Neurology Reviews

The European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) have produced a joint position statement on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

The statement was released at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). The statement concludes that the COVID-19 vaccines that are currently available are safe for patients with MS. Further, it states that the vaccines confer the same protection for patients with MS as they do for the general population. Exceptions may be patients taking the S1P modulator fingolimod and anti-CD20 drugs. For these patients, antibody responses have been shown to be reduced.

This position statement will be published on the ECTRIMS and EAN websites. Owing to the shifting, ongoing nature of evidence, the position statement will be updated periodically.

Presenting the statement, Mauricio Farez, MD, Fundacion FLENI, Buenos Aires, concluded: “Overall, MS patients do not seem to develop more severe forms of COVID-19 as compared with healthy controls, but patients with greater disability, anti-CD20 treatment, or those with recent steroid use have a higher risk of severe disease.”

“So far there are no specific contraindications for any COVID vaccines in MS patients reported,” he added. “We should work with our patients to keep them safe with vaccines while optimizing treatment strategies and MS management, in particular for those treated with anti-CD20 and S1P modulators.”
 

Risk for COVID-19 among patients with MS

On the issue of whether patients with MS are at higher risk for COVID-19 or for having a more severe form of the disease, Dr. Farez noted that studies published to date are reassuring and don’t suggest major problems regarding safety.

The main factors that are associated with more serious forms of COVID in patients with MS are similar to those in the general population. These include age, obesity, diabetes, male sex, and Black race.

As for any risk associated with MS therapies, interferons and glatiramer acetate do not increase the risk of getting COVID-19 or worsen the clinical course of the disease. Fingolimod, teriflunomide, natalizumab, and dimethyl fumarate also do not seem to negatively affect risk for COVID-19, according to the statement.

However, several studies have shown that anti-CD20 therapies, such as ocrelizumab, and steroid pulses can confer an increased risk for COVID-19.
 

COVID-19 vaccine safety

Four COVID-19 vaccines are licensed for use in the European Union. These include two mRNA vaccines – Spikevax (Moderna) and Comimaty (Pfizer) – and two adenovirus-based vaccines, one from Janssen (J&J) and the other from AstraZeneca. Five other COVID-19 vaccines are under review and may be available in the future.

All the currently available vaccines can be administered to patients with MS, including patients receiving immunosuppressant disease-modifying therapies, the statement notes.

In real-life clinical practice, no red flags have been observed for patients with MS who have received mRNA vaccines to date. Nevertheless, because immunocompromised patients and those taking immunomodulators were excluded from trials, continued surveillance for immune-mediated adverse effects is warranted, Dr. Farez said.

Regarding possible effects of vaccines on MS relapses/disability, no significant adverse effects occurred in a study conducted in Israel (by Achiron and colleagues) that involved 435 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. The relapse rate was 1.6%, similar to the rate among patients who did not have MS. A study by Di Filippo and colleagues showed no significant changes in relapse rate in the 2 months following immunization with the Pfizer vaccine among 324 patients with MS.

“There are no specific contraindications to any of the vaccines particularly for MS patients compared with the general population,” Dr. Farez noted.
 

Are there different recommendations for different MS therapies?

On the issue of vaccine effects in patients taking various disease-modifying treatments, the statement says that the data on this are limited. Patients taking interferons, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, and fumarates whose lymphocyte counts are normal will most likely be adequately protected. Patients with moderate to severe lymphopenia may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, so absolute lymphocyte count may be checked before vaccination.

Patients taking natalizumab will also likely be protected with COVID vaccination.

It is likely that for patients taking alemtuzumab, immune cellular and humoral response to COVID-10 vaccines will be attenuated, especially in the first 6 months during maximum lymphopenia. If possible, vaccination should be delayed until at least 6 months after treatment. It is thought that patients who have completed both courses of alemtuzumab with complete immune reconstitution will mount a full immune response.

In studies, all patients with MS who were treated with cladribine demonstrated a protective humoral immune response to the COVID-19 vaccine. In those studies, the antibody response was evident about 4 months after the last treatment dose, and the titer did not differ from that of healthy persons, Dr. Farez reported.
 

Low antibody level with fingolimod

The majority of patients treated with fingolimod have failed to show a protective level of antibodies following COVID-19 vaccination, the statement notes.

Asked whether patients taking fingolimod should receive a COVID vaccination, Dr. Farez said that that was a good question. “We have to think about what is an immune response. Antibodies are only a small fraction of all immune responses. So, until we have data to show otherwise, I think we should vaccinate – any immunity is better than no immunity,” he said.

Dr. Farez also suggested that patients with MS who are taking fingolimod should continue to do so. “Any treatment for MS is better than none. If fingolimod is stopped, MS may rebound. So, the most likely scenario would be to keep treating with fingolimod and to give the vaccination. But these patients may need a more aggressive booster approach – we will be looking at that,” he said.
 

Anti-CD20 antibody drugs

Patients taking ocrelizumab also do not mount an appropriate antibody response regardless of lymphocyte count or the time interval from the last ocrelizumab dose (3-9 months), the statement says. To optimize vaccine efficacy and to balance benefits and risks, the statement advises administering COVID vaccines at least 12 weeks after administering ocrelizumab and 4-6 weeks prior to the next dose, whenever possible.

A study by Apostolidis and colleagues provides strong evidence of immune priming by COVID vaccination in patients treated with anti-CD20 medications. Although for most of these patients, antibody responses are not optimal, T-cell priming is largely intact, Dr. Farez noted.
 

Booster doses/antibody tests

The need for and timing of COVID vaccine booster doses have not been established. “This is being discussed now for the general population. The recommendations for MS patients will not differ significantly from those for the general population, apart from perhaps for specific populations such as those on anti-CD20 drugs or fingolimod,” Dr. Farez said.

Antibody testing is not currently recommended for assessing immunity following COVID vaccination because the clinical utility and serologic correlates of protection after vaccination have not been established. Antibody testing does not evaluate the cellular immune response, which may play a role in vaccine-mediated protection, according to the statement.


Vaccination strategy after COVID

People should be offered vaccination regardless of their history of symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19, including people with prolonged post-COVID symptoms. Data from clinical trials indicate that the currently authorized vaccines can be given safely to people with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. For people who are known to be currently infected with SARS-CoV-2, vaccination should be deferred until the acute illness has passed.

Pregnancy/children

Data on the safety of COVID vaccines during pregnancy are limited. On the basis of current knowledge, experts believe that it is unlikely that COVID vaccines pose a risk to the pregnant person or fetus, and thus pregnant people with MS are eligible for and can receive a COVID-19 vaccine, the statement notes.

Adolescents aged 12-17 are eligible to receive the authorized mRNA vaccine, but children younger than 12 are not authorized to receive any COVID vaccine at this time, it adds.

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

The European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) have produced a joint position statement on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

The statement was released at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). The statement concludes that the COVID-19 vaccines that are currently available are safe for patients with MS. Further, it states that the vaccines confer the same protection for patients with MS as they do for the general population. Exceptions may be patients taking the S1P modulator fingolimod and anti-CD20 drugs. For these patients, antibody responses have been shown to be reduced.

This position statement will be published on the ECTRIMS and EAN websites. Owing to the shifting, ongoing nature of evidence, the position statement will be updated periodically.

Presenting the statement, Mauricio Farez, MD, Fundacion FLENI, Buenos Aires, concluded: “Overall, MS patients do not seem to develop more severe forms of COVID-19 as compared with healthy controls, but patients with greater disability, anti-CD20 treatment, or those with recent steroid use have a higher risk of severe disease.”

“So far there are no specific contraindications for any COVID vaccines in MS patients reported,” he added. “We should work with our patients to keep them safe with vaccines while optimizing treatment strategies and MS management, in particular for those treated with anti-CD20 and S1P modulators.”
 

Risk for COVID-19 among patients with MS

On the issue of whether patients with MS are at higher risk for COVID-19 or for having a more severe form of the disease, Dr. Farez noted that studies published to date are reassuring and don’t suggest major problems regarding safety.

The main factors that are associated with more serious forms of COVID in patients with MS are similar to those in the general population. These include age, obesity, diabetes, male sex, and Black race.

As for any risk associated with MS therapies, interferons and glatiramer acetate do not increase the risk of getting COVID-19 or worsen the clinical course of the disease. Fingolimod, teriflunomide, natalizumab, and dimethyl fumarate also do not seem to negatively affect risk for COVID-19, according to the statement.

However, several studies have shown that anti-CD20 therapies, such as ocrelizumab, and steroid pulses can confer an increased risk for COVID-19.
 

COVID-19 vaccine safety

Four COVID-19 vaccines are licensed for use in the European Union. These include two mRNA vaccines – Spikevax (Moderna) and Comimaty (Pfizer) – and two adenovirus-based vaccines, one from Janssen (J&J) and the other from AstraZeneca. Five other COVID-19 vaccines are under review and may be available in the future.

All the currently available vaccines can be administered to patients with MS, including patients receiving immunosuppressant disease-modifying therapies, the statement notes.

In real-life clinical practice, no red flags have been observed for patients with MS who have received mRNA vaccines to date. Nevertheless, because immunocompromised patients and those taking immunomodulators were excluded from trials, continued surveillance for immune-mediated adverse effects is warranted, Dr. Farez said.

Regarding possible effects of vaccines on MS relapses/disability, no significant adverse effects occurred in a study conducted in Israel (by Achiron and colleagues) that involved 435 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. The relapse rate was 1.6%, similar to the rate among patients who did not have MS. A study by Di Filippo and colleagues showed no significant changes in relapse rate in the 2 months following immunization with the Pfizer vaccine among 324 patients with MS.

“There are no specific contraindications to any of the vaccines particularly for MS patients compared with the general population,” Dr. Farez noted.
 

Are there different recommendations for different MS therapies?

On the issue of vaccine effects in patients taking various disease-modifying treatments, the statement says that the data on this are limited. Patients taking interferons, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, and fumarates whose lymphocyte counts are normal will most likely be adequately protected. Patients with moderate to severe lymphopenia may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, so absolute lymphocyte count may be checked before vaccination.

Patients taking natalizumab will also likely be protected with COVID vaccination.

It is likely that for patients taking alemtuzumab, immune cellular and humoral response to COVID-10 vaccines will be attenuated, especially in the first 6 months during maximum lymphopenia. If possible, vaccination should be delayed until at least 6 months after treatment. It is thought that patients who have completed both courses of alemtuzumab with complete immune reconstitution will mount a full immune response.

In studies, all patients with MS who were treated with cladribine demonstrated a protective humoral immune response to the COVID-19 vaccine. In those studies, the antibody response was evident about 4 months after the last treatment dose, and the titer did not differ from that of healthy persons, Dr. Farez reported.
 

Low antibody level with fingolimod

The majority of patients treated with fingolimod have failed to show a protective level of antibodies following COVID-19 vaccination, the statement notes.

Asked whether patients taking fingolimod should receive a COVID vaccination, Dr. Farez said that that was a good question. “We have to think about what is an immune response. Antibodies are only a small fraction of all immune responses. So, until we have data to show otherwise, I think we should vaccinate – any immunity is better than no immunity,” he said.

Dr. Farez also suggested that patients with MS who are taking fingolimod should continue to do so. “Any treatment for MS is better than none. If fingolimod is stopped, MS may rebound. So, the most likely scenario would be to keep treating with fingolimod and to give the vaccination. But these patients may need a more aggressive booster approach – we will be looking at that,” he said.
 

Anti-CD20 antibody drugs

Patients taking ocrelizumab also do not mount an appropriate antibody response regardless of lymphocyte count or the time interval from the last ocrelizumab dose (3-9 months), the statement says. To optimize vaccine efficacy and to balance benefits and risks, the statement advises administering COVID vaccines at least 12 weeks after administering ocrelizumab and 4-6 weeks prior to the next dose, whenever possible.

A study by Apostolidis and colleagues provides strong evidence of immune priming by COVID vaccination in patients treated with anti-CD20 medications. Although for most of these patients, antibody responses are not optimal, T-cell priming is largely intact, Dr. Farez noted.
 

Booster doses/antibody tests

The need for and timing of COVID vaccine booster doses have not been established. “This is being discussed now for the general population. The recommendations for MS patients will not differ significantly from those for the general population, apart from perhaps for specific populations such as those on anti-CD20 drugs or fingolimod,” Dr. Farez said.

Antibody testing is not currently recommended for assessing immunity following COVID vaccination because the clinical utility and serologic correlates of protection after vaccination have not been established. Antibody testing does not evaluate the cellular immune response, which may play a role in vaccine-mediated protection, according to the statement.


Vaccination strategy after COVID

People should be offered vaccination regardless of their history of symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19, including people with prolonged post-COVID symptoms. Data from clinical trials indicate that the currently authorized vaccines can be given safely to people with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. For people who are known to be currently infected with SARS-CoV-2, vaccination should be deferred until the acute illness has passed.

Pregnancy/children

Data on the safety of COVID vaccines during pregnancy are limited. On the basis of current knowledge, experts believe that it is unlikely that COVID vaccines pose a risk to the pregnant person or fetus, and thus pregnant people with MS are eligible for and can receive a COVID-19 vaccine, the statement notes.

Adolescents aged 12-17 are eligible to receive the authorized mRNA vaccine, but children younger than 12 are not authorized to receive any COVID vaccine at this time, it adds.

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

The European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) have produced a joint position statement on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

The statement was released at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). The statement concludes that the COVID-19 vaccines that are currently available are safe for patients with MS. Further, it states that the vaccines confer the same protection for patients with MS as they do for the general population. Exceptions may be patients taking the S1P modulator fingolimod and anti-CD20 drugs. For these patients, antibody responses have been shown to be reduced.

This position statement will be published on the ECTRIMS and EAN websites. Owing to the shifting, ongoing nature of evidence, the position statement will be updated periodically.

Presenting the statement, Mauricio Farez, MD, Fundacion FLENI, Buenos Aires, concluded: “Overall, MS patients do not seem to develop more severe forms of COVID-19 as compared with healthy controls, but patients with greater disability, anti-CD20 treatment, or those with recent steroid use have a higher risk of severe disease.”

“So far there are no specific contraindications for any COVID vaccines in MS patients reported,” he added. “We should work with our patients to keep them safe with vaccines while optimizing treatment strategies and MS management, in particular for those treated with anti-CD20 and S1P modulators.”
 

Risk for COVID-19 among patients with MS

On the issue of whether patients with MS are at higher risk for COVID-19 or for having a more severe form of the disease, Dr. Farez noted that studies published to date are reassuring and don’t suggest major problems regarding safety.

The main factors that are associated with more serious forms of COVID in patients with MS are similar to those in the general population. These include age, obesity, diabetes, male sex, and Black race.

As for any risk associated with MS therapies, interferons and glatiramer acetate do not increase the risk of getting COVID-19 or worsen the clinical course of the disease. Fingolimod, teriflunomide, natalizumab, and dimethyl fumarate also do not seem to negatively affect risk for COVID-19, according to the statement.

However, several studies have shown that anti-CD20 therapies, such as ocrelizumab, and steroid pulses can confer an increased risk for COVID-19.
 

COVID-19 vaccine safety

Four COVID-19 vaccines are licensed for use in the European Union. These include two mRNA vaccines – Spikevax (Moderna) and Comimaty (Pfizer) – and two adenovirus-based vaccines, one from Janssen (J&J) and the other from AstraZeneca. Five other COVID-19 vaccines are under review and may be available in the future.

All the currently available vaccines can be administered to patients with MS, including patients receiving immunosuppressant disease-modifying therapies, the statement notes.

In real-life clinical practice, no red flags have been observed for patients with MS who have received mRNA vaccines to date. Nevertheless, because immunocompromised patients and those taking immunomodulators were excluded from trials, continued surveillance for immune-mediated adverse effects is warranted, Dr. Farez said.

Regarding possible effects of vaccines on MS relapses/disability, no significant adverse effects occurred in a study conducted in Israel (by Achiron and colleagues) that involved 435 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. The relapse rate was 1.6%, similar to the rate among patients who did not have MS. A study by Di Filippo and colleagues showed no significant changes in relapse rate in the 2 months following immunization with the Pfizer vaccine among 324 patients with MS.

“There are no specific contraindications to any of the vaccines particularly for MS patients compared with the general population,” Dr. Farez noted.
 

Are there different recommendations for different MS therapies?

On the issue of vaccine effects in patients taking various disease-modifying treatments, the statement says that the data on this are limited. Patients taking interferons, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, and fumarates whose lymphocyte counts are normal will most likely be adequately protected. Patients with moderate to severe lymphopenia may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, so absolute lymphocyte count may be checked before vaccination.

Patients taking natalizumab will also likely be protected with COVID vaccination.

It is likely that for patients taking alemtuzumab, immune cellular and humoral response to COVID-10 vaccines will be attenuated, especially in the first 6 months during maximum lymphopenia. If possible, vaccination should be delayed until at least 6 months after treatment. It is thought that patients who have completed both courses of alemtuzumab with complete immune reconstitution will mount a full immune response.

In studies, all patients with MS who were treated with cladribine demonstrated a protective humoral immune response to the COVID-19 vaccine. In those studies, the antibody response was evident about 4 months after the last treatment dose, and the titer did not differ from that of healthy persons, Dr. Farez reported.
 

Low antibody level with fingolimod

The majority of patients treated with fingolimod have failed to show a protective level of antibodies following COVID-19 vaccination, the statement notes.

Asked whether patients taking fingolimod should receive a COVID vaccination, Dr. Farez said that that was a good question. “We have to think about what is an immune response. Antibodies are only a small fraction of all immune responses. So, until we have data to show otherwise, I think we should vaccinate – any immunity is better than no immunity,” he said.

Dr. Farez also suggested that patients with MS who are taking fingolimod should continue to do so. “Any treatment for MS is better than none. If fingolimod is stopped, MS may rebound. So, the most likely scenario would be to keep treating with fingolimod and to give the vaccination. But these patients may need a more aggressive booster approach – we will be looking at that,” he said.
 

Anti-CD20 antibody drugs

Patients taking ocrelizumab also do not mount an appropriate antibody response regardless of lymphocyte count or the time interval from the last ocrelizumab dose (3-9 months), the statement says. To optimize vaccine efficacy and to balance benefits and risks, the statement advises administering COVID vaccines at least 12 weeks after administering ocrelizumab and 4-6 weeks prior to the next dose, whenever possible.

A study by Apostolidis and colleagues provides strong evidence of immune priming by COVID vaccination in patients treated with anti-CD20 medications. Although for most of these patients, antibody responses are not optimal, T-cell priming is largely intact, Dr. Farez noted.
 

Booster doses/antibody tests

The need for and timing of COVID vaccine booster doses have not been established. “This is being discussed now for the general population. The recommendations for MS patients will not differ significantly from those for the general population, apart from perhaps for specific populations such as those on anti-CD20 drugs or fingolimod,” Dr. Farez said.

Antibody testing is not currently recommended for assessing immunity following COVID vaccination because the clinical utility and serologic correlates of protection after vaccination have not been established. Antibody testing does not evaluate the cellular immune response, which may play a role in vaccine-mediated protection, according to the statement.


Vaccination strategy after COVID

People should be offered vaccination regardless of their history of symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19, including people with prolonged post-COVID symptoms. Data from clinical trials indicate that the currently authorized vaccines can be given safely to people with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. For people who are known to be currently infected with SARS-CoV-2, vaccination should be deferred until the acute illness has passed.

Pregnancy/children

Data on the safety of COVID vaccines during pregnancy are limited. On the basis of current knowledge, experts believe that it is unlikely that COVID vaccines pose a risk to the pregnant person or fetus, and thus pregnant people with MS are eligible for and can receive a COVID-19 vaccine, the statement notes.

Adolescents aged 12-17 are eligible to receive the authorized mRNA vaccine, but children younger than 12 are not authorized to receive any COVID vaccine at this time, it adds.

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

The Barcelona baseline risk score predicted progression of multiple sclerosis (MS) in patients by assigning them to low-, medium-, and high-risk groups. The high-risk group had the shortest time to progression to an Expanded Disability Status Score (EDSS) of 3.0, and were also more likely to progress by MRI and quality of life measures.

The ranking is based on sex, age at the first clinically isolated syndrome, CIS topography, the number of T2 lesions, and the presence of infratentorial and spinal cord lesions, contrast-enhancing lesions, and oligoclonal bands.

“What we wanted to do is merge all of the different prognostic variables for one single patient into one single score,” said Mar Tintoré, MD, PhD, in an interview. Dr. Tintoré is a professor of neurology at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona and a senior consultant at the Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat). Dr. Tintoré presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

The three groups had different outcomes in MRI, clinical factors, and MRI scans, and quality of life outcomes over the course of their disease. “So this is a confirmation that this classification at baseline is really meaningful,” Dr. Tintoré said in an interview.

She attributed the success of the model to its reliance on multiple factors, but it is also designed to be simple to use. “We have been trying to use it with simple factors, [information] that you always have, like age, sex, gender, number of lesions, and topography of the region. Everybody has this information at their desk.”
 

Proof of concept

The study validates the approach that neurologists already utilize, according to Patricia Coyle, MD, who moderated the session. “I think the prospective study is a really unique and powerful concept,” said Dr. Coyle, who is a professor of neurology, vice chair of neurology, and director of the Stony Brook (N.Y.) Comprehensive Care Center.

The new study “kind of confirmed their concept of the initial rating, judging long-term disability progression measures in subsets. They also looked at brain atrophy, they looked at gray-matter atrophy, and that also traveled with these three different groups of severity. So it kind of gives value to looking at prognostic indicators at a first attack,” said Dr. Coyle.

The results also validate the Barcelona group’s heavy emphasis on MRI, which Dr. Coyle pointed out is common practice. “If the brain MRI looks very bad, if there are a lot of spinal cord lesions, then that’s somebody we’re much more worried about.”

Once the model is confirmed in other cohorts, the researchers plan to release the model as a generally available algorithm that clinicians could use to help manage patients. Dr. Tintoré pointed out the debate over when to begin a patient on high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies. That choice depends on a lot of factors, including patient choice, safety, and comorbidities. “But knowing that your patient is at risk of having a bad prognosis is something that is helpful” in that decision-making process, she said.
 

Predicting time to EDSS 3.0

The researchers used the Barcelona CIS cohort to build a Weibull survival regression in order to estimate the median time to EDSS 3.0. The model produced three categories with widely divergent predicted times from CIS to EDSS 3.0: low risk, medium risk, and high risk.

In the current report, the researchers compared the model to a “360 degree” measure of measures in 1,308 patients, including clinical milestones (McDonald 2017 MS, confirmed secondary progressive MS, progression independent of relapse activity [PIRA], EDSS disability, number of T2 MRI lesions and brain atrophy, and Patient Reported Outcomes for MS [walking speed, manual dexterity, processing speed, and contrast sensitivity]).

At 30 years after CIS, the risk of reaching EDSS 3.0 was higher in the medium risk (hazard ratio, 3.0 versus low risk) and in the high risk group (HR, 8.3 versus low risk). At 10 years, the low risk group had a 40% risk of fulfilling McDonald 2017 criteria, versus 89% in the intermediate group, and 98% in the high risk group. A similar relationship was seen for SPMS (1%, 8%, 16%) and PIRA (17%, 26%, 35%).

At 10 years, the estimated accumulated T2 lesions was 7 in the low-risk group (95% CI, 5-9), 15 in the medium-risk group (95% CI, 12-17), and 21 in the high-risk group (95% CI, 15-27).

Compared with the low- and medium-risk groups, the high-risk group had lower brain parenchymal fraction and gray-matter fraction at 5 years. They also experienced higher stigma, had worse perception of upper and lower limb function as measured by Neuro QoL, and had worse cognitive performance.

Dr. Tintoré has received compensation for consulting services and speaking honoraria from Aimirall, Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen-Idec, Genzyme, Janssen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Viela Bio. Dr. Coyle has no relevant disclosures.

The Barcelona baseline risk score predicted progression of multiple sclerosis (MS) in patients by assigning them to low-, medium-, and high-risk groups. The high-risk group had the shortest time to progression to an Expanded Disability Status Score (EDSS) of 3.0, and were also more likely to progress by MRI and quality of life measures.

The ranking is based on sex, age at the first clinically isolated syndrome, CIS topography, the number of T2 lesions, and the presence of infratentorial and spinal cord lesions, contrast-enhancing lesions, and oligoclonal bands.

“What we wanted to do is merge all of the different prognostic variables for one single patient into one single score,” said Mar Tintoré, MD, PhD, in an interview. Dr. Tintoré is a professor of neurology at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona and a senior consultant at the Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat). Dr. Tintoré presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

The three groups had different outcomes in MRI, clinical factors, and MRI scans, and quality of life outcomes over the course of their disease. “So this is a confirmation that this classification at baseline is really meaningful,” Dr. Tintoré said in an interview.

She attributed the success of the model to its reliance on multiple factors, but it is also designed to be simple to use. “We have been trying to use it with simple factors, [information] that you always have, like age, sex, gender, number of lesions, and topography of the region. Everybody has this information at their desk.”
 

Proof of concept

The study validates the approach that neurologists already utilize, according to Patricia Coyle, MD, who moderated the session. “I think the prospective study is a really unique and powerful concept,” said Dr. Coyle, who is a professor of neurology, vice chair of neurology, and director of the Stony Brook (N.Y.) Comprehensive Care Center.

The new study “kind of confirmed their concept of the initial rating, judging long-term disability progression measures in subsets. They also looked at brain atrophy, they looked at gray-matter atrophy, and that also traveled with these three different groups of severity. So it kind of gives value to looking at prognostic indicators at a first attack,” said Dr. Coyle.

The results also validate the Barcelona group’s heavy emphasis on MRI, which Dr. Coyle pointed out is common practice. “If the brain MRI looks very bad, if there are a lot of spinal cord lesions, then that’s somebody we’re much more worried about.”

Once the model is confirmed in other cohorts, the researchers plan to release the model as a generally available algorithm that clinicians could use to help manage patients. Dr. Tintoré pointed out the debate over when to begin a patient on high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies. That choice depends on a lot of factors, including patient choice, safety, and comorbidities. “But knowing that your patient is at risk of having a bad prognosis is something that is helpful” in that decision-making process, she said.
 

Predicting time to EDSS 3.0

The researchers used the Barcelona CIS cohort to build a Weibull survival regression in order to estimate the median time to EDSS 3.0. The model produced three categories with widely divergent predicted times from CIS to EDSS 3.0: low risk, medium risk, and high risk.

In the current report, the researchers compared the model to a “360 degree” measure of measures in 1,308 patients, including clinical milestones (McDonald 2017 MS, confirmed secondary progressive MS, progression independent of relapse activity [PIRA], EDSS disability, number of T2 MRI lesions and brain atrophy, and Patient Reported Outcomes for MS [walking speed, manual dexterity, processing speed, and contrast sensitivity]).

At 30 years after CIS, the risk of reaching EDSS 3.0 was higher in the medium risk (hazard ratio, 3.0 versus low risk) and in the high risk group (HR, 8.3 versus low risk). At 10 years, the low risk group had a 40% risk of fulfilling McDonald 2017 criteria, versus 89% in the intermediate group, and 98% in the high risk group. A similar relationship was seen for SPMS (1%, 8%, 16%) and PIRA (17%, 26%, 35%).

At 10 years, the estimated accumulated T2 lesions was 7 in the low-risk group (95% CI, 5-9), 15 in the medium-risk group (95% CI, 12-17), and 21 in the high-risk group (95% CI, 15-27).

Compared with the low- and medium-risk groups, the high-risk group had lower brain parenchymal fraction and gray-matter fraction at 5 years. They also experienced higher stigma, had worse perception of upper and lower limb function as measured by Neuro QoL, and had worse cognitive performance.

Dr. Tintoré has received compensation for consulting services and speaking honoraria from Aimirall, Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen-Idec, Genzyme, Janssen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Viela Bio. Dr. Coyle has no relevant disclosures.

The Barcelona baseline risk score predicted progression of multiple sclerosis (MS) in patients by assigning them to low-, medium-, and high-risk groups. The high-risk group had the shortest time to progression to an Expanded Disability Status Score (EDSS) of 3.0, and were also more likely to progress by MRI and quality of life measures.

The ranking is based on sex, age at the first clinically isolated syndrome, CIS topography, the number of T2 lesions, and the presence of infratentorial and spinal cord lesions, contrast-enhancing lesions, and oligoclonal bands.

“What we wanted to do is merge all of the different prognostic variables for one single patient into one single score,” said Mar Tintoré, MD, PhD, in an interview. Dr. Tintoré is a professor of neurology at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona and a senior consultant at the Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat). Dr. Tintoré presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

The three groups had different outcomes in MRI, clinical factors, and MRI scans, and quality of life outcomes over the course of their disease. “So this is a confirmation that this classification at baseline is really meaningful,” Dr. Tintoré said in an interview.

She attributed the success of the model to its reliance on multiple factors, but it is also designed to be simple to use. “We have been trying to use it with simple factors, [information] that you always have, like age, sex, gender, number of lesions, and topography of the region. Everybody has this information at their desk.”
 

Proof of concept

The study validates the approach that neurologists already utilize, according to Patricia Coyle, MD, who moderated the session. “I think the prospective study is a really unique and powerful concept,” said Dr. Coyle, who is a professor of neurology, vice chair of neurology, and director of the Stony Brook (N.Y.) Comprehensive Care Center.

The new study “kind of confirmed their concept of the initial rating, judging long-term disability progression measures in subsets. They also looked at brain atrophy, they looked at gray-matter atrophy, and that also traveled with these three different groups of severity. So it kind of gives value to looking at prognostic indicators at a first attack,” said Dr. Coyle.

The results also validate the Barcelona group’s heavy emphasis on MRI, which Dr. Coyle pointed out is common practice. “If the brain MRI looks very bad, if there are a lot of spinal cord lesions, then that’s somebody we’re much more worried about.”

Once the model is confirmed in other cohorts, the researchers plan to release the model as a generally available algorithm that clinicians could use to help manage patients. Dr. Tintoré pointed out the debate over when to begin a patient on high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies. That choice depends on a lot of factors, including patient choice, safety, and comorbidities. “But knowing that your patient is at risk of having a bad prognosis is something that is helpful” in that decision-making process, she said.
 

Predicting time to EDSS 3.0

The researchers used the Barcelona CIS cohort to build a Weibull survival regression in order to estimate the median time to EDSS 3.0. The model produced three categories with widely divergent predicted times from CIS to EDSS 3.0: low risk, medium risk, and high risk.

In the current report, the researchers compared the model to a “360 degree” measure of measures in 1,308 patients, including clinical milestones (McDonald 2017 MS, confirmed secondary progressive MS, progression independent of relapse activity [PIRA], EDSS disability, number of T2 MRI lesions and brain atrophy, and Patient Reported Outcomes for MS [walking speed, manual dexterity, processing speed, and contrast sensitivity]).

At 30 years after CIS, the risk of reaching EDSS 3.0 was higher in the medium risk (hazard ratio, 3.0 versus low risk) and in the high risk group (HR, 8.3 versus low risk). At 10 years, the low risk group had a 40% risk of fulfilling McDonald 2017 criteria, versus 89% in the intermediate group, and 98% in the high risk group. A similar relationship was seen for SPMS (1%, 8%, 16%) and PIRA (17%, 26%, 35%).

At 10 years, the estimated accumulated T2 lesions was 7 in the low-risk group (95% CI, 5-9), 15 in the medium-risk group (95% CI, 12-17), and 21 in the high-risk group (95% CI, 15-27).

Compared with the low- and medium-risk groups, the high-risk group had lower brain parenchymal fraction and gray-matter fraction at 5 years. They also experienced higher stigma, had worse perception of upper and lower limb function as measured by Neuro QoL, and had worse cognitive performance.

Dr. Tintoré has received compensation for consulting services and speaking honoraria from Aimirall, Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen-Idec, Genzyme, Janssen, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Viela Bio. Dr. Coyle has no relevant disclosures.

Physician employment contracts include some new dangers. This includes physicians taking a new job, but it also includes already-employed doctors who are being asked to resign a new contract that contains new conditions. A number of these new clauses have arisen because of COVID-19. When the pandemic dramatically reduced patient flow, many employers didn’t have enough money to pay doctors and didn’t always have physicians in the right location or practice setting.

Vowing this would never happen again, some employers have rewritten their physician contracts to make it easier to reassign and terminate physicians.

Here are 12 potential land mines in a physician employment contract, some of which were added as a result of the pandemic.
 

You could be immediately terminated without notice

One outcome of the pandemic is the growing use of “force majeure” clauses, which give the employer the right to reduce your compensation or even terminate you due to a natural disaster, which could include COVID.

“COVID made employers aware of the potential impact of disasters on their operations,” said Dan Shay, a health law attorney at Alice Gosfield & Associates in Philadelphia. “Therefore, even as the threat of COVID abates in many places, employers are continuing to put this provision in the contract.”

What can you do? “One way to get some protection is to rule out a termination without cause in the first year,” said Michael A. Cassidy, a physician contract attorney at Tucker Arensberg in Pittsburgh.

The force majeure clause is less likely to affect salary, but could impact bonus and incentive tied to performance. It’s wise to try to specifically limit how much the force majeure could reduce pay tied to performance, and to be prepared to negotiate that aspect of your contract.
 

No protections if you’re let go through no fault of your own

You could lose your job if your employer could not generate enough business and has to let some doctors go. This happened quite often in the early days of the COVID pandemic.

In these situations, the doctor has not done anything wrong to prompt the termination, but the restrictive covenant may still apply, meaning that the doctor would have to leave the area to find work.

What can you do? You’re in a good position to get this changed, said Christopher L. Nuland, a solo physician contract attorney in Jacksonville, Fla. “Many employers recognize that it would be draconian to require a restrictive covenant in this case, and they will agree to modify this provision.”

Similarly, the employer may not cover your tail insurance even if you were let go from your work through no fault of your own. Most malpractice policies for employer physicians require buying an extra policy, called a tail, if you leave. In some cases, the employer won’t provide a tail and will make the departing doctor buy it.

In these cases, “try for a compromise, such as stipulating that the party that caused the termination should pay for the tail,” Mr. Nuland said. “The employer may not agree to anything more than that because they want to set up a disincentive against you leaving.”
 

Employer could unilaterally alter your compensation

Many recent contracts give the employer the option to unilaterally modify compensation, such as changing the base salary or raising the target required for meeting the productivity bonus, said Ericka L. Adler, a physician contract attorney at Roetzel & Andress in Chicago.

Ms. Adler thought this change could have been prompted by employers’ financial problems during the pandemic. In the early months of COVID, many physicians were not making much money for the employer but still had to be paid. So employers added a clause saying they could reduce compensation at any time, she said.

What can you do? Harsh provisions like this often come up in contracts with private equity firms, Mr. Cassidy said. “The contract might say the employer can adjust compensation or even terminate physicians based on productivity or their profitability. And it may say that if they reassign you to a new location and you refuse, they can terminate you.”

“If you can’t get these clauses removed, try to reduce the impact of a termination by providing longer notice periods or by inserting a severance agreement,” Mr. Cassidy said.
 

Accelerating notice for without-cause terminations

Physicians who are convicted of a felony or other moral issue can usually be terminated immediately. But if you are terminated for other reasons – that is, “without cause” – you are given notice at a certain number of days before you have to leave (typically 60-90 days), so that you have time to find a new job.

Some recent contracts, however, allow for very little notice in without-cause terminations, which allows the employer to fire you in as little as 0 days after providing notice, Ms. Adler said.

“This means that, even if 90 days’ notice is provided in the contract, the employer can decide that your last day will be an earlier date,” she said.

Why is this happening? Ms. Adler said employers want to begin reallocating resources and patients as soon as possible. The problem came to employers’ attention during the COVID pandemic, when they were contractually forced to pay doctors for doing little or nothing during the notice period.

What can you do? Possibly not much, other than attempt to negotiate. “Large employers typically don’t want to drop this provision, but at the least, the doctor needs to understand the risk it creates for them,” she said.
 

You could be assigned to far-off locations

As patient care needs changed dramatically during the pandemic, employers needed to reassign doctors to new locations.

Some new contracts allow employers to simply inform the doctor that they are changing the work location. However, “you don’t want to be assigned to a new work location that is 50 miles away,” Mr. Nuland said.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended adding new language saying that, if the new assignment is more than 20 miles away, both parties would have to approve it.

You could end up working too many off-hours

“Most employers won’t issue a specific work schedule,” Mr. Nuland said. “They want the flexibility to assign evening or weekend work, and it would be difficult for a young doctor to change this.”

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended trying to set some limits. “You can try to limit off-hours work to two times a month or something like that,” she said. And if you need to have a special schedule, such as not working on Fridays, Adler advises that this should be put into the contract.

If you can’t get anything changed in the contract, Mr. Nuland said the next-best thing is to ask employers to tell you specifically what they plan to do with you. “Most employers will give you an informal idea of what’s expected – maybe not an exact schedule, but it’s quite likely they will honor it.”
 

You wouldn’t be able to work nearby if you left the job

Most contracts have a noncompete clause, also known as a “restrictive covenant,” which prevents employed physicians from working in the area if they left the job.

“Almost every doctor I represent has told me that they’re not concerned about the noncompete clause because, they believe, it is not enforceable anyway,” Ms. Adler said. “This is incorrect.”

Mr. Nuland said the faster pace of job-changing during the pandemic makes it all the more likely that doctors have to deal with a restrictive covenant. At the same time, some employers have been expanding the restriction – either by enlarging the radius where the restriction applies or by making the restriction apply to each of their sites, so that each one has a restricted radius around it.

For example, one contract Mr. Nuland is currently reviewing has a 20-mile radius that in effect becomes a 120-mile radius because the employer is counting four offices.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland advised trying to reduce the impact of the noncompete – for instance, making it apply only to the offices where you worked, or trading more time for less distance. “If you have a 2-year, 20-mile restriction, ask for a 3-year, 10-mile restriction, where the radius could be easier to deal with,” he said.
 

You might end up with too much call

Contracts rarely detail your call schedule because employers want flexibility to expand call as patient care needs change, but you can try adding some specificity, said Sanja Ord, a physician contract attorney at Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale in St. Louis.

Contracts often use wide-open language to describe call, such as simply making it “subject to the house call policies,” Mr. Cassidy said. Language that is more beneficial to the physician would say that call must be “equal” among “similarly situated” physicians.

But Ms. Ord said even provisions for equal call can turn out to be onerous if there are too few doctors in the call roster, so it’s a good idea to find out just how many doctors will be participating in call.

Still, Adler said even that strategy can’t remove all risk. What happens, she asked, if several physicians participating in call decide to leave? Then you might end up with call every other night.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy recommends specifying a maximum amount of call – for example, no more frequent than one in four nights.
 

Physician must pay for reimbursement claw-backs by payers

When auditors for Medicare or other payers find overpayments after the fact, called a ‘claw-back,’ the provider must pay them back. But which provider has to do that – you or your employer?

In many cases, your employer’s billing office may have introduced the error, but there may be a clause in the contract stating that the physician is solely responsible for all claw-backs. That could be costly.

What can you do? Mr. Shay said the clause should state that you have to pay only when it is the result of your own error or omission, and also not when it was made at the direction of the employer.
 

Some work may be outside of your subspecialty

In some cases, the employer may assign subspecialized doctors to work outside their subspecialty, Mr. Nuland said.

For example, he said he represented an endocrinologist who expected to see only diabetes patients but was assigned to some general internal medicine work as well, and an otolaryngologist client of his who completed a fellowship on facial plastic surgery was expected to do liposuction in a cosmetic surgery group.

What can you do? To prevent this from happening, Mr. Nuland recommends a clause stating that your work will be restricted to your subspecialty.

What the employer promised isn’t in the contract

“Beware of promises that are not in the contract,” Mr. Shay said. “You might feel you can really trust your new boss and what he tells you, but what if that person resigns, or the organization gets a new owner who doesn’t honor unwritten agreements?”

Many contracts have an integration clause, which specifies that the contract constitutes the complete agreement between the two parties, and it nullifies any other oral or written promises made to the physician.

For example, the employer might have promised a relocation bonus and a sign-on bonus, but for some reason it didn’t get into the contract, Ms. Ord said. In those cases, the employer is under no obligation to honor the promise.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy said it is possible to hold the employer to a commitment made outside the contract. The alternative document, such as an offer letter, has to specifically state that the commitment is protected from the integration clause in the contract, he said, adding: “It is still better to have the commitment put into the contract.”
 

Contract is simply accepted as is

“Generally, the bigger the employer, the less likely they will alter an agreement just to make you happy,” Mr. Shay said.

But even in these contracts, he said there is still opportunity to fix errors and ambiguities that could harm you later – or even alter a provision if you can’t remove it outright.

The back-and-forth is important, Ms. Adler said. “Negotiation means trying to have some control over your job and your life.”

Mr. Cassidy said a big part of contract review is facing up to the possibility that you may have to resign or be let go.

“Many physicians don’t like to think about leaving when they’re just starting a job, but they need to,” he said. “You need to begin with the end in mind. Think about what would happen if this job didn’t work out.”

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

Physician employment contracts include some new dangers. This includes physicians taking a new job, but it also includes already-employed doctors who are being asked to resign a new contract that contains new conditions. A number of these new clauses have arisen because of COVID-19. When the pandemic dramatically reduced patient flow, many employers didn’t have enough money to pay doctors and didn’t always have physicians in the right location or practice setting.

Vowing this would never happen again, some employers have rewritten their physician contracts to make it easier to reassign and terminate physicians.

Here are 12 potential land mines in a physician employment contract, some of which were added as a result of the pandemic.
 

You could be immediately terminated without notice

One outcome of the pandemic is the growing use of “force majeure” clauses, which give the employer the right to reduce your compensation or even terminate you due to a natural disaster, which could include COVID.

“COVID made employers aware of the potential impact of disasters on their operations,” said Dan Shay, a health law attorney at Alice Gosfield & Associates in Philadelphia. “Therefore, even as the threat of COVID abates in many places, employers are continuing to put this provision in the contract.”

What can you do? “One way to get some protection is to rule out a termination without cause in the first year,” said Michael A. Cassidy, a physician contract attorney at Tucker Arensberg in Pittsburgh.

The force majeure clause is less likely to affect salary, but could impact bonus and incentive tied to performance. It’s wise to try to specifically limit how much the force majeure could reduce pay tied to performance, and to be prepared to negotiate that aspect of your contract.
 

No protections if you’re let go through no fault of your own

You could lose your job if your employer could not generate enough business and has to let some doctors go. This happened quite often in the early days of the COVID pandemic.

In these situations, the doctor has not done anything wrong to prompt the termination, but the restrictive covenant may still apply, meaning that the doctor would have to leave the area to find work.

What can you do? You’re in a good position to get this changed, said Christopher L. Nuland, a solo physician contract attorney in Jacksonville, Fla. “Many employers recognize that it would be draconian to require a restrictive covenant in this case, and they will agree to modify this provision.”

Similarly, the employer may not cover your tail insurance even if you were let go from your work through no fault of your own. Most malpractice policies for employer physicians require buying an extra policy, called a tail, if you leave. In some cases, the employer won’t provide a tail and will make the departing doctor buy it.

In these cases, “try for a compromise, such as stipulating that the party that caused the termination should pay for the tail,” Mr. Nuland said. “The employer may not agree to anything more than that because they want to set up a disincentive against you leaving.”
 

Employer could unilaterally alter your compensation

Many recent contracts give the employer the option to unilaterally modify compensation, such as changing the base salary or raising the target required for meeting the productivity bonus, said Ericka L. Adler, a physician contract attorney at Roetzel & Andress in Chicago.

Ms. Adler thought this change could have been prompted by employers’ financial problems during the pandemic. In the early months of COVID, many physicians were not making much money for the employer but still had to be paid. So employers added a clause saying they could reduce compensation at any time, she said.

What can you do? Harsh provisions like this often come up in contracts with private equity firms, Mr. Cassidy said. “The contract might say the employer can adjust compensation or even terminate physicians based on productivity or their profitability. And it may say that if they reassign you to a new location and you refuse, they can terminate you.”

“If you can’t get these clauses removed, try to reduce the impact of a termination by providing longer notice periods or by inserting a severance agreement,” Mr. Cassidy said.
 

Accelerating notice for without-cause terminations

Physicians who are convicted of a felony or other moral issue can usually be terminated immediately. But if you are terminated for other reasons – that is, “without cause” – you are given notice at a certain number of days before you have to leave (typically 60-90 days), so that you have time to find a new job.

Some recent contracts, however, allow for very little notice in without-cause terminations, which allows the employer to fire you in as little as 0 days after providing notice, Ms. Adler said.

“This means that, even if 90 days’ notice is provided in the contract, the employer can decide that your last day will be an earlier date,” she said.

Why is this happening? Ms. Adler said employers want to begin reallocating resources and patients as soon as possible. The problem came to employers’ attention during the COVID pandemic, when they were contractually forced to pay doctors for doing little or nothing during the notice period.

What can you do? Possibly not much, other than attempt to negotiate. “Large employers typically don’t want to drop this provision, but at the least, the doctor needs to understand the risk it creates for them,” she said.
 

You could be assigned to far-off locations

As patient care needs changed dramatically during the pandemic, employers needed to reassign doctors to new locations.

Some new contracts allow employers to simply inform the doctor that they are changing the work location. However, “you don’t want to be assigned to a new work location that is 50 miles away,” Mr. Nuland said.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended adding new language saying that, if the new assignment is more than 20 miles away, both parties would have to approve it.

You could end up working too many off-hours

“Most employers won’t issue a specific work schedule,” Mr. Nuland said. “They want the flexibility to assign evening or weekend work, and it would be difficult for a young doctor to change this.”

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended trying to set some limits. “You can try to limit off-hours work to two times a month or something like that,” she said. And if you need to have a special schedule, such as not working on Fridays, Adler advises that this should be put into the contract.

If you can’t get anything changed in the contract, Mr. Nuland said the next-best thing is to ask employers to tell you specifically what they plan to do with you. “Most employers will give you an informal idea of what’s expected – maybe not an exact schedule, but it’s quite likely they will honor it.”
 

You wouldn’t be able to work nearby if you left the job

Most contracts have a noncompete clause, also known as a “restrictive covenant,” which prevents employed physicians from working in the area if they left the job.

“Almost every doctor I represent has told me that they’re not concerned about the noncompete clause because, they believe, it is not enforceable anyway,” Ms. Adler said. “This is incorrect.”

Mr. Nuland said the faster pace of job-changing during the pandemic makes it all the more likely that doctors have to deal with a restrictive covenant. At the same time, some employers have been expanding the restriction – either by enlarging the radius where the restriction applies or by making the restriction apply to each of their sites, so that each one has a restricted radius around it.

For example, one contract Mr. Nuland is currently reviewing has a 20-mile radius that in effect becomes a 120-mile radius because the employer is counting four offices.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland advised trying to reduce the impact of the noncompete – for instance, making it apply only to the offices where you worked, or trading more time for less distance. “If you have a 2-year, 20-mile restriction, ask for a 3-year, 10-mile restriction, where the radius could be easier to deal with,” he said.
 

You might end up with too much call

Contracts rarely detail your call schedule because employers want flexibility to expand call as patient care needs change, but you can try adding some specificity, said Sanja Ord, a physician contract attorney at Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale in St. Louis.

Contracts often use wide-open language to describe call, such as simply making it “subject to the house call policies,” Mr. Cassidy said. Language that is more beneficial to the physician would say that call must be “equal” among “similarly situated” physicians.

But Ms. Ord said even provisions for equal call can turn out to be onerous if there are too few doctors in the call roster, so it’s a good idea to find out just how many doctors will be participating in call.

Still, Adler said even that strategy can’t remove all risk. What happens, she asked, if several physicians participating in call decide to leave? Then you might end up with call every other night.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy recommends specifying a maximum amount of call – for example, no more frequent than one in four nights.
 

Physician must pay for reimbursement claw-backs by payers

When auditors for Medicare or other payers find overpayments after the fact, called a ‘claw-back,’ the provider must pay them back. But which provider has to do that – you or your employer?

In many cases, your employer’s billing office may have introduced the error, but there may be a clause in the contract stating that the physician is solely responsible for all claw-backs. That could be costly.

What can you do? Mr. Shay said the clause should state that you have to pay only when it is the result of your own error or omission, and also not when it was made at the direction of the employer.
 

Some work may be outside of your subspecialty

In some cases, the employer may assign subspecialized doctors to work outside their subspecialty, Mr. Nuland said.

For example, he said he represented an endocrinologist who expected to see only diabetes patients but was assigned to some general internal medicine work as well, and an otolaryngologist client of his who completed a fellowship on facial plastic surgery was expected to do liposuction in a cosmetic surgery group.

What can you do? To prevent this from happening, Mr. Nuland recommends a clause stating that your work will be restricted to your subspecialty.

What the employer promised isn’t in the contract

“Beware of promises that are not in the contract,” Mr. Shay said. “You might feel you can really trust your new boss and what he tells you, but what if that person resigns, or the organization gets a new owner who doesn’t honor unwritten agreements?”

Many contracts have an integration clause, which specifies that the contract constitutes the complete agreement between the two parties, and it nullifies any other oral or written promises made to the physician.

For example, the employer might have promised a relocation bonus and a sign-on bonus, but for some reason it didn’t get into the contract, Ms. Ord said. In those cases, the employer is under no obligation to honor the promise.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy said it is possible to hold the employer to a commitment made outside the contract. The alternative document, such as an offer letter, has to specifically state that the commitment is protected from the integration clause in the contract, he said, adding: “It is still better to have the commitment put into the contract.”
 

Contract is simply accepted as is

“Generally, the bigger the employer, the less likely they will alter an agreement just to make you happy,” Mr. Shay said.

But even in these contracts, he said there is still opportunity to fix errors and ambiguities that could harm you later – or even alter a provision if you can’t remove it outright.

The back-and-forth is important, Ms. Adler said. “Negotiation means trying to have some control over your job and your life.”

Mr. Cassidy said a big part of contract review is facing up to the possibility that you may have to resign or be let go.

“Many physicians don’t like to think about leaving when they’re just starting a job, but they need to,” he said. “You need to begin with the end in mind. Think about what would happen if this job didn’t work out.”

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

Physician employment contracts include some new dangers. This includes physicians taking a new job, but it also includes already-employed doctors who are being asked to resign a new contract that contains new conditions. A number of these new clauses have arisen because of COVID-19. When the pandemic dramatically reduced patient flow, many employers didn’t have enough money to pay doctors and didn’t always have physicians in the right location or practice setting.

Vowing this would never happen again, some employers have rewritten their physician contracts to make it easier to reassign and terminate physicians.

Here are 12 potential land mines in a physician employment contract, some of which were added as a result of the pandemic.
 

You could be immediately terminated without notice

One outcome of the pandemic is the growing use of “force majeure” clauses, which give the employer the right to reduce your compensation or even terminate you due to a natural disaster, which could include COVID.

“COVID made employers aware of the potential impact of disasters on their operations,” said Dan Shay, a health law attorney at Alice Gosfield & Associates in Philadelphia. “Therefore, even as the threat of COVID abates in many places, employers are continuing to put this provision in the contract.”

What can you do? “One way to get some protection is to rule out a termination without cause in the first year,” said Michael A. Cassidy, a physician contract attorney at Tucker Arensberg in Pittsburgh.

The force majeure clause is less likely to affect salary, but could impact bonus and incentive tied to performance. It’s wise to try to specifically limit how much the force majeure could reduce pay tied to performance, and to be prepared to negotiate that aspect of your contract.
 

No protections if you’re let go through no fault of your own

You could lose your job if your employer could not generate enough business and has to let some doctors go. This happened quite often in the early days of the COVID pandemic.

In these situations, the doctor has not done anything wrong to prompt the termination, but the restrictive covenant may still apply, meaning that the doctor would have to leave the area to find work.

What can you do? You’re in a good position to get this changed, said Christopher L. Nuland, a solo physician contract attorney in Jacksonville, Fla. “Many employers recognize that it would be draconian to require a restrictive covenant in this case, and they will agree to modify this provision.”

Similarly, the employer may not cover your tail insurance even if you were let go from your work through no fault of your own. Most malpractice policies for employer physicians require buying an extra policy, called a tail, if you leave. In some cases, the employer won’t provide a tail and will make the departing doctor buy it.

In these cases, “try for a compromise, such as stipulating that the party that caused the termination should pay for the tail,” Mr. Nuland said. “The employer may not agree to anything more than that because they want to set up a disincentive against you leaving.”
 

Employer could unilaterally alter your compensation

Many recent contracts give the employer the option to unilaterally modify compensation, such as changing the base salary or raising the target required for meeting the productivity bonus, said Ericka L. Adler, a physician contract attorney at Roetzel & Andress in Chicago.

Ms. Adler thought this change could have been prompted by employers’ financial problems during the pandemic. In the early months of COVID, many physicians were not making much money for the employer but still had to be paid. So employers added a clause saying they could reduce compensation at any time, she said.

What can you do? Harsh provisions like this often come up in contracts with private equity firms, Mr. Cassidy said. “The contract might say the employer can adjust compensation or even terminate physicians based on productivity or their profitability. And it may say that if they reassign you to a new location and you refuse, they can terminate you.”

“If you can’t get these clauses removed, try to reduce the impact of a termination by providing longer notice periods or by inserting a severance agreement,” Mr. Cassidy said.
 

Accelerating notice for without-cause terminations

Physicians who are convicted of a felony or other moral issue can usually be terminated immediately. But if you are terminated for other reasons – that is, “without cause” – you are given notice at a certain number of days before you have to leave (typically 60-90 days), so that you have time to find a new job.

Some recent contracts, however, allow for very little notice in without-cause terminations, which allows the employer to fire you in as little as 0 days after providing notice, Ms. Adler said.

“This means that, even if 90 days’ notice is provided in the contract, the employer can decide that your last day will be an earlier date,” she said.

Why is this happening? Ms. Adler said employers want to begin reallocating resources and patients as soon as possible. The problem came to employers’ attention during the COVID pandemic, when they were contractually forced to pay doctors for doing little or nothing during the notice period.

What can you do? Possibly not much, other than attempt to negotiate. “Large employers typically don’t want to drop this provision, but at the least, the doctor needs to understand the risk it creates for them,” she said.
 

You could be assigned to far-off locations

As patient care needs changed dramatically during the pandemic, employers needed to reassign doctors to new locations.

Some new contracts allow employers to simply inform the doctor that they are changing the work location. However, “you don’t want to be assigned to a new work location that is 50 miles away,” Mr. Nuland said.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended adding new language saying that, if the new assignment is more than 20 miles away, both parties would have to approve it.

You could end up working too many off-hours

“Most employers won’t issue a specific work schedule,” Mr. Nuland said. “They want the flexibility to assign evening or weekend work, and it would be difficult for a young doctor to change this.”

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended trying to set some limits. “You can try to limit off-hours work to two times a month or something like that,” she said. And if you need to have a special schedule, such as not working on Fridays, Adler advises that this should be put into the contract.

If you can’t get anything changed in the contract, Mr. Nuland said the next-best thing is to ask employers to tell you specifically what they plan to do with you. “Most employers will give you an informal idea of what’s expected – maybe not an exact schedule, but it’s quite likely they will honor it.”
 

You wouldn’t be able to work nearby if you left the job

Most contracts have a noncompete clause, also known as a “restrictive covenant,” which prevents employed physicians from working in the area if they left the job.

“Almost every doctor I represent has told me that they’re not concerned about the noncompete clause because, they believe, it is not enforceable anyway,” Ms. Adler said. “This is incorrect.”

Mr. Nuland said the faster pace of job-changing during the pandemic makes it all the more likely that doctors have to deal with a restrictive covenant. At the same time, some employers have been expanding the restriction – either by enlarging the radius where the restriction applies or by making the restriction apply to each of their sites, so that each one has a restricted radius around it.

For example, one contract Mr. Nuland is currently reviewing has a 20-mile radius that in effect becomes a 120-mile radius because the employer is counting four offices.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland advised trying to reduce the impact of the noncompete – for instance, making it apply only to the offices where you worked, or trading more time for less distance. “If you have a 2-year, 20-mile restriction, ask for a 3-year, 10-mile restriction, where the radius could be easier to deal with,” he said.
 

You might end up with too much call

Contracts rarely detail your call schedule because employers want flexibility to expand call as patient care needs change, but you can try adding some specificity, said Sanja Ord, a physician contract attorney at Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale in St. Louis.

Contracts often use wide-open language to describe call, such as simply making it “subject to the house call policies,” Mr. Cassidy said. Language that is more beneficial to the physician would say that call must be “equal” among “similarly situated” physicians.

But Ms. Ord said even provisions for equal call can turn out to be onerous if there are too few doctors in the call roster, so it’s a good idea to find out just how many doctors will be participating in call.

Still, Adler said even that strategy can’t remove all risk. What happens, she asked, if several physicians participating in call decide to leave? Then you might end up with call every other night.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy recommends specifying a maximum amount of call – for example, no more frequent than one in four nights.
 

Physician must pay for reimbursement claw-backs by payers

When auditors for Medicare or other payers find overpayments after the fact, called a ‘claw-back,’ the provider must pay them back. But which provider has to do that – you or your employer?

In many cases, your employer’s billing office may have introduced the error, but there may be a clause in the contract stating that the physician is solely responsible for all claw-backs. That could be costly.

What can you do? Mr. Shay said the clause should state that you have to pay only when it is the result of your own error or omission, and also not when it was made at the direction of the employer.
 

Some work may be outside of your subspecialty

In some cases, the employer may assign subspecialized doctors to work outside their subspecialty, Mr. Nuland said.

For example, he said he represented an endocrinologist who expected to see only diabetes patients but was assigned to some general internal medicine work as well, and an otolaryngologist client of his who completed a fellowship on facial plastic surgery was expected to do liposuction in a cosmetic surgery group.

What can you do? To prevent this from happening, Mr. Nuland recommends a clause stating that your work will be restricted to your subspecialty.

What the employer promised isn’t in the contract

“Beware of promises that are not in the contract,” Mr. Shay said. “You might feel you can really trust your new boss and what he tells you, but what if that person resigns, or the organization gets a new owner who doesn’t honor unwritten agreements?”

Many contracts have an integration clause, which specifies that the contract constitutes the complete agreement between the two parties, and it nullifies any other oral or written promises made to the physician.

For example, the employer might have promised a relocation bonus and a sign-on bonus, but for some reason it didn’t get into the contract, Ms. Ord said. In those cases, the employer is under no obligation to honor the promise.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy said it is possible to hold the employer to a commitment made outside the contract. The alternative document, such as an offer letter, has to specifically state that the commitment is protected from the integration clause in the contract, he said, adding: “It is still better to have the commitment put into the contract.”
 

Contract is simply accepted as is

“Generally, the bigger the employer, the less likely they will alter an agreement just to make you happy,” Mr. Shay said.

But even in these contracts, he said there is still opportunity to fix errors and ambiguities that could harm you later – or even alter a provision if you can’t remove it outright.

The back-and-forth is important, Ms. Adler said. “Negotiation means trying to have some control over your job and your life.”

Mr. Cassidy said a big part of contract review is facing up to the possibility that you may have to resign or be let go.

“Many physicians don’t like to think about leaving when they’re just starting a job, but they need to,” he said. “You need to begin with the end in mind. Think about what would happen if this job didn’t work out.”

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

New classes of antimigraine drugs demonstrate efficacy and improved tolerability for patients with chronic migraine, a new systematic review and meta-analysis finds.

“[T]he lack of cardiovascular risks of these new classes of migraine-specific treatments may provide alternative treatment options for individuals for whom currently available acute treatments have failed or for those with cardiovascular contraindications,” write lead author Chun-Pai Yang, MD, PhD, of Taichung (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital and colleagues, in the paper, published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Methods

The new study compared the outcomes for acute migraine management using the ditan, lasmiditan (a 5-hydroxytryptamine [5HT]1F–receptor agonist), and the two gepants, rimegepant, and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene–related peptide [CGRP] antagonists), with standard triptan (selective 5-HT1B/1D–receptor agonist) therapy.

The researchers evaluated 64 double-blind randomized clinical trials which included 46,442 patients, the majority of whom (74%-87%) were women with an age range of 36-43 years.

The primary outcome evaluated was the odds ratio for freedom from pain at 2 hours after a single dose and secondary outcomes were the OR for pain relief at 2 hours following a dose, as well as any adverse events.
 

Results

Dr. Yang and colleagues found that virtually all medications with widespread clinical use, regardless of class, were associated with higher ORs for pain freedom when compared with placebo.

Compared to ditan and gepant agents, however, triptans were associated with significantly higher ORs for pain freedom. The odds ratio ranges were 1.72-3.40 for lasmiditan, 1.58-3.13 for rimegepant, and 1.54-3.05 for ubrogepant.

With respect to pain relief at 2 hours, while all medications were more effective than placebo, triptans were associated with higher ORs when compared with the other drug classes: lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.96 to OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 2.41-4.55), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76 to OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 2.33-3.88), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.88 to OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.35-4.15)

When assessing tolerability, the researchers found that overall, triptans were associated with the higher ORs for any adverse events (AE) with a trend of dose-response relationship. Lasmiditan (in the ditan class) was associated with the highest risk for AEs among all treatments. Most of the AEs were mild to moderate and included chest pain, tightness, heaviness, and pressure.

Dr. Yang and colleagues note that, “although these two new classes of antimigraine drugs may not be as efficacious as triptans, these novel abortive agents without cardiovascular risks might offer an alternative to current specific migraine treatments for patients at risk of cardiovascular disease.”
 

Balancing efficacy and tolerability

“When choosing an acute medication for a patient there is always a balance between efficacy and tolerability,” headache specialist and associate director of North Shore Headache and Spine Lauren Natbony, MD, said in an interview.

“A medication can only be effective if a patient is able to tolerate it and will actually use it,” Dr. Natbony said.

With respect to the current review, Dr. Natbony pointed out, “response to acute therapy can differ between migraine attacks and may be based on variables not controlled for, such as how early in an attack the medication was taken, associated symptoms such as nausea that may make oral medications less efficacious, etc.”

The authors acknowledge that the focus on short-term responses and AEs after a single dose is a limitation of the study. They also pointed out what they considered to be a strength of the study, which was its network meta-analysis design. According to the authors, this design allowed for “multiple direct and indirect comparisons, ranking the efficacy and safety of individual pharmacologic interventions and providing more precise estimates than those of RCTs and traditional meta-analysis.”

Funding for this study was provided through grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan; the Brain Research Center; and National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.

Dr. Yang has received personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grants from the Taiwan Ministry of Technology and Science, the Brain Research Center, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, and Taipei Veterans General Hospital outside the submitted work. The other authors and Dr. Natbony disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

New classes of antimigraine drugs demonstrate efficacy and improved tolerability for patients with chronic migraine, a new systematic review and meta-analysis finds.

“[T]he lack of cardiovascular risks of these new classes of migraine-specific treatments may provide alternative treatment options for individuals for whom currently available acute treatments have failed or for those with cardiovascular contraindications,” write lead author Chun-Pai Yang, MD, PhD, of Taichung (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital and colleagues, in the paper, published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Methods

The new study compared the outcomes for acute migraine management using the ditan, lasmiditan (a 5-hydroxytryptamine [5HT]1F–receptor agonist), and the two gepants, rimegepant, and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene–related peptide [CGRP] antagonists), with standard triptan (selective 5-HT1B/1D–receptor agonist) therapy.

The researchers evaluated 64 double-blind randomized clinical trials which included 46,442 patients, the majority of whom (74%-87%) were women with an age range of 36-43 years.

The primary outcome evaluated was the odds ratio for freedom from pain at 2 hours after a single dose and secondary outcomes were the OR for pain relief at 2 hours following a dose, as well as any adverse events.
 

Results

Dr. Yang and colleagues found that virtually all medications with widespread clinical use, regardless of class, were associated with higher ORs for pain freedom when compared with placebo.

Compared to ditan and gepant agents, however, triptans were associated with significantly higher ORs for pain freedom. The odds ratio ranges were 1.72-3.40 for lasmiditan, 1.58-3.13 for rimegepant, and 1.54-3.05 for ubrogepant.

With respect to pain relief at 2 hours, while all medications were more effective than placebo, triptans were associated with higher ORs when compared with the other drug classes: lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.96 to OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 2.41-4.55), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76 to OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 2.33-3.88), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.88 to OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.35-4.15)

When assessing tolerability, the researchers found that overall, triptans were associated with the higher ORs for any adverse events (AE) with a trend of dose-response relationship. Lasmiditan (in the ditan class) was associated with the highest risk for AEs among all treatments. Most of the AEs were mild to moderate and included chest pain, tightness, heaviness, and pressure.

Dr. Yang and colleagues note that, “although these two new classes of antimigraine drugs may not be as efficacious as triptans, these novel abortive agents without cardiovascular risks might offer an alternative to current specific migraine treatments for patients at risk of cardiovascular disease.”
 

Balancing efficacy and tolerability

“When choosing an acute medication for a patient there is always a balance between efficacy and tolerability,” headache specialist and associate director of North Shore Headache and Spine Lauren Natbony, MD, said in an interview.

“A medication can only be effective if a patient is able to tolerate it and will actually use it,” Dr. Natbony said.

With respect to the current review, Dr. Natbony pointed out, “response to acute therapy can differ between migraine attacks and may be based on variables not controlled for, such as how early in an attack the medication was taken, associated symptoms such as nausea that may make oral medications less efficacious, etc.”

The authors acknowledge that the focus on short-term responses and AEs after a single dose is a limitation of the study. They also pointed out what they considered to be a strength of the study, which was its network meta-analysis design. According to the authors, this design allowed for “multiple direct and indirect comparisons, ranking the efficacy and safety of individual pharmacologic interventions and providing more precise estimates than those of RCTs and traditional meta-analysis.”

Funding for this study was provided through grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan; the Brain Research Center; and National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.

Dr. Yang has received personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grants from the Taiwan Ministry of Technology and Science, the Brain Research Center, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, and Taipei Veterans General Hospital outside the submitted work. The other authors and Dr. Natbony disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

New classes of antimigraine drugs demonstrate efficacy and improved tolerability for patients with chronic migraine, a new systematic review and meta-analysis finds.

“[T]he lack of cardiovascular risks of these new classes of migraine-specific treatments may provide alternative treatment options for individuals for whom currently available acute treatments have failed or for those with cardiovascular contraindications,” write lead author Chun-Pai Yang, MD, PhD, of Taichung (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital and colleagues, in the paper, published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Methods

The new study compared the outcomes for acute migraine management using the ditan, lasmiditan (a 5-hydroxytryptamine [5HT]1F–receptor agonist), and the two gepants, rimegepant, and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene–related peptide [CGRP] antagonists), with standard triptan (selective 5-HT1B/1D–receptor agonist) therapy.

The researchers evaluated 64 double-blind randomized clinical trials which included 46,442 patients, the majority of whom (74%-87%) were women with an age range of 36-43 years.

The primary outcome evaluated was the odds ratio for freedom from pain at 2 hours after a single dose and secondary outcomes were the OR for pain relief at 2 hours following a dose, as well as any adverse events.
 

Results

Dr. Yang and colleagues found that virtually all medications with widespread clinical use, regardless of class, were associated with higher ORs for pain freedom when compared with placebo.

Compared to ditan and gepant agents, however, triptans were associated with significantly higher ORs for pain freedom. The odds ratio ranges were 1.72-3.40 for lasmiditan, 1.58-3.13 for rimegepant, and 1.54-3.05 for ubrogepant.

With respect to pain relief at 2 hours, while all medications were more effective than placebo, triptans were associated with higher ORs when compared with the other drug classes: lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.96 to OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 2.41-4.55), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76 to OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 2.33-3.88), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.88 to OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.35-4.15)

When assessing tolerability, the researchers found that overall, triptans were associated with the higher ORs for any adverse events (AE) with a trend of dose-response relationship. Lasmiditan (in the ditan class) was associated with the highest risk for AEs among all treatments. Most of the AEs were mild to moderate and included chest pain, tightness, heaviness, and pressure.

Dr. Yang and colleagues note that, “although these two new classes of antimigraine drugs may not be as efficacious as triptans, these novel abortive agents without cardiovascular risks might offer an alternative to current specific migraine treatments for patients at risk of cardiovascular disease.”
 

Balancing efficacy and tolerability

“When choosing an acute medication for a patient there is always a balance between efficacy and tolerability,” headache specialist and associate director of North Shore Headache and Spine Lauren Natbony, MD, said in an interview.

“A medication can only be effective if a patient is able to tolerate it and will actually use it,” Dr. Natbony said.

With respect to the current review, Dr. Natbony pointed out, “response to acute therapy can differ between migraine attacks and may be based on variables not controlled for, such as how early in an attack the medication was taken, associated symptoms such as nausea that may make oral medications less efficacious, etc.”

The authors acknowledge that the focus on short-term responses and AEs after a single dose is a limitation of the study. They also pointed out what they considered to be a strength of the study, which was its network meta-analysis design. According to the authors, this design allowed for “multiple direct and indirect comparisons, ranking the efficacy and safety of individual pharmacologic interventions and providing more precise estimates than those of RCTs and traditional meta-analysis.”

Funding for this study was provided through grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan; the Brain Research Center; and National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.

Dr. Yang has received personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grants from the Taiwan Ministry of Technology and Science, the Brain Research Center, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, and Taipei Veterans General Hospital outside the submitted work. The other authors and Dr. Natbony disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee on Oct. 15 voted 19-0 to authorize second doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost immunity. It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
 

Johnson & Johnson

In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.

It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.

Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.

In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.

This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
 

Limited data

The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.

These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.

But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.

Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.

“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”

“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.

She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.

But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.

“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.

Who needs a second dose?

On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.

COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.

The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.

Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.

The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.

“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
 

Trying to avoid confusion

Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.

“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.

Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.

Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.

“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.

Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.

“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
 

This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee on Oct. 15 voted 19-0 to authorize second doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost immunity. It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
 

Johnson & Johnson

In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.

It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.

Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.

In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.

This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
 

Limited data

The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.

These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.

But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.

Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.

“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”

“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.

She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.

But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.

“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.

Who needs a second dose?

On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.

COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.

The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.

Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.

The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.

“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
 

Trying to avoid confusion

Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.

“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.

Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.

Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.

“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.

Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.

“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
 

This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee on Oct. 15 voted 19-0 to authorize second doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost immunity. It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
 

Johnson & Johnson

In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.

It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.

Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.

In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.

This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
 

Limited data

The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.

These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.

But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.

Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.

“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”

“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.

She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.

But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.

“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.

Who needs a second dose?

On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.

COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.

The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.

Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.

The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.

“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
 

Trying to avoid confusion

Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.

“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.

Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.

Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.

“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.

Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.

“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
 

This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from two phase 3 studies found that in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), the new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody drug, ublituximab, is associated with significant improvement in the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score, a measure of disability, compared with teriflunomide (Aubagio).

The results were presented by Lawrence Steinman, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).   

Main results from the ULTIMATE I and II phase 3 trials, reported previously, showed a significant reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR) over a 96-week period (22 months) with ublituximab versus teriflunomide, as well as significant reductions in MRI lesions and improvements in the number of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA).

Data from these two trials are being used to support a recent approval application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ublituximab to treat patients with relapsing remitting MS.

Although ublituximab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability improvement compared with teriflunomide, there was no significant difference between the two groups in confirmed disability progression.

Another ULTIMATE investigator, University of California, San Francisco neurologist Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, explained that the measures of confirmed disability improvement and confirmed disability progression used in MS clinical trials are based on changes in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). But he pointed out that this scale is a challenging score to use, as it typically changes very slightly over the course of a trial. He adds that the scale can also be variable.  

“Because confirmed disability worsening was not met as one of the secondary endpoints, one of the critiques of these trials could be that there wasn’t an effect of ublituximab. But worsening disability was rare in both treatment arms, so it would be very difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a difference without much greater numbers of patients being included,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score was an alternative, more sensitive, measure of disability that includes three different tests: the 9-hole peg test, which assesses upper arm mobility; the timed 25-foot walk test, which gauges walking ability; and the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT), a measure of attention and processing.

He reported results showing that ublituximab significantly improved the MFSC score in ULTIMATE I by 76% and by 89% in ULTIMATE II, compared with teriflunomide. In ULTIMATE 1, the MSFC score improved by 0.266 points during the 96-week trial in the teriflunomide group and by 0.469 points in the ublituximab group (P = .048). In ULTIMATE II, the MSFC score improved by 0.275 points in the teriflunomide group and by 0.521 points in the ublituximab group (P = .017).

These changes were driven by improvements in the 9-hole peg test and the timed 25-foot walk test, with no difference seen in the PASAT test.

Asked how ublituximab compares with other anti-CD20 antibodies already in use such as ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), Dr. Cree noted that ublituximab is associated with fewer infusion reactions, so it can be infused more quickly. It is given over just 1 hour, compared with several hours needed for the ocrelizumab infusion.

“In the ULTIMATE studies the only reaction with ublituximab during infusion was a mild increase in temperature, and this can be minimized by pretreatment with acetaminophen. The allergic-type reactions of itchiness and scratchiness seen with ocrelizumab infusions were far less common with ublituximab.”

Dr. Cree attributes this to the glycol-engineering of the ublituximab antibody, which he says “allows the cytokines released from the B cells to be metabolized within phagocytes rather than to be released into the bloodstream.”

The ULTIMATE trials were funded by TG Therapeutics.

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

New data from two phase 3 studies found that in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), the new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody drug, ublituximab, is associated with significant improvement in the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score, a measure of disability, compared with teriflunomide (Aubagio).

The results were presented by Lawrence Steinman, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).   

Main results from the ULTIMATE I and II phase 3 trials, reported previously, showed a significant reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR) over a 96-week period (22 months) with ublituximab versus teriflunomide, as well as significant reductions in MRI lesions and improvements in the number of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA).

Data from these two trials are being used to support a recent approval application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ublituximab to treat patients with relapsing remitting MS.

Although ublituximab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability improvement compared with teriflunomide, there was no significant difference between the two groups in confirmed disability progression.

Another ULTIMATE investigator, University of California, San Francisco neurologist Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, explained that the measures of confirmed disability improvement and confirmed disability progression used in MS clinical trials are based on changes in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). But he pointed out that this scale is a challenging score to use, as it typically changes very slightly over the course of a trial. He adds that the scale can also be variable.  

“Because confirmed disability worsening was not met as one of the secondary endpoints, one of the critiques of these trials could be that there wasn’t an effect of ublituximab. But worsening disability was rare in both treatment arms, so it would be very difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a difference without much greater numbers of patients being included,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score was an alternative, more sensitive, measure of disability that includes three different tests: the 9-hole peg test, which assesses upper arm mobility; the timed 25-foot walk test, which gauges walking ability; and the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT), a measure of attention and processing.

He reported results showing that ublituximab significantly improved the MFSC score in ULTIMATE I by 76% and by 89% in ULTIMATE II, compared with teriflunomide. In ULTIMATE 1, the MSFC score improved by 0.266 points during the 96-week trial in the teriflunomide group and by 0.469 points in the ublituximab group (P = .048). In ULTIMATE II, the MSFC score improved by 0.275 points in the teriflunomide group and by 0.521 points in the ublituximab group (P = .017).

These changes were driven by improvements in the 9-hole peg test and the timed 25-foot walk test, with no difference seen in the PASAT test.

Asked how ublituximab compares with other anti-CD20 antibodies already in use such as ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), Dr. Cree noted that ublituximab is associated with fewer infusion reactions, so it can be infused more quickly. It is given over just 1 hour, compared with several hours needed for the ocrelizumab infusion.

“In the ULTIMATE studies the only reaction with ublituximab during infusion was a mild increase in temperature, and this can be minimized by pretreatment with acetaminophen. The allergic-type reactions of itchiness and scratchiness seen with ocrelizumab infusions were far less common with ublituximab.”

Dr. Cree attributes this to the glycol-engineering of the ublituximab antibody, which he says “allows the cytokines released from the B cells to be metabolized within phagocytes rather than to be released into the bloodstream.”

The ULTIMATE trials were funded by TG Therapeutics.

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

New data from two phase 3 studies found that in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), the new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody drug, ublituximab, is associated with significant improvement in the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score, a measure of disability, compared with teriflunomide (Aubagio).

The results were presented by Lawrence Steinman, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).   

Main results from the ULTIMATE I and II phase 3 trials, reported previously, showed a significant reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR) over a 96-week period (22 months) with ublituximab versus teriflunomide, as well as significant reductions in MRI lesions and improvements in the number of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA).

Data from these two trials are being used to support a recent approval application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ublituximab to treat patients with relapsing remitting MS.

Although ublituximab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability improvement compared with teriflunomide, there was no significant difference between the two groups in confirmed disability progression.

Another ULTIMATE investigator, University of California, San Francisco neurologist Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, explained that the measures of confirmed disability improvement and confirmed disability progression used in MS clinical trials are based on changes in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). But he pointed out that this scale is a challenging score to use, as it typically changes very slightly over the course of a trial. He adds that the scale can also be variable.  

“Because confirmed disability worsening was not met as one of the secondary endpoints, one of the critiques of these trials could be that there wasn’t an effect of ublituximab. But worsening disability was rare in both treatment arms, so it would be very difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a difference without much greater numbers of patients being included,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score was an alternative, more sensitive, measure of disability that includes three different tests: the 9-hole peg test, which assesses upper arm mobility; the timed 25-foot walk test, which gauges walking ability; and the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT), a measure of attention and processing.

He reported results showing that ublituximab significantly improved the MFSC score in ULTIMATE I by 76% and by 89% in ULTIMATE II, compared with teriflunomide. In ULTIMATE 1, the MSFC score improved by 0.266 points during the 96-week trial in the teriflunomide group and by 0.469 points in the ublituximab group (P = .048). In ULTIMATE II, the MSFC score improved by 0.275 points in the teriflunomide group and by 0.521 points in the ublituximab group (P = .017).

These changes were driven by improvements in the 9-hole peg test and the timed 25-foot walk test, with no difference seen in the PASAT test.

Asked how ublituximab compares with other anti-CD20 antibodies already in use such as ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), Dr. Cree noted that ublituximab is associated with fewer infusion reactions, so it can be infused more quickly. It is given over just 1 hour, compared with several hours needed for the ocrelizumab infusion.

“In the ULTIMATE studies the only reaction with ublituximab during infusion was a mild increase in temperature, and this can be minimized by pretreatment with acetaminophen. The allergic-type reactions of itchiness and scratchiness seen with ocrelizumab infusions were far less common with ublituximab.”

Dr. Cree attributes this to the glycol-engineering of the ublituximab antibody, which he says “allows the cytokines released from the B cells to be metabolized within phagocytes rather than to be released into the bloodstream.”

The ULTIMATE trials were funded by TG Therapeutics.

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

Patients with functional neurological disorders demonstrate higher levels of depression and alexithymia – in addition to signs of an avoidant attachment style – compared with those with other neurological disorders and healthy controls, investigators report.

The pathological mechanism of functional neurological disorders (FND) remains poorly understood, but current models include both psychological and environmental factors, Sofia Cuoco, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Previous studies have suggested a relationship between attachment styles (AS) and psychiatric symptoms in FND patients but most have been limited to the FND population, noted Dr. Cuoco, of the University of Salerno, Italy, and colleagues. In FND, “it is unclear to what extent psychiatric features are explained by AS per se or are part of the FND spectrum,” they said.

To conduct the study, the investigators recruited 46 patients with FND, 34 patients with neurological disorders (ND) and 30 healthy controls. Demographic characteristics, including age, education, and gender, were similar among the groups. Overall, depression and alexithymia were significantly more prevalent in the FND group, compared with the other groups. Anxiety was more common in the FND group, compared with healthy controls, but similar compared with the ND group. Patients in the FND group reported significantly lower quality of life, compared with those in the other groups.

In a multivariate analysis aimed at examining AS and psychiatric features, the researchers found that the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire avoidance, Beck Depression Inventory, Somatic Affective, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale (TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings) were significant predictors of FND and accounted for about half of the variance.

The researchers also compared FND to functional seizures, and found that the TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale–Anxiety, and female gender were significant predictors of functional seizures.

The results were mainly in line with those from previous studies, the researchers said. However, “one of the novelties of this study is the inclusion of patients with other ND, whereby we demonstrated that FND patients were more depressed, anxious, and alexithymic than ND, which might suggest that these psychiatric features would not be merely reactive to physical symptoms,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of systematic interviews for personality disorders or traits, monitoring psychotropic medications, and conducting formal psychiatric assessments, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the heterogenous study population and absence of data on symptom severity, history of trauma, or other factors that might contributed to FND, they said.

However, the results suggest that avoidant AS might play an important role in the occurrence of psychiatric features in FND patients and should be considered in managing these conditions. More research is needed to explore the impact of attachment on pathophysiology with more complex instruments, such as the Adult Attachment Interview, Dr. Cuoco and colleagues said.

The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

Patients with functional neurological disorders demonstrate higher levels of depression and alexithymia – in addition to signs of an avoidant attachment style – compared with those with other neurological disorders and healthy controls, investigators report.

The pathological mechanism of functional neurological disorders (FND) remains poorly understood, but current models include both psychological and environmental factors, Sofia Cuoco, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Previous studies have suggested a relationship between attachment styles (AS) and psychiatric symptoms in FND patients but most have been limited to the FND population, noted Dr. Cuoco, of the University of Salerno, Italy, and colleagues. In FND, “it is unclear to what extent psychiatric features are explained by AS per se or are part of the FND spectrum,” they said.

To conduct the study, the investigators recruited 46 patients with FND, 34 patients with neurological disorders (ND) and 30 healthy controls. Demographic characteristics, including age, education, and gender, were similar among the groups. Overall, depression and alexithymia were significantly more prevalent in the FND group, compared with the other groups. Anxiety was more common in the FND group, compared with healthy controls, but similar compared with the ND group. Patients in the FND group reported significantly lower quality of life, compared with those in the other groups.

In a multivariate analysis aimed at examining AS and psychiatric features, the researchers found that the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire avoidance, Beck Depression Inventory, Somatic Affective, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale (TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings) were significant predictors of FND and accounted for about half of the variance.

The researchers also compared FND to functional seizures, and found that the TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale–Anxiety, and female gender were significant predictors of functional seizures.

The results were mainly in line with those from previous studies, the researchers said. However, “one of the novelties of this study is the inclusion of patients with other ND, whereby we demonstrated that FND patients were more depressed, anxious, and alexithymic than ND, which might suggest that these psychiatric features would not be merely reactive to physical symptoms,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of systematic interviews for personality disorders or traits, monitoring psychotropic medications, and conducting formal psychiatric assessments, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the heterogenous study population and absence of data on symptom severity, history of trauma, or other factors that might contributed to FND, they said.

However, the results suggest that avoidant AS might play an important role in the occurrence of psychiatric features in FND patients and should be considered in managing these conditions. More research is needed to explore the impact of attachment on pathophysiology with more complex instruments, such as the Adult Attachment Interview, Dr. Cuoco and colleagues said.

The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

Patients with functional neurological disorders demonstrate higher levels of depression and alexithymia – in addition to signs of an avoidant attachment style – compared with those with other neurological disorders and healthy controls, investigators report.

The pathological mechanism of functional neurological disorders (FND) remains poorly understood, but current models include both psychological and environmental factors, Sofia Cuoco, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Previous studies have suggested a relationship between attachment styles (AS) and psychiatric symptoms in FND patients but most have been limited to the FND population, noted Dr. Cuoco, of the University of Salerno, Italy, and colleagues. In FND, “it is unclear to what extent psychiatric features are explained by AS per se or are part of the FND spectrum,” they said.

To conduct the study, the investigators recruited 46 patients with FND, 34 patients with neurological disorders (ND) and 30 healthy controls. Demographic characteristics, including age, education, and gender, were similar among the groups. Overall, depression and alexithymia were significantly more prevalent in the FND group, compared with the other groups. Anxiety was more common in the FND group, compared with healthy controls, but similar compared with the ND group. Patients in the FND group reported significantly lower quality of life, compared with those in the other groups.

In a multivariate analysis aimed at examining AS and psychiatric features, the researchers found that the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire avoidance, Beck Depression Inventory, Somatic Affective, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale (TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings) were significant predictors of FND and accounted for about half of the variance.

The researchers also compared FND to functional seizures, and found that the TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale–Anxiety, and female gender were significant predictors of functional seizures.

The results were mainly in line with those from previous studies, the researchers said. However, “one of the novelties of this study is the inclusion of patients with other ND, whereby we demonstrated that FND patients were more depressed, anxious, and alexithymic than ND, which might suggest that these psychiatric features would not be merely reactive to physical symptoms,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of systematic interviews for personality disorders or traits, monitoring psychotropic medications, and conducting formal psychiatric assessments, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the heterogenous study population and absence of data on symptom severity, history of trauma, or other factors that might contributed to FND, they said.

However, the results suggest that avoidant AS might play an important role in the occurrence of psychiatric features in FND patients and should be considered in managing these conditions. More research is needed to explore the impact of attachment on pathophysiology with more complex instruments, such as the Adult Attachment Interview, Dr. Cuoco and colleagues said.

The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

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

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

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

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

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

Three or more cortical lesions at the time of multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis predicts long-term cognitive decline, according to findings from a new analysis. The findings had good accuracy, and could help clinicians monitor and treat cognitive impairment as it develops, according to Stefano Ziccardi, PhD, who is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Verona in Italy.

“The number of cortical lesions at MS diagnosis accurately discriminates between the presence or the absence of cognitive impairment after diagnosis of MS, and this should be considered a predictive marker of long-term cognitive impairment in these patients. Early cortical lesion evaluation should be conducted in each MS patient to anticipate the manifestation of cognitive problems to improve the monitoring of cognitive abilities, improve the diagnosis of cognitive impairment, enable prompt intervention as necessary,” said Dr. Ziccardi at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Cortical lesions are highly prevalent in MS, perhaps more so than white matter lesions, said Dr. Ziccardi. They are associated with clinical disability and lead to disease progression. “However, prognostic data about the role of early cortical lesions with reference to long-term cognitive impairment are still missing,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

That’s important because cognitive impairment is very common in MS, affecting between one-third and two-thirds of patients. It may appear early in the disease course and worsen over time, and it predicts worse clinical and neurological progression. And it presents a clinical challenge. “Clinicians struggle to predict the evolution of cognitive abilities over time,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

The findings drew praise from Iris-Katharina Penner, PhD, who comoderated the session. “I think the important point … is that the predictive value of cortical lesions is very high, because it indicates finally that we probably have a patient at risk for developing cognitive impairment in the future,” said Dr. Penner, who is a neuropsychologist and cognitive neuroscientist at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany.

Clinicians often don’t pay enough attention to cognition and the complexities of MS, said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment. “It’s just adding layers of complexity. We’re peeling back the onion and you realize it’s a really complicated disease. It’s not just white matter plaques, gray matter plaques, disconnection syndrome, wires cut, atrophy, ongoing inflammation, immune deficiency. All these diseases are fascinating. And we think we’re experts. But the fact is, we have much to learn,” said Dr. Gudesblatt, who is medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, New York.

The researchers analyzed data from 170 patients with MS who had a disease duration of approximately 20 years. Among the study cohort 62 patients were female, and the mean duration of disease was 19.2 years. Each patient had had a 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scan to look for cortical lesions within 3 years of diagnosis. They had also undergone periodic MRIs as well as neuropsychological exams, and underwent a neuropsychological assessment at the end of the study, which included the Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests (BRB-NT) and the Stroop Test.

A total of 41% of subjects had no cortical lesions according to their first MRI; 19% had 1-2 lesions, and 40% had 3 or more. At follow-up, 50% were cognitively normal (failed no tests), 25% had mild cognitive impairment (failed one or more tests), and 25% had severe cognitive impairment (failed three or more tests).

In the overall cohort, the median number of cortical lesions at baseline was 1 (interquartile range, 5.0). Among the 50% with normal cognitive function, the median was 0 (IQR, 2.5), while for the remaining 50% with cognitive impairment, the median was 3 (IQR, 7.0).

Those with 3 or more lesions had increased odds of cognitive impairment at follow-up (odds ratio, 3.70; P < .001), with an accuracy of 65% (95% confidence interval, 58%-72%), specificity of 75% (95% CI, 65%-84%), and a sensitivity of 55% (95% CI, 44%-66%). Three or more lesions discriminated between cognitive impairment and no impairment with an area under the curve of 0.67.

Individuals with no cognitive impairment had a median 0 lesions (IQR, 2.5), those with mild cognitive impairment had a median of 2.0 (IQR, 6.0), and those with severe cognitive impairment had 4.0 (IQR, 7.25).

In a multinomial regression model, 3 or more baseline cortical lesions were associated with a greater than threefold risk of severe cognitive impairment (OR, 3.33; P = .01).

Of subjects with 0 baseline lesions, 62% were cognitively normal at follow-up. In the 1-2 lesion group, 64% were normal. In the 3 or more group, 31% were cognitively normal (P < .001). In the 0 lesion group, 26% had mild cognitive impairment and 12% had severe cognitive impairment. In the 3 or more group, 28% had mild cognitive impairment, and 41% had severe cognitive impairment.

During the Q&A session following the talk, Dr. Ziccardi was asked if the group compared cortical lesions to other MRI correlates of cognitive impairment, such as gray matter volume or white matter integrity. He responded that the group is looking into those comparisons, and recently found that neither the number nor the volume of white matter lesions improved the accuracy of the predictive models based on the number of cortical lesions. The group is also looking into the applicability of gray matter volume.

Three or more cortical lesions at the time of multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis predicts long-term cognitive decline, according to findings from a new analysis. The findings had good accuracy, and could help clinicians monitor and treat cognitive impairment as it develops, according to Stefano Ziccardi, PhD, who is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Verona in Italy.

“The number of cortical lesions at MS diagnosis accurately discriminates between the presence or the absence of cognitive impairment after diagnosis of MS, and this should be considered a predictive marker of long-term cognitive impairment in these patients. Early cortical lesion evaluation should be conducted in each MS patient to anticipate the manifestation of cognitive problems to improve the monitoring of cognitive abilities, improve the diagnosis of cognitive impairment, enable prompt intervention as necessary,” said Dr. Ziccardi at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Cortical lesions are highly prevalent in MS, perhaps more so than white matter lesions, said Dr. Ziccardi. They are associated with clinical disability and lead to disease progression. “However, prognostic data about the role of early cortical lesions with reference to long-term cognitive impairment are still missing,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

That’s important because cognitive impairment is very common in MS, affecting between one-third and two-thirds of patients. It may appear early in the disease course and worsen over time, and it predicts worse clinical and neurological progression. And it presents a clinical challenge. “Clinicians struggle to predict the evolution of cognitive abilities over time,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

The findings drew praise from Iris-Katharina Penner, PhD, who comoderated the session. “I think the important point … is that the predictive value of cortical lesions is very high, because it indicates finally that we probably have a patient at risk for developing cognitive impairment in the future,” said Dr. Penner, who is a neuropsychologist and cognitive neuroscientist at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany.

Clinicians often don’t pay enough attention to cognition and the complexities of MS, said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment. “It’s just adding layers of complexity. We’re peeling back the onion and you realize it’s a really complicated disease. It’s not just white matter plaques, gray matter plaques, disconnection syndrome, wires cut, atrophy, ongoing inflammation, immune deficiency. All these diseases are fascinating. And we think we’re experts. But the fact is, we have much to learn,” said Dr. Gudesblatt, who is medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, New York.

The researchers analyzed data from 170 patients with MS who had a disease duration of approximately 20 years. Among the study cohort 62 patients were female, and the mean duration of disease was 19.2 years. Each patient had had a 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scan to look for cortical lesions within 3 years of diagnosis. They had also undergone periodic MRIs as well as neuropsychological exams, and underwent a neuropsychological assessment at the end of the study, which included the Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests (BRB-NT) and the Stroop Test.

A total of 41% of subjects had no cortical lesions according to their first MRI; 19% had 1-2 lesions, and 40% had 3 or more. At follow-up, 50% were cognitively normal (failed no tests), 25% had mild cognitive impairment (failed one or more tests), and 25% had severe cognitive impairment (failed three or more tests).

In the overall cohort, the median number of cortical lesions at baseline was 1 (interquartile range, 5.0). Among the 50% with normal cognitive function, the median was 0 (IQR, 2.5), while for the remaining 50% with cognitive impairment, the median was 3 (IQR, 7.0).

Those with 3 or more lesions had increased odds of cognitive impairment at follow-up (odds ratio, 3.70; P < .001), with an accuracy of 65% (95% confidence interval, 58%-72%), specificity of 75% (95% CI, 65%-84%), and a sensitivity of 55% (95% CI, 44%-66%). Three or more lesions discriminated between cognitive impairment and no impairment with an area under the curve of 0.67.

Individuals with no cognitive impairment had a median 0 lesions (IQR, 2.5), those with mild cognitive impairment had a median of 2.0 (IQR, 6.0), and those with severe cognitive impairment had 4.0 (IQR, 7.25).

In a multinomial regression model, 3 or more baseline cortical lesions were associated with a greater than threefold risk of severe cognitive impairment (OR, 3.33; P = .01).

Of subjects with 0 baseline lesions, 62% were cognitively normal at follow-up. In the 1-2 lesion group, 64% were normal. In the 3 or more group, 31% were cognitively normal (P < .001). In the 0 lesion group, 26% had mild cognitive impairment and 12% had severe cognitive impairment. In the 3 or more group, 28% had mild cognitive impairment, and 41% had severe cognitive impairment.

During the Q&A session following the talk, Dr. Ziccardi was asked if the group compared cortical lesions to other MRI correlates of cognitive impairment, such as gray matter volume or white matter integrity. He responded that the group is looking into those comparisons, and recently found that neither the number nor the volume of white matter lesions improved the accuracy of the predictive models based on the number of cortical lesions. The group is also looking into the applicability of gray matter volume.

Three or more cortical lesions at the time of multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis predicts long-term cognitive decline, according to findings from a new analysis. The findings had good accuracy, and could help clinicians monitor and treat cognitive impairment as it develops, according to Stefano Ziccardi, PhD, who is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Verona in Italy.

“The number of cortical lesions at MS diagnosis accurately discriminates between the presence or the absence of cognitive impairment after diagnosis of MS, and this should be considered a predictive marker of long-term cognitive impairment in these patients. Early cortical lesion evaluation should be conducted in each MS patient to anticipate the manifestation of cognitive problems to improve the monitoring of cognitive abilities, improve the diagnosis of cognitive impairment, enable prompt intervention as necessary,” said Dr. Ziccardi at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Cortical lesions are highly prevalent in MS, perhaps more so than white matter lesions, said Dr. Ziccardi. They are associated with clinical disability and lead to disease progression. “However, prognostic data about the role of early cortical lesions with reference to long-term cognitive impairment are still missing,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

That’s important because cognitive impairment is very common in MS, affecting between one-third and two-thirds of patients. It may appear early in the disease course and worsen over time, and it predicts worse clinical and neurological progression. And it presents a clinical challenge. “Clinicians struggle to predict the evolution of cognitive abilities over time,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

The findings drew praise from Iris-Katharina Penner, PhD, who comoderated the session. “I think the important point … is that the predictive value of cortical lesions is very high, because it indicates finally that we probably have a patient at risk for developing cognitive impairment in the future,” said Dr. Penner, who is a neuropsychologist and cognitive neuroscientist at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany.

Clinicians often don’t pay enough attention to cognition and the complexities of MS, said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment. “It’s just adding layers of complexity. We’re peeling back the onion and you realize it’s a really complicated disease. It’s not just white matter plaques, gray matter plaques, disconnection syndrome, wires cut, atrophy, ongoing inflammation, immune deficiency. All these diseases are fascinating. And we think we’re experts. But the fact is, we have much to learn,” said Dr. Gudesblatt, who is medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, New York.

The researchers analyzed data from 170 patients with MS who had a disease duration of approximately 20 years. Among the study cohort 62 patients were female, and the mean duration of disease was 19.2 years. Each patient had had a 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scan to look for cortical lesions within 3 years of diagnosis. They had also undergone periodic MRIs as well as neuropsychological exams, and underwent a neuropsychological assessment at the end of the study, which included the Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests (BRB-NT) and the Stroop Test.

A total of 41% of subjects had no cortical lesions according to their first MRI; 19% had 1-2 lesions, and 40% had 3 or more. At follow-up, 50% were cognitively normal (failed no tests), 25% had mild cognitive impairment (failed one or more tests), and 25% had severe cognitive impairment (failed three or more tests).

In the overall cohort, the median number of cortical lesions at baseline was 1 (interquartile range, 5.0). Among the 50% with normal cognitive function, the median was 0 (IQR, 2.5), while for the remaining 50% with cognitive impairment, the median was 3 (IQR, 7.0).

Those with 3 or more lesions had increased odds of cognitive impairment at follow-up (odds ratio, 3.70; P < .001), with an accuracy of 65% (95% confidence interval, 58%-72%), specificity of 75% (95% CI, 65%-84%), and a sensitivity of 55% (95% CI, 44%-66%). Three or more lesions discriminated between cognitive impairment and no impairment with an area under the curve of 0.67.

Individuals with no cognitive impairment had a median 0 lesions (IQR, 2.5), those with mild cognitive impairment had a median of 2.0 (IQR, 6.0), and those with severe cognitive impairment had 4.0 (IQR, 7.25).

In a multinomial regression model, 3 or more baseline cortical lesions were associated with a greater than threefold risk of severe cognitive impairment (OR, 3.33; P = .01).

Of subjects with 0 baseline lesions, 62% were cognitively normal at follow-up. In the 1-2 lesion group, 64% were normal. In the 3 or more group, 31% were cognitively normal (P < .001). In the 0 lesion group, 26% had mild cognitive impairment and 12% had severe cognitive impairment. In the 3 or more group, 28% had mild cognitive impairment, and 41% had severe cognitive impairment.

During the Q&A session following the talk, Dr. Ziccardi was asked if the group compared cortical lesions to other MRI correlates of cognitive impairment, such as gray matter volume or white matter integrity. He responded that the group is looking into those comparisons, and recently found that neither the number nor the volume of white matter lesions improved the accuracy of the predictive models based on the number of cortical lesions. The group is also looking into the applicability of gray matter volume.

The number of cortical lesions at baseline may indicate a patient’s risk of developing secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), according to new research. Cortical lesions also may be an early marker of future disability accumulation.

In the study, patients who had developed secondary progressive MS after 20 years of follow-up had approximately 7 cortical lesions at baseline. This number was significantly higher than the baseline number of cortical lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), relapsing-remitting MS, or primary progressive MS at 20 years.

“Our study represented a clear indication that the assessment, presence, and high number of cortical lesions at diagnosis is one of the tools at the disposal of the neurologist for the early identification of patients with more serious disease course,” said Gian Marco Schiavi, MD, a neurology resident at the University of Verona, Italy, during the presentation of his research.

The study was presented October 14 at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Accumulation of disability

Previous research has indicated that cortical lesions play a role in the accumulation of disability in MS and the conversion to secondary progressive MS. Other observations suggest that the number of cortical lesions after 30 years of follow-up explains more than 40% of the difference in disability between patients with secondary progressive MS.

The current investigators sought to understand whether cortical lesions at diagnosis could predict a patient’s risk for development of secondary progressive MS and risk for disability accumulation. They included 220 patients with MS and approximately 20 years of follow-up in their study.

At the time of diagnosis, all participants underwent 1.5-T MRI with double inversion recovery. Participants also presented for periodic MRI and clinical evaluations.

The researchers used analysis of variance to compare the baseline number of cortical lesions between patients with CIS, relapsing-remitting MS, secondary progressive MS, and primary progressive MS at 20 years. They also performed a multivariable regression analysis to predict patients’ final scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Variables included participants’ demographic, clinical, and radiological characteristics.
 

Lesions and disease progression

At baseline (the time of diagnosis), 162 patients had relapsing-remitting MS, 45 had CIS, and 12 had primary progressive MS. In all, 106 patients had no cortical lesions, 47 had 3 or fewer cortical lesions, and 67 had more than 3 cortical lesions.

At 20 years, 12 patients still had CIS, 152 had relapsing-remitting MS, and 44 had developed secondary progressive MS.

The mean number of cortical lesions at diagnosis was 6.6 in patients with secondary progressive MS at 20 years, which was significantly higher than the mean 1.3 cortical lesions in the other patients (P < .001).

In addition, post-hoc analysis showed that the median number of cortical lesions was significantly higher in patients with secondary progressive MS (6), compared with those with CIS (0; P < .001), relapsing-remitting MS (0; P < .001), and primary progressive MS (4.5; P = .013). Patients with primary progressive MS had a higher number of cortical lesions than patients with CIS and those with relapsing-remitting MS (P = .001).

The investigators also examined disability at 20 years. At that timepoint, mean EDSS score was 1.5 in patients with no cortical lesions, 3.0 in patients with 1 to 3 cortical lesions at baseline, and 6.0 in patients with more than 3 cortical lesions.

In a regression analysis, the number of cortical lesions and EDSS at diagnosis were the best predictors of long-term disability (P < .001). These factors explained about 57% of the variance in EDSS score after 20 years.
 

‘Important study’

“This important study supports that the presence of cortical lesions at the time of diagnosis is associated with long-term disability and transition to a secondary progressive disease course,” said Elias S. Sotirchos, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. The study size and long duration of follow-up are important strengths of the findings, he added.

Still, further research is needed to validate cortical lesions as a biomarker in clinical practice. Aside from technical validation issues relating to the identification of cortical lesions, whether cortical lesion burden can be used to guide therapeutic decision-making in MS is not clear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

“Notably, these patients were diagnosed and enrolled in this study 20 years ago, prior to the availability of newer disease-modifying therapies [DMTs] that are more effective at preventing inflammatory disease activity in MS,” he said, referring to the participants in the current study.

While recent observational studies have suggested that early initiation of higher-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) may reduce long-term disability and risk for transition to secondary progressive MS, the optimal approach to treatment in patients with a new diagnosis remains unclear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

Furthermore, it is unknown whether use of higher-efficacy DMTs may affect the risk of future disability in patients with high cortical lesion burden at baseline, said Dr. Sotirchos. “Or is it too late, especially considering the modest effects of DMTs in progressive patients and that cortical lesion burden was higher in patients that are progressive?”

One additional question to be addressed is how baseline cortical lesion burden adds to other factors that neurologists use in clinical practice to stratify patients’ risk of future disability, such as spinal cord involvement, motor or sphincter symptoms at onset, poor recovery from attacks, and white matter lesion burden, said Dr. Sotirchos.

The source of funding for this study was not reported. Dr. Schiavi and Dr. Sotirchos have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of cortical lesions at baseline may indicate a patient’s risk of developing secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), according to new research. Cortical lesions also may be an early marker of future disability accumulation.

In the study, patients who had developed secondary progressive MS after 20 years of follow-up had approximately 7 cortical lesions at baseline. This number was significantly higher than the baseline number of cortical lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), relapsing-remitting MS, or primary progressive MS at 20 years.

“Our study represented a clear indication that the assessment, presence, and high number of cortical lesions at diagnosis is one of the tools at the disposal of the neurologist for the early identification of patients with more serious disease course,” said Gian Marco Schiavi, MD, a neurology resident at the University of Verona, Italy, during the presentation of his research.

The study was presented October 14 at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Accumulation of disability

Previous research has indicated that cortical lesions play a role in the accumulation of disability in MS and the conversion to secondary progressive MS. Other observations suggest that the number of cortical lesions after 30 years of follow-up explains more than 40% of the difference in disability between patients with secondary progressive MS.

The current investigators sought to understand whether cortical lesions at diagnosis could predict a patient’s risk for development of secondary progressive MS and risk for disability accumulation. They included 220 patients with MS and approximately 20 years of follow-up in their study.

At the time of diagnosis, all participants underwent 1.5-T MRI with double inversion recovery. Participants also presented for periodic MRI and clinical evaluations.

The researchers used analysis of variance to compare the baseline number of cortical lesions between patients with CIS, relapsing-remitting MS, secondary progressive MS, and primary progressive MS at 20 years. They also performed a multivariable regression analysis to predict patients’ final scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Variables included participants’ demographic, clinical, and radiological characteristics.
 

Lesions and disease progression

At baseline (the time of diagnosis), 162 patients had relapsing-remitting MS, 45 had CIS, and 12 had primary progressive MS. In all, 106 patients had no cortical lesions, 47 had 3 or fewer cortical lesions, and 67 had more than 3 cortical lesions.

At 20 years, 12 patients still had CIS, 152 had relapsing-remitting MS, and 44 had developed secondary progressive MS.

The mean number of cortical lesions at diagnosis was 6.6 in patients with secondary progressive MS at 20 years, which was significantly higher than the mean 1.3 cortical lesions in the other patients (P < .001).

In addition, post-hoc analysis showed that the median number of cortical lesions was significantly higher in patients with secondary progressive MS (6), compared with those with CIS (0; P < .001), relapsing-remitting MS (0; P < .001), and primary progressive MS (4.5; P = .013). Patients with primary progressive MS had a higher number of cortical lesions than patients with CIS and those with relapsing-remitting MS (P = .001).

The investigators also examined disability at 20 years. At that timepoint, mean EDSS score was 1.5 in patients with no cortical lesions, 3.0 in patients with 1 to 3 cortical lesions at baseline, and 6.0 in patients with more than 3 cortical lesions.

In a regression analysis, the number of cortical lesions and EDSS at diagnosis were the best predictors of long-term disability (P < .001). These factors explained about 57% of the variance in EDSS score after 20 years.
 

‘Important study’

“This important study supports that the presence of cortical lesions at the time of diagnosis is associated with long-term disability and transition to a secondary progressive disease course,” said Elias S. Sotirchos, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. The study size and long duration of follow-up are important strengths of the findings, he added.

Still, further research is needed to validate cortical lesions as a biomarker in clinical practice. Aside from technical validation issues relating to the identification of cortical lesions, whether cortical lesion burden can be used to guide therapeutic decision-making in MS is not clear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

“Notably, these patients were diagnosed and enrolled in this study 20 years ago, prior to the availability of newer disease-modifying therapies [DMTs] that are more effective at preventing inflammatory disease activity in MS,” he said, referring to the participants in the current study.

While recent observational studies have suggested that early initiation of higher-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) may reduce long-term disability and risk for transition to secondary progressive MS, the optimal approach to treatment in patients with a new diagnosis remains unclear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

Furthermore, it is unknown whether use of higher-efficacy DMTs may affect the risk of future disability in patients with high cortical lesion burden at baseline, said Dr. Sotirchos. “Or is it too late, especially considering the modest effects of DMTs in progressive patients and that cortical lesion burden was higher in patients that are progressive?”

One additional question to be addressed is how baseline cortical lesion burden adds to other factors that neurologists use in clinical practice to stratify patients’ risk of future disability, such as spinal cord involvement, motor or sphincter symptoms at onset, poor recovery from attacks, and white matter lesion burden, said Dr. Sotirchos.

The source of funding for this study was not reported. Dr. Schiavi and Dr. Sotirchos have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of cortical lesions at baseline may indicate a patient’s risk of developing secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), according to new research. Cortical lesions also may be an early marker of future disability accumulation.

In the study, patients who had developed secondary progressive MS after 20 years of follow-up had approximately 7 cortical lesions at baseline. This number was significantly higher than the baseline number of cortical lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), relapsing-remitting MS, or primary progressive MS at 20 years.

“Our study represented a clear indication that the assessment, presence, and high number of cortical lesions at diagnosis is one of the tools at the disposal of the neurologist for the early identification of patients with more serious disease course,” said Gian Marco Schiavi, MD, a neurology resident at the University of Verona, Italy, during the presentation of his research.

The study was presented October 14 at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Accumulation of disability

Previous research has indicated that cortical lesions play a role in the accumulation of disability in MS and the conversion to secondary progressive MS. Other observations suggest that the number of cortical lesions after 30 years of follow-up explains more than 40% of the difference in disability between patients with secondary progressive MS.

The current investigators sought to understand whether cortical lesions at diagnosis could predict a patient’s risk for development of secondary progressive MS and risk for disability accumulation. They included 220 patients with MS and approximately 20 years of follow-up in their study.

At the time of diagnosis, all participants underwent 1.5-T MRI with double inversion recovery. Participants also presented for periodic MRI and clinical evaluations.

The researchers used analysis of variance to compare the baseline number of cortical lesions between patients with CIS, relapsing-remitting MS, secondary progressive MS, and primary progressive MS at 20 years. They also performed a multivariable regression analysis to predict patients’ final scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Variables included participants’ demographic, clinical, and radiological characteristics.
 

Lesions and disease progression

At baseline (the time of diagnosis), 162 patients had relapsing-remitting MS, 45 had CIS, and 12 had primary progressive MS. In all, 106 patients had no cortical lesions, 47 had 3 or fewer cortical lesions, and 67 had more than 3 cortical lesions.

At 20 years, 12 patients still had CIS, 152 had relapsing-remitting MS, and 44 had developed secondary progressive MS.

The mean number of cortical lesions at diagnosis was 6.6 in patients with secondary progressive MS at 20 years, which was significantly higher than the mean 1.3 cortical lesions in the other patients (P < .001).

In addition, post-hoc analysis showed that the median number of cortical lesions was significantly higher in patients with secondary progressive MS (6), compared with those with CIS (0; P < .001), relapsing-remitting MS (0; P < .001), and primary progressive MS (4.5; P = .013). Patients with primary progressive MS had a higher number of cortical lesions than patients with CIS and those with relapsing-remitting MS (P = .001).

The investigators also examined disability at 20 years. At that timepoint, mean EDSS score was 1.5 in patients with no cortical lesions, 3.0 in patients with 1 to 3 cortical lesions at baseline, and 6.0 in patients with more than 3 cortical lesions.

In a regression analysis, the number of cortical lesions and EDSS at diagnosis were the best predictors of long-term disability (P < .001). These factors explained about 57% of the variance in EDSS score after 20 years.
 

‘Important study’

“This important study supports that the presence of cortical lesions at the time of diagnosis is associated with long-term disability and transition to a secondary progressive disease course,” said Elias S. Sotirchos, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. The study size and long duration of follow-up are important strengths of the findings, he added.

Still, further research is needed to validate cortical lesions as a biomarker in clinical practice. Aside from technical validation issues relating to the identification of cortical lesions, whether cortical lesion burden can be used to guide therapeutic decision-making in MS is not clear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

“Notably, these patients were diagnosed and enrolled in this study 20 years ago, prior to the availability of newer disease-modifying therapies [DMTs] that are more effective at preventing inflammatory disease activity in MS,” he said, referring to the participants in the current study.

While recent observational studies have suggested that early initiation of higher-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) may reduce long-term disability and risk for transition to secondary progressive MS, the optimal approach to treatment in patients with a new diagnosis remains unclear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

Furthermore, it is unknown whether use of higher-efficacy DMTs may affect the risk of future disability in patients with high cortical lesion burden at baseline, said Dr. Sotirchos. “Or is it too late, especially considering the modest effects of DMTs in progressive patients and that cortical lesion burden was higher in patients that are progressive?”

One additional question to be addressed is how baseline cortical lesion burden adds to other factors that neurologists use in clinical practice to stratify patients’ risk of future disability, such as spinal cord involvement, motor or sphincter symptoms at onset, poor recovery from attacks, and white matter lesion burden, said Dr. Sotirchos.

The source of funding for this study was not reported. Dr. Schiavi and Dr. Sotirchos have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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