MDedge Neurology

Blood group O was associated with a decreased risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to the results of large retrospective analysis of the Danish population.

Researchers Mike Bogetofte Barnkob, MD, of the Department of Clinical Immunology, Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all Danish individuals with a known ABO blood group who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between Feb. 27, 2020, and July 30, 2020.

Of the 841,327 people tested, ABO and RhD blood groups could be identified for 473,654 individuals. ABO and RhD data from 2,204,742 (38% of the entire Danish population) were used as a reference, according to the online report in Blood Advances.

The primary outcome was status of ABO and RhD blood groups and test results for SARS-CoV-2. The secondary outcomes followed were hospitalization and death from COVID-19.
 

Reduced prevalence

The study found that ABO blood groups varied significantly between patients and the reference group, with only 38.41% (95% confidence interval, 37.30%-39.50%) of the patients belonging to blood group O, compared with 41.70% (95% CI, 41.60%-41.80%) in the controls, corresponding to a relative risk of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91) for acquiring COVID-19.

There was a slight, but statistically significant, difference in blood group distribution between the SARS-CoV-22 individuals and the reference population (P < .001), according to the authors.

Among the SARS-CoV-2 individuals, fewer group O individuals were found (P < .001); while more A, B, and AB individuals were seen (P < .001, P = .011, and P = .091, respectively). There was no significant difference seen among A, B, and AB blood groups (P = .30). The RR for contracting SARS-CoV-2 were 1.09 (95% CI, 1.04-1.14) for A group individuals; 1.06 (95% CI, 0.99-1.14) for B group; and 1.15 (95% CI, 1.03-1.27) for AB group, respectively.

There was no difference found in the RhD group between positive test cases and the reference population (P = .15). In addition, there was no statistical difference (all P > .40) between ABO blood groups and clinical severity of COVID-19 for nonhospitalized patients versus hospitalized patients or for deceased patients versus living patients, the researchers added.
 

Possible causes

The authors speculated on two possible causes of the lower prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the blood group O population. The first is that anti-A and anti-B antibodies may have an effect on neutralizing SARS-CoV viruses and that anti-A and anti-B are present on mucosal surfaces in some individuals lacking the corresponding ABO blood group. The second is that the association between ABO blood groups and levels of von Willebrand factor, which is higher in non-O individuals and is tied to an increased likelihood of arterial and venous thrombosis, could have an indirect or unknown impact on susceptibility to infection, according to the authors.

“Given the known increased risk of thrombosis in non-O individuals and the evolving central role for thrombosis in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, it is important to explore this aspect more closely in larger patient cohorts (e.g., by examining ABO blood type and viral load, the severity of symptoms, and the long-term effects following COVID-19),” the researchers concluded.

One author reported receiving fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Roche. The remaining authors reported they had no competing financial interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Barnkob MB et al. Blood Adv. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002657.

Blood group O was associated with a decreased risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to the results of large retrospective analysis of the Danish population.

Researchers Mike Bogetofte Barnkob, MD, of the Department of Clinical Immunology, Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all Danish individuals with a known ABO blood group who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between Feb. 27, 2020, and July 30, 2020.

Of the 841,327 people tested, ABO and RhD blood groups could be identified for 473,654 individuals. ABO and RhD data from 2,204,742 (38% of the entire Danish population) were used as a reference, according to the online report in Blood Advances.

The primary outcome was status of ABO and RhD blood groups and test results for SARS-CoV-2. The secondary outcomes followed were hospitalization and death from COVID-19.
 

Reduced prevalence

The study found that ABO blood groups varied significantly between patients and the reference group, with only 38.41% (95% confidence interval, 37.30%-39.50%) of the patients belonging to blood group O, compared with 41.70% (95% CI, 41.60%-41.80%) in the controls, corresponding to a relative risk of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91) for acquiring COVID-19.

There was a slight, but statistically significant, difference in blood group distribution between the SARS-CoV-22 individuals and the reference population (P < .001), according to the authors.

Among the SARS-CoV-2 individuals, fewer group O individuals were found (P < .001); while more A, B, and AB individuals were seen (P < .001, P = .011, and P = .091, respectively). There was no significant difference seen among A, B, and AB blood groups (P = .30). The RR for contracting SARS-CoV-2 were 1.09 (95% CI, 1.04-1.14) for A group individuals; 1.06 (95% CI, 0.99-1.14) for B group; and 1.15 (95% CI, 1.03-1.27) for AB group, respectively.

There was no difference found in the RhD group between positive test cases and the reference population (P = .15). In addition, there was no statistical difference (all P > .40) between ABO blood groups and clinical severity of COVID-19 for nonhospitalized patients versus hospitalized patients or for deceased patients versus living patients, the researchers added.
 

Possible causes

The authors speculated on two possible causes of the lower prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the blood group O population. The first is that anti-A and anti-B antibodies may have an effect on neutralizing SARS-CoV viruses and that anti-A and anti-B are present on mucosal surfaces in some individuals lacking the corresponding ABO blood group. The second is that the association between ABO blood groups and levels of von Willebrand factor, which is higher in non-O individuals and is tied to an increased likelihood of arterial and venous thrombosis, could have an indirect or unknown impact on susceptibility to infection, according to the authors.

“Given the known increased risk of thrombosis in non-O individuals and the evolving central role for thrombosis in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, it is important to explore this aspect more closely in larger patient cohorts (e.g., by examining ABO blood type and viral load, the severity of symptoms, and the long-term effects following COVID-19),” the researchers concluded.

One author reported receiving fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Roche. The remaining authors reported they had no competing financial interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Barnkob MB et al. Blood Adv. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002657.

Blood group O was associated with a decreased risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to the results of large retrospective analysis of the Danish population.

Researchers Mike Bogetofte Barnkob, MD, of the Department of Clinical Immunology, Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all Danish individuals with a known ABO blood group who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between Feb. 27, 2020, and July 30, 2020.

Of the 841,327 people tested, ABO and RhD blood groups could be identified for 473,654 individuals. ABO and RhD data from 2,204,742 (38% of the entire Danish population) were used as a reference, according to the online report in Blood Advances.

The primary outcome was status of ABO and RhD blood groups and test results for SARS-CoV-2. The secondary outcomes followed were hospitalization and death from COVID-19.
 

Reduced prevalence

The study found that ABO blood groups varied significantly between patients and the reference group, with only 38.41% (95% confidence interval, 37.30%-39.50%) of the patients belonging to blood group O, compared with 41.70% (95% CI, 41.60%-41.80%) in the controls, corresponding to a relative risk of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91) for acquiring COVID-19.

There was a slight, but statistically significant, difference in blood group distribution between the SARS-CoV-22 individuals and the reference population (P < .001), according to the authors.

Among the SARS-CoV-2 individuals, fewer group O individuals were found (P < .001); while more A, B, and AB individuals were seen (P < .001, P = .011, and P = .091, respectively). There was no significant difference seen among A, B, and AB blood groups (P = .30). The RR for contracting SARS-CoV-2 were 1.09 (95% CI, 1.04-1.14) for A group individuals; 1.06 (95% CI, 0.99-1.14) for B group; and 1.15 (95% CI, 1.03-1.27) for AB group, respectively.

There was no difference found in the RhD group between positive test cases and the reference population (P = .15). In addition, there was no statistical difference (all P > .40) between ABO blood groups and clinical severity of COVID-19 for nonhospitalized patients versus hospitalized patients or for deceased patients versus living patients, the researchers added.
 

Possible causes

The authors speculated on two possible causes of the lower prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the blood group O population. The first is that anti-A and anti-B antibodies may have an effect on neutralizing SARS-CoV viruses and that anti-A and anti-B are present on mucosal surfaces in some individuals lacking the corresponding ABO blood group. The second is that the association between ABO blood groups and levels of von Willebrand factor, which is higher in non-O individuals and is tied to an increased likelihood of arterial and venous thrombosis, could have an indirect or unknown impact on susceptibility to infection, according to the authors.

“Given the known increased risk of thrombosis in non-O individuals and the evolving central role for thrombosis in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, it is important to explore this aspect more closely in larger patient cohorts (e.g., by examining ABO blood type and viral load, the severity of symptoms, and the long-term effects following COVID-19),” the researchers concluded.

One author reported receiving fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Roche. The remaining authors reported they had no competing financial interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Barnkob MB et al. Blood Adv. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002657.

The first dual-purpose, external trigeminal nerve stimulation device to treat and prevent acute migraine is now available over the counter to adults over age 18. The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Cefaly Dual (Cefaly Technology) which was previously available only by prescription.

Most migraines involve the trigeminal nerve, which can be accessed through the skin on the forehead. Cefaly Dual stimulates the trigeminal nerve using a reusable self-adhesive electrode placed on the forehead.

The device has two settings, ACUTE and PREVENT. In the ACUTE setting, the individual wears the device for 60 minutes at headache onset or during a migraine attack. In the PREVENT setting, the individual wears the device for 20 minutes daily to help prevent future episodes.

At the start of a session, the wearer may feel a slight tingling sensation, which gradually increases and spreads throughout the forehead and the front part of the head. After about 14 minutes, the intensity stabilizes and remains constant until the treatment session is over, according to the company. The device automatically shuts off at the end of each session. It can be used as a stand-alone option or with existing treatment, the company noted.

“For millions of people across the U.S., living with migraine pain and coping with debilitating symptoms are daily realities. It is our mission to provide consumers with increased access to an effective and safe dual modality migraine treatment that is scientifically proven to reduce the number of monthly migraine days by almost half,” Jennifer Trainor McDermott, CEO of Cefaly Technology, said in a news release.

The FDA’s over-the-counter clearance of Cefaly Dual was based on several randomized, controlled clinical trials supporting the efficacy and safety of the device, the company said.

An earlier version of the Cefaly device was approved in the United States in March 2014 to help prevent migraine headache in adults aged 18 or older. The next-generation Cefaly Dual device is “small and sleek in comparison to its older model, which uses bands along the sides to create room for batteries. The newest device is palm-sized, more portable, and uses a battery that is rechargeable via USB,” the company said.

Last spring, the company announced a buyback program where customers in the United States may return their original device and receive a discount of the purchase of the Cefaly Dual device.

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

The first dual-purpose, external trigeminal nerve stimulation device to treat and prevent acute migraine is now available over the counter to adults over age 18. The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Cefaly Dual (Cefaly Technology) which was previously available only by prescription.

Most migraines involve the trigeminal nerve, which can be accessed through the skin on the forehead. Cefaly Dual stimulates the trigeminal nerve using a reusable self-adhesive electrode placed on the forehead.

The device has two settings, ACUTE and PREVENT. In the ACUTE setting, the individual wears the device for 60 minutes at headache onset or during a migraine attack. In the PREVENT setting, the individual wears the device for 20 minutes daily to help prevent future episodes.

At the start of a session, the wearer may feel a slight tingling sensation, which gradually increases and spreads throughout the forehead and the front part of the head. After about 14 minutes, the intensity stabilizes and remains constant until the treatment session is over, according to the company. The device automatically shuts off at the end of each session. It can be used as a stand-alone option or with existing treatment, the company noted.

“For millions of people across the U.S., living with migraine pain and coping with debilitating symptoms are daily realities. It is our mission to provide consumers with increased access to an effective and safe dual modality migraine treatment that is scientifically proven to reduce the number of monthly migraine days by almost half,” Jennifer Trainor McDermott, CEO of Cefaly Technology, said in a news release.

The FDA’s over-the-counter clearance of Cefaly Dual was based on several randomized, controlled clinical trials supporting the efficacy and safety of the device, the company said.

An earlier version of the Cefaly device was approved in the United States in March 2014 to help prevent migraine headache in adults aged 18 or older. The next-generation Cefaly Dual device is “small and sleek in comparison to its older model, which uses bands along the sides to create room for batteries. The newest device is palm-sized, more portable, and uses a battery that is rechargeable via USB,” the company said.

Last spring, the company announced a buyback program where customers in the United States may return their original device and receive a discount of the purchase of the Cefaly Dual device.

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

The first dual-purpose, external trigeminal nerve stimulation device to treat and prevent acute migraine is now available over the counter to adults over age 18. The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Cefaly Dual (Cefaly Technology) which was previously available only by prescription.

Most migraines involve the trigeminal nerve, which can be accessed through the skin on the forehead. Cefaly Dual stimulates the trigeminal nerve using a reusable self-adhesive electrode placed on the forehead.

The device has two settings, ACUTE and PREVENT. In the ACUTE setting, the individual wears the device for 60 minutes at headache onset or during a migraine attack. In the PREVENT setting, the individual wears the device for 20 minutes daily to help prevent future episodes.

At the start of a session, the wearer may feel a slight tingling sensation, which gradually increases and spreads throughout the forehead and the front part of the head. After about 14 minutes, the intensity stabilizes and remains constant until the treatment session is over, according to the company. The device automatically shuts off at the end of each session. It can be used as a stand-alone option or with existing treatment, the company noted.

“For millions of people across the U.S., living with migraine pain and coping with debilitating symptoms are daily realities. It is our mission to provide consumers with increased access to an effective and safe dual modality migraine treatment that is scientifically proven to reduce the number of monthly migraine days by almost half,” Jennifer Trainor McDermott, CEO of Cefaly Technology, said in a news release.

The FDA’s over-the-counter clearance of Cefaly Dual was based on several randomized, controlled clinical trials supporting the efficacy and safety of the device, the company said.

An earlier version of the Cefaly device was approved in the United States in March 2014 to help prevent migraine headache in adults aged 18 or older. The next-generation Cefaly Dual device is “small and sleek in comparison to its older model, which uses bands along the sides to create room for batteries. The newest device is palm-sized, more portable, and uses a battery that is rechargeable via USB,” the company said.

Last spring, the company announced a buyback program where customers in the United States may return their original device and receive a discount of the purchase of the Cefaly Dual device.

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

Medicare officials must soon decide whether to kick off next year with a shift of money away from specialties centered around procedures and toward primary care and other fields more focused on office visits.

A planned overhaul of reimbursement for evaluation and management (E/M) services emerged as perhaps the most contentious issue connected to Medicare’s 2021 payment policies for clinicians.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) included the planned E/M overhaul — and accompanying offsets — in the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, released in August. The draft fee schedule drew at least 45,675 responses by October 5, the deadline for offering comments, with many of the responses addressing the E/M overhaul.

The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) “strongly” endorsed the “budget-neutral” approach taken with the E/M overhaul. This planned reshuffling of payments is a step toward addressing a shortfall of primary care clinicians, inasmuch as it would help make this field more financially appealing, MedPAC said in an October 2 letter to CMS.

In contrast, physician organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), asked CMS to waive or revise the budget-neutral aspect of the E/M overhaul. Among the specialties slated for reductions are those deeply involved with the response to the pandemic, wrote James L. Madara, AMA’s chief executive officer, in an October 5 comment to CMS. Emergency medicine as a field would see a 6% cut, and infectious disease specialists, a 4% reduction.

“Payment reductions of this magnitude would be a major problem at any time, but to impose cuts of this magnitude during or immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic, including steep cuts to many of the specialties that have been on the front lines in efforts to treat patients in places with widespread infection, is unconscionable,” Madara wrote.

Madara also said specialties scheduled for payment reductions include those least able to make up for the lack of in-person care as a result of the uptick in telehealth during the pandemic.

A chart in the draft physician fee schedule (Table 90) shows reductions for many specialties that do not routinely bill for office visits. The table shows an 8% cut for anesthesiologists, a 7% cut for general surgeons, and a 6% cut for ophthalmologists. Table 90 also shows an estimated 11% reduction for radiologists and a 9% drop for pathologists.

The draft rule notes that these figures are based upon estimates of aggregate allowed charges across all services, so they may not reflect what any particular clinician might receive.

In total, Table 90 shows how the E/M changes and connected offsets would affect more than 50 fields of medicine. The proposal includes a 17% expected increase for endocrinologists and a 14% bump for those in hematology/oncology. There are expected increases of 13% for family practice and 4% for internal medicine.

This reshuffling of payments among specialties is only part of the 2021 E/M overhaul. There’s strong support for other aspects, making it unlikely that CMS would consider dropping the plan entirely.

“CMS’ new office visit policy will lead to significant administrative burden reduction and will better describe and recognize the resources involved in clinical office visits as they are performed today,” AMA’s Madara wrote in his comment.

Changes for the billing framework for E/M slated to start in 2021 are the result of substantial collaboration by an AMA-convened work group, which brought together more than 170 state medical and specialty societies, Madara said in his comment.

CMS has been developing this plan for several years. It outlined this 2021 E/M overhaul in the 2020 Medicare physician fee schedule finalized last year.

Madara urged CMS to proceed with the E/M changes but also “exercise the full breadth and depth of its administrative authority” to avoid or minimize the planned cuts.

“To be clear, we are not asking CMS to phase in implementation of the E/M changes but rather to phase in the payment reductions for certain specialties and health professionals in 2021 due to budget neutrality,” he wrote.

Other groups asking CMS to waive the budget-neutrality requirement include the American College of Physicians, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the American Society of Neuroradiology.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) asked CMS to temporarily waive the budget-neutrality requirement and pressed the agency to maintain the underlying principle of the E/M overhaul.

“Should HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] use its authority to waive budget neutrality, we also recommend that CMS finalize a reinstatement plan for the conversion factor reductions that provides physician practices with ample time to prepare and does not result in a financial cliff,” wrote John S. Cullen, MD, board chair for AAFP, in a September 28 comment to CMS.

Owing to the declaration of a public health emergency, HHS could use a special provision known as 1135 waiver authority to waive budget-neutrality requirements, Cullen wrote.

“The AAFP understands that HHS’ authority is limited by the timing of the end of the public health emergency, but we believe that this approach will provide Congress with needed time to enact an accompanying legislative solution,” he wrote.
 

Lawmakers weigh in

Lawmakers in both political parties have asked CMS to reconsider the offsets in the E/M overhaul.

Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD (R-TX), who practiced as an obstetrician before joining Congress, in October introduced a bill with Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) that would provide for a 1-year waiver of budget-neutrality adjustments under the Medicare physician fee schedule.

Burgess and Rush were among the more than 160 members of Congress who signed a September letter to CMS asking the agency to act on its own to drop the budget-neutrality requirement. In the letter, led by Rep. Roger Marshall, MD (R-KS), the lawmakers acknowledge the usual legal requirements for CMS to offset payment increases in the physician fee schedule with cuts. But the lawmakers said the national public health emergency allows CMS to work around this.

“Given the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe you have the regulatory authority to immediately address these inequities,” the lawmakers wrote. “There is also the need to consider how the outbreak will be in the fall/winter months and if postponing certain elective procedures will go back into effect, per CMS’ recommendations.

“While we understand that legislative action may also be required to address this issue, given the January 1, 2021 effective date, we would ask you to take immediate actions to delay or mitigate these cuts while allowing the scheduled increases to go into effect,” the lawmakers said in closing their letter. “This approach will give Congress sufficient time to develop a meaningful solution and to address these looming needs.”

Another option might be for CMS to preserve the budget-neutrality claim for the 2021 physician fee schedule but soften the blow on specialties, Brian Fortune, president of the consulting firm Farragut Square Group, told Medscape Medical News. A former staffer for Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, Fortune has for more than 20 years followed Medicare policy.

The agency could redo some of the assumptions used in estimating the offsets, he said, adding that in the draft rule, CMS appears to be seeking feedback that could help it with new calculations.

“CMS has been looking for a way out,” Fortune said. “CMS could remodel the assumptions, and the cuts could drop by half or more.

“The agency has several options to get creative as the need arises,” he said.

“Overvalued” vs “devalued”

In its comment to CMS, though, MedPAC argued strongly for maintaining the offsets. The commission has for several years been investigating ways to use Medicare’s payment policies as a tool to boost the ranks of clinicians who provide primary care.

A reshuffling of payments among specialties is needed to address a known imbalance in which Medicare for many years has “overvalued” procedures at the expense of other medical care, wrote Michael E. Chernew, PhD, the chairman of MedPAC, in an October 2 comment to CMS.

“Some types of services — such as procedures, imaging, and tests — experience efficiency gains over time, as advances in technology, technique, and clinical practice enable clinicians to deliver them faster,” he wrote. “However, E&M office/outpatient visits do not lend themselves to such efficiency gains because they consist largely of activities that require the clinician’s time.”

Medicare’s payment policies have thus “passively devalued” the time many clinicians spend on office visits, helping to skew the decisions of young physicians toward specialties, according to Chernew.

Reshuffling payment away from specialties that are now “overvalued” is needed to “remedy several years of passive devaluation,” he wrote.

The median income in 2018 for primary care physicians was $243,000 in 2018, whereas that of specialists such as surgeons was $426,000, Chernew said in the letter, citing MedPAC research.

These figures echo the findings of Medscape’s most recent annual physician compensation report.

As one of the largest buyers of medical services, Medicare has significant influence on the practice of medicine in the United States. In 2018 alone, Medicare directly paid $70.5 billion for clinician services. Its payment policies already may have shaped the pool of clinicians available to treat people enrolled in Medicare, which covers those aged 65 years and older, Chernew said.

“The US has over three times as many specialists as primary care physicians, which could explain why MedPAC’s annual survey of Medicare beneficiaries has repeatedly found that beneficiaries who are looking for a new physician report having an easier time finding a new specialist than a new primary care provider,” he wrote.

“Access to primary care physicians could worsen in the future as the number of primary care physicians in the US, after remaining flat for several years, has actually started to decline,” Chernew said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare officials must soon decide whether to kick off next year with a shift of money away from specialties centered around procedures and toward primary care and other fields more focused on office visits.

A planned overhaul of reimbursement for evaluation and management (E/M) services emerged as perhaps the most contentious issue connected to Medicare’s 2021 payment policies for clinicians.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) included the planned E/M overhaul — and accompanying offsets — in the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, released in August. The draft fee schedule drew at least 45,675 responses by October 5, the deadline for offering comments, with many of the responses addressing the E/M overhaul.

The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) “strongly” endorsed the “budget-neutral” approach taken with the E/M overhaul. This planned reshuffling of payments is a step toward addressing a shortfall of primary care clinicians, inasmuch as it would help make this field more financially appealing, MedPAC said in an October 2 letter to CMS.

In contrast, physician organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), asked CMS to waive or revise the budget-neutral aspect of the E/M overhaul. Among the specialties slated for reductions are those deeply involved with the response to the pandemic, wrote James L. Madara, AMA’s chief executive officer, in an October 5 comment to CMS. Emergency medicine as a field would see a 6% cut, and infectious disease specialists, a 4% reduction.

“Payment reductions of this magnitude would be a major problem at any time, but to impose cuts of this magnitude during or immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic, including steep cuts to many of the specialties that have been on the front lines in efforts to treat patients in places with widespread infection, is unconscionable,” Madara wrote.

Madara also said specialties scheduled for payment reductions include those least able to make up for the lack of in-person care as a result of the uptick in telehealth during the pandemic.

A chart in the draft physician fee schedule (Table 90) shows reductions for many specialties that do not routinely bill for office visits. The table shows an 8% cut for anesthesiologists, a 7% cut for general surgeons, and a 6% cut for ophthalmologists. Table 90 also shows an estimated 11% reduction for radiologists and a 9% drop for pathologists.

The draft rule notes that these figures are based upon estimates of aggregate allowed charges across all services, so they may not reflect what any particular clinician might receive.

In total, Table 90 shows how the E/M changes and connected offsets would affect more than 50 fields of medicine. The proposal includes a 17% expected increase for endocrinologists and a 14% bump for those in hematology/oncology. There are expected increases of 13% for family practice and 4% for internal medicine.

This reshuffling of payments among specialties is only part of the 2021 E/M overhaul. There’s strong support for other aspects, making it unlikely that CMS would consider dropping the plan entirely.

“CMS’ new office visit policy will lead to significant administrative burden reduction and will better describe and recognize the resources involved in clinical office visits as they are performed today,” AMA’s Madara wrote in his comment.

Changes for the billing framework for E/M slated to start in 2021 are the result of substantial collaboration by an AMA-convened work group, which brought together more than 170 state medical and specialty societies, Madara said in his comment.

CMS has been developing this plan for several years. It outlined this 2021 E/M overhaul in the 2020 Medicare physician fee schedule finalized last year.

Madara urged CMS to proceed with the E/M changes but also “exercise the full breadth and depth of its administrative authority” to avoid or minimize the planned cuts.

“To be clear, we are not asking CMS to phase in implementation of the E/M changes but rather to phase in the payment reductions for certain specialties and health professionals in 2021 due to budget neutrality,” he wrote.

Other groups asking CMS to waive the budget-neutrality requirement include the American College of Physicians, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the American Society of Neuroradiology.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) asked CMS to temporarily waive the budget-neutrality requirement and pressed the agency to maintain the underlying principle of the E/M overhaul.

“Should HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] use its authority to waive budget neutrality, we also recommend that CMS finalize a reinstatement plan for the conversion factor reductions that provides physician practices with ample time to prepare and does not result in a financial cliff,” wrote John S. Cullen, MD, board chair for AAFP, in a September 28 comment to CMS.

Owing to the declaration of a public health emergency, HHS could use a special provision known as 1135 waiver authority to waive budget-neutrality requirements, Cullen wrote.

“The AAFP understands that HHS’ authority is limited by the timing of the end of the public health emergency, but we believe that this approach will provide Congress with needed time to enact an accompanying legislative solution,” he wrote.
 

Lawmakers weigh in

Lawmakers in both political parties have asked CMS to reconsider the offsets in the E/M overhaul.

Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD (R-TX), who practiced as an obstetrician before joining Congress, in October introduced a bill with Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) that would provide for a 1-year waiver of budget-neutrality adjustments under the Medicare physician fee schedule.

Burgess and Rush were among the more than 160 members of Congress who signed a September letter to CMS asking the agency to act on its own to drop the budget-neutrality requirement. In the letter, led by Rep. Roger Marshall, MD (R-KS), the lawmakers acknowledge the usual legal requirements for CMS to offset payment increases in the physician fee schedule with cuts. But the lawmakers said the national public health emergency allows CMS to work around this.

“Given the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe you have the regulatory authority to immediately address these inequities,” the lawmakers wrote. “There is also the need to consider how the outbreak will be in the fall/winter months and if postponing certain elective procedures will go back into effect, per CMS’ recommendations.

“While we understand that legislative action may also be required to address this issue, given the January 1, 2021 effective date, we would ask you to take immediate actions to delay or mitigate these cuts while allowing the scheduled increases to go into effect,” the lawmakers said in closing their letter. “This approach will give Congress sufficient time to develop a meaningful solution and to address these looming needs.”

Another option might be for CMS to preserve the budget-neutrality claim for the 2021 physician fee schedule but soften the blow on specialties, Brian Fortune, president of the consulting firm Farragut Square Group, told Medscape Medical News. A former staffer for Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, Fortune has for more than 20 years followed Medicare policy.

The agency could redo some of the assumptions used in estimating the offsets, he said, adding that in the draft rule, CMS appears to be seeking feedback that could help it with new calculations.

“CMS has been looking for a way out,” Fortune said. “CMS could remodel the assumptions, and the cuts could drop by half or more.

“The agency has several options to get creative as the need arises,” he said.

“Overvalued” vs “devalued”

In its comment to CMS, though, MedPAC argued strongly for maintaining the offsets. The commission has for several years been investigating ways to use Medicare’s payment policies as a tool to boost the ranks of clinicians who provide primary care.

A reshuffling of payments among specialties is needed to address a known imbalance in which Medicare for many years has “overvalued” procedures at the expense of other medical care, wrote Michael E. Chernew, PhD, the chairman of MedPAC, in an October 2 comment to CMS.

“Some types of services — such as procedures, imaging, and tests — experience efficiency gains over time, as advances in technology, technique, and clinical practice enable clinicians to deliver them faster,” he wrote. “However, E&M office/outpatient visits do not lend themselves to such efficiency gains because they consist largely of activities that require the clinician’s time.”

Medicare’s payment policies have thus “passively devalued” the time many clinicians spend on office visits, helping to skew the decisions of young physicians toward specialties, according to Chernew.

Reshuffling payment away from specialties that are now “overvalued” is needed to “remedy several years of passive devaluation,” he wrote.

The median income in 2018 for primary care physicians was $243,000 in 2018, whereas that of specialists such as surgeons was $426,000, Chernew said in the letter, citing MedPAC research.

These figures echo the findings of Medscape’s most recent annual physician compensation report.

As one of the largest buyers of medical services, Medicare has significant influence on the practice of medicine in the United States. In 2018 alone, Medicare directly paid $70.5 billion for clinician services. Its payment policies already may have shaped the pool of clinicians available to treat people enrolled in Medicare, which covers those aged 65 years and older, Chernew said.

“The US has over three times as many specialists as primary care physicians, which could explain why MedPAC’s annual survey of Medicare beneficiaries has repeatedly found that beneficiaries who are looking for a new physician report having an easier time finding a new specialist than a new primary care provider,” he wrote.

“Access to primary care physicians could worsen in the future as the number of primary care physicians in the US, after remaining flat for several years, has actually started to decline,” Chernew said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare officials must soon decide whether to kick off next year with a shift of money away from specialties centered around procedures and toward primary care and other fields more focused on office visits.

A planned overhaul of reimbursement for evaluation and management (E/M) services emerged as perhaps the most contentious issue connected to Medicare’s 2021 payment policies for clinicians.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) included the planned E/M overhaul — and accompanying offsets — in the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, released in August. The draft fee schedule drew at least 45,675 responses by October 5, the deadline for offering comments, with many of the responses addressing the E/M overhaul.

The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) “strongly” endorsed the “budget-neutral” approach taken with the E/M overhaul. This planned reshuffling of payments is a step toward addressing a shortfall of primary care clinicians, inasmuch as it would help make this field more financially appealing, MedPAC said in an October 2 letter to CMS.

In contrast, physician organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA), asked CMS to waive or revise the budget-neutral aspect of the E/M overhaul. Among the specialties slated for reductions are those deeply involved with the response to the pandemic, wrote James L. Madara, AMA’s chief executive officer, in an October 5 comment to CMS. Emergency medicine as a field would see a 6% cut, and infectious disease specialists, a 4% reduction.

“Payment reductions of this magnitude would be a major problem at any time, but to impose cuts of this magnitude during or immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic, including steep cuts to many of the specialties that have been on the front lines in efforts to treat patients in places with widespread infection, is unconscionable,” Madara wrote.

Madara also said specialties scheduled for payment reductions include those least able to make up for the lack of in-person care as a result of the uptick in telehealth during the pandemic.

A chart in the draft physician fee schedule (Table 90) shows reductions for many specialties that do not routinely bill for office visits. The table shows an 8% cut for anesthesiologists, a 7% cut for general surgeons, and a 6% cut for ophthalmologists. Table 90 also shows an estimated 11% reduction for radiologists and a 9% drop for pathologists.

The draft rule notes that these figures are based upon estimates of aggregate allowed charges across all services, so they may not reflect what any particular clinician might receive.

In total, Table 90 shows how the E/M changes and connected offsets would affect more than 50 fields of medicine. The proposal includes a 17% expected increase for endocrinologists and a 14% bump for those in hematology/oncology. There are expected increases of 13% for family practice and 4% for internal medicine.

This reshuffling of payments among specialties is only part of the 2021 E/M overhaul. There’s strong support for other aspects, making it unlikely that CMS would consider dropping the plan entirely.

“CMS’ new office visit policy will lead to significant administrative burden reduction and will better describe and recognize the resources involved in clinical office visits as they are performed today,” AMA’s Madara wrote in his comment.

Changes for the billing framework for E/M slated to start in 2021 are the result of substantial collaboration by an AMA-convened work group, which brought together more than 170 state medical and specialty societies, Madara said in his comment.

CMS has been developing this plan for several years. It outlined this 2021 E/M overhaul in the 2020 Medicare physician fee schedule finalized last year.

Madara urged CMS to proceed with the E/M changes but also “exercise the full breadth and depth of its administrative authority” to avoid or minimize the planned cuts.

“To be clear, we are not asking CMS to phase in implementation of the E/M changes but rather to phase in the payment reductions for certain specialties and health professionals in 2021 due to budget neutrality,” he wrote.

Other groups asking CMS to waive the budget-neutrality requirement include the American College of Physicians, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the American Society of Neuroradiology.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) asked CMS to temporarily waive the budget-neutrality requirement and pressed the agency to maintain the underlying principle of the E/M overhaul.

“Should HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] use its authority to waive budget neutrality, we also recommend that CMS finalize a reinstatement plan for the conversion factor reductions that provides physician practices with ample time to prepare and does not result in a financial cliff,” wrote John S. Cullen, MD, board chair for AAFP, in a September 28 comment to CMS.

Owing to the declaration of a public health emergency, HHS could use a special provision known as 1135 waiver authority to waive budget-neutrality requirements, Cullen wrote.

“The AAFP understands that HHS’ authority is limited by the timing of the end of the public health emergency, but we believe that this approach will provide Congress with needed time to enact an accompanying legislative solution,” he wrote.
 

Lawmakers weigh in

Lawmakers in both political parties have asked CMS to reconsider the offsets in the E/M overhaul.

Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD (R-TX), who practiced as an obstetrician before joining Congress, in October introduced a bill with Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) that would provide for a 1-year waiver of budget-neutrality adjustments under the Medicare physician fee schedule.

Burgess and Rush were among the more than 160 members of Congress who signed a September letter to CMS asking the agency to act on its own to drop the budget-neutrality requirement. In the letter, led by Rep. Roger Marshall, MD (R-KS), the lawmakers acknowledge the usual legal requirements for CMS to offset payment increases in the physician fee schedule with cuts. But the lawmakers said the national public health emergency allows CMS to work around this.

“Given the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe you have the regulatory authority to immediately address these inequities,” the lawmakers wrote. “There is also the need to consider how the outbreak will be in the fall/winter months and if postponing certain elective procedures will go back into effect, per CMS’ recommendations.

“While we understand that legislative action may also be required to address this issue, given the January 1, 2021 effective date, we would ask you to take immediate actions to delay or mitigate these cuts while allowing the scheduled increases to go into effect,” the lawmakers said in closing their letter. “This approach will give Congress sufficient time to develop a meaningful solution and to address these looming needs.”

Another option might be for CMS to preserve the budget-neutrality claim for the 2021 physician fee schedule but soften the blow on specialties, Brian Fortune, president of the consulting firm Farragut Square Group, told Medscape Medical News. A former staffer for Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, Fortune has for more than 20 years followed Medicare policy.

The agency could redo some of the assumptions used in estimating the offsets, he said, adding that in the draft rule, CMS appears to be seeking feedback that could help it with new calculations.

“CMS has been looking for a way out,” Fortune said. “CMS could remodel the assumptions, and the cuts could drop by half or more.

“The agency has several options to get creative as the need arises,” he said.

“Overvalued” vs “devalued”

In its comment to CMS, though, MedPAC argued strongly for maintaining the offsets. The commission has for several years been investigating ways to use Medicare’s payment policies as a tool to boost the ranks of clinicians who provide primary care.

A reshuffling of payments among specialties is needed to address a known imbalance in which Medicare for many years has “overvalued” procedures at the expense of other medical care, wrote Michael E. Chernew, PhD, the chairman of MedPAC, in an October 2 comment to CMS.

“Some types of services — such as procedures, imaging, and tests — experience efficiency gains over time, as advances in technology, technique, and clinical practice enable clinicians to deliver them faster,” he wrote. “However, E&M office/outpatient visits do not lend themselves to such efficiency gains because they consist largely of activities that require the clinician’s time.”

Medicare’s payment policies have thus “passively devalued” the time many clinicians spend on office visits, helping to skew the decisions of young physicians toward specialties, according to Chernew.

Reshuffling payment away from specialties that are now “overvalued” is needed to “remedy several years of passive devaluation,” he wrote.

The median income in 2018 for primary care physicians was $243,000 in 2018, whereas that of specialists such as surgeons was $426,000, Chernew said in the letter, citing MedPAC research.

These figures echo the findings of Medscape’s most recent annual physician compensation report.

As one of the largest buyers of medical services, Medicare has significant influence on the practice of medicine in the United States. In 2018 alone, Medicare directly paid $70.5 billion for clinician services. Its payment policies already may have shaped the pool of clinicians available to treat people enrolled in Medicare, which covers those aged 65 years and older, Chernew said.

“The US has over three times as many specialists as primary care physicians, which could explain why MedPAC’s annual survey of Medicare beneficiaries has repeatedly found that beneficiaries who are looking for a new physician report having an easier time finding a new specialist than a new primary care provider,” he wrote.

“Access to primary care physicians could worsen in the future as the number of primary care physicians in the US, after remaining flat for several years, has actually started to decline,” Chernew said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I had the privilege of attending and speaking at the recent MSVirtual2020—the 8^th Joint ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS Meeting. I came away with a wealth of knowledge, much of which can be put to immediate use in practice, and some that shows the promise of eventual clinical utility.

Dr. Helen Tremlett, PhD, kicked off the meeting with a keynote address covering her important work on the MS prodrome.  The Canada research chair in neuroepidemiology and multiple sclerosis at the University of British Columbia summarized her team’s research to date and offered her thoughts on clinical implications.

Dr. Tremlett’s group has observed that in the five years before an MS symptom onset, individuals who would ultimately be diagnosed tended to experience more hospitalizations, visit their provider more, and fill more prescriptions than did those in the general population. The team dug deeper and found that these individuals experienced a range of issues prior to symptom onset, including pain, headache, migraine, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, sleep disturbances, depression/anxiety, and dermatologic issues.

Interestingly, females in this group were less likely to become pregnant and more likely than healthy females to fill an oral contraceptive prescription, suggesting that they were trying to delay pregnancy due to these prodromal symptoms.

Dr. Tremlett noted that the more immediate implications of her group’s work are for clinical researchers, who can now use these findings to understand that there is a prodromal stage as they conduct clinical trials. The ultimate aim is to use this work to develop a diagnostic tool, but that will take more time and study.

COVID-19’s Impact on MS

The impact on COVID-19 on individuals with MS was addressed in a number of sessions. I presented data that clearly shows the risk of infection from COVID-19 is similar to that of the population at large.

• A critical evaluation of MS disease modifying therapies (DMTs) and their potential effects on COVID-19 that I published with my colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania suggested that DMTs might not increase the risk of morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 as some had feared. We based this conclusion on an evaluation of pathogenesis of COVID, the importance of the innate immune system in control of exposure to a novel pathogen, and the likely effects, both salutary and pernicious, of DMTs on COVID morbidity and mortality.
•  Investigators from Italy looked at 232 patients from 38 centers with MS and confirmed or suspected COVID and found that the vast majority of them (96%) had mild disease consisting of no or mild pneumonia. The remainder had either severe (2%) or critical (3%) disease.  These investigators have since expanded their observations and suggested that anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatment may be associated with a higher risk of hospitalization, though there did not appear to be an increase in the risk of death with their use.  Importantly, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapies are the DMTs routinely used in patients with progressive MS, generally, the MS population at greatest risk of hospitalization with COVID-19 due to their older age, co-morbidities, and level of debility.
• Recently, French researchers evaluated 347 individuals with MS and COVID by COVID disease severity. They found that there was a higher proportion of patients with severe COVID not receiving DMT compared with individuals receiving treatment (46% and 15%, respectively).

The Increasing Importance of sNfL Concentration

Serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) concentration continues to be a hot topic. Dr. Jens Kuhle, head of the Multiple Sclerosis Centre at the University of Basel, and colleagues have demonstrated that sNfL levels can play a role in monitoring MS treatment in practice. They evaluated more than 1000 individuals who were taking DMTs, measuring sNfL and deriving a score that reflected how participants fared relative to healthy controls of the same age. Among their findings:

• The resulting score predicted clinical events in the following year, with the effect escalating in magnitude in those whose scores were higher.
• This same predictive effect was seen with respect to future new/enlarging T2 lesions and brain volume loss.
• Score change in patients with NEDA-03 status was linked with a 37% increased risk of clinical events in the following year.

New Radiologic Techniques

Encouraging findings on new radiologic techniques were presented. I found three studies extremely informative. The first two have immediate or near-immediate clinical implications, and the third shows promise.

• In a comparison of patients with MS and healthy individuals who underwent brain 3T MRI to assess lesions and atrophy, R. Bonacchi and colleagues from Milan, Italy found that cardiovascular (CV) risk factors are linked with brain atrophy in patients with MS, even those <50 years of age. Specifically, the presence of at least two CV risk factors was linked with reduced normalized grey matter volume, white matter volume, and brain volume.
• Another comparison of individuals with MS and healthy controls—this one from O. Al-Louzi and colleagues at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke—looked at the central vein sign (CVS) biomarker and determined that excluding lesions only if all dimensions of 3T MRI results were less than threshold (versus if any dimension was less than threshold) led to the inclusion of more CVS-positive lesions. Investigators suggested this work could lead to modified clinical guidelines.
• In an evaluation of patients with MS using 3T MRI, F. LaRosa and colleagues from Lausanne, Switzerland reported that RimNet, a prototype built upon two convolutional neural networks, was better than two alternative methods at detecting pragmatic rim lesions, which are linked with higher disease burden. Compared with expert raters, RimNet had higher sensitivity (87% vs 76%) but lower specificity (91% vs 99%).

There were many other valuable presentations at MSVirtual2020, but perhaps the most appreciated experience was the ability to hear more experts deliver their important work. Unlike a live meeting, I was able to easily attend parallel sessions and to do so at my leisure. ECTRIMS has become so big that I often left the live meeting feeling as if I missed out on a lot. Not this year. I heard almost all of it and came away with a greater appreciation of the breadth and depth of the meeting.  I hope that in the future, even following the return of in-person meetings, a virtual format coexists to afford attendees and those unable to attend live the opportunity to experience the totality of the meeting.

I had the privilege of attending and speaking at the recent MSVirtual2020—the 8^th Joint ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS Meeting. I came away with a wealth of knowledge, much of which can be put to immediate use in practice, and some that shows the promise of eventual clinical utility.

Dr. Helen Tremlett, PhD, kicked off the meeting with a keynote address covering her important work on the MS prodrome.  The Canada research chair in neuroepidemiology and multiple sclerosis at the University of British Columbia summarized her team’s research to date and offered her thoughts on clinical implications.

Dr. Tremlett’s group has observed that in the five years before an MS symptom onset, individuals who would ultimately be diagnosed tended to experience more hospitalizations, visit their provider more, and fill more prescriptions than did those in the general population. The team dug deeper and found that these individuals experienced a range of issues prior to symptom onset, including pain, headache, migraine, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, sleep disturbances, depression/anxiety, and dermatologic issues.

Interestingly, females in this group were less likely to become pregnant and more likely than healthy females to fill an oral contraceptive prescription, suggesting that they were trying to delay pregnancy due to these prodromal symptoms.

Dr. Tremlett noted that the more immediate implications of her group’s work are for clinical researchers, who can now use these findings to understand that there is a prodromal stage as they conduct clinical trials. The ultimate aim is to use this work to develop a diagnostic tool, but that will take more time and study.

COVID-19’s Impact on MS

The impact on COVID-19 on individuals with MS was addressed in a number of sessions. I presented data that clearly shows the risk of infection from COVID-19 is similar to that of the population at large.

• A critical evaluation of MS disease modifying therapies (DMTs) and their potential effects on COVID-19 that I published with my colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania suggested that DMTs might not increase the risk of morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 as some had feared. We based this conclusion on an evaluation of pathogenesis of COVID, the importance of the innate immune system in control of exposure to a novel pathogen, and the likely effects, both salutary and pernicious, of DMTs on COVID morbidity and mortality.
•  Investigators from Italy looked at 232 patients from 38 centers with MS and confirmed or suspected COVID and found that the vast majority of them (96%) had mild disease consisting of no or mild pneumonia. The remainder had either severe (2%) or critical (3%) disease.  These investigators have since expanded their observations and suggested that anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatment may be associated with a higher risk of hospitalization, though there did not appear to be an increase in the risk of death with their use.  Importantly, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapies are the DMTs routinely used in patients with progressive MS, generally, the MS population at greatest risk of hospitalization with COVID-19 due to their older age, co-morbidities, and level of debility.
• Recently, French researchers evaluated 347 individuals with MS and COVID by COVID disease severity. They found that there was a higher proportion of patients with severe COVID not receiving DMT compared with individuals receiving treatment (46% and 15%, respectively).

The Increasing Importance of sNfL Concentration

Serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) concentration continues to be a hot topic. Dr. Jens Kuhle, head of the Multiple Sclerosis Centre at the University of Basel, and colleagues have demonstrated that sNfL levels can play a role in monitoring MS treatment in practice. They evaluated more than 1000 individuals who were taking DMTs, measuring sNfL and deriving a score that reflected how participants fared relative to healthy controls of the same age. Among their findings:

• The resulting score predicted clinical events in the following year, with the effect escalating in magnitude in those whose scores were higher.
• This same predictive effect was seen with respect to future new/enlarging T2 lesions and brain volume loss.
• Score change in patients with NEDA-03 status was linked with a 37% increased risk of clinical events in the following year.

New Radiologic Techniques

Encouraging findings on new radiologic techniques were presented. I found three studies extremely informative. The first two have immediate or near-immediate clinical implications, and the third shows promise.

• In a comparison of patients with MS and healthy individuals who underwent brain 3T MRI to assess lesions and atrophy, R. Bonacchi and colleagues from Milan, Italy found that cardiovascular (CV) risk factors are linked with brain atrophy in patients with MS, even those <50 years of age. Specifically, the presence of at least two CV risk factors was linked with reduced normalized grey matter volume, white matter volume, and brain volume.
• Another comparison of individuals with MS and healthy controls—this one from O. Al-Louzi and colleagues at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke—looked at the central vein sign (CVS) biomarker and determined that excluding lesions only if all dimensions of 3T MRI results were less than threshold (versus if any dimension was less than threshold) led to the inclusion of more CVS-positive lesions. Investigators suggested this work could lead to modified clinical guidelines.
• In an evaluation of patients with MS using 3T MRI, F. LaRosa and colleagues from Lausanne, Switzerland reported that RimNet, a prototype built upon two convolutional neural networks, was better than two alternative methods at detecting pragmatic rim lesions, which are linked with higher disease burden. Compared with expert raters, RimNet had higher sensitivity (87% vs 76%) but lower specificity (91% vs 99%).

There were many other valuable presentations at MSVirtual2020, but perhaps the most appreciated experience was the ability to hear more experts deliver their important work. Unlike a live meeting, I was able to easily attend parallel sessions and to do so at my leisure. ECTRIMS has become so big that I often left the live meeting feeling as if I missed out on a lot. Not this year. I heard almost all of it and came away with a greater appreciation of the breadth and depth of the meeting.  I hope that in the future, even following the return of in-person meetings, a virtual format coexists to afford attendees and those unable to attend live the opportunity to experience the totality of the meeting.

I had the privilege of attending and speaking at the recent MSVirtual2020—the 8^th Joint ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS Meeting. I came away with a wealth of knowledge, much of which can be put to immediate use in practice, and some that shows the promise of eventual clinical utility.

Dr. Helen Tremlett, PhD, kicked off the meeting with a keynote address covering her important work on the MS prodrome.  The Canada research chair in neuroepidemiology and multiple sclerosis at the University of British Columbia summarized her team’s research to date and offered her thoughts on clinical implications.

Dr. Tremlett’s group has observed that in the five years before an MS symptom onset, individuals who would ultimately be diagnosed tended to experience more hospitalizations, visit their provider more, and fill more prescriptions than did those in the general population. The team dug deeper and found that these individuals experienced a range of issues prior to symptom onset, including pain, headache, migraine, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, sleep disturbances, depression/anxiety, and dermatologic issues.

Interestingly, females in this group were less likely to become pregnant and more likely than healthy females to fill an oral contraceptive prescription, suggesting that they were trying to delay pregnancy due to these prodromal symptoms.

Dr. Tremlett noted that the more immediate implications of her group’s work are for clinical researchers, who can now use these findings to understand that there is a prodromal stage as they conduct clinical trials. The ultimate aim is to use this work to develop a diagnostic tool, but that will take more time and study.

COVID-19’s Impact on MS

The impact on COVID-19 on individuals with MS was addressed in a number of sessions. I presented data that clearly shows the risk of infection from COVID-19 is similar to that of the population at large.

• A critical evaluation of MS disease modifying therapies (DMTs) and their potential effects on COVID-19 that I published with my colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania suggested that DMTs might not increase the risk of morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 as some had feared. We based this conclusion on an evaluation of pathogenesis of COVID, the importance of the innate immune system in control of exposure to a novel pathogen, and the likely effects, both salutary and pernicious, of DMTs on COVID morbidity and mortality.
•  Investigators from Italy looked at 232 patients from 38 centers with MS and confirmed or suspected COVID and found that the vast majority of them (96%) had mild disease consisting of no or mild pneumonia. The remainder had either severe (2%) or critical (3%) disease.  These investigators have since expanded their observations and suggested that anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatment may be associated with a higher risk of hospitalization, though there did not appear to be an increase in the risk of death with their use.  Importantly, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapies are the DMTs routinely used in patients with progressive MS, generally, the MS population at greatest risk of hospitalization with COVID-19 due to their older age, co-morbidities, and level of debility.
• Recently, French researchers evaluated 347 individuals with MS and COVID by COVID disease severity. They found that there was a higher proportion of patients with severe COVID not receiving DMT compared with individuals receiving treatment (46% and 15%, respectively).

The Increasing Importance of sNfL Concentration

Serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) concentration continues to be a hot topic. Dr. Jens Kuhle, head of the Multiple Sclerosis Centre at the University of Basel, and colleagues have demonstrated that sNfL levels can play a role in monitoring MS treatment in practice. They evaluated more than 1000 individuals who were taking DMTs, measuring sNfL and deriving a score that reflected how participants fared relative to healthy controls of the same age. Among their findings:

• The resulting score predicted clinical events in the following year, with the effect escalating in magnitude in those whose scores were higher.
• This same predictive effect was seen with respect to future new/enlarging T2 lesions and brain volume loss.
• Score change in patients with NEDA-03 status was linked with a 37% increased risk of clinical events in the following year.

New Radiologic Techniques

Encouraging findings on new radiologic techniques were presented. I found three studies extremely informative. The first two have immediate or near-immediate clinical implications, and the third shows promise.

• In a comparison of patients with MS and healthy individuals who underwent brain 3T MRI to assess lesions and atrophy, R. Bonacchi and colleagues from Milan, Italy found that cardiovascular (CV) risk factors are linked with brain atrophy in patients with MS, even those <50 years of age. Specifically, the presence of at least two CV risk factors was linked with reduced normalized grey matter volume, white matter volume, and brain volume.
• Another comparison of individuals with MS and healthy controls—this one from O. Al-Louzi and colleagues at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke—looked at the central vein sign (CVS) biomarker and determined that excluding lesions only if all dimensions of 3T MRI results were less than threshold (versus if any dimension was less than threshold) led to the inclusion of more CVS-positive lesions. Investigators suggested this work could lead to modified clinical guidelines.
• In an evaluation of patients with MS using 3T MRI, F. LaRosa and colleagues from Lausanne, Switzerland reported that RimNet, a prototype built upon two convolutional neural networks, was better than two alternative methods at detecting pragmatic rim lesions, which are linked with higher disease burden. Compared with expert raters, RimNet had higher sensitivity (87% vs 76%) but lower specificity (91% vs 99%).

There were many other valuable presentations at MSVirtual2020, but perhaps the most appreciated experience was the ability to hear more experts deliver their important work. Unlike a live meeting, I was able to easily attend parallel sessions and to do so at my leisure. ECTRIMS has become so big that I often left the live meeting feeling as if I missed out on a lot. Not this year. I heard almost all of it and came away with a greater appreciation of the breadth and depth of the meeting.  I hope that in the future, even following the return of in-person meetings, a virtual format coexists to afford attendees and those unable to attend live the opportunity to experience the totality of the meeting.

More than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in the United States from March to July 2020, compared with historic norms, with approximately two-thirds directly attributable to COVID-19. However, additional deaths could be indirectly related because people avoided emergency care during the pandemic, new research shows.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 varied by state and phase of the pandemic, as reported in a study from researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University and Yale University that was published online October 12 in JAMA.

Another study published online simultaneously in JAMA took more of an international perspective. Investigators from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University found that in America there were more excess deaths and there was higher all-cause mortality during the pandemic than in 18 other countries.

Although the ongoing number of deaths attributable to COVID-19 continues to garner attention, there can be a lag of weeks or months in how long it takes some public health agencies to update their figures.

“For the public at large, the take-home message is twofold: that the number of deaths caused by the pandemic exceeds publicly reported COVID-19 death counts by 20% and that states that reopened or lifted restrictions early suffered a protracted surge in excess deaths that extended into the summer,” lead author of the US-focused study, Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The take-away for physicians is in the bigger picture – it is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic is responsible for deaths from other conditions as well. “Surges in COVID-19 were accompanied by an increase in deaths attributed to other causes, such as heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” said Woolf, director emeritus and senior adviser at the Center on Society and Health and professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine in Richmond, Virginia.

The investigators identified 225,530 excess US deaths in the 5 months from March to July. They report that 67% were directly attributable to COVID-19.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 included those in which the disease was listed as an underlying or contributing cause. US total death rates are “remarkably consistent” year after year, and the investigators calculated a 20% overall jump in mortality.

The study included data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the US Census Bureau for 48 states and the District of Columbia. Connecticut and North Carolina were excluded because of missing data.

Woolf and colleagues also found statistically higher rates of deaths from two other causes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
 

Altered states

New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Arizona, Mississippi, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Michigan had the highest per capita excess death rates. Three states experienced the shortest epidemics during the study period: New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

Some lessons could be learned by looking at how individual states managed large numbers of people with COVID-19. “Although we suspected that states that reopened early might have put themselves at risk of a pandemic surge, the consistency with which that occurred and the devastating numbers of deaths they suffered was a surprise,” Woolf said.

“The goal of our study is not to look in the rearview mirror and lament what happened months ago but to learn the lesson going forward: Our country will be unable to take control of this pandemic without more robust efforts to control community spread,” Woolf said. “Our study found that states that did this well, such as New York and New Jersey, experienced large surges but bent the curve and were back to baseline in less than 10 weeks.

“If we could do this as a country, countless lives could be saved.”
 

A global perspective

The United States experienced high mortality linked to COVID-19, as well as high all-cause mortality, compared with 18 other countries, as reported in the study by University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University researchers.

The United States ranked third, with 72 deaths per 100,000 people, among countries with moderate or high mortality. Although perhaps not surprising given the state of SARS-CoV-2 infection across the United States, a question remains as to what extent the relatively high mortality rate is linked to early outbreaks vs “poor long-term response,” the researchers note.

Alyssa Bilinski, MSc, and lead author Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, calculated the difference in COVID-19 deaths among countries through Sept. 19, 2020. On this date, the United States reported a total 198,589 COVID-19 deaths.

They calculated that, if the US death rates were similar to those in Australia, the United States would have experienced 187,661 fewer COVID-19 deaths. If similar to those of Canada, there would have been 117,622 fewer deaths in the United States.

The US death rate was lower than six other countries with high COVID-19 mortality in the early spring, including Belgium, Spain, and the United Kingdom. However, after May 10, the per capita mortality rate in the United States exceeded the others.

Between May 10 and Sept. 19, the death rate in Italy was 9.1 per 100,000, vs 36.9 per 100,000.

“After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers note. “This may have been a result of several factors, including weak public health infrastructure and a decentralized, inconsistent US response to the pandemic.”
 

“Mortifying and motivating”

Woolf and colleagues estimate that more than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in recent months; this represents a 20% increase over expected deaths, note Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, PhD, of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, in an accompanying editorial in JAMA.

“Importantly, a condition such as COVID-19 can contribute both directly and indirectly to excess mortality,” he writes.

Although the direct contribution to the mortality rates by those infected is straightforward, “the indirect contribution may relate to circumstances or choices due to the COVID-19 pandemic: for example, a patient who develops symptoms of a stroke is too concerned about COVID-19 to go to the emergency department, and a potentially reversible condition becomes fatal.”

Fineberg notes that “a general indication of the death toll from COVID-19 and the excess deaths related to the pandemic, as presented by Woolf et al, are sufficiently mortifying and motivating.”
 

“Profound human toll”

“The importance of the estimate by Woolf et al – which suggests that for the entirety of 2020, more than 400,000 excess deaths will occur – cannot be overstated, because it accounts for what could be declines in some causes of death, like motor vehicle crashes, but increases in others, like myocardial infarction,” write Howard Bauchner, MD, editor in chief of JAMA, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, MBA, executive editor of JAMA, in another accompanying editorial.

“These deaths reflect a true measure of the human cost of the Great Pandemic of 2020,” they add.

The study from Emanuel and Bilinski was notable for calculating the excess COVID-19 and all-cause mortality to Sept. 2020, they note. “After the initial peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than rates in countries with high COVID-19 mortality.”

“Few people will forget the Great Pandemic of 2020, where and how they lived, how it substantially changed their lives, and for many, the profound human toll it has taken,” Bauchner and Fontanarosa write.

The study by Woolf and colleagues was supported by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The study by Bilinski and Emanuel was partially funded by the Colton Foundation. Woolf, Emanuel, Fineberg, Bauchner, and Fontanarosa have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in the United States from March to July 2020, compared with historic norms, with approximately two-thirds directly attributable to COVID-19. However, additional deaths could be indirectly related because people avoided emergency care during the pandemic, new research shows.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 varied by state and phase of the pandemic, as reported in a study from researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University and Yale University that was published online October 12 in JAMA.

Another study published online simultaneously in JAMA took more of an international perspective. Investigators from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University found that in America there were more excess deaths and there was higher all-cause mortality during the pandemic than in 18 other countries.

Although the ongoing number of deaths attributable to COVID-19 continues to garner attention, there can be a lag of weeks or months in how long it takes some public health agencies to update their figures.

“For the public at large, the take-home message is twofold: that the number of deaths caused by the pandemic exceeds publicly reported COVID-19 death counts by 20% and that states that reopened or lifted restrictions early suffered a protracted surge in excess deaths that extended into the summer,” lead author of the US-focused study, Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The take-away for physicians is in the bigger picture – it is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic is responsible for deaths from other conditions as well. “Surges in COVID-19 were accompanied by an increase in deaths attributed to other causes, such as heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” said Woolf, director emeritus and senior adviser at the Center on Society and Health and professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine in Richmond, Virginia.

The investigators identified 225,530 excess US deaths in the 5 months from March to July. They report that 67% were directly attributable to COVID-19.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 included those in which the disease was listed as an underlying or contributing cause. US total death rates are “remarkably consistent” year after year, and the investigators calculated a 20% overall jump in mortality.

The study included data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the US Census Bureau for 48 states and the District of Columbia. Connecticut and North Carolina were excluded because of missing data.

Woolf and colleagues also found statistically higher rates of deaths from two other causes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
 

Altered states

New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Arizona, Mississippi, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Michigan had the highest per capita excess death rates. Three states experienced the shortest epidemics during the study period: New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

Some lessons could be learned by looking at how individual states managed large numbers of people with COVID-19. “Although we suspected that states that reopened early might have put themselves at risk of a pandemic surge, the consistency with which that occurred and the devastating numbers of deaths they suffered was a surprise,” Woolf said.

“The goal of our study is not to look in the rearview mirror and lament what happened months ago but to learn the lesson going forward: Our country will be unable to take control of this pandemic without more robust efforts to control community spread,” Woolf said. “Our study found that states that did this well, such as New York and New Jersey, experienced large surges but bent the curve and were back to baseline in less than 10 weeks.

“If we could do this as a country, countless lives could be saved.”
 

A global perspective

The United States experienced high mortality linked to COVID-19, as well as high all-cause mortality, compared with 18 other countries, as reported in the study by University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University researchers.

The United States ranked third, with 72 deaths per 100,000 people, among countries with moderate or high mortality. Although perhaps not surprising given the state of SARS-CoV-2 infection across the United States, a question remains as to what extent the relatively high mortality rate is linked to early outbreaks vs “poor long-term response,” the researchers note.

Alyssa Bilinski, MSc, and lead author Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, calculated the difference in COVID-19 deaths among countries through Sept. 19, 2020. On this date, the United States reported a total 198,589 COVID-19 deaths.

They calculated that, if the US death rates were similar to those in Australia, the United States would have experienced 187,661 fewer COVID-19 deaths. If similar to those of Canada, there would have been 117,622 fewer deaths in the United States.

The US death rate was lower than six other countries with high COVID-19 mortality in the early spring, including Belgium, Spain, and the United Kingdom. However, after May 10, the per capita mortality rate in the United States exceeded the others.

Between May 10 and Sept. 19, the death rate in Italy was 9.1 per 100,000, vs 36.9 per 100,000.

“After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers note. “This may have been a result of several factors, including weak public health infrastructure and a decentralized, inconsistent US response to the pandemic.”
 

“Mortifying and motivating”

Woolf and colleagues estimate that more than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in recent months; this represents a 20% increase over expected deaths, note Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, PhD, of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, in an accompanying editorial in JAMA.

“Importantly, a condition such as COVID-19 can contribute both directly and indirectly to excess mortality,” he writes.

Although the direct contribution to the mortality rates by those infected is straightforward, “the indirect contribution may relate to circumstances or choices due to the COVID-19 pandemic: for example, a patient who develops symptoms of a stroke is too concerned about COVID-19 to go to the emergency department, and a potentially reversible condition becomes fatal.”

Fineberg notes that “a general indication of the death toll from COVID-19 and the excess deaths related to the pandemic, as presented by Woolf et al, are sufficiently mortifying and motivating.”
 

“Profound human toll”

“The importance of the estimate by Woolf et al – which suggests that for the entirety of 2020, more than 400,000 excess deaths will occur – cannot be overstated, because it accounts for what could be declines in some causes of death, like motor vehicle crashes, but increases in others, like myocardial infarction,” write Howard Bauchner, MD, editor in chief of JAMA, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, MBA, executive editor of JAMA, in another accompanying editorial.

“These deaths reflect a true measure of the human cost of the Great Pandemic of 2020,” they add.

The study from Emanuel and Bilinski was notable for calculating the excess COVID-19 and all-cause mortality to Sept. 2020, they note. “After the initial peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than rates in countries with high COVID-19 mortality.”

“Few people will forget the Great Pandemic of 2020, where and how they lived, how it substantially changed their lives, and for many, the profound human toll it has taken,” Bauchner and Fontanarosa write.

The study by Woolf and colleagues was supported by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The study by Bilinski and Emanuel was partially funded by the Colton Foundation. Woolf, Emanuel, Fineberg, Bauchner, and Fontanarosa have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in the United States from March to July 2020, compared with historic norms, with approximately two-thirds directly attributable to COVID-19. However, additional deaths could be indirectly related because people avoided emergency care during the pandemic, new research shows.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 varied by state and phase of the pandemic, as reported in a study from researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University and Yale University that was published online October 12 in JAMA.

Another study published online simultaneously in JAMA took more of an international perspective. Investigators from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University found that in America there were more excess deaths and there was higher all-cause mortality during the pandemic than in 18 other countries.

Although the ongoing number of deaths attributable to COVID-19 continues to garner attention, there can be a lag of weeks or months in how long it takes some public health agencies to update their figures.

“For the public at large, the take-home message is twofold: that the number of deaths caused by the pandemic exceeds publicly reported COVID-19 death counts by 20% and that states that reopened or lifted restrictions early suffered a protracted surge in excess deaths that extended into the summer,” lead author of the US-focused study, Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The take-away for physicians is in the bigger picture – it is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic is responsible for deaths from other conditions as well. “Surges in COVID-19 were accompanied by an increase in deaths attributed to other causes, such as heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” said Woolf, director emeritus and senior adviser at the Center on Society and Health and professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine in Richmond, Virginia.

The investigators identified 225,530 excess US deaths in the 5 months from March to July. They report that 67% were directly attributable to COVID-19.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 included those in which the disease was listed as an underlying or contributing cause. US total death rates are “remarkably consistent” year after year, and the investigators calculated a 20% overall jump in mortality.

The study included data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the US Census Bureau for 48 states and the District of Columbia. Connecticut and North Carolina were excluded because of missing data.

Woolf and colleagues also found statistically higher rates of deaths from two other causes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
 

Altered states

New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Arizona, Mississippi, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Michigan had the highest per capita excess death rates. Three states experienced the shortest epidemics during the study period: New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

Some lessons could be learned by looking at how individual states managed large numbers of people with COVID-19. “Although we suspected that states that reopened early might have put themselves at risk of a pandemic surge, the consistency with which that occurred and the devastating numbers of deaths they suffered was a surprise,” Woolf said.

“The goal of our study is not to look in the rearview mirror and lament what happened months ago but to learn the lesson going forward: Our country will be unable to take control of this pandemic without more robust efforts to control community spread,” Woolf said. “Our study found that states that did this well, such as New York and New Jersey, experienced large surges but bent the curve and were back to baseline in less than 10 weeks.

“If we could do this as a country, countless lives could be saved.”
 

A global perspective

The United States experienced high mortality linked to COVID-19, as well as high all-cause mortality, compared with 18 other countries, as reported in the study by University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University researchers.

The United States ranked third, with 72 deaths per 100,000 people, among countries with moderate or high mortality. Although perhaps not surprising given the state of SARS-CoV-2 infection across the United States, a question remains as to what extent the relatively high mortality rate is linked to early outbreaks vs “poor long-term response,” the researchers note.

Alyssa Bilinski, MSc, and lead author Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, calculated the difference in COVID-19 deaths among countries through Sept. 19, 2020. On this date, the United States reported a total 198,589 COVID-19 deaths.

They calculated that, if the US death rates were similar to those in Australia, the United States would have experienced 187,661 fewer COVID-19 deaths. If similar to those of Canada, there would have been 117,622 fewer deaths in the United States.

The US death rate was lower than six other countries with high COVID-19 mortality in the early spring, including Belgium, Spain, and the United Kingdom. However, after May 10, the per capita mortality rate in the United States exceeded the others.

Between May 10 and Sept. 19, the death rate in Italy was 9.1 per 100,000, vs 36.9 per 100,000.

“After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers note. “This may have been a result of several factors, including weak public health infrastructure and a decentralized, inconsistent US response to the pandemic.”
 

“Mortifying and motivating”

Woolf and colleagues estimate that more than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in recent months; this represents a 20% increase over expected deaths, note Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, PhD, of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, in an accompanying editorial in JAMA.

“Importantly, a condition such as COVID-19 can contribute both directly and indirectly to excess mortality,” he writes.

Although the direct contribution to the mortality rates by those infected is straightforward, “the indirect contribution may relate to circumstances or choices due to the COVID-19 pandemic: for example, a patient who develops symptoms of a stroke is too concerned about COVID-19 to go to the emergency department, and a potentially reversible condition becomes fatal.”

Fineberg notes that “a general indication of the death toll from COVID-19 and the excess deaths related to the pandemic, as presented by Woolf et al, are sufficiently mortifying and motivating.”
 

“Profound human toll”

“The importance of the estimate by Woolf et al – which suggests that for the entirety of 2020, more than 400,000 excess deaths will occur – cannot be overstated, because it accounts for what could be declines in some causes of death, like motor vehicle crashes, but increases in others, like myocardial infarction,” write Howard Bauchner, MD, editor in chief of JAMA, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, MBA, executive editor of JAMA, in another accompanying editorial.

“These deaths reflect a true measure of the human cost of the Great Pandemic of 2020,” they add.

The study from Emanuel and Bilinski was notable for calculating the excess COVID-19 and all-cause mortality to Sept. 2020, they note. “After the initial peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than rates in countries with high COVID-19 mortality.”

“Few people will forget the Great Pandemic of 2020, where and how they lived, how it substantially changed their lives, and for many, the profound human toll it has taken,” Bauchner and Fontanarosa write.

The study by Woolf and colleagues was supported by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The study by Bilinski and Emanuel was partially funded by the Colton Foundation. Woolf, Emanuel, Fineberg, Bauchner, and Fontanarosa have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Promising phase 3 trial results from French researchers indicate that the first-in-class oral TKI masitinib may provide a new treatment option for patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) or nonactive secondary progressive MS (SPMS).

The masitinib study was noted by Dr Mark Freedman, professor of neurology at the University of Ottawa, as among the key findings on PPMS presented at ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS 2020. The French study reported that patients receiving masitinib over 96 weeks experienced significant delay in disability progression.

Dr Freedman explains how an analysis done by Mellon Center researchers may change how clinicians counsel patients about the risk for progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) related to fingolimod treatment. Their research shows the incidence rate of PML among patients receiving fingolimod to be very low — in fact, fewer than 40 times that of patients receiving natalizumab.

Finally, Dr Freedman discuses an ad hoc analysis presented by leading MS researchers from University Hospital in Basel, Switzerland, which points to plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) levels as a prognostic biomarker of increased risk for worsening disability. Using data from the EXPAND trial, researchers found significant risk for increased disability among patients with nonactive SPMS who had elevated baseline GFAP.

Professor, Department of Neurology, University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Director, Multiple Sclerosis Research Unit, The Ottawa Hospital – General Campus, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Mark S. Freedman, MSc, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) on the advisory board, board of directors, or other similar groups for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; Atara Biotherapeutics; BayerHealthcare; BiogenIdec; Celgene; Clene Nanomedicine; GRI Bio; Hoffman La-Roche; Magenta Therapeutics; Merck Serono; MedDay; Novartis; Sanofi-Genzyme; Teva Canada Innovation. Serve(d) as a member of a speakers bureau for: Sanofi-Genzyme; EMD Serono. Received honoraria or consultation fees for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; BiogenIdec; Celgene (BMS); EMD Inc; Sanofi-Genzyme; Hoffman La-Roche; Merck Serono; Novartis; Teva Canada Innovation­. Received research or educational grants from: Sanofi-Genzyme Canada; Hoffman-La Roche; EMD Inc.

Promising phase 3 trial results from French researchers indicate that the first-in-class oral TKI masitinib may provide a new treatment option for patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) or nonactive secondary progressive MS (SPMS).

The masitinib study was noted by Dr Mark Freedman, professor of neurology at the University of Ottawa, as among the key findings on PPMS presented at ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS 2020. The French study reported that patients receiving masitinib over 96 weeks experienced significant delay in disability progression.

Dr Freedman explains how an analysis done by Mellon Center researchers may change how clinicians counsel patients about the risk for progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) related to fingolimod treatment. Their research shows the incidence rate of PML among patients receiving fingolimod to be very low — in fact, fewer than 40 times that of patients receiving natalizumab.

Finally, Dr Freedman discuses an ad hoc analysis presented by leading MS researchers from University Hospital in Basel, Switzerland, which points to plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) levels as a prognostic biomarker of increased risk for worsening disability. Using data from the EXPAND trial, researchers found significant risk for increased disability among patients with nonactive SPMS who had elevated baseline GFAP.

Professor, Department of Neurology, University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Director, Multiple Sclerosis Research Unit, The Ottawa Hospital – General Campus, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Mark S. Freedman, MSc, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) on the advisory board, board of directors, or other similar groups for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; Atara Biotherapeutics; BayerHealthcare; BiogenIdec; Celgene; Clene Nanomedicine; GRI Bio; Hoffman La-Roche; Magenta Therapeutics; Merck Serono; MedDay; Novartis; Sanofi-Genzyme; Teva Canada Innovation. Serve(d) as a member of a speakers bureau for: Sanofi-Genzyme; EMD Serono. Received honoraria or consultation fees for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; BiogenIdec; Celgene (BMS); EMD Inc; Sanofi-Genzyme; Hoffman La-Roche; Merck Serono; Novartis; Teva Canada Innovation­. Received research or educational grants from: Sanofi-Genzyme Canada; Hoffman-La Roche; EMD Inc.

Promising phase 3 trial results from French researchers indicate that the first-in-class oral TKI masitinib may provide a new treatment option for patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) or nonactive secondary progressive MS (SPMS).

The masitinib study was noted by Dr Mark Freedman, professor of neurology at the University of Ottawa, as among the key findings on PPMS presented at ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS 2020. The French study reported that patients receiving masitinib over 96 weeks experienced significant delay in disability progression.

Dr Freedman explains how an analysis done by Mellon Center researchers may change how clinicians counsel patients about the risk for progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) related to fingolimod treatment. Their research shows the incidence rate of PML among patients receiving fingolimod to be very low — in fact, fewer than 40 times that of patients receiving natalizumab.

Finally, Dr Freedman discuses an ad hoc analysis presented by leading MS researchers from University Hospital in Basel, Switzerland, which points to plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) levels as a prognostic biomarker of increased risk for worsening disability. Using data from the EXPAND trial, researchers found significant risk for increased disability among patients with nonactive SPMS who had elevated baseline GFAP.

Professor, Department of Neurology, University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Director, Multiple Sclerosis Research Unit, The Ottawa Hospital – General Campus, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Mark S. Freedman, MSc, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) on the advisory board, board of directors, or other similar groups for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; Atara Biotherapeutics; BayerHealthcare; BiogenIdec; Celgene; Clene Nanomedicine; GRI Bio; Hoffman La-Roche; Magenta Therapeutics; Merck Serono; MedDay; Novartis; Sanofi-Genzyme; Teva Canada Innovation. Serve(d) as a member of a speakers bureau for: Sanofi-Genzyme; EMD Serono. Received honoraria or consultation fees for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; BiogenIdec; Celgene (BMS); EMD Inc; Sanofi-Genzyme; Hoffman La-Roche; Merck Serono; Novartis; Teva Canada Innovation­. Received research or educational grants from: Sanofi-Genzyme Canada; Hoffman-La Roche; EMD Inc.

A shift in managing symptoms for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) may be in order as new research questions the efficacy of three commonly used drugs for MS-related fatigue. Results of a study from Johns Hopkins University show that amantadine, modafinil, and methylphenidate were not superior to placebo. As Dr Mark Freedman reports in this ReCAP, the study suggests that clinicians consider focusing more on patient sleep quality rather than tiredness in their evaluation of fatigue.

This study was presented during the 8th Joint Meeting of ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS, this year branded MSVirtual2020. Dr Freedman, a recognized neurologist from the University of Ottawa, shares key highlights from the online conference.

He explains the significance of new evidence that points to the potential for a selective retinoid X receptor agonist to promote remyelination in relapsing disease. He also discusses a study by researchers at the University of Melbourne that looked at data from the largest cohort of MS patients with COVID-19 and drew troubling conclusions.

Professor, Department of Neurology, University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Director, Multiple Sclerosis Research Unit, The Ottawa Hospital – General Campus, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Mark S. Freedman, MSc, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) on the advisory board, board of directors, or other similar groups for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; Atara Biotherapeutics; BayerHealthcare; BiogenIdec; Celgene; Clene Nanomedicine; GRI Bio; Hoffman La-Roche; Magenta Therapeutics; Merck Serono; MedDay; Novartis; Sanofi-Genzyme; Teva Canada Innovation. Serve(d) as a member of a speakers bureau for: Sanofi-Genzyme; EMD Serono. Received honoraria or consultation fees for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; BiogenIdec; Celgene (BMS); EMD Inc; Sanofi-Genzyme; Hoffman La-Roche; Merck Serono; Novartis; Teva Canada Innovation­. Received research or educational grants from: Sanofi-Genzyme Canada; Hoffman-La Roche; EMD Inc.

A shift in managing symptoms for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) may be in order as new research questions the efficacy of three commonly used drugs for MS-related fatigue. Results of a study from Johns Hopkins University show that amantadine, modafinil, and methylphenidate were not superior to placebo. As Dr Mark Freedman reports in this ReCAP, the study suggests that clinicians consider focusing more on patient sleep quality rather than tiredness in their evaluation of fatigue.

This study was presented during the 8th Joint Meeting of ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS, this year branded MSVirtual2020. Dr Freedman, a recognized neurologist from the University of Ottawa, shares key highlights from the online conference.

He explains the significance of new evidence that points to the potential for a selective retinoid X receptor agonist to promote remyelination in relapsing disease. He also discusses a study by researchers at the University of Melbourne that looked at data from the largest cohort of MS patients with COVID-19 and drew troubling conclusions.

Professor, Department of Neurology, University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Director, Multiple Sclerosis Research Unit, The Ottawa Hospital – General Campus, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Mark S. Freedman, MSc, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) on the advisory board, board of directors, or other similar groups for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; Atara Biotherapeutics; BayerHealthcare; BiogenIdec; Celgene; Clene Nanomedicine; GRI Bio; Hoffman La-Roche; Magenta Therapeutics; Merck Serono; MedDay; Novartis; Sanofi-Genzyme; Teva Canada Innovation. Serve(d) as a member of a speakers bureau for: Sanofi-Genzyme; EMD Serono. Received honoraria or consultation fees for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; BiogenIdec; Celgene (BMS); EMD Inc; Sanofi-Genzyme; Hoffman La-Roche; Merck Serono; Novartis; Teva Canada Innovation­. Received research or educational grants from: Sanofi-Genzyme Canada; Hoffman-La Roche; EMD Inc.

A shift in managing symptoms for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) may be in order as new research questions the efficacy of three commonly used drugs for MS-related fatigue. Results of a study from Johns Hopkins University show that amantadine, modafinil, and methylphenidate were not superior to placebo. As Dr Mark Freedman reports in this ReCAP, the study suggests that clinicians consider focusing more on patient sleep quality rather than tiredness in their evaluation of fatigue.

This study was presented during the 8th Joint Meeting of ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS, this year branded MSVirtual2020. Dr Freedman, a recognized neurologist from the University of Ottawa, shares key highlights from the online conference.

He explains the significance of new evidence that points to the potential for a selective retinoid X receptor agonist to promote remyelination in relapsing disease. He also discusses a study by researchers at the University of Melbourne that looked at data from the largest cohort of MS patients with COVID-19 and drew troubling conclusions.

Professor, Department of Neurology, University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Director, Multiple Sclerosis Research Unit, The Ottawa Hospital – General Campus, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Mark S. Freedman, MSc, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) on the advisory board, board of directors, or other similar groups for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; Atara Biotherapeutics; BayerHealthcare; BiogenIdec; Celgene; Clene Nanomedicine; GRI Bio; Hoffman La-Roche; Magenta Therapeutics; Merck Serono; MedDay; Novartis; Sanofi-Genzyme; Teva Canada Innovation. Serve(d) as a member of a speakers bureau for: Sanofi-Genzyme; EMD Serono. Received honoraria or consultation fees for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; BiogenIdec; Celgene (BMS); EMD Inc; Sanofi-Genzyme; Hoffman La-Roche; Merck Serono; Novartis; Teva Canada Innovation­. Received research or educational grants from: Sanofi-Genzyme Canada; Hoffman-La Roche; EMD Inc.

Children should not return to sports for 14 days after exposure to COVID-19, and those with moderate symptoms should undergo an electrocardiogram before returning, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The recommendations, which update the academy’s July 23 guidance, stem from new concerns that the disease can cause myocarditis, said Susannah Briskin, MD, a pediatric sports medicine specialist at Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland.

“There has been emerging evidence about cases of myocarditis occurring in athletes, including athletes who are asymptomatic with COVID-19,” she said in an interview.

The update aligns the AAP recommendations with those from the American College of Cardiologists, she added.

Recent imaging studies have turned up signs of myocarditis in athletes recovering from mild or asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 and have prompted calls for clearer guidelines about imaging studies and return to play.

Viral myocarditis poses a risk to athletes because it can lead to potentially fatal arrhythmias, Dr. Briskin said.

Although children benefit from participating in sports, these activities also put them at risk of contracting COVID-19 and spreading it to others, the guidance noted.

To balance the risks and benefits, the academy proposed guidelines that vary depending on the severity of the presentation.

In the first category are patients with a severe presentation (hypotension, arrhythmias, need for intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, kidney or cardiac failure) or with multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Clinicians should treat these patients as though they have myocarditis. Patients should be restricted from engaging in sports and other exercise for 3-6 months, the guidance stated.

The primary care physician and “appropriate pediatric medical subspecialist, preferably in consultation with a pediatric cardiologist,” should clear them before they return to activities. In examining patients for return to play, clinicians should focus on cardiac symptoms, including chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations, or syncope, the guidance said.

In another category are patients with cardiac symptoms, those with concerning findings on examination, and those with moderate symptoms of COVID-19, including prolonged fever. These patients should undergo an ECG and possibly be referred to a pediatric cardiologist, the guidelines said. These symptoms must be absent for at least 14 days before these patients can return to sports, and the athletes should obtain clearance from their primary care physicians before they resume.

In a third category are patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who have had close contact with someone who was infected but who have not themselves experienced symptoms. These athletes should refrain from sports for at least 14 days, the guidelines said.

Children who don’t fall into any of these categories should not be tested for the virus or antibodies to it before participation in sports, the academy said.

The guidelines don’t vary depending on the sport. But the academy has issued separate guidance for parents and guardians to help them evaluate the risk for COVID-19 transmission by sport.

Athletes participating in “sports that have greater amount of contact time or proximity to people would be at higher risk for contracting COVID-19,” Dr. Briskin said. “But I think that’s all fairly common sense, given the recommendations for non–sport-related activity just in terms of social distancing and masking.”

The new guidance called on sports organizers to minimize contact by, for example, modifying drills and conditioning. It recommended that athletes wear masks except during vigorous exercise or when participating in water sports, as well as in other circumstances in which the mask could become a safety hazard.

They also recommended using handwashing stations or hand sanitizer, avoiding contact with shared surfaces, and avoiding small rooms and areas with poor ventilation.

Dr. Briskin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children should not return to sports for 14 days after exposure to COVID-19, and those with moderate symptoms should undergo an electrocardiogram before returning, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The recommendations, which update the academy’s July 23 guidance, stem from new concerns that the disease can cause myocarditis, said Susannah Briskin, MD, a pediatric sports medicine specialist at Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland.

“There has been emerging evidence about cases of myocarditis occurring in athletes, including athletes who are asymptomatic with COVID-19,” she said in an interview.

The update aligns the AAP recommendations with those from the American College of Cardiologists, she added.

Recent imaging studies have turned up signs of myocarditis in athletes recovering from mild or asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 and have prompted calls for clearer guidelines about imaging studies and return to play.

Viral myocarditis poses a risk to athletes because it can lead to potentially fatal arrhythmias, Dr. Briskin said.

Although children benefit from participating in sports, these activities also put them at risk of contracting COVID-19 and spreading it to others, the guidance noted.

To balance the risks and benefits, the academy proposed guidelines that vary depending on the severity of the presentation.

In the first category are patients with a severe presentation (hypotension, arrhythmias, need for intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, kidney or cardiac failure) or with multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Clinicians should treat these patients as though they have myocarditis. Patients should be restricted from engaging in sports and other exercise for 3-6 months, the guidance stated.

The primary care physician and “appropriate pediatric medical subspecialist, preferably in consultation with a pediatric cardiologist,” should clear them before they return to activities. In examining patients for return to play, clinicians should focus on cardiac symptoms, including chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations, or syncope, the guidance said.

In another category are patients with cardiac symptoms, those with concerning findings on examination, and those with moderate symptoms of COVID-19, including prolonged fever. These patients should undergo an ECG and possibly be referred to a pediatric cardiologist, the guidelines said. These symptoms must be absent for at least 14 days before these patients can return to sports, and the athletes should obtain clearance from their primary care physicians before they resume.

In a third category are patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who have had close contact with someone who was infected but who have not themselves experienced symptoms. These athletes should refrain from sports for at least 14 days, the guidelines said.

Children who don’t fall into any of these categories should not be tested for the virus or antibodies to it before participation in sports, the academy said.

The guidelines don’t vary depending on the sport. But the academy has issued separate guidance for parents and guardians to help them evaluate the risk for COVID-19 transmission by sport.

Athletes participating in “sports that have greater amount of contact time or proximity to people would be at higher risk for contracting COVID-19,” Dr. Briskin said. “But I think that’s all fairly common sense, given the recommendations for non–sport-related activity just in terms of social distancing and masking.”

The new guidance called on sports organizers to minimize contact by, for example, modifying drills and conditioning. It recommended that athletes wear masks except during vigorous exercise or when participating in water sports, as well as in other circumstances in which the mask could become a safety hazard.

They also recommended using handwashing stations or hand sanitizer, avoiding contact with shared surfaces, and avoiding small rooms and areas with poor ventilation.

Dr. Briskin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children should not return to sports for 14 days after exposure to COVID-19, and those with moderate symptoms should undergo an electrocardiogram before returning, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The recommendations, which update the academy’s July 23 guidance, stem from new concerns that the disease can cause myocarditis, said Susannah Briskin, MD, a pediatric sports medicine specialist at Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland.

“There has been emerging evidence about cases of myocarditis occurring in athletes, including athletes who are asymptomatic with COVID-19,” she said in an interview.

The update aligns the AAP recommendations with those from the American College of Cardiologists, she added.

Recent imaging studies have turned up signs of myocarditis in athletes recovering from mild or asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 and have prompted calls for clearer guidelines about imaging studies and return to play.

Viral myocarditis poses a risk to athletes because it can lead to potentially fatal arrhythmias, Dr. Briskin said.

Although children benefit from participating in sports, these activities also put them at risk of contracting COVID-19 and spreading it to others, the guidance noted.

To balance the risks and benefits, the academy proposed guidelines that vary depending on the severity of the presentation.

In the first category are patients with a severe presentation (hypotension, arrhythmias, need for intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, kidney or cardiac failure) or with multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Clinicians should treat these patients as though they have myocarditis. Patients should be restricted from engaging in sports and other exercise for 3-6 months, the guidance stated.

The primary care physician and “appropriate pediatric medical subspecialist, preferably in consultation with a pediatric cardiologist,” should clear them before they return to activities. In examining patients for return to play, clinicians should focus on cardiac symptoms, including chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations, or syncope, the guidance said.

In another category are patients with cardiac symptoms, those with concerning findings on examination, and those with moderate symptoms of COVID-19, including prolonged fever. These patients should undergo an ECG and possibly be referred to a pediatric cardiologist, the guidelines said. These symptoms must be absent for at least 14 days before these patients can return to sports, and the athletes should obtain clearance from their primary care physicians before they resume.

In a third category are patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who have had close contact with someone who was infected but who have not themselves experienced symptoms. These athletes should refrain from sports for at least 14 days, the guidelines said.

Children who don’t fall into any of these categories should not be tested for the virus or antibodies to it before participation in sports, the academy said.

The guidelines don’t vary depending on the sport. But the academy has issued separate guidance for parents and guardians to help them evaluate the risk for COVID-19 transmission by sport.

Athletes participating in “sports that have greater amount of contact time or proximity to people would be at higher risk for contracting COVID-19,” Dr. Briskin said. “But I think that’s all fairly common sense, given the recommendations for non–sport-related activity just in terms of social distancing and masking.”

The new guidance called on sports organizers to minimize contact by, for example, modifying drills and conditioning. It recommended that athletes wear masks except during vigorous exercise or when participating in water sports, as well as in other circumstances in which the mask could become a safety hazard.

They also recommended using handwashing stations or hand sanitizer, avoiding contact with shared surfaces, and avoiding small rooms and areas with poor ventilation.

Dr. Briskin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), MRI has provided a key indication of disease presence and activity. With the availability of serum neurofilament (sNfL) assays, disease activity can be correlated with sNfL levels.

Dr Tobias Derfuss, from University Hospital Basel in Basel, Switzerland, discusses emerging research reported at the ACTRIMS/ECTRIMS 2020 Virtual Meeting, focusing on the use of sNfL as a biomarker for monitoring treatment response and disease activity in RRMS.

Dr Derfuss highlights one study in which longitudinal observations showed that high levels of sNfL at baseline are associated with a high risk for gadolinium-enhancing lesions; the study authors suggest that quarterly monitoring may be adequate for surveillance of subclinical disease.

In another study, higher sNfL levels at baseline were linked to a higher risk for T2 lesions and a more pronounced brain atrophy rate, but disability progression was not correlated to baseline sNfL levels.

Finally, Dr Derfuss reports on a real-world, large cohort study supporting the value of sNfL to capture and predict disability progression independent of relapses.

Tobias J. Derfuss, MD, Professor, Head of Outpatient Clinic, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Board, Basel, Switzerland

Tobias J. Derfuss, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:­ Received financial compensation for his activities in advisory boards, steering committees, data safety monitoring boards, and consultation for: Novartis; Merck; Biogen; Celgene; Actelion; Mitsubishi Pharma; MedDay; Roche; Sanofi Genzyme. Received research grant from: Novartis; Biogen; Roche; Swiss National Science Foundation; European Union; Swiss MS Society. Spouse is an employee of and holds stock options in: Novartis

In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), MRI has provided a key indication of disease presence and activity. With the availability of serum neurofilament (sNfL) assays, disease activity can be correlated with sNfL levels.

Dr Tobias Derfuss, from University Hospital Basel in Basel, Switzerland, discusses emerging research reported at the ACTRIMS/ECTRIMS 2020 Virtual Meeting, focusing on the use of sNfL as a biomarker for monitoring treatment response and disease activity in RRMS.

Dr Derfuss highlights one study in which longitudinal observations showed that high levels of sNfL at baseline are associated with a high risk for gadolinium-enhancing lesions; the study authors suggest that quarterly monitoring may be adequate for surveillance of subclinical disease.

In another study, higher sNfL levels at baseline were linked to a higher risk for T2 lesions and a more pronounced brain atrophy rate, but disability progression was not correlated to baseline sNfL levels.

Finally, Dr Derfuss reports on a real-world, large cohort study supporting the value of sNfL to capture and predict disability progression independent of relapses.

Tobias J. Derfuss, MD, Professor, Head of Outpatient Clinic, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Board, Basel, Switzerland

Tobias J. Derfuss, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:­ Received financial compensation for his activities in advisory boards, steering committees, data safety monitoring boards, and consultation for: Novartis; Merck; Biogen; Celgene; Actelion; Mitsubishi Pharma; MedDay; Roche; Sanofi Genzyme. Received research grant from: Novartis; Biogen; Roche; Swiss National Science Foundation; European Union; Swiss MS Society. Spouse is an employee of and holds stock options in: Novartis

In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), MRI has provided a key indication of disease presence and activity. With the availability of serum neurofilament (sNfL) assays, disease activity can be correlated with sNfL levels.

Dr Tobias Derfuss, from University Hospital Basel in Basel, Switzerland, discusses emerging research reported at the ACTRIMS/ECTRIMS 2020 Virtual Meeting, focusing on the use of sNfL as a biomarker for monitoring treatment response and disease activity in RRMS.

Dr Derfuss highlights one study in which longitudinal observations showed that high levels of sNfL at baseline are associated with a high risk for gadolinium-enhancing lesions; the study authors suggest that quarterly monitoring may be adequate for surveillance of subclinical disease.

In another study, higher sNfL levels at baseline were linked to a higher risk for T2 lesions and a more pronounced brain atrophy rate, but disability progression was not correlated to baseline sNfL levels.

Finally, Dr Derfuss reports on a real-world, large cohort study supporting the value of sNfL to capture and predict disability progression independent of relapses.

Tobias J. Derfuss, MD, Professor, Head of Outpatient Clinic, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Board, Basel, Switzerland

Tobias J. Derfuss, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:­ Received financial compensation for his activities in advisory boards, steering committees, data safety monitoring boards, and consultation for: Novartis; Merck; Biogen; Celgene; Actelion; Mitsubishi Pharma; MedDay; Roche; Sanofi Genzyme. Received research grant from: Novartis; Biogen; Roche; Swiss National Science Foundation; European Union; Swiss MS Society. Spouse is an employee of and holds stock options in: Novartis

Having been a reader of Pediatric News for years, I want to bring to light access-to-care issues involving COVID-19 medical facility restrictions for pediatric patients and their parents.

On March 27, 2020, I received a phone call from the Department of Human Services pleading with me to take a medically fragile child who was entering the foster care system that day. He had very specific needs, and they had no one available who could medically meet those needs. The week prior was my kids’ scheduled spring break; the week I got the call was the week that I was voluntarily furloughed from my job as a pediatric nurse practitioner so that I could stay home with my kids as their school would not be reopening for the year, and someone had to be with them. I was already home with my 3-year-old and 6-year-old, so why not add another?

Leo (name changed for privacy) came to me with a multitude of diagnoses, to say the least. Not only did he require physical, speech, and occupational therapy twice weekly, but he often had appointments with 10 different specialists at the local children’s hospital. The first few weeks he was in my care, we had almost daily visits to either therapists or specialists. Keeping up with these types of appointments in a normal world is difficult ... I was getting the crash course on how to navigate all of it in the COVID-19 world.

So now, I am the primary caregiver during the day for my two children and our medically fragile foster child who has multiple medical appointments a week. Our local children’s hospital allowed only the caregiver to accompany him to his visits. In theory this sounds great, right? Fewer people in a facility equals less exposure, less risk, and fewer COVID-19 infections.

But what about the negative consequences of these hospital policies? I have two other children I was caring for. I couldn’t take them to their grandparents’ house because people over age 65 years are at risk of having COVID-19 complications. I had been furloughed, so our income was half what it typically was. Regardless, I had to hire a babysitter each time I took our foster child to the hospital for his appointments because they would not allow my children to accompany me.

Now imagine if I were a single mom who had three kids and a lesser paying job. Schools are closed and she’s forced to work from home and homeschool her children. Or worse, she’s been laid off and living on unemployment. Do you think she is going to have the time or finances available to hire a babysitter so that she can take her medically fragile child in for his cardiology follow-up? Because not only does she have to pay the copays and whatever insurance doesn’t cover, but now she has to fork over $50 for child care. If you don’t know the answer already, it’s no, she does not have the time or the finances. So her child misses a cardiology appointment, which means that his meds weren’t increased according to his growth, which means his pulmonary hypertension is not controlled, which worsens his heart failure ... you get my drift.

Fast forward to Sept. 22, 2020. I had a cardiology appointment at our local heart hospital for myself. It’s 2020, people, I’ve been having some palpitations that I needed checked out and was going in to have a heart monitor patch placed. I had my 4-year-old son with me because he is on a hybrid schedule where we homeschool 2 days a week. We entered the building wearing masks, and I was immediately stopped by security and informed that, according to the COVID-19 policy for their hospital, children under 16 are not allowed to enter the building. After some discussion, I was ultimately refused care because my son was with me that day. Refused care because I had a masked 4-year-old with a normal temperature at my side.

These policies are not working. We are in health care. It should not matter what pandemic is on the table, we should not be refusing patients access to care based on who is by their side that day. We knew the risks when we entered our profession, and we know the proper measures to protect ourselves. Our patients also know the risks and can protect themselves accordingly.

So this is my plea to all medical facilities out there: Stop. Stop telling people their loved ones can’t accompany them to appointments. Stop telling caregivers to wait in their cars while their elderly, demented mothers have their annual physicals. Stop telling moms they need to leave their other children at home. This is now a huge access-to-care issue nationwide and it needs to stop. Excess deaths in our nation are soaring, and it’s not just because people don’t want to seek medical attention; it’s because medical facilities are making it almost impossible to seek help for many. People are dying, and it’s not only from COVID-19. This is on us as health care providers, and we need to step up to the plate and do what is right.
 

Ms. Baxendale is a nurse practitioner in Mustang, Okla. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Having been a reader of Pediatric News for years, I want to bring to light access-to-care issues involving COVID-19 medical facility restrictions for pediatric patients and their parents.

On March 27, 2020, I received a phone call from the Department of Human Services pleading with me to take a medically fragile child who was entering the foster care system that day. He had very specific needs, and they had no one available who could medically meet those needs. The week prior was my kids’ scheduled spring break; the week I got the call was the week that I was voluntarily furloughed from my job as a pediatric nurse practitioner so that I could stay home with my kids as their school would not be reopening for the year, and someone had to be with them. I was already home with my 3-year-old and 6-year-old, so why not add another?

Leo (name changed for privacy) came to me with a multitude of diagnoses, to say the least. Not only did he require physical, speech, and occupational therapy twice weekly, but he often had appointments with 10 different specialists at the local children’s hospital. The first few weeks he was in my care, we had almost daily visits to either therapists or specialists. Keeping up with these types of appointments in a normal world is difficult ... I was getting the crash course on how to navigate all of it in the COVID-19 world.

So now, I am the primary caregiver during the day for my two children and our medically fragile foster child who has multiple medical appointments a week. Our local children’s hospital allowed only the caregiver to accompany him to his visits. In theory this sounds great, right? Fewer people in a facility equals less exposure, less risk, and fewer COVID-19 infections.

But what about the negative consequences of these hospital policies? I have two other children I was caring for. I couldn’t take them to their grandparents’ house because people over age 65 years are at risk of having COVID-19 complications. I had been furloughed, so our income was half what it typically was. Regardless, I had to hire a babysitter each time I took our foster child to the hospital for his appointments because they would not allow my children to accompany me.

Now imagine if I were a single mom who had three kids and a lesser paying job. Schools are closed and she’s forced to work from home and homeschool her children. Or worse, she’s been laid off and living on unemployment. Do you think she is going to have the time or finances available to hire a babysitter so that she can take her medically fragile child in for his cardiology follow-up? Because not only does she have to pay the copays and whatever insurance doesn’t cover, but now she has to fork over $50 for child care. If you don’t know the answer already, it’s no, she does not have the time or the finances. So her child misses a cardiology appointment, which means that his meds weren’t increased according to his growth, which means his pulmonary hypertension is not controlled, which worsens his heart failure ... you get my drift.

Fast forward to Sept. 22, 2020. I had a cardiology appointment at our local heart hospital for myself. It’s 2020, people, I’ve been having some palpitations that I needed checked out and was going in to have a heart monitor patch placed. I had my 4-year-old son with me because he is on a hybrid schedule where we homeschool 2 days a week. We entered the building wearing masks, and I was immediately stopped by security and informed that, according to the COVID-19 policy for their hospital, children under 16 are not allowed to enter the building. After some discussion, I was ultimately refused care because my son was with me that day. Refused care because I had a masked 4-year-old with a normal temperature at my side.

These policies are not working. We are in health care. It should not matter what pandemic is on the table, we should not be refusing patients access to care based on who is by their side that day. We knew the risks when we entered our profession, and we know the proper measures to protect ourselves. Our patients also know the risks and can protect themselves accordingly.

So this is my plea to all medical facilities out there: Stop. Stop telling people their loved ones can’t accompany them to appointments. Stop telling caregivers to wait in their cars while their elderly, demented mothers have their annual physicals. Stop telling moms they need to leave their other children at home. This is now a huge access-to-care issue nationwide and it needs to stop. Excess deaths in our nation are soaring, and it’s not just because people don’t want to seek medical attention; it’s because medical facilities are making it almost impossible to seek help for many. People are dying, and it’s not only from COVID-19. This is on us as health care providers, and we need to step up to the plate and do what is right.
 

Ms. Baxendale is a nurse practitioner in Mustang, Okla. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Having been a reader of Pediatric News for years, I want to bring to light access-to-care issues involving COVID-19 medical facility restrictions for pediatric patients and their parents.

On March 27, 2020, I received a phone call from the Department of Human Services pleading with me to take a medically fragile child who was entering the foster care system that day. He had very specific needs, and they had no one available who could medically meet those needs. The week prior was my kids’ scheduled spring break; the week I got the call was the week that I was voluntarily furloughed from my job as a pediatric nurse practitioner so that I could stay home with my kids as their school would not be reopening for the year, and someone had to be with them. I was already home with my 3-year-old and 6-year-old, so why not add another?

Leo (name changed for privacy) came to me with a multitude of diagnoses, to say the least. Not only did he require physical, speech, and occupational therapy twice weekly, but he often had appointments with 10 different specialists at the local children’s hospital. The first few weeks he was in my care, we had almost daily visits to either therapists or specialists. Keeping up with these types of appointments in a normal world is difficult ... I was getting the crash course on how to navigate all of it in the COVID-19 world.

So now, I am the primary caregiver during the day for my two children and our medically fragile foster child who has multiple medical appointments a week. Our local children’s hospital allowed only the caregiver to accompany him to his visits. In theory this sounds great, right? Fewer people in a facility equals less exposure, less risk, and fewer COVID-19 infections.

But what about the negative consequences of these hospital policies? I have two other children I was caring for. I couldn’t take them to their grandparents’ house because people over age 65 years are at risk of having COVID-19 complications. I had been furloughed, so our income was half what it typically was. Regardless, I had to hire a babysitter each time I took our foster child to the hospital for his appointments because they would not allow my children to accompany me.

Now imagine if I were a single mom who had three kids and a lesser paying job. Schools are closed and she’s forced to work from home and homeschool her children. Or worse, she’s been laid off and living on unemployment. Do you think she is going to have the time or finances available to hire a babysitter so that she can take her medically fragile child in for his cardiology follow-up? Because not only does she have to pay the copays and whatever insurance doesn’t cover, but now she has to fork over $50 for child care. If you don’t know the answer already, it’s no, she does not have the time or the finances. So her child misses a cardiology appointment, which means that his meds weren’t increased according to his growth, which means his pulmonary hypertension is not controlled, which worsens his heart failure ... you get my drift.

Fast forward to Sept. 22, 2020. I had a cardiology appointment at our local heart hospital for myself. It’s 2020, people, I’ve been having some palpitations that I needed checked out and was going in to have a heart monitor patch placed. I had my 4-year-old son with me because he is on a hybrid schedule where we homeschool 2 days a week. We entered the building wearing masks, and I was immediately stopped by security and informed that, according to the COVID-19 policy for their hospital, children under 16 are not allowed to enter the building. After some discussion, I was ultimately refused care because my son was with me that day. Refused care because I had a masked 4-year-old with a normal temperature at my side.

These policies are not working. We are in health care. It should not matter what pandemic is on the table, we should not be refusing patients access to care based on who is by their side that day. We knew the risks when we entered our profession, and we know the proper measures to protect ourselves. Our patients also know the risks and can protect themselves accordingly.

So this is my plea to all medical facilities out there: Stop. Stop telling people their loved ones can’t accompany them to appointments. Stop telling caregivers to wait in their cars while their elderly, demented mothers have their annual physicals. Stop telling moms they need to leave their other children at home. This is now a huge access-to-care issue nationwide and it needs to stop. Excess deaths in our nation are soaring, and it’s not just because people don’t want to seek medical attention; it’s because medical facilities are making it almost impossible to seek help for many. People are dying, and it’s not only from COVID-19. This is on us as health care providers, and we need to step up to the plate and do what is right.
 

Ms. Baxendale is a nurse practitioner in Mustang, Okla. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.