuss the chance that they could have AF[ib], and I suggest that it might be worth looking for it, but there are factors to be considered. There is a cost to the device, and reimbursement may depend on insurance coverage. Also, some patients may have strong feelings about having the chip implanted in their body.”

He says implanting the chip is easy. “It takes longer to check in at the front desk than to put the device in. It is injected under the skin. It just needs two stitches and a Band-Aid.” The device connects with a smartphone, and the results are interpreted by a cardiologist.

Dr. Schwamm pointed out that the optimal antithrombotic regimen for these patients in whom AFib is detected remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

“Do we just stick to antiplatelet therapy or advance to anticoagulation? In moving to an anticoagulant, are we providing less effective prevention for the atherosclerotic stroke risk at the expense of reducing the AF[ib]-related stroke risk? That may be a reasonable trade-off because we know the disability from AF[ib]-associated stroke is much higher.

“Or perhaps the optimal therapy is aspirin plus low-dose anticoagulant? Or left atrial appendage closure and an antiplatelet for patients at a higher risk of bleeding?” he said. “These are the really important questions we need to start asking.”

He added that he hopes a future study will address these questions, but he noted that it would have to be a large study, that it would have to first identify these patients and then randomly assign them to anticoagulation or to no treatment. “That is quite a major undertaking.”

In the highlights presentation, Dr. Jovin said he was uncertain of which of these patients in whom AFib is detected would benefit from anticoagulation. He said he would also like to see a randomized trial on this. But he added: “This would be challenging, as there is the issue of whether there would be equipoise to allow us to randomize to a placebo.”

Dr. Sansing agreed. “I think it would be a hard sell. I would have to think carefully about randomizing a patient to anticoagulation therapy or no therapy who has been found to have AF[ib].”

Dr. Schwamm noted that the current STROKE-AF study was not designed or powered to detect differences in stroke recurrence rates and that there was no difference in stroke recurrence rates between the two arms. There was also no randomization with regard to treatment; choice of medication was left to the discretion of the treating physician.

But he noted that only for 3 of the 34 patients with recurrent stroke in the continuous-monitor arm was AFib detected prior to the recurrent stroke, and only one of those three was receiving anticoagulation at the time of the recurrent stroke.

“These strokes were occurring in patients who did not have device-detected AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm said. “This is because the population in this study were loaded with stroke risk factors and are at risk of recurrent stroke, but we don’t have the opportunity in this study to really understand the significance of the recurrent strokes.”

The STROKE AF trial was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Schwamm is a consultant to Medtronic.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions has issued an updated expert consensus statement to provide clearer guidance on what percutaneous coronary angioplasty cases can be done in outpatient settings such as ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and office-based laboratories and which are best left to more traditional settings, such as hospitals with full cardiac support.

PCI has evolved quickly since SCAI issued its last update almost 9 years ago. The updated statement, published online in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, notes that the proportion of same-day PCI discharges has increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in 2017.

The statement also notes that the Medicare facility fee for outpatient PCI in an ASC is about 40% less than the hospital fee: $6,111 versus $10,258 for the facility fee for 2022. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2020 extended coverage for PCIs in ASCs.
 

Rationale for update

Writing group chair Cindy Grines, MD, explained the rationale for updating the statement now. “The 2014 SCAI statement was very conservative, recommending only the simplest of cases be done without surgical backup,” Dr. Grines, chief scientific officer at Northside Hospital Cardiovascular Institute in Atlanta, said in an interview.

The statement drew on 12 global studies from 2015 to 2022 that evaluated more than 8 million PCIs at facilities with and without surgery on site. Dr. Grines noted those studies reported complication rates as low as 0.1% in PCI procedures in centers without surgical backup.

She also noted that the writing committee also received input that “by restricting the use of certain devices such as atherectomy, some patients who needed it as a bailout could be harmed.”

Another factor in prompting the statement update, Dr. Grines said: “Many hospitals have consolidated into heath systems, and these systems consolidated bypass surgery into one center. Therefore, centers with high volume, experienced operators, and excellent outcomes were now left with no surgery on site. It didn’t make sense to withdraw complex PCI from these centers who haven’t sent a patient for emergency bypass in several years.”
 

Statement guidance

The centerpiece of the update is an algorithm that covers the range of settings for PCI, from having a surgeon on site to ACS or office-based lab.

For example, indications for on-site surgical capability are PCI of the last remaining patent vessel or retrograde approach to epicardial chronic total occlusion (CTO), and when the patient is a candidate for surgery.

Indications for PCI in a hospital without on-site surgery but with percutaneous ventricular assist device or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, calcium modification devices and high PCI volume are patients with decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, unprotected left main artery, CTO, or degenerated vein grafts.

For patients at high risk for transfusion, acute kidney injury or vascular complications, or who have high baseline respiratory risk, a hospital without on-site surgery but with respiratory care, blood bank, and vascular surgery services is indicated.

And for patients with none of the aforementioned characteristics or risks, ASC, office-based lab, or any hospital facility is acceptable.

The statement also provides guidance for operator experience. Those with less than 3 years’ experience, considered to have limited exposure to atherectomy devices and limited ST-segmented elevation MI (STEMI)/shock experience, should avoid doing PCIs in an ASC and performing atherectomy cases on their own, and have a colleague review case selection and assist in higher-risk cases. Experienced (3-10 years’ experience) and very experienced (more than 10 years’) should be able to perform in any setting and be competent with, if not highly experienced with, atherectomy and STEMI/shock.

Dr. Grines acknowledged the writing group didn’t want to set a specific operator volume requirement. “However, we recognize that lifetime operator experience is particularly important in more complex cases such as CTO, atherectomy, bifurcation stenoses, etc.,” she said. “In addition, performing these cases at a larger institution that has other operators that may assist in the event of a complication is very important. Specifically, we did not believe that recent fellow graduates with less than 3 years in practice or low-volume operators should attempt higher-risk cases in a no-SOS [surgeon-on-site] setting or perform cases in ASC or office-based labs where no colleagues are there to assist in case of a complication.”

In an interview, Gregory J. Dehmer, MD, professor of medicine at Virginia Tech University, Roanoke, reprised the theme of his accompanying editorial. “Things are evolving again, as Bob Dylan would say, ‘The Times They Are A-Changin’, so it’s very timely that the society in collaboration with other professional societies updated what are guidelines and rules of road if you’re going to do PCI in ASCs or office based laboratories,” said Dr. Dehmer, who chaired the writing committees of the 2007 and 2014 SCAI expert statements on PCI.

Having this statement is important for centers that don’t have on-site surgical backup, he said. “You couldn’t sustain a PCI operation at a rural hospital on just acute MIs alone. The key thing is that all of this built upon numerous studies both in the U.S. and abroad that showed the safety of doing elective cases – not only STEMIs, but elective PCI – at facilities without on-site surgery.”

CMS pushed the envelope when it decided to reimburse PCIs done in ASCs, Dr. Dehmer said. “That was not based on a lot of data. It was kind of a leap of faith. It’s logical that this should work, but in order for it to work and be safe for pats you have to follow the rules. That’s where SCAI stepped in at this point and said this is a whole new environment and we need to set some ground rules for physicians of who and who should not be having these procures in an office-based lab or an ambulatory surgery center.”

Dr. Grines and Dr. Dehmer have no relevant disclosures.
 

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions has issued an updated expert consensus statement to provide clearer guidance on what percutaneous coronary angioplasty cases can be done in outpatient settings such as ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and office-based laboratories and which are best left to more traditional settings, such as hospitals with full cardiac support.

PCI has evolved quickly since SCAI issued its last update almost 9 years ago. The updated statement, published online in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, notes that the proportion of same-day PCI discharges has increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in 2017.

The statement also notes that the Medicare facility fee for outpatient PCI in an ASC is about 40% less than the hospital fee: $6,111 versus $10,258 for the facility fee for 2022. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2020 extended coverage for PCIs in ASCs.
 

Rationale for update

Writing group chair Cindy Grines, MD, explained the rationale for updating the statement now. “The 2014 SCAI statement was very conservative, recommending only the simplest of cases be done without surgical backup,” Dr. Grines, chief scientific officer at Northside Hospital Cardiovascular Institute in Atlanta, said in an interview.

The statement drew on 12 global studies from 2015 to 2022 that evaluated more than 8 million PCIs at facilities with and without surgery on site. Dr. Grines noted those studies reported complication rates as low as 0.1% in PCI procedures in centers without surgical backup.

She also noted that the writing committee also received input that “by restricting the use of certain devices such as atherectomy, some patients who needed it as a bailout could be harmed.”

Another factor in prompting the statement update, Dr. Grines said: “Many hospitals have consolidated into heath systems, and these systems consolidated bypass surgery into one center. Therefore, centers with high volume, experienced operators, and excellent outcomes were now left with no surgery on site. It didn’t make sense to withdraw complex PCI from these centers who haven’t sent a patient for emergency bypass in several years.”
 

Statement guidance

The centerpiece of the update is an algorithm that covers the range of settings for PCI, from having a surgeon on site to ACS or office-based lab.

For example, indications for on-site surgical capability are PCI of the last remaining patent vessel or retrograde approach to epicardial chronic total occlusion (CTO), and when the patient is a candidate for surgery.

Indications for PCI in a hospital without on-site surgery but with percutaneous ventricular assist device or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, calcium modification devices and high PCI volume are patients with decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, unprotected left main artery, CTO, or degenerated vein grafts.

For patients at high risk for transfusion, acute kidney injury or vascular complications, or who have high baseline respiratory risk, a hospital without on-site surgery but with respiratory care, blood bank, and vascular surgery services is indicated.

And for patients with none of the aforementioned characteristics or risks, ASC, office-based lab, or any hospital facility is acceptable.

The statement also provides guidance for operator experience. Those with less than 3 years’ experience, considered to have limited exposure to atherectomy devices and limited ST-segmented elevation MI (STEMI)/shock experience, should avoid doing PCIs in an ASC and performing atherectomy cases on their own, and have a colleague review case selection and assist in higher-risk cases. Experienced (3-10 years’ experience) and very experienced (more than 10 years’) should be able to perform in any setting and be competent with, if not highly experienced with, atherectomy and STEMI/shock.

Dr. Grines acknowledged the writing group didn’t want to set a specific operator volume requirement. “However, we recognize that lifetime operator experience is particularly important in more complex cases such as CTO, atherectomy, bifurcation stenoses, etc.,” she said. “In addition, performing these cases at a larger institution that has other operators that may assist in the event of a complication is very important. Specifically, we did not believe that recent fellow graduates with less than 3 years in practice or low-volume operators should attempt higher-risk cases in a no-SOS [surgeon-on-site] setting or perform cases in ASC or office-based labs where no colleagues are there to assist in case of a complication.”

In an interview, Gregory J. Dehmer, MD, professor of medicine at Virginia Tech University, Roanoke, reprised the theme of his accompanying editorial. “Things are evolving again, as Bob Dylan would say, ‘The Times They Are A-Changin’, so it’s very timely that the society in collaboration with other professional societies updated what are guidelines and rules of road if you’re going to do PCI in ASCs or office based laboratories,” said Dr. Dehmer, who chaired the writing committees of the 2007 and 2014 SCAI expert statements on PCI.

Having this statement is important for centers that don’t have on-site surgical backup, he said. “You couldn’t sustain a PCI operation at a rural hospital on just acute MIs alone. The key thing is that all of this built upon numerous studies both in the U.S. and abroad that showed the safety of doing elective cases – not only STEMIs, but elective PCI – at facilities without on-site surgery.”

CMS pushed the envelope when it decided to reimburse PCIs done in ASCs, Dr. Dehmer said. “That was not based on a lot of data. It was kind of a leap of faith. It’s logical that this should work, but in order for it to work and be safe for pats you have to follow the rules. That’s where SCAI stepped in at this point and said this is a whole new environment and we need to set some ground rules for physicians of who and who should not be having these procures in an office-based lab or an ambulatory surgery center.”

Dr. Grines and Dr. Dehmer have no relevant disclosures.
 

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions has issued an updated expert consensus statement to provide clearer guidance on what percutaneous coronary angioplasty cases can be done in outpatient settings such as ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and office-based laboratories and which are best left to more traditional settings, such as hospitals with full cardiac support.

PCI has evolved quickly since SCAI issued its last update almost 9 years ago. The updated statement, published online in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, notes that the proportion of same-day PCI discharges has increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in 2017.

The statement also notes that the Medicare facility fee for outpatient PCI in an ASC is about 40% less than the hospital fee: $6,111 versus $10,258 for the facility fee for 2022. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2020 extended coverage for PCIs in ASCs.
 

Rationale for update

Writing group chair Cindy Grines, MD, explained the rationale for updating the statement now. “The 2014 SCAI statement was very conservative, recommending only the simplest of cases be done without surgical backup,” Dr. Grines, chief scientific officer at Northside Hospital Cardiovascular Institute in Atlanta, said in an interview.

The statement drew on 12 global studies from 2015 to 2022 that evaluated more than 8 million PCIs at facilities with and without surgery on site. Dr. Grines noted those studies reported complication rates as low as 0.1% in PCI procedures in centers without surgical backup.

She also noted that the writing committee also received input that “by restricting the use of certain devices such as atherectomy, some patients who needed it as a bailout could be harmed.”

Another factor in prompting the statement update, Dr. Grines said: “Many hospitals have consolidated into heath systems, and these systems consolidated bypass surgery into one center. Therefore, centers with high volume, experienced operators, and excellent outcomes were now left with no surgery on site. It didn’t make sense to withdraw complex PCI from these centers who haven’t sent a patient for emergency bypass in several years.”
 

Statement guidance

The centerpiece of the update is an algorithm that covers the range of settings for PCI, from having a surgeon on site to ACS or office-based lab.

For example, indications for on-site surgical capability are PCI of the last remaining patent vessel or retrograde approach to epicardial chronic total occlusion (CTO), and when the patient is a candidate for surgery.

Indications for PCI in a hospital without on-site surgery but with percutaneous ventricular assist device or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, calcium modification devices and high PCI volume are patients with decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, unprotected left main artery, CTO, or degenerated vein grafts.

For patients at high risk for transfusion, acute kidney injury or vascular complications, or who have high baseline respiratory risk, a hospital without on-site surgery but with respiratory care, blood bank, and vascular surgery services is indicated.

And for patients with none of the aforementioned characteristics or risks, ASC, office-based lab, or any hospital facility is acceptable.

The statement also provides guidance for operator experience. Those with less than 3 years’ experience, considered to have limited exposure to atherectomy devices and limited ST-segmented elevation MI (STEMI)/shock experience, should avoid doing PCIs in an ASC and performing atherectomy cases on their own, and have a colleague review case selection and assist in higher-risk cases. Experienced (3-10 years’ experience) and very experienced (more than 10 years’) should be able to perform in any setting and be competent with, if not highly experienced with, atherectomy and STEMI/shock.

Dr. Grines acknowledged the writing group didn’t want to set a specific operator volume requirement. “However, we recognize that lifetime operator experience is particularly important in more complex cases such as CTO, atherectomy, bifurcation stenoses, etc.,” she said. “In addition, performing these cases at a larger institution that has other operators that may assist in the event of a complication is very important. Specifically, we did not believe that recent fellow graduates with less than 3 years in practice or low-volume operators should attempt higher-risk cases in a no-SOS [surgeon-on-site] setting or perform cases in ASC or office-based labs where no colleagues are there to assist in case of a complication.”

In an interview, Gregory J. Dehmer, MD, professor of medicine at Virginia Tech University, Roanoke, reprised the theme of his accompanying editorial. “Things are evolving again, as Bob Dylan would say, ‘The Times They Are A-Changin’, so it’s very timely that the society in collaboration with other professional societies updated what are guidelines and rules of road if you’re going to do PCI in ASCs or office based laboratories,” said Dr. Dehmer, who chaired the writing committees of the 2007 and 2014 SCAI expert statements on PCI.

Having this statement is important for centers that don’t have on-site surgical backup, he said. “You couldn’t sustain a PCI operation at a rural hospital on just acute MIs alone. The key thing is that all of this built upon numerous studies both in the U.S. and abroad that showed the safety of doing elective cases – not only STEMIs, but elective PCI – at facilities without on-site surgery.”

CMS pushed the envelope when it decided to reimburse PCIs done in ASCs, Dr. Dehmer said. “That was not based on a lot of data. It was kind of a leap of faith. It’s logical that this should work, but in order for it to work and be safe for pats you have to follow the rules. That’s where SCAI stepped in at this point and said this is a whole new environment and we need to set some ground rules for physicians of who and who should not be having these procures in an office-based lab or an ambulatory surgery center.”

Dr. Grines and Dr. Dehmer have no relevant disclosures.