MDedge Rheumatology

Academic cancer centers around the United States continue to get caught up in an ever-evolving investigation into researchers – American and Chinese – who did not disclose payments from or the work they did for Chinese institutions while simultaneously accepting taxpayer money through U.S. government grants.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has been ferreting out researchers it says have acted illegally.

On Jan. 28, the agency arrested Charles Lieber, a chemist from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and also unveiled charges against Zheng Zaosong, a cancer researcher who is in the United States on a Harvard-sponsored visa.

The FBI said Mr. Zheng, who worked at the Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, tried to smuggle 21 vials of biological material and research to China. Mr. Zheng was arrested in December at Boston’s Logan Airport. He admitted he planned to conduct and publish research in China using the stolen samples, said the FBI.

“All of the individuals charged today were either directly or indirectly working for the Chinese government, at our country’s expense,” said the agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston office, Joseph R. Bonavolonta.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who has been pushing for more government action against foreign theft of U.S. research, said in a statement, “I’m glad the FBI appears to be taking foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research seriously, but I fear that this case is only the tip of the iceberg.”

The FBI said it is investigating China-related cases in all 50 states.

Ross McKinney, MD, the chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), said he is aware of some 200 investigations, not all of which are cancer related, at 70-75 institutions.

“It’s a very ubiquitous problem,” Dr. McKinney said in an interview.

He also pointed out that some 6,000 National Institutes of Health–funded principal investigators are of Asian background. “So that 200 is a pretty small proportion,” said Dr. McKinney.

The NIH warned some 10,000 institutions in August 2018 that it had uncovered Chinese manipulation of peer review and a lack of disclosure of work for Chinese institutions. It urged the institutions to report irregularities.

For universities, “the trouble is sorting out who is the violator from who is not,” said Dr. McKinney. He noted that they are not set up to investigate whether someone has a laboratory in China.

“The fact that the Chinese government exploited the fact that universities are typically fairly trusting is extremely disappointing,” he said.
 

Moffitt story still unfolding

The most serious allegations have been leveled against six former employees of the Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida.

In December 2019, Moffitt announced that the six – including President and CEO Alan List, MD, and the center director, Thomas Sellers, PhD – had left Moffitt as a result of “violations of conflict of interest rules through their work in China.”

New details have emerged, thanks to a new investigative report from a committee of the Florida House of Representatives.

The report said that Sheng Wei, a naturalized U.S. citizen who had worked at Moffitt since 2008 – when Moffitt began its affiliation with the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital – was instrumental in recruiting top executives into the Thousand Talents program, which Wei had joined in 2010, according to the report. These executives included Dr. List, Dr. Sellers, and also Daniel Sullivan, head of Moffitt’s clinical science program, and cancer biologist Pearlie Epling-Burnette, it noted.

Begun in 2008, China’s Thousand Talents Plan gave salaries, funding, laboratory space, and other incentives to researchers who promised to bring U.S.-gained knowledge and research to China.

All information about this program has been removed from the Internet, but the program may still be active, Dr. McKinney commented.

According to the report, Dr. List pledged to work for the Tianjin cancer center 9 months a year for $71,000 annually. He was appointed head of the hematology department ($85,300 a year) in 2016. He opened a bank account in China to receive that salary and other Thousand Talents payments, the report found. The report notes that the exact amount Dr. List was paid is still not known.

Initially, Dr. Sellers, who was the principal investigator for Moffitt’s National Cancer Institute core grant, said he had not been involved in the Thousand Talents program. He later admitted that he had pledged to work in China 2 months a year for the program and that he’d opened a Chinese bank account and had deposited at least $35,000 into the account, the report notes.

The others pledged to work for the Thousand Talents program and also opened bank accounts in China and received money in those accounts.

Another Moffitt employee, Howard McLeod, MD, had worked for Thousand Talents before he joined Moffitt but did not disclose his China work. Dr. McLeod also supervised and had a close relationship with another researcher, Yijing (Bob) He, MD, who was employed by Moffitt but who lived in China, unbeknownst to Moffitt. “Dr. He appears to have functioned as an agent of Dr. McLeod in China,” said the report.

The report concluded that “none of the Moffitt faculty who were Talents program participants properly or timely disclosed their Talents program involvement to Moffitt, and none disclosed the full extent of their Talents program activities prior to Moffitt’s internal investigation.”

No charges have been filed against any of the former Moffitt employees.

However, the Cancer Letter has reported that Dr. Sellers is claiming he was not involved in the program and that he is preparing to sue Moffitt.

AAMC’s Dr. McKinney notes that it is illegal for researchers to take U.S. government grant money and pledge a certain amount of time but not deliver on that commitment because they are working for someone else – in this case, China. They also lied about not having any other research support, which is also illegal, he said.

The researchers received Chinese money and deposited it in Chinese accounts, which was never reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

“One of the hallmarks of the Chinese recruitment program was that people were instructed to not tell their normal U.S. host institution and not tell any U.S. government agency about their relationship with China,” Dr. McKinney said. “It was creating a culture where dishonesty in this situation was norm,” he added.

The lack of honesty brings up bigger questions for the field, he said. “Once you start lying about one thing, do you lie about your science, too?”
 

Lack of oversight?

Dr. McKinney said the NIH, as well as universities and hospitals, had a long and trusting relationship with China and should not be blamed for falling prey to the Chinese government’s concerted effort to steal intellectual property.

But some government watchdog groups have chided the NIH for lax oversight. In February 2019, the federal Health & Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that “NIH has not assessed the risks to national security when permitting data access to foreign [principal investigators].”

Federal investigators have said that Thousand Talents has been one of the biggest threats.

The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported in November 2019 that “the federal government’s grant-making agencies did little to prevent this from happening, nor did the FBI and other federal agencies develop a coordinated response to mitigate the threat.”

The NIH invests $31 billion a year in medical research through 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers, according to that report. Even after uncovering grant fraud and peer-review manipulation that benefited China, “significant gaps in NIH’s grant integrity process remain,” the report states. Site visits by the NIH’s Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight dropped from 28 in 2012 to just 3 in 2018, the report noted.
 

Widening dragnet

In April 2019, Science reported that the NIH identified five researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston who had failed to disclose their ties to Chinese enterprises and who had failed to keep peer review confidential.

Two resigned before they could be fired, one was fired, another eventually left the institution, and the fifth was found to have not willfully engaged in subterfuge.

Just a month later, Emory University in Atlanta announced that it had fired a husband and wife research team. The neuroscientists were known for their studies of Huntington disease. Both were U.S. citizens and had worked at Emory for more than 2 decades, according to the Science report.

The Moffitt situation led to the Florida legislature’s investigation, and also prompted some soul searching. The Tampa Bay Times reported that U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) asked state universities to provide information on what they are doing to stop foreign influence. The University of Florida then acknowledged that four faculty members resigned or were terminated because of ties to a foreign recruitment program.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Academic cancer centers around the United States continue to get caught up in an ever-evolving investigation into researchers – American and Chinese – who did not disclose payments from or the work they did for Chinese institutions while simultaneously accepting taxpayer money through U.S. government grants.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has been ferreting out researchers it says have acted illegally.

On Jan. 28, the agency arrested Charles Lieber, a chemist from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and also unveiled charges against Zheng Zaosong, a cancer researcher who is in the United States on a Harvard-sponsored visa.

The FBI said Mr. Zheng, who worked at the Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, tried to smuggle 21 vials of biological material and research to China. Mr. Zheng was arrested in December at Boston’s Logan Airport. He admitted he planned to conduct and publish research in China using the stolen samples, said the FBI.

“All of the individuals charged today were either directly or indirectly working for the Chinese government, at our country’s expense,” said the agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston office, Joseph R. Bonavolonta.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who has been pushing for more government action against foreign theft of U.S. research, said in a statement, “I’m glad the FBI appears to be taking foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research seriously, but I fear that this case is only the tip of the iceberg.”

The FBI said it is investigating China-related cases in all 50 states.

Ross McKinney, MD, the chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), said he is aware of some 200 investigations, not all of which are cancer related, at 70-75 institutions.

“It’s a very ubiquitous problem,” Dr. McKinney said in an interview.

He also pointed out that some 6,000 National Institutes of Health–funded principal investigators are of Asian background. “So that 200 is a pretty small proportion,” said Dr. McKinney.

The NIH warned some 10,000 institutions in August 2018 that it had uncovered Chinese manipulation of peer review and a lack of disclosure of work for Chinese institutions. It urged the institutions to report irregularities.

For universities, “the trouble is sorting out who is the violator from who is not,” said Dr. McKinney. He noted that they are not set up to investigate whether someone has a laboratory in China.

“The fact that the Chinese government exploited the fact that universities are typically fairly trusting is extremely disappointing,” he said.
 

Moffitt story still unfolding

The most serious allegations have been leveled against six former employees of the Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida.

In December 2019, Moffitt announced that the six – including President and CEO Alan List, MD, and the center director, Thomas Sellers, PhD – had left Moffitt as a result of “violations of conflict of interest rules through their work in China.”

New details have emerged, thanks to a new investigative report from a committee of the Florida House of Representatives.

The report said that Sheng Wei, a naturalized U.S. citizen who had worked at Moffitt since 2008 – when Moffitt began its affiliation with the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital – was instrumental in recruiting top executives into the Thousand Talents program, which Wei had joined in 2010, according to the report. These executives included Dr. List, Dr. Sellers, and also Daniel Sullivan, head of Moffitt’s clinical science program, and cancer biologist Pearlie Epling-Burnette, it noted.

Begun in 2008, China’s Thousand Talents Plan gave salaries, funding, laboratory space, and other incentives to researchers who promised to bring U.S.-gained knowledge and research to China.

All information about this program has been removed from the Internet, but the program may still be active, Dr. McKinney commented.

According to the report, Dr. List pledged to work for the Tianjin cancer center 9 months a year for $71,000 annually. He was appointed head of the hematology department ($85,300 a year) in 2016. He opened a bank account in China to receive that salary and other Thousand Talents payments, the report found. The report notes that the exact amount Dr. List was paid is still not known.

Initially, Dr. Sellers, who was the principal investigator for Moffitt’s National Cancer Institute core grant, said he had not been involved in the Thousand Talents program. He later admitted that he had pledged to work in China 2 months a year for the program and that he’d opened a Chinese bank account and had deposited at least $35,000 into the account, the report notes.

The others pledged to work for the Thousand Talents program and also opened bank accounts in China and received money in those accounts.

Another Moffitt employee, Howard McLeod, MD, had worked for Thousand Talents before he joined Moffitt but did not disclose his China work. Dr. McLeod also supervised and had a close relationship with another researcher, Yijing (Bob) He, MD, who was employed by Moffitt but who lived in China, unbeknownst to Moffitt. “Dr. He appears to have functioned as an agent of Dr. McLeod in China,” said the report.

The report concluded that “none of the Moffitt faculty who were Talents program participants properly or timely disclosed their Talents program involvement to Moffitt, and none disclosed the full extent of their Talents program activities prior to Moffitt’s internal investigation.”

No charges have been filed against any of the former Moffitt employees.

However, the Cancer Letter has reported that Dr. Sellers is claiming he was not involved in the program and that he is preparing to sue Moffitt.

AAMC’s Dr. McKinney notes that it is illegal for researchers to take U.S. government grant money and pledge a certain amount of time but not deliver on that commitment because they are working for someone else – in this case, China. They also lied about not having any other research support, which is also illegal, he said.

The researchers received Chinese money and deposited it in Chinese accounts, which was never reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

“One of the hallmarks of the Chinese recruitment program was that people were instructed to not tell their normal U.S. host institution and not tell any U.S. government agency about their relationship with China,” Dr. McKinney said. “It was creating a culture where dishonesty in this situation was norm,” he added.

The lack of honesty brings up bigger questions for the field, he said. “Once you start lying about one thing, do you lie about your science, too?”
 

Lack of oversight?

Dr. McKinney said the NIH, as well as universities and hospitals, had a long and trusting relationship with China and should not be blamed for falling prey to the Chinese government’s concerted effort to steal intellectual property.

But some government watchdog groups have chided the NIH for lax oversight. In February 2019, the federal Health & Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that “NIH has not assessed the risks to national security when permitting data access to foreign [principal investigators].”

Federal investigators have said that Thousand Talents has been one of the biggest threats.

The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported in November 2019 that “the federal government’s grant-making agencies did little to prevent this from happening, nor did the FBI and other federal agencies develop a coordinated response to mitigate the threat.”

The NIH invests $31 billion a year in medical research through 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers, according to that report. Even after uncovering grant fraud and peer-review manipulation that benefited China, “significant gaps in NIH’s grant integrity process remain,” the report states. Site visits by the NIH’s Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight dropped from 28 in 2012 to just 3 in 2018, the report noted.
 

Widening dragnet

In April 2019, Science reported that the NIH identified five researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston who had failed to disclose their ties to Chinese enterprises and who had failed to keep peer review confidential.

Two resigned before they could be fired, one was fired, another eventually left the institution, and the fifth was found to have not willfully engaged in subterfuge.

Just a month later, Emory University in Atlanta announced that it had fired a husband and wife research team. The neuroscientists were known for their studies of Huntington disease. Both were U.S. citizens and had worked at Emory for more than 2 decades, according to the Science report.

The Moffitt situation led to the Florida legislature’s investigation, and also prompted some soul searching. The Tampa Bay Times reported that U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) asked state universities to provide information on what they are doing to stop foreign influence. The University of Florida then acknowledged that four faculty members resigned or were terminated because of ties to a foreign recruitment program.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Academic cancer centers around the United States continue to get caught up in an ever-evolving investigation into researchers – American and Chinese – who did not disclose payments from or the work they did for Chinese institutions while simultaneously accepting taxpayer money through U.S. government grants.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has been ferreting out researchers it says have acted illegally.

On Jan. 28, the agency arrested Charles Lieber, a chemist from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and also unveiled charges against Zheng Zaosong, a cancer researcher who is in the United States on a Harvard-sponsored visa.

The FBI said Mr. Zheng, who worked at the Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, tried to smuggle 21 vials of biological material and research to China. Mr. Zheng was arrested in December at Boston’s Logan Airport. He admitted he planned to conduct and publish research in China using the stolen samples, said the FBI.

“All of the individuals charged today were either directly or indirectly working for the Chinese government, at our country’s expense,” said the agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston office, Joseph R. Bonavolonta.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who has been pushing for more government action against foreign theft of U.S. research, said in a statement, “I’m glad the FBI appears to be taking foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research seriously, but I fear that this case is only the tip of the iceberg.”

The FBI said it is investigating China-related cases in all 50 states.

Ross McKinney, MD, the chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), said he is aware of some 200 investigations, not all of which are cancer related, at 70-75 institutions.

“It’s a very ubiquitous problem,” Dr. McKinney said in an interview.

He also pointed out that some 6,000 National Institutes of Health–funded principal investigators are of Asian background. “So that 200 is a pretty small proportion,” said Dr. McKinney.

The NIH warned some 10,000 institutions in August 2018 that it had uncovered Chinese manipulation of peer review and a lack of disclosure of work for Chinese institutions. It urged the institutions to report irregularities.

For universities, “the trouble is sorting out who is the violator from who is not,” said Dr. McKinney. He noted that they are not set up to investigate whether someone has a laboratory in China.

“The fact that the Chinese government exploited the fact that universities are typically fairly trusting is extremely disappointing,” he said.
 

Moffitt story still unfolding

The most serious allegations have been leveled against six former employees of the Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida.

In December 2019, Moffitt announced that the six – including President and CEO Alan List, MD, and the center director, Thomas Sellers, PhD – had left Moffitt as a result of “violations of conflict of interest rules through their work in China.”

New details have emerged, thanks to a new investigative report from a committee of the Florida House of Representatives.

The report said that Sheng Wei, a naturalized U.S. citizen who had worked at Moffitt since 2008 – when Moffitt began its affiliation with the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital – was instrumental in recruiting top executives into the Thousand Talents program, which Wei had joined in 2010, according to the report. These executives included Dr. List, Dr. Sellers, and also Daniel Sullivan, head of Moffitt’s clinical science program, and cancer biologist Pearlie Epling-Burnette, it noted.

Begun in 2008, China’s Thousand Talents Plan gave salaries, funding, laboratory space, and other incentives to researchers who promised to bring U.S.-gained knowledge and research to China.

All information about this program has been removed from the Internet, but the program may still be active, Dr. McKinney commented.

According to the report, Dr. List pledged to work for the Tianjin cancer center 9 months a year for $71,000 annually. He was appointed head of the hematology department ($85,300 a year) in 2016. He opened a bank account in China to receive that salary and other Thousand Talents payments, the report found. The report notes that the exact amount Dr. List was paid is still not known.

Initially, Dr. Sellers, who was the principal investigator for Moffitt’s National Cancer Institute core grant, said he had not been involved in the Thousand Talents program. He later admitted that he had pledged to work in China 2 months a year for the program and that he’d opened a Chinese bank account and had deposited at least $35,000 into the account, the report notes.

The others pledged to work for the Thousand Talents program and also opened bank accounts in China and received money in those accounts.

Another Moffitt employee, Howard McLeod, MD, had worked for Thousand Talents before he joined Moffitt but did not disclose his China work. Dr. McLeod also supervised and had a close relationship with another researcher, Yijing (Bob) He, MD, who was employed by Moffitt but who lived in China, unbeknownst to Moffitt. “Dr. He appears to have functioned as an agent of Dr. McLeod in China,” said the report.

The report concluded that “none of the Moffitt faculty who were Talents program participants properly or timely disclosed their Talents program involvement to Moffitt, and none disclosed the full extent of their Talents program activities prior to Moffitt’s internal investigation.”

No charges have been filed against any of the former Moffitt employees.

However, the Cancer Letter has reported that Dr. Sellers is claiming he was not involved in the program and that he is preparing to sue Moffitt.

AAMC’s Dr. McKinney notes that it is illegal for researchers to take U.S. government grant money and pledge a certain amount of time but not deliver on that commitment because they are working for someone else – in this case, China. They also lied about not having any other research support, which is also illegal, he said.

The researchers received Chinese money and deposited it in Chinese accounts, which was never reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

“One of the hallmarks of the Chinese recruitment program was that people were instructed to not tell their normal U.S. host institution and not tell any U.S. government agency about their relationship with China,” Dr. McKinney said. “It was creating a culture where dishonesty in this situation was norm,” he added.

The lack of honesty brings up bigger questions for the field, he said. “Once you start lying about one thing, do you lie about your science, too?”
 

Lack of oversight?

Dr. McKinney said the NIH, as well as universities and hospitals, had a long and trusting relationship with China and should not be blamed for falling prey to the Chinese government’s concerted effort to steal intellectual property.

But some government watchdog groups have chided the NIH for lax oversight. In February 2019, the federal Health & Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that “NIH has not assessed the risks to national security when permitting data access to foreign [principal investigators].”

Federal investigators have said that Thousand Talents has been one of the biggest threats.

The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported in November 2019 that “the federal government’s grant-making agencies did little to prevent this from happening, nor did the FBI and other federal agencies develop a coordinated response to mitigate the threat.”

The NIH invests $31 billion a year in medical research through 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers, according to that report. Even after uncovering grant fraud and peer-review manipulation that benefited China, “significant gaps in NIH’s grant integrity process remain,” the report states. Site visits by the NIH’s Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight dropped from 28 in 2012 to just 3 in 2018, the report noted.
 

Widening dragnet

In April 2019, Science reported that the NIH identified five researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston who had failed to disclose their ties to Chinese enterprises and who had failed to keep peer review confidential.

Two resigned before they could be fired, one was fired, another eventually left the institution, and the fifth was found to have not willfully engaged in subterfuge.

Just a month later, Emory University in Atlanta announced that it had fired a husband and wife research team. The neuroscientists were known for their studies of Huntington disease. Both were U.S. citizens and had worked at Emory for more than 2 decades, according to the Science report.

The Moffitt situation led to the Florida legislature’s investigation, and also prompted some soul searching. The Tampa Bay Times reported that U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) asked state universities to provide information on what they are doing to stop foreign influence. The University of Florida then acknowledged that four faculty members resigned or were terminated because of ties to a foreign recruitment program.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An open-label, randomized study did not confirm that patients with very early rheumatoid arthritis obtain an outsized benefit from first-line combination treatment with etanercept (Enbrel) plus methotrexate, investigators say.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A remission rate of 52% was seen with first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, compared with 38% for a strategy of methotrexate escalated to add etanercept in patients not in remission at 24 weeks in the study, known as VEDERA (Very Early Versus Delayed Etanercept in Patients With RA).

Investigators said a difference of 14 percentage points between remission rates was comparable to what was seen among patients with early RA in an earlier randomized trial of etanercept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate monotherapy.

However, the difference was not on par with the “larger than standard” effect of about 30% seen in an exploratory analysis of the very early RA subset in that previous study, according to VEDERA study authors, led by Paul Emery, MD, of the University of Leeds (England).

Taken together, the results highlight a “ceiling effect” in achieving remission in this real-life, treatment-naive cohort, Dr. Emery and coauthors noted in their report, which appears in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The study population aligned with real-world clinical practice, according to the investigators, who noted that half the cohort had at least one comorbidity.

“This may have partly driven the generally poorer than expected performance, the exact mechanisms for which are unclear,” they wrote in their discussion of results.

Delaying etanercept until failure of methotrexate, instead of giving both drugs up front, was linked to poorer etanercept response in an exploratory analysis of VEDERA. However, Dr. Emery and coinvestigators noted that this finding “requires validation and further investigation.”

While first-line etanercept plus methotrexate is a “clinically appropriate approach” in early RA, results of the VEDERA study don’t help to inform clinicians as to when it would be prudent to select that therapeutic approach, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Whether you’re treating with methotrexate or methotrexate plus etanercept, they do pretty well,” Dr. Furst said in an interview. “What that says to me is when you have patients with very early RA and the disease is moderately active, you should really try methotrexate before you add expensive other drugs.”

The phase 4, open-label, randomized VEDERA trial included 120 adult patients with new-onset early RA with symptom duration of less than 12 months. All patients in VEDERA had a 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) of 3.2 or greater and clinical evidence of synovitis. They were all positive for anti-citrullinated peptide antibody or rheumatoid factor, or had evidence of disease activity in at least one joint by power Doppler ultrasonography.

The patients were randomized to 48 weeks of treatment with either first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, or with methotrexate in a treat-to-target strategy that called for the addition of etanercept if the DAS28-ESR was still 2.6 or greater at 24 weeks.

Based on results of the earlier trial, known as COMET, a confirmatory remission rate in the etanercept plus methotrexate arm was anticipated to be 70%, versus 40% for the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, investigators said in a discussion of their statistical methods.

Study results did not confirm a large effect size, according to the investigators. By week 48, DAS28-ESR remission was achieved in 52% of patients in the first-line etanercept plus methotrexate arm, versus 38% in the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, for an absolute difference of 14 percentage points (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-3.70; P = .160).

In early, new-onset RA, remission is the goal, Dr. Emery and coauthors said. The proportions of patients in remission in both arms are “suboptimal rates for the contemporary era,” they wrote.

The escalation to etanercept at week 24 did not improve remission rates appreciably, with about 60% still failing to achieve that endpoint. However, an exploratory analysis suggested the subsequent 24 weeks of etanercept exposure in those escalated patients was associated with a lower rate of remission, compared with 24 weeks of etanercept in the front-line approach, investigators said.

In that analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of achieving DAS28-ESR remission was 2.84 (95% CI, 0.84-9.60) in favor of the first-line etanercept approach.

Dr. Furst said in the interview that the VEDERA results are subject to the inherent biases of an open-label study. He also suggested that further investigations could compare the two first-line treatment approaches specifically in very early RA patients with markers of more severe disease.

“That’s the only way I would think we might gain a little bit more, but so far, these data don’t support getting terribly aggressive,” he said.

The study was funded through an investigator-sponsored research grant provided by Pfizer. Three authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for RA, including Pfizer.

SOURCE: Emery P et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216539.

An open-label, randomized study did not confirm that patients with very early rheumatoid arthritis obtain an outsized benefit from first-line combination treatment with etanercept (Enbrel) plus methotrexate, investigators say.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A remission rate of 52% was seen with first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, compared with 38% for a strategy of methotrexate escalated to add etanercept in patients not in remission at 24 weeks in the study, known as VEDERA (Very Early Versus Delayed Etanercept in Patients With RA).

Investigators said a difference of 14 percentage points between remission rates was comparable to what was seen among patients with early RA in an earlier randomized trial of etanercept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate monotherapy.

However, the difference was not on par with the “larger than standard” effect of about 30% seen in an exploratory analysis of the very early RA subset in that previous study, according to VEDERA study authors, led by Paul Emery, MD, of the University of Leeds (England).

Taken together, the results highlight a “ceiling effect” in achieving remission in this real-life, treatment-naive cohort, Dr. Emery and coauthors noted in their report, which appears in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The study population aligned with real-world clinical practice, according to the investigators, who noted that half the cohort had at least one comorbidity.

“This may have partly driven the generally poorer than expected performance, the exact mechanisms for which are unclear,” they wrote in their discussion of results.

Delaying etanercept until failure of methotrexate, instead of giving both drugs up front, was linked to poorer etanercept response in an exploratory analysis of VEDERA. However, Dr. Emery and coinvestigators noted that this finding “requires validation and further investigation.”

While first-line etanercept plus methotrexate is a “clinically appropriate approach” in early RA, results of the VEDERA study don’t help to inform clinicians as to when it would be prudent to select that therapeutic approach, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Whether you’re treating with methotrexate or methotrexate plus etanercept, they do pretty well,” Dr. Furst said in an interview. “What that says to me is when you have patients with very early RA and the disease is moderately active, you should really try methotrexate before you add expensive other drugs.”

The phase 4, open-label, randomized VEDERA trial included 120 adult patients with new-onset early RA with symptom duration of less than 12 months. All patients in VEDERA had a 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) of 3.2 or greater and clinical evidence of synovitis. They were all positive for anti-citrullinated peptide antibody or rheumatoid factor, or had evidence of disease activity in at least one joint by power Doppler ultrasonography.

The patients were randomized to 48 weeks of treatment with either first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, or with methotrexate in a treat-to-target strategy that called for the addition of etanercept if the DAS28-ESR was still 2.6 or greater at 24 weeks.

Based on results of the earlier trial, known as COMET, a confirmatory remission rate in the etanercept plus methotrexate arm was anticipated to be 70%, versus 40% for the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, investigators said in a discussion of their statistical methods.

Study results did not confirm a large effect size, according to the investigators. By week 48, DAS28-ESR remission was achieved in 52% of patients in the first-line etanercept plus methotrexate arm, versus 38% in the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, for an absolute difference of 14 percentage points (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-3.70; P = .160).

In early, new-onset RA, remission is the goal, Dr. Emery and coauthors said. The proportions of patients in remission in both arms are “suboptimal rates for the contemporary era,” they wrote.

The escalation to etanercept at week 24 did not improve remission rates appreciably, with about 60% still failing to achieve that endpoint. However, an exploratory analysis suggested the subsequent 24 weeks of etanercept exposure in those escalated patients was associated with a lower rate of remission, compared with 24 weeks of etanercept in the front-line approach, investigators said.

In that analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of achieving DAS28-ESR remission was 2.84 (95% CI, 0.84-9.60) in favor of the first-line etanercept approach.

Dr. Furst said in the interview that the VEDERA results are subject to the inherent biases of an open-label study. He also suggested that further investigations could compare the two first-line treatment approaches specifically in very early RA patients with markers of more severe disease.

“That’s the only way I would think we might gain a little bit more, but so far, these data don’t support getting terribly aggressive,” he said.

The study was funded through an investigator-sponsored research grant provided by Pfizer. Three authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for RA, including Pfizer.

SOURCE: Emery P et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216539.

An open-label, randomized study did not confirm that patients with very early rheumatoid arthritis obtain an outsized benefit from first-line combination treatment with etanercept (Enbrel) plus methotrexate, investigators say.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A remission rate of 52% was seen with first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, compared with 38% for a strategy of methotrexate escalated to add etanercept in patients not in remission at 24 weeks in the study, known as VEDERA (Very Early Versus Delayed Etanercept in Patients With RA).

Investigators said a difference of 14 percentage points between remission rates was comparable to what was seen among patients with early RA in an earlier randomized trial of etanercept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate monotherapy.

However, the difference was not on par with the “larger than standard” effect of about 30% seen in an exploratory analysis of the very early RA subset in that previous study, according to VEDERA study authors, led by Paul Emery, MD, of the University of Leeds (England).

Taken together, the results highlight a “ceiling effect” in achieving remission in this real-life, treatment-naive cohort, Dr. Emery and coauthors noted in their report, which appears in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The study population aligned with real-world clinical practice, according to the investigators, who noted that half the cohort had at least one comorbidity.

“This may have partly driven the generally poorer than expected performance, the exact mechanisms for which are unclear,” they wrote in their discussion of results.

Delaying etanercept until failure of methotrexate, instead of giving both drugs up front, was linked to poorer etanercept response in an exploratory analysis of VEDERA. However, Dr. Emery and coinvestigators noted that this finding “requires validation and further investigation.”

While first-line etanercept plus methotrexate is a “clinically appropriate approach” in early RA, results of the VEDERA study don’t help to inform clinicians as to when it would be prudent to select that therapeutic approach, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Whether you’re treating with methotrexate or methotrexate plus etanercept, they do pretty well,” Dr. Furst said in an interview. “What that says to me is when you have patients with very early RA and the disease is moderately active, you should really try methotrexate before you add expensive other drugs.”

The phase 4, open-label, randomized VEDERA trial included 120 adult patients with new-onset early RA with symptom duration of less than 12 months. All patients in VEDERA had a 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) of 3.2 or greater and clinical evidence of synovitis. They were all positive for anti-citrullinated peptide antibody or rheumatoid factor, or had evidence of disease activity in at least one joint by power Doppler ultrasonography.

The patients were randomized to 48 weeks of treatment with either first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, or with methotrexate in a treat-to-target strategy that called for the addition of etanercept if the DAS28-ESR was still 2.6 or greater at 24 weeks.

Based on results of the earlier trial, known as COMET, a confirmatory remission rate in the etanercept plus methotrexate arm was anticipated to be 70%, versus 40% for the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, investigators said in a discussion of their statistical methods.

Study results did not confirm a large effect size, according to the investigators. By week 48, DAS28-ESR remission was achieved in 52% of patients in the first-line etanercept plus methotrexate arm, versus 38% in the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, for an absolute difference of 14 percentage points (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-3.70; P = .160).

In early, new-onset RA, remission is the goal, Dr. Emery and coauthors said. The proportions of patients in remission in both arms are “suboptimal rates for the contemporary era,” they wrote.

The escalation to etanercept at week 24 did not improve remission rates appreciably, with about 60% still failing to achieve that endpoint. However, an exploratory analysis suggested the subsequent 24 weeks of etanercept exposure in those escalated patients was associated with a lower rate of remission, compared with 24 weeks of etanercept in the front-line approach, investigators said.

In that analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of achieving DAS28-ESR remission was 2.84 (95% CI, 0.84-9.60) in favor of the first-line etanercept approach.

Dr. Furst said in the interview that the VEDERA results are subject to the inherent biases of an open-label study. He also suggested that further investigations could compare the two first-line treatment approaches specifically in very early RA patients with markers of more severe disease.

“That’s the only way I would think we might gain a little bit more, but so far, these data don’t support getting terribly aggressive,” he said.

The study was funded through an investigator-sponsored research grant provided by Pfizer. Three authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for RA, including Pfizer.

SOURCE: Emery P et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216539.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who experience hypertensive disorders of pregnancy may have a higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes after pregnancy, as well as a higher rate of hypertension later in life, than do those without maternal hypertension, according to findings from a Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study.

“Premature CVD [cardiovascular disease] is a well-documented complication in women with SLE, which is likely, at least in part, due to renal disease, prothrombotic [antiphospholipid antibodies], and systemic inflammation. Our data confirm that women who experience a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy [HDP] are at greater risk of developing hypertension after pregnancy, and that this association is also evident for women with SLE. Women with SLE and HDP were also at increased risk of CVD, particularly stroke, at young ages and should be monitored closely and consider treatment to attenuate risk,” wrote first author Julia F. Simard, ScD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Arthritis Care & Research.

To reach those conclusions, the researchers identified 3,340 women in the Swedish Medical Birth Register with their first singleton delivery during 1987-2012. They matched each of the 450 women with prevalent SLE from the Medical Birth Register to 5 women without SLE in the National Patient Register based on sex, birth year, calendar time, and county of residence.

During a median follow-up period of nearly 11 years, women with SLE had an unadjusted incidence rate of incident cardiovascular outcomes of 50 cases per 10,000 person-years versus 7.2 for women without SLE. Cardiovascular outcomes included fatal and nonfatal acute MI, fatal and nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attacks, unstable angina, and heart failure. A history of HDP in women with SLE, including preeclampsia, was linked with about a twofold higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes regardless of multiple sensitivity analyses, both before and after adjusting for maternal age at delivery, county of birth, education, body mass index, and first-trimester smoking.

The researchers found that the hazard ratio for cardiovascular outcomes in women with SLE and HDP was about eight times higher than the hazard ratio for women without SLE but with HDP, but the relative rarity of cardiovascular events seen during the follow-up period, particularly among women without SLE, made it so that they “could not confirm established associations between HDP and CVD, possibly due to the relatively short follow-up time given that premenopausal CVD is rare among women free of SLE.”

HDP was associated with a threefold higher risk for incident hypertension later in life regardless of SLE status, even though the unadjusted incidence rate was 524 cases per 10,000 person-years among women with both SLE and HDP, compared with 177 per 10,000 person-years among women with HDP in the general population, which sensitivity analyses suggested “was not due to misclassification of antihypertensive use for renal disease in women with SLE nor antihypertensive use for possible HDP in subsequent pregnancies,” the researchers wrote.

Several authors reported research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Stockholm County Council, the King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Fund, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Ingegerd Johansson’s Foundation that helped to fund the study. All authors reported having no competing interests.

jevans@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simard JF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24160.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who experience hypertensive disorders of pregnancy may have a higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes after pregnancy, as well as a higher rate of hypertension later in life, than do those without maternal hypertension, according to findings from a Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study.

“Premature CVD [cardiovascular disease] is a well-documented complication in women with SLE, which is likely, at least in part, due to renal disease, prothrombotic [antiphospholipid antibodies], and systemic inflammation. Our data confirm that women who experience a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy [HDP] are at greater risk of developing hypertension after pregnancy, and that this association is also evident for women with SLE. Women with SLE and HDP were also at increased risk of CVD, particularly stroke, at young ages and should be monitored closely and consider treatment to attenuate risk,” wrote first author Julia F. Simard, ScD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Arthritis Care & Research.

To reach those conclusions, the researchers identified 3,340 women in the Swedish Medical Birth Register with their first singleton delivery during 1987-2012. They matched each of the 450 women with prevalent SLE from the Medical Birth Register to 5 women without SLE in the National Patient Register based on sex, birth year, calendar time, and county of residence.

During a median follow-up period of nearly 11 years, women with SLE had an unadjusted incidence rate of incident cardiovascular outcomes of 50 cases per 10,000 person-years versus 7.2 for women without SLE. Cardiovascular outcomes included fatal and nonfatal acute MI, fatal and nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attacks, unstable angina, and heart failure. A history of HDP in women with SLE, including preeclampsia, was linked with about a twofold higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes regardless of multiple sensitivity analyses, both before and after adjusting for maternal age at delivery, county of birth, education, body mass index, and first-trimester smoking.

The researchers found that the hazard ratio for cardiovascular outcomes in women with SLE and HDP was about eight times higher than the hazard ratio for women without SLE but with HDP, but the relative rarity of cardiovascular events seen during the follow-up period, particularly among women without SLE, made it so that they “could not confirm established associations between HDP and CVD, possibly due to the relatively short follow-up time given that premenopausal CVD is rare among women free of SLE.”

HDP was associated with a threefold higher risk for incident hypertension later in life regardless of SLE status, even though the unadjusted incidence rate was 524 cases per 10,000 person-years among women with both SLE and HDP, compared with 177 per 10,000 person-years among women with HDP in the general population, which sensitivity analyses suggested “was not due to misclassification of antihypertensive use for renal disease in women with SLE nor antihypertensive use for possible HDP in subsequent pregnancies,” the researchers wrote.

Several authors reported research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Stockholm County Council, the King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Fund, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Ingegerd Johansson’s Foundation that helped to fund the study. All authors reported having no competing interests.

jevans@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simard JF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24160.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who experience hypertensive disorders of pregnancy may have a higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes after pregnancy, as well as a higher rate of hypertension later in life, than do those without maternal hypertension, according to findings from a Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study.

“Premature CVD [cardiovascular disease] is a well-documented complication in women with SLE, which is likely, at least in part, due to renal disease, prothrombotic [antiphospholipid antibodies], and systemic inflammation. Our data confirm that women who experience a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy [HDP] are at greater risk of developing hypertension after pregnancy, and that this association is also evident for women with SLE. Women with SLE and HDP were also at increased risk of CVD, particularly stroke, at young ages and should be monitored closely and consider treatment to attenuate risk,” wrote first author Julia F. Simard, ScD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Arthritis Care & Research.

To reach those conclusions, the researchers identified 3,340 women in the Swedish Medical Birth Register with their first singleton delivery during 1987-2012. They matched each of the 450 women with prevalent SLE from the Medical Birth Register to 5 women without SLE in the National Patient Register based on sex, birth year, calendar time, and county of residence.

During a median follow-up period of nearly 11 years, women with SLE had an unadjusted incidence rate of incident cardiovascular outcomes of 50 cases per 10,000 person-years versus 7.2 for women without SLE. Cardiovascular outcomes included fatal and nonfatal acute MI, fatal and nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attacks, unstable angina, and heart failure. A history of HDP in women with SLE, including preeclampsia, was linked with about a twofold higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes regardless of multiple sensitivity analyses, both before and after adjusting for maternal age at delivery, county of birth, education, body mass index, and first-trimester smoking.

The researchers found that the hazard ratio for cardiovascular outcomes in women with SLE and HDP was about eight times higher than the hazard ratio for women without SLE but with HDP, but the relative rarity of cardiovascular events seen during the follow-up period, particularly among women without SLE, made it so that they “could not confirm established associations between HDP and CVD, possibly due to the relatively short follow-up time given that premenopausal CVD is rare among women free of SLE.”

HDP was associated with a threefold higher risk for incident hypertension later in life regardless of SLE status, even though the unadjusted incidence rate was 524 cases per 10,000 person-years among women with both SLE and HDP, compared with 177 per 10,000 person-years among women with HDP in the general population, which sensitivity analyses suggested “was not due to misclassification of antihypertensive use for renal disease in women with SLE nor antihypertensive use for possible HDP in subsequent pregnancies,” the researchers wrote.

Several authors reported research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Stockholm County Council, the King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Fund, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Ingegerd Johansson’s Foundation that helped to fund the study. All authors reported having no competing interests.

jevans@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Simard JF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24160.

Combining the measures of the Clinical Disease Activity Index and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints provides an opportunity adjust treatment for patients with RA, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 1,585 adults.

Suze777/Thinkstock

Although the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) is considered more stringent, comparisons with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) outside of clinical trials are limited, wrote Satoshi Takanashi, MD, of Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo, and colleagues.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from 1,585 consecutive RA patients seen at Keio University Hospital in Tokyo. The average age of the patients was 64 years, 84% were women, and the average duration of disease was 12 years.

Overall, more patients met the CDAI remission criteria but not the DAS28-ESR criteria, with the exception of patients treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor.

Of the patients in remission based on CDAI, the proportion who were not in DAS28-ESR remission was 19.4% for those treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), 18.2% for tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, 4.2% for IL-6 inhibitors, 27.6% for CTLA4-Ig fusion protein, and 33.3% for Janus kinase inhibitors.

Of the patients in DAS28-ESR remission, those not also in CDAI remission totaled 11.7% with csDMARDs, 15.4% with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, 29.5% with IL-6 inhibitors, 16.0% with CTLA4-Ig, and 14.3% with Janus kinase inhibitors.

“The fact that many patients fulfilled the CDAI but not DAS28-ESR remission could be explained by several reasons including residual synovitis in joints that are not included in the main 28 joints, which could lead to an increase in acute phase reactants and elevate only DAS28-ESR, extra-articular involvement or other comorbidities that could elevate the C-reactive protein irrelevant to arthritis,” the researchers noted. The prevalence of complications was higher in patients in CDAI remission and DAS28-ESR nonremission independent of rheumatoid or nonrheumatoid comorbid conditions, they added.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional study design that did not evaluate longitudinal radiological and functional progression, the researchers wrote.

“However, patients in both CDAI and DAS28-ESR remission were apparently in better condition than those who met either criteria; therefore, in the management of rheumatoid arthritis, assessing patients with two composite measures can yield important opportunities to consider what causes the discrepancy between the measures and adjust treatment appropriately,” they concluded.

The authors did not report having a specific grant for this research. Two of the paper’s three authors disclosed relationships with multiple companies that market drugs for RA.

SOURCE: Takanashi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216607.

Combining the measures of the Clinical Disease Activity Index and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints provides an opportunity adjust treatment for patients with RA, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 1,585 adults.

Suze777/Thinkstock

Although the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) is considered more stringent, comparisons with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) outside of clinical trials are limited, wrote Satoshi Takanashi, MD, of Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo, and colleagues.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from 1,585 consecutive RA patients seen at Keio University Hospital in Tokyo. The average age of the patients was 64 years, 84% were women, and the average duration of disease was 12 years.

Overall, more patients met the CDAI remission criteria but not the DAS28-ESR criteria, with the exception of patients treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor.

Of the patients in remission based on CDAI, the proportion who were not in DAS28-ESR remission was 19.4% for those treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), 18.2% for tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, 4.2% for IL-6 inhibitors, 27.6% for CTLA4-Ig fusion protein, and 33.3% for Janus kinase inhibitors.

Of the patients in DAS28-ESR remission, those not also in CDAI remission totaled 11.7% with csDMARDs, 15.4% with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, 29.5% with IL-6 inhibitors, 16.0% with CTLA4-Ig, and 14.3% with Janus kinase inhibitors.

“The fact that many patients fulfilled the CDAI but not DAS28-ESR remission could be explained by several reasons including residual synovitis in joints that are not included in the main 28 joints, which could lead to an increase in acute phase reactants and elevate only DAS28-ESR, extra-articular involvement or other comorbidities that could elevate the C-reactive protein irrelevant to arthritis,” the researchers noted. The prevalence of complications was higher in patients in CDAI remission and DAS28-ESR nonremission independent of rheumatoid or nonrheumatoid comorbid conditions, they added.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional study design that did not evaluate longitudinal radiological and functional progression, the researchers wrote.

“However, patients in both CDAI and DAS28-ESR remission were apparently in better condition than those who met either criteria; therefore, in the management of rheumatoid arthritis, assessing patients with two composite measures can yield important opportunities to consider what causes the discrepancy between the measures and adjust treatment appropriately,” they concluded.

The authors did not report having a specific grant for this research. Two of the paper’s three authors disclosed relationships with multiple companies that market drugs for RA.

SOURCE: Takanashi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216607.

Combining the measures of the Clinical Disease Activity Index and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints provides an opportunity adjust treatment for patients with RA, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 1,585 adults.

Suze777/Thinkstock

Although the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) is considered more stringent, comparisons with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) outside of clinical trials are limited, wrote Satoshi Takanashi, MD, of Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo, and colleagues.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from 1,585 consecutive RA patients seen at Keio University Hospital in Tokyo. The average age of the patients was 64 years, 84% were women, and the average duration of disease was 12 years.

Overall, more patients met the CDAI remission criteria but not the DAS28-ESR criteria, with the exception of patients treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor.

Of the patients in remission based on CDAI, the proportion who were not in DAS28-ESR remission was 19.4% for those treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), 18.2% for tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, 4.2% for IL-6 inhibitors, 27.6% for CTLA4-Ig fusion protein, and 33.3% for Janus kinase inhibitors.

Of the patients in DAS28-ESR remission, those not also in CDAI remission totaled 11.7% with csDMARDs, 15.4% with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, 29.5% with IL-6 inhibitors, 16.0% with CTLA4-Ig, and 14.3% with Janus kinase inhibitors.

“The fact that many patients fulfilled the CDAI but not DAS28-ESR remission could be explained by several reasons including residual synovitis in joints that are not included in the main 28 joints, which could lead to an increase in acute phase reactants and elevate only DAS28-ESR, extra-articular involvement or other comorbidities that could elevate the C-reactive protein irrelevant to arthritis,” the researchers noted. The prevalence of complications was higher in patients in CDAI remission and DAS28-ESR nonremission independent of rheumatoid or nonrheumatoid comorbid conditions, they added.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional study design that did not evaluate longitudinal radiological and functional progression, the researchers wrote.

“However, patients in both CDAI and DAS28-ESR remission were apparently in better condition than those who met either criteria; therefore, in the management of rheumatoid arthritis, assessing patients with two composite measures can yield important opportunities to consider what causes the discrepancy between the measures and adjust treatment appropriately,” they concluded.

The authors did not report having a specific grant for this research. Two of the paper’s three authors disclosed relationships with multiple companies that market drugs for RA.

SOURCE: Takanashi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216607.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated schedule for adult vaccines. The update includes changes regarding the administration of several vaccines, including those for influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A and B, and meningitis B, as well as the pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate (PCV13) vaccine.

The schedule, revised annually by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC, was simultaneously published online February 3, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

Perhaps the change most likely to raise questions is that concerning the PCV13 vaccine. “Owing to a decline in prevalence of the types covered by the PCV13 vaccine, this is no longer routinely recommended for all persons age 65 and older,” senior author Mark Freedman, DVM, MPH, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said in an interview.

For purposes of shared clinical decision, however, it should be discussed with previously unvaccinated seniors who do not have risk factors, such as an immunocompromising condition, a cerebrospinal fluid leak, or a cochlear implant.

“But the circumstances for use of the vaccine are not always clear even based on the detailed list of considerations provided, because it’s impossible to think of every conceivable combination of risk factors,” Mr. Freedman added.

Possible beneficiaries of this vaccine are vulnerable elderly people living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities and those living in or traveling to settings in which the rate of pediatric PCV13 uptake is low or zero.

All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.*

HPV

The advisory committee now recommends catch-up immunization for women and men through age 26 years (the previous cutoff for men was 21). And in another new recommendation, the ACIP advises considering vaccination for some patients aged 27-45 years who have not been adequately vaccinated.

“Most people ages 27-45 do not need vaccination, but some may benefit,” Mr. Freedman said. “For example, somebody who’s been in a prior long-term monogamous relationship and suddenly finds himself with a new sexual partner.”

“That makes very good sense for older people who haven’t been vaccinated and might continue to be exposed to HPV,” Daniel M. Musher, MD, a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and an infectious diseases physician at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Houston, said in an interview.

Here again, the ACIP advises taking a shared decision-making approach, with clinicians discussing the merits of vaccination in this and other scenarios with patients according to the talking points outlined in the HPV section.

Influenza, hepatitis A and B

For the 2019-2020 influenza season, routine influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 6 months or older who have no contraindications. Where more than one appropriate option is available, the ACIP does not recommend any product over another.

Routine hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 1 year or older who have HIV infection regardless of their level of immune suppression.

For hepatitis B, a new addition to the list of vulnerable patients who may possibly benefit from vaccination is pregnant women at risk for infection or an adverse infection-related pregnancy outcome. Whereas older formulations are safe, the ACIP does not recommend the HepB-CpG (Heplisav-B) vaccine during pregnancy, owing to the fact that safety data are lacking.

Meningitis B

Individuals aged 10 years or older who have complement deficiency, who use a complement inhibitor, who have asplenia, or who are microbiologists should receive a meningitis B booster dose 1 year following completion of a primary series. After that, they should receive booster doses every 2-3 years for as long they are at elevated risk.

Vaccination should be discussed with individuals aged 16-23 years even if they are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease. Persons aged 10 years or older whom public health authorities deem to be at increased risk during an outbreak should have a one-time booster dose if at least 1 year has elapsed since completion of a meningitis B primary series.

Td/Tdap, varicella

The ACIP now recommends that either the Td or Tdap vaccine be given in cases in which currently just the Td vaccine is recommended; that is, for the 10-year booster shot as well as for tetanus prophylaxis in wound management and the catch-up immunization schedule, including that for pregnant women.

Vaccination against varicella should be considered for HIV-infected individuals who are without evidence of varicella immunity and whose CD4 counts are at least 200 cells/mL.

Dr. Musher, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations, takes issue generally with the addition of shared clinical decision making on vaccination. “Shared decision making is a problem for anyone practicing medicine. It places a terrible burden [on] the doctors to discuss these options with patients at great length. Most patients want the doctor to make the decision.”

In his view, this approach makes little sense in the case of the PCV13 vaccine because the strains it covers have disappeared from the population through the widespread vaccination of children. “But discussions are important for some vaccines, such as the herpes zoster vaccine, since patients can have a terrible reaction to the first dose and refuse to have the second,” he said.

Some of these new recommendations were released in 2019 after ACIP members met to vote on them in February, June, and October.

As in previous years, the schedule has been streamlined for easier reference. Physicians are reminded to closely read the details in the vaccine notes, as these specify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

The ACIP develops its recommendations after reviewing vaccine-related data, including the data regarding the epidemiology and burden of the vaccine-preventable disease, vaccine effectiveness and safety, the quality of evidence, implementability, and the economics of immunization policy.

The authors have received grants and expense payments from public and not-for-profit institutions. One coauthor has received fees from ACI Clinical for data and safety monitoring in an immunization trial. Dr. Musher has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 3/31/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the recommendation for administration of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine. All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of this vaccine. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated schedule for adult vaccines. The update includes changes regarding the administration of several vaccines, including those for influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A and B, and meningitis B, as well as the pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate (PCV13) vaccine.

The schedule, revised annually by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC, was simultaneously published online February 3, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

Perhaps the change most likely to raise questions is that concerning the PCV13 vaccine. “Owing to a decline in prevalence of the types covered by the PCV13 vaccine, this is no longer routinely recommended for all persons age 65 and older,” senior author Mark Freedman, DVM, MPH, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said in an interview.

For purposes of shared clinical decision, however, it should be discussed with previously unvaccinated seniors who do not have risk factors, such as an immunocompromising condition, a cerebrospinal fluid leak, or a cochlear implant.

“But the circumstances for use of the vaccine are not always clear even based on the detailed list of considerations provided, because it’s impossible to think of every conceivable combination of risk factors,” Mr. Freedman added.

Possible beneficiaries of this vaccine are vulnerable elderly people living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities and those living in or traveling to settings in which the rate of pediatric PCV13 uptake is low or zero.

All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.*

HPV

The advisory committee now recommends catch-up immunization for women and men through age 26 years (the previous cutoff for men was 21). And in another new recommendation, the ACIP advises considering vaccination for some patients aged 27-45 years who have not been adequately vaccinated.

“Most people ages 27-45 do not need vaccination, but some may benefit,” Mr. Freedman said. “For example, somebody who’s been in a prior long-term monogamous relationship and suddenly finds himself with a new sexual partner.”

“That makes very good sense for older people who haven’t been vaccinated and might continue to be exposed to HPV,” Daniel M. Musher, MD, a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and an infectious diseases physician at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Houston, said in an interview.

Here again, the ACIP advises taking a shared decision-making approach, with clinicians discussing the merits of vaccination in this and other scenarios with patients according to the talking points outlined in the HPV section.

Influenza, hepatitis A and B

For the 2019-2020 influenza season, routine influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 6 months or older who have no contraindications. Where more than one appropriate option is available, the ACIP does not recommend any product over another.

Routine hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 1 year or older who have HIV infection regardless of their level of immune suppression.

For hepatitis B, a new addition to the list of vulnerable patients who may possibly benefit from vaccination is pregnant women at risk for infection or an adverse infection-related pregnancy outcome. Whereas older formulations are safe, the ACIP does not recommend the HepB-CpG (Heplisav-B) vaccine during pregnancy, owing to the fact that safety data are lacking.

Meningitis B

Individuals aged 10 years or older who have complement deficiency, who use a complement inhibitor, who have asplenia, or who are microbiologists should receive a meningitis B booster dose 1 year following completion of a primary series. After that, they should receive booster doses every 2-3 years for as long they are at elevated risk.

Vaccination should be discussed with individuals aged 16-23 years even if they are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease. Persons aged 10 years or older whom public health authorities deem to be at increased risk during an outbreak should have a one-time booster dose if at least 1 year has elapsed since completion of a meningitis B primary series.

Td/Tdap, varicella

The ACIP now recommends that either the Td or Tdap vaccine be given in cases in which currently just the Td vaccine is recommended; that is, for the 10-year booster shot as well as for tetanus prophylaxis in wound management and the catch-up immunization schedule, including that for pregnant women.

Vaccination against varicella should be considered for HIV-infected individuals who are without evidence of varicella immunity and whose CD4 counts are at least 200 cells/mL.

Dr. Musher, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations, takes issue generally with the addition of shared clinical decision making on vaccination. “Shared decision making is a problem for anyone practicing medicine. It places a terrible burden [on] the doctors to discuss these options with patients at great length. Most patients want the doctor to make the decision.”

In his view, this approach makes little sense in the case of the PCV13 vaccine because the strains it covers have disappeared from the population through the widespread vaccination of children. “But discussions are important for some vaccines, such as the herpes zoster vaccine, since patients can have a terrible reaction to the first dose and refuse to have the second,” he said.

Some of these new recommendations were released in 2019 after ACIP members met to vote on them in February, June, and October.

As in previous years, the schedule has been streamlined for easier reference. Physicians are reminded to closely read the details in the vaccine notes, as these specify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

The ACIP develops its recommendations after reviewing vaccine-related data, including the data regarding the epidemiology and burden of the vaccine-preventable disease, vaccine effectiveness and safety, the quality of evidence, implementability, and the economics of immunization policy.

The authors have received grants and expense payments from public and not-for-profit institutions. One coauthor has received fees from ACI Clinical for data and safety monitoring in an immunization trial. Dr. Musher has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 3/31/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the recommendation for administration of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine. All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of this vaccine. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated schedule for adult vaccines. The update includes changes regarding the administration of several vaccines, including those for influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A and B, and meningitis B, as well as the pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate (PCV13) vaccine.

The schedule, revised annually by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC, was simultaneously published online February 3, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

Perhaps the change most likely to raise questions is that concerning the PCV13 vaccine. “Owing to a decline in prevalence of the types covered by the PCV13 vaccine, this is no longer routinely recommended for all persons age 65 and older,” senior author Mark Freedman, DVM, MPH, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said in an interview.

For purposes of shared clinical decision, however, it should be discussed with previously unvaccinated seniors who do not have risk factors, such as an immunocompromising condition, a cerebrospinal fluid leak, or a cochlear implant.

“But the circumstances for use of the vaccine are not always clear even based on the detailed list of considerations provided, because it’s impossible to think of every conceivable combination of risk factors,” Mr. Freedman added.

Possible beneficiaries of this vaccine are vulnerable elderly people living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities and those living in or traveling to settings in which the rate of pediatric PCV13 uptake is low or zero.

All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.*

HPV

The advisory committee now recommends catch-up immunization for women and men through age 26 years (the previous cutoff for men was 21). And in another new recommendation, the ACIP advises considering vaccination for some patients aged 27-45 years who have not been adequately vaccinated.

“Most people ages 27-45 do not need vaccination, but some may benefit,” Mr. Freedman said. “For example, somebody who’s been in a prior long-term monogamous relationship and suddenly finds himself with a new sexual partner.”

“That makes very good sense for older people who haven’t been vaccinated and might continue to be exposed to HPV,” Daniel M. Musher, MD, a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and an infectious diseases physician at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Houston, said in an interview.

Here again, the ACIP advises taking a shared decision-making approach, with clinicians discussing the merits of vaccination in this and other scenarios with patients according to the talking points outlined in the HPV section.

Influenza, hepatitis A and B

For the 2019-2020 influenza season, routine influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 6 months or older who have no contraindications. Where more than one appropriate option is available, the ACIP does not recommend any product over another.

Routine hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 1 year or older who have HIV infection regardless of their level of immune suppression.

For hepatitis B, a new addition to the list of vulnerable patients who may possibly benefit from vaccination is pregnant women at risk for infection or an adverse infection-related pregnancy outcome. Whereas older formulations are safe, the ACIP does not recommend the HepB-CpG (Heplisav-B) vaccine during pregnancy, owing to the fact that safety data are lacking.

Meningitis B

Individuals aged 10 years or older who have complement deficiency, who use a complement inhibitor, who have asplenia, or who are microbiologists should receive a meningitis B booster dose 1 year following completion of a primary series. After that, they should receive booster doses every 2-3 years for as long they are at elevated risk.

Vaccination should be discussed with individuals aged 16-23 years even if they are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease. Persons aged 10 years or older whom public health authorities deem to be at increased risk during an outbreak should have a one-time booster dose if at least 1 year has elapsed since completion of a meningitis B primary series.

Td/Tdap, varicella

The ACIP now recommends that either the Td or Tdap vaccine be given in cases in which currently just the Td vaccine is recommended; that is, for the 10-year booster shot as well as for tetanus prophylaxis in wound management and the catch-up immunization schedule, including that for pregnant women.

Vaccination against varicella should be considered for HIV-infected individuals who are without evidence of varicella immunity and whose CD4 counts are at least 200 cells/mL.

Dr. Musher, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations, takes issue generally with the addition of shared clinical decision making on vaccination. “Shared decision making is a problem for anyone practicing medicine. It places a terrible burden [on] the doctors to discuss these options with patients at great length. Most patients want the doctor to make the decision.”

In his view, this approach makes little sense in the case of the PCV13 vaccine because the strains it covers have disappeared from the population through the widespread vaccination of children. “But discussions are important for some vaccines, such as the herpes zoster vaccine, since patients can have a terrible reaction to the first dose and refuse to have the second,” he said.

Some of these new recommendations were released in 2019 after ACIP members met to vote on them in February, June, and October.

As in previous years, the schedule has been streamlined for easier reference. Physicians are reminded to closely read the details in the vaccine notes, as these specify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

The ACIP develops its recommendations after reviewing vaccine-related data, including the data regarding the epidemiology and burden of the vaccine-preventable disease, vaccine effectiveness and safety, the quality of evidence, implementability, and the economics of immunization policy.

The authors have received grants and expense payments from public and not-for-profit institutions. One coauthor has received fees from ACI Clinical for data and safety monitoring in an immunization trial. Dr. Musher has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 3/31/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the recommendation for administration of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine. All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of this vaccine. 

It took less than a day for physician groups to start pushing back at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over its new Medicaid block grant plan, which was introduced on Jan. 30.

Dubbed “Healthy Adult Opportunity,” the agency is offering all states the chance to participate in a block grant program through the 1115 waiver process.

According to a fact sheet issued by the agency, the program will focus on “adults under age 65 who are not eligible for Medicaid on the basis of disability or their need for long term care services and supports, and who are not eligible under a state plan. Other very low-income parents, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and people eligible on the basis of a disability will not be directly affected – except from the improvement that results from states reinvesting savings into strengthening their overall programs.”

States will be operating within a defined budget when participating in the program and expenditures exceeding that defined budget will not be eligible for additional federal funding. Budgets will be based on a state’s historic costs, as well as national and regional trends, and will be tied to inflation with the potential to have adjustments made for extraordinary events. States can set their baseline using the prior year’s total spending or a per-enrollee spending model.

A Jan. 30 letter to state Medicaid directors notes that states participating in the program “will be granted extensive flexibility to test alternative approaches to implementing their Medicaid programs, including the ability to make many ongoing program adjustments without the need for demonstration or state plan amendments that require prior approval.”

Among the activities states can engage in under this plan are adjusting cost-sharing requirements, adopting a closed formulary, and applying additional conditions of eligibility. Requests, if approved, will be approved for a 5-year initial period, with a renewal option of up to 10 years.

But physician groups are not seeing a benefit with this new block grant program.

“Moving to a block grant system will likely limit the ability of Medicaid patients to receive preventive and needed medical care from their family physicians, and it will only increase the health disparities that exist in these communities, worsen overall health outcomes, and ultimately increase costs,” Gary LeRoy, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in a statement.

The American Medical Association concurred.

“The AMA opposes caps on federal Medicaid funding, such as block grants, because they would increase the number of uninsured and undermine Medicaid’s role as an indispensable safety net,” Patrice Harris, MD, the AMA’s president, said in a statement. “The AMA supports flexibility in Medicaid and encourages CMS to work with states to develop and test new Medicaid models that best meet the needs and priorities of low-income patients. While encouraging flexibility, the AMA is mindful that expanding Medicaid has been a literal lifesaver for low-income patients. We need to find ways to build on this success. We look forward to reviewing the proposal in detail.”

Officials at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the changes have the potential to harm women and children’s health, as well as negatively impact physician reimbursement and ultimately access to care.

“Limits on the federal contribution to the Medicaid program would negatively impact patients by forcing states to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid coverage, eliminate covered services, and increase beneficiary cost-sharing,” ACOG President Ted Anderson, MD, said in a statement. “ACOG is also concerned that this block grant opportunity could lower physician reimbursement for certain services, forcing providers out of the program and jeopardizing patients’ ability to access health care services. Given our nation’s stark rates of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity, we are alarmed by the Administration’s willingness to weaken physician payment in Medicaid.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

It took less than a day for physician groups to start pushing back at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over its new Medicaid block grant plan, which was introduced on Jan. 30.

Dubbed “Healthy Adult Opportunity,” the agency is offering all states the chance to participate in a block grant program through the 1115 waiver process.

According to a fact sheet issued by the agency, the program will focus on “adults under age 65 who are not eligible for Medicaid on the basis of disability or their need for long term care services and supports, and who are not eligible under a state plan. Other very low-income parents, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and people eligible on the basis of a disability will not be directly affected – except from the improvement that results from states reinvesting savings into strengthening their overall programs.”

States will be operating within a defined budget when participating in the program and expenditures exceeding that defined budget will not be eligible for additional federal funding. Budgets will be based on a state’s historic costs, as well as national and regional trends, and will be tied to inflation with the potential to have adjustments made for extraordinary events. States can set their baseline using the prior year’s total spending or a per-enrollee spending model.

A Jan. 30 letter to state Medicaid directors notes that states participating in the program “will be granted extensive flexibility to test alternative approaches to implementing their Medicaid programs, including the ability to make many ongoing program adjustments without the need for demonstration or state plan amendments that require prior approval.”

Among the activities states can engage in under this plan are adjusting cost-sharing requirements, adopting a closed formulary, and applying additional conditions of eligibility. Requests, if approved, will be approved for a 5-year initial period, with a renewal option of up to 10 years.

But physician groups are not seeing a benefit with this new block grant program.

“Moving to a block grant system will likely limit the ability of Medicaid patients to receive preventive and needed medical care from their family physicians, and it will only increase the health disparities that exist in these communities, worsen overall health outcomes, and ultimately increase costs,” Gary LeRoy, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in a statement.

The American Medical Association concurred.

“The AMA opposes caps on federal Medicaid funding, such as block grants, because they would increase the number of uninsured and undermine Medicaid’s role as an indispensable safety net,” Patrice Harris, MD, the AMA’s president, said in a statement. “The AMA supports flexibility in Medicaid and encourages CMS to work with states to develop and test new Medicaid models that best meet the needs and priorities of low-income patients. While encouraging flexibility, the AMA is mindful that expanding Medicaid has been a literal lifesaver for low-income patients. We need to find ways to build on this success. We look forward to reviewing the proposal in detail.”

Officials at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the changes have the potential to harm women and children’s health, as well as negatively impact physician reimbursement and ultimately access to care.

“Limits on the federal contribution to the Medicaid program would negatively impact patients by forcing states to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid coverage, eliminate covered services, and increase beneficiary cost-sharing,” ACOG President Ted Anderson, MD, said in a statement. “ACOG is also concerned that this block grant opportunity could lower physician reimbursement for certain services, forcing providers out of the program and jeopardizing patients’ ability to access health care services. Given our nation’s stark rates of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity, we are alarmed by the Administration’s willingness to weaken physician payment in Medicaid.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

It took less than a day for physician groups to start pushing back at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over its new Medicaid block grant plan, which was introduced on Jan. 30.

Dubbed “Healthy Adult Opportunity,” the agency is offering all states the chance to participate in a block grant program through the 1115 waiver process.

According to a fact sheet issued by the agency, the program will focus on “adults under age 65 who are not eligible for Medicaid on the basis of disability or their need for long term care services and supports, and who are not eligible under a state plan. Other very low-income parents, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and people eligible on the basis of a disability will not be directly affected – except from the improvement that results from states reinvesting savings into strengthening their overall programs.”

States will be operating within a defined budget when participating in the program and expenditures exceeding that defined budget will not be eligible for additional federal funding. Budgets will be based on a state’s historic costs, as well as national and regional trends, and will be tied to inflation with the potential to have adjustments made for extraordinary events. States can set their baseline using the prior year’s total spending or a per-enrollee spending model.

A Jan. 30 letter to state Medicaid directors notes that states participating in the program “will be granted extensive flexibility to test alternative approaches to implementing their Medicaid programs, including the ability to make many ongoing program adjustments without the need for demonstration or state plan amendments that require prior approval.”

Among the activities states can engage in under this plan are adjusting cost-sharing requirements, adopting a closed formulary, and applying additional conditions of eligibility. Requests, if approved, will be approved for a 5-year initial period, with a renewal option of up to 10 years.

But physician groups are not seeing a benefit with this new block grant program.

“Moving to a block grant system will likely limit the ability of Medicaid patients to receive preventive and needed medical care from their family physicians, and it will only increase the health disparities that exist in these communities, worsen overall health outcomes, and ultimately increase costs,” Gary LeRoy, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in a statement.

The American Medical Association concurred.

“The AMA opposes caps on federal Medicaid funding, such as block grants, because they would increase the number of uninsured and undermine Medicaid’s role as an indispensable safety net,” Patrice Harris, MD, the AMA’s president, said in a statement. “The AMA supports flexibility in Medicaid and encourages CMS to work with states to develop and test new Medicaid models that best meet the needs and priorities of low-income patients. While encouraging flexibility, the AMA is mindful that expanding Medicaid has been a literal lifesaver for low-income patients. We need to find ways to build on this success. We look forward to reviewing the proposal in detail.”

Officials at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the changes have the potential to harm women and children’s health, as well as negatively impact physician reimbursement and ultimately access to care.

“Limits on the federal contribution to the Medicaid program would negatively impact patients by forcing states to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid coverage, eliminate covered services, and increase beneficiary cost-sharing,” ACOG President Ted Anderson, MD, said in a statement. “ACOG is also concerned that this block grant opportunity could lower physician reimbursement for certain services, forcing providers out of the program and jeopardizing patients’ ability to access health care services. Given our nation’s stark rates of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity, we are alarmed by the Administration’s willingness to weaken physician payment in Medicaid.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The federal government declared a formal public health emergency on Jan. 31 to aid in the response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The declaration, issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex. M. Azar II gives state, tribal, and local health departments additional flexibility to request assistance from the federal government in responding to the coronavirus.

"While this virus poses a serious public health threat, the risk to the American public remains low at this time, and we are working to keep this risk low."*

The government also began a quarantine of travelers. The 195 passengers who arrived at March Air Reserve Base in Ontario, Calif., from Wuhan, China on Jan. 29 are under federal quarantine amid growing concerns about the 2019-nCoV—the first such action taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in more than 50 years.

“This decision is based on the current scientific facts,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a press briefing Jan. 31. “While we understand the action seems drastic, our goal today, tomorrow, and always continues to be the safety of the American public. We would rather be remembered for over-reacting than under-reacting.”

These actions come on the heels of the World Health Organization’s Jan. 30 declaration of 2019-nCoV as a public health emergency of international concern, and from a recent spike in cases reported by Chinese health officials. “Every day this week China has reported additional cases,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Today’s numbers are a 26% increase since yesterday. Over the course of the last week, there have been nearly 7,000 new cases reported. This tells us the virus is continuing to spread rapidly in China. The reported deaths have continued to rise as well. In addition, locations outside China have continued to report cases. There have been an increasing number of reports of person-to-person spread, and now, most recently, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine of asymptomatic spread.”

The quarantine of passengers will last 14 days from when the plane left Wuhan, China. Martin Cetron, MD, who directs the CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, said that the quarantine order “offers the greatest level of protection for the American public in preventing introduction and spread. That is our primary concern. Prior epidemics suggest that when people are properly informed, they’re usually very compliant with this request to restrict their movement. This allows someone who would become symptomatic to be rapidly identified. Offering early, rapid diagnosis of their illness could alleviate a lot of anxiety and uncertainty. In addition, this is a protective effect on family members. No individual wants to be the source of introducing or exposing a family member or a loved one to their virus. Additionally, this is part of their civic responsibility to protect their communities.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

* This story was updated on 01/31/2020. 

The federal government declared a formal public health emergency on Jan. 31 to aid in the response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The declaration, issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex. M. Azar II gives state, tribal, and local health departments additional flexibility to request assistance from the federal government in responding to the coronavirus.

"While this virus poses a serious public health threat, the risk to the American public remains low at this time, and we are working to keep this risk low."*

The government also began a quarantine of travelers. The 195 passengers who arrived at March Air Reserve Base in Ontario, Calif., from Wuhan, China on Jan. 29 are under federal quarantine amid growing concerns about the 2019-nCoV—the first such action taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in more than 50 years.

“This decision is based on the current scientific facts,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a press briefing Jan. 31. “While we understand the action seems drastic, our goal today, tomorrow, and always continues to be the safety of the American public. We would rather be remembered for over-reacting than under-reacting.”

These actions come on the heels of the World Health Organization’s Jan. 30 declaration of 2019-nCoV as a public health emergency of international concern, and from a recent spike in cases reported by Chinese health officials. “Every day this week China has reported additional cases,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Today’s numbers are a 26% increase since yesterday. Over the course of the last week, there have been nearly 7,000 new cases reported. This tells us the virus is continuing to spread rapidly in China. The reported deaths have continued to rise as well. In addition, locations outside China have continued to report cases. There have been an increasing number of reports of person-to-person spread, and now, most recently, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine of asymptomatic spread.”

The quarantine of passengers will last 14 days from when the plane left Wuhan, China. Martin Cetron, MD, who directs the CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, said that the quarantine order “offers the greatest level of protection for the American public in preventing introduction and spread. That is our primary concern. Prior epidemics suggest that when people are properly informed, they’re usually very compliant with this request to restrict their movement. This allows someone who would become symptomatic to be rapidly identified. Offering early, rapid diagnosis of their illness could alleviate a lot of anxiety and uncertainty. In addition, this is a protective effect on family members. No individual wants to be the source of introducing or exposing a family member or a loved one to their virus. Additionally, this is part of their civic responsibility to protect their communities.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

* This story was updated on 01/31/2020. 

The federal government declared a formal public health emergency on Jan. 31 to aid in the response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The declaration, issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex. M. Azar II gives state, tribal, and local health departments additional flexibility to request assistance from the federal government in responding to the coronavirus.

"While this virus poses a serious public health threat, the risk to the American public remains low at this time, and we are working to keep this risk low."*

The government also began a quarantine of travelers. The 195 passengers who arrived at March Air Reserve Base in Ontario, Calif., from Wuhan, China on Jan. 29 are under federal quarantine amid growing concerns about the 2019-nCoV—the first such action taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in more than 50 years.

“This decision is based on the current scientific facts,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a press briefing Jan. 31. “While we understand the action seems drastic, our goal today, tomorrow, and always continues to be the safety of the American public. We would rather be remembered for over-reacting than under-reacting.”

These actions come on the heels of the World Health Organization’s Jan. 30 declaration of 2019-nCoV as a public health emergency of international concern, and from a recent spike in cases reported by Chinese health officials. “Every day this week China has reported additional cases,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Today’s numbers are a 26% increase since yesterday. Over the course of the last week, there have been nearly 7,000 new cases reported. This tells us the virus is continuing to spread rapidly in China. The reported deaths have continued to rise as well. In addition, locations outside China have continued to report cases. There have been an increasing number of reports of person-to-person spread, and now, most recently, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine of asymptomatic spread.”

The quarantine of passengers will last 14 days from when the plane left Wuhan, China. Martin Cetron, MD, who directs the CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, said that the quarantine order “offers the greatest level of protection for the American public in preventing introduction and spread. That is our primary concern. Prior epidemics suggest that when people are properly informed, they’re usually very compliant with this request to restrict their movement. This allows someone who would become symptomatic to be rapidly identified. Offering early, rapid diagnosis of their illness could alleviate a lot of anxiety and uncertainty. In addition, this is a protective effect on family members. No individual wants to be the source of introducing or exposing a family member or a loved one to their virus. Additionally, this is part of their civic responsibility to protect their communities.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

* This story was updated on 01/31/2020. 

Trends in opioid prescribing and use from 2010 to 2016 offer some encouragement, but opioid-attributable deaths continued to increase over that period, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Prescribing rates dropped during that period, as did daily opioid dosage rates and the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosages, Gail K. Strickler, PhD, of the Institute for Behavioral Health at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., and associates wrote in MMWR Surveillance Summaries.

Their analysis involved 11 of the 12 states (Washington was unable to provide data for the analysis) participating in the CDC’s Prescription Behavior Surveillance System, which uses data from the states’ prescription drug monitoring programs. The 11 states represented about 38% of the U.S. population in 2016.

The opioid prescribing rate fell in 10 of those 11 states, with declines varying from 3.4% in Idaho to 33.0% in Ohio. Prescribing went up in Texas by 11.3%, but the state only had data available for 2015 and 2016. Three other states – Delaware, Florida, and Idaho – were limited to data from 2012 to 2016, the investigators noted.

As for the other measures, all states showed declines for the mean daily opioid dosage. Texas had the smallest drop at 2.9% and Florida saw the largest, at 27.4%. All states also had reductions in the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosage, with decreases varying from 5.7% in Idaho to 43.9% in Louisiana, Dr. Strickler and associates reported. A high daily dosage was defined as at least 90 morphine milligram equivalents for all class II-V opioid drugs.

“Despite these favorable trends ... opioid overdose deaths attributable to the most commonly prescribed opioids, the natural and semisynthetics (e.g., morphine and oxycodone), increased during 2010-2016,” they said.

It is possible that a change in mortality is lagging “behind changes in prescribing behaviors” or that “the trend in deaths related to these types of opioids has been driven by factors other than prescription opioid misuse rates, such as increasing mortality from heroin, which is frequently classified as morphine or found concomitantly with morphine postmortem, and a spike in deaths involving illicitly manufactured fentanyl combined with heroin and prescribed opioids since 2013,” the investigators suggested.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Strickler GK et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Jan 31;69(1):1-14.

Trends in opioid prescribing and use from 2010 to 2016 offer some encouragement, but opioid-attributable deaths continued to increase over that period, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Prescribing rates dropped during that period, as did daily opioid dosage rates and the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosages, Gail K. Strickler, PhD, of the Institute for Behavioral Health at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., and associates wrote in MMWR Surveillance Summaries.

Their analysis involved 11 of the 12 states (Washington was unable to provide data for the analysis) participating in the CDC’s Prescription Behavior Surveillance System, which uses data from the states’ prescription drug monitoring programs. The 11 states represented about 38% of the U.S. population in 2016.

The opioid prescribing rate fell in 10 of those 11 states, with declines varying from 3.4% in Idaho to 33.0% in Ohio. Prescribing went up in Texas by 11.3%, but the state only had data available for 2015 and 2016. Three other states – Delaware, Florida, and Idaho – were limited to data from 2012 to 2016, the investigators noted.

As for the other measures, all states showed declines for the mean daily opioid dosage. Texas had the smallest drop at 2.9% and Florida saw the largest, at 27.4%. All states also had reductions in the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosage, with decreases varying from 5.7% in Idaho to 43.9% in Louisiana, Dr. Strickler and associates reported. A high daily dosage was defined as at least 90 morphine milligram equivalents for all class II-V opioid drugs.

“Despite these favorable trends ... opioid overdose deaths attributable to the most commonly prescribed opioids, the natural and semisynthetics (e.g., morphine and oxycodone), increased during 2010-2016,” they said.

It is possible that a change in mortality is lagging “behind changes in prescribing behaviors” or that “the trend in deaths related to these types of opioids has been driven by factors other than prescription opioid misuse rates, such as increasing mortality from heroin, which is frequently classified as morphine or found concomitantly with morphine postmortem, and a spike in deaths involving illicitly manufactured fentanyl combined with heroin and prescribed opioids since 2013,” the investigators suggested.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Strickler GK et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Jan 31;69(1):1-14.

Trends in opioid prescribing and use from 2010 to 2016 offer some encouragement, but opioid-attributable deaths continued to increase over that period, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Prescribing rates dropped during that period, as did daily opioid dosage rates and the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosages, Gail K. Strickler, PhD, of the Institute for Behavioral Health at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., and associates wrote in MMWR Surveillance Summaries.

Their analysis involved 11 of the 12 states (Washington was unable to provide data for the analysis) participating in the CDC’s Prescription Behavior Surveillance System, which uses data from the states’ prescription drug monitoring programs. The 11 states represented about 38% of the U.S. population in 2016.

The opioid prescribing rate fell in 10 of those 11 states, with declines varying from 3.4% in Idaho to 33.0% in Ohio. Prescribing went up in Texas by 11.3%, but the state only had data available for 2015 and 2016. Three other states – Delaware, Florida, and Idaho – were limited to data from 2012 to 2016, the investigators noted.

As for the other measures, all states showed declines for the mean daily opioid dosage. Texas had the smallest drop at 2.9% and Florida saw the largest, at 27.4%. All states also had reductions in the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosage, with decreases varying from 5.7% in Idaho to 43.9% in Louisiana, Dr. Strickler and associates reported. A high daily dosage was defined as at least 90 morphine milligram equivalents for all class II-V opioid drugs.

“Despite these favorable trends ... opioid overdose deaths attributable to the most commonly prescribed opioids, the natural and semisynthetics (e.g., morphine and oxycodone), increased during 2010-2016,” they said.

It is possible that a change in mortality is lagging “behind changes in prescribing behaviors” or that “the trend in deaths related to these types of opioids has been driven by factors other than prescription opioid misuse rates, such as increasing mortality from heroin, which is frequently classified as morphine or found concomitantly with morphine postmortem, and a spike in deaths involving illicitly manufactured fentanyl combined with heroin and prescribed opioids since 2013,” the investigators suggested.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Strickler GK et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Jan 31;69(1):1-14.

Women with osteoporosis who received a single infusion of zoledronate after discontinuing denosumab (Prolia) maintained bone mineral density at both the lumbar spine and the total hip, based on data from 120 individuals.

Although denosumab is often prescribed for postmenopausal osteoporosis, its effects disappear when treatment ends, wrote Judith Everts-Graber, MD, of OsteoRheuma Bern (Switzerland), and colleagues. In addition, recent reports of increased fractures in osteoporotic women after denosumab discontinuation highlight the need for subsequent therapy, but no protocol has been established.

In a study published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, the investigators reviewed data from women aged older than 48 years with postmenopausal osteoporosis who were treated with denosumab between Aug. 1, 2010, and March 31, 2019. The women received four or more injections of 60 mg denosumab administered at 6-month intervals, followed by a single infusion of 5 mg zoledronate 6 months after the final denosumab injection. Patients were evaluated using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and vertebral fracture assessment every 2 years after starting denosumab; the average duration of treatment was 3 years.

At an average of 2.5 years after discontinuing denosumab, women who received zoledronate retained 66% of bone mineral density (BMD) gains at the lumbar spine, 49% at the total hip, and 57% at the femoral neck. In addition, three patients developed symptomatic single vertebral fractures and four patients developed peripheral fractures between 1 and 3 years after their last denosumab injections, but none of these patients sustained multiple fractures.

All bone loss occurred within 18 months of denosumab discontinuation, and no significant differences appeared between patients with gains in BMD greater than or less than 9%.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the lack of a control group, the researchers noted. However, they collected data from 11 of 28 patients who did not follow the treatment recommendations and did not receive zoledronate after discontinuing denosumab. “As expected, BMD of the lumbar spine and total hip decreased to baseline,” they wrote. In addition, 2 of the 11 patients experienced multiple vertebral fractures.

A single 5-mg infusion of zoledronate “may be a promising step in identifying sequential long-term treatment strategies for osteoporosis,” the researchers concluded. “Nevertheless, each patient requires an individualized surveillance and treatment plan after denosumab discontinuation, including BMD assessment, evaluation of bone turnover markers and consideration of individual clinical risk factors, in particular prevalent fragility fractures.”

The study was funded by OsteoRheuma Bern. The researchers reported having no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Everts-Graber J et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2020 Jan 28. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3962.

Women with osteoporosis who received a single infusion of zoledronate after discontinuing denosumab (Prolia) maintained bone mineral density at both the lumbar spine and the total hip, based on data from 120 individuals.

Although denosumab is often prescribed for postmenopausal osteoporosis, its effects disappear when treatment ends, wrote Judith Everts-Graber, MD, of OsteoRheuma Bern (Switzerland), and colleagues. In addition, recent reports of increased fractures in osteoporotic women after denosumab discontinuation highlight the need for subsequent therapy, but no protocol has been established.

In a study published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, the investigators reviewed data from women aged older than 48 years with postmenopausal osteoporosis who were treated with denosumab between Aug. 1, 2010, and March 31, 2019. The women received four or more injections of 60 mg denosumab administered at 6-month intervals, followed by a single infusion of 5 mg zoledronate 6 months after the final denosumab injection. Patients were evaluated using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and vertebral fracture assessment every 2 years after starting denosumab; the average duration of treatment was 3 years.

At an average of 2.5 years after discontinuing denosumab, women who received zoledronate retained 66% of bone mineral density (BMD) gains at the lumbar spine, 49% at the total hip, and 57% at the femoral neck. In addition, three patients developed symptomatic single vertebral fractures and four patients developed peripheral fractures between 1 and 3 years after their last denosumab injections, but none of these patients sustained multiple fractures.

All bone loss occurred within 18 months of denosumab discontinuation, and no significant differences appeared between patients with gains in BMD greater than or less than 9%.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the lack of a control group, the researchers noted. However, they collected data from 11 of 28 patients who did not follow the treatment recommendations and did not receive zoledronate after discontinuing denosumab. “As expected, BMD of the lumbar spine and total hip decreased to baseline,” they wrote. In addition, 2 of the 11 patients experienced multiple vertebral fractures.

A single 5-mg infusion of zoledronate “may be a promising step in identifying sequential long-term treatment strategies for osteoporosis,” the researchers concluded. “Nevertheless, each patient requires an individualized surveillance and treatment plan after denosumab discontinuation, including BMD assessment, evaluation of bone turnover markers and consideration of individual clinical risk factors, in particular prevalent fragility fractures.”

The study was funded by OsteoRheuma Bern. The researchers reported having no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Everts-Graber J et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2020 Jan 28. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3962.

Women with osteoporosis who received a single infusion of zoledronate after discontinuing denosumab (Prolia) maintained bone mineral density at both the lumbar spine and the total hip, based on data from 120 individuals.

Although denosumab is often prescribed for postmenopausal osteoporosis, its effects disappear when treatment ends, wrote Judith Everts-Graber, MD, of OsteoRheuma Bern (Switzerland), and colleagues. In addition, recent reports of increased fractures in osteoporotic women after denosumab discontinuation highlight the need for subsequent therapy, but no protocol has been established.

In a study published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, the investigators reviewed data from women aged older than 48 years with postmenopausal osteoporosis who were treated with denosumab between Aug. 1, 2010, and March 31, 2019. The women received four or more injections of 60 mg denosumab administered at 6-month intervals, followed by a single infusion of 5 mg zoledronate 6 months after the final denosumab injection. Patients were evaluated using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and vertebral fracture assessment every 2 years after starting denosumab; the average duration of treatment was 3 years.

At an average of 2.5 years after discontinuing denosumab, women who received zoledronate retained 66% of bone mineral density (BMD) gains at the lumbar spine, 49% at the total hip, and 57% at the femoral neck. In addition, three patients developed symptomatic single vertebral fractures and four patients developed peripheral fractures between 1 and 3 years after their last denosumab injections, but none of these patients sustained multiple fractures.

All bone loss occurred within 18 months of denosumab discontinuation, and no significant differences appeared between patients with gains in BMD greater than or less than 9%.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the lack of a control group, the researchers noted. However, they collected data from 11 of 28 patients who did not follow the treatment recommendations and did not receive zoledronate after discontinuing denosumab. “As expected, BMD of the lumbar spine and total hip decreased to baseline,” they wrote. In addition, 2 of the 11 patients experienced multiple vertebral fractures.

A single 5-mg infusion of zoledronate “may be a promising step in identifying sequential long-term treatment strategies for osteoporosis,” the researchers concluded. “Nevertheless, each patient requires an individualized surveillance and treatment plan after denosumab discontinuation, including BMD assessment, evaluation of bone turnover markers and consideration of individual clinical risk factors, in particular prevalent fragility fractures.”

The study was funded by OsteoRheuma Bern. The researchers reported having no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Everts-Graber J et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2020 Jan 28. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3962.

If you’ve knocked yourself out to earn a Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) bonus payment, it’s pretty safe to say that getting a 1.68% payment boost probably didn’t feel like a “win” that was worth the effort.

And although it saved you from having a negative 5% payment adjustment, many physicians don’t feel that it was worth the effort.

On Jan. 6, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced the 2020 payouts for MIPS.

Based on 2018 participation, the bonus for those who scored a perfect 100 is only a 1.68% boost in Medicare reimbursement, slightly lower than last year’s 1.88%. This decline comes as no surprise as the agency leader admits: “As the program matures, we expect that the increases in the performance thresholds in future program years will create a smaller distribution of positive payment adjustments.” Overall, more than 97% of participants avoided having a negative 5% payment adjustment.

Indeed, these bonus monies are based on a short-term appropriation of extra funds from Congress. After these temporary funds are no longer available, there will be little, if any, monies to distribute as the program is based on a “losers-feed-the-winners” construct.

It may be very tempting for many physicians to decide to ignore MIPS, with the rationale that 1.68% is not worth the effort. But don’t let your foot off the gas pedal yet, since the penalty for not participating in 2020 is a substantial 9%. Physicians should make sure that they, at minimum, achieve the 45 points necessary to avoid that pitfall this reporting year.

However, it is certainly time to reconsider efforts to participate at the highest level.
 

Should you or shouldn’t you bother with MIPS?

Let’s say you have $75,000 in revenue from Medicare Part B per year. Depending on the services you offer in your practice, that equates to 500-750 encounters with Medicare beneficiaries per year. (A reminder that MIPS affects only Part B; Medicare Advantage plans do not partake in the program.)

The recent announcement reveals that perfection would equate to an additional $1,260 per year. That’s only if you received the full 100 points; if you were simply an “exceptional performer,” the government will allot an additional $157. That’s less than you get paid for a single office visit.

The difference between perfection and compliance is approximately $1,000. Failure to participate, however, knocks $6,750 off your bottom line. Clearly, that’s a substantial financial loss that would affect most practices. Obviously, the numbers change if you have higher – or lower – Medicare revenue, but it’s important to do the math.

Why? Physicians are spending a significant amount of money to comply with the program requirements. This includes substantial payments to registries – typically $200 to >$1,000 per year – to report the quality measures for the program; electronic health record (EHR) systems, many of which require additional funding for the “upgrade” to a MIPS-compatible system, are also a sizable investment.

These hard costs pale in comparison with the time spent on understanding the ever-changing requirements of the program and the process by which your practice will implement them. Take, for example, something as innocuous as the required “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”

You first must understand the elements of the measure: What is a “referral loop?” When do we need to generate one? To whom shall it be sent? What needs to be included in “health information?” What is the electronic address to which we should route the information? How do we obtain that address? Then you must determine how your EHR system captures and reports it.

Only then comes the hard part: How are we going to implement this? That’s only one of more than a dozen required elements: six quality measures, two (to four) improvement activities, and four promoting interoperability requirements. Each one of these elements has a host of requirements, all listed on multipage specification sheets.

The government does not seem to be listening. John Cullen, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, testified at the Senate Finance Committee in May 2019 that MIPS “has created a burdensome and extremely complex program that has increased practice costs ... ” Yet, later that year, CMS issued another hefty ruling that outlines significant changes to the program, despite the fact that it’s in its fourth performance year.
 

Turning frustration into action

Frustration or even anger may be one reaction, but now is an opportune time to determine your investment in the program. At a minimum, it’s vital to understand and meet the threshold to avoid the penalty. It’s been shifting to date, but it’s now set at 9% for perpetuity.

First, it’s crucial to check on your participation status. CMS revealed that the participation database was recently corrected for so-called inconsistencies, so it pays to double-check. It only takes seconds: Insert your NPI in the QPP Participation Status Tool to determine your eligibility for 2020.

In 2020, the threshold to avoid the penalty is 45 points. To get the 45 points, practices must participate in two improvement activities, which is not difficult as there are 118 options. That will garner 15 points. Then there are 45 points available from the quality category; you need at least 30 to reach the 45-point threshold for penalty avoidance.
 

Smart MIPS hacks that can help you

To obtain the additional 30 points, turn your attention to the quality category. There are 268 quality measures; choose at least six to measure. If you report directly from your EHR system, you’ll get a bonus point for each reported measure, plus one just for trying. (There are a few other opportunities for bonus points, such as improving your scores over last year.) Those bonus points give you a base with which to work, but getting to 45 will require effort to report successfully on at least a couple of the measures.

The quality category has a total of 100 points available, which are converted to 45 toward your composite score. Since you need 30 to reach that magical 45 (if 15 were attained from improvement activities), that means you must come up with 75 points in the quality category. Between the bonus points and measuring a handful of measures successfully through the year, you’ll achieve this threshold.

There are two other categories in the program: promoting interoperability (PI) and cost. The PI category mirrors the old “meaningful use” program; however, it has become increasingly difficult over the years. If you think that you can meet the required elements, you can pick up 25 more points toward your composite score.

Cost is a bit of an unknown, as the scoring is based on a retrospective review of your claims. You’ll likely pick up a few more points on this 15-point category, but there’s no method to determine performance until after the reporting period. Therefore, be cautious about relying on this category.

The best MIPS hack, however, is if you are a small practice. CMS – remarkably – defines a “small practice” as 15 or fewer eligible professionals. If you qualify under this paradigm, you have multiple options to ease compliance:

Apply for a “hardship exemption” simply on the basis of being small; the exemption relates to the promoting operability category, shifting those points to the quality category.

Gain three points per quality measure, regardless of data completeness; this compares to just one point for other physicians.

Capture all of the points available from the Improvement Activities category by confirming participation with just a single activity. (This also applies to all physicians in rural or Health Professional Shortage Areas.)

In the event that you don’t qualify as a “small practice” or you’re still falling short of the requirements, CMS allows for the ultimate “out”: You can apply for exemption on the basis of an “extreme and uncontrollable circumstance.” The applications for these exceptions open this summer.

Unless you qualify for the program exemption, it’s important to keep pace with the program to ensure that you reach the 45-point threshold. It may not, however, be worthwhile to gear up for all 100 points unless your estimate of the potential return – and what it costs you to get there – reveals otherwise. MIPS is not going anywhere; the program is written into the law.

But that doesn’t mean that CMS can’t make tweaks and updates. Hopefully, the revisions won’t create even more administrative burden as the program is quickly turning into a big stick with only a small carrot at the end.

Elizabeth Woodcock is president of Woodcock & Associates in Atlanta. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

If you’ve knocked yourself out to earn a Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) bonus payment, it’s pretty safe to say that getting a 1.68% payment boost probably didn’t feel like a “win” that was worth the effort.

And although it saved you from having a negative 5% payment adjustment, many physicians don’t feel that it was worth the effort.

On Jan. 6, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced the 2020 payouts for MIPS.

Based on 2018 participation, the bonus for those who scored a perfect 100 is only a 1.68% boost in Medicare reimbursement, slightly lower than last year’s 1.88%. This decline comes as no surprise as the agency leader admits: “As the program matures, we expect that the increases in the performance thresholds in future program years will create a smaller distribution of positive payment adjustments.” Overall, more than 97% of participants avoided having a negative 5% payment adjustment.

Indeed, these bonus monies are based on a short-term appropriation of extra funds from Congress. After these temporary funds are no longer available, there will be little, if any, monies to distribute as the program is based on a “losers-feed-the-winners” construct.

It may be very tempting for many physicians to decide to ignore MIPS, with the rationale that 1.68% is not worth the effort. But don’t let your foot off the gas pedal yet, since the penalty for not participating in 2020 is a substantial 9%. Physicians should make sure that they, at minimum, achieve the 45 points necessary to avoid that pitfall this reporting year.

However, it is certainly time to reconsider efforts to participate at the highest level.
 

Should you or shouldn’t you bother with MIPS?

Let’s say you have $75,000 in revenue from Medicare Part B per year. Depending on the services you offer in your practice, that equates to 500-750 encounters with Medicare beneficiaries per year. (A reminder that MIPS affects only Part B; Medicare Advantage plans do not partake in the program.)

The recent announcement reveals that perfection would equate to an additional $1,260 per year. That’s only if you received the full 100 points; if you were simply an “exceptional performer,” the government will allot an additional $157. That’s less than you get paid for a single office visit.

The difference between perfection and compliance is approximately $1,000. Failure to participate, however, knocks $6,750 off your bottom line. Clearly, that’s a substantial financial loss that would affect most practices. Obviously, the numbers change if you have higher – or lower – Medicare revenue, but it’s important to do the math.

Why? Physicians are spending a significant amount of money to comply with the program requirements. This includes substantial payments to registries – typically $200 to >$1,000 per year – to report the quality measures for the program; electronic health record (EHR) systems, many of which require additional funding for the “upgrade” to a MIPS-compatible system, are also a sizable investment.

These hard costs pale in comparison with the time spent on understanding the ever-changing requirements of the program and the process by which your practice will implement them. Take, for example, something as innocuous as the required “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”

You first must understand the elements of the measure: What is a “referral loop?” When do we need to generate one? To whom shall it be sent? What needs to be included in “health information?” What is the electronic address to which we should route the information? How do we obtain that address? Then you must determine how your EHR system captures and reports it.

Only then comes the hard part: How are we going to implement this? That’s only one of more than a dozen required elements: six quality measures, two (to four) improvement activities, and four promoting interoperability requirements. Each one of these elements has a host of requirements, all listed on multipage specification sheets.

The government does not seem to be listening. John Cullen, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, testified at the Senate Finance Committee in May 2019 that MIPS “has created a burdensome and extremely complex program that has increased practice costs ... ” Yet, later that year, CMS issued another hefty ruling that outlines significant changes to the program, despite the fact that it’s in its fourth performance year.
 

Turning frustration into action

Frustration or even anger may be one reaction, but now is an opportune time to determine your investment in the program. At a minimum, it’s vital to understand and meet the threshold to avoid the penalty. It’s been shifting to date, but it’s now set at 9% for perpetuity.

First, it’s crucial to check on your participation status. CMS revealed that the participation database was recently corrected for so-called inconsistencies, so it pays to double-check. It only takes seconds: Insert your NPI in the QPP Participation Status Tool to determine your eligibility for 2020.

In 2020, the threshold to avoid the penalty is 45 points. To get the 45 points, practices must participate in two improvement activities, which is not difficult as there are 118 options. That will garner 15 points. Then there are 45 points available from the quality category; you need at least 30 to reach the 45-point threshold for penalty avoidance.
 

Smart MIPS hacks that can help you

To obtain the additional 30 points, turn your attention to the quality category. There are 268 quality measures; choose at least six to measure. If you report directly from your EHR system, you’ll get a bonus point for each reported measure, plus one just for trying. (There are a few other opportunities for bonus points, such as improving your scores over last year.) Those bonus points give you a base with which to work, but getting to 45 will require effort to report successfully on at least a couple of the measures.

The quality category has a total of 100 points available, which are converted to 45 toward your composite score. Since you need 30 to reach that magical 45 (if 15 were attained from improvement activities), that means you must come up with 75 points in the quality category. Between the bonus points and measuring a handful of measures successfully through the year, you’ll achieve this threshold.

There are two other categories in the program: promoting interoperability (PI) and cost. The PI category mirrors the old “meaningful use” program; however, it has become increasingly difficult over the years. If you think that you can meet the required elements, you can pick up 25 more points toward your composite score.

Cost is a bit of an unknown, as the scoring is based on a retrospective review of your claims. You’ll likely pick up a few more points on this 15-point category, but there’s no method to determine performance until after the reporting period. Therefore, be cautious about relying on this category.

The best MIPS hack, however, is if you are a small practice. CMS – remarkably – defines a “small practice” as 15 or fewer eligible professionals. If you qualify under this paradigm, you have multiple options to ease compliance:

Apply for a “hardship exemption” simply on the basis of being small; the exemption relates to the promoting operability category, shifting those points to the quality category.

Gain three points per quality measure, regardless of data completeness; this compares to just one point for other physicians.

Capture all of the points available from the Improvement Activities category by confirming participation with just a single activity. (This also applies to all physicians in rural or Health Professional Shortage Areas.)

In the event that you don’t qualify as a “small practice” or you’re still falling short of the requirements, CMS allows for the ultimate “out”: You can apply for exemption on the basis of an “extreme and uncontrollable circumstance.” The applications for these exceptions open this summer.

Unless you qualify for the program exemption, it’s important to keep pace with the program to ensure that you reach the 45-point threshold. It may not, however, be worthwhile to gear up for all 100 points unless your estimate of the potential return – and what it costs you to get there – reveals otherwise. MIPS is not going anywhere; the program is written into the law.

But that doesn’t mean that CMS can’t make tweaks and updates. Hopefully, the revisions won’t create even more administrative burden as the program is quickly turning into a big stick with only a small carrot at the end.

Elizabeth Woodcock is president of Woodcock & Associates in Atlanta. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

If you’ve knocked yourself out to earn a Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) bonus payment, it’s pretty safe to say that getting a 1.68% payment boost probably didn’t feel like a “win” that was worth the effort.

And although it saved you from having a negative 5% payment adjustment, many physicians don’t feel that it was worth the effort.

On Jan. 6, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced the 2020 payouts for MIPS.

Based on 2018 participation, the bonus for those who scored a perfect 100 is only a 1.68% boost in Medicare reimbursement, slightly lower than last year’s 1.88%. This decline comes as no surprise as the agency leader admits: “As the program matures, we expect that the increases in the performance thresholds in future program years will create a smaller distribution of positive payment adjustments.” Overall, more than 97% of participants avoided having a negative 5% payment adjustment.

Indeed, these bonus monies are based on a short-term appropriation of extra funds from Congress. After these temporary funds are no longer available, there will be little, if any, monies to distribute as the program is based on a “losers-feed-the-winners” construct.

It may be very tempting for many physicians to decide to ignore MIPS, with the rationale that 1.68% is not worth the effort. But don’t let your foot off the gas pedal yet, since the penalty for not participating in 2020 is a substantial 9%. Physicians should make sure that they, at minimum, achieve the 45 points necessary to avoid that pitfall this reporting year.

However, it is certainly time to reconsider efforts to participate at the highest level.
 

Should you or shouldn’t you bother with MIPS?

Let’s say you have $75,000 in revenue from Medicare Part B per year. Depending on the services you offer in your practice, that equates to 500-750 encounters with Medicare beneficiaries per year. (A reminder that MIPS affects only Part B; Medicare Advantage plans do not partake in the program.)

The recent announcement reveals that perfection would equate to an additional $1,260 per year. That’s only if you received the full 100 points; if you were simply an “exceptional performer,” the government will allot an additional $157. That’s less than you get paid for a single office visit.

The difference between perfection and compliance is approximately $1,000. Failure to participate, however, knocks $6,750 off your bottom line. Clearly, that’s a substantial financial loss that would affect most practices. Obviously, the numbers change if you have higher – or lower – Medicare revenue, but it’s important to do the math.

Why? Physicians are spending a significant amount of money to comply with the program requirements. This includes substantial payments to registries – typically $200 to >$1,000 per year – to report the quality measures for the program; electronic health record (EHR) systems, many of which require additional funding for the “upgrade” to a MIPS-compatible system, are also a sizable investment.

These hard costs pale in comparison with the time spent on understanding the ever-changing requirements of the program and the process by which your practice will implement them. Take, for example, something as innocuous as the required “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”

You first must understand the elements of the measure: What is a “referral loop?” When do we need to generate one? To whom shall it be sent? What needs to be included in “health information?” What is the electronic address to which we should route the information? How do we obtain that address? Then you must determine how your EHR system captures and reports it.

Only then comes the hard part: How are we going to implement this? That’s only one of more than a dozen required elements: six quality measures, two (to four) improvement activities, and four promoting interoperability requirements. Each one of these elements has a host of requirements, all listed on multipage specification sheets.

The government does not seem to be listening. John Cullen, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, testified at the Senate Finance Committee in May 2019 that MIPS “has created a burdensome and extremely complex program that has increased practice costs ... ” Yet, later that year, CMS issued another hefty ruling that outlines significant changes to the program, despite the fact that it’s in its fourth performance year.
 

Turning frustration into action

Frustration or even anger may be one reaction, but now is an opportune time to determine your investment in the program. At a minimum, it’s vital to understand and meet the threshold to avoid the penalty. It’s been shifting to date, but it’s now set at 9% for perpetuity.

First, it’s crucial to check on your participation status. CMS revealed that the participation database was recently corrected for so-called inconsistencies, so it pays to double-check. It only takes seconds: Insert your NPI in the QPP Participation Status Tool to determine your eligibility for 2020.

In 2020, the threshold to avoid the penalty is 45 points. To get the 45 points, practices must participate in two improvement activities, which is not difficult as there are 118 options. That will garner 15 points. Then there are 45 points available from the quality category; you need at least 30 to reach the 45-point threshold for penalty avoidance.
 

Smart MIPS hacks that can help you

To obtain the additional 30 points, turn your attention to the quality category. There are 268 quality measures; choose at least six to measure. If you report directly from your EHR system, you’ll get a bonus point for each reported measure, plus one just for trying. (There are a few other opportunities for bonus points, such as improving your scores over last year.) Those bonus points give you a base with which to work, but getting to 45 will require effort to report successfully on at least a couple of the measures.

The quality category has a total of 100 points available, which are converted to 45 toward your composite score. Since you need 30 to reach that magical 45 (if 15 were attained from improvement activities), that means you must come up with 75 points in the quality category. Between the bonus points and measuring a handful of measures successfully through the year, you’ll achieve this threshold.

There are two other categories in the program: promoting interoperability (PI) and cost. The PI category mirrors the old “meaningful use” program; however, it has become increasingly difficult over the years. If you think that you can meet the required elements, you can pick up 25 more points toward your composite score.

Cost is a bit of an unknown, as the scoring is based on a retrospective review of your claims. You’ll likely pick up a few more points on this 15-point category, but there’s no method to determine performance until after the reporting period. Therefore, be cautious about relying on this category.

The best MIPS hack, however, is if you are a small practice. CMS – remarkably – defines a “small practice” as 15 or fewer eligible professionals. If you qualify under this paradigm, you have multiple options to ease compliance:

Apply for a “hardship exemption” simply on the basis of being small; the exemption relates to the promoting operability category, shifting those points to the quality category.

Gain three points per quality measure, regardless of data completeness; this compares to just one point for other physicians.

Capture all of the points available from the Improvement Activities category by confirming participation with just a single activity. (This also applies to all physicians in rural or Health Professional Shortage Areas.)

In the event that you don’t qualify as a “small practice” or you’re still falling short of the requirements, CMS allows for the ultimate “out”: You can apply for exemption on the basis of an “extreme and uncontrollable circumstance.” The applications for these exceptions open this summer.

Unless you qualify for the program exemption, it’s important to keep pace with the program to ensure that you reach the 45-point threshold. It may not, however, be worthwhile to gear up for all 100 points unless your estimate of the potential return – and what it costs you to get there – reveals otherwise. MIPS is not going anywhere; the program is written into the law.

But that doesn’t mean that CMS can’t make tweaks and updates. Hopefully, the revisions won’t create even more administrative burden as the program is quickly turning into a big stick with only a small carrot at the end.

Elizabeth Woodcock is president of Woodcock & Associates in Atlanta. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.