Rheumatology News

The largest U.S. physician organization on Tuesday took a step to prepare for future payments for administration of two leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, publishing new billing codes tailored to track each use of these medications.

The American Medical Association updated its CPT code set to reflect the expected future availability of COVID-19 vaccines. The new codes apply to the experimental vaccine being developed by Pfizer, in collaboration with a smaller German firm BioNTech, and to the similar product expected from Moderna, according to an AMA press release.

Positive news has emerged this week about both of these vaccines, which were developed using a newer – and as yet unproven – approach. They seek to use messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a target protein for SARS-CoV-2.

New York–based Pfizer on Monday announced interim phase 3 data that was widely viewed as promising. Pfizer said the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus.

In a press release, Pfizer said it plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to consider a special clearance, known as an emergency-use authorization, “soon after” a safety milestone is achieved in its vaccine trial. That milestone could be reached this month.

Moderna said it was on track to report early data from a late-stage trial of its experimental coronavirus vaccine later this month, and could file with the FDA for an emergency-use authorization in early December, according to a Reuters report.

The severity of the global pandemic has put the FDA under pressure to move quickly on approval of COVID-19 vaccines, based on limited data, while also working to make sure these products are safe. The creation of CPT codes for each of two coronavirus vaccines, as well as accompanying administration codes, will set up a way to keep tabs on each dose of each of these shots, the AMA said.

American Medical Association

“Correlating each coronavirus vaccine with its own unique CPT code provides analytical advantages to help track, allocate and optimize resources as an immunization program ramps up in the United States,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in the release.

AMA plans to introduce more vaccine-specific CPT codes as more vaccine candidates approach FDA review. These vaccine-specific CPT codes can go into effect only after the FDA grants a clearance.

The newly created Category I CPT codes and long descriptors for the vaccine products are:
 

• 91300; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3mL dosage, diluent reconstituted, for intramuscular use (Pfizer/BioNTech)
• 91301; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5mL dosage, for intramuscular use (Moderna)

These two administrative codes would apply to the Pfizer-BioNTech shot:

• 0001A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; first dose.
• 0002A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; second dose.

And these two administrative codes would apply to the Moderna shot:

• 0011A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; first dose.
• 0012A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; second dose.

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

The largest U.S. physician organization on Tuesday took a step to prepare for future payments for administration of two leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, publishing new billing codes tailored to track each use of these medications.

The American Medical Association updated its CPT code set to reflect the expected future availability of COVID-19 vaccines. The new codes apply to the experimental vaccine being developed by Pfizer, in collaboration with a smaller German firm BioNTech, and to the similar product expected from Moderna, according to an AMA press release.

Positive news has emerged this week about both of these vaccines, which were developed using a newer – and as yet unproven – approach. They seek to use messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a target protein for SARS-CoV-2.

New York–based Pfizer on Monday announced interim phase 3 data that was widely viewed as promising. Pfizer said the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus.

In a press release, Pfizer said it plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to consider a special clearance, known as an emergency-use authorization, “soon after” a safety milestone is achieved in its vaccine trial. That milestone could be reached this month.

Moderna said it was on track to report early data from a late-stage trial of its experimental coronavirus vaccine later this month, and could file with the FDA for an emergency-use authorization in early December, according to a Reuters report.

The severity of the global pandemic has put the FDA under pressure to move quickly on approval of COVID-19 vaccines, based on limited data, while also working to make sure these products are safe. The creation of CPT codes for each of two coronavirus vaccines, as well as accompanying administration codes, will set up a way to keep tabs on each dose of each of these shots, the AMA said.

American Medical Association

“Correlating each coronavirus vaccine with its own unique CPT code provides analytical advantages to help track, allocate and optimize resources as an immunization program ramps up in the United States,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in the release.

AMA plans to introduce more vaccine-specific CPT codes as more vaccine candidates approach FDA review. These vaccine-specific CPT codes can go into effect only after the FDA grants a clearance.

The newly created Category I CPT codes and long descriptors for the vaccine products are:
 

• 91300; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3mL dosage, diluent reconstituted, for intramuscular use (Pfizer/BioNTech)
• 91301; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5mL dosage, for intramuscular use (Moderna)

These two administrative codes would apply to the Pfizer-BioNTech shot:

• 0001A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; first dose.
• 0002A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; second dose.

And these two administrative codes would apply to the Moderna shot:

• 0011A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; first dose.
• 0012A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; second dose.

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

The largest U.S. physician organization on Tuesday took a step to prepare for future payments for administration of two leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, publishing new billing codes tailored to track each use of these medications.

The American Medical Association updated its CPT code set to reflect the expected future availability of COVID-19 vaccines. The new codes apply to the experimental vaccine being developed by Pfizer, in collaboration with a smaller German firm BioNTech, and to the similar product expected from Moderna, according to an AMA press release.

Positive news has emerged this week about both of these vaccines, which were developed using a newer – and as yet unproven – approach. They seek to use messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a target protein for SARS-CoV-2.

New York–based Pfizer on Monday announced interim phase 3 data that was widely viewed as promising. Pfizer said the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus.

In a press release, Pfizer said it plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to consider a special clearance, known as an emergency-use authorization, “soon after” a safety milestone is achieved in its vaccine trial. That milestone could be reached this month.

Moderna said it was on track to report early data from a late-stage trial of its experimental coronavirus vaccine later this month, and could file with the FDA for an emergency-use authorization in early December, according to a Reuters report.

The severity of the global pandemic has put the FDA under pressure to move quickly on approval of COVID-19 vaccines, based on limited data, while also working to make sure these products are safe. The creation of CPT codes for each of two coronavirus vaccines, as well as accompanying administration codes, will set up a way to keep tabs on each dose of each of these shots, the AMA said.

American Medical Association

“Correlating each coronavirus vaccine with its own unique CPT code provides analytical advantages to help track, allocate and optimize resources as an immunization program ramps up in the United States,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in the release.

AMA plans to introduce more vaccine-specific CPT codes as more vaccine candidates approach FDA review. These vaccine-specific CPT codes can go into effect only after the FDA grants a clearance.

The newly created Category I CPT codes and long descriptors for the vaccine products are:
 

• 91300; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3mL dosage, diluent reconstituted, for intramuscular use (Pfizer/BioNTech)
• 91301; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5mL dosage, for intramuscular use (Moderna)

These two administrative codes would apply to the Pfizer-BioNTech shot:

• 0001A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; first dose.
• 0002A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; second dose.

And these two administrative codes would apply to the Moderna shot:

• 0011A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; first dose.
• 0012A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; second dose.

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

Patients with Sjögren’s syndrome can be categorized into four distinct symptom clusters – independent of age, sex, and some disease manifestations – that may both improve symptom relief and aid in the development of targeted therapies, investigators reported.

Analysis of data from a survey conducted by the Sjögren’s Foundation identified four symptom clusters based on the grouping of five common characteristics: anxiety, depression, pain, fatigue, and dryness, Sara S. McCoy, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and colleagues reported.

“Verification of features unique to each Sjögren’s cluster might provide guidance for future cluster-targeted therapy,” Dr. McCoy said in an oral abstract presentation during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The dearth of Food and Drug Administration–approved disease-modifying therapies for Sjögren’s syndrome can be attributed in part to the small number of patients with extraglandular disease manifestations, the heterogeneity of disease, and the failure of available therapy to improve common symptoms such as fatigue, dryness, quality-of-life decrements, anxiety and depression, she said.
 

Symptom clusters verify smaller study’s findings

Dr. McCoy and colleagues explored whether symptom clusters identified in a 2019 study from the United Kingdom would apply to a larger U.S. population.

In the U.K. study, Jessica R. Tarn, PhD, and colleagues performed a hierarchical cluster analysis to identify subgroups among 608 patients in the U.K. Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome Registry and in 396 patients in two independent validation cohorts from Norway and France.

They identified four subgroups they categorized as low symptom burden, high symptom burden, dryness dominant with fatigue, and pain dominant with fatigue, and reported that the groups showed significant difference in serum and transcriptomic markers.

In the U.S. study, McCoy et al. sought to verify the symptom-based cluster and report on differences in key measures between the groups. They used data from a survey by the Sjögren’s Foundation of 2,961 adults with self-reported Sjögren’s syndrome. The investigators then used an unsupervised hierarchical clustering method to identify the optimal phenotypically similar clusters based on patient-reported severity of anxiety (from never to daily), depression (never to daily), pain on a visual analog scale (0 to 10), fatigue on a VAS, and dryness on a VAS. They collected data on demographics, medications, quality of life, and Sjögren’s-specific symptom frequency and systemic manifestations within each cluster, and identified cluster differences controlled for age, sex, race, and Social Security disability.

They identified four symptom-based clusters from 2,806 participants for whom complete data on the five key symptoms were available:

• Cluster 1 patients (prevalence, 30%) had high symptom burden in all categories.
• Cluster 2 patients (22%) had high anxiety and depression (22%), with some fatigue.
• Cluster 3 patients (34%) had predominant high dryness and fatigue.
• Cluster 4 patients (14%) had low symptom burden.

“We found that clusters differed in Sjögren’s-specific symptoms,” Dr. McCoy said.

For example, patients in the high-symptom-burden cluster had, as the name implies, an overall higher burden of symptoms among all major ocular, oral, and other dryness symptoms, as well as systemic organ system symptoms, whereas patients in the low-symptom-burden group consistently had the lowest levels of symptoms across the spectrum.

“We also noticed significant differences in systemic medication use. High symptom burden and high dryness and fatigue had higher use of systemic therapies targeting dryness, as might be expected,” she said.

The highest corticosteroid use was in the high-symptom-burden group, while hydroxychloroquine use was highest in the high-anxiety/depression group. Antidepressant use was also high in these two groups.

In addition, 35% of patients in the high-symptom-burden group used prescription opioid analgesics, compared with just 7% in the low-symptom-burden group.

The categories from low to high symptom burden also significantly correlated with quality-of-life measures, including Social Security Disability enrollment, emotional burden of disease, effects of disease on independence, and effects of Sjögren’s on relationships with family and friends (P < .001 for all).

Systemic manifestations of disease differed significantly among the groups for inflammatory arthritis, interstitial lung disease, and neuropathy, but there were no significant differences in the incidence of leukopenia or lymphoma.

The investigators plan to perform symptom-based cluster analysis with validated Sjögren’s syndrome populations, and propose studies to define phenotypic features of distinct clusters “to better define subsets of this heterogeneous disease, and ultimately inform targeted therapy,” Dr. McCoy concluded.
 

Opportunity to tailor practice and research

During the question-and-answer period following the presentation, Gabriela Hernandez-Molina, MD, of the Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City, commented that “fatigue and pain might be also attributed to other comorbidities in these patients such as fibromyalgia,” and asked Dr. McCoy to comment on that.

“That’s exactly what we’re driving at,” Dr. McCoy replied. “Fatigue and pain frequently affect how patients experience their disease, and it would be beneficial to take this into account when we evaluate patients, and also for the studies that we’re performing, as well as future ‘-omic’ studies – transcriptomics and what-not – there’s potential here to take that type of patient we frequently see and try to tailor our clinical practice and our research to clearly what we’re seeing in practice, which is these other comorbidities.”

Dana DiRenzo, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who moderated the session, asked how the information is changing the management of patients with Sjögren’s syndrome in clinic.

Dr. McCoy said that the study was based on self-reported data that can introduce bias, and that she and colleagues plan to validate the results before applying them to clinical care.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the University of Wisconsin. Dr. McCoy disclosed consulting fees from Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hernandez-Molina and Dr. DiRenzo reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: McCoy SS et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10), Abstract 1504.

Patients with Sjögren’s syndrome can be categorized into four distinct symptom clusters – independent of age, sex, and some disease manifestations – that may both improve symptom relief and aid in the development of targeted therapies, investigators reported.

Analysis of data from a survey conducted by the Sjögren’s Foundation identified four symptom clusters based on the grouping of five common characteristics: anxiety, depression, pain, fatigue, and dryness, Sara S. McCoy, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and colleagues reported.

“Verification of features unique to each Sjögren’s cluster might provide guidance for future cluster-targeted therapy,” Dr. McCoy said in an oral abstract presentation during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The dearth of Food and Drug Administration–approved disease-modifying therapies for Sjögren’s syndrome can be attributed in part to the small number of patients with extraglandular disease manifestations, the heterogeneity of disease, and the failure of available therapy to improve common symptoms such as fatigue, dryness, quality-of-life decrements, anxiety and depression, she said.
 

Symptom clusters verify smaller study’s findings

Dr. McCoy and colleagues explored whether symptom clusters identified in a 2019 study from the United Kingdom would apply to a larger U.S. population.

In the U.K. study, Jessica R. Tarn, PhD, and colleagues performed a hierarchical cluster analysis to identify subgroups among 608 patients in the U.K. Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome Registry and in 396 patients in two independent validation cohorts from Norway and France.

They identified four subgroups they categorized as low symptom burden, high symptom burden, dryness dominant with fatigue, and pain dominant with fatigue, and reported that the groups showed significant difference in serum and transcriptomic markers.

In the U.S. study, McCoy et al. sought to verify the symptom-based cluster and report on differences in key measures between the groups. They used data from a survey by the Sjögren’s Foundation of 2,961 adults with self-reported Sjögren’s syndrome. The investigators then used an unsupervised hierarchical clustering method to identify the optimal phenotypically similar clusters based on patient-reported severity of anxiety (from never to daily), depression (never to daily), pain on a visual analog scale (0 to 10), fatigue on a VAS, and dryness on a VAS. They collected data on demographics, medications, quality of life, and Sjögren’s-specific symptom frequency and systemic manifestations within each cluster, and identified cluster differences controlled for age, sex, race, and Social Security disability.

They identified four symptom-based clusters from 2,806 participants for whom complete data on the five key symptoms were available:

• Cluster 1 patients (prevalence, 30%) had high symptom burden in all categories.
• Cluster 2 patients (22%) had high anxiety and depression (22%), with some fatigue.
• Cluster 3 patients (34%) had predominant high dryness and fatigue.
• Cluster 4 patients (14%) had low symptom burden.

“We found that clusters differed in Sjögren’s-specific symptoms,” Dr. McCoy said.

For example, patients in the high-symptom-burden cluster had, as the name implies, an overall higher burden of symptoms among all major ocular, oral, and other dryness symptoms, as well as systemic organ system symptoms, whereas patients in the low-symptom-burden group consistently had the lowest levels of symptoms across the spectrum.

“We also noticed significant differences in systemic medication use. High symptom burden and high dryness and fatigue had higher use of systemic therapies targeting dryness, as might be expected,” she said.

The highest corticosteroid use was in the high-symptom-burden group, while hydroxychloroquine use was highest in the high-anxiety/depression group. Antidepressant use was also high in these two groups.

In addition, 35% of patients in the high-symptom-burden group used prescription opioid analgesics, compared with just 7% in the low-symptom-burden group.

The categories from low to high symptom burden also significantly correlated with quality-of-life measures, including Social Security Disability enrollment, emotional burden of disease, effects of disease on independence, and effects of Sjögren’s on relationships with family and friends (P < .001 for all).

Systemic manifestations of disease differed significantly among the groups for inflammatory arthritis, interstitial lung disease, and neuropathy, but there were no significant differences in the incidence of leukopenia or lymphoma.

The investigators plan to perform symptom-based cluster analysis with validated Sjögren’s syndrome populations, and propose studies to define phenotypic features of distinct clusters “to better define subsets of this heterogeneous disease, and ultimately inform targeted therapy,” Dr. McCoy concluded.
 

Opportunity to tailor practice and research

During the question-and-answer period following the presentation, Gabriela Hernandez-Molina, MD, of the Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City, commented that “fatigue and pain might be also attributed to other comorbidities in these patients such as fibromyalgia,” and asked Dr. McCoy to comment on that.

“That’s exactly what we’re driving at,” Dr. McCoy replied. “Fatigue and pain frequently affect how patients experience their disease, and it would be beneficial to take this into account when we evaluate patients, and also for the studies that we’re performing, as well as future ‘-omic’ studies – transcriptomics and what-not – there’s potential here to take that type of patient we frequently see and try to tailor our clinical practice and our research to clearly what we’re seeing in practice, which is these other comorbidities.”

Dana DiRenzo, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who moderated the session, asked how the information is changing the management of patients with Sjögren’s syndrome in clinic.

Dr. McCoy said that the study was based on self-reported data that can introduce bias, and that she and colleagues plan to validate the results before applying them to clinical care.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the University of Wisconsin. Dr. McCoy disclosed consulting fees from Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hernandez-Molina and Dr. DiRenzo reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: McCoy SS et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10), Abstract 1504.

Patients with Sjögren’s syndrome can be categorized into four distinct symptom clusters – independent of age, sex, and some disease manifestations – that may both improve symptom relief and aid in the development of targeted therapies, investigators reported.

Analysis of data from a survey conducted by the Sjögren’s Foundation identified four symptom clusters based on the grouping of five common characteristics: anxiety, depression, pain, fatigue, and dryness, Sara S. McCoy, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and colleagues reported.

“Verification of features unique to each Sjögren’s cluster might provide guidance for future cluster-targeted therapy,” Dr. McCoy said in an oral abstract presentation during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The dearth of Food and Drug Administration–approved disease-modifying therapies for Sjögren’s syndrome can be attributed in part to the small number of patients with extraglandular disease manifestations, the heterogeneity of disease, and the failure of available therapy to improve common symptoms such as fatigue, dryness, quality-of-life decrements, anxiety and depression, she said.
 

Symptom clusters verify smaller study’s findings

Dr. McCoy and colleagues explored whether symptom clusters identified in a 2019 study from the United Kingdom would apply to a larger U.S. population.

In the U.K. study, Jessica R. Tarn, PhD, and colleagues performed a hierarchical cluster analysis to identify subgroups among 608 patients in the U.K. Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome Registry and in 396 patients in two independent validation cohorts from Norway and France.

They identified four subgroups they categorized as low symptom burden, high symptom burden, dryness dominant with fatigue, and pain dominant with fatigue, and reported that the groups showed significant difference in serum and transcriptomic markers.

In the U.S. study, McCoy et al. sought to verify the symptom-based cluster and report on differences in key measures between the groups. They used data from a survey by the Sjögren’s Foundation of 2,961 adults with self-reported Sjögren’s syndrome. The investigators then used an unsupervised hierarchical clustering method to identify the optimal phenotypically similar clusters based on patient-reported severity of anxiety (from never to daily), depression (never to daily), pain on a visual analog scale (0 to 10), fatigue on a VAS, and dryness on a VAS. They collected data on demographics, medications, quality of life, and Sjögren’s-specific symptom frequency and systemic manifestations within each cluster, and identified cluster differences controlled for age, sex, race, and Social Security disability.

They identified four symptom-based clusters from 2,806 participants for whom complete data on the five key symptoms were available:

• Cluster 1 patients (prevalence, 30%) had high symptom burden in all categories.
• Cluster 2 patients (22%) had high anxiety and depression (22%), with some fatigue.
• Cluster 3 patients (34%) had predominant high dryness and fatigue.
• Cluster 4 patients (14%) had low symptom burden.

“We found that clusters differed in Sjögren’s-specific symptoms,” Dr. McCoy said.

For example, patients in the high-symptom-burden cluster had, as the name implies, an overall higher burden of symptoms among all major ocular, oral, and other dryness symptoms, as well as systemic organ system symptoms, whereas patients in the low-symptom-burden group consistently had the lowest levels of symptoms across the spectrum.

“We also noticed significant differences in systemic medication use. High symptom burden and high dryness and fatigue had higher use of systemic therapies targeting dryness, as might be expected,” she said.

The highest corticosteroid use was in the high-symptom-burden group, while hydroxychloroquine use was highest in the high-anxiety/depression group. Antidepressant use was also high in these two groups.

In addition, 35% of patients in the high-symptom-burden group used prescription opioid analgesics, compared with just 7% in the low-symptom-burden group.

The categories from low to high symptom burden also significantly correlated with quality-of-life measures, including Social Security Disability enrollment, emotional burden of disease, effects of disease on independence, and effects of Sjögren’s on relationships with family and friends (P < .001 for all).

Systemic manifestations of disease differed significantly among the groups for inflammatory arthritis, interstitial lung disease, and neuropathy, but there were no significant differences in the incidence of leukopenia or lymphoma.

The investigators plan to perform symptom-based cluster analysis with validated Sjögren’s syndrome populations, and propose studies to define phenotypic features of distinct clusters “to better define subsets of this heterogeneous disease, and ultimately inform targeted therapy,” Dr. McCoy concluded.
 

Opportunity to tailor practice and research

During the question-and-answer period following the presentation, Gabriela Hernandez-Molina, MD, of the Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City, commented that “fatigue and pain might be also attributed to other comorbidities in these patients such as fibromyalgia,” and asked Dr. McCoy to comment on that.

“That’s exactly what we’re driving at,” Dr. McCoy replied. “Fatigue and pain frequently affect how patients experience their disease, and it would be beneficial to take this into account when we evaluate patients, and also for the studies that we’re performing, as well as future ‘-omic’ studies – transcriptomics and what-not – there’s potential here to take that type of patient we frequently see and try to tailor our clinical practice and our research to clearly what we’re seeing in practice, which is these other comorbidities.”

Dana DiRenzo, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who moderated the session, asked how the information is changing the management of patients with Sjögren’s syndrome in clinic.

Dr. McCoy said that the study was based on self-reported data that can introduce bias, and that she and colleagues plan to validate the results before applying them to clinical care.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the University of Wisconsin. Dr. McCoy disclosed consulting fees from Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hernandez-Molina and Dr. DiRenzo reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: McCoy SS et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10), Abstract 1504.

No significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) emerged between methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) treatment in a comparison of adults 65 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis. However, researchers reported some elevation in risk for stroke in the methotrexate group and for myocardial infarction and heart failure in the HCQ group.

The primary outcome, a composite of MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death, had an incidence of 23.39 per 1,000 person-years in the methotrexate group versus 24.33 in the HCQ group in this observational study of nearly 60,000 people.

“These results suggest an importance of looking at different individual events of cardiovascular disease rather than the whole ‘CV’ disease only,” Seoyoung Kim, MD, said in an interview. “The other important thing is that the mortality was not significantly different between the two groups.”

For example, the researchers reported 256 cardiovascular-related deaths in the methotrexate group and 263 such deaths in the HCQ cohort.
 

Addressing a recognized risk

“It is well known that patients with rheumatoid arthritis have excessive morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Kim, of the division of rheumatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Among prior studies in this area, the Cardiovascular Inflammation Reduction Trial (CIRT) found no significant reduction in cardiovascular events among people taking methotrexate versus placebo. However, the study of 4,786 people was not specific to RA, Dr. Kim said. The lack of efficacy on this endpoint prompted researchers to stop CIRT early.

“So what does the conclusion of the CIRT trial mean for rheumatoid arthritis patients?” Dr. Kim asked.

To find out, she and colleagues compared risk of MACE among participants newly starting either methotrexate or HCQ. The study included 59,329 people aged 65 and older who were identified through Medicare claims data from 2008 to 2016. Mean age was 74 years, and 80% were women.

The investigators used propensity score matching to control for multiple covariates for demographics, other medications, and comorbidities. Use of other medications was similar between groups, including glucocorticoids, NSAIDs, and statins. Baseline cardiovascular morbidities likewise were well balanced, Dr. Kim said.

The hazard ratio for the primary MACE outcome was 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.08).

Secondary outcomes

MI was less common in the methotrexate group, for example, with an incidence of 8.49 per 1,000 person-years versus 10.68 per 1,000 person-years in the HCQ cohort. This finding was statically significant, Dr. Kim said, with a hazard ratio of 0.80 favoring methotrexate.

Heart failure also occurred less often in the methotrexate cohort, with an incidence rate of 8.57 per 1,000 person-years versus a rate of 14.24 in the HCQ group. The hazard ratio again favored methotrexate at 0.60.

In contrast, strokes were more common with methotrexate than with (incidence of 7.94 vs. 6.01 per 1,000 person-years).

Another secondary outcome, all-cause mortality, was not significantly different between groups. There were 821 deaths in the methotrexate group (28.65 per 1,000 person-years) and 796 deaths in the HCQ group (31.33 per 1,000 person-years).
 

Studying causality next?

Session moderator Maya Buch, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Manchester (England), asked Dr. Kim why she found significant differences in some secondary outcomes but not the primary composite endpoint.

“When we think of cardiovascular diseases, we tend to think of them all developing through the same mechanism. But perhaps the exact mechanism might not be identical,” Dr. Kim replied. The findings do not suggest causality because the study was observational, she added, “but maybe this will lead to a randomized, controlled trial.”

When asked for comment, Dr. Buch said that the study was “interesting” and “suggestive of differences in type of MACE between the two drugs evaluated,” but that there should be caution in interpreting the findings because of the lack of detailed information on RA disease and activity in claims databases, in addition to other factors, even though the investigators made adjustments for known differences through propensity score matching.

The division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital supported the study. Dr. Kim has received support for Brigham and Women’s Hospital for unrelated research from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Several other coauthors reported having financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that make drugs for RA. Dr. Buch had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: He M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 1993.

No significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) emerged between methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) treatment in a comparison of adults 65 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis. However, researchers reported some elevation in risk for stroke in the methotrexate group and for myocardial infarction and heart failure in the HCQ group.

The primary outcome, a composite of MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death, had an incidence of 23.39 per 1,000 person-years in the methotrexate group versus 24.33 in the HCQ group in this observational study of nearly 60,000 people.

“These results suggest an importance of looking at different individual events of cardiovascular disease rather than the whole ‘CV’ disease only,” Seoyoung Kim, MD, said in an interview. “The other important thing is that the mortality was not significantly different between the two groups.”

For example, the researchers reported 256 cardiovascular-related deaths in the methotrexate group and 263 such deaths in the HCQ cohort.
 

Addressing a recognized risk

“It is well known that patients with rheumatoid arthritis have excessive morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Kim, of the division of rheumatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Among prior studies in this area, the Cardiovascular Inflammation Reduction Trial (CIRT) found no significant reduction in cardiovascular events among people taking methotrexate versus placebo. However, the study of 4,786 people was not specific to RA, Dr. Kim said. The lack of efficacy on this endpoint prompted researchers to stop CIRT early.

“So what does the conclusion of the CIRT trial mean for rheumatoid arthritis patients?” Dr. Kim asked.

To find out, she and colleagues compared risk of MACE among participants newly starting either methotrexate or HCQ. The study included 59,329 people aged 65 and older who were identified through Medicare claims data from 2008 to 2016. Mean age was 74 years, and 80% were women.

The investigators used propensity score matching to control for multiple covariates for demographics, other medications, and comorbidities. Use of other medications was similar between groups, including glucocorticoids, NSAIDs, and statins. Baseline cardiovascular morbidities likewise were well balanced, Dr. Kim said.

The hazard ratio for the primary MACE outcome was 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.08).

Secondary outcomes

MI was less common in the methotrexate group, for example, with an incidence of 8.49 per 1,000 person-years versus 10.68 per 1,000 person-years in the HCQ cohort. This finding was statically significant, Dr. Kim said, with a hazard ratio of 0.80 favoring methotrexate.

Heart failure also occurred less often in the methotrexate cohort, with an incidence rate of 8.57 per 1,000 person-years versus a rate of 14.24 in the HCQ group. The hazard ratio again favored methotrexate at 0.60.

In contrast, strokes were more common with methotrexate than with (incidence of 7.94 vs. 6.01 per 1,000 person-years).

Another secondary outcome, all-cause mortality, was not significantly different between groups. There were 821 deaths in the methotrexate group (28.65 per 1,000 person-years) and 796 deaths in the HCQ group (31.33 per 1,000 person-years).
 

Studying causality next?

Session moderator Maya Buch, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Manchester (England), asked Dr. Kim why she found significant differences in some secondary outcomes but not the primary composite endpoint.

“When we think of cardiovascular diseases, we tend to think of them all developing through the same mechanism. But perhaps the exact mechanism might not be identical,” Dr. Kim replied. The findings do not suggest causality because the study was observational, she added, “but maybe this will lead to a randomized, controlled trial.”

When asked for comment, Dr. Buch said that the study was “interesting” and “suggestive of differences in type of MACE between the two drugs evaluated,” but that there should be caution in interpreting the findings because of the lack of detailed information on RA disease and activity in claims databases, in addition to other factors, even though the investigators made adjustments for known differences through propensity score matching.

The division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital supported the study. Dr. Kim has received support for Brigham and Women’s Hospital for unrelated research from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Several other coauthors reported having financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that make drugs for RA. Dr. Buch had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: He M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 1993.

No significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) emerged between methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) treatment in a comparison of adults 65 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis. However, researchers reported some elevation in risk for stroke in the methotrexate group and for myocardial infarction and heart failure in the HCQ group.

The primary outcome, a composite of MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death, had an incidence of 23.39 per 1,000 person-years in the methotrexate group versus 24.33 in the HCQ group in this observational study of nearly 60,000 people.

“These results suggest an importance of looking at different individual events of cardiovascular disease rather than the whole ‘CV’ disease only,” Seoyoung Kim, MD, said in an interview. “The other important thing is that the mortality was not significantly different between the two groups.”

For example, the researchers reported 256 cardiovascular-related deaths in the methotrexate group and 263 such deaths in the HCQ cohort.
 

Addressing a recognized risk

“It is well known that patients with rheumatoid arthritis have excessive morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Kim, of the division of rheumatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Among prior studies in this area, the Cardiovascular Inflammation Reduction Trial (CIRT) found no significant reduction in cardiovascular events among people taking methotrexate versus placebo. However, the study of 4,786 people was not specific to RA, Dr. Kim said. The lack of efficacy on this endpoint prompted researchers to stop CIRT early.

“So what does the conclusion of the CIRT trial mean for rheumatoid arthritis patients?” Dr. Kim asked.

To find out, she and colleagues compared risk of MACE among participants newly starting either methotrexate or HCQ. The study included 59,329 people aged 65 and older who were identified through Medicare claims data from 2008 to 2016. Mean age was 74 years, and 80% were women.

The investigators used propensity score matching to control for multiple covariates for demographics, other medications, and comorbidities. Use of other medications was similar between groups, including glucocorticoids, NSAIDs, and statins. Baseline cardiovascular morbidities likewise were well balanced, Dr. Kim said.

The hazard ratio for the primary MACE outcome was 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.08).

Secondary outcomes

MI was less common in the methotrexate group, for example, with an incidence of 8.49 per 1,000 person-years versus 10.68 per 1,000 person-years in the HCQ cohort. This finding was statically significant, Dr. Kim said, with a hazard ratio of 0.80 favoring methotrexate.

Heart failure also occurred less often in the methotrexate cohort, with an incidence rate of 8.57 per 1,000 person-years versus a rate of 14.24 in the HCQ group. The hazard ratio again favored methotrexate at 0.60.

In contrast, strokes were more common with methotrexate than with (incidence of 7.94 vs. 6.01 per 1,000 person-years).

Another secondary outcome, all-cause mortality, was not significantly different between groups. There were 821 deaths in the methotrexate group (28.65 per 1,000 person-years) and 796 deaths in the HCQ group (31.33 per 1,000 person-years).
 

Studying causality next?

Session moderator Maya Buch, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Manchester (England), asked Dr. Kim why she found significant differences in some secondary outcomes but not the primary composite endpoint.

“When we think of cardiovascular diseases, we tend to think of them all developing through the same mechanism. But perhaps the exact mechanism might not be identical,” Dr. Kim replied. The findings do not suggest causality because the study was observational, she added, “but maybe this will lead to a randomized, controlled trial.”

When asked for comment, Dr. Buch said that the study was “interesting” and “suggestive of differences in type of MACE between the two drugs evaluated,” but that there should be caution in interpreting the findings because of the lack of detailed information on RA disease and activity in claims databases, in addition to other factors, even though the investigators made adjustments for known differences through propensity score matching.

The division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital supported the study. Dr. Kim has received support for Brigham and Women’s Hospital for unrelated research from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Several other coauthors reported having financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that make drugs for RA. Dr. Buch had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: He M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 1993.

About 1 in 11 patients discharged after COVID-19 treatment is readmitted to the same hospital, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Older age and chronic diseases are associated with increased risk, said senior author Adi V. Gundlapalli, MD, PhD, chief public health informatics officer of the CDC’s Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services.

Gundlapalli and colleagues published the finding November 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

To get a picture of readmission after COVID-19 hospitalization, the researchers analyzed records of 126,137 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March and July and included in the Premier Healthcare Database, which covers discharge records from 865 nongovernmental, community, and teaching hospitals.

Overall, 15% of the patients died during hospitalization. Of those who survived to discharge, 9% were readmitted to the same hospital within 2 months of discharge; 1.6% of patients were readmitted more than once. The median interval from discharge to first readmission was 8 days (interquartile range, 3-20 days). This short interval suggests that patients are probably not suffering a relapse, Gundlapalli said in an interview. More likely they experienced some adverse event, such as difficulty breathing, that led their caretakers to send them back to the hospital.

Forty-five percent of the primary discharge diagnoses after readmission were infectious and parasitic diseases, primarily COVID-19. The next most common were circulatory system symptoms (11%) and digestive symptoms (7%).

After controlling for covariates, the researchers found that patients were more likely to be readmitted if they had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.4), heart failure (OR, 1.6), diabetes (OR, 1.2), or chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.6).

They also found increased odds among patients discharged from the index hospitalization to a skilled nursing facility (OR, 1.4) or with home health organization support (OR, 1.3), compared with being discharged to home or self-care. Looked at another way, the rate of readmission was 15% among those discharged to a skilled nursing facility, 12% among those needing home health care and 7% of those discharged to home or self-care.

The researchers also found that people who had been hospitalized within 3 months prior to the index hospitalization were 2.6 times more likely to be readmitted than were those without prior inpatient care.

Further, the odds of readmission increased significantly among people over 65 years of age, compared with people aged 18 to 39 years.

“The results are not surprising,” Gundlapalli said. “We have known from before that elderly patients, especially with chronic conditions, certain clinical conditions, and those who have been hospitalized before, are at risk for readmission.”

But admitting COVID-19 patients requires special planning because they must be isolated and because more personal protective equipment (PPE) is required, he pointed out.

One unexpected finding from the report is that non-Hispanic White people were more likely to be readmitted than were people of other racial or ethnic groups. This contrasts with other research showing Hispanic and Black individuals are more severely affected by COVID-19 than White people. More research is needed to explain this result, Gundlapalli said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About 1 in 11 patients discharged after COVID-19 treatment is readmitted to the same hospital, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Older age and chronic diseases are associated with increased risk, said senior author Adi V. Gundlapalli, MD, PhD, chief public health informatics officer of the CDC’s Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services.

Gundlapalli and colleagues published the finding November 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

To get a picture of readmission after COVID-19 hospitalization, the researchers analyzed records of 126,137 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March and July and included in the Premier Healthcare Database, which covers discharge records from 865 nongovernmental, community, and teaching hospitals.

Overall, 15% of the patients died during hospitalization. Of those who survived to discharge, 9% were readmitted to the same hospital within 2 months of discharge; 1.6% of patients were readmitted more than once. The median interval from discharge to first readmission was 8 days (interquartile range, 3-20 days). This short interval suggests that patients are probably not suffering a relapse, Gundlapalli said in an interview. More likely they experienced some adverse event, such as difficulty breathing, that led their caretakers to send them back to the hospital.

Forty-five percent of the primary discharge diagnoses after readmission were infectious and parasitic diseases, primarily COVID-19. The next most common were circulatory system symptoms (11%) and digestive symptoms (7%).

After controlling for covariates, the researchers found that patients were more likely to be readmitted if they had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.4), heart failure (OR, 1.6), diabetes (OR, 1.2), or chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.6).

They also found increased odds among patients discharged from the index hospitalization to a skilled nursing facility (OR, 1.4) or with home health organization support (OR, 1.3), compared with being discharged to home or self-care. Looked at another way, the rate of readmission was 15% among those discharged to a skilled nursing facility, 12% among those needing home health care and 7% of those discharged to home or self-care.

The researchers also found that people who had been hospitalized within 3 months prior to the index hospitalization were 2.6 times more likely to be readmitted than were those without prior inpatient care.

Further, the odds of readmission increased significantly among people over 65 years of age, compared with people aged 18 to 39 years.

“The results are not surprising,” Gundlapalli said. “We have known from before that elderly patients, especially with chronic conditions, certain clinical conditions, and those who have been hospitalized before, are at risk for readmission.”

But admitting COVID-19 patients requires special planning because they must be isolated and because more personal protective equipment (PPE) is required, he pointed out.

One unexpected finding from the report is that non-Hispanic White people were more likely to be readmitted than were people of other racial or ethnic groups. This contrasts with other research showing Hispanic and Black individuals are more severely affected by COVID-19 than White people. More research is needed to explain this result, Gundlapalli said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About 1 in 11 patients discharged after COVID-19 treatment is readmitted to the same hospital, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Older age and chronic diseases are associated with increased risk, said senior author Adi V. Gundlapalli, MD, PhD, chief public health informatics officer of the CDC’s Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services.

Gundlapalli and colleagues published the finding November 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

To get a picture of readmission after COVID-19 hospitalization, the researchers analyzed records of 126,137 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March and July and included in the Premier Healthcare Database, which covers discharge records from 865 nongovernmental, community, and teaching hospitals.

Overall, 15% of the patients died during hospitalization. Of those who survived to discharge, 9% were readmitted to the same hospital within 2 months of discharge; 1.6% of patients were readmitted more than once. The median interval from discharge to first readmission was 8 days (interquartile range, 3-20 days). This short interval suggests that patients are probably not suffering a relapse, Gundlapalli said in an interview. More likely they experienced some adverse event, such as difficulty breathing, that led their caretakers to send them back to the hospital.

Forty-five percent of the primary discharge diagnoses after readmission were infectious and parasitic diseases, primarily COVID-19. The next most common were circulatory system symptoms (11%) and digestive symptoms (7%).

After controlling for covariates, the researchers found that patients were more likely to be readmitted if they had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.4), heart failure (OR, 1.6), diabetes (OR, 1.2), or chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.6).

They also found increased odds among patients discharged from the index hospitalization to a skilled nursing facility (OR, 1.4) or with home health organization support (OR, 1.3), compared with being discharged to home or self-care. Looked at another way, the rate of readmission was 15% among those discharged to a skilled nursing facility, 12% among those needing home health care and 7% of those discharged to home or self-care.

The researchers also found that people who had been hospitalized within 3 months prior to the index hospitalization were 2.6 times more likely to be readmitted than were those without prior inpatient care.

Further, the odds of readmission increased significantly among people over 65 years of age, compared with people aged 18 to 39 years.

“The results are not surprising,” Gundlapalli said. “We have known from before that elderly patients, especially with chronic conditions, certain clinical conditions, and those who have been hospitalized before, are at risk for readmission.”

But admitting COVID-19 patients requires special planning because they must be isolated and because more personal protective equipment (PPE) is required, he pointed out.

One unexpected finding from the report is that non-Hispanic White people were more likely to be readmitted than were people of other racial or ethnic groups. This contrasts with other research showing Hispanic and Black individuals are more severely affected by COVID-19 than White people. More research is needed to explain this result, Gundlapalli said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As an East Coast transplant residing in Texas, I look forward to the annual sojourn home to celebrate the holidays with family and friends – as do many of our patients and their families. But this is 2020. SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, is still circulating. To make matters worse, cases are rising in 45 states and internationally. The day of this writing 102,831 new cases were reported in the United States. As we prepare for the holidays, it is time to rethink how safe it is to travel and/or gather with people who do not live in our household.

Social distancing, wearing masks, and hand washing have been strategies recommended to help mitigate the spread of the virus. We know adherence is not always 100%. The reality is that several families will consider traveling and gathering with others over the holidays. Their actions may lead to increased infections, hospitalizations, and even deaths. It behooves us to at least remind them of the potential consequences of the activity, and if travel and/or holiday gatherings are inevitable, to provide some guidance to help them look at both the risks and benefits and offer strategies to minimize infection and spread.
 

What should be considered prior to travel?

Here is a list of points to ponder:

• Is your patient is in a high-risk group for developing severe disease or visiting someone who is in a high-risk group?
• What is their mode of transportation?
• What is their destination?
• How prevalent is the disease at their destination, compared with their community?
• What will be their accommodations?
• How will attendees prepare for the gathering, if at all?
• Will multiple families congregate after quarantining for 2 weeks or simply arrive?
• At the destination, will people wear masks and socially distance?
• Is an outdoor venue an option?

All of these questions should be considered by patients.
 

Review high-risk groups

In terms of high-risk groups, we usually focus on underlying medical conditions or extremes of age, but Black and LatinX children and their families have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized more frequently than other racial/ ethnic groups in the United States. Of 277,285 school-aged children infected between March 1 and Sept. 19, 2020, 42% were LatinX, 32% White, and 17% Black, yet they comprise 18%, 60%, and 11% of the U.S. population, respectively. Of those hospitalized, 45% were LatinX, 22% White, and 24% Black. LatinX and Black children also have disproportionately higher mortality rates.

Think about transmission and how to mitigate it

Many patients erroneously think combining multiple households for small group gatherings is inconsequential. These types of gatherings serve as a continued source of SARS-CoV-2 spread. For example, a person in Illinois with mild upper respiratory infection symptoms attended a funeral; he reported embracing the family members after the funeral. He dined with two people the evening prior to the funeral, sharing the meal using common serving dishes. Four days later, he attended a birthday party with nine family members. Some of the family members with symptoms subsequently attended church, infecting another church attendee. A cluster of 16 cases of COVID-19 was subsequently identified, including three deaths likely resulting from this one introduction of COVID-19 at these two family gatherings.

In Tennessee and Wisconsin, household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was studied prospectively. A total of 101 index cases and 191 asymptomatic household contacts were enrolled between April and Sept. 2020; 102 of 191 (53%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected during the 14-day follow-up. Most infections (75%) were identified within 5 days and occurred whether the index case was an adult or child.

Lastly, one adolescent was identified as the source for an outbreak at a family gathering where 15 persons from five households and four states shared a house between 8 and 25 days in July 2020. Six additional members visited the house. The index case had an exposure to COVID-19 and had a negative antigen test 4 days after exposure. She was asymptomatic when tested. She developed nasal congestion 2 days later, the same day she and her family departed for the gathering. A total of 11 household contacts developed confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19, and the teen developed symptoms. This report illustrates how easily SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted, and how when implemented, mitigation strategies work because none of the six who only visited the house was infected. It also serves as a reminder that antigen testing is indicated only for use within the first 5-12 days of onset of symptoms. In this case, the adolescent was asymptomatic when tested and had a false-negative test result.
 

Ponder modes of transportation

How will your patient arrive to their holiday destination? Nonstop travel by car with household members is probably the safest way. However, for many families, buses and trains are the only options, and social distancing may be challenging. Air travel is a must for others. Acquisition of COVID-19 during air travel appears to be low, but not absent based on how air enters and leaves the cabin. The challenge is socially distancing throughout the check in and boarding processes, as well as minimizing contact with common surfaces. There also is loss of social distancing once on board. Ideally, masks should be worn during the flight. Additionally, for those with international destinations, most countries now require a negative polymerase chain reaction COVID-19 test within a specified time frame for entry.

Essentially the safest place for your patients during the holidays is celebrating at home with their household contacts. The risk for disease acquisition increases with travel. You will not have the opportunity to discuss holiday plans with most parents. However, you can encourage them to consider the pros and cons of travel with reminders via telephone, e-mail, and /or social messaging directly from your practices similar to those sent for other medically necessary interventions. As for me, I will be celebrating virtually this year. There is a first time for everything.

For additional information that also is patient friendly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers information about travel within the United States and international travel.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As an East Coast transplant residing in Texas, I look forward to the annual sojourn home to celebrate the holidays with family and friends – as do many of our patients and their families. But this is 2020. SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, is still circulating. To make matters worse, cases are rising in 45 states and internationally. The day of this writing 102,831 new cases were reported in the United States. As we prepare for the holidays, it is time to rethink how safe it is to travel and/or gather with people who do not live in our household.

Social distancing, wearing masks, and hand washing have been strategies recommended to help mitigate the spread of the virus. We know adherence is not always 100%. The reality is that several families will consider traveling and gathering with others over the holidays. Their actions may lead to increased infections, hospitalizations, and even deaths. It behooves us to at least remind them of the potential consequences of the activity, and if travel and/or holiday gatherings are inevitable, to provide some guidance to help them look at both the risks and benefits and offer strategies to minimize infection and spread.
 

What should be considered prior to travel?

Here is a list of points to ponder:

• Is your patient is in a high-risk group for developing severe disease or visiting someone who is in a high-risk group?
• What is their mode of transportation?
• What is their destination?
• How prevalent is the disease at their destination, compared with their community?
• What will be their accommodations?
• How will attendees prepare for the gathering, if at all?
• Will multiple families congregate after quarantining for 2 weeks or simply arrive?
• At the destination, will people wear masks and socially distance?
• Is an outdoor venue an option?

All of these questions should be considered by patients.
 

Review high-risk groups

In terms of high-risk groups, we usually focus on underlying medical conditions or extremes of age, but Black and LatinX children and their families have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized more frequently than other racial/ ethnic groups in the United States. Of 277,285 school-aged children infected between March 1 and Sept. 19, 2020, 42% were LatinX, 32% White, and 17% Black, yet they comprise 18%, 60%, and 11% of the U.S. population, respectively. Of those hospitalized, 45% were LatinX, 22% White, and 24% Black. LatinX and Black children also have disproportionately higher mortality rates.

Think about transmission and how to mitigate it

Many patients erroneously think combining multiple households for small group gatherings is inconsequential. These types of gatherings serve as a continued source of SARS-CoV-2 spread. For example, a person in Illinois with mild upper respiratory infection symptoms attended a funeral; he reported embracing the family members after the funeral. He dined with two people the evening prior to the funeral, sharing the meal using common serving dishes. Four days later, he attended a birthday party with nine family members. Some of the family members with symptoms subsequently attended church, infecting another church attendee. A cluster of 16 cases of COVID-19 was subsequently identified, including three deaths likely resulting from this one introduction of COVID-19 at these two family gatherings.

In Tennessee and Wisconsin, household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was studied prospectively. A total of 101 index cases and 191 asymptomatic household contacts were enrolled between April and Sept. 2020; 102 of 191 (53%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected during the 14-day follow-up. Most infections (75%) were identified within 5 days and occurred whether the index case was an adult or child.

Lastly, one adolescent was identified as the source for an outbreak at a family gathering where 15 persons from five households and four states shared a house between 8 and 25 days in July 2020. Six additional members visited the house. The index case had an exposure to COVID-19 and had a negative antigen test 4 days after exposure. She was asymptomatic when tested. She developed nasal congestion 2 days later, the same day she and her family departed for the gathering. A total of 11 household contacts developed confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19, and the teen developed symptoms. This report illustrates how easily SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted, and how when implemented, mitigation strategies work because none of the six who only visited the house was infected. It also serves as a reminder that antigen testing is indicated only for use within the first 5-12 days of onset of symptoms. In this case, the adolescent was asymptomatic when tested and had a false-negative test result.
 

Ponder modes of transportation

How will your patient arrive to their holiday destination? Nonstop travel by car with household members is probably the safest way. However, for many families, buses and trains are the only options, and social distancing may be challenging. Air travel is a must for others. Acquisition of COVID-19 during air travel appears to be low, but not absent based on how air enters and leaves the cabin. The challenge is socially distancing throughout the check in and boarding processes, as well as minimizing contact with common surfaces. There also is loss of social distancing once on board. Ideally, masks should be worn during the flight. Additionally, for those with international destinations, most countries now require a negative polymerase chain reaction COVID-19 test within a specified time frame for entry.

Essentially the safest place for your patients during the holidays is celebrating at home with their household contacts. The risk for disease acquisition increases with travel. You will not have the opportunity to discuss holiday plans with most parents. However, you can encourage them to consider the pros and cons of travel with reminders via telephone, e-mail, and /or social messaging directly from your practices similar to those sent for other medically necessary interventions. As for me, I will be celebrating virtually this year. There is a first time for everything.

For additional information that also is patient friendly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers information about travel within the United States and international travel.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As an East Coast transplant residing in Texas, I look forward to the annual sojourn home to celebrate the holidays with family and friends – as do many of our patients and their families. But this is 2020. SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, is still circulating. To make matters worse, cases are rising in 45 states and internationally. The day of this writing 102,831 new cases were reported in the United States. As we prepare for the holidays, it is time to rethink how safe it is to travel and/or gather with people who do not live in our household.

Social distancing, wearing masks, and hand washing have been strategies recommended to help mitigate the spread of the virus. We know adherence is not always 100%. The reality is that several families will consider traveling and gathering with others over the holidays. Their actions may lead to increased infections, hospitalizations, and even deaths. It behooves us to at least remind them of the potential consequences of the activity, and if travel and/or holiday gatherings are inevitable, to provide some guidance to help them look at both the risks and benefits and offer strategies to minimize infection and spread.
 

What should be considered prior to travel?

Here is a list of points to ponder:

• Is your patient is in a high-risk group for developing severe disease or visiting someone who is in a high-risk group?
• What is their mode of transportation?
• What is their destination?
• How prevalent is the disease at their destination, compared with their community?
• What will be their accommodations?
• How will attendees prepare for the gathering, if at all?
• Will multiple families congregate after quarantining for 2 weeks or simply arrive?
• At the destination, will people wear masks and socially distance?
• Is an outdoor venue an option?

All of these questions should be considered by patients.
 

Review high-risk groups

In terms of high-risk groups, we usually focus on underlying medical conditions or extremes of age, but Black and LatinX children and their families have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized more frequently than other racial/ ethnic groups in the United States. Of 277,285 school-aged children infected between March 1 and Sept. 19, 2020, 42% were LatinX, 32% White, and 17% Black, yet they comprise 18%, 60%, and 11% of the U.S. population, respectively. Of those hospitalized, 45% were LatinX, 22% White, and 24% Black. LatinX and Black children also have disproportionately higher mortality rates.

Think about transmission and how to mitigate it

Many patients erroneously think combining multiple households for small group gatherings is inconsequential. These types of gatherings serve as a continued source of SARS-CoV-2 spread. For example, a person in Illinois with mild upper respiratory infection symptoms attended a funeral; he reported embracing the family members after the funeral. He dined with two people the evening prior to the funeral, sharing the meal using common serving dishes. Four days later, he attended a birthday party with nine family members. Some of the family members with symptoms subsequently attended church, infecting another church attendee. A cluster of 16 cases of COVID-19 was subsequently identified, including three deaths likely resulting from this one introduction of COVID-19 at these two family gatherings.

In Tennessee and Wisconsin, household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was studied prospectively. A total of 101 index cases and 191 asymptomatic household contacts were enrolled between April and Sept. 2020; 102 of 191 (53%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected during the 14-day follow-up. Most infections (75%) were identified within 5 days and occurred whether the index case was an adult or child.

Lastly, one adolescent was identified as the source for an outbreak at a family gathering where 15 persons from five households and four states shared a house between 8 and 25 days in July 2020. Six additional members visited the house. The index case had an exposure to COVID-19 and had a negative antigen test 4 days after exposure. She was asymptomatic when tested. She developed nasal congestion 2 days later, the same day she and her family departed for the gathering. A total of 11 household contacts developed confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19, and the teen developed symptoms. This report illustrates how easily SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted, and how when implemented, mitigation strategies work because none of the six who only visited the house was infected. It also serves as a reminder that antigen testing is indicated only for use within the first 5-12 days of onset of symptoms. In this case, the adolescent was asymptomatic when tested and had a false-negative test result.
 

Ponder modes of transportation

How will your patient arrive to their holiday destination? Nonstop travel by car with household members is probably the safest way. However, for many families, buses and trains are the only options, and social distancing may be challenging. Air travel is a must for others. Acquisition of COVID-19 during air travel appears to be low, but not absent based on how air enters and leaves the cabin. The challenge is socially distancing throughout the check in and boarding processes, as well as minimizing contact with common surfaces. There also is loss of social distancing once on board. Ideally, masks should be worn during the flight. Additionally, for those with international destinations, most countries now require a negative polymerase chain reaction COVID-19 test within a specified time frame for entry.

Essentially the safest place for your patients during the holidays is celebrating at home with their household contacts. The risk for disease acquisition increases with travel. You will not have the opportunity to discuss holiday plans with most parents. However, you can encourage them to consider the pros and cons of travel with reminders via telephone, e-mail, and /or social messaging directly from your practices similar to those sent for other medically necessary interventions. As for me, I will be celebrating virtually this year. There is a first time for everything.

For additional information that also is patient friendly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers information about travel within the United States and international travel.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

With this week’s announcement that Pfizer’s vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 was 90% effective in preventing COVID-19, the world is one step closer to an effective vaccine.

Nevertheless, with a limited supply of initial doses, the question becomes, who should get it first? Individuals with severe mental illness should be a priority group to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, assert the authors of a perspective article published Nov. 1 in World Psychiatry.

Patients with underlying physical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, obesity, immunodeficiency, and cancer, are particularly vulnerable to developing more severe illness and dying from COVID-19.

In these populations, the risk of a more severe course of infection or early death is significant enough for the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to make these patients priority recipients of a vaccine against COVID-19.

Marc De Hert, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at KU Leuven (Belgium), and coauthors argued that those with severe mental illness also fit into this group.

Even without factoring COVID-19 into the calculation, those with severe mental illness have a two- to threefold higher mortality rate than the general population, resulting in reduction in life expectancy of 10-20 years, they noted. This is largely because of physical diseases including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and respiratory ailments.

Individuals with severe mental illness also have higher rates of obesity than the general population and obesity is a risk factor for dying from COVID-19.
 

High-risk population

Like their peers with physical illnesses, recent studies suggest that those with severe mental illness are also at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

For example, a recent U.S. case-control study with over 61 million adults showed that those recently diagnosed with a mental health disorder had a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 infection, an effect strongest for depression and schizophrenia.

Other recent studies have confirmed these data, including one linking a psychiatric diagnosis in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to a significantly increased risk for death, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Dr. De Hert and colleagues put these findings into perspective with this example: In 2017, there were an estimated 11.2 million adults in the United States with severe mental illness. Taking into account the 8.5% death rate in COVID-19 patients recently diagnosed with a severe mental illness, this means that about 1 million patients with severe mental illness in the United States would die if all were infected with the virus.

In light of this knowledge, and taking into account published ethical principles that should guide vaccine allocation, Dr. De Hert and colleagues said it is “paramount” that persons with severe mental illness be prioritized to guarantee that they receive a COVID-19 vaccine during the first phase of its distribution.

“It is our responsibility as psychiatrists in this global health crisis to advocate for the needs of our patients with governments and public health policy bodies,” they wrote.

The authors also encourage public health agencies to develop and implement targeted programs to ensure that patients with severe mental illness and their health care providers “are made aware of these increased risks as well as the benefits of vaccination.”
 

An argument for fairness

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law at Columbia University, New York, also believes those with severe mental illness should be a priority group for a COVID vaccine.

“When we’re prioritizing groups for a COVID-19 vaccine, let’s not forget that people with serious mental illness have much lower life expectancies, more obesity, and more undiagnosed chronic conditions. They should be a priority group,” Dr. Appelbaum said in an interview.

“The argument for including people with severe mental illnesses among the vulnerable populations who should be prioritized for receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine is an argument for fairness in constructing that group,” he added.

“Like people with other chronic conditions associated with poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with severe mental illnesses are more likely to be hospitalized and more likely to die. Although they are often systematically ignored when decisions are made about allocation of resources, there is some hope that, with enough public attention to this issue, they can be included this time,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

Dr. De Hert and Dr. Applebaum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With this week’s announcement that Pfizer’s vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 was 90% effective in preventing COVID-19, the world is one step closer to an effective vaccine.

Nevertheless, with a limited supply of initial doses, the question becomes, who should get it first? Individuals with severe mental illness should be a priority group to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, assert the authors of a perspective article published Nov. 1 in World Psychiatry.

Patients with underlying physical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, obesity, immunodeficiency, and cancer, are particularly vulnerable to developing more severe illness and dying from COVID-19.

In these populations, the risk of a more severe course of infection or early death is significant enough for the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to make these patients priority recipients of a vaccine against COVID-19.

Marc De Hert, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at KU Leuven (Belgium), and coauthors argued that those with severe mental illness also fit into this group.

Even without factoring COVID-19 into the calculation, those with severe mental illness have a two- to threefold higher mortality rate than the general population, resulting in reduction in life expectancy of 10-20 years, they noted. This is largely because of physical diseases including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and respiratory ailments.

Individuals with severe mental illness also have higher rates of obesity than the general population and obesity is a risk factor for dying from COVID-19.
 

High-risk population

Like their peers with physical illnesses, recent studies suggest that those with severe mental illness are also at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

For example, a recent U.S. case-control study with over 61 million adults showed that those recently diagnosed with a mental health disorder had a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 infection, an effect strongest for depression and schizophrenia.

Other recent studies have confirmed these data, including one linking a psychiatric diagnosis in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to a significantly increased risk for death, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Dr. De Hert and colleagues put these findings into perspective with this example: In 2017, there were an estimated 11.2 million adults in the United States with severe mental illness. Taking into account the 8.5% death rate in COVID-19 patients recently diagnosed with a severe mental illness, this means that about 1 million patients with severe mental illness in the United States would die if all were infected with the virus.

In light of this knowledge, and taking into account published ethical principles that should guide vaccine allocation, Dr. De Hert and colleagues said it is “paramount” that persons with severe mental illness be prioritized to guarantee that they receive a COVID-19 vaccine during the first phase of its distribution.

“It is our responsibility as psychiatrists in this global health crisis to advocate for the needs of our patients with governments and public health policy bodies,” they wrote.

The authors also encourage public health agencies to develop and implement targeted programs to ensure that patients with severe mental illness and their health care providers “are made aware of these increased risks as well as the benefits of vaccination.”
 

An argument for fairness

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law at Columbia University, New York, also believes those with severe mental illness should be a priority group for a COVID vaccine.

“When we’re prioritizing groups for a COVID-19 vaccine, let’s not forget that people with serious mental illness have much lower life expectancies, more obesity, and more undiagnosed chronic conditions. They should be a priority group,” Dr. Appelbaum said in an interview.

“The argument for including people with severe mental illnesses among the vulnerable populations who should be prioritized for receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine is an argument for fairness in constructing that group,” he added.

“Like people with other chronic conditions associated with poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with severe mental illnesses are more likely to be hospitalized and more likely to die. Although they are often systematically ignored when decisions are made about allocation of resources, there is some hope that, with enough public attention to this issue, they can be included this time,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

Dr. De Hert and Dr. Applebaum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With this week’s announcement that Pfizer’s vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 was 90% effective in preventing COVID-19, the world is one step closer to an effective vaccine.

Nevertheless, with a limited supply of initial doses, the question becomes, who should get it first? Individuals with severe mental illness should be a priority group to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, assert the authors of a perspective article published Nov. 1 in World Psychiatry.

Patients with underlying physical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, obesity, immunodeficiency, and cancer, are particularly vulnerable to developing more severe illness and dying from COVID-19.

In these populations, the risk of a more severe course of infection or early death is significant enough for the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to make these patients priority recipients of a vaccine against COVID-19.

Marc De Hert, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at KU Leuven (Belgium), and coauthors argued that those with severe mental illness also fit into this group.

Even without factoring COVID-19 into the calculation, those with severe mental illness have a two- to threefold higher mortality rate than the general population, resulting in reduction in life expectancy of 10-20 years, they noted. This is largely because of physical diseases including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and respiratory ailments.

Individuals with severe mental illness also have higher rates of obesity than the general population and obesity is a risk factor for dying from COVID-19.
 

High-risk population

Like their peers with physical illnesses, recent studies suggest that those with severe mental illness are also at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

For example, a recent U.S. case-control study with over 61 million adults showed that those recently diagnosed with a mental health disorder had a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 infection, an effect strongest for depression and schizophrenia.

Other recent studies have confirmed these data, including one linking a psychiatric diagnosis in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to a significantly increased risk for death, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Dr. De Hert and colleagues put these findings into perspective with this example: In 2017, there were an estimated 11.2 million adults in the United States with severe mental illness. Taking into account the 8.5% death rate in COVID-19 patients recently diagnosed with a severe mental illness, this means that about 1 million patients with severe mental illness in the United States would die if all were infected with the virus.

In light of this knowledge, and taking into account published ethical principles that should guide vaccine allocation, Dr. De Hert and colleagues said it is “paramount” that persons with severe mental illness be prioritized to guarantee that they receive a COVID-19 vaccine during the first phase of its distribution.

“It is our responsibility as psychiatrists in this global health crisis to advocate for the needs of our patients with governments and public health policy bodies,” they wrote.

The authors also encourage public health agencies to develop and implement targeted programs to ensure that patients with severe mental illness and their health care providers “are made aware of these increased risks as well as the benefits of vaccination.”
 

An argument for fairness

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law at Columbia University, New York, also believes those with severe mental illness should be a priority group for a COVID vaccine.

“When we’re prioritizing groups for a COVID-19 vaccine, let’s not forget that people with serious mental illness have much lower life expectancies, more obesity, and more undiagnosed chronic conditions. They should be a priority group,” Dr. Appelbaum said in an interview.

“The argument for including people with severe mental illnesses among the vulnerable populations who should be prioritized for receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine is an argument for fairness in constructing that group,” he added.

“Like people with other chronic conditions associated with poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with severe mental illnesses are more likely to be hospitalized and more likely to die. Although they are often systematically ignored when decisions are made about allocation of resources, there is some hope that, with enough public attention to this issue, they can be included this time,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

Dr. De Hert and Dr. Applebaum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) experienced rapid clinical response to the oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz) in a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Tofacitinib was significantly more effective than was placebo at primary and secondary endpoints. Adverse events were more frequent with tofacitinib than with placebo, but there were no new safety risks.

Results were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Atul Deodhar, MD, medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

At week 16, 56.4% of patients who received tofacitinib met ASAS20 criteria (Assessment of Ankylosing Spondylitis, a validated measure of 20% improvement), compared with 29.4% in the placebo group (P < .0001). The percentage of ASAS40 responders at week 16 was also significantly greater with tofacitinib (40.6%) than placebo (12.5%) (P < .0001).

The trial, sponsored by Pfizer, enrolled 269 adults with active AS who had a poor response to or were intolerant of at least two NSAIDs. Most in the active treatment and placebo groups were men (about 85%); the average age was 41 years. Most (77%) had no prior exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

“Symptom duration was about 13 years,” Dr. Deodhar said.

In the 4-month double-blind phase, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day or placebo. After 16 weeks, all patients received open-label tofacitinib until week 48.

Safety was a secondary endpoint, Dr. Deodhar said.

In the tofacitinib group, 72 patients (54.1%) experienced adverse events (AEs), compared with 70 patients in the placebo group (51.5%). Two patients in the treatment group experienced severe AEs; none in the placebo group did so. In the treatment group, three patients left the trial because of AEs; in the placebo group, one patient did so.

The most common AEs were upper respiratory tract infection and nasopharyngitis.

“There were no unexpected side effects in this study,” Dr. Deodhar said. He noted that the risks were similar to known risks for those taking the drug for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

With tofacitinib there were no deaths, thromboembolic events, malignancies, major cardiac events, or gastrointestinal perforation. By week 48, three patients in the tofacitinib group had nonserious herpes zoster versus one in the placebo group.

“There’s a lot of hand-wringing” about why a JAK inhibitor would be effective for AS, inasmuch as it does not target the tumor necrosis factor [TNF] pathway or interleukin-17,” Dr. Deodhar said.

“Somehow, JAK inhibitor drugs are downstream, affecting several cytokines that we know are important in the pathogenesis and the phenotypic expression of the disease,” he said.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, of Rush University, Chicago, who did not take part in the research, said in an interview that tofacitinib holds promise as a much-needed option.

“JAK inhibitors have been used with success in RA, and it is reassuring to see these phase 3 data for AS,” especially for those patients whose disease was not well controlled with other approved agents, she said.

She added that oral administration is a plus for patients.

“AS, like all other chronic rheumatologic conditions, has no cure,” Dr. Khandelwal noted. “The advent of biologics has changed the course of these conditions, but not one drug works for everyone.”

She said it would be helpful if future trials were to compare the safety and efficacy of tofacitinib with those of biologics that have already been approved for AS, such as anti-TNF agents and IL-17 antagonists.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Deodhar reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khandelwal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) experienced rapid clinical response to the oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz) in a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Tofacitinib was significantly more effective than was placebo at primary and secondary endpoints. Adverse events were more frequent with tofacitinib than with placebo, but there were no new safety risks.

Results were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Atul Deodhar, MD, medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

At week 16, 56.4% of patients who received tofacitinib met ASAS20 criteria (Assessment of Ankylosing Spondylitis, a validated measure of 20% improvement), compared with 29.4% in the placebo group (P < .0001). The percentage of ASAS40 responders at week 16 was also significantly greater with tofacitinib (40.6%) than placebo (12.5%) (P < .0001).

The trial, sponsored by Pfizer, enrolled 269 adults with active AS who had a poor response to or were intolerant of at least two NSAIDs. Most in the active treatment and placebo groups were men (about 85%); the average age was 41 years. Most (77%) had no prior exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

“Symptom duration was about 13 years,” Dr. Deodhar said.

In the 4-month double-blind phase, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day or placebo. After 16 weeks, all patients received open-label tofacitinib until week 48.

Safety was a secondary endpoint, Dr. Deodhar said.

In the tofacitinib group, 72 patients (54.1%) experienced adverse events (AEs), compared with 70 patients in the placebo group (51.5%). Two patients in the treatment group experienced severe AEs; none in the placebo group did so. In the treatment group, three patients left the trial because of AEs; in the placebo group, one patient did so.

The most common AEs were upper respiratory tract infection and nasopharyngitis.

“There were no unexpected side effects in this study,” Dr. Deodhar said. He noted that the risks were similar to known risks for those taking the drug for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

With tofacitinib there were no deaths, thromboembolic events, malignancies, major cardiac events, or gastrointestinal perforation. By week 48, three patients in the tofacitinib group had nonserious herpes zoster versus one in the placebo group.

“There’s a lot of hand-wringing” about why a JAK inhibitor would be effective for AS, inasmuch as it does not target the tumor necrosis factor [TNF] pathway or interleukin-17,” Dr. Deodhar said.

“Somehow, JAK inhibitor drugs are downstream, affecting several cytokines that we know are important in the pathogenesis and the phenotypic expression of the disease,” he said.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, of Rush University, Chicago, who did not take part in the research, said in an interview that tofacitinib holds promise as a much-needed option.

“JAK inhibitors have been used with success in RA, and it is reassuring to see these phase 3 data for AS,” especially for those patients whose disease was not well controlled with other approved agents, she said.

She added that oral administration is a plus for patients.

“AS, like all other chronic rheumatologic conditions, has no cure,” Dr. Khandelwal noted. “The advent of biologics has changed the course of these conditions, but not one drug works for everyone.”

She said it would be helpful if future trials were to compare the safety and efficacy of tofacitinib with those of biologics that have already been approved for AS, such as anti-TNF agents and IL-17 antagonists.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Deodhar reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khandelwal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) experienced rapid clinical response to the oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz) in a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Tofacitinib was significantly more effective than was placebo at primary and secondary endpoints. Adverse events were more frequent with tofacitinib than with placebo, but there were no new safety risks.

Results were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Atul Deodhar, MD, medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

At week 16, 56.4% of patients who received tofacitinib met ASAS20 criteria (Assessment of Ankylosing Spondylitis, a validated measure of 20% improvement), compared with 29.4% in the placebo group (P < .0001). The percentage of ASAS40 responders at week 16 was also significantly greater with tofacitinib (40.6%) than placebo (12.5%) (P < .0001).

The trial, sponsored by Pfizer, enrolled 269 adults with active AS who had a poor response to or were intolerant of at least two NSAIDs. Most in the active treatment and placebo groups were men (about 85%); the average age was 41 years. Most (77%) had no prior exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

“Symptom duration was about 13 years,” Dr. Deodhar said.

In the 4-month double-blind phase, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day or placebo. After 16 weeks, all patients received open-label tofacitinib until week 48.

Safety was a secondary endpoint, Dr. Deodhar said.

In the tofacitinib group, 72 patients (54.1%) experienced adverse events (AEs), compared with 70 patients in the placebo group (51.5%). Two patients in the treatment group experienced severe AEs; none in the placebo group did so. In the treatment group, three patients left the trial because of AEs; in the placebo group, one patient did so.

The most common AEs were upper respiratory tract infection and nasopharyngitis.

“There were no unexpected side effects in this study,” Dr. Deodhar said. He noted that the risks were similar to known risks for those taking the drug for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

With tofacitinib there were no deaths, thromboembolic events, malignancies, major cardiac events, or gastrointestinal perforation. By week 48, three patients in the tofacitinib group had nonserious herpes zoster versus one in the placebo group.

“There’s a lot of hand-wringing” about why a JAK inhibitor would be effective for AS, inasmuch as it does not target the tumor necrosis factor [TNF] pathway or interleukin-17,” Dr. Deodhar said.

“Somehow, JAK inhibitor drugs are downstream, affecting several cytokines that we know are important in the pathogenesis and the phenotypic expression of the disease,” he said.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, of Rush University, Chicago, who did not take part in the research, said in an interview that tofacitinib holds promise as a much-needed option.

“JAK inhibitors have been used with success in RA, and it is reassuring to see these phase 3 data for AS,” especially for those patients whose disease was not well controlled with other approved agents, she said.

She added that oral administration is a plus for patients.

“AS, like all other chronic rheumatologic conditions, has no cure,” Dr. Khandelwal noted. “The advent of biologics has changed the course of these conditions, but not one drug works for everyone.”

She said it would be helpful if future trials were to compare the safety and efficacy of tofacitinib with those of biologics that have already been approved for AS, such as anti-TNF agents and IL-17 antagonists.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Deodhar reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khandelwal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.

roobcio/Thinkstock

Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort. Hospitals fear adding millions of people to Medicare will cost them billions of dollars in revenue.

“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.

“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.

“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.

Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.

Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.

Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.

To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.

The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.

“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.

The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.

While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.

Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.

Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.

While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.

About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.

Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.

Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.

“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.

President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.

Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.

Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.

“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”

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

Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.

roobcio/Thinkstock

Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort. Hospitals fear adding millions of people to Medicare will cost them billions of dollars in revenue.

“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.

“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.

“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.

Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.

Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.

Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.

To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.

The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.

“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.

The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.

While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.

Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.

Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.

While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.

About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.

Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.

Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.

“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.

President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.

Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.

Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.

“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”

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

Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.

roobcio/Thinkstock

Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort. Hospitals fear adding millions of people to Medicare will cost them billions of dollars in revenue.

“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.

“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.

“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.

Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.

Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.

Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.

To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.

The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.

“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.

The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.

While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.

Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.

Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.

While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.

About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.

Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.

Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.

“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.

President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.

Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.

Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.

“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”