Clinical Endocrinology News

Osteoporosis is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated in men before and even after they have experienced a fracture, according to research presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“This is an important public health concern,” as fractures contribute significantly to morbidity and mortality, said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Men are often overlooked, he said, “because it’s misconstrued as a disease that mainly, if not only, affects Caucasian women,” despite the fact that 20%-25% of fractures occur in men.

Emerging evidence suggests that men who have bone fractures have worse outcomes than women, Dr. Curtis said.
 

Guidelines lacking

Consistent guidelines for osteoporosis screening among men are also lacking, leading to ambiguity and increased disease burden.

Researchers studied records for a 5% random sample of male Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (n = 9,876) aged at least 65 years with a closed fragility fracture between January 2010 and September 2014. Average age for the men with fractures was 77.9 years, and the most common sites of the fracture were the spine, hip, and ankle.

They looked back to see whether these men had been effectively screened and treated.

Very few had.

“We found that 92.8% of them did not have any diagnosis or treatment of osteoporosis at baseline,” Curtis said. On top of that, less than 6% of men had undergone any dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) or bone mineral testing in the 2 years prior to their fracture.

Even men who had high-risk factors for falls, such as those using beta-blockers, mobility impairment, or a history of opioid use, were unlikely to be screened, he said.

Dr. Curtis’s data show there was actually a decline in DEXA scans from 2012 to 2014, and that decline was particularly high in men aged 75 years and older who are more likely to be at risk for fracture.

In addition to underscreening and undertreating before the fracture, Dr. Curtis said, “The treatment patterns after the fracture were not much better.” In the year after the fracture, “only about 10% of these men had BMD [bone mineral density] testing. Only 9% were treated with an osteoporosis medication.”

“Importantly, about 7% of the men in this large cohort went on to have one or more fractures in the next year,” he added.

Reasons for undertreatment

Reasons for the poor rates of diagnosis and treatment may begin with patients not having symptoms. Therefore, they aren’t coming into doctors’ offices asking to be screened. “Even if they break bones, they may not know enough to ask how to prevent the next fracture,” Dr. Curtis said.

There’s a financial obstacle as well, Dr. Curtis explained. “U.S. legislation that provides population screening for Medicare patients really, for men, is quite dissimilar to the near-universal coverage for women. So many clinicians worry they won’t get reimbursed if they order DEXA in men for screening.”

Additionally, postfracture quality-of-care guidelines that are reimbursed as part of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System program specifically exclude men, he noted.

Better management of male osteoporosis, including early identification of at-risk individuals is clearly warranted, he said, so they can be screened and put on effective therapy.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist with Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was not part of the research, agreed.

She said in an interview that part of the problem is that diagnosis and treatment could come from a variety of specialists – endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedists, and primary care physicians – and each may think it falls in another’s realm.

At Rush and some other sites nationally, she said, an alert is registered in electronic medical records flagging any patient who may need bone density screening based on age, medications, or history.

Rush University also has a fracture liaison service under which everyone hospitalized there who may have had a history of a fracture or is admitted with a fracture gets followed up with screening and treatment, “to capture those patients who may not have come through the system otherwise.”

She said guidelines have called for DEXA screening for men at age 70, but she said clinical screening should start younger – as young as 50 – for patients with conditions such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, hypogonadism, or those on chronic steroids.

Dr. Khandelwal said that, even when an insurance company doesn›t typically cover bone density screening for men, physicians can often make a case for reimbursement if the patient has a history of falls or fractures.

“In the long run, preventing a fracture is saving so much more money than when you get a fracture and end up in a hospital and have to go to a nursing home,” she said.

Dr. Curtis reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Myriad, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, UCB, Gilead Sciences, and Sanofi. Dr. Khandelwal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Osteoporosis is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated in men before and even after they have experienced a fracture, according to research presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“This is an important public health concern,” as fractures contribute significantly to morbidity and mortality, said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Men are often overlooked, he said, “because it’s misconstrued as a disease that mainly, if not only, affects Caucasian women,” despite the fact that 20%-25% of fractures occur in men.

Emerging evidence suggests that men who have bone fractures have worse outcomes than women, Dr. Curtis said.
 

Guidelines lacking

Consistent guidelines for osteoporosis screening among men are also lacking, leading to ambiguity and increased disease burden.

Researchers studied records for a 5% random sample of male Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (n = 9,876) aged at least 65 years with a closed fragility fracture between January 2010 and September 2014. Average age for the men with fractures was 77.9 years, and the most common sites of the fracture were the spine, hip, and ankle.

They looked back to see whether these men had been effectively screened and treated.

Very few had.

“We found that 92.8% of them did not have any diagnosis or treatment of osteoporosis at baseline,” Curtis said. On top of that, less than 6% of men had undergone any dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) or bone mineral testing in the 2 years prior to their fracture.

Even men who had high-risk factors for falls, such as those using beta-blockers, mobility impairment, or a history of opioid use, were unlikely to be screened, he said.

Dr. Curtis’s data show there was actually a decline in DEXA scans from 2012 to 2014, and that decline was particularly high in men aged 75 years and older who are more likely to be at risk for fracture.

In addition to underscreening and undertreating before the fracture, Dr. Curtis said, “The treatment patterns after the fracture were not much better.” In the year after the fracture, “only about 10% of these men had BMD [bone mineral density] testing. Only 9% were treated with an osteoporosis medication.”

“Importantly, about 7% of the men in this large cohort went on to have one or more fractures in the next year,” he added.

Reasons for undertreatment

Reasons for the poor rates of diagnosis and treatment may begin with patients not having symptoms. Therefore, they aren’t coming into doctors’ offices asking to be screened. “Even if they break bones, they may not know enough to ask how to prevent the next fracture,” Dr. Curtis said.

There’s a financial obstacle as well, Dr. Curtis explained. “U.S. legislation that provides population screening for Medicare patients really, for men, is quite dissimilar to the near-universal coverage for women. So many clinicians worry they won’t get reimbursed if they order DEXA in men for screening.”

Additionally, postfracture quality-of-care guidelines that are reimbursed as part of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System program specifically exclude men, he noted.

Better management of male osteoporosis, including early identification of at-risk individuals is clearly warranted, he said, so they can be screened and put on effective therapy.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist with Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was not part of the research, agreed.

She said in an interview that part of the problem is that diagnosis and treatment could come from a variety of specialists – endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedists, and primary care physicians – and each may think it falls in another’s realm.

At Rush and some other sites nationally, she said, an alert is registered in electronic medical records flagging any patient who may need bone density screening based on age, medications, or history.

Rush University also has a fracture liaison service under which everyone hospitalized there who may have had a history of a fracture or is admitted with a fracture gets followed up with screening and treatment, “to capture those patients who may not have come through the system otherwise.”

She said guidelines have called for DEXA screening for men at age 70, but she said clinical screening should start younger – as young as 50 – for patients with conditions such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, hypogonadism, or those on chronic steroids.

Dr. Khandelwal said that, even when an insurance company doesn›t typically cover bone density screening for men, physicians can often make a case for reimbursement if the patient has a history of falls or fractures.

“In the long run, preventing a fracture is saving so much more money than when you get a fracture and end up in a hospital and have to go to a nursing home,” she said.

Dr. Curtis reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Myriad, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, UCB, Gilead Sciences, and Sanofi. Dr. Khandelwal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Osteoporosis is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated in men before and even after they have experienced a fracture, according to research presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“This is an important public health concern,” as fractures contribute significantly to morbidity and mortality, said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Men are often overlooked, he said, “because it’s misconstrued as a disease that mainly, if not only, affects Caucasian women,” despite the fact that 20%-25% of fractures occur in men.

Emerging evidence suggests that men who have bone fractures have worse outcomes than women, Dr. Curtis said.
 

Guidelines lacking

Consistent guidelines for osteoporosis screening among men are also lacking, leading to ambiguity and increased disease burden.

Researchers studied records for a 5% random sample of male Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (n = 9,876) aged at least 65 years with a closed fragility fracture between January 2010 and September 2014. Average age for the men with fractures was 77.9 years, and the most common sites of the fracture were the spine, hip, and ankle.

They looked back to see whether these men had been effectively screened and treated.

Very few had.

“We found that 92.8% of them did not have any diagnosis or treatment of osteoporosis at baseline,” Curtis said. On top of that, less than 6% of men had undergone any dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) or bone mineral testing in the 2 years prior to their fracture.

Even men who had high-risk factors for falls, such as those using beta-blockers, mobility impairment, or a history of opioid use, were unlikely to be screened, he said.

Dr. Curtis’s data show there was actually a decline in DEXA scans from 2012 to 2014, and that decline was particularly high in men aged 75 years and older who are more likely to be at risk for fracture.

In addition to underscreening and undertreating before the fracture, Dr. Curtis said, “The treatment patterns after the fracture were not much better.” In the year after the fracture, “only about 10% of these men had BMD [bone mineral density] testing. Only 9% were treated with an osteoporosis medication.”

“Importantly, about 7% of the men in this large cohort went on to have one or more fractures in the next year,” he added.

Reasons for undertreatment

Reasons for the poor rates of diagnosis and treatment may begin with patients not having symptoms. Therefore, they aren’t coming into doctors’ offices asking to be screened. “Even if they break bones, they may not know enough to ask how to prevent the next fracture,” Dr. Curtis said.

There’s a financial obstacle as well, Dr. Curtis explained. “U.S. legislation that provides population screening for Medicare patients really, for men, is quite dissimilar to the near-universal coverage for women. So many clinicians worry they won’t get reimbursed if they order DEXA in men for screening.”

Additionally, postfracture quality-of-care guidelines that are reimbursed as part of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System program specifically exclude men, he noted.

Better management of male osteoporosis, including early identification of at-risk individuals is clearly warranted, he said, so they can be screened and put on effective therapy.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist with Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was not part of the research, agreed.

She said in an interview that part of the problem is that diagnosis and treatment could come from a variety of specialists – endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedists, and primary care physicians – and each may think it falls in another’s realm.

At Rush and some other sites nationally, she said, an alert is registered in electronic medical records flagging any patient who may need bone density screening based on age, medications, or history.

Rush University also has a fracture liaison service under which everyone hospitalized there who may have had a history of a fracture or is admitted with a fracture gets followed up with screening and treatment, “to capture those patients who may not have come through the system otherwise.”

She said guidelines have called for DEXA screening for men at age 70, but she said clinical screening should start younger – as young as 50 – for patients with conditions such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, hypogonadism, or those on chronic steroids.

Dr. Khandelwal said that, even when an insurance company doesn›t typically cover bone density screening for men, physicians can often make a case for reimbursement if the patient has a history of falls or fractures.

“In the long run, preventing a fracture is saving so much more money than when you get a fracture and end up in a hospital and have to go to a nursing home,” she said.

Dr. Curtis reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Myriad, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, UCB, Gilead Sciences, and Sanofi. Dr. Khandelwal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Timing is everything when it comes to the use of the anabolic agent romosozumab (Evenity) for the treatment of advanced osteoporosis, a review of clinical trials suggests.

In four studies with treatment sequences in which romosozumab was administered either before or following the use of an antiresorptive agent, initial treatment with 1 year of romosozumab produced substantial bone mineral density (BMD) gains in the total hip and lumbar spine.

Transition from romosozumab to a potent resorptive agent, either alendronate or denosumab (Prolia) augmented the initial gains, reported Felicia Cosman, MD, professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University, New York.

Romosozumab was the third approved agent in its class, following teriparatide in 2002, and abaloparatide (Tymlos) in 2017, both of which have been shown to produce rapid reductions in fracture risk and large improvements in BMD when they were administered up front, followed by an antiresorptive agent.

“But since romosozumab has a very different mechanism of action compared to both teriparatide and abaloparatide, we didn’t know if treatment sequence would be as important for this agent as it was for teriparatide,” she said during a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data in an oral abstract session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Two-for-one

Romosozumab is unique in that it both increases bone formation and decreases bone resorption, and has been shown in treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis to significantly improve BMD and reduce fracture risk, compared with either placebo or alendronate. Romosozumab has also been studied as sequential therapy in patients treated initially with either alendronate or denosumab.

To see whether treatment sequence could have differential effects on clinical outcomes for patients with osteoporosis, Dr. Cosman and colleagues looked at results from four clinical trials, using levels of bone turnover markers (procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide [PINP] and beta-isomer of the C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen [beta-CTX]) and BMD gains in the total hip and spine as outcomes.

The two trials of romosozumab in treatment-naive women were the ARCH trial comparing romosozumab with alendronate in a double-blind phase for 1 year, followed by 1 year of open-label alendronate, and the FRAME trial, in which romosozumab was compared with placebo in a 1-year double-blind phase, followed by 1-year of open-label denosumab.

The two trials of romosozumab in women treated initially with antiresorptive agents were the STRUCTURE trial in which patients on oral bisphosphonates for at least 3 years or alendronate 70 mg weekly for 1 year were randomized to receive either romosozumab or teriparatide, and a phase 2 trial (NCT00896532) that included a 24-month romosozumab or placebo treatment phase followed by rerandomization to a 12-month extension phase with denosumab or placebo, followed by a 12-month retreatment phase with romosozumab, followed by a 24-month follow-on phase with zoledronic acid or no intervention.

Total hip BMD gains

In the ARCH trial, total hip BMD increased 6.2% with 1 year of romosozumab, and a cumulative total of 7.1% with the 2-year romosozumab/alendronate sequence. In the FRAME trial, patients gained 6.8% in total hip BMD after 1 year of romosozumab and a total of 8.8% after 2 years of romosozumab followed by denosumab.

In contrast, in the STRUCTURE trial, patients treated for 1 year or longer with alendronate and then with 1 year of romosozumab had a 2.9% BMD gain in the total hip. In the phase 2 trial, 1 year of romosozumab following 1 year of denosumab yielded a 0.9% BMD gain, for a total gain of 3.8% with the denosumab sequence.
 

Lumbar spine BMD gains

In ARCH, lumbar spine BMD increased 13.7% with 1 year of romosozumab, and a total of 15.2% with the 2-year sequence of romosozumab followed by alendronate. Similarly, in FRAME, patients gained 13.3% in BMD after a year of romosozumab, and total of 17.6% by the end of the 2-year romosozumab/denosumab sequence.

In contrast, in STRUCTURE, patients who had previously been on alendronate for at least 1 year had a gain of 9.8% after 1 year of romosozumab, and in the phase 2 study, patients who had been on denosumab for 1 year had an increase in lumbar spine BMD of 5.3% after 1 year on romosozumab, and a total gain of 11.5% at the end of the 2-year sequence.
 

Serum PINP and beta-CTX

Looking at the markers of bone turnover, the investigators saw that, in both ARCH and FRAME, PINP peaked at over 80% of baseline at 1 month, and then continued to steadily decline past 1 year. The beta-CTX nadir was 40%-50% below baseline at 1 year.

At the end of year 2, the PINP nadir was –67% with follow-on alendronate, and –69% with denosumab, and the beta-CTX nadir was –72% and –92%, respectively.

In the two trials where romosozumab was the follow-on therapy, however, the trends were distinctly different. In STRUCTURE, for example, PINP peaked at 141% of baseline at 1 month, and then returned toward baseline, whereas beta-CTX remained largely unchanged.

In the phase 2 trial, PINP peaked at 28% above baseline at 9 months, and then only slightly declined, and beta-CTX peaked at 211% at the end of 1 year of romosozumab.

Best used up front

“This study is important, because it suggests that for the three bone-building drugs that the best effects will really be attained on bone strength if the agents are used as initial therapy in very-high-risk patients. Those are people who have sustained fractures within the preceding 2 years, who had multiple fractures at any point in their adulthood, and who present with very low BMD, particularly if they have any associated clinical risk factors such as family history or other underlying diseases or medications that have detrimental effects on bone,” Dr. Cosman said at the briefing.

Marcy Bolster, MD, from the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in the study, commented that the study provides important information for clinicians who treat patients with osteoporosis.

“We have an increasing number of medications available for use in the treatment of patients with osteoporosis, and as we consider the importance of reducing fracture risk, the duration of therapy, the timing of a bisphosphonate holiday, it is essential that we consider any advantages to the order or sequence of our medications,” she said when asked for comment.

“This study provides evidence supporting the concept of the ‘anabolic window’ in which there is a demonstrated advantage in treating patients with an anabolic agent prior to treatment with an antiresorptive agent, and while gains in bone mineral density were achieved with either order of medication use, the gains were more dramatic with treatment with romosozumab as the first agent,” she added.

Dr. Bolster also noted it will be important to demonstrate reduction in fracture risk as well as gain in BMD.

The study was sponsored by Amgen, Astellas, and UCB. Dr. Cosman disclosed grants/research support from Amgen, and consulting fees and speaker activities for Amgen and Radius Health. Dr. Bolster disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Corbus, Cumberland, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Cosman F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10), Abstract 1973.

Timing is everything when it comes to the use of the anabolic agent romosozumab (Evenity) for the treatment of advanced osteoporosis, a review of clinical trials suggests.

In four studies with treatment sequences in which romosozumab was administered either before or following the use of an antiresorptive agent, initial treatment with 1 year of romosozumab produced substantial bone mineral density (BMD) gains in the total hip and lumbar spine.

Transition from romosozumab to a potent resorptive agent, either alendronate or denosumab (Prolia) augmented the initial gains, reported Felicia Cosman, MD, professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University, New York.

Romosozumab was the third approved agent in its class, following teriparatide in 2002, and abaloparatide (Tymlos) in 2017, both of which have been shown to produce rapid reductions in fracture risk and large improvements in BMD when they were administered up front, followed by an antiresorptive agent.

“But since romosozumab has a very different mechanism of action compared to both teriparatide and abaloparatide, we didn’t know if treatment sequence would be as important for this agent as it was for teriparatide,” she said during a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data in an oral abstract session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Two-for-one

Romosozumab is unique in that it both increases bone formation and decreases bone resorption, and has been shown in treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis to significantly improve BMD and reduce fracture risk, compared with either placebo or alendronate. Romosozumab has also been studied as sequential therapy in patients treated initially with either alendronate or denosumab.

To see whether treatment sequence could have differential effects on clinical outcomes for patients with osteoporosis, Dr. Cosman and colleagues looked at results from four clinical trials, using levels of bone turnover markers (procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide [PINP] and beta-isomer of the C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen [beta-CTX]) and BMD gains in the total hip and spine as outcomes.

The two trials of romosozumab in treatment-naive women were the ARCH trial comparing romosozumab with alendronate in a double-blind phase for 1 year, followed by 1 year of open-label alendronate, and the FRAME trial, in which romosozumab was compared with placebo in a 1-year double-blind phase, followed by 1-year of open-label denosumab.

The two trials of romosozumab in women treated initially with antiresorptive agents were the STRUCTURE trial in which patients on oral bisphosphonates for at least 3 years or alendronate 70 mg weekly for 1 year were randomized to receive either romosozumab or teriparatide, and a phase 2 trial (NCT00896532) that included a 24-month romosozumab or placebo treatment phase followed by rerandomization to a 12-month extension phase with denosumab or placebo, followed by a 12-month retreatment phase with romosozumab, followed by a 24-month follow-on phase with zoledronic acid or no intervention.

Total hip BMD gains

In the ARCH trial, total hip BMD increased 6.2% with 1 year of romosozumab, and a cumulative total of 7.1% with the 2-year romosozumab/alendronate sequence. In the FRAME trial, patients gained 6.8% in total hip BMD after 1 year of romosozumab and a total of 8.8% after 2 years of romosozumab followed by denosumab.

In contrast, in the STRUCTURE trial, patients treated for 1 year or longer with alendronate and then with 1 year of romosozumab had a 2.9% BMD gain in the total hip. In the phase 2 trial, 1 year of romosozumab following 1 year of denosumab yielded a 0.9% BMD gain, for a total gain of 3.8% with the denosumab sequence.
 

Lumbar spine BMD gains

In ARCH, lumbar spine BMD increased 13.7% with 1 year of romosozumab, and a total of 15.2% with the 2-year sequence of romosozumab followed by alendronate. Similarly, in FRAME, patients gained 13.3% in BMD after a year of romosozumab, and total of 17.6% by the end of the 2-year romosozumab/denosumab sequence.

In contrast, in STRUCTURE, patients who had previously been on alendronate for at least 1 year had a gain of 9.8% after 1 year of romosozumab, and in the phase 2 study, patients who had been on denosumab for 1 year had an increase in lumbar spine BMD of 5.3% after 1 year on romosozumab, and a total gain of 11.5% at the end of the 2-year sequence.
 

Serum PINP and beta-CTX

Looking at the markers of bone turnover, the investigators saw that, in both ARCH and FRAME, PINP peaked at over 80% of baseline at 1 month, and then continued to steadily decline past 1 year. The beta-CTX nadir was 40%-50% below baseline at 1 year.

At the end of year 2, the PINP nadir was –67% with follow-on alendronate, and –69% with denosumab, and the beta-CTX nadir was –72% and –92%, respectively.

In the two trials where romosozumab was the follow-on therapy, however, the trends were distinctly different. In STRUCTURE, for example, PINP peaked at 141% of baseline at 1 month, and then returned toward baseline, whereas beta-CTX remained largely unchanged.

In the phase 2 trial, PINP peaked at 28% above baseline at 9 months, and then only slightly declined, and beta-CTX peaked at 211% at the end of 1 year of romosozumab.

Best used up front

“This study is important, because it suggests that for the three bone-building drugs that the best effects will really be attained on bone strength if the agents are used as initial therapy in very-high-risk patients. Those are people who have sustained fractures within the preceding 2 years, who had multiple fractures at any point in their adulthood, and who present with very low BMD, particularly if they have any associated clinical risk factors such as family history or other underlying diseases or medications that have detrimental effects on bone,” Dr. Cosman said at the briefing.

Marcy Bolster, MD, from the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in the study, commented that the study provides important information for clinicians who treat patients with osteoporosis.

“We have an increasing number of medications available for use in the treatment of patients with osteoporosis, and as we consider the importance of reducing fracture risk, the duration of therapy, the timing of a bisphosphonate holiday, it is essential that we consider any advantages to the order or sequence of our medications,” she said when asked for comment.

“This study provides evidence supporting the concept of the ‘anabolic window’ in which there is a demonstrated advantage in treating patients with an anabolic agent prior to treatment with an antiresorptive agent, and while gains in bone mineral density were achieved with either order of medication use, the gains were more dramatic with treatment with romosozumab as the first agent,” she added.

Dr. Bolster also noted it will be important to demonstrate reduction in fracture risk as well as gain in BMD.

The study was sponsored by Amgen, Astellas, and UCB. Dr. Cosman disclosed grants/research support from Amgen, and consulting fees and speaker activities for Amgen and Radius Health. Dr. Bolster disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Corbus, Cumberland, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Cosman F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10), Abstract 1973.

Timing is everything when it comes to the use of the anabolic agent romosozumab (Evenity) for the treatment of advanced osteoporosis, a review of clinical trials suggests.

In four studies with treatment sequences in which romosozumab was administered either before or following the use of an antiresorptive agent, initial treatment with 1 year of romosozumab produced substantial bone mineral density (BMD) gains in the total hip and lumbar spine.

Transition from romosozumab to a potent resorptive agent, either alendronate or denosumab (Prolia) augmented the initial gains, reported Felicia Cosman, MD, professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University, New York.

Romosozumab was the third approved agent in its class, following teriparatide in 2002, and abaloparatide (Tymlos) in 2017, both of which have been shown to produce rapid reductions in fracture risk and large improvements in BMD when they were administered up front, followed by an antiresorptive agent.

“But since romosozumab has a very different mechanism of action compared to both teriparatide and abaloparatide, we didn’t know if treatment sequence would be as important for this agent as it was for teriparatide,” she said during a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data in an oral abstract session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Two-for-one

Romosozumab is unique in that it both increases bone formation and decreases bone resorption, and has been shown in treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis to significantly improve BMD and reduce fracture risk, compared with either placebo or alendronate. Romosozumab has also been studied as sequential therapy in patients treated initially with either alendronate or denosumab.

To see whether treatment sequence could have differential effects on clinical outcomes for patients with osteoporosis, Dr. Cosman and colleagues looked at results from four clinical trials, using levels of bone turnover markers (procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide [PINP] and beta-isomer of the C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen [beta-CTX]) and BMD gains in the total hip and spine as outcomes.

The two trials of romosozumab in treatment-naive women were the ARCH trial comparing romosozumab with alendronate in a double-blind phase for 1 year, followed by 1 year of open-label alendronate, and the FRAME trial, in which romosozumab was compared with placebo in a 1-year double-blind phase, followed by 1-year of open-label denosumab.

The two trials of romosozumab in women treated initially with antiresorptive agents were the STRUCTURE trial in which patients on oral bisphosphonates for at least 3 years or alendronate 70 mg weekly for 1 year were randomized to receive either romosozumab or teriparatide, and a phase 2 trial (NCT00896532) that included a 24-month romosozumab or placebo treatment phase followed by rerandomization to a 12-month extension phase with denosumab or placebo, followed by a 12-month retreatment phase with romosozumab, followed by a 24-month follow-on phase with zoledronic acid or no intervention.

Total hip BMD gains

In the ARCH trial, total hip BMD increased 6.2% with 1 year of romosozumab, and a cumulative total of 7.1% with the 2-year romosozumab/alendronate sequence. In the FRAME trial, patients gained 6.8% in total hip BMD after 1 year of romosozumab and a total of 8.8% after 2 years of romosozumab followed by denosumab.

In contrast, in the STRUCTURE trial, patients treated for 1 year or longer with alendronate and then with 1 year of romosozumab had a 2.9% BMD gain in the total hip. In the phase 2 trial, 1 year of romosozumab following 1 year of denosumab yielded a 0.9% BMD gain, for a total gain of 3.8% with the denosumab sequence.
 

Lumbar spine BMD gains

In ARCH, lumbar spine BMD increased 13.7% with 1 year of romosozumab, and a total of 15.2% with the 2-year sequence of romosozumab followed by alendronate. Similarly, in FRAME, patients gained 13.3% in BMD after a year of romosozumab, and total of 17.6% by the end of the 2-year romosozumab/denosumab sequence.

In contrast, in STRUCTURE, patients who had previously been on alendronate for at least 1 year had a gain of 9.8% after 1 year of romosozumab, and in the phase 2 study, patients who had been on denosumab for 1 year had an increase in lumbar spine BMD of 5.3% after 1 year on romosozumab, and a total gain of 11.5% at the end of the 2-year sequence.
 

Serum PINP and beta-CTX

Looking at the markers of bone turnover, the investigators saw that, in both ARCH and FRAME, PINP peaked at over 80% of baseline at 1 month, and then continued to steadily decline past 1 year. The beta-CTX nadir was 40%-50% below baseline at 1 year.

At the end of year 2, the PINP nadir was –67% with follow-on alendronate, and –69% with denosumab, and the beta-CTX nadir was –72% and –92%, respectively.

In the two trials where romosozumab was the follow-on therapy, however, the trends were distinctly different. In STRUCTURE, for example, PINP peaked at 141% of baseline at 1 month, and then returned toward baseline, whereas beta-CTX remained largely unchanged.

In the phase 2 trial, PINP peaked at 28% above baseline at 9 months, and then only slightly declined, and beta-CTX peaked at 211% at the end of 1 year of romosozumab.

Best used up front

“This study is important, because it suggests that for the three bone-building drugs that the best effects will really be attained on bone strength if the agents are used as initial therapy in very-high-risk patients. Those are people who have sustained fractures within the preceding 2 years, who had multiple fractures at any point in their adulthood, and who present with very low BMD, particularly if they have any associated clinical risk factors such as family history or other underlying diseases or medications that have detrimental effects on bone,” Dr. Cosman said at the briefing.

Marcy Bolster, MD, from the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in the study, commented that the study provides important information for clinicians who treat patients with osteoporosis.

“We have an increasing number of medications available for use in the treatment of patients with osteoporosis, and as we consider the importance of reducing fracture risk, the duration of therapy, the timing of a bisphosphonate holiday, it is essential that we consider any advantages to the order or sequence of our medications,” she said when asked for comment.

“This study provides evidence supporting the concept of the ‘anabolic window’ in which there is a demonstrated advantage in treating patients with an anabolic agent prior to treatment with an antiresorptive agent, and while gains in bone mineral density were achieved with either order of medication use, the gains were more dramatic with treatment with romosozumab as the first agent,” she added.

Dr. Bolster also noted it will be important to demonstrate reduction in fracture risk as well as gain in BMD.

The study was sponsored by Amgen, Astellas, and UCB. Dr. Cosman disclosed grants/research support from Amgen, and consulting fees and speaker activities for Amgen and Radius Health. Dr. Bolster disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Corbus, Cumberland, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Cosman F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10), Abstract 1973.

Among young patients with severe obesity and disordered eating behaviors – continuous eating, overeating, and binge eating – those who had bariatric surgery saw an improvement in the eating behaviors.

Kristina M. Decker, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, presented these findings during the virtual ObesityWeek 2020.

Dr. Decker and associates examined rates of disordered eating in more than 200 adolescents (aged 13-18 years) who were severely obese, of whom 141 underwent bariatric surgery and the remainder did not.

At baseline (presurgery), the teens in both groups had rates of disordered eating ranging from 11% to 50%, with higher rates in those who went on to have bariatric surgery.

Six years later, rates of disordered eating were much lower in those who had bariatric surgery.

The data nevertheless “underscore that young adults with persistent severe obesity are at high risk for poor health and well-being,” Dr. Decker said in an interview.

“This means disordered eating behaviors should be closely monitored” in all such patients, both those who undergo surgery and those who don’t, she stressed.
 

Robust findings because of long follow-up and controls

The findings are not unexpected, based on adult bariatric literature, but are “novel because of the age of the patients,” senior author Margaret H. Zeller, PhD, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and professor at the University of Cincinnati, added.

In a comment comment, psychologist Kajsa Järvholm, PhD, of the Childhood Obesity Unit at Skåne University Hospital, Malmö̈, Sweden, who has published related work, said that this is “a needed study.”

Notably, it had “long-term follow-up and a control group,” and it “confirms that adolescents are in better control of their eating after surgery.”

However, an important additional takeaway for clinicians is that “disordered eating is associated with other mental health problems and self-worth. Clinicians treating obesity must address problems related to eating disorders to improve outcomes and well-being,” she stressed.
 

How does bariatric surgery impact overeating, binge eating, in teens?

“For teens with severe obesity, metabolic and bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for improved cardiometabolic functioning, weight loss, and improved quality of life,” Dr. Decker stressed.

However, pre- and postsurgical disordered eating behaviors have been associated with a lower percentage change in body mass index (BMI), although this has not been well studied.

To investigate how disordered eating is affected by bariatric surgery in adolescents with severe obesity, researchers used data from Teen-LABS, which enrolled 242 participants aged 19 years and under who mainly underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (67%) or sleeve gastrectomy (28%) from 2007 to 2012 at five adolescent bariatric surgery centers.

The current analysis examined data from 141 participants in Teen-LABS who underwent bariatric surgery at a mean age of 16.8 years. Mean BMI was 51.5, most were girls (80%), and they had diverse race/ethnicity (66% were White).

Researchers also identified a control group of 83 adolescents of a similar age and gender who had diverse race/ethnicity (54% White) and a mean BMI of 46.9.

At year 6, data were available for 123 young adults in the surgery group (who by then had a mean BMI of 39.7) and 63 young adults in the nonsurgery group (who had a mean BMI of 52.6).

At baseline and year 6, participants replied to questionnaires that identified three eating disorders: continuous eating (eating in an unplanned and repetitious way between meals and snacks), objective overeating (eating a “large” amount of food without loss of control), and objective binge eating (eating a “large” amount of food with loss of control).

At baseline, rates of continuous eating, overeating, and binge eating were higher in the surgical group (50%, 40%, and 30%, respectively) than the nonsurgical group (40%, 22%, and 11%, respectively).  

Six years later, when participants were aged 19-24 years, rates of continuous eating, overeating, and binge eating had declined in the surgical group (to 17%, 5%, and 1%, respectively). In the nonsurgical group, only continuous eating and overeating declined (to 24% and 7%, respectively), and binge eating increased slightly (to 13%).
 

Disordered eating associated with low self-worth, anxiety, and depression

In young adulthood in both groups, disordered eating was associated with lower self-worth. In the surgical group, it was also associated with lower weight-related quality of life, and in the nonsurgical group, it was also associated with anxiety and/or depression.

“The current findings cannot tell us whether disordered eating is a direct result or caused by anxiety, depression, low self-worth, or poor quality of life,” Dr. Decker said.

“These findings do give us insight about what other areas of clinical concern might present together [in] young adults (e.g., disordered eating, low self-esteem).”

Bariatric surgery affects the amount of food people can eat at one time, she noted in reply to a question from the audience. If people eat too much at a time they can experience vomiting, dumping syndrome (where certain food is “dumped” into the small intestine without being digested, causing nausea and vomiting), and plugging (a sense of food becoming stuck).

The home environment and transition to adulthood might impact disordered eating in young adults, she said in reply to another question, but these issues were not examined in this study.  

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

Among young patients with severe obesity and disordered eating behaviors – continuous eating, overeating, and binge eating – those who had bariatric surgery saw an improvement in the eating behaviors.

Kristina M. Decker, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, presented these findings during the virtual ObesityWeek 2020.

Dr. Decker and associates examined rates of disordered eating in more than 200 adolescents (aged 13-18 years) who were severely obese, of whom 141 underwent bariatric surgery and the remainder did not.

At baseline (presurgery), the teens in both groups had rates of disordered eating ranging from 11% to 50%, with higher rates in those who went on to have bariatric surgery.

Six years later, rates of disordered eating were much lower in those who had bariatric surgery.

The data nevertheless “underscore that young adults with persistent severe obesity are at high risk for poor health and well-being,” Dr. Decker said in an interview.

“This means disordered eating behaviors should be closely monitored” in all such patients, both those who undergo surgery and those who don’t, she stressed.
 

Robust findings because of long follow-up and controls

The findings are not unexpected, based on adult bariatric literature, but are “novel because of the age of the patients,” senior author Margaret H. Zeller, PhD, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and professor at the University of Cincinnati, added.

In a comment comment, psychologist Kajsa Järvholm, PhD, of the Childhood Obesity Unit at Skåne University Hospital, Malmö̈, Sweden, who has published related work, said that this is “a needed study.”

Notably, it had “long-term follow-up and a control group,” and it “confirms that adolescents are in better control of their eating after surgery.”

However, an important additional takeaway for clinicians is that “disordered eating is associated with other mental health problems and self-worth. Clinicians treating obesity must address problems related to eating disorders to improve outcomes and well-being,” she stressed.
 

How does bariatric surgery impact overeating, binge eating, in teens?

“For teens with severe obesity, metabolic and bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for improved cardiometabolic functioning, weight loss, and improved quality of life,” Dr. Decker stressed.

However, pre- and postsurgical disordered eating behaviors have been associated with a lower percentage change in body mass index (BMI), although this has not been well studied.

To investigate how disordered eating is affected by bariatric surgery in adolescents with severe obesity, researchers used data from Teen-LABS, which enrolled 242 participants aged 19 years and under who mainly underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (67%) or sleeve gastrectomy (28%) from 2007 to 2012 at five adolescent bariatric surgery centers.

The current analysis examined data from 141 participants in Teen-LABS who underwent bariatric surgery at a mean age of 16.8 years. Mean BMI was 51.5, most were girls (80%), and they had diverse race/ethnicity (66% were White).

Researchers also identified a control group of 83 adolescents of a similar age and gender who had diverse race/ethnicity (54% White) and a mean BMI of 46.9.

At year 6, data were available for 123 young adults in the surgery group (who by then had a mean BMI of 39.7) and 63 young adults in the nonsurgery group (who had a mean BMI of 52.6).

At baseline and year 6, participants replied to questionnaires that identified three eating disorders: continuous eating (eating in an unplanned and repetitious way between meals and snacks), objective overeating (eating a “large” amount of food without loss of control), and objective binge eating (eating a “large” amount of food with loss of control).

At baseline, rates of continuous eating, overeating, and binge eating were higher in the surgical group (50%, 40%, and 30%, respectively) than the nonsurgical group (40%, 22%, and 11%, respectively).  

Six years later, when participants were aged 19-24 years, rates of continuous eating, overeating, and binge eating had declined in the surgical group (to 17%, 5%, and 1%, respectively). In the nonsurgical group, only continuous eating and overeating declined (to 24% and 7%, respectively), and binge eating increased slightly (to 13%).
 

Disordered eating associated with low self-worth, anxiety, and depression

In young adulthood in both groups, disordered eating was associated with lower self-worth. In the surgical group, it was also associated with lower weight-related quality of life, and in the nonsurgical group, it was also associated with anxiety and/or depression.

“The current findings cannot tell us whether disordered eating is a direct result or caused by anxiety, depression, low self-worth, or poor quality of life,” Dr. Decker said.

“These findings do give us insight about what other areas of clinical concern might present together [in] young adults (e.g., disordered eating, low self-esteem).”

Bariatric surgery affects the amount of food people can eat at one time, she noted in reply to a question from the audience. If people eat too much at a time they can experience vomiting, dumping syndrome (where certain food is “dumped” into the small intestine without being digested, causing nausea and vomiting), and plugging (a sense of food becoming stuck).

The home environment and transition to adulthood might impact disordered eating in young adults, she said in reply to another question, but these issues were not examined in this study.  

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

Among young patients with severe obesity and disordered eating behaviors – continuous eating, overeating, and binge eating – those who had bariatric surgery saw an improvement in the eating behaviors.

Kristina M. Decker, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, presented these findings during the virtual ObesityWeek 2020.

Dr. Decker and associates examined rates of disordered eating in more than 200 adolescents (aged 13-18 years) who were severely obese, of whom 141 underwent bariatric surgery and the remainder did not.

At baseline (presurgery), the teens in both groups had rates of disordered eating ranging from 11% to 50%, with higher rates in those who went on to have bariatric surgery.

Six years later, rates of disordered eating were much lower in those who had bariatric surgery.

The data nevertheless “underscore that young adults with persistent severe obesity are at high risk for poor health and well-being,” Dr. Decker said in an interview.

“This means disordered eating behaviors should be closely monitored” in all such patients, both those who undergo surgery and those who don’t, she stressed.
 

Robust findings because of long follow-up and controls

The findings are not unexpected, based on adult bariatric literature, but are “novel because of the age of the patients,” senior author Margaret H. Zeller, PhD, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and professor at the University of Cincinnati, added.

In a comment comment, psychologist Kajsa Järvholm, PhD, of the Childhood Obesity Unit at Skåne University Hospital, Malmö̈, Sweden, who has published related work, said that this is “a needed study.”

Notably, it had “long-term follow-up and a control group,” and it “confirms that adolescents are in better control of their eating after surgery.”

However, an important additional takeaway for clinicians is that “disordered eating is associated with other mental health problems and self-worth. Clinicians treating obesity must address problems related to eating disorders to improve outcomes and well-being,” she stressed.
 

How does bariatric surgery impact overeating, binge eating, in teens?

“For teens with severe obesity, metabolic and bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for improved cardiometabolic functioning, weight loss, and improved quality of life,” Dr. Decker stressed.

However, pre- and postsurgical disordered eating behaviors have been associated with a lower percentage change in body mass index (BMI), although this has not been well studied.

To investigate how disordered eating is affected by bariatric surgery in adolescents with severe obesity, researchers used data from Teen-LABS, which enrolled 242 participants aged 19 years and under who mainly underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (67%) or sleeve gastrectomy (28%) from 2007 to 2012 at five adolescent bariatric surgery centers.

The current analysis examined data from 141 participants in Teen-LABS who underwent bariatric surgery at a mean age of 16.8 years. Mean BMI was 51.5, most were girls (80%), and they had diverse race/ethnicity (66% were White).

Researchers also identified a control group of 83 adolescents of a similar age and gender who had diverse race/ethnicity (54% White) and a mean BMI of 46.9.

At year 6, data were available for 123 young adults in the surgery group (who by then had a mean BMI of 39.7) and 63 young adults in the nonsurgery group (who had a mean BMI of 52.6).

At baseline and year 6, participants replied to questionnaires that identified three eating disorders: continuous eating (eating in an unplanned and repetitious way between meals and snacks), objective overeating (eating a “large” amount of food without loss of control), and objective binge eating (eating a “large” amount of food with loss of control).

At baseline, rates of continuous eating, overeating, and binge eating were higher in the surgical group (50%, 40%, and 30%, respectively) than the nonsurgical group (40%, 22%, and 11%, respectively).  

Six years later, when participants were aged 19-24 years, rates of continuous eating, overeating, and binge eating had declined in the surgical group (to 17%, 5%, and 1%, respectively). In the nonsurgical group, only continuous eating and overeating declined (to 24% and 7%, respectively), and binge eating increased slightly (to 13%).
 

Disordered eating associated with low self-worth, anxiety, and depression

In young adulthood in both groups, disordered eating was associated with lower self-worth. In the surgical group, it was also associated with lower weight-related quality of life, and in the nonsurgical group, it was also associated with anxiety and/or depression.

“The current findings cannot tell us whether disordered eating is a direct result or caused by anxiety, depression, low self-worth, or poor quality of life,” Dr. Decker said.

“These findings do give us insight about what other areas of clinical concern might present together [in] young adults (e.g., disordered eating, low self-esteem).”

Bariatric surgery affects the amount of food people can eat at one time, she noted in reply to a question from the audience. If people eat too much at a time they can experience vomiting, dumping syndrome (where certain food is “dumped” into the small intestine without being digested, causing nausea and vomiting), and plugging (a sense of food becoming stuck).

The home environment and transition to adulthood might impact disordered eating in young adults, she said in reply to another question, but these issues were not examined in this study.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

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

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

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

Different calculations of risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

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

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

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

Different calculations of risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

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

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

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

Different calculations of risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obamacare on the blocks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obamacare on the blocks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obamacare on the blocks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global survey polled patient experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hospitals stockpiled HCQ in the U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

Declined prescriptions have frustrated physicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global survey polled patient experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hospitals stockpiled HCQ in the U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

Declined prescriptions have frustrated physicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global survey polled patient experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hospitals stockpiled HCQ in the U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

Declined prescriptions have frustrated physicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endocrine diseases of any type – not just diabetes – can represent a cardiovascular risk and patients with those disorders should be screened for high cholesterol, according to a new clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.

“The simple recommendation to check a lipid panel in patients with endocrine diseases and calculate cardiovascular risk may be practice changing because that is not done routinely,” Connie Newman, MD, chair of the Endocrine Society committee that developed the guideline, said in an interview.

“Usually the focus is on assessment and treatment of the endocrine disease, rather than on assessment and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk,” said Newman, an adjunct professor of medicine in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, at New York University.

Whereas diabetes, well-known for its increased cardiovascular risk profile, is commonly addressed in other cardiovascular and cholesterol practice management guidelines, the array of other endocrine diseases are not typically included.

“This guideline is the first of its kind,” Dr. Newman said. “The Endocrine Society has not previously issued a guideline on lipid management in endocrine disorders [and] other organizations have not written guidelines on this topic. 

“Rather, guidelines have been written on cholesterol management, but these do not describe cholesterol management in patients with endocrine diseases such as thyroid disease [hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism], Cushing’s syndrome, acromegaly, growth hormone deficiency, menopause, male hypogonadism, and obesity,” she noted.

But these conditions carry a host of cardiovascular risk factors that may require careful monitoring and management.

“Although endocrine hormones, such as thyroid hormone, cortisol, estrogen, testosterone, growth hormone, and insulin, affect pathways for lipid metabolism, physicians lack guidance on lipid abnormalities, cardiovascular risk, and treatment to reduce lipids and cardiovascular risk in patients with endocrine diseases,” she explained.

Vinaya Simha, MD, an internal medicine specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agrees that the guideline is notable in addressing an unmet need.

Recommendations that stand out to Dr. Simha include the suggestion of adding eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) ethyl ester to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in adults with diabetes or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who have elevated triglyceride levels despite statin treatment.

James L. Rosenzweig, MD, an endocrinologist at Hebrew SeniorLife in Boston, agreed that this is an important addition to an area that needs more guidance.

“Many of these clinical situations can exacerbate dyslipidemia and some also increase the cardiovascular risk to a greater extent in combination with elevated cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” he said in an interview. 

“In many cases, treatment of the underlying disorder appropriately can have an important impact in resolving the lipid disorder. In others, more aggressive pharmacological treatment is indicated,” he said.

“I think that this will be a valuable resource, especially for endocrinologists, but it can be used as well by providers in other disciplines.”
 

Key recommendations for different endocrine conditions

The guideline, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, details those risks and provides evidence-based recommendations on their management and treatment.

Key recommendations include:

• Obtain a lipid panel and evaluate cardiovascular risk factors in all adults with endocrine disorders.
• In patients with  and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, start statin therapy in addition to lifestyle modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. “This could mean earlier treatment because other guidelines recommend consideration of therapy at age 40,” Dr. Newman said.
• Statin therapy is also recommended for adults over 40 with  with a duration of diabetes of more than 20 years and/or microvascular complications, regardless of their cardiovascular risk score. “This means earlier treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes with statins in order to reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Newman noted.
• In patients with hyperlipidemia, rule out  as the cause before treating with lipid-lowering medications. And among patients who are found to have hypothyroidism, reevaluate the lipid profile when the patient has thyroid hormone levels in the normal range.
• Adults with persistent endogenous Cushing’s syndrome should have their lipid profile monitored. Statin therapy should be considered in addition to lifestyle modifications, irrespective of the cardiovascular risk score.
• In postmenopausal women, high cholesterol or triglycerides should be treated with statins rather than hormone therapy.
• Evaluate and treat lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors in women who enter menopause early (before the age of 40-45 years).

Nice summary of ‘risk-enhancing’ endocrine disorders

Dr. Simha said in an interview that the new guideline is “probably the first comprehensive statement addressing lipid treatment in patients with a broad range of endocrine disorders besides diabetes.”

“Most of the treatment recommendations are congruent with other current guidelines such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association [guidelines], but there is specific mention of which endocrine disorders represent enhanced cardiovascular risk,” she explained.

The new recommendations are notable for including “a nice summary of how different endocrine disorders affect lipid values, and also which endocrine disorders need to be considered as ‘risk-enhancing factors,’ ” Dr. Simha noted.

“The use of EPA in patients with hypertriglyceridemia is novel, compared to the ACC/AHA recommendation. This reflects new data which is now available,” she added.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists also just issued a new algorithm on lipid management and prevention of cardiovascular disease in which treatment of hypertriglyceridemia is emphasized.

In addition, the new Endocrine Society guideline “also mentions an LDL [cholesterol] treatment threshold of 70 mg/dL, and 55 mg/dL in some patient categories, which previous guidelines have not,” Dr. Simha noted.

Overall, Dr. Newman added that the goal of the guideline is to increase awareness of key issues with endocrine diseases that may not necessarily be on clinicians’ radars.

“We hope that it will make a lipid panel and cardiovascular risk evaluation routine in adults with endocrine diseases and cause a greater focus on therapies to reduce heart disease and stroke,” she said.

Dr. Newman, Dr. Simha, and Dr. Rosenzweig reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Endocrine diseases of any type – not just diabetes – can represent a cardiovascular risk and patients with those disorders should be screened for high cholesterol, according to a new clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.

“The simple recommendation to check a lipid panel in patients with endocrine diseases and calculate cardiovascular risk may be practice changing because that is not done routinely,” Connie Newman, MD, chair of the Endocrine Society committee that developed the guideline, said in an interview.

“Usually the focus is on assessment and treatment of the endocrine disease, rather than on assessment and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk,” said Newman, an adjunct professor of medicine in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, at New York University.

Whereas diabetes, well-known for its increased cardiovascular risk profile, is commonly addressed in other cardiovascular and cholesterol practice management guidelines, the array of other endocrine diseases are not typically included.

“This guideline is the first of its kind,” Dr. Newman said. “The Endocrine Society has not previously issued a guideline on lipid management in endocrine disorders [and] other organizations have not written guidelines on this topic. 

“Rather, guidelines have been written on cholesterol management, but these do not describe cholesterol management in patients with endocrine diseases such as thyroid disease [hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism], Cushing’s syndrome, acromegaly, growth hormone deficiency, menopause, male hypogonadism, and obesity,” she noted.

But these conditions carry a host of cardiovascular risk factors that may require careful monitoring and management.

“Although endocrine hormones, such as thyroid hormone, cortisol, estrogen, testosterone, growth hormone, and insulin, affect pathways for lipid metabolism, physicians lack guidance on lipid abnormalities, cardiovascular risk, and treatment to reduce lipids and cardiovascular risk in patients with endocrine diseases,” she explained.

Vinaya Simha, MD, an internal medicine specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agrees that the guideline is notable in addressing an unmet need.

Recommendations that stand out to Dr. Simha include the suggestion of adding eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) ethyl ester to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in adults with diabetes or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who have elevated triglyceride levels despite statin treatment.

James L. Rosenzweig, MD, an endocrinologist at Hebrew SeniorLife in Boston, agreed that this is an important addition to an area that needs more guidance.

“Many of these clinical situations can exacerbate dyslipidemia and some also increase the cardiovascular risk to a greater extent in combination with elevated cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” he said in an interview. 

“In many cases, treatment of the underlying disorder appropriately can have an important impact in resolving the lipid disorder. In others, more aggressive pharmacological treatment is indicated,” he said.

“I think that this will be a valuable resource, especially for endocrinologists, but it can be used as well by providers in other disciplines.”
 

Key recommendations for different endocrine conditions

The guideline, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, details those risks and provides evidence-based recommendations on their management and treatment.

Key recommendations include:

• Obtain a lipid panel and evaluate cardiovascular risk factors in all adults with endocrine disorders.
• In patients with  and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, start statin therapy in addition to lifestyle modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. “This could mean earlier treatment because other guidelines recommend consideration of therapy at age 40,” Dr. Newman said.
• Statin therapy is also recommended for adults over 40 with  with a duration of diabetes of more than 20 years and/or microvascular complications, regardless of their cardiovascular risk score. “This means earlier treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes with statins in order to reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Newman noted.
• In patients with hyperlipidemia, rule out  as the cause before treating with lipid-lowering medications. And among patients who are found to have hypothyroidism, reevaluate the lipid profile when the patient has thyroid hormone levels in the normal range.
• Adults with persistent endogenous Cushing’s syndrome should have their lipid profile monitored. Statin therapy should be considered in addition to lifestyle modifications, irrespective of the cardiovascular risk score.
• In postmenopausal women, high cholesterol or triglycerides should be treated with statins rather than hormone therapy.
• Evaluate and treat lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors in women who enter menopause early (before the age of 40-45 years).

Nice summary of ‘risk-enhancing’ endocrine disorders

Dr. Simha said in an interview that the new guideline is “probably the first comprehensive statement addressing lipid treatment in patients with a broad range of endocrine disorders besides diabetes.”

“Most of the treatment recommendations are congruent with other current guidelines such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association [guidelines], but there is specific mention of which endocrine disorders represent enhanced cardiovascular risk,” she explained.

The new recommendations are notable for including “a nice summary of how different endocrine disorders affect lipid values, and also which endocrine disorders need to be considered as ‘risk-enhancing factors,’ ” Dr. Simha noted.

“The use of EPA in patients with hypertriglyceridemia is novel, compared to the ACC/AHA recommendation. This reflects new data which is now available,” she added.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists also just issued a new algorithm on lipid management and prevention of cardiovascular disease in which treatment of hypertriglyceridemia is emphasized.

In addition, the new Endocrine Society guideline “also mentions an LDL [cholesterol] treatment threshold of 70 mg/dL, and 55 mg/dL in some patient categories, which previous guidelines have not,” Dr. Simha noted.

Overall, Dr. Newman added that the goal of the guideline is to increase awareness of key issues with endocrine diseases that may not necessarily be on clinicians’ radars.

“We hope that it will make a lipid panel and cardiovascular risk evaluation routine in adults with endocrine diseases and cause a greater focus on therapies to reduce heart disease and stroke,” she said.

Dr. Newman, Dr. Simha, and Dr. Rosenzweig reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Endocrine diseases of any type – not just diabetes – can represent a cardiovascular risk and patients with those disorders should be screened for high cholesterol, according to a new clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.

“The simple recommendation to check a lipid panel in patients with endocrine diseases and calculate cardiovascular risk may be practice changing because that is not done routinely,” Connie Newman, MD, chair of the Endocrine Society committee that developed the guideline, said in an interview.

“Usually the focus is on assessment and treatment of the endocrine disease, rather than on assessment and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk,” said Newman, an adjunct professor of medicine in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, at New York University.

Whereas diabetes, well-known for its increased cardiovascular risk profile, is commonly addressed in other cardiovascular and cholesterol practice management guidelines, the array of other endocrine diseases are not typically included.

“This guideline is the first of its kind,” Dr. Newman said. “The Endocrine Society has not previously issued a guideline on lipid management in endocrine disorders [and] other organizations have not written guidelines on this topic. 

“Rather, guidelines have been written on cholesterol management, but these do not describe cholesterol management in patients with endocrine diseases such as thyroid disease [hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism], Cushing’s syndrome, acromegaly, growth hormone deficiency, menopause, male hypogonadism, and obesity,” she noted.

But these conditions carry a host of cardiovascular risk factors that may require careful monitoring and management.

“Although endocrine hormones, such as thyroid hormone, cortisol, estrogen, testosterone, growth hormone, and insulin, affect pathways for lipid metabolism, physicians lack guidance on lipid abnormalities, cardiovascular risk, and treatment to reduce lipids and cardiovascular risk in patients with endocrine diseases,” she explained.

Vinaya Simha, MD, an internal medicine specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agrees that the guideline is notable in addressing an unmet need.

Recommendations that stand out to Dr. Simha include the suggestion of adding eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) ethyl ester to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in adults with diabetes or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who have elevated triglyceride levels despite statin treatment.

James L. Rosenzweig, MD, an endocrinologist at Hebrew SeniorLife in Boston, agreed that this is an important addition to an area that needs more guidance.

“Many of these clinical situations can exacerbate dyslipidemia and some also increase the cardiovascular risk to a greater extent in combination with elevated cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” he said in an interview. 

“In many cases, treatment of the underlying disorder appropriately can have an important impact in resolving the lipid disorder. In others, more aggressive pharmacological treatment is indicated,” he said.

“I think that this will be a valuable resource, especially for endocrinologists, but it can be used as well by providers in other disciplines.”
 

Key recommendations for different endocrine conditions

The guideline, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, details those risks and provides evidence-based recommendations on their management and treatment.

Key recommendations include:

• Obtain a lipid panel and evaluate cardiovascular risk factors in all adults with endocrine disorders.
• In patients with  and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, start statin therapy in addition to lifestyle modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. “This could mean earlier treatment because other guidelines recommend consideration of therapy at age 40,” Dr. Newman said.
• Statin therapy is also recommended for adults over 40 with  with a duration of diabetes of more than 20 years and/or microvascular complications, regardless of their cardiovascular risk score. “This means earlier treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes with statins in order to reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Newman noted.
• In patients with hyperlipidemia, rule out  as the cause before treating with lipid-lowering medications. And among patients who are found to have hypothyroidism, reevaluate the lipid profile when the patient has thyroid hormone levels in the normal range.
• Adults with persistent endogenous Cushing’s syndrome should have their lipid profile monitored. Statin therapy should be considered in addition to lifestyle modifications, irrespective of the cardiovascular risk score.
• In postmenopausal women, high cholesterol or triglycerides should be treated with statins rather than hormone therapy.
• Evaluate and treat lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors in women who enter menopause early (before the age of 40-45 years).

Nice summary of ‘risk-enhancing’ endocrine disorders

Dr. Simha said in an interview that the new guideline is “probably the first comprehensive statement addressing lipid treatment in patients with a broad range of endocrine disorders besides diabetes.”

“Most of the treatment recommendations are congruent with other current guidelines such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association [guidelines], but there is specific mention of which endocrine disorders represent enhanced cardiovascular risk,” she explained.

The new recommendations are notable for including “a nice summary of how different endocrine disorders affect lipid values, and also which endocrine disorders need to be considered as ‘risk-enhancing factors,’ ” Dr. Simha noted.

“The use of EPA in patients with hypertriglyceridemia is novel, compared to the ACC/AHA recommendation. This reflects new data which is now available,” she added.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists also just issued a new algorithm on lipid management and prevention of cardiovascular disease in which treatment of hypertriglyceridemia is emphasized.

In addition, the new Endocrine Society guideline “also mentions an LDL [cholesterol] treatment threshold of 70 mg/dL, and 55 mg/dL in some patient categories, which previous guidelines have not,” Dr. Simha noted.

Overall, Dr. Newman added that the goal of the guideline is to increase awareness of key issues with endocrine diseases that may not necessarily be on clinicians’ radars.

“We hope that it will make a lipid panel and cardiovascular risk evaluation routine in adults with endocrine diseases and cause a greater focus on therapies to reduce heart disease and stroke,” she said.

Dr. Newman, Dr. Simha, and Dr. Rosenzweig reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Address disparities that amplify risk

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

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

Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women

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

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

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

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

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

More data needed for informed counseling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Address disparities that amplify risk

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

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

Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women

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

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

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

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

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

More data needed for informed counseling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Address disparities that amplify risk

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

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

Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women

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

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

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

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

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

More data needed for informed counseling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The data

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

The data

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

The data

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some perspective

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

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

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

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