MDedge Endocrinology

The immune system overactivation known as a “cytokine storm” does not play a major role in more severe COVID-19 outcomes, according to unexpected findings in new research. The findings stand in direct contrast to many previous reports.

“We were indeed surprised by the results of our study,” senior study author Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

In a unique approach, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues compared cytokine levels in critically ill people with COVID-19 with those in patients with bacterial sepsis, trauma, and after cardiac arrest.

“For the first time, we measured the cytokines in different diseases using the same methods. Our results convincingly show that the circulating cytokine concentrations are not higher, but lower, compared to other diseases,” said Dr. Pickkers, who is affiliated with the department of intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The team’s research was published online on Sept. 3 in a letter in JAMA.
 

Cytokines lower than expected

Normally, cytokines trigger inflammation and promote healing after trauma, infection, or other conditions.

Although a cytokine storm remains ill defined, the authors noted, many researchers have implicated a hyperinflammatory response involving these small proteins in the pathophysiology of COVID-19.

The question remains, however, whether all cytokine storms strike people with different conditions the same way.

Dr. Pickkers, lead author Matthijs Kox, PhD, and colleagues studied 46 people with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who were admitted to the ICU at Radboud University Medical Center. All participants underwent mechanical ventilation and were treated between March 11 and April 27, 2020.

The investigators measured plasma levels of cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-6, and IL-8. They compared results in this group with those in 51 patients who experienced septic shock and ARDS, 15 patients with septic shock without ARDS, 30 people with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and 62 people who experienced multiple traumas. They used historical data for the non–COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Conditional findings

Compared with patients with septic shock and ARDS, the COVID-19 cohort had lower levels of TNF, IL-6, and IL-8. The differences were statistically significant for TNF (P < .01), as well as for IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations (for both, P < .001).

In addition, the COVID-19 group had significantly lower IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations compared with the patients who had septic shock without ARDS.

The researchers likewise found lower concentrations of IL-8 in patients with COVID-19, compared with the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. IL-8 levels did not differ between the COVID-19 and trauma groups.

Furthermore, the researchers found no differences in IL-6 concentrations between patients with COVID-19 and those who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or trauma.

However, levels of TNF in people with COVID-19 were higher than in trauma patients.

The small sample sizes and single-center study design are limitations.

“The findings of this preliminary analysis suggest COVID-19 may not be characterized by cytokine storm,” the researchers noted. However, they added, “whether anticytokine therapies will benefit patients with COVID-19 remains to be determined.”

Going forward, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues are investigating the effectiveness of different treatments to lower cytokine levels. They are treating people with COVID-19, for example, with the IL-1 cytokine inhibitor anakinra and steroids.

They also plan to assess the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the immune system. “Following an infection, it is known that the immune system may be suppressed for a longer period of time, and we are determining to what extent this is also present in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Pickkers said.
 

Enough to cause a storm?

The study “is quite interesting, and data in this paper are consistent with our data,” Tadamitsu Kishimoto, MD, PhD, of the department of immune regulation at the Immunology Frontier Research Center at Osaka (Japan) University, said in an interview.

His study, published online August 21 in PNAS, also revealed lower serum IL-6 levels among people with COVID-19, compared with patients with bacterial ARDS or sepsis.

Dr. Kishimoto drew a distinction, however: COVID-19 patients can develop severe respiratory failure, suggesting a distinct immune reaction, compared with patients with bacterial sepsis. SARS-CoV-2 directly infects and activates endothelial cells rather than macrophages, as occurs in sepsis.

For this reason, Dr. Kishimoto said, “SARS-CoV-2 infection causes critical illness and severe dysfunction in respiratory organs and induces a cytokine storm,” even in the setting of lower but still elevated serum IL-6 levels.

Dr. Pickkers and Dr. Kishimoto reported no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The immune system overactivation known as a “cytokine storm” does not play a major role in more severe COVID-19 outcomes, according to unexpected findings in new research. The findings stand in direct contrast to many previous reports.

“We were indeed surprised by the results of our study,” senior study author Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

In a unique approach, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues compared cytokine levels in critically ill people with COVID-19 with those in patients with bacterial sepsis, trauma, and after cardiac arrest.

“For the first time, we measured the cytokines in different diseases using the same methods. Our results convincingly show that the circulating cytokine concentrations are not higher, but lower, compared to other diseases,” said Dr. Pickkers, who is affiliated with the department of intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The team’s research was published online on Sept. 3 in a letter in JAMA.
 

Cytokines lower than expected

Normally, cytokines trigger inflammation and promote healing after trauma, infection, or other conditions.

Although a cytokine storm remains ill defined, the authors noted, many researchers have implicated a hyperinflammatory response involving these small proteins in the pathophysiology of COVID-19.

The question remains, however, whether all cytokine storms strike people with different conditions the same way.

Dr. Pickkers, lead author Matthijs Kox, PhD, and colleagues studied 46 people with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who were admitted to the ICU at Radboud University Medical Center. All participants underwent mechanical ventilation and were treated between March 11 and April 27, 2020.

The investigators measured plasma levels of cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-6, and IL-8. They compared results in this group with those in 51 patients who experienced septic shock and ARDS, 15 patients with septic shock without ARDS, 30 people with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and 62 people who experienced multiple traumas. They used historical data for the non–COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Conditional findings

Compared with patients with septic shock and ARDS, the COVID-19 cohort had lower levels of TNF, IL-6, and IL-8. The differences were statistically significant for TNF (P < .01), as well as for IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations (for both, P < .001).

In addition, the COVID-19 group had significantly lower IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations compared with the patients who had septic shock without ARDS.

The researchers likewise found lower concentrations of IL-8 in patients with COVID-19, compared with the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. IL-8 levels did not differ between the COVID-19 and trauma groups.

Furthermore, the researchers found no differences in IL-6 concentrations between patients with COVID-19 and those who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or trauma.

However, levels of TNF in people with COVID-19 were higher than in trauma patients.

The small sample sizes and single-center study design are limitations.

“The findings of this preliminary analysis suggest COVID-19 may not be characterized by cytokine storm,” the researchers noted. However, they added, “whether anticytokine therapies will benefit patients with COVID-19 remains to be determined.”

Going forward, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues are investigating the effectiveness of different treatments to lower cytokine levels. They are treating people with COVID-19, for example, with the IL-1 cytokine inhibitor anakinra and steroids.

They also plan to assess the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the immune system. “Following an infection, it is known that the immune system may be suppressed for a longer period of time, and we are determining to what extent this is also present in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Pickkers said.
 

Enough to cause a storm?

The study “is quite interesting, and data in this paper are consistent with our data,” Tadamitsu Kishimoto, MD, PhD, of the department of immune regulation at the Immunology Frontier Research Center at Osaka (Japan) University, said in an interview.

His study, published online August 21 in PNAS, also revealed lower serum IL-6 levels among people with COVID-19, compared with patients with bacterial ARDS or sepsis.

Dr. Kishimoto drew a distinction, however: COVID-19 patients can develop severe respiratory failure, suggesting a distinct immune reaction, compared with patients with bacterial sepsis. SARS-CoV-2 directly infects and activates endothelial cells rather than macrophages, as occurs in sepsis.

For this reason, Dr. Kishimoto said, “SARS-CoV-2 infection causes critical illness and severe dysfunction in respiratory organs and induces a cytokine storm,” even in the setting of lower but still elevated serum IL-6 levels.

Dr. Pickkers and Dr. Kishimoto reported no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The immune system overactivation known as a “cytokine storm” does not play a major role in more severe COVID-19 outcomes, according to unexpected findings in new research. The findings stand in direct contrast to many previous reports.

“We were indeed surprised by the results of our study,” senior study author Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

In a unique approach, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues compared cytokine levels in critically ill people with COVID-19 with those in patients with bacterial sepsis, trauma, and after cardiac arrest.

“For the first time, we measured the cytokines in different diseases using the same methods. Our results convincingly show that the circulating cytokine concentrations are not higher, but lower, compared to other diseases,” said Dr. Pickkers, who is affiliated with the department of intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The team’s research was published online on Sept. 3 in a letter in JAMA.
 

Cytokines lower than expected

Normally, cytokines trigger inflammation and promote healing after trauma, infection, or other conditions.

Although a cytokine storm remains ill defined, the authors noted, many researchers have implicated a hyperinflammatory response involving these small proteins in the pathophysiology of COVID-19.

The question remains, however, whether all cytokine storms strike people with different conditions the same way.

Dr. Pickkers, lead author Matthijs Kox, PhD, and colleagues studied 46 people with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who were admitted to the ICU at Radboud University Medical Center. All participants underwent mechanical ventilation and were treated between March 11 and April 27, 2020.

The investigators measured plasma levels of cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-6, and IL-8. They compared results in this group with those in 51 patients who experienced septic shock and ARDS, 15 patients with septic shock without ARDS, 30 people with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and 62 people who experienced multiple traumas. They used historical data for the non–COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Conditional findings

Compared with patients with septic shock and ARDS, the COVID-19 cohort had lower levels of TNF, IL-6, and IL-8. The differences were statistically significant for TNF (P < .01), as well as for IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations (for both, P < .001).

In addition, the COVID-19 group had significantly lower IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations compared with the patients who had septic shock without ARDS.

The researchers likewise found lower concentrations of IL-8 in patients with COVID-19, compared with the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. IL-8 levels did not differ between the COVID-19 and trauma groups.

Furthermore, the researchers found no differences in IL-6 concentrations between patients with COVID-19 and those who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or trauma.

However, levels of TNF in people with COVID-19 were higher than in trauma patients.

The small sample sizes and single-center study design are limitations.

“The findings of this preliminary analysis suggest COVID-19 may not be characterized by cytokine storm,” the researchers noted. However, they added, “whether anticytokine therapies will benefit patients with COVID-19 remains to be determined.”

Going forward, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues are investigating the effectiveness of different treatments to lower cytokine levels. They are treating people with COVID-19, for example, with the IL-1 cytokine inhibitor anakinra and steroids.

They also plan to assess the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the immune system. “Following an infection, it is known that the immune system may be suppressed for a longer period of time, and we are determining to what extent this is also present in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Pickkers said.
 

Enough to cause a storm?

The study “is quite interesting, and data in this paper are consistent with our data,” Tadamitsu Kishimoto, MD, PhD, of the department of immune regulation at the Immunology Frontier Research Center at Osaka (Japan) University, said in an interview.

His study, published online August 21 in PNAS, also revealed lower serum IL-6 levels among people with COVID-19, compared with patients with bacterial ARDS or sepsis.

Dr. Kishimoto drew a distinction, however: COVID-19 patients can develop severe respiratory failure, suggesting a distinct immune reaction, compared with patients with bacterial sepsis. SARS-CoV-2 directly infects and activates endothelial cells rather than macrophages, as occurs in sepsis.

For this reason, Dr. Kishimoto said, “SARS-CoV-2 infection causes critical illness and severe dysfunction in respiratory organs and induces a cytokine storm,” even in the setting of lower but still elevated serum IL-6 levels.

Dr. Pickkers and Dr. Kishimoto reported no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Twelve U.S. states have now passed laws aimed at making insulin more affordable – and more than 30 are considering such legislation – but they all have gaps that still put the cost of this basic and essential medication out of reach for many with diabetes.

The laws only apply to health insurance through state-regulated plans, and not to the majority of health plans that cover most Americans: Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Affairs health system, or self-funded employer-sponsored plans.

Overall, Hannah Crabtree, an activist who writes the blog Data for Insulin, estimates state laws that limit copays, deductibles, or other out-of-pocket costs for insulin cover an average of 27% of people with diabetes across the United States.

And while diabetes activists have applauded state actions, most want more help for the under- and uninsured.

“Our chapter will be fighting harder next legislative session for the uninsured,” said Mindie Hooley, the leader of the Utah #insulin4all chapter, which successfully lobbied legislators to pass a bill signed by the state’s governor on March 30.

“With so many losing their jobs because of the pandemic, there’s no better time than now to fight for these patients who don’t have insurance,” Ms. Hooley said in an interview.

The American Diabetes Association has also been lobbying for state caps as one of many avenues for making insulin more affordable, said Stephen Habbe, the ADA’s director for state government affairs.

One in four insulin users report rationing the medication, Mr. Habbe said.

The state laws “can really provide important relief in terms of affordability for their insulin costs, which we know can be critical in terms of preserving their life and helping to prevent complications that can potentially be disabling or even deadly,” he said in an interview.

Activists with T1 International, which created the #insulin4all campaign, are working nationwide to convince state legislators to back measures that limit out-of-pocket costs for insulin, or for other diabetes medications and supplies.

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia have enacted such limits, with caps ranging from $25 to $100.
 

Insulin makers unfazed, blame insurers, PBMs for high prices

The three insulin manufacturers in the United States – Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi– have not overtly fought against the laws, although in July, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America did sue to block a related Minnesota law that provides a free emergency supply of insulin.

And the nonprofit news organization FairWarning reported in August that a lobbyist from Eli Lilly had attempted to push a Tennessee legislator to keep the uninsured from being eligible for any out-of-pocket limits.

The insulin makers have also not lowered prices in response to the mounting number of state laws.

They see no need, said Tara O’Neill Hayes, director of human welfare policy at the American Action Forum, a center right–leaning Washington, D.C., think tank.

“You’re going to do what you can get away with,” Ms. O’Neill Hayes said in an interview. “To the extent that they can keep their prices high and people are still buying, they have limited incentives to lower those costs.”

The insulin market is dysfunctional, she added. “The increasing cost of insulin seems primarily to be the result of a lack of competition in the market and convoluted drug pricing and insurance practices,” Ms. O’Neill Hayes and colleagues wrote in a report in April on federal and state attempts to address insulin affordability.

Novo Nordisk, however, maintains that drugmakers are not solely to blame.

“Everyone in the health care system has a role to play in affordability,” said Ken Inchausti, Novo Nordisk’s senior director for corporate communications. State legislation “attempts to address a systemic issue in [U.S.] health care: How benefit design can make medicines unaffordable for many, especially for those in high-deductible health plans,” he said in an interview.

“Efforts to place copay caps on insurance plans covering insulin can certainly help lower out-of-pocket costs,” said Mr. Inchausti.

Sanofi spokesperson Jon Florio said the company supports actions that increase affordable access to insulin. However, “while we support capped copays, we feel this should not be limited to just one class of medicines,” he said. Mr. Florio also noted that Sanofi provides out-of-pocket caps to anyone with commercial insurance and that anyone without insurance can buy one or multiple Sanofi insulins for a fixed price of $99 per month, up to 10 boxes of pens and/or 10-mL vials.

And Sanofi will take part in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ new insulin demonstration program. Starting in 2021, CMS will cap insulin copays at $35 for people in Part D plans that participate.

Eli Lilly spokesperson Brad Jacklin said the company “believes in the common goal of ensuring affordable access to insulin and other life-saving medicines because nobody should have to forgo or ration because of cost.”

Lilly supports efforts “that more directly affect patients’ cost-sharing based on their health care coverage,” he said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should pass savings on to patients, Mr. Jacklin urged. Lilly caps some insulins at $35 for the uninsured or commercially insured. The company will also participate in the CMS program.

Meanwhile, a PhRMA-sponsored website www.letstalkaboutcost.org said that, because they do not share savings, insurers and PBMs are responsible for high insulin costs.

Manufacturer assistance programs for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, on the other hand, can save individuals $300-$500 a year, PhRMA said in August.
 

PBMs point back at insulin manufacturers

PBMs, however, point back at drug companies. “PBMs have been able to moderate insulin costs for most consumers with insurance,” said J.C. Scott, president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the PBM trade group, in a statement.

The rising cost of insulin is caused by a lack of competition and overuse of patent extensions, PCMA maintains.

Health insurers, which, in tandem with PBMs, give insulins formulary preference based on a discounted price, are most likely to feel the impact of laws limiting out-of-pocket costs.

If they have to make up the shortfall from a patient’s reduced payment for a prescription, they will likely raise premiums, said Ms. O’Neill Hayes.

And if patients pay the same price for insulin – regardless of who makes it – drugmakers won’t have much incentive to offer discounts or rebates for formulary placement, she said. Again, that would likely lead to higher premiums.

David Allen, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, said in an interview that AHIP believes lack of competition has driven up insulin prices.

“High prices for insulin correspond with high health insurance costs for insulin,” he said. When CMS starts requiring drugmakers to discount their insulins for Medicare that will allow “health plans to use those savings to reduce out-of-pocket [costs] for seniors.”

He did not respond to a question as to why health insurers were not already passing savings on to commercially insured patients, especially in states with out-of-pocket limits.

Mr. Allen did say that AHIP’s plans “stand ready to work with state policymakers to remove barriers to lower insulin prices for Americans.”
 

Utah savings hopefully saving lives already

In Utah, legislators tuned out the blame game, and instead were keen to listen to patients, who had many stories about how the high cost of insulin had hurt them, said Ms. Hooley.

She noted an estimated 50,000 Utahans rely on insulin to stay alive.

Ms. Hooley and her chapter convinced legislators to pass a bill that gives insurers the option to cap patient copays at $30 per month, or to put insulin on its lowest formulary tier and waive any patient deductible. That aspect of the law does not go into effect until January 2021, but insurers are already starting to move insulin to the lowest formulary tier.

That has helped some people immediately. One state resident said her most recent insulin prescription cost $7 – instead of the usual $200.

The uninsured are not left totally high and dry either. Starting June 1, anyone in the state could buy through a state bulk-purchasing program, which guaranteed a 60% discount.

Ms. Hooley said she’d recently heard about a patient who usually spent $300 per prescription but was able to buy insulin for $100 through the program.

“Although $100 is still too much, it is nice knowing the Utah Insulin Savings Program is saving lives,” Ms. Hooley concluded.

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

Twelve U.S. states have now passed laws aimed at making insulin more affordable – and more than 30 are considering such legislation – but they all have gaps that still put the cost of this basic and essential medication out of reach for many with diabetes.

The laws only apply to health insurance through state-regulated plans, and not to the majority of health plans that cover most Americans: Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Affairs health system, or self-funded employer-sponsored plans.

Overall, Hannah Crabtree, an activist who writes the blog Data for Insulin, estimates state laws that limit copays, deductibles, or other out-of-pocket costs for insulin cover an average of 27% of people with diabetes across the United States.

And while diabetes activists have applauded state actions, most want more help for the under- and uninsured.

“Our chapter will be fighting harder next legislative session for the uninsured,” said Mindie Hooley, the leader of the Utah #insulin4all chapter, which successfully lobbied legislators to pass a bill signed by the state’s governor on March 30.

“With so many losing their jobs because of the pandemic, there’s no better time than now to fight for these patients who don’t have insurance,” Ms. Hooley said in an interview.

The American Diabetes Association has also been lobbying for state caps as one of many avenues for making insulin more affordable, said Stephen Habbe, the ADA’s director for state government affairs.

One in four insulin users report rationing the medication, Mr. Habbe said.

The state laws “can really provide important relief in terms of affordability for their insulin costs, which we know can be critical in terms of preserving their life and helping to prevent complications that can potentially be disabling or even deadly,” he said in an interview.

Activists with T1 International, which created the #insulin4all campaign, are working nationwide to convince state legislators to back measures that limit out-of-pocket costs for insulin, or for other diabetes medications and supplies.

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia have enacted such limits, with caps ranging from $25 to $100.
 

Insulin makers unfazed, blame insurers, PBMs for high prices

The three insulin manufacturers in the United States – Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi– have not overtly fought against the laws, although in July, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America did sue to block a related Minnesota law that provides a free emergency supply of insulin.

And the nonprofit news organization FairWarning reported in August that a lobbyist from Eli Lilly had attempted to push a Tennessee legislator to keep the uninsured from being eligible for any out-of-pocket limits.

The insulin makers have also not lowered prices in response to the mounting number of state laws.

They see no need, said Tara O’Neill Hayes, director of human welfare policy at the American Action Forum, a center right–leaning Washington, D.C., think tank.

“You’re going to do what you can get away with,” Ms. O’Neill Hayes said in an interview. “To the extent that they can keep their prices high and people are still buying, they have limited incentives to lower those costs.”

The insulin market is dysfunctional, she added. “The increasing cost of insulin seems primarily to be the result of a lack of competition in the market and convoluted drug pricing and insurance practices,” Ms. O’Neill Hayes and colleagues wrote in a report in April on federal and state attempts to address insulin affordability.

Novo Nordisk, however, maintains that drugmakers are not solely to blame.

“Everyone in the health care system has a role to play in affordability,” said Ken Inchausti, Novo Nordisk’s senior director for corporate communications. State legislation “attempts to address a systemic issue in [U.S.] health care: How benefit design can make medicines unaffordable for many, especially for those in high-deductible health plans,” he said in an interview.

“Efforts to place copay caps on insurance plans covering insulin can certainly help lower out-of-pocket costs,” said Mr. Inchausti.

Sanofi spokesperson Jon Florio said the company supports actions that increase affordable access to insulin. However, “while we support capped copays, we feel this should not be limited to just one class of medicines,” he said. Mr. Florio also noted that Sanofi provides out-of-pocket caps to anyone with commercial insurance and that anyone without insurance can buy one or multiple Sanofi insulins for a fixed price of $99 per month, up to 10 boxes of pens and/or 10-mL vials.

And Sanofi will take part in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ new insulin demonstration program. Starting in 2021, CMS will cap insulin copays at $35 for people in Part D plans that participate.

Eli Lilly spokesperson Brad Jacklin said the company “believes in the common goal of ensuring affordable access to insulin and other life-saving medicines because nobody should have to forgo or ration because of cost.”

Lilly supports efforts “that more directly affect patients’ cost-sharing based on their health care coverage,” he said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should pass savings on to patients, Mr. Jacklin urged. Lilly caps some insulins at $35 for the uninsured or commercially insured. The company will also participate in the CMS program.

Meanwhile, a PhRMA-sponsored website www.letstalkaboutcost.org said that, because they do not share savings, insurers and PBMs are responsible for high insulin costs.

Manufacturer assistance programs for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, on the other hand, can save individuals $300-$500 a year, PhRMA said in August.
 

PBMs point back at insulin manufacturers

PBMs, however, point back at drug companies. “PBMs have been able to moderate insulin costs for most consumers with insurance,” said J.C. Scott, president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the PBM trade group, in a statement.

The rising cost of insulin is caused by a lack of competition and overuse of patent extensions, PCMA maintains.

Health insurers, which, in tandem with PBMs, give insulins formulary preference based on a discounted price, are most likely to feel the impact of laws limiting out-of-pocket costs.

If they have to make up the shortfall from a patient’s reduced payment for a prescription, they will likely raise premiums, said Ms. O’Neill Hayes.

And if patients pay the same price for insulin – regardless of who makes it – drugmakers won’t have much incentive to offer discounts or rebates for formulary placement, she said. Again, that would likely lead to higher premiums.

David Allen, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, said in an interview that AHIP believes lack of competition has driven up insulin prices.

“High prices for insulin correspond with high health insurance costs for insulin,” he said. When CMS starts requiring drugmakers to discount their insulins for Medicare that will allow “health plans to use those savings to reduce out-of-pocket [costs] for seniors.”

He did not respond to a question as to why health insurers were not already passing savings on to commercially insured patients, especially in states with out-of-pocket limits.

Mr. Allen did say that AHIP’s plans “stand ready to work with state policymakers to remove barriers to lower insulin prices for Americans.”
 

Utah savings hopefully saving lives already

In Utah, legislators tuned out the blame game, and instead were keen to listen to patients, who had many stories about how the high cost of insulin had hurt them, said Ms. Hooley.

She noted an estimated 50,000 Utahans rely on insulin to stay alive.

Ms. Hooley and her chapter convinced legislators to pass a bill that gives insurers the option to cap patient copays at $30 per month, or to put insulin on its lowest formulary tier and waive any patient deductible. That aspect of the law does not go into effect until January 2021, but insurers are already starting to move insulin to the lowest formulary tier.

That has helped some people immediately. One state resident said her most recent insulin prescription cost $7 – instead of the usual $200.

The uninsured are not left totally high and dry either. Starting June 1, anyone in the state could buy through a state bulk-purchasing program, which guaranteed a 60% discount.

Ms. Hooley said she’d recently heard about a patient who usually spent $300 per prescription but was able to buy insulin for $100 through the program.

“Although $100 is still too much, it is nice knowing the Utah Insulin Savings Program is saving lives,” Ms. Hooley concluded.

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

Twelve U.S. states have now passed laws aimed at making insulin more affordable – and more than 30 are considering such legislation – but they all have gaps that still put the cost of this basic and essential medication out of reach for many with diabetes.

The laws only apply to health insurance through state-regulated plans, and not to the majority of health plans that cover most Americans: Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Affairs health system, or self-funded employer-sponsored plans.

Overall, Hannah Crabtree, an activist who writes the blog Data for Insulin, estimates state laws that limit copays, deductibles, or other out-of-pocket costs for insulin cover an average of 27% of people with diabetes across the United States.

And while diabetes activists have applauded state actions, most want more help for the under- and uninsured.

“Our chapter will be fighting harder next legislative session for the uninsured,” said Mindie Hooley, the leader of the Utah #insulin4all chapter, which successfully lobbied legislators to pass a bill signed by the state’s governor on March 30.

“With so many losing their jobs because of the pandemic, there’s no better time than now to fight for these patients who don’t have insurance,” Ms. Hooley said in an interview.

The American Diabetes Association has also been lobbying for state caps as one of many avenues for making insulin more affordable, said Stephen Habbe, the ADA’s director for state government affairs.

One in four insulin users report rationing the medication, Mr. Habbe said.

The state laws “can really provide important relief in terms of affordability for their insulin costs, which we know can be critical in terms of preserving their life and helping to prevent complications that can potentially be disabling or even deadly,” he said in an interview.

Activists with T1 International, which created the #insulin4all campaign, are working nationwide to convince state legislators to back measures that limit out-of-pocket costs for insulin, or for other diabetes medications and supplies.

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia have enacted such limits, with caps ranging from $25 to $100.
 

Insulin makers unfazed, blame insurers, PBMs for high prices

The three insulin manufacturers in the United States – Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi– have not overtly fought against the laws, although in July, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America did sue to block a related Minnesota law that provides a free emergency supply of insulin.

And the nonprofit news organization FairWarning reported in August that a lobbyist from Eli Lilly had attempted to push a Tennessee legislator to keep the uninsured from being eligible for any out-of-pocket limits.

The insulin makers have also not lowered prices in response to the mounting number of state laws.

They see no need, said Tara O’Neill Hayes, director of human welfare policy at the American Action Forum, a center right–leaning Washington, D.C., think tank.

“You’re going to do what you can get away with,” Ms. O’Neill Hayes said in an interview. “To the extent that they can keep their prices high and people are still buying, they have limited incentives to lower those costs.”

The insulin market is dysfunctional, she added. “The increasing cost of insulin seems primarily to be the result of a lack of competition in the market and convoluted drug pricing and insurance practices,” Ms. O’Neill Hayes and colleagues wrote in a report in April on federal and state attempts to address insulin affordability.

Novo Nordisk, however, maintains that drugmakers are not solely to blame.

“Everyone in the health care system has a role to play in affordability,” said Ken Inchausti, Novo Nordisk’s senior director for corporate communications. State legislation “attempts to address a systemic issue in [U.S.] health care: How benefit design can make medicines unaffordable for many, especially for those in high-deductible health plans,” he said in an interview.

“Efforts to place copay caps on insurance plans covering insulin can certainly help lower out-of-pocket costs,” said Mr. Inchausti.

Sanofi spokesperson Jon Florio said the company supports actions that increase affordable access to insulin. However, “while we support capped copays, we feel this should not be limited to just one class of medicines,” he said. Mr. Florio also noted that Sanofi provides out-of-pocket caps to anyone with commercial insurance and that anyone without insurance can buy one or multiple Sanofi insulins for a fixed price of $99 per month, up to 10 boxes of pens and/or 10-mL vials.

And Sanofi will take part in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ new insulin demonstration program. Starting in 2021, CMS will cap insulin copays at $35 for people in Part D plans that participate.

Eli Lilly spokesperson Brad Jacklin said the company “believes in the common goal of ensuring affordable access to insulin and other life-saving medicines because nobody should have to forgo or ration because of cost.”

Lilly supports efforts “that more directly affect patients’ cost-sharing based on their health care coverage,” he said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should pass savings on to patients, Mr. Jacklin urged. Lilly caps some insulins at $35 for the uninsured or commercially insured. The company will also participate in the CMS program.

Meanwhile, a PhRMA-sponsored website www.letstalkaboutcost.org said that, because they do not share savings, insurers and PBMs are responsible for high insulin costs.

Manufacturer assistance programs for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, on the other hand, can save individuals $300-$500 a year, PhRMA said in August.
 

PBMs point back at insulin manufacturers

PBMs, however, point back at drug companies. “PBMs have been able to moderate insulin costs for most consumers with insurance,” said J.C. Scott, president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the PBM trade group, in a statement.

The rising cost of insulin is caused by a lack of competition and overuse of patent extensions, PCMA maintains.

Health insurers, which, in tandem with PBMs, give insulins formulary preference based on a discounted price, are most likely to feel the impact of laws limiting out-of-pocket costs.

If they have to make up the shortfall from a patient’s reduced payment for a prescription, they will likely raise premiums, said Ms. O’Neill Hayes.

And if patients pay the same price for insulin – regardless of who makes it – drugmakers won’t have much incentive to offer discounts or rebates for formulary placement, she said. Again, that would likely lead to higher premiums.

David Allen, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, said in an interview that AHIP believes lack of competition has driven up insulin prices.

“High prices for insulin correspond with high health insurance costs for insulin,” he said. When CMS starts requiring drugmakers to discount their insulins for Medicare that will allow “health plans to use those savings to reduce out-of-pocket [costs] for seniors.”

He did not respond to a question as to why health insurers were not already passing savings on to commercially insured patients, especially in states with out-of-pocket limits.

Mr. Allen did say that AHIP’s plans “stand ready to work with state policymakers to remove barriers to lower insulin prices for Americans.”
 

Utah savings hopefully saving lives already

In Utah, legislators tuned out the blame game, and instead were keen to listen to patients, who had many stories about how the high cost of insulin had hurt them, said Ms. Hooley.

She noted an estimated 50,000 Utahans rely on insulin to stay alive.

Ms. Hooley and her chapter convinced legislators to pass a bill that gives insurers the option to cap patient copays at $30 per month, or to put insulin on its lowest formulary tier and waive any patient deductible. That aspect of the law does not go into effect until January 2021, but insurers are already starting to move insulin to the lowest formulary tier.

That has helped some people immediately. One state resident said her most recent insulin prescription cost $7 – instead of the usual $200.

The uninsured are not left totally high and dry either. Starting June 1, anyone in the state could buy through a state bulk-purchasing program, which guaranteed a 60% discount.

Ms. Hooley said she’d recently heard about a patient who usually spent $300 per prescription but was able to buy insulin for $100 through the program.

“Although $100 is still too much, it is nice knowing the Utah Insulin Savings Program is saving lives,” Ms. Hooley concluded.

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

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The human growth hormone formulation somapacitan for adults with growth hormone deficiency was approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1. The drug is injected once a week, while other FDA-approved human growth hormone formulations require daily jabs.

Somapacitan contains an albumin-binding element attached to the growth hormone, causing the reversible binding to albumin proteins in the body. This reduces clearance and increases the half-life of the hormone. The formulation has previous demonstrated safety and efficacy in children with growth hormone deficiency (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgz310).

Growth hormone treatment can counter abdominal obesity, reduced lean body mass, fatigue, osteopenia, cardiovascular risks, and other manifestations of growth hormone deficiency in adults, but daily injections can be burdensome for patients. That makes long-acting versions attractive, but the lifelong nature of the treatment makes it important to characterize safety and tolerability.

The approval comes on the strength of a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (REAL 1) of 300 adult patients in 17 countries with growth hormone deficiency (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa049). Participants had either never received growth hormone treatment, or had stopped taking one at least 6 months before starting the trial. Subjects received once-weekly somapacitan, once-weekly placebo, or daily somatropin, which is FDA approved.

The primary endpoint was percentage change of truncal fat, which is regulated by growth hormone, and can lead to medical problems. After 34 weeks, subjects in the somapacitan group experienced a 1.06% decrease in truncal fat, compared with a 0.47% increase in the placebo group (P = .009) and a 2.23% decrease in the daily somatropin group.

After 34 weeks, a 52-week extension trial began. The somapacitan group continued on the drug and the placebo group was offered somapacitan. Patients on daily somatropin were randomized to continue daily treatment with somatropin or to switch to somapacitan.

At the end of the extension trial, those taking somapacitan for the full 86-week duration had an average reduction of 1.52% in truncal fat. After 86 weeks, the somapacitan and daily somatropin groups had similar values for percentage change in visceral fat, lean body mass, or appendicular skeletal muscle mass.

Common side effects of somapacitan were back pain, joint paint, indigestion, a sleep disorder, dizziness, tonsillitis, swelling in the arms or lower legs, vomiting, adrenal insufficiency, hypertension, increase in blood creatine phosphokinase, weight increase, and anemia.

Somapacitan, marketed as Sogroya by Novo Nordisk, is contraindicated in patients with an allergy to the drug, as well as those with an active malignancy, diabetic eye disease where increases in blood sugars could lead to retinal damage, acute critical illness, or acute respiratory failure.

The FDA recommends that providers perform an eye examination before drug initiation, as well as periodically while the patient is taking the drug, to rule out preexisting papilledema. This could be a sign of intracranial hypertension, which could be caused or worsened by growth hormones.

The human growth hormone formulation somapacitan for adults with growth hormone deficiency was approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1. The drug is injected once a week, while other FDA-approved human growth hormone formulations require daily jabs.

Somapacitan contains an albumin-binding element attached to the growth hormone, causing the reversible binding to albumin proteins in the body. This reduces clearance and increases the half-life of the hormone. The formulation has previous demonstrated safety and efficacy in children with growth hormone deficiency (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgz310).

Growth hormone treatment can counter abdominal obesity, reduced lean body mass, fatigue, osteopenia, cardiovascular risks, and other manifestations of growth hormone deficiency in adults, but daily injections can be burdensome for patients. That makes long-acting versions attractive, but the lifelong nature of the treatment makes it important to characterize safety and tolerability.

The approval comes on the strength of a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (REAL 1) of 300 adult patients in 17 countries with growth hormone deficiency (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa049). Participants had either never received growth hormone treatment, or had stopped taking one at least 6 months before starting the trial. Subjects received once-weekly somapacitan, once-weekly placebo, or daily somatropin, which is FDA approved.

The primary endpoint was percentage change of truncal fat, which is regulated by growth hormone, and can lead to medical problems. After 34 weeks, subjects in the somapacitan group experienced a 1.06% decrease in truncal fat, compared with a 0.47% increase in the placebo group (P = .009) and a 2.23% decrease in the daily somatropin group.

After 34 weeks, a 52-week extension trial began. The somapacitan group continued on the drug and the placebo group was offered somapacitan. Patients on daily somatropin were randomized to continue daily treatment with somatropin or to switch to somapacitan.

At the end of the extension trial, those taking somapacitan for the full 86-week duration had an average reduction of 1.52% in truncal fat. After 86 weeks, the somapacitan and daily somatropin groups had similar values for percentage change in visceral fat, lean body mass, or appendicular skeletal muscle mass.

Common side effects of somapacitan were back pain, joint paint, indigestion, a sleep disorder, dizziness, tonsillitis, swelling in the arms or lower legs, vomiting, adrenal insufficiency, hypertension, increase in blood creatine phosphokinase, weight increase, and anemia.

Somapacitan, marketed as Sogroya by Novo Nordisk, is contraindicated in patients with an allergy to the drug, as well as those with an active malignancy, diabetic eye disease where increases in blood sugars could lead to retinal damage, acute critical illness, or acute respiratory failure.

The FDA recommends that providers perform an eye examination before drug initiation, as well as periodically while the patient is taking the drug, to rule out preexisting papilledema. This could be a sign of intracranial hypertension, which could be caused or worsened by growth hormones.

The human growth hormone formulation somapacitan for adults with growth hormone deficiency was approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1. The drug is injected once a week, while other FDA-approved human growth hormone formulations require daily jabs.

Somapacitan contains an albumin-binding element attached to the growth hormone, causing the reversible binding to albumin proteins in the body. This reduces clearance and increases the half-life of the hormone. The formulation has previous demonstrated safety and efficacy in children with growth hormone deficiency (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgz310).

Growth hormone treatment can counter abdominal obesity, reduced lean body mass, fatigue, osteopenia, cardiovascular risks, and other manifestations of growth hormone deficiency in adults, but daily injections can be burdensome for patients. That makes long-acting versions attractive, but the lifelong nature of the treatment makes it important to characterize safety and tolerability.

The approval comes on the strength of a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (REAL 1) of 300 adult patients in 17 countries with growth hormone deficiency (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa049). Participants had either never received growth hormone treatment, or had stopped taking one at least 6 months before starting the trial. Subjects received once-weekly somapacitan, once-weekly placebo, or daily somatropin, which is FDA approved.

The primary endpoint was percentage change of truncal fat, which is regulated by growth hormone, and can lead to medical problems. After 34 weeks, subjects in the somapacitan group experienced a 1.06% decrease in truncal fat, compared with a 0.47% increase in the placebo group (P = .009) and a 2.23% decrease in the daily somatropin group.

After 34 weeks, a 52-week extension trial began. The somapacitan group continued on the drug and the placebo group was offered somapacitan. Patients on daily somatropin were randomized to continue daily treatment with somatropin or to switch to somapacitan.

At the end of the extension trial, those taking somapacitan for the full 86-week duration had an average reduction of 1.52% in truncal fat. After 86 weeks, the somapacitan and daily somatropin groups had similar values for percentage change in visceral fat, lean body mass, or appendicular skeletal muscle mass.

Common side effects of somapacitan were back pain, joint paint, indigestion, a sleep disorder, dizziness, tonsillitis, swelling in the arms or lower legs, vomiting, adrenal insufficiency, hypertension, increase in blood creatine phosphokinase, weight increase, and anemia.

Somapacitan, marketed as Sogroya by Novo Nordisk, is contraindicated in patients with an allergy to the drug, as well as those with an active malignancy, diabetic eye disease where increases in blood sugars could lead to retinal damage, acute critical illness, or acute respiratory failure.

The FDA recommends that providers perform an eye examination before drug initiation, as well as periodically while the patient is taking the drug, to rule out preexisting papilledema. This could be a sign of intracranial hypertension, which could be caused or worsened by growth hormones.

Final 18-month results of the EVAPORATE trial suggest icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) provides even greater slowing of coronary plaque progression when added to statins for patients with high triglyceride levels, but not all cardiologists are convinced.

The study was designed to explore a potential mechanism behind the cardiovascular event reduction in REDUCE-IT. Previously reported interim results showed that, after 9 months, the pharmaceutical-grade omega-3 fatty acid formation significantly slowed the progression of several plaque types but not the primary endpoint of change in low-attenuation plaque volume on multidetector CT.

From baseline to 18-month follow-up, however, the primary endpoint was significantly reduced by 17% in the icosapent ethyl group, whereas low-attenuation plaque volumes increased by 109% in the placebo group (P = .0061).

Significant declines were also seen with icosapent ethyl 4 g/day versus the mineral oil placebo for all other plaque types except dense calcium after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, and triglyceride levels at baseline:

• Dense calcium: –1% versus 15% (P = .0531).
• Fibro-fatty: –34% versus 32% (P = .0002).
• Fibrous: –20% versus 1% (P = .0028).
• Noncalcified: –19% versus 9% (P = .0005).
• Total plaque: –9% versus 11% (P = .0019).

The results parallel nicely with recent clinical data from REDUCE-IT REVASC, in which icosapent ethyl 4 g/day provided a very early benefit on first revascularization events that reached statistical significance after only 11 months (hazard ratio, 0.66), principal investigator Matthew Budoff, MD, director of cardiac CT at Harbor–University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center in Torrance, Calif., said during the virtual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.

The findings were also published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal and quickly prompted a flurry of comments on social media.

Some were supportive. Christopher Cannon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston; Dan Soffer, MD, a lipidologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Viet Le, MPAS, PA, a researcher at the Intermountain Heart Institute, Murray, Utah, took to Twitter to praise Dr. Budoff and the final results of the mechanistic study. Dr. Soffer called the study “elegant,” while Dr. Cannon said the results provide “important mechanistic data on plaque character.”

Others were highly critical, including a poll questioning whether the article should be retracted or revised.

Ibrahim H. Tanboga, MD, PhD, a cardiology professor and biostatistician at Hisar Intercontinental Hospital in Istanbul, questioned how the longitudinal change in low-attenuation plaque was possible clinically; his plot of the data showed these lesions getting worse in both arms before getting better in both arms.

A more volatile exchange concerned whether there were differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups and whether the data might have been unblinded.

“I am sympathetic to the boss of a big laboratory [who] might not know how every step of the process was done and therefore might not be aware of opportunities for accidental bias. This can easily happen in a large and active department,” Darrel Francis, MD, professor of cardiology at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, said in an interview.

An alternative explanation proffered on Twitter was that the interim analysis found no significant differences in baseline measures because it used nonparametric tests, whereas log transformation was applied to the final data. In any event, the tweets prompted a sharp rebuke from Dr. Budoff.

Dr. Francis raised another point of contention on Twitter regarding the degree of plaque progression in the placebo group.

In an interview, Dr. Francis pointed out that the final data represent the percentage change in the logarithm, not the actual percentage change in atheroma. So the increase in total atheroma volume in the placebo arm is not 11% but rather a scaling-up by 100.4 or 2.51, in other words, 151%.

He also offered a “less subtle feature of possible erroneous data,” in that the abstract reported low-attenuation plaque “more than doubles” in 18 months, which he described as a “ghastly supercharged version of Moore’s law for atheroma, instead of microchips.”

So “either it’s a mistake in the measurement or the placebo is harmful, because I can’t see how this is sustainable,” he said. “Why isn’t everyone dead from coronary disease?”

Concerns were raised previously over the possibility that the mineral oil placebo used in both EVAPORATE and REDUCE-IT could be having ill effects, notably, by increasing LDL cholesterol and C-reactive protein levels.

In an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, who is chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and has been among the critics of the mineral oil placebo, also questioned the plaque progression over the 18 months.

“I’ve published more than dozen regression/progression trials, and we have never seen anything like this in a placebo group, ever,” he said. “If this was a clean placebo, why would this happen in a short amount of time?

“I’m concerned this is all about an increase, in the case of REDUCE-IT, in morbidity and mortality in the placebo group, and in the EVAPORATE trial, an increase in plaque in the placebo group,” Dr. Nissen said. “So this raises serious doubts about whether there is any benefit to icosapent ethyl.”

Asked about the 109% increase, Dr. Budoff said in an interview that low-attenuation plaque represents a much smaller quantity of overall plaque volume. “So the percentages might be exaggerated if you look at just percentage change because they;re small volumes.”

He also noted that previous trials that evaluated atherosclerosis progression used intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), whereas EVAPORATE is the first to make the transition to CT angiography-based analysis of plaque progression.

“I would point out that Dr. Nissen has only worked on intravascular ultrasound, which, while it’s parallel in its ability to measure plaque, measures different volumes and measures it in a totally different way,” said Dr. Budoff. “So I don’t think we can directly compare the results of CT angiography to Dr. Nissen’s examples of IVUS.”

During his presentation, Dr. Budoff highlighted their recent data showing a similar rate of plaque progression between the mineral oil placebo in EVAPORATE and a cellulose-based placebo in the Garlic5 study. “So we have high confidence that the benefits seen in this trial with icosapent ethyl represent icosapent ethyl’s beneficial effects on atherosclerosis and not harm of mineral oil,” he said.

Exactly how icosapent ethyl is slowing atherosclerosis, however, is not fully known, Dr. Budoff said in an interview. “It might be inflammation and oxidation; those have both been shown to be better with icosapent ethyl, but I don’t think we fully understand the implications of these results.”

Dr. Budoff dismissed tweets that suggest the data might have been unblinded as unprofessional and said they are requesting that Imperial College have Francis cease and desist.

“He doesn’t have the actual data, so there is no way to do statistics without the dataset. The whole thing is inappropriate,” Dr. Budoff said.

Amarin Pharma provided funding and drug for the trial. Dr. Budoff has received research funding from and has served as a speaker for Amarin Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer and has served as a speaker for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Francis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships..

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

Final 18-month results of the EVAPORATE trial suggest icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) provides even greater slowing of coronary plaque progression when added to statins for patients with high triglyceride levels, but not all cardiologists are convinced.

The study was designed to explore a potential mechanism behind the cardiovascular event reduction in REDUCE-IT. Previously reported interim results showed that, after 9 months, the pharmaceutical-grade omega-3 fatty acid formation significantly slowed the progression of several plaque types but not the primary endpoint of change in low-attenuation plaque volume on multidetector CT.

From baseline to 18-month follow-up, however, the primary endpoint was significantly reduced by 17% in the icosapent ethyl group, whereas low-attenuation plaque volumes increased by 109% in the placebo group (P = .0061).

Significant declines were also seen with icosapent ethyl 4 g/day versus the mineral oil placebo for all other plaque types except dense calcium after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, and triglyceride levels at baseline:

• Dense calcium: –1% versus 15% (P = .0531).
• Fibro-fatty: –34% versus 32% (P = .0002).
• Fibrous: –20% versus 1% (P = .0028).
• Noncalcified: –19% versus 9% (P = .0005).
• Total plaque: –9% versus 11% (P = .0019).

The results parallel nicely with recent clinical data from REDUCE-IT REVASC, in which icosapent ethyl 4 g/day provided a very early benefit on first revascularization events that reached statistical significance after only 11 months (hazard ratio, 0.66), principal investigator Matthew Budoff, MD, director of cardiac CT at Harbor–University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center in Torrance, Calif., said during the virtual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.

The findings were also published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal and quickly prompted a flurry of comments on social media.

Some were supportive. Christopher Cannon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston; Dan Soffer, MD, a lipidologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Viet Le, MPAS, PA, a researcher at the Intermountain Heart Institute, Murray, Utah, took to Twitter to praise Dr. Budoff and the final results of the mechanistic study. Dr. Soffer called the study “elegant,” while Dr. Cannon said the results provide “important mechanistic data on plaque character.”

Others were highly critical, including a poll questioning whether the article should be retracted or revised.

Ibrahim H. Tanboga, MD, PhD, a cardiology professor and biostatistician at Hisar Intercontinental Hospital in Istanbul, questioned how the longitudinal change in low-attenuation plaque was possible clinically; his plot of the data showed these lesions getting worse in both arms before getting better in both arms.

A more volatile exchange concerned whether there were differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups and whether the data might have been unblinded.

“I am sympathetic to the boss of a big laboratory [who] might not know how every step of the process was done and therefore might not be aware of opportunities for accidental bias. This can easily happen in a large and active department,” Darrel Francis, MD, professor of cardiology at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, said in an interview.

An alternative explanation proffered on Twitter was that the interim analysis found no significant differences in baseline measures because it used nonparametric tests, whereas log transformation was applied to the final data. In any event, the tweets prompted a sharp rebuke from Dr. Budoff.

Dr. Francis raised another point of contention on Twitter regarding the degree of plaque progression in the placebo group.

In an interview, Dr. Francis pointed out that the final data represent the percentage change in the logarithm, not the actual percentage change in atheroma. So the increase in total atheroma volume in the placebo arm is not 11% but rather a scaling-up by 100.4 or 2.51, in other words, 151%.

He also offered a “less subtle feature of possible erroneous data,” in that the abstract reported low-attenuation plaque “more than doubles” in 18 months, which he described as a “ghastly supercharged version of Moore’s law for atheroma, instead of microchips.”

So “either it’s a mistake in the measurement or the placebo is harmful, because I can’t see how this is sustainable,” he said. “Why isn’t everyone dead from coronary disease?”

Concerns were raised previously over the possibility that the mineral oil placebo used in both EVAPORATE and REDUCE-IT could be having ill effects, notably, by increasing LDL cholesterol and C-reactive protein levels.

In an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, who is chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and has been among the critics of the mineral oil placebo, also questioned the plaque progression over the 18 months.

“I’ve published more than dozen regression/progression trials, and we have never seen anything like this in a placebo group, ever,” he said. “If this was a clean placebo, why would this happen in a short amount of time?

“I’m concerned this is all about an increase, in the case of REDUCE-IT, in morbidity and mortality in the placebo group, and in the EVAPORATE trial, an increase in plaque in the placebo group,” Dr. Nissen said. “So this raises serious doubts about whether there is any benefit to icosapent ethyl.”

Asked about the 109% increase, Dr. Budoff said in an interview that low-attenuation plaque represents a much smaller quantity of overall plaque volume. “So the percentages might be exaggerated if you look at just percentage change because they;re small volumes.”

He also noted that previous trials that evaluated atherosclerosis progression used intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), whereas EVAPORATE is the first to make the transition to CT angiography-based analysis of plaque progression.

“I would point out that Dr. Nissen has only worked on intravascular ultrasound, which, while it’s parallel in its ability to measure plaque, measures different volumes and measures it in a totally different way,” said Dr. Budoff. “So I don’t think we can directly compare the results of CT angiography to Dr. Nissen’s examples of IVUS.”

During his presentation, Dr. Budoff highlighted their recent data showing a similar rate of plaque progression between the mineral oil placebo in EVAPORATE and a cellulose-based placebo in the Garlic5 study. “So we have high confidence that the benefits seen in this trial with icosapent ethyl represent icosapent ethyl’s beneficial effects on atherosclerosis and not harm of mineral oil,” he said.

Exactly how icosapent ethyl is slowing atherosclerosis, however, is not fully known, Dr. Budoff said in an interview. “It might be inflammation and oxidation; those have both been shown to be better with icosapent ethyl, but I don’t think we fully understand the implications of these results.”

Dr. Budoff dismissed tweets that suggest the data might have been unblinded as unprofessional and said they are requesting that Imperial College have Francis cease and desist.

“He doesn’t have the actual data, so there is no way to do statistics without the dataset. The whole thing is inappropriate,” Dr. Budoff said.

Amarin Pharma provided funding and drug for the trial. Dr. Budoff has received research funding from and has served as a speaker for Amarin Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer and has served as a speaker for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Francis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships..

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

Final 18-month results of the EVAPORATE trial suggest icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) provides even greater slowing of coronary plaque progression when added to statins for patients with high triglyceride levels, but not all cardiologists are convinced.

The study was designed to explore a potential mechanism behind the cardiovascular event reduction in REDUCE-IT. Previously reported interim results showed that, after 9 months, the pharmaceutical-grade omega-3 fatty acid formation significantly slowed the progression of several plaque types but not the primary endpoint of change in low-attenuation plaque volume on multidetector CT.

From baseline to 18-month follow-up, however, the primary endpoint was significantly reduced by 17% in the icosapent ethyl group, whereas low-attenuation plaque volumes increased by 109% in the placebo group (P = .0061).

Significant declines were also seen with icosapent ethyl 4 g/day versus the mineral oil placebo for all other plaque types except dense calcium after adjustment for age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, and triglyceride levels at baseline:

• Dense calcium: –1% versus 15% (P = .0531).
• Fibro-fatty: –34% versus 32% (P = .0002).
• Fibrous: –20% versus 1% (P = .0028).
• Noncalcified: –19% versus 9% (P = .0005).
• Total plaque: –9% versus 11% (P = .0019).

The results parallel nicely with recent clinical data from REDUCE-IT REVASC, in which icosapent ethyl 4 g/day provided a very early benefit on first revascularization events that reached statistical significance after only 11 months (hazard ratio, 0.66), principal investigator Matthew Budoff, MD, director of cardiac CT at Harbor–University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center in Torrance, Calif., said during the virtual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020.

The findings were also published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal and quickly prompted a flurry of comments on social media.

Some were supportive. Christopher Cannon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston; Dan Soffer, MD, a lipidologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Viet Le, MPAS, PA, a researcher at the Intermountain Heart Institute, Murray, Utah, took to Twitter to praise Dr. Budoff and the final results of the mechanistic study. Dr. Soffer called the study “elegant,” while Dr. Cannon said the results provide “important mechanistic data on plaque character.”

Others were highly critical, including a poll questioning whether the article should be retracted or revised.

Ibrahim H. Tanboga, MD, PhD, a cardiology professor and biostatistician at Hisar Intercontinental Hospital in Istanbul, questioned how the longitudinal change in low-attenuation plaque was possible clinically; his plot of the data showed these lesions getting worse in both arms before getting better in both arms.

A more volatile exchange concerned whether there were differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups and whether the data might have been unblinded.

“I am sympathetic to the boss of a big laboratory [who] might not know how every step of the process was done and therefore might not be aware of opportunities for accidental bias. This can easily happen in a large and active department,” Darrel Francis, MD, professor of cardiology at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, said in an interview.

An alternative explanation proffered on Twitter was that the interim analysis found no significant differences in baseline measures because it used nonparametric tests, whereas log transformation was applied to the final data. In any event, the tweets prompted a sharp rebuke from Dr. Budoff.

Dr. Francis raised another point of contention on Twitter regarding the degree of plaque progression in the placebo group.

In an interview, Dr. Francis pointed out that the final data represent the percentage change in the logarithm, not the actual percentage change in atheroma. So the increase in total atheroma volume in the placebo arm is not 11% but rather a scaling-up by 100.4 or 2.51, in other words, 151%.

He also offered a “less subtle feature of possible erroneous data,” in that the abstract reported low-attenuation plaque “more than doubles” in 18 months, which he described as a “ghastly supercharged version of Moore’s law for atheroma, instead of microchips.”

So “either it’s a mistake in the measurement or the placebo is harmful, because I can’t see how this is sustainable,” he said. “Why isn’t everyone dead from coronary disease?”

Concerns were raised previously over the possibility that the mineral oil placebo used in both EVAPORATE and REDUCE-IT could be having ill effects, notably, by increasing LDL cholesterol and C-reactive protein levels.

In an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, who is chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and has been among the critics of the mineral oil placebo, also questioned the plaque progression over the 18 months.

“I’ve published more than dozen regression/progression trials, and we have never seen anything like this in a placebo group, ever,” he said. “If this was a clean placebo, why would this happen in a short amount of time?

“I’m concerned this is all about an increase, in the case of REDUCE-IT, in morbidity and mortality in the placebo group, and in the EVAPORATE trial, an increase in plaque in the placebo group,” Dr. Nissen said. “So this raises serious doubts about whether there is any benefit to icosapent ethyl.”

Asked about the 109% increase, Dr. Budoff said in an interview that low-attenuation plaque represents a much smaller quantity of overall plaque volume. “So the percentages might be exaggerated if you look at just percentage change because they;re small volumes.”

He also noted that previous trials that evaluated atherosclerosis progression used intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), whereas EVAPORATE is the first to make the transition to CT angiography-based analysis of plaque progression.

“I would point out that Dr. Nissen has only worked on intravascular ultrasound, which, while it’s parallel in its ability to measure plaque, measures different volumes and measures it in a totally different way,” said Dr. Budoff. “So I don’t think we can directly compare the results of CT angiography to Dr. Nissen’s examples of IVUS.”

During his presentation, Dr. Budoff highlighted their recent data showing a similar rate of plaque progression between the mineral oil placebo in EVAPORATE and a cellulose-based placebo in the Garlic5 study. “So we have high confidence that the benefits seen in this trial with icosapent ethyl represent icosapent ethyl’s beneficial effects on atherosclerosis and not harm of mineral oil,” he said.

Exactly how icosapent ethyl is slowing atherosclerosis, however, is not fully known, Dr. Budoff said in an interview. “It might be inflammation and oxidation; those have both been shown to be better with icosapent ethyl, but I don’t think we fully understand the implications of these results.”

Dr. Budoff dismissed tweets that suggest the data might have been unblinded as unprofessional and said they are requesting that Imperial College have Francis cease and desist.

“He doesn’t have the actual data, so there is no way to do statistics without the dataset. The whole thing is inappropriate,” Dr. Budoff said.

Amarin Pharma provided funding and drug for the trial. Dr. Budoff has received research funding from and has served as a speaker for Amarin Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer and has served as a speaker for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Francis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships..

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

As the COVID-19 crisis pandemic continues, many physicians are not only battling the medical challenges it has wrought but they’re also dealing with its financial ramifications at home.

“Some of our physician clients have seen their income decrease by as much as 50%,” says Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. “Many physicians had previously figured that whatever financial obligations they had wouldn’t be a problem because whatever amount they were making would continue, and if there were a decline it would be gradual.” However, assumption is now creating financial strain for many doctors.

Vikram Tarugu, MD, a gastroenterologist and CEO of Detox of South Florida in Okeechobee, Florida, says he has watched his budget for years, but has become even more careful with his spending in the past few months.

“It has helped me a lot to adjust to the new normal when it comes to the financial side of things,” Dr. Tarugu said. “Patients aren’t coming in as much as they used to, so my income has really been affected.”

Primary care physicians have seen a 55% decrease in revenue and a 20%-30% decrease in patient volume as a result of COVID-19. The impact has been even more severe for specialists. Even for physicians whose practices remain busy and whose family members haven’t lost their jobs or income, broader concerns about the economy may be reason enough for physicians to adopt cost-cutting measures.

In Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2020, we asked physicians to share their best cost-cutting tips. Many illustrate the lengths to which physicians are going to conserve money.  

Here’s a look at some of the advice they shared, along with guidance from experts on how to make it work for you:
 

1. Create a written budget, even if you think it’s pointless.

Physicians said their most important piece of advice includes the following: “Use a formal budget to track progress,” “write out a budget,” “plan intermittent/large expenses in advance,” “Make sure all expenses are paid before you spend on leisure.”

Nearly 7 in 10 physicians say they have a budget for personal expenses, yet only one-quarter of those who do have a formal, written budget. Writing out a spending plan is key to being intentional about your spending, making sure that you’re living within your means, and identifying areas in which you may be able to cut back.

“Financial planning is all about cash flow, and everybody should know the amount of money coming in, how much is going out, and the difference between the two,” says Amy Guerich, a partner with Stepp & Rothwell, a Kansas City–based financial planning firm. “That’s important in good times, but it’s even more important now when we see physicians taking pay cuts.”

Many physicians have found that budget apps or software programs are easier to work with than anticipated; some even walk you through the process of creating a budget. To get the most out of the apps, you’ll need to check them regularly and make changes based on their data.

“Sometimes there’s this false belief that just by signing up, you are automatically going to be better at budgeting,” says Scott Snider, CFP, a certified financial planner and partner with Mellen Money Management in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. “Basically, these apps are a great way to identify problem areas of spending. We have a tendency as humans to underestimate how much we spend on things like Starbucks, dining out, and Amazon shopping.”

One of the doctors’ tips that requires the most willpower is to “pay all expenses before spending on leisure.” That’s because we live in an instant gratification world, and want everything right away, Ms. Guerich said.

“I also think there’s an element of ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ and pressure associated with this profession,” she said. “The stereotype is that physicians are high-income earners so ‘We should be able to do that’ or ‘Mom and dad are doctors, so they can afford it.’ “

Creating and then revisiting your budget progress on a monthly or quarterly basis can give you a feeling of accomplishment and keep you motivated to stay with it.  

Keep in mind that budgeting is a continual process rather than a singular event, and you’ll likely adjust it over time as your income and goals change. 
 

2. Save more as you earn more.

Respondents to our Physician Compensation Report gave the following recommendations: “Pay yourself first,” “I put half of my bonus into an investment account no matter how much it is,” “I allocate extra money and put it into a savings account.”

Dr. Greenwald said, “I have a rule that every client needs to be saving 20% of their gross income toward retirement, including whatever the employer is putting in.”

Putting a portion of every paycheck into savings is key to making progress toward financial goals. Start by building an emergency fund with at least 3-6 months’ worth of expenses in it and making sure you’re saving at least enough for retirement to get any potential employer match.

Mr. Snider suggests increasing the percentage you save every time you get a raise.

“The thought behind that strategy is that when a doctor receives a pay raise – even if it’s just a cost-of-living raise of 3% – an extra 1% saved doesn’t reduce their take-home pay year-over-year,” he says. “In fact, they still take home more money, and they save more money. Win-win.”
 

3. Focus on paying down your debt.

Physicians told us how they were working to pay down debt with the following recommendations:  “Accelerate debt reduction,” “I make additional principal payment to our home mortgage,” “We are aggressively attacking our remaining student loans.”

Reducing or eliminating debt is key to increasing cash flow, which can make it easier to meet all of your other financial goals. One-quarter of physicians have credit card debt, which typically carries interest rates higher than other types of debt, making it far more expensive. Focus on paying off such high-interest debt first, before moving on to other types of debt such as auto loans, student loans, or a mortgage.

“Credit card debt and any unsecured debt should be paid before anything else,” Mr. Snider says. “Getting rid of those high interest rates should be a priority. And that type of debt has less flexible terms than student debt.”
 

4. Great opportunity to take advantage of record-low interest rates.

Physicians said that, to save money, they are recommending the following: “Consolidating student debt into our mortgage,” “Accelerating payments of the principle on our mortgage,” “Making sure we have an affordable mortgage.”

With interest rates at an all-time low, even those who’ve recently refinanced might see significant savings by refinancing again. Given the associated fees, it typically makes sense to refinance if you can reduce your mortgage rate by at least a point, and you’re planning to stay in the home for at least 5 years.

“Depending on how much lower your rate is, refinancing can make a big difference in your monthly payments,” Ms. Guerich said. “For physicians who might need an emergency reserve but don’t have cash on hand, a HELOC [Home Equity Line of Credit] is a great way to accomplish that.”
 

5. Be wary of credit cards dangers; use cards wisely.

Physician respondents recommended the following:  “Use 0% interest offers on credit cards,” “Only have one card and pay it off every month,” “Never carry over balance.”

Nearly 80% of physicians have three or more credit cards, with 18% reporting that they have seven or more. When used wisely, credit cards can be an important tool for managing finances. Many credit cards come with tools that can help with budgeting, and credit cards rewards and perks can offer real value to users. That said, rewards typically are not valuable enough to offset the cost of interest on balances (or the associated damage to your credit score) that aren’t paid off each month.

“If you’re paying a high rate on credit card balances that carry over every month, regardless of your income, that could be a symptom that you may be spending more than you should,” says Dan Keady, a CFP and chief financial planning strategist at financial services firm TIAA.

6. Give less to Uncle Sam: Keep it for yourself.

Physicians said that they do the following: “Maximize tax-free/deferred savings (401k, HSA, etc.),” “Give to charity to reduce tax,” “Use pre-tax dollars for childcare and healthcare.”

Not only does saving in workplace retirement accounts help you build your nest egg, but it also reduces the amount that you have to pay in taxes in a given year. Physicians should also take advantage of other ways to reduce their income for tax purposes, such as saving money in a health savings account or flexible savings account.

The 401(k) or 403(b) contribution limit for this year is $19,500 ($26,000) for those age 50 years and older. Self-employed physicians can save even more money via a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, says Ms. Guerich said. They can save up to 25% of compensation, up to $57,000 in 2020.
 

7. Automate everything and spare yourself the headache.

Physicians said the following: “Designate money from your paycheck directly to tax deferred and taxable accounts automatically,” “Use automatic payment for credit card balance monthly,” “Automate your savings.”

You probably already automate your 401(k) contributions, but you can also automate bill payments, emergency savings contributions and other financial tasks. For busy physicians, this can make it easier to stick to your financial plan and achieve your goals.

“The older you get, the busier you get, said Mr. Snider says. “Automation can definitely help with that. But make sure you are checking in quarterly to make sure that everything is still in line with your plan. The problem with automation is when you forget about it completely and just let everything sit there.”
 

8. Save separately for big purchases.

Sometimes it’s the big major expenses that can start to derail a budget. Physicians told us the following tactics for large purchases:  “We buy affordable cars and take budget vacations,” “I buy used cars,” “We save in advance for new cars and only buy cars with cash.”

The decision of which car to purchase or where to go on a family vacation is a personal one, and some physicians take great enjoyment and pride in driving a luxury vehicle or traveling to exotic locales. The key, experts say, is to factor the cost of that car into the rest of your budget, and make sure that it’s not preventing you from achieving other financial goals.

“I don’t like to judge or tell clients how they should spend their money,” said Andrew Musbach, a certified financial planner and cofounder of MD Wealth Management in Chelsea, Mich. “Some people like cars, we have clients that have two planes, others want a second house or like to travel. Each person has their own interest where they may spend more relative to other people, but as long as they are meeting their savings targets, I encourage them to spend their money and enjoy what they enjoy most, guilt free.”

Mr. Snider suggests setting up a savings account separate from emergency or retirement accounts to set aside money if you have a goal for a large future purchase, such as a boat or a second home.

“That way, the funds don’t get commingled, and it’s explicitly clear whether or not the doctor is on target,” he says. “It also prevents them from treating their emergency savings account as an ATM machine.”
 

9. Start saving for college when the kids are little.  

Respondents said the following: “We are buying less to save for the kids’ college education,” “We set up direct deposit into college and retirement savings plans,” “We have a 529 account for college savings.”

Helping pay for their children’s college education is an important financial goal for many physicians. The earlier that you start saving, the less you’ll have to save overall, thanks to compound interest. State 529 accounts are often a good place to start, especially if your state offers a tax incentive for doing so.

Mr. Snider recommends that physicians start small, with an initial investment of $1,000 per month and $100 per month contributions. Assuming a 7% rate of return and 17 years’ worth of savings, this would generate just over $42,000. (Note, current typical rates of return are less than 7%).

“Ideally, as other goals are accomplished and personal debt gets paid off, the doctor is ramping up their savings to have at least 50% of college expenses covered from their 529 college savings,” he says.
 

10. Watch out for the temptation of impulse purchases.

Physicians said the following: “Avoid impulse purchases,” “Avoid impulse shopping, make a list for the store and stick to it,” “Wait to buy things on sale.”

Nothing wrecks a budget like an impulse buy. More than half (54%) of U.S. shoppers have admitted to spending $100 or more on an impulse purchase. And 20% of shoppers have spent at least $1,000 on an impulse buy. Avoid buyers’ remorse by waiting a few days to make large purchase decisions or by limiting your unplanned spending to a certain dollar amount within your budget.

Online shopping may be a particular temptation. Dr. Tarugu, the Florida gastroenterologist, has focused on reducing those impulse buys as well, deleting all online shopping apps from his and his family’s phones.

“You won’t notice how much you have ordered online until it arrives at your doorstep,” he said. “It’s really important to keep it at bay.”

Mr. Keady, the TIAA chief planning strategist, recommended this tactic: Calculate the number of patients (or hours) you’d need to see in order to earn the cash required to make the purchase.

“Then, in a mindful way, figure out the amount of value derived from the purchase,” he said.
 

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

As the COVID-19 crisis pandemic continues, many physicians are not only battling the medical challenges it has wrought but they’re also dealing with its financial ramifications at home.

“Some of our physician clients have seen their income decrease by as much as 50%,” says Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. “Many physicians had previously figured that whatever financial obligations they had wouldn’t be a problem because whatever amount they were making would continue, and if there were a decline it would be gradual.” However, assumption is now creating financial strain for many doctors.

Vikram Tarugu, MD, a gastroenterologist and CEO of Detox of South Florida in Okeechobee, Florida, says he has watched his budget for years, but has become even more careful with his spending in the past few months.

“It has helped me a lot to adjust to the new normal when it comes to the financial side of things,” Dr. Tarugu said. “Patients aren’t coming in as much as they used to, so my income has really been affected.”

Primary care physicians have seen a 55% decrease in revenue and a 20%-30% decrease in patient volume as a result of COVID-19. The impact has been even more severe for specialists. Even for physicians whose practices remain busy and whose family members haven’t lost their jobs or income, broader concerns about the economy may be reason enough for physicians to adopt cost-cutting measures.

In Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2020, we asked physicians to share their best cost-cutting tips. Many illustrate the lengths to which physicians are going to conserve money.  

Here’s a look at some of the advice they shared, along with guidance from experts on how to make it work for you:
 

1. Create a written budget, even if you think it’s pointless.

Physicians said their most important piece of advice includes the following: “Use a formal budget to track progress,” “write out a budget,” “plan intermittent/large expenses in advance,” “Make sure all expenses are paid before you spend on leisure.”

Nearly 7 in 10 physicians say they have a budget for personal expenses, yet only one-quarter of those who do have a formal, written budget. Writing out a spending plan is key to being intentional about your spending, making sure that you’re living within your means, and identifying areas in which you may be able to cut back.

“Financial planning is all about cash flow, and everybody should know the amount of money coming in, how much is going out, and the difference between the two,” says Amy Guerich, a partner with Stepp & Rothwell, a Kansas City–based financial planning firm. “That’s important in good times, but it’s even more important now when we see physicians taking pay cuts.”

Many physicians have found that budget apps or software programs are easier to work with than anticipated; some even walk you through the process of creating a budget. To get the most out of the apps, you’ll need to check them regularly and make changes based on their data.

“Sometimes there’s this false belief that just by signing up, you are automatically going to be better at budgeting,” says Scott Snider, CFP, a certified financial planner and partner with Mellen Money Management in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. “Basically, these apps are a great way to identify problem areas of spending. We have a tendency as humans to underestimate how much we spend on things like Starbucks, dining out, and Amazon shopping.”

One of the doctors’ tips that requires the most willpower is to “pay all expenses before spending on leisure.” That’s because we live in an instant gratification world, and want everything right away, Ms. Guerich said.

“I also think there’s an element of ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ and pressure associated with this profession,” she said. “The stereotype is that physicians are high-income earners so ‘We should be able to do that’ or ‘Mom and dad are doctors, so they can afford it.’ “

Creating and then revisiting your budget progress on a monthly or quarterly basis can give you a feeling of accomplishment and keep you motivated to stay with it.  

Keep in mind that budgeting is a continual process rather than a singular event, and you’ll likely adjust it over time as your income and goals change. 
 

2. Save more as you earn more.

Respondents to our Physician Compensation Report gave the following recommendations: “Pay yourself first,” “I put half of my bonus into an investment account no matter how much it is,” “I allocate extra money and put it into a savings account.”

Dr. Greenwald said, “I have a rule that every client needs to be saving 20% of their gross income toward retirement, including whatever the employer is putting in.”

Putting a portion of every paycheck into savings is key to making progress toward financial goals. Start by building an emergency fund with at least 3-6 months’ worth of expenses in it and making sure you’re saving at least enough for retirement to get any potential employer match.

Mr. Snider suggests increasing the percentage you save every time you get a raise.

“The thought behind that strategy is that when a doctor receives a pay raise – even if it’s just a cost-of-living raise of 3% – an extra 1% saved doesn’t reduce their take-home pay year-over-year,” he says. “In fact, they still take home more money, and they save more money. Win-win.”
 

3. Focus on paying down your debt.

Physicians told us how they were working to pay down debt with the following recommendations:  “Accelerate debt reduction,” “I make additional principal payment to our home mortgage,” “We are aggressively attacking our remaining student loans.”

Reducing or eliminating debt is key to increasing cash flow, which can make it easier to meet all of your other financial goals. One-quarter of physicians have credit card debt, which typically carries interest rates higher than other types of debt, making it far more expensive. Focus on paying off such high-interest debt first, before moving on to other types of debt such as auto loans, student loans, or a mortgage.

“Credit card debt and any unsecured debt should be paid before anything else,” Mr. Snider says. “Getting rid of those high interest rates should be a priority. And that type of debt has less flexible terms than student debt.”
 

4. Great opportunity to take advantage of record-low interest rates.

Physicians said that, to save money, they are recommending the following: “Consolidating student debt into our mortgage,” “Accelerating payments of the principle on our mortgage,” “Making sure we have an affordable mortgage.”

With interest rates at an all-time low, even those who’ve recently refinanced might see significant savings by refinancing again. Given the associated fees, it typically makes sense to refinance if you can reduce your mortgage rate by at least a point, and you’re planning to stay in the home for at least 5 years.

“Depending on how much lower your rate is, refinancing can make a big difference in your monthly payments,” Ms. Guerich said. “For physicians who might need an emergency reserve but don’t have cash on hand, a HELOC [Home Equity Line of Credit] is a great way to accomplish that.”
 

5. Be wary of credit cards dangers; use cards wisely.

Physician respondents recommended the following:  “Use 0% interest offers on credit cards,” “Only have one card and pay it off every month,” “Never carry over balance.”

Nearly 80% of physicians have three or more credit cards, with 18% reporting that they have seven or more. When used wisely, credit cards can be an important tool for managing finances. Many credit cards come with tools that can help with budgeting, and credit cards rewards and perks can offer real value to users. That said, rewards typically are not valuable enough to offset the cost of interest on balances (or the associated damage to your credit score) that aren’t paid off each month.

“If you’re paying a high rate on credit card balances that carry over every month, regardless of your income, that could be a symptom that you may be spending more than you should,” says Dan Keady, a CFP and chief financial planning strategist at financial services firm TIAA.

6. Give less to Uncle Sam: Keep it for yourself.

Physicians said that they do the following: “Maximize tax-free/deferred savings (401k, HSA, etc.),” “Give to charity to reduce tax,” “Use pre-tax dollars for childcare and healthcare.”

Not only does saving in workplace retirement accounts help you build your nest egg, but it also reduces the amount that you have to pay in taxes in a given year. Physicians should also take advantage of other ways to reduce their income for tax purposes, such as saving money in a health savings account or flexible savings account.

The 401(k) or 403(b) contribution limit for this year is $19,500 ($26,000) for those age 50 years and older. Self-employed physicians can save even more money via a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, says Ms. Guerich said. They can save up to 25% of compensation, up to $57,000 in 2020.
 

7. Automate everything and spare yourself the headache.

Physicians said the following: “Designate money from your paycheck directly to tax deferred and taxable accounts automatically,” “Use automatic payment for credit card balance monthly,” “Automate your savings.”

You probably already automate your 401(k) contributions, but you can also automate bill payments, emergency savings contributions and other financial tasks. For busy physicians, this can make it easier to stick to your financial plan and achieve your goals.

“The older you get, the busier you get, said Mr. Snider says. “Automation can definitely help with that. But make sure you are checking in quarterly to make sure that everything is still in line with your plan. The problem with automation is when you forget about it completely and just let everything sit there.”
 

8. Save separately for big purchases.

Sometimes it’s the big major expenses that can start to derail a budget. Physicians told us the following tactics for large purchases:  “We buy affordable cars and take budget vacations,” “I buy used cars,” “We save in advance for new cars and only buy cars with cash.”

The decision of which car to purchase or where to go on a family vacation is a personal one, and some physicians take great enjoyment and pride in driving a luxury vehicle or traveling to exotic locales. The key, experts say, is to factor the cost of that car into the rest of your budget, and make sure that it’s not preventing you from achieving other financial goals.

“I don’t like to judge or tell clients how they should spend their money,” said Andrew Musbach, a certified financial planner and cofounder of MD Wealth Management in Chelsea, Mich. “Some people like cars, we have clients that have two planes, others want a second house or like to travel. Each person has their own interest where they may spend more relative to other people, but as long as they are meeting their savings targets, I encourage them to spend their money and enjoy what they enjoy most, guilt free.”

Mr. Snider suggests setting up a savings account separate from emergency or retirement accounts to set aside money if you have a goal for a large future purchase, such as a boat or a second home.

“That way, the funds don’t get commingled, and it’s explicitly clear whether or not the doctor is on target,” he says. “It also prevents them from treating their emergency savings account as an ATM machine.”
 

9. Start saving for college when the kids are little.  

Respondents said the following: “We are buying less to save for the kids’ college education,” “We set up direct deposit into college and retirement savings plans,” “We have a 529 account for college savings.”

Helping pay for their children’s college education is an important financial goal for many physicians. The earlier that you start saving, the less you’ll have to save overall, thanks to compound interest. State 529 accounts are often a good place to start, especially if your state offers a tax incentive for doing so.

Mr. Snider recommends that physicians start small, with an initial investment of $1,000 per month and $100 per month contributions. Assuming a 7% rate of return and 17 years’ worth of savings, this would generate just over $42,000. (Note, current typical rates of return are less than 7%).

“Ideally, as other goals are accomplished and personal debt gets paid off, the doctor is ramping up their savings to have at least 50% of college expenses covered from their 529 college savings,” he says.
 

10. Watch out for the temptation of impulse purchases.

Physicians said the following: “Avoid impulse purchases,” “Avoid impulse shopping, make a list for the store and stick to it,” “Wait to buy things on sale.”

Nothing wrecks a budget like an impulse buy. More than half (54%) of U.S. shoppers have admitted to spending $100 or more on an impulse purchase. And 20% of shoppers have spent at least $1,000 on an impulse buy. Avoid buyers’ remorse by waiting a few days to make large purchase decisions or by limiting your unplanned spending to a certain dollar amount within your budget.

Online shopping may be a particular temptation. Dr. Tarugu, the Florida gastroenterologist, has focused on reducing those impulse buys as well, deleting all online shopping apps from his and his family’s phones.

“You won’t notice how much you have ordered online until it arrives at your doorstep,” he said. “It’s really important to keep it at bay.”

Mr. Keady, the TIAA chief planning strategist, recommended this tactic: Calculate the number of patients (or hours) you’d need to see in order to earn the cash required to make the purchase.

“Then, in a mindful way, figure out the amount of value derived from the purchase,” he said.
 

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

As the COVID-19 crisis pandemic continues, many physicians are not only battling the medical challenges it has wrought but they’re also dealing with its financial ramifications at home.

“Some of our physician clients have seen their income decrease by as much as 50%,” says Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. “Many physicians had previously figured that whatever financial obligations they had wouldn’t be a problem because whatever amount they were making would continue, and if there were a decline it would be gradual.” However, assumption is now creating financial strain for many doctors.

Vikram Tarugu, MD, a gastroenterologist and CEO of Detox of South Florida in Okeechobee, Florida, says he has watched his budget for years, but has become even more careful with his spending in the past few months.

“It has helped me a lot to adjust to the new normal when it comes to the financial side of things,” Dr. Tarugu said. “Patients aren’t coming in as much as they used to, so my income has really been affected.”

Primary care physicians have seen a 55% decrease in revenue and a 20%-30% decrease in patient volume as a result of COVID-19. The impact has been even more severe for specialists. Even for physicians whose practices remain busy and whose family members haven’t lost their jobs or income, broader concerns about the economy may be reason enough for physicians to adopt cost-cutting measures.

In Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2020, we asked physicians to share their best cost-cutting tips. Many illustrate the lengths to which physicians are going to conserve money.  

Here’s a look at some of the advice they shared, along with guidance from experts on how to make it work for you:
 

1. Create a written budget, even if you think it’s pointless.

Physicians said their most important piece of advice includes the following: “Use a formal budget to track progress,” “write out a budget,” “plan intermittent/large expenses in advance,” “Make sure all expenses are paid before you spend on leisure.”

Nearly 7 in 10 physicians say they have a budget for personal expenses, yet only one-quarter of those who do have a formal, written budget. Writing out a spending plan is key to being intentional about your spending, making sure that you’re living within your means, and identifying areas in which you may be able to cut back.

“Financial planning is all about cash flow, and everybody should know the amount of money coming in, how much is going out, and the difference between the two,” says Amy Guerich, a partner with Stepp & Rothwell, a Kansas City–based financial planning firm. “That’s important in good times, but it’s even more important now when we see physicians taking pay cuts.”

Many physicians have found that budget apps or software programs are easier to work with than anticipated; some even walk you through the process of creating a budget. To get the most out of the apps, you’ll need to check them regularly and make changes based on their data.

“Sometimes there’s this false belief that just by signing up, you are automatically going to be better at budgeting,” says Scott Snider, CFP, a certified financial planner and partner with Mellen Money Management in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. “Basically, these apps are a great way to identify problem areas of spending. We have a tendency as humans to underestimate how much we spend on things like Starbucks, dining out, and Amazon shopping.”

One of the doctors’ tips that requires the most willpower is to “pay all expenses before spending on leisure.” That’s because we live in an instant gratification world, and want everything right away, Ms. Guerich said.

“I also think there’s an element of ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ and pressure associated with this profession,” she said. “The stereotype is that physicians are high-income earners so ‘We should be able to do that’ or ‘Mom and dad are doctors, so they can afford it.’ “

Creating and then revisiting your budget progress on a monthly or quarterly basis can give you a feeling of accomplishment and keep you motivated to stay with it.  

Keep in mind that budgeting is a continual process rather than a singular event, and you’ll likely adjust it over time as your income and goals change. 
 

2. Save more as you earn more.

Respondents to our Physician Compensation Report gave the following recommendations: “Pay yourself first,” “I put half of my bonus into an investment account no matter how much it is,” “I allocate extra money and put it into a savings account.”

Dr. Greenwald said, “I have a rule that every client needs to be saving 20% of their gross income toward retirement, including whatever the employer is putting in.”

Putting a portion of every paycheck into savings is key to making progress toward financial goals. Start by building an emergency fund with at least 3-6 months’ worth of expenses in it and making sure you’re saving at least enough for retirement to get any potential employer match.

Mr. Snider suggests increasing the percentage you save every time you get a raise.

“The thought behind that strategy is that when a doctor receives a pay raise – even if it’s just a cost-of-living raise of 3% – an extra 1% saved doesn’t reduce their take-home pay year-over-year,” he says. “In fact, they still take home more money, and they save more money. Win-win.”
 

3. Focus on paying down your debt.

Physicians told us how they were working to pay down debt with the following recommendations:  “Accelerate debt reduction,” “I make additional principal payment to our home mortgage,” “We are aggressively attacking our remaining student loans.”

Reducing or eliminating debt is key to increasing cash flow, which can make it easier to meet all of your other financial goals. One-quarter of physicians have credit card debt, which typically carries interest rates higher than other types of debt, making it far more expensive. Focus on paying off such high-interest debt first, before moving on to other types of debt such as auto loans, student loans, or a mortgage.

“Credit card debt and any unsecured debt should be paid before anything else,” Mr. Snider says. “Getting rid of those high interest rates should be a priority. And that type of debt has less flexible terms than student debt.”
 

4. Great opportunity to take advantage of record-low interest rates.

Physicians said that, to save money, they are recommending the following: “Consolidating student debt into our mortgage,” “Accelerating payments of the principle on our mortgage,” “Making sure we have an affordable mortgage.”

With interest rates at an all-time low, even those who’ve recently refinanced might see significant savings by refinancing again. Given the associated fees, it typically makes sense to refinance if you can reduce your mortgage rate by at least a point, and you’re planning to stay in the home for at least 5 years.

“Depending on how much lower your rate is, refinancing can make a big difference in your monthly payments,” Ms. Guerich said. “For physicians who might need an emergency reserve but don’t have cash on hand, a HELOC [Home Equity Line of Credit] is a great way to accomplish that.”
 

5. Be wary of credit cards dangers; use cards wisely.

Physician respondents recommended the following:  “Use 0% interest offers on credit cards,” “Only have one card and pay it off every month,” “Never carry over balance.”

Nearly 80% of physicians have three or more credit cards, with 18% reporting that they have seven or more. When used wisely, credit cards can be an important tool for managing finances. Many credit cards come with tools that can help with budgeting, and credit cards rewards and perks can offer real value to users. That said, rewards typically are not valuable enough to offset the cost of interest on balances (or the associated damage to your credit score) that aren’t paid off each month.

“If you’re paying a high rate on credit card balances that carry over every month, regardless of your income, that could be a symptom that you may be spending more than you should,” says Dan Keady, a CFP and chief financial planning strategist at financial services firm TIAA.

6. Give less to Uncle Sam: Keep it for yourself.

Physicians said that they do the following: “Maximize tax-free/deferred savings (401k, HSA, etc.),” “Give to charity to reduce tax,” “Use pre-tax dollars for childcare and healthcare.”

Not only does saving in workplace retirement accounts help you build your nest egg, but it also reduces the amount that you have to pay in taxes in a given year. Physicians should also take advantage of other ways to reduce their income for tax purposes, such as saving money in a health savings account or flexible savings account.

The 401(k) or 403(b) contribution limit for this year is $19,500 ($26,000) for those age 50 years and older. Self-employed physicians can save even more money via a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, says Ms. Guerich said. They can save up to 25% of compensation, up to $57,000 in 2020.
 

7. Automate everything and spare yourself the headache.

Physicians said the following: “Designate money from your paycheck directly to tax deferred and taxable accounts automatically,” “Use automatic payment for credit card balance monthly,” “Automate your savings.”

You probably already automate your 401(k) contributions, but you can also automate bill payments, emergency savings contributions and other financial tasks. For busy physicians, this can make it easier to stick to your financial plan and achieve your goals.

“The older you get, the busier you get, said Mr. Snider says. “Automation can definitely help with that. But make sure you are checking in quarterly to make sure that everything is still in line with your plan. The problem with automation is when you forget about it completely and just let everything sit there.”
 

8. Save separately for big purchases.

Sometimes it’s the big major expenses that can start to derail a budget. Physicians told us the following tactics for large purchases:  “We buy affordable cars and take budget vacations,” “I buy used cars,” “We save in advance for new cars and only buy cars with cash.”

The decision of which car to purchase or where to go on a family vacation is a personal one, and some physicians take great enjoyment and pride in driving a luxury vehicle or traveling to exotic locales. The key, experts say, is to factor the cost of that car into the rest of your budget, and make sure that it’s not preventing you from achieving other financial goals.

“I don’t like to judge or tell clients how they should spend their money,” said Andrew Musbach, a certified financial planner and cofounder of MD Wealth Management in Chelsea, Mich. “Some people like cars, we have clients that have two planes, others want a second house or like to travel. Each person has their own interest where they may spend more relative to other people, but as long as they are meeting their savings targets, I encourage them to spend their money and enjoy what they enjoy most, guilt free.”

Mr. Snider suggests setting up a savings account separate from emergency or retirement accounts to set aside money if you have a goal for a large future purchase, such as a boat or a second home.

“That way, the funds don’t get commingled, and it’s explicitly clear whether or not the doctor is on target,” he says. “It also prevents them from treating their emergency savings account as an ATM machine.”
 

9. Start saving for college when the kids are little.  

Respondents said the following: “We are buying less to save for the kids’ college education,” “We set up direct deposit into college and retirement savings plans,” “We have a 529 account for college savings.”

Helping pay for their children’s college education is an important financial goal for many physicians. The earlier that you start saving, the less you’ll have to save overall, thanks to compound interest. State 529 accounts are often a good place to start, especially if your state offers a tax incentive for doing so.

Mr. Snider recommends that physicians start small, with an initial investment of $1,000 per month and $100 per month contributions. Assuming a 7% rate of return and 17 years’ worth of savings, this would generate just over $42,000. (Note, current typical rates of return are less than 7%).

“Ideally, as other goals are accomplished and personal debt gets paid off, the doctor is ramping up their savings to have at least 50% of college expenses covered from their 529 college savings,” he says.
 

10. Watch out for the temptation of impulse purchases.

Physicians said the following: “Avoid impulse purchases,” “Avoid impulse shopping, make a list for the store and stick to it,” “Wait to buy things on sale.”

Nothing wrecks a budget like an impulse buy. More than half (54%) of U.S. shoppers have admitted to spending $100 or more on an impulse purchase. And 20% of shoppers have spent at least $1,000 on an impulse buy. Avoid buyers’ remorse by waiting a few days to make large purchase decisions or by limiting your unplanned spending to a certain dollar amount within your budget.

Online shopping may be a particular temptation. Dr. Tarugu, the Florida gastroenterologist, has focused on reducing those impulse buys as well, deleting all online shopping apps from his and his family’s phones.

“You won’t notice how much you have ordered online until it arrives at your doorstep,” he said. “It’s really important to keep it at bay.”

Mr. Keady, the TIAA chief planning strategist, recommended this tactic: Calculate the number of patients (or hours) you’d need to see in order to earn the cash required to make the purchase.

“Then, in a mindful way, figure out the amount of value derived from the purchase,” he said.
 

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

About 22% of children with COVID-19 infections were asymptomatic, and 66% of the symptomatic children had unrecognized symptoms at the time of diagnosis, based on data from a case series of 91 confirmed cases.

South_agency/Getty Images

Although recent reports suggest that COVID-19 infections in children are generally mild, data on the full spectrum of illness and duration of viral RNA in children are limited, wrote Mi Seon Han, MD, PhD, of Seoul (South Korea) Metropolitan Government–Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, and colleagues.

To examine the full clinical course and duration of COVID-19 RNA detectability in children with confirmed infections, the researchers reviewed data from 91 individuals with confirmed infections. The children ranged in age from 27 days to 18 years, and 58% were male. The children were monitored at 20 hospitals and 2 isolation facilities for a mean 21.9 days. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Overall, COVID-19 viral RNA was present in the study population for a mean 17.6 days, with testing done at a median interval of 3 days. A total of 20 children (22%) were asymptomatic throughout the study period. In these children, viral RNA was detected for a mean 14 days.

“The major hurdle implicated in this study in diagnosing and treating children with COVID-19 is that a considerable number of children are asymptomatic, and even if symptoms are present, they are unrecognized and overlooked before COVID-19 is diagnosed,” the researchers noted.

Of the 71 symptomatic children, 47 (66%) had unrecognized symptoms prior to diagnosis, 18 (25%) developed symptoms after diagnosis, and 6 (9%) were diagnosed at the time of symptom onset. The symptomatic children were symptomatic for a median of 11 days; 43 (61%) remained symptomatic at 7 days’ follow-up after the study period, 27 (38%) were symptomatic at 14 days, and 7 (10%) were symptomatic at 21 days.

A total of 41 children had upper respiratory infections (58%) and 22 children (24%) had lower respiratory tract infections. No difference in the duration of virus RNA was detected between children with upper respiratory tract infections and lower respiratory tract infections (average, 18.7 days vs. 19.9 days).

Among the symptomatic children, 46 (65%) had mild cases and 20 (28%) had moderate cases.

For treatment, 14 children (15%) received lopinavir-ritonavir and/or hydroxychloroquine. Two patients had severe illness and received oxygen via nasal prong, without the need for mechanical ventilation. All the children in the case series recovered from their infections with no fatalities.

The study’s main limitation was the inability to analyze the transmission potential of the children because of the quarantine and isolation policies in Korea, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers did not perform follow-up testing at consistent intervals, so the duration of COVID-19 RNA detection may be inexact.

However, the results suggest “that suspecting and diagnosing COVID-19 in children based on their symptoms without epidemiologic information and virus testing is very challenging,” the researchers emphasized.

“Most of the children with COVID-19 have silent disease, but SARS-CoV-2 RNA can still be detected in the respiratory tract for a prolonged period,” they wrote. More research is needed to explore the potential for disease transmission by children in the community, and increased surveillance with laboratory screening can help identify children with unrecognized infections.

The study is the first known to focus on the frequency of asymptomatic infection in children and the duration of symptoms in both asymptomatic and symptomatic children, Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, and Meghan Delaney, DO, both affiliated with Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute, Washington, and George Washington University, Washington, wrote in an accompanying editorial. The structure of the Korean public health system “allowed for the sequential observation, testing (median testing interval of every 3 days), and comparison of 91 asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic children with mild to moderate upper and lower respiratory tract infection, identified primarily by contact tracing from laboratory-proven cases.”

Two take-home points from the study are that not all infected children are symptomatic, and the duration of symptoms in those who are varies widely, they noted. “Interestingly, this study aligns with adult data in which up to 40% of adults may remain asymptomatic in the face of infection.”

However, “The third and most important take-home point from this study relates to the duration of viral shedding in infected pediatric patients,” Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Delaney said (JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3996).

“Fully half of symptomatic children with both upper and lower tract disease were still shedding virus at 21 days. These are striking data, particularly since 86 of 88 diagnosed children (98%) either had no symptoms or mild or moderate disease,” they explained. The results highlight the need for improvements in qualitative molecular testing and formal studies to identify differences in results from different testing scenarios, such as hospital entry, preprocedure screening, and symptomatic testing. In addition, “these findings are highly relevant to the development of public health strategies to mitigate and contain spread within communities, particularly as affected communities begin their recovery phases.”

The study is important because “schools are opening, and we don’t know what is going to happen,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, of Rochester General Hospital, N.Y., said in an interview.

“Clinicians, parents, students, school administrators and politicians are worried,” he said. “This study adds to others recently published, bringing into focus the challenges to several suppositions that existed when the COVID-19 pandemic began and over the summer.”

“This study of 91 Korean children tells us that taking a child’s temperature as a screening tool to decide if they may enter school will not be a highly successful strategy,” he said. “Many children are without fever and asymptomatic when infected and contagious. The notion that children shed less virus or shed it for shorter lengths of time we keep learning from this type of research is not true. In another recent study the authors found that children shed as much of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as an adult in the ICU on a ventilator.”

Dr. Pichichero said he was not surprised by the study findings. “A similar paper was published last week in the Journal of Pediatrics from Massachusetts General Hospital, so the findings in the JAMA paper are similar to what has been reported in the United States.”

“Availability of testing will continue to be a challenge in some communities,” said Dr. Pichichero. “Here in the Rochester, New York, area we will use a screening questionnaire based on the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] symptom criteria of SARS-CoV-2 infections to decide whom to test.”

As for additional research, “We have so much more to learn about SARS-CoV-2 in children,” he emphasized. “The focus has been on adults because the morbidity and mortality has been greatest in adults, especially the elderly and those with compromised health.”

“The National Institutes of Health has issued a call for more research in children to characterize the spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 illness, including the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C] and try to identify biomarkers and/or biosignatures for a prognostic algorithm to predict the longitudinal risk of disease severity after a child is exposed to and may be infected with SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Pichichero. “NIH has asked researchers to answer the following questions.”

• Why do children have milder illness?
• Are there differences in childhood biology (e.g., gender, puberty, etc.) that contribute to illness severity?
• Are there genetic host differences associated with different disease severity phenotypes, including MIS-C?
• Are there innate mucosal, humoral, cellular and other adaptive immune profiles that are associated with reduced or increased risk of progressive disease, including previous coronavirus infections?
• Will SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cause worse disease as seen with antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in other viral infections (e.g., dengue)? Will future vaccines carry a risk of the ADE phenomenon?
• Does substance use (e.g., nicotine, marijuana) exacerbate or trigger MIS-C through immune activation?

“We have no knowledge yet about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of children, especially young children,” Dr. Pichichero emphasized. “There are different types of vaccines – messenger RNA, adenovirus vector and purified spike proteins of the virus – among others, but questions remain: Will the vaccines work in children? What about side effects? Will the antibodies and cellular immunity protect partially or completely?”

The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pichichero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Han MS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3988.

About 22% of children with COVID-19 infections were asymptomatic, and 66% of the symptomatic children had unrecognized symptoms at the time of diagnosis, based on data from a case series of 91 confirmed cases.

South_agency/Getty Images

Although recent reports suggest that COVID-19 infections in children are generally mild, data on the full spectrum of illness and duration of viral RNA in children are limited, wrote Mi Seon Han, MD, PhD, of Seoul (South Korea) Metropolitan Government–Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, and colleagues.

To examine the full clinical course and duration of COVID-19 RNA detectability in children with confirmed infections, the researchers reviewed data from 91 individuals with confirmed infections. The children ranged in age from 27 days to 18 years, and 58% were male. The children were monitored at 20 hospitals and 2 isolation facilities for a mean 21.9 days. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Overall, COVID-19 viral RNA was present in the study population for a mean 17.6 days, with testing done at a median interval of 3 days. A total of 20 children (22%) were asymptomatic throughout the study period. In these children, viral RNA was detected for a mean 14 days.

“The major hurdle implicated in this study in diagnosing and treating children with COVID-19 is that a considerable number of children are asymptomatic, and even if symptoms are present, they are unrecognized and overlooked before COVID-19 is diagnosed,” the researchers noted.

Of the 71 symptomatic children, 47 (66%) had unrecognized symptoms prior to diagnosis, 18 (25%) developed symptoms after diagnosis, and 6 (9%) were diagnosed at the time of symptom onset. The symptomatic children were symptomatic for a median of 11 days; 43 (61%) remained symptomatic at 7 days’ follow-up after the study period, 27 (38%) were symptomatic at 14 days, and 7 (10%) were symptomatic at 21 days.

A total of 41 children had upper respiratory infections (58%) and 22 children (24%) had lower respiratory tract infections. No difference in the duration of virus RNA was detected between children with upper respiratory tract infections and lower respiratory tract infections (average, 18.7 days vs. 19.9 days).

Among the symptomatic children, 46 (65%) had mild cases and 20 (28%) had moderate cases.

For treatment, 14 children (15%) received lopinavir-ritonavir and/or hydroxychloroquine. Two patients had severe illness and received oxygen via nasal prong, without the need for mechanical ventilation. All the children in the case series recovered from their infections with no fatalities.

The study’s main limitation was the inability to analyze the transmission potential of the children because of the quarantine and isolation policies in Korea, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers did not perform follow-up testing at consistent intervals, so the duration of COVID-19 RNA detection may be inexact.

However, the results suggest “that suspecting and diagnosing COVID-19 in children based on their symptoms without epidemiologic information and virus testing is very challenging,” the researchers emphasized.

“Most of the children with COVID-19 have silent disease, but SARS-CoV-2 RNA can still be detected in the respiratory tract for a prolonged period,” they wrote. More research is needed to explore the potential for disease transmission by children in the community, and increased surveillance with laboratory screening can help identify children with unrecognized infections.

The study is the first known to focus on the frequency of asymptomatic infection in children and the duration of symptoms in both asymptomatic and symptomatic children, Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, and Meghan Delaney, DO, both affiliated with Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute, Washington, and George Washington University, Washington, wrote in an accompanying editorial. The structure of the Korean public health system “allowed for the sequential observation, testing (median testing interval of every 3 days), and comparison of 91 asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic children with mild to moderate upper and lower respiratory tract infection, identified primarily by contact tracing from laboratory-proven cases.”

Two take-home points from the study are that not all infected children are symptomatic, and the duration of symptoms in those who are varies widely, they noted. “Interestingly, this study aligns with adult data in which up to 40% of adults may remain asymptomatic in the face of infection.”

However, “The third and most important take-home point from this study relates to the duration of viral shedding in infected pediatric patients,” Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Delaney said (JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3996).

“Fully half of symptomatic children with both upper and lower tract disease were still shedding virus at 21 days. These are striking data, particularly since 86 of 88 diagnosed children (98%) either had no symptoms or mild or moderate disease,” they explained. The results highlight the need for improvements in qualitative molecular testing and formal studies to identify differences in results from different testing scenarios, such as hospital entry, preprocedure screening, and symptomatic testing. In addition, “these findings are highly relevant to the development of public health strategies to mitigate and contain spread within communities, particularly as affected communities begin their recovery phases.”

The study is important because “schools are opening, and we don’t know what is going to happen,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, of Rochester General Hospital, N.Y., said in an interview.

“Clinicians, parents, students, school administrators and politicians are worried,” he said. “This study adds to others recently published, bringing into focus the challenges to several suppositions that existed when the COVID-19 pandemic began and over the summer.”

“This study of 91 Korean children tells us that taking a child’s temperature as a screening tool to decide if they may enter school will not be a highly successful strategy,” he said. “Many children are without fever and asymptomatic when infected and contagious. The notion that children shed less virus or shed it for shorter lengths of time we keep learning from this type of research is not true. In another recent study the authors found that children shed as much of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as an adult in the ICU on a ventilator.”

Dr. Pichichero said he was not surprised by the study findings. “A similar paper was published last week in the Journal of Pediatrics from Massachusetts General Hospital, so the findings in the JAMA paper are similar to what has been reported in the United States.”

“Availability of testing will continue to be a challenge in some communities,” said Dr. Pichichero. “Here in the Rochester, New York, area we will use a screening questionnaire based on the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] symptom criteria of SARS-CoV-2 infections to decide whom to test.”

As for additional research, “We have so much more to learn about SARS-CoV-2 in children,” he emphasized. “The focus has been on adults because the morbidity and mortality has been greatest in adults, especially the elderly and those with compromised health.”

“The National Institutes of Health has issued a call for more research in children to characterize the spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 illness, including the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C] and try to identify biomarkers and/or biosignatures for a prognostic algorithm to predict the longitudinal risk of disease severity after a child is exposed to and may be infected with SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Pichichero. “NIH has asked researchers to answer the following questions.”

• Why do children have milder illness?
• Are there differences in childhood biology (e.g., gender, puberty, etc.) that contribute to illness severity?
• Are there genetic host differences associated with different disease severity phenotypes, including MIS-C?
• Are there innate mucosal, humoral, cellular and other adaptive immune profiles that are associated with reduced or increased risk of progressive disease, including previous coronavirus infections?
• Will SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cause worse disease as seen with antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in other viral infections (e.g., dengue)? Will future vaccines carry a risk of the ADE phenomenon?
• Does substance use (e.g., nicotine, marijuana) exacerbate or trigger MIS-C through immune activation?

“We have no knowledge yet about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of children, especially young children,” Dr. Pichichero emphasized. “There are different types of vaccines – messenger RNA, adenovirus vector and purified spike proteins of the virus – among others, but questions remain: Will the vaccines work in children? What about side effects? Will the antibodies and cellular immunity protect partially or completely?”

The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pichichero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Han MS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3988.

About 22% of children with COVID-19 infections were asymptomatic, and 66% of the symptomatic children had unrecognized symptoms at the time of diagnosis, based on data from a case series of 91 confirmed cases.

South_agency/Getty Images

Although recent reports suggest that COVID-19 infections in children are generally mild, data on the full spectrum of illness and duration of viral RNA in children are limited, wrote Mi Seon Han, MD, PhD, of Seoul (South Korea) Metropolitan Government–Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, and colleagues.

To examine the full clinical course and duration of COVID-19 RNA detectability in children with confirmed infections, the researchers reviewed data from 91 individuals with confirmed infections. The children ranged in age from 27 days to 18 years, and 58% were male. The children were monitored at 20 hospitals and 2 isolation facilities for a mean 21.9 days. The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Overall, COVID-19 viral RNA was present in the study population for a mean 17.6 days, with testing done at a median interval of 3 days. A total of 20 children (22%) were asymptomatic throughout the study period. In these children, viral RNA was detected for a mean 14 days.

“The major hurdle implicated in this study in diagnosing and treating children with COVID-19 is that a considerable number of children are asymptomatic, and even if symptoms are present, they are unrecognized and overlooked before COVID-19 is diagnosed,” the researchers noted.

Of the 71 symptomatic children, 47 (66%) had unrecognized symptoms prior to diagnosis, 18 (25%) developed symptoms after diagnosis, and 6 (9%) were diagnosed at the time of symptom onset. The symptomatic children were symptomatic for a median of 11 days; 43 (61%) remained symptomatic at 7 days’ follow-up after the study period, 27 (38%) were symptomatic at 14 days, and 7 (10%) were symptomatic at 21 days.

A total of 41 children had upper respiratory infections (58%) and 22 children (24%) had lower respiratory tract infections. No difference in the duration of virus RNA was detected between children with upper respiratory tract infections and lower respiratory tract infections (average, 18.7 days vs. 19.9 days).

Among the symptomatic children, 46 (65%) had mild cases and 20 (28%) had moderate cases.

For treatment, 14 children (15%) received lopinavir-ritonavir and/or hydroxychloroquine. Two patients had severe illness and received oxygen via nasal prong, without the need for mechanical ventilation. All the children in the case series recovered from their infections with no fatalities.

The study’s main limitation was the inability to analyze the transmission potential of the children because of the quarantine and isolation policies in Korea, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers did not perform follow-up testing at consistent intervals, so the duration of COVID-19 RNA detection may be inexact.

However, the results suggest “that suspecting and diagnosing COVID-19 in children based on their symptoms without epidemiologic information and virus testing is very challenging,” the researchers emphasized.

“Most of the children with COVID-19 have silent disease, but SARS-CoV-2 RNA can still be detected in the respiratory tract for a prolonged period,” they wrote. More research is needed to explore the potential for disease transmission by children in the community, and increased surveillance with laboratory screening can help identify children with unrecognized infections.

The study is the first known to focus on the frequency of asymptomatic infection in children and the duration of symptoms in both asymptomatic and symptomatic children, Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, and Meghan Delaney, DO, both affiliated with Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute, Washington, and George Washington University, Washington, wrote in an accompanying editorial. The structure of the Korean public health system “allowed for the sequential observation, testing (median testing interval of every 3 days), and comparison of 91 asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic children with mild to moderate upper and lower respiratory tract infection, identified primarily by contact tracing from laboratory-proven cases.”

Two take-home points from the study are that not all infected children are symptomatic, and the duration of symptoms in those who are varies widely, they noted. “Interestingly, this study aligns with adult data in which up to 40% of adults may remain asymptomatic in the face of infection.”

However, “The third and most important take-home point from this study relates to the duration of viral shedding in infected pediatric patients,” Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Delaney said (JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3996).

“Fully half of symptomatic children with both upper and lower tract disease were still shedding virus at 21 days. These are striking data, particularly since 86 of 88 diagnosed children (98%) either had no symptoms or mild or moderate disease,” they explained. The results highlight the need for improvements in qualitative molecular testing and formal studies to identify differences in results from different testing scenarios, such as hospital entry, preprocedure screening, and symptomatic testing. In addition, “these findings are highly relevant to the development of public health strategies to mitigate and contain spread within communities, particularly as affected communities begin their recovery phases.”

The study is important because “schools are opening, and we don’t know what is going to happen,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, of Rochester General Hospital, N.Y., said in an interview.

“Clinicians, parents, students, school administrators and politicians are worried,” he said. “This study adds to others recently published, bringing into focus the challenges to several suppositions that existed when the COVID-19 pandemic began and over the summer.”

“This study of 91 Korean children tells us that taking a child’s temperature as a screening tool to decide if they may enter school will not be a highly successful strategy,” he said. “Many children are without fever and asymptomatic when infected and contagious. The notion that children shed less virus or shed it for shorter lengths of time we keep learning from this type of research is not true. In another recent study the authors found that children shed as much of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as an adult in the ICU on a ventilator.”

Dr. Pichichero said he was not surprised by the study findings. “A similar paper was published last week in the Journal of Pediatrics from Massachusetts General Hospital, so the findings in the JAMA paper are similar to what has been reported in the United States.”

“Availability of testing will continue to be a challenge in some communities,” said Dr. Pichichero. “Here in the Rochester, New York, area we will use a screening questionnaire based on the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] symptom criteria of SARS-CoV-2 infections to decide whom to test.”

As for additional research, “We have so much more to learn about SARS-CoV-2 in children,” he emphasized. “The focus has been on adults because the morbidity and mortality has been greatest in adults, especially the elderly and those with compromised health.”

“The National Institutes of Health has issued a call for more research in children to characterize the spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 illness, including the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children [MIS-C] and try to identify biomarkers and/or biosignatures for a prognostic algorithm to predict the longitudinal risk of disease severity after a child is exposed to and may be infected with SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Pichichero. “NIH has asked researchers to answer the following questions.”

• Why do children have milder illness?
• Are there differences in childhood biology (e.g., gender, puberty, etc.) that contribute to illness severity?
• Are there genetic host differences associated with different disease severity phenotypes, including MIS-C?
• Are there innate mucosal, humoral, cellular and other adaptive immune profiles that are associated with reduced or increased risk of progressive disease, including previous coronavirus infections?
• Will SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cause worse disease as seen with antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in other viral infections (e.g., dengue)? Will future vaccines carry a risk of the ADE phenomenon?
• Does substance use (e.g., nicotine, marijuana) exacerbate or trigger MIS-C through immune activation?

“We have no knowledge yet about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of children, especially young children,” Dr. Pichichero emphasized. “There are different types of vaccines – messenger RNA, adenovirus vector and purified spike proteins of the virus – among others, but questions remain: Will the vaccines work in children? What about side effects? Will the antibodies and cellular immunity protect partially or completely?”

The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pichichero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Han MS et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 28. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3988.

Early administration of evolocumab significantly reduced levels of LDL cholesterol in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, according to data from an open-label randomized trial of 102 adults in Japan.

Data from previous studies have shown that proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors can reduce LDL cholesterol in acute coronary syndrome patients, wrote Tomoaki Okada, MD, of Kagawa (Japan) Prefectural Central Hospital and colleagues.

In particular, “The EVOPACS trial [J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74:2452-62] reported that evolocumab therapy initiated at an early phase of ACS showed [LDL cholesterol] level reduction by 4-8 weeks,” they said.

“However, the 4-week efficacy of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy combined with a statin remains unknown,” they said.

In a study presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, the researchers randomized 52 patients to receive 140 mg of evolocumab subcutaneously within 24 hours of indexed percutaneous coronary intervention and again after 2 weeks. A group of 50 controls received evolocumab after PCI only, but no additional dose after 2 weeks.

The average age of the patients was 65 years, 88% were men, and 26% had a history of statin treatment.

A total of 49 patients in each group were included in the final analysis, with a primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol levels from baseline to 4 weeks.

Baseline LCL cholesterol levels were 120.8 mg/dL and 124.7 mg/dL in the evolocumab and control groups, respectively. Changes from baseline were significantly greater in the evolocumab group, compared with controls, at –76% and –33%, respectively.

All patients in the evolocumab group and 27% of patients in the control groups achieved LDL cholesterol levels of less than 70 mg/dL at 4 weeks. In addition, 92% and 96% of evolocumab patients achieved LDL cholesterol levels less than 55 mg/dL at 2 weeks and 4 weeks, respectively.

Overall changes in non-HDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and small dense LDL in the evolocumab and control groups were –66.2% and –26.0%; 2.8% and –0.7%; and –67% and –13.8%, respectively. Of these, changes in non-HDL cholesterol and small dense LDL were significantly different between the groups.

In addition, patients in the evolocumab group showed a 3% decrease in lipoprotein, compared with an 82% increase in the control group. This finding suggests the additional benefit of including evolocumab for managing residual risk in patients with high lipoprotein(a) levels” after acute MI, the researchers noted.

Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between the groups.

‘Early and strong’ LDL cholesterol lowering best for preventing repeat events

“By using the PCSK9 inhibitors, we have the opportunity to lower LDL cholesterol [LDL-C]” both quickly and dramatically, said Heinz Drexel, MD, in an interview.

“This Japanese study shows that very low LDL-C levels can be obtained as fast as within 4 weeks,” he said. “This fits into the concept that risk for future infarctions and strokes is best reduced by early and strong LDL-C lowering,” he explained.

Dr. Drexel said that he was not surprised by the magnitude of the decrease in LDL cholesterol in study findings in light of the EVOPACS study and other research, as well as his own clinical experience.

“The primary message for doctors is that it is now possible to achieve these low levels of LDL-C in a short time,” he said.

“Additional research must prove that this low LDL-C translates to reduction of MIs and strokes, and there is increasing evidence that this will happen,” Dr. Drexel noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Drexel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Okada T et al. ESC 2020. JACC Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.08.026.

Early administration of evolocumab significantly reduced levels of LDL cholesterol in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, according to data from an open-label randomized trial of 102 adults in Japan.

Data from previous studies have shown that proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors can reduce LDL cholesterol in acute coronary syndrome patients, wrote Tomoaki Okada, MD, of Kagawa (Japan) Prefectural Central Hospital and colleagues.

In particular, “The EVOPACS trial [J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74:2452-62] reported that evolocumab therapy initiated at an early phase of ACS showed [LDL cholesterol] level reduction by 4-8 weeks,” they said.

“However, the 4-week efficacy of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy combined with a statin remains unknown,” they said.

In a study presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, the researchers randomized 52 patients to receive 140 mg of evolocumab subcutaneously within 24 hours of indexed percutaneous coronary intervention and again after 2 weeks. A group of 50 controls received evolocumab after PCI only, but no additional dose after 2 weeks.

The average age of the patients was 65 years, 88% were men, and 26% had a history of statin treatment.

A total of 49 patients in each group were included in the final analysis, with a primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol levels from baseline to 4 weeks.

Baseline LCL cholesterol levels were 120.8 mg/dL and 124.7 mg/dL in the evolocumab and control groups, respectively. Changes from baseline were significantly greater in the evolocumab group, compared with controls, at –76% and –33%, respectively.

All patients in the evolocumab group and 27% of patients in the control groups achieved LDL cholesterol levels of less than 70 mg/dL at 4 weeks. In addition, 92% and 96% of evolocumab patients achieved LDL cholesterol levels less than 55 mg/dL at 2 weeks and 4 weeks, respectively.

Overall changes in non-HDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and small dense LDL in the evolocumab and control groups were –66.2% and –26.0%; 2.8% and –0.7%; and –67% and –13.8%, respectively. Of these, changes in non-HDL cholesterol and small dense LDL were significantly different between the groups.

In addition, patients in the evolocumab group showed a 3% decrease in lipoprotein, compared with an 82% increase in the control group. This finding suggests the additional benefit of including evolocumab for managing residual risk in patients with high lipoprotein(a) levels” after acute MI, the researchers noted.

Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between the groups.

‘Early and strong’ LDL cholesterol lowering best for preventing repeat events

“By using the PCSK9 inhibitors, we have the opportunity to lower LDL cholesterol [LDL-C]” both quickly and dramatically, said Heinz Drexel, MD, in an interview.

“This Japanese study shows that very low LDL-C levels can be obtained as fast as within 4 weeks,” he said. “This fits into the concept that risk for future infarctions and strokes is best reduced by early and strong LDL-C lowering,” he explained.

Dr. Drexel said that he was not surprised by the magnitude of the decrease in LDL cholesterol in study findings in light of the EVOPACS study and other research, as well as his own clinical experience.

“The primary message for doctors is that it is now possible to achieve these low levels of LDL-C in a short time,” he said.

“Additional research must prove that this low LDL-C translates to reduction of MIs and strokes, and there is increasing evidence that this will happen,” Dr. Drexel noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Drexel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Okada T et al. ESC 2020. JACC Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.08.026.

Early administration of evolocumab significantly reduced levels of LDL cholesterol in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, according to data from an open-label randomized trial of 102 adults in Japan.

Data from previous studies have shown that proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors can reduce LDL cholesterol in acute coronary syndrome patients, wrote Tomoaki Okada, MD, of Kagawa (Japan) Prefectural Central Hospital and colleagues.

In particular, “The EVOPACS trial [J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74:2452-62] reported that evolocumab therapy initiated at an early phase of ACS showed [LDL cholesterol] level reduction by 4-8 weeks,” they said.

“However, the 4-week efficacy of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy combined with a statin remains unknown,” they said.

In a study presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, the researchers randomized 52 patients to receive 140 mg of evolocumab subcutaneously within 24 hours of indexed percutaneous coronary intervention and again after 2 weeks. A group of 50 controls received evolocumab after PCI only, but no additional dose after 2 weeks.

The average age of the patients was 65 years, 88% were men, and 26% had a history of statin treatment.

A total of 49 patients in each group were included in the final analysis, with a primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol levels from baseline to 4 weeks.

Baseline LCL cholesterol levels were 120.8 mg/dL and 124.7 mg/dL in the evolocumab and control groups, respectively. Changes from baseline were significantly greater in the evolocumab group, compared with controls, at –76% and –33%, respectively.

All patients in the evolocumab group and 27% of patients in the control groups achieved LDL cholesterol levels of less than 70 mg/dL at 4 weeks. In addition, 92% and 96% of evolocumab patients achieved LDL cholesterol levels less than 55 mg/dL at 2 weeks and 4 weeks, respectively.

Overall changes in non-HDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and small dense LDL in the evolocumab and control groups were –66.2% and –26.0%; 2.8% and –0.7%; and –67% and –13.8%, respectively. Of these, changes in non-HDL cholesterol and small dense LDL were significantly different between the groups.

In addition, patients in the evolocumab group showed a 3% decrease in lipoprotein, compared with an 82% increase in the control group. This finding suggests the additional benefit of including evolocumab for managing residual risk in patients with high lipoprotein(a) levels” after acute MI, the researchers noted.

Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between the groups.

‘Early and strong’ LDL cholesterol lowering best for preventing repeat events

“By using the PCSK9 inhibitors, we have the opportunity to lower LDL cholesterol [LDL-C]” both quickly and dramatically, said Heinz Drexel, MD, in an interview.

“This Japanese study shows that very low LDL-C levels can be obtained as fast as within 4 weeks,” he said. “This fits into the concept that risk for future infarctions and strokes is best reduced by early and strong LDL-C lowering,” he explained.

Dr. Drexel said that he was not surprised by the magnitude of the decrease in LDL cholesterol in study findings in light of the EVOPACS study and other research, as well as his own clinical experience.

“The primary message for doctors is that it is now possible to achieve these low levels of LDL-C in a short time,” he said.

“Additional research must prove that this low LDL-C translates to reduction of MIs and strokes, and there is increasing evidence that this will happen,” Dr. Drexel noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Drexel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Okada T et al. ESC 2020. JACC Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020 Aug 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.08.026.

Under the U.S. Medicare system, the cost of insulin is about 50% higher for beneficiaries who use insulin pumps than those who inject insulin, a new analysis reveals.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Mbbradford/CC-by-3.0

A call to action as price of insulin rose, suddenly shifted, in 2017

In the article, the authors call for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to fix the situation with a series of actions, including better aligning the cost of insulin under Parts B and D, and determining reimbursement rates on a drug-by-drug basis, rather than lumping together all infused drugs.

The CMS said in a statement: “As with all relevant and topical research, CMS appreciates the input of the journal authors and considers external research in all potential future policymaking and initiatives.”

As outlined by the authors, the overall price of insulin in the United States has dramatically increased in the past 2 decades. For example, the average list price of one vial of insulin rose from $9.61 to $25.38 between January 2013 and July 2018, a 164% increase.

A provision in the 21st Century Cures Act, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2017, attempted to remedy past overpayment for DME-infused drugs covered under Medicare Part B by changing the pricing methodology. Prior to 2017, the drugs had been reimbursed based on 95% of the 2003 average wholesale price. With the new law, payments have been set to average sales price plus 6%.

As a result, the price of insulin rose by 251% overnight from Dec. 31, 2016, to Jan. 1, 2017, for Medicare beneficiaries using insulin pumps, whereas there was no change for those injecting their insulin.

And then in 2018, insulin manufacturers raised the price by another 53%, resulting in an overall 304% price increase under Part B over 2 years.

Meanwhile, on March 11, 2020, CMS announced a cap on insulin copays in Part D to $35 a month, which doesn’t apply to pump users.

Thus, as of now, the average monthly copay for insulin for pump users in Medicare is about $54.26, about 50% more than the $35 maximum for those who inject insulin.

“This is in the setting of patients skimping on insulin anyway because of the high cost. There’s reasonably good evidence that patients stretch out their insulin because of cost, including those in Medicare,” Dr. Vigersky emphasized.
 

What can be done?

The problem could have been avoided, the authors wrote in their commentary, if payments had simply been adjusted for the two pre-2017 most highly overpaid DME-infused drugs, milrinone lactate and immune globulin, rather than all of them. Doing that would have addressed 95% of the overpayments and saved $267 million without affecting insulin cost.

Unlike insulin, nearly all of the other infused drugs are used only for short periods of time, such as pain medications, antibiotics, or chemotherapy.

“People get these for a few months, but not for years and years. Some aren’t used much at all. It was sort of a wholesale way to change things, and insulin got caught in it, with more extensive consequences,” Dr. Vigersky noted.

He and his coauthors advised the CMS to test pricing methodologies before implementation to prevent further unintended consequences going forward, to ask the Inspector General’s office to reanalyze costs to see if savings targets are being met, and to notify patients and health care providers in advance of a change so that they can better prepare for increased costs.

For now, Dr. Vigersky advised that, when considering pump therapy for a given patient, “from a clinical standpoint, this is a shared decision with the patient.

“As much as the reality of costs is shared with the patient, there is good evidence that pump therapy is cost-effective. The patient has to make the decision as to whether this extra amount is worth the benefits in the long run that they will get from pump therapy.”

A version of this article was originally published on Medscape.com.

Under the U.S. Medicare system, the cost of insulin is about 50% higher for beneficiaries who use insulin pumps than those who inject insulin, a new analysis reveals.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Mbbradford/CC-by-3.0

A call to action as price of insulin rose, suddenly shifted, in 2017

In the article, the authors call for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to fix the situation with a series of actions, including better aligning the cost of insulin under Parts B and D, and determining reimbursement rates on a drug-by-drug basis, rather than lumping together all infused drugs.

The CMS said in a statement: “As with all relevant and topical research, CMS appreciates the input of the journal authors and considers external research in all potential future policymaking and initiatives.”

As outlined by the authors, the overall price of insulin in the United States has dramatically increased in the past 2 decades. For example, the average list price of one vial of insulin rose from $9.61 to $25.38 between January 2013 and July 2018, a 164% increase.

A provision in the 21st Century Cures Act, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2017, attempted to remedy past overpayment for DME-infused drugs covered under Medicare Part B by changing the pricing methodology. Prior to 2017, the drugs had been reimbursed based on 95% of the 2003 average wholesale price. With the new law, payments have been set to average sales price plus 6%.

As a result, the price of insulin rose by 251% overnight from Dec. 31, 2016, to Jan. 1, 2017, for Medicare beneficiaries using insulin pumps, whereas there was no change for those injecting their insulin.

And then in 2018, insulin manufacturers raised the price by another 53%, resulting in an overall 304% price increase under Part B over 2 years.

Meanwhile, on March 11, 2020, CMS announced a cap on insulin copays in Part D to $35 a month, which doesn’t apply to pump users.

Thus, as of now, the average monthly copay for insulin for pump users in Medicare is about $54.26, about 50% more than the $35 maximum for those who inject insulin.

“This is in the setting of patients skimping on insulin anyway because of the high cost. There’s reasonably good evidence that patients stretch out their insulin because of cost, including those in Medicare,” Dr. Vigersky emphasized.
 

What can be done?

The problem could have been avoided, the authors wrote in their commentary, if payments had simply been adjusted for the two pre-2017 most highly overpaid DME-infused drugs, milrinone lactate and immune globulin, rather than all of them. Doing that would have addressed 95% of the overpayments and saved $267 million without affecting insulin cost.

Unlike insulin, nearly all of the other infused drugs are used only for short periods of time, such as pain medications, antibiotics, or chemotherapy.

“People get these for a few months, but not for years and years. Some aren’t used much at all. It was sort of a wholesale way to change things, and insulin got caught in it, with more extensive consequences,” Dr. Vigersky noted.

He and his coauthors advised the CMS to test pricing methodologies before implementation to prevent further unintended consequences going forward, to ask the Inspector General’s office to reanalyze costs to see if savings targets are being met, and to notify patients and health care providers in advance of a change so that they can better prepare for increased costs.

For now, Dr. Vigersky advised that, when considering pump therapy for a given patient, “from a clinical standpoint, this is a shared decision with the patient.

“As much as the reality of costs is shared with the patient, there is good evidence that pump therapy is cost-effective. The patient has to make the decision as to whether this extra amount is worth the benefits in the long run that they will get from pump therapy.”

A version of this article was originally published on Medscape.com.

Under the U.S. Medicare system, the cost of insulin is about 50% higher for beneficiaries who use insulin pumps than those who inject insulin, a new analysis reveals.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Mbbradford/CC-by-3.0

A call to action as price of insulin rose, suddenly shifted, in 2017

In the article, the authors call for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to fix the situation with a series of actions, including better aligning the cost of insulin under Parts B and D, and determining reimbursement rates on a drug-by-drug basis, rather than lumping together all infused drugs.

The CMS said in a statement: “As with all relevant and topical research, CMS appreciates the input of the journal authors and considers external research in all potential future policymaking and initiatives.”

As outlined by the authors, the overall price of insulin in the United States has dramatically increased in the past 2 decades. For example, the average list price of one vial of insulin rose from $9.61 to $25.38 between January 2013 and July 2018, a 164% increase.

A provision in the 21st Century Cures Act, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2017, attempted to remedy past overpayment for DME-infused drugs covered under Medicare Part B by changing the pricing methodology. Prior to 2017, the drugs had been reimbursed based on 95% of the 2003 average wholesale price. With the new law, payments have been set to average sales price plus 6%.

As a result, the price of insulin rose by 251% overnight from Dec. 31, 2016, to Jan. 1, 2017, for Medicare beneficiaries using insulin pumps, whereas there was no change for those injecting their insulin.

And then in 2018, insulin manufacturers raised the price by another 53%, resulting in an overall 304% price increase under Part B over 2 years.

Meanwhile, on March 11, 2020, CMS announced a cap on insulin copays in Part D to $35 a month, which doesn’t apply to pump users.

Thus, as of now, the average monthly copay for insulin for pump users in Medicare is about $54.26, about 50% more than the $35 maximum for those who inject insulin.

“This is in the setting of patients skimping on insulin anyway because of the high cost. There’s reasonably good evidence that patients stretch out their insulin because of cost, including those in Medicare,” Dr. Vigersky emphasized.
 

What can be done?

The problem could have been avoided, the authors wrote in their commentary, if payments had simply been adjusted for the two pre-2017 most highly overpaid DME-infused drugs, milrinone lactate and immune globulin, rather than all of them. Doing that would have addressed 95% of the overpayments and saved $267 million without affecting insulin cost.

Unlike insulin, nearly all of the other infused drugs are used only for short periods of time, such as pain medications, antibiotics, or chemotherapy.

“People get these for a few months, but not for years and years. Some aren’t used much at all. It was sort of a wholesale way to change things, and insulin got caught in it, with more extensive consequences,” Dr. Vigersky noted.

He and his coauthors advised the CMS to test pricing methodologies before implementation to prevent further unintended consequences going forward, to ask the Inspector General’s office to reanalyze costs to see if savings targets are being met, and to notify patients and health care providers in advance of a change so that they can better prepare for increased costs.

For now, Dr. Vigersky advised that, when considering pump therapy for a given patient, “from a clinical standpoint, this is a shared decision with the patient.

“As much as the reality of costs is shared with the patient, there is good evidence that pump therapy is cost-effective. The patient has to make the decision as to whether this extra amount is worth the benefits in the long run that they will get from pump therapy.”

A version of this article was originally published on Medscape.com.

Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).

Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.

The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moderate- to good-quality data

The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.

The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.

In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).

Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.

“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.

Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.

However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.

Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”

Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
 

Nonetheless, questions remain

While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.

“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.

“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.

Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. 

“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.

“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.

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

Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).

Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.

The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moderate- to good-quality data

The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.

The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.

In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).

Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.

“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.

Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.

However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.

Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”

Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
 

Nonetheless, questions remain

While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.

“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.

“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.

Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. 

“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.

“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.

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

Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).

Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.

The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moderate- to good-quality data

The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.

The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.

In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).

Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.

“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.

Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.

However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.

Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”

Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
 

Nonetheless, questions remain

While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.

“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.

“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.

Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. 

“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.

“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.

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