Rheumatology News

Initial evidence suggests that the deliberate delays in melanoma care that occurred during the COVID-19 shelter-in-place lockdown last spring had a significant negative impact on patient outcomes, Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, MPH, said at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medication Education.

This is not what National Comprehensive Cancer Network officials expected when they issued short-term recommendations on how to manage cutaneous melanoma during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Those recommendations for restriction of care, which Dr. Hartman characterized as “pretty significant changes from how we typically practice melanoma care in the U.S.,” came at a time when there was justifiable concern that the first COVID-19 surge would strain the U.S. health care system beyond the breaking point.

The rationale given for the NCCN recommendations was that most time-to-treat studies have shown no adverse patient outcomes for 90-day delays in treatment, even for thicker melanomas. But those studies, all retrospective, have been called into question. And the first real-world data on the impact of care restrictions during the lockdown, reported by Italian dermatologists, highlights adverse effects with potentially far-reaching consequences, noted Dr. Hartman, director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a dermatologist, Harvard University, Boston.

Analysis of the impact of lockdown-induced delays in melanoma care is not merely an academic exercise, she added. While everyone hopes that the spring 2020 COVID-19 shelter-in-place was a once-in-a-lifetime event, there’s no guarantee that will be the case. Moreover, the lockdown provides a natural experiment addressing the possible consequences of melanoma care delays on patient outcomes, a topic that for ethical reasons could never be addressed in a randomized trial.

The short-term NCCN recommendations included the use of excisional biopsies for melanoma diagnosis whenever possible; and delay of up to 3 months for wide local excision of in situ melanoma, any invasive melanoma with negative margins, and even T1 melanomas with positive margins provided the bulk of the lesion had been excised. The guidance also suggested delaying sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), along with increased use of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with clinically palpable regional lymph nodes in order to delay surgery for up to 8 weeks. Single-agent systemic therapy at the least-frequent dosing was advised in order to minimize toxicity and reduce the need for additional health care resources: for example, nivolumab (Opdivo) at 480 mg every 4 weeks instead of every 2 weeks, and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) at 400 mg every 6 weeks, rather than every 3 weeks.

So, that’s what the NCCN recommended. Here’s what actually happened during shelter-in-place as captured in Dr. Hartman’s survey of 18 U.S. members of the Melanoma Prevention Working Group, all practicing dermatology in centers particularly hard-hit in the first wave of the pandemic: In-person new melanoma patient visits plunged from an average of 4.83 per week per provider to 0.83 per week. Telemedicine visits with new melanoma patients went from zero prepandemic to 0.67 visits per week per provider, which doesn’t come close to making up for the drop in in-person visits. Interestingly, two respondents reported turning to gene-expression profile testing for patient prognostication because of delays in SLNB.

Wide local excision was delayed by an average of 6 weeks in roughly one-third of melanoma patients with early tumor stage disease, regardless of margin status. For patients with stage T1b disease, wide local excision was typically performed on time during shelter-in-place; however, SLNB was delayed by an average of 5 weeks in 22% of patients with positive margins and 28% of those with negative margins. In contrast, 80% of patients with more advanced T2-T4 melanoma underwent on-schedule definitive management with wide local excision and SLNB, Dr. Hartman reported.

Critics have taken issue with the NCCN’s conclusion that most time-to-treatment studies show no harm arising from 90-day treatment delays. A review of the relevant published literature by Dr. Hartman’s Harvard colleagues, published in July, found that the evidence is mixed. “There is insufficient evidence to definitively conclude that delayed wide resection after gross removal of the primary melanoma is without harm,” they concluded in the review.

Spanish dermatologists performed a modeling study in order to estimate the potential impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on 5- and 10-year survival of melanoma patients. Using the growth rate of a random sample of 1,000 melanomas to model estimates of tumor thickness after various delays, coupled with American Joint Committee on Cancer survival data for different T stages, they estimated that 5-year survival would be reduced from 94.2% to 92.3% with a 90-day delay in diagnosis, and that 10-year survival would drop from 90.0% to 87.6%.

But that’s merely modeling. Francesco Ricci, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the melanoma unit at the Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata, Rome, have provided a first look at the real-world impact of the lockdown. In the prelockdown period of January through March 9th, 2020, the referral center averaged 2.3 new melanoma diagnoses per day. During the Rome lockdown, from March 10th through May 3rd, this figure dropped to a mean of 0.6 melanoma diagnoses per day. Postlockdown, from May 4th to June 6th, the average climbed to 1.3 per day. The rate of newly diagnosed nodular melanoma was 5.5-fold greater postlockdown, compared with prelockdown; the rate of ulcerated melanoma was 4.9-fold greater.

“We can hypothesize that this may have been due to delays in diagnosis and care,” Dr. Hartman commented. “This is important because we know that nodular melanoma as well as ulceration tend to have a worse prognosis in terms of mortality.”

The mean Breslow thickness of newly diagnosed melanomas was 0.88 mm prelockdown, 0.66 mm during lockdown, and 1.96 mm postlockdown. The investigators speculated that the reduced Breslow thickness of melanomas diagnosed during lockdown might be explained by a greater willingness of more health-conscious people to defy the shelter-in-place instructions because of their concern about a suspicious skin lesion. “Though it is way too early to gauge the consequences of such diagnostic delay, should this issue be neglected, dermatologists and their patients may pay a higher price later with increased morbidity, mortality, and financial burden,” according to the investigators.

Dr. Hartman observed that it will be important to learn whether similar experiences occurred elsewhere during lockdown.

Another speaker, John M. Kirkwood, MD, said he has seen several melanoma patients referred from outside centers who had delays of up to 3 months in sentinel lymph node management of T2 and T3 tumors during lockdown who now have widespread metastatic disease.

“Now, is that anecdotal? I don’t know, it’s just worrisome to me,” commented Dr. Kirkwood, professor of medicine, dermatology, and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh.

Merrick Ross, MD, professor of surgical oncology at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, recalled, “There was a period of time [during the lockdown] when we weren’t allowed to do certain elective procedures, if you want to call cancer surgery elective.”

“It’s too soon to talk about outcomes because a lot of patients are still in the process of being treated after what I would consider a significant delay in diagnosis,” the surgeon added.

An audience member asked if there will be an opportunity to see data on the damage done by delaying melanoma management as compared to lives saved through the lockdown for COVID-19. Dr. Ross replied that M.D. Anderson is in the midst of an institution-wide study analyzing the delay in diagnosis of a range of cancers.

“In our melanoma center it is absolutely clear, although we’re still collecting data, that the median tumor thickness is much higher since the lockdown,” Dr. Ross commented.

Dr. Hartman said she and her coinvestigators in the Melanoma Prevention Working Group are attempting to tally up the damage done via the lockdown by delaying melanoma diagnosis and treatment. But she agreed with the questioner that the most important thing is overall net lives saved through shelter-in-place.

“I’m sure that, separately, nondermatologists – perhaps infectious disease doctors and internists – are looking at how many lives were saved by the lockdown policy. So I do think all that data will come out,” Dr. Hartman predicted.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hartman, R. Cutaneous malignancies forum.

Initial evidence suggests that the deliberate delays in melanoma care that occurred during the COVID-19 shelter-in-place lockdown last spring had a significant negative impact on patient outcomes, Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, MPH, said at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medication Education.

This is not what National Comprehensive Cancer Network officials expected when they issued short-term recommendations on how to manage cutaneous melanoma during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Those recommendations for restriction of care, which Dr. Hartman characterized as “pretty significant changes from how we typically practice melanoma care in the U.S.,” came at a time when there was justifiable concern that the first COVID-19 surge would strain the U.S. health care system beyond the breaking point.

The rationale given for the NCCN recommendations was that most time-to-treat studies have shown no adverse patient outcomes for 90-day delays in treatment, even for thicker melanomas. But those studies, all retrospective, have been called into question. And the first real-world data on the impact of care restrictions during the lockdown, reported by Italian dermatologists, highlights adverse effects with potentially far-reaching consequences, noted Dr. Hartman, director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a dermatologist, Harvard University, Boston.

Analysis of the impact of lockdown-induced delays in melanoma care is not merely an academic exercise, she added. While everyone hopes that the spring 2020 COVID-19 shelter-in-place was a once-in-a-lifetime event, there’s no guarantee that will be the case. Moreover, the lockdown provides a natural experiment addressing the possible consequences of melanoma care delays on patient outcomes, a topic that for ethical reasons could never be addressed in a randomized trial.

The short-term NCCN recommendations included the use of excisional biopsies for melanoma diagnosis whenever possible; and delay of up to 3 months for wide local excision of in situ melanoma, any invasive melanoma with negative margins, and even T1 melanomas with positive margins provided the bulk of the lesion had been excised. The guidance also suggested delaying sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), along with increased use of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with clinically palpable regional lymph nodes in order to delay surgery for up to 8 weeks. Single-agent systemic therapy at the least-frequent dosing was advised in order to minimize toxicity and reduce the need for additional health care resources: for example, nivolumab (Opdivo) at 480 mg every 4 weeks instead of every 2 weeks, and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) at 400 mg every 6 weeks, rather than every 3 weeks.

So, that’s what the NCCN recommended. Here’s what actually happened during shelter-in-place as captured in Dr. Hartman’s survey of 18 U.S. members of the Melanoma Prevention Working Group, all practicing dermatology in centers particularly hard-hit in the first wave of the pandemic: In-person new melanoma patient visits plunged from an average of 4.83 per week per provider to 0.83 per week. Telemedicine visits with new melanoma patients went from zero prepandemic to 0.67 visits per week per provider, which doesn’t come close to making up for the drop in in-person visits. Interestingly, two respondents reported turning to gene-expression profile testing for patient prognostication because of delays in SLNB.

Wide local excision was delayed by an average of 6 weeks in roughly one-third of melanoma patients with early tumor stage disease, regardless of margin status. For patients with stage T1b disease, wide local excision was typically performed on time during shelter-in-place; however, SLNB was delayed by an average of 5 weeks in 22% of patients with positive margins and 28% of those with negative margins. In contrast, 80% of patients with more advanced T2-T4 melanoma underwent on-schedule definitive management with wide local excision and SLNB, Dr. Hartman reported.

Critics have taken issue with the NCCN’s conclusion that most time-to-treatment studies show no harm arising from 90-day treatment delays. A review of the relevant published literature by Dr. Hartman’s Harvard colleagues, published in July, found that the evidence is mixed. “There is insufficient evidence to definitively conclude that delayed wide resection after gross removal of the primary melanoma is without harm,” they concluded in the review.

Spanish dermatologists performed a modeling study in order to estimate the potential impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on 5- and 10-year survival of melanoma patients. Using the growth rate of a random sample of 1,000 melanomas to model estimates of tumor thickness after various delays, coupled with American Joint Committee on Cancer survival data for different T stages, they estimated that 5-year survival would be reduced from 94.2% to 92.3% with a 90-day delay in diagnosis, and that 10-year survival would drop from 90.0% to 87.6%.

But that’s merely modeling. Francesco Ricci, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the melanoma unit at the Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata, Rome, have provided a first look at the real-world impact of the lockdown. In the prelockdown period of January through March 9th, 2020, the referral center averaged 2.3 new melanoma diagnoses per day. During the Rome lockdown, from March 10th through May 3rd, this figure dropped to a mean of 0.6 melanoma diagnoses per day. Postlockdown, from May 4th to June 6th, the average climbed to 1.3 per day. The rate of newly diagnosed nodular melanoma was 5.5-fold greater postlockdown, compared with prelockdown; the rate of ulcerated melanoma was 4.9-fold greater.

“We can hypothesize that this may have been due to delays in diagnosis and care,” Dr. Hartman commented. “This is important because we know that nodular melanoma as well as ulceration tend to have a worse prognosis in terms of mortality.”

The mean Breslow thickness of newly diagnosed melanomas was 0.88 mm prelockdown, 0.66 mm during lockdown, and 1.96 mm postlockdown. The investigators speculated that the reduced Breslow thickness of melanomas diagnosed during lockdown might be explained by a greater willingness of more health-conscious people to defy the shelter-in-place instructions because of their concern about a suspicious skin lesion. “Though it is way too early to gauge the consequences of such diagnostic delay, should this issue be neglected, dermatologists and their patients may pay a higher price later with increased morbidity, mortality, and financial burden,” according to the investigators.

Dr. Hartman observed that it will be important to learn whether similar experiences occurred elsewhere during lockdown.

Another speaker, John M. Kirkwood, MD, said he has seen several melanoma patients referred from outside centers who had delays of up to 3 months in sentinel lymph node management of T2 and T3 tumors during lockdown who now have widespread metastatic disease.

“Now, is that anecdotal? I don’t know, it’s just worrisome to me,” commented Dr. Kirkwood, professor of medicine, dermatology, and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh.

Merrick Ross, MD, professor of surgical oncology at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, recalled, “There was a period of time [during the lockdown] when we weren’t allowed to do certain elective procedures, if you want to call cancer surgery elective.”

“It’s too soon to talk about outcomes because a lot of patients are still in the process of being treated after what I would consider a significant delay in diagnosis,” the surgeon added.

An audience member asked if there will be an opportunity to see data on the damage done by delaying melanoma management as compared to lives saved through the lockdown for COVID-19. Dr. Ross replied that M.D. Anderson is in the midst of an institution-wide study analyzing the delay in diagnosis of a range of cancers.

“In our melanoma center it is absolutely clear, although we’re still collecting data, that the median tumor thickness is much higher since the lockdown,” Dr. Ross commented.

Dr. Hartman said she and her coinvestigators in the Melanoma Prevention Working Group are attempting to tally up the damage done via the lockdown by delaying melanoma diagnosis and treatment. But she agreed with the questioner that the most important thing is overall net lives saved through shelter-in-place.

“I’m sure that, separately, nondermatologists – perhaps infectious disease doctors and internists – are looking at how many lives were saved by the lockdown policy. So I do think all that data will come out,” Dr. Hartman predicted.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hartman, R. Cutaneous malignancies forum.

Initial evidence suggests that the deliberate delays in melanoma care that occurred during the COVID-19 shelter-in-place lockdown last spring had a significant negative impact on patient outcomes, Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, MPH, said at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medication Education.

This is not what National Comprehensive Cancer Network officials expected when they issued short-term recommendations on how to manage cutaneous melanoma during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Those recommendations for restriction of care, which Dr. Hartman characterized as “pretty significant changes from how we typically practice melanoma care in the U.S.,” came at a time when there was justifiable concern that the first COVID-19 surge would strain the U.S. health care system beyond the breaking point.

The rationale given for the NCCN recommendations was that most time-to-treat studies have shown no adverse patient outcomes for 90-day delays in treatment, even for thicker melanomas. But those studies, all retrospective, have been called into question. And the first real-world data on the impact of care restrictions during the lockdown, reported by Italian dermatologists, highlights adverse effects with potentially far-reaching consequences, noted Dr. Hartman, director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a dermatologist, Harvard University, Boston.

Analysis of the impact of lockdown-induced delays in melanoma care is not merely an academic exercise, she added. While everyone hopes that the spring 2020 COVID-19 shelter-in-place was a once-in-a-lifetime event, there’s no guarantee that will be the case. Moreover, the lockdown provides a natural experiment addressing the possible consequences of melanoma care delays on patient outcomes, a topic that for ethical reasons could never be addressed in a randomized trial.

The short-term NCCN recommendations included the use of excisional biopsies for melanoma diagnosis whenever possible; and delay of up to 3 months for wide local excision of in situ melanoma, any invasive melanoma with negative margins, and even T1 melanomas with positive margins provided the bulk of the lesion had been excised. The guidance also suggested delaying sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), along with increased use of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with clinically palpable regional lymph nodes in order to delay surgery for up to 8 weeks. Single-agent systemic therapy at the least-frequent dosing was advised in order to minimize toxicity and reduce the need for additional health care resources: for example, nivolumab (Opdivo) at 480 mg every 4 weeks instead of every 2 weeks, and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) at 400 mg every 6 weeks, rather than every 3 weeks.

So, that’s what the NCCN recommended. Here’s what actually happened during shelter-in-place as captured in Dr. Hartman’s survey of 18 U.S. members of the Melanoma Prevention Working Group, all practicing dermatology in centers particularly hard-hit in the first wave of the pandemic: In-person new melanoma patient visits plunged from an average of 4.83 per week per provider to 0.83 per week. Telemedicine visits with new melanoma patients went from zero prepandemic to 0.67 visits per week per provider, which doesn’t come close to making up for the drop in in-person visits. Interestingly, two respondents reported turning to gene-expression profile testing for patient prognostication because of delays in SLNB.

Wide local excision was delayed by an average of 6 weeks in roughly one-third of melanoma patients with early tumor stage disease, regardless of margin status. For patients with stage T1b disease, wide local excision was typically performed on time during shelter-in-place; however, SLNB was delayed by an average of 5 weeks in 22% of patients with positive margins and 28% of those with negative margins. In contrast, 80% of patients with more advanced T2-T4 melanoma underwent on-schedule definitive management with wide local excision and SLNB, Dr. Hartman reported.

Critics have taken issue with the NCCN’s conclusion that most time-to-treatment studies show no harm arising from 90-day treatment delays. A review of the relevant published literature by Dr. Hartman’s Harvard colleagues, published in July, found that the evidence is mixed. “There is insufficient evidence to definitively conclude that delayed wide resection after gross removal of the primary melanoma is without harm,” they concluded in the review.

Spanish dermatologists performed a modeling study in order to estimate the potential impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on 5- and 10-year survival of melanoma patients. Using the growth rate of a random sample of 1,000 melanomas to model estimates of tumor thickness after various delays, coupled with American Joint Committee on Cancer survival data for different T stages, they estimated that 5-year survival would be reduced from 94.2% to 92.3% with a 90-day delay in diagnosis, and that 10-year survival would drop from 90.0% to 87.6%.

But that’s merely modeling. Francesco Ricci, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the melanoma unit at the Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata, Rome, have provided a first look at the real-world impact of the lockdown. In the prelockdown period of January through March 9th, 2020, the referral center averaged 2.3 new melanoma diagnoses per day. During the Rome lockdown, from March 10th through May 3rd, this figure dropped to a mean of 0.6 melanoma diagnoses per day. Postlockdown, from May 4th to June 6th, the average climbed to 1.3 per day. The rate of newly diagnosed nodular melanoma was 5.5-fold greater postlockdown, compared with prelockdown; the rate of ulcerated melanoma was 4.9-fold greater.

“We can hypothesize that this may have been due to delays in diagnosis and care,” Dr. Hartman commented. “This is important because we know that nodular melanoma as well as ulceration tend to have a worse prognosis in terms of mortality.”

The mean Breslow thickness of newly diagnosed melanomas was 0.88 mm prelockdown, 0.66 mm during lockdown, and 1.96 mm postlockdown. The investigators speculated that the reduced Breslow thickness of melanomas diagnosed during lockdown might be explained by a greater willingness of more health-conscious people to defy the shelter-in-place instructions because of their concern about a suspicious skin lesion. “Though it is way too early to gauge the consequences of such diagnostic delay, should this issue be neglected, dermatologists and their patients may pay a higher price later with increased morbidity, mortality, and financial burden,” according to the investigators.

Dr. Hartman observed that it will be important to learn whether similar experiences occurred elsewhere during lockdown.

Another speaker, John M. Kirkwood, MD, said he has seen several melanoma patients referred from outside centers who had delays of up to 3 months in sentinel lymph node management of T2 and T3 tumors during lockdown who now have widespread metastatic disease.

“Now, is that anecdotal? I don’t know, it’s just worrisome to me,” commented Dr. Kirkwood, professor of medicine, dermatology, and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh.

Merrick Ross, MD, professor of surgical oncology at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, recalled, “There was a period of time [during the lockdown] when we weren’t allowed to do certain elective procedures, if you want to call cancer surgery elective.”

“It’s too soon to talk about outcomes because a lot of patients are still in the process of being treated after what I would consider a significant delay in diagnosis,” the surgeon added.

An audience member asked if there will be an opportunity to see data on the damage done by delaying melanoma management as compared to lives saved through the lockdown for COVID-19. Dr. Ross replied that M.D. Anderson is in the midst of an institution-wide study analyzing the delay in diagnosis of a range of cancers.

“In our melanoma center it is absolutely clear, although we’re still collecting data, that the median tumor thickness is much higher since the lockdown,” Dr. Ross commented.

Dr. Hartman said she and her coinvestigators in the Melanoma Prevention Working Group are attempting to tally up the damage done via the lockdown by delaying melanoma diagnosis and treatment. But she agreed with the questioner that the most important thing is overall net lives saved through shelter-in-place.

“I’m sure that, separately, nondermatologists – perhaps infectious disease doctors and internists – are looking at how many lives were saved by the lockdown policy. So I do think all that data will come out,” Dr. Hartman predicted.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hartman, R. Cutaneous malignancies forum.

A draft guideline for the management of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis reflects changes in therapy away from reliance on NSAIDs and glucocorticoids and toward earlier introduction of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

The guideline, described in an oral session during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, contains weighted recommendations for the treatment of JIA, including therapeutic approaches for oligoarthritis, tempromandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA (sJIA). The recommendations were the result of expert consensus and literature review using GRADE methodology, with input from clinicians, as well as patients and parents.

“Although evidence remains very low and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of parents and patients in the decision-making process strengthens their validity,” said project principal investigator Karen Onel, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery and Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York.

She added that “it’s important to remember that these guidelines are meant to be guidelines; clinical care remains in the hands of the provider and the patient, and we endorse the importance of shared decision-making in coming to these agreements.”

Dr. Onel outlined key recommendations for patients for whom a diagnosis of JIA has already been made and who have no contraindications to recommended therapies. The strength of the recommendations (strong or conditional) and evidence levels (high, moderate, low, very low) were also reported.
 

Oligoarthritis with fewer than five involved joints

For these patients, intra-articular glucocorticoids (IAGC) are recommended as a part of initial therapy (strong, very low evidence).

Triamcinolone acetonide is the preferred agent in this situation (strong, low evidence).

The guideline also has a conditional recommendation (very low evidence) for a trial of consistent NSAIDS as part of initial therapy and a conditional recommendation against oral glucocorticoids for initial therapy (very low evidence).

Patients with no or incomplete responses or intolerance to NSAIDS and/or IAGC may be tried on a nonbiologic DMARD (strong, very low evidence), with methotrexate as the preferred agent (conditional, low evidence).

If the patient has no response or an inadequate response to at least one nonbiologic DMARD, biologic DMARDs are recommended (strong, very low evidence), with no preferred agent.

The guideline also conditionally recommends (all with very low evidence) using risk factors and validated disease activity measures to guide treatment decisions, as well as imaging guidance of joints that are difficult to access or to localize the distribution of inflammation.
 

TMJ arthritis

For patients with temporomandibular joint arthritis, isolated or not, IAGCs are conditionally recommended as part of initial therapy (very low evidence) with no preferred agents. The guideline also conditionally recommends in favor of a trial of consistent NSAIDs, and against oral glucocorticoids in initial therapy (evidence for both very low).

Recommendations for patients with TMJ with no or an incomplete response to the initial therapy are the same as for patients with oligoarthritis, with no preferred agent.
 

sJIA without macrophage activation syndrome

For patients with sJIA without macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), NSAIDS are conditionally recommended as initial monotherapy (very low evidence). Biologic DMARDS (including interleukin-1 and IL-6 inhibitors) are also recommended, conditionally, as initial monotherapy, with no preferred agent.

If the patient has an inadequate response or intolerance to NSAIDS and at least one nonbiologic DMARD, a single biologic DMARD is recommended over a combination of nonbiologic therapies (strong, very low evidence).

“However, there have been reports of emergent, highly severe lung disease associated with the use of biologics in children with systemic JIA, especially in those who are young, with chronic macrophage activation syndrome, and those with trisomy 21. More information is needed to clarify the safety of these agents,” Dr. Onel said.

There is a conditional recommendation against oral glucocorticoids as initial monotherapy, and strong recommendation against nonbiologic DMARDs as initial monotherapy (both very low evidence).

sJIA with MAS

“Macrophage activation syndrome is a major cause of morbidity and mortality for children with sJIA. Cytokine storm and secondary hemophagocytic syndrome can be seen with any rheumatic disease, but are most commonly seen with sJIA,” she said.

The features of MAS include fever, high ferritin levels, cytopenias, elevated liver-function test results, and high triglyceride levels.

For these patients, glucocorticoids are recommended as initial monotherapy (conditional, very low evidence). Biologic DMARDs (IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors) are recommended over calcineurin inhibitors for achieving inactive disease and resolution of MAS (conditional, very low evidence). There is no preferred agent.

For patients with residual arthritis and an incomplete response to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors, biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs are recommended over chronic glucocorticoids (strong, very low evidence). There is no preferred agent.

After an MAS inactive disease state has been attained, the guideline recommends tapering and discontinuing glucocorticoids (strong, very low evidence) and the same for biologic DMARDs (conditional, very low evidence).
 

All children with JIA

In addition to the recommendations on specific clinical situations, the guideline includes recommendations for all children with JIA on medication monitoring, laboratory testing, and infection screening, as well as immunization and nonpharmacologic management.

A rheumatologist who was not involved in development of the guidelines commented on the importance of optimal management of JIA.

“Children are not immune from devastating rheumatic diseases, and the largest group is juvenile idiopathic arthritis. In my clinic, I have patients in their 30s, 40s, and 50s who have adult persistence of their arthritis from JIA who have permanent joint damage and even ongoing hard-to-control disease, and it has to do with the lack of therapies in the 1990s,” said Donald Thomas, MD, from Arthritis and Pain Associates of Prince George’s County (Md.).

“Today when we get a young adult transitioned from the pediatric clinic they’re usually in remission or have low disease activity because these treatments have paralleled those of our adult RA patients. Yet they do [provide clinicians with] unique challenges, with stunting of growth, macrophage activiation syndrome, and having to work with family members of the patient,” he said at a press briefing he moderated following the presentation of RA and JIA guidelines.

Eyal Muscal, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and rheumatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview that the guidelines clarify recommendations about earlier use of targeted therapies, primarily biologics.

“This will not change care, but hopefully remind all to adopt such strategies. Yet earlier utilization of often expensive biologic agents is delayed by administrative and insurance hurdles in the U.S. and access to these medications globally. I hope the guidelines will enhance advocacy on a state, national, and global stage,” he said when asked for comment.

The guideline development process is supported by ACR. Dr. Onel, Dr. Thomas, and Dr. Muscal reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Onel K et al. ACR 2020, Presented November 8.

A draft guideline for the management of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis reflects changes in therapy away from reliance on NSAIDs and glucocorticoids and toward earlier introduction of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

The guideline, described in an oral session during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, contains weighted recommendations for the treatment of JIA, including therapeutic approaches for oligoarthritis, tempromandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA (sJIA). The recommendations were the result of expert consensus and literature review using GRADE methodology, with input from clinicians, as well as patients and parents.

“Although evidence remains very low and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of parents and patients in the decision-making process strengthens their validity,” said project principal investigator Karen Onel, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery and Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York.

She added that “it’s important to remember that these guidelines are meant to be guidelines; clinical care remains in the hands of the provider and the patient, and we endorse the importance of shared decision-making in coming to these agreements.”

Dr. Onel outlined key recommendations for patients for whom a diagnosis of JIA has already been made and who have no contraindications to recommended therapies. The strength of the recommendations (strong or conditional) and evidence levels (high, moderate, low, very low) were also reported.
 

Oligoarthritis with fewer than five involved joints

For these patients, intra-articular glucocorticoids (IAGC) are recommended as a part of initial therapy (strong, very low evidence).

Triamcinolone acetonide is the preferred agent in this situation (strong, low evidence).

The guideline also has a conditional recommendation (very low evidence) for a trial of consistent NSAIDS as part of initial therapy and a conditional recommendation against oral glucocorticoids for initial therapy (very low evidence).

Patients with no or incomplete responses or intolerance to NSAIDS and/or IAGC may be tried on a nonbiologic DMARD (strong, very low evidence), with methotrexate as the preferred agent (conditional, low evidence).

If the patient has no response or an inadequate response to at least one nonbiologic DMARD, biologic DMARDs are recommended (strong, very low evidence), with no preferred agent.

The guideline also conditionally recommends (all with very low evidence) using risk factors and validated disease activity measures to guide treatment decisions, as well as imaging guidance of joints that are difficult to access or to localize the distribution of inflammation.
 

TMJ arthritis

For patients with temporomandibular joint arthritis, isolated or not, IAGCs are conditionally recommended as part of initial therapy (very low evidence) with no preferred agents. The guideline also conditionally recommends in favor of a trial of consistent NSAIDs, and against oral glucocorticoids in initial therapy (evidence for both very low).

Recommendations for patients with TMJ with no or an incomplete response to the initial therapy are the same as for patients with oligoarthritis, with no preferred agent.
 

sJIA without macrophage activation syndrome

For patients with sJIA without macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), NSAIDS are conditionally recommended as initial monotherapy (very low evidence). Biologic DMARDS (including interleukin-1 and IL-6 inhibitors) are also recommended, conditionally, as initial monotherapy, with no preferred agent.

If the patient has an inadequate response or intolerance to NSAIDS and at least one nonbiologic DMARD, a single biologic DMARD is recommended over a combination of nonbiologic therapies (strong, very low evidence).

“However, there have been reports of emergent, highly severe lung disease associated with the use of biologics in children with systemic JIA, especially in those who are young, with chronic macrophage activation syndrome, and those with trisomy 21. More information is needed to clarify the safety of these agents,” Dr. Onel said.

There is a conditional recommendation against oral glucocorticoids as initial monotherapy, and strong recommendation against nonbiologic DMARDs as initial monotherapy (both very low evidence).

sJIA with MAS

“Macrophage activation syndrome is a major cause of morbidity and mortality for children with sJIA. Cytokine storm and secondary hemophagocytic syndrome can be seen with any rheumatic disease, but are most commonly seen with sJIA,” she said.

The features of MAS include fever, high ferritin levels, cytopenias, elevated liver-function test results, and high triglyceride levels.

For these patients, glucocorticoids are recommended as initial monotherapy (conditional, very low evidence). Biologic DMARDs (IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors) are recommended over calcineurin inhibitors for achieving inactive disease and resolution of MAS (conditional, very low evidence). There is no preferred agent.

For patients with residual arthritis and an incomplete response to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors, biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs are recommended over chronic glucocorticoids (strong, very low evidence). There is no preferred agent.

After an MAS inactive disease state has been attained, the guideline recommends tapering and discontinuing glucocorticoids (strong, very low evidence) and the same for biologic DMARDs (conditional, very low evidence).
 

All children with JIA

In addition to the recommendations on specific clinical situations, the guideline includes recommendations for all children with JIA on medication monitoring, laboratory testing, and infection screening, as well as immunization and nonpharmacologic management.

A rheumatologist who was not involved in development of the guidelines commented on the importance of optimal management of JIA.

“Children are not immune from devastating rheumatic diseases, and the largest group is juvenile idiopathic arthritis. In my clinic, I have patients in their 30s, 40s, and 50s who have adult persistence of their arthritis from JIA who have permanent joint damage and even ongoing hard-to-control disease, and it has to do with the lack of therapies in the 1990s,” said Donald Thomas, MD, from Arthritis and Pain Associates of Prince George’s County (Md.).

“Today when we get a young adult transitioned from the pediatric clinic they’re usually in remission or have low disease activity because these treatments have paralleled those of our adult RA patients. Yet they do [provide clinicians with] unique challenges, with stunting of growth, macrophage activiation syndrome, and having to work with family members of the patient,” he said at a press briefing he moderated following the presentation of RA and JIA guidelines.

Eyal Muscal, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and rheumatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview that the guidelines clarify recommendations about earlier use of targeted therapies, primarily biologics.

“This will not change care, but hopefully remind all to adopt such strategies. Yet earlier utilization of often expensive biologic agents is delayed by administrative and insurance hurdles in the U.S. and access to these medications globally. I hope the guidelines will enhance advocacy on a state, national, and global stage,” he said when asked for comment.

The guideline development process is supported by ACR. Dr. Onel, Dr. Thomas, and Dr. Muscal reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Onel K et al. ACR 2020, Presented November 8.

A draft guideline for the management of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis reflects changes in therapy away from reliance on NSAIDs and glucocorticoids and toward earlier introduction of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

The guideline, described in an oral session during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, contains weighted recommendations for the treatment of JIA, including therapeutic approaches for oligoarthritis, tempromandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA (sJIA). The recommendations were the result of expert consensus and literature review using GRADE methodology, with input from clinicians, as well as patients and parents.

“Although evidence remains very low and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of parents and patients in the decision-making process strengthens their validity,” said project principal investigator Karen Onel, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery and Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York.

She added that “it’s important to remember that these guidelines are meant to be guidelines; clinical care remains in the hands of the provider and the patient, and we endorse the importance of shared decision-making in coming to these agreements.”

Dr. Onel outlined key recommendations for patients for whom a diagnosis of JIA has already been made and who have no contraindications to recommended therapies. The strength of the recommendations (strong or conditional) and evidence levels (high, moderate, low, very low) were also reported.
 

Oligoarthritis with fewer than five involved joints

For these patients, intra-articular glucocorticoids (IAGC) are recommended as a part of initial therapy (strong, very low evidence).

Triamcinolone acetonide is the preferred agent in this situation (strong, low evidence).

The guideline also has a conditional recommendation (very low evidence) for a trial of consistent NSAIDS as part of initial therapy and a conditional recommendation against oral glucocorticoids for initial therapy (very low evidence).

Patients with no or incomplete responses or intolerance to NSAIDS and/or IAGC may be tried on a nonbiologic DMARD (strong, very low evidence), with methotrexate as the preferred agent (conditional, low evidence).

If the patient has no response or an inadequate response to at least one nonbiologic DMARD, biologic DMARDs are recommended (strong, very low evidence), with no preferred agent.

The guideline also conditionally recommends (all with very low evidence) using risk factors and validated disease activity measures to guide treatment decisions, as well as imaging guidance of joints that are difficult to access or to localize the distribution of inflammation.
 

TMJ arthritis

For patients with temporomandibular joint arthritis, isolated or not, IAGCs are conditionally recommended as part of initial therapy (very low evidence) with no preferred agents. The guideline also conditionally recommends in favor of a trial of consistent NSAIDs, and against oral glucocorticoids in initial therapy (evidence for both very low).

Recommendations for patients with TMJ with no or an incomplete response to the initial therapy are the same as for patients with oligoarthritis, with no preferred agent.
 

sJIA without macrophage activation syndrome

For patients with sJIA without macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), NSAIDS are conditionally recommended as initial monotherapy (very low evidence). Biologic DMARDS (including interleukin-1 and IL-6 inhibitors) are also recommended, conditionally, as initial monotherapy, with no preferred agent.

If the patient has an inadequate response or intolerance to NSAIDS and at least one nonbiologic DMARD, a single biologic DMARD is recommended over a combination of nonbiologic therapies (strong, very low evidence).

“However, there have been reports of emergent, highly severe lung disease associated with the use of biologics in children with systemic JIA, especially in those who are young, with chronic macrophage activation syndrome, and those with trisomy 21. More information is needed to clarify the safety of these agents,” Dr. Onel said.

There is a conditional recommendation against oral glucocorticoids as initial monotherapy, and strong recommendation against nonbiologic DMARDs as initial monotherapy (both very low evidence).

sJIA with MAS

“Macrophage activation syndrome is a major cause of morbidity and mortality for children with sJIA. Cytokine storm and secondary hemophagocytic syndrome can be seen with any rheumatic disease, but are most commonly seen with sJIA,” she said.

The features of MAS include fever, high ferritin levels, cytopenias, elevated liver-function test results, and high triglyceride levels.

For these patients, glucocorticoids are recommended as initial monotherapy (conditional, very low evidence). Biologic DMARDs (IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors) are recommended over calcineurin inhibitors for achieving inactive disease and resolution of MAS (conditional, very low evidence). There is no preferred agent.

For patients with residual arthritis and an incomplete response to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors, biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs are recommended over chronic glucocorticoids (strong, very low evidence). There is no preferred agent.

After an MAS inactive disease state has been attained, the guideline recommends tapering and discontinuing glucocorticoids (strong, very low evidence) and the same for biologic DMARDs (conditional, very low evidence).
 

All children with JIA

In addition to the recommendations on specific clinical situations, the guideline includes recommendations for all children with JIA on medication monitoring, laboratory testing, and infection screening, as well as immunization and nonpharmacologic management.

A rheumatologist who was not involved in development of the guidelines commented on the importance of optimal management of JIA.

“Children are not immune from devastating rheumatic diseases, and the largest group is juvenile idiopathic arthritis. In my clinic, I have patients in their 30s, 40s, and 50s who have adult persistence of their arthritis from JIA who have permanent joint damage and even ongoing hard-to-control disease, and it has to do with the lack of therapies in the 1990s,” said Donald Thomas, MD, from Arthritis and Pain Associates of Prince George’s County (Md.).

“Today when we get a young adult transitioned from the pediatric clinic they’re usually in remission or have low disease activity because these treatments have paralleled those of our adult RA patients. Yet they do [provide clinicians with] unique challenges, with stunting of growth, macrophage activiation syndrome, and having to work with family members of the patient,” he said at a press briefing he moderated following the presentation of RA and JIA guidelines.

Eyal Muscal, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and rheumatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview that the guidelines clarify recommendations about earlier use of targeted therapies, primarily biologics.

“This will not change care, but hopefully remind all to adopt such strategies. Yet earlier utilization of often expensive biologic agents is delayed by administrative and insurance hurdles in the U.S. and access to these medications globally. I hope the guidelines will enhance advocacy on a state, national, and global stage,” he said when asked for comment.

The guideline development process is supported by ACR. Dr. Onel, Dr. Thomas, and Dr. Muscal reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Onel K et al. ACR 2020, Presented November 8.

As President Donald J. Trump starts firing officials of his administration – even if it appears that they would only have a few months left in the job – some health officials may find their positions on the line.

Others may soon depart voluntarily. Politico reported in late October that more than two dozen political appointees had already left the U.S. Department Health and Human Services (HHS) since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in February and that potentially dozens of the more than 100 in the department would leave if Trump was not reelected.

Trump hasn’t conceded, he is challenging the election results, and he has already fired his Defense Secretary, Mark Esper.

Among those possibly in Trump’s sights: HHS Secretary Alex Azar, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield, MD, and White House Coronavirus Task Force member Anthony Fauci, MD, who is also the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), is likely safe. According to Politico, Verma is expected to leave on her own terms.

Azar has had a long run as a Trump appointee. He took office in January 2018 and has been a staunch loyalist. But he’s frequently been the butt of grousing by Trump for not doing enough to help lower drug prices and for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Azar was initially in charge of the Trump virus effort but was quickly replaced by Vice President Mike Pence.

It was widely reported in late April that Trump was considering firing Azar, but the president called that “fake news” in a tweet.

Azar has complained about Hahn, who was confirmed in December 2019. According to Politico, Azar was looking into how to remove Hahn as commissioner because of the FDA’s battle with the White House over standards for emergency use authorization of a coronavirus vaccine.

In addition, Trump was infuriated by the agency’s insistence that it stick to the highest bar for an emergency approval. “The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics. Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd,” Trump tweeted at Hahn.
 

Fauci on the firing line?

Most of the president’s ire has been directed at Fauci. As far back as April, Trump retweeted a call for Fauci’s firing. Twitter removed the original tweet but kept Trump’s comments on the original tweet.

The president has frequently questioned Fauci’s advice, sidelined him from task force meetings, and infrequently met with him. Trump called Fauci a “disaster” during a call with supporters in October, and then, at a campaign rally in November, intimated that he would fire the scientist after the election, according to The Washington Post.

But such a firing cannot be easily done. Some have speculated that Trump could pressure Fauci’s boss, Francis Collins, MD, PhD — the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who is a political appointee — to get rid of him. But Collins would have to come up with a reason to fire Fauci. Because he is not a political appointee, Fauci is afforded a raft of protections given to civil service employees of the federal government.

To demote or fire Fauci, Collins would have to give him 30 days’ notice unless there’s a belief that he committed a crime. Fauci would have at least a week to offer evidence and affidavits in support of his service.

He’d also be entitled to legal representation, a written decision, and the specific reasons for the action being taken quickly. He could also request a hearing, and he’d be able to appeal any action to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The process could take months, if not years.

In late October, Trump issued an executive order that would reclassify certain federal employees so that they wouldn’t have such protections. But agencies have until mid-January to come up with lists of such workers, according to Government Executive.

Collins has been with NIH since 1993, when he headed the Human Genome Project and the National Human Genome Research Institute. Politico has speculated that Collins, 70, might retire if Trump was reelected. It’s unclear what he’ll do now.

Redfield, who has taken heat for his leadership from many in public health — and was asked in October to stand up to Trump by former CDC Director William H. Foege, MD — has been openly contradicted by the president on more than one occasion, according to The New York Times.

In September, The Hill reported that Trump told reporters that he’d chastised Redfield by phone soon after Redfield had told a Senate committee that a coronavirus vaccine would not be available until mid-2021.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As President Donald J. Trump starts firing officials of his administration – even if it appears that they would only have a few months left in the job – some health officials may find their positions on the line.

Others may soon depart voluntarily. Politico reported in late October that more than two dozen political appointees had already left the U.S. Department Health and Human Services (HHS) since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in February and that potentially dozens of the more than 100 in the department would leave if Trump was not reelected.

Trump hasn’t conceded, he is challenging the election results, and he has already fired his Defense Secretary, Mark Esper.

Among those possibly in Trump’s sights: HHS Secretary Alex Azar, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield, MD, and White House Coronavirus Task Force member Anthony Fauci, MD, who is also the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), is likely safe. According to Politico, Verma is expected to leave on her own terms.

Azar has had a long run as a Trump appointee. He took office in January 2018 and has been a staunch loyalist. But he’s frequently been the butt of grousing by Trump for not doing enough to help lower drug prices and for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Azar was initially in charge of the Trump virus effort but was quickly replaced by Vice President Mike Pence.

It was widely reported in late April that Trump was considering firing Azar, but the president called that “fake news” in a tweet.

Azar has complained about Hahn, who was confirmed in December 2019. According to Politico, Azar was looking into how to remove Hahn as commissioner because of the FDA’s battle with the White House over standards for emergency use authorization of a coronavirus vaccine.

In addition, Trump was infuriated by the agency’s insistence that it stick to the highest bar for an emergency approval. “The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics. Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd,” Trump tweeted at Hahn.
 

Fauci on the firing line?

Most of the president’s ire has been directed at Fauci. As far back as April, Trump retweeted a call for Fauci’s firing. Twitter removed the original tweet but kept Trump’s comments on the original tweet.

The president has frequently questioned Fauci’s advice, sidelined him from task force meetings, and infrequently met with him. Trump called Fauci a “disaster” during a call with supporters in October, and then, at a campaign rally in November, intimated that he would fire the scientist after the election, according to The Washington Post.

But such a firing cannot be easily done. Some have speculated that Trump could pressure Fauci’s boss, Francis Collins, MD, PhD — the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who is a political appointee — to get rid of him. But Collins would have to come up with a reason to fire Fauci. Because he is not a political appointee, Fauci is afforded a raft of protections given to civil service employees of the federal government.

To demote or fire Fauci, Collins would have to give him 30 days’ notice unless there’s a belief that he committed a crime. Fauci would have at least a week to offer evidence and affidavits in support of his service.

He’d also be entitled to legal representation, a written decision, and the specific reasons for the action being taken quickly. He could also request a hearing, and he’d be able to appeal any action to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The process could take months, if not years.

In late October, Trump issued an executive order that would reclassify certain federal employees so that they wouldn’t have such protections. But agencies have until mid-January to come up with lists of such workers, according to Government Executive.

Collins has been with NIH since 1993, when he headed the Human Genome Project and the National Human Genome Research Institute. Politico has speculated that Collins, 70, might retire if Trump was reelected. It’s unclear what he’ll do now.

Redfield, who has taken heat for his leadership from many in public health — and was asked in October to stand up to Trump by former CDC Director William H. Foege, MD — has been openly contradicted by the president on more than one occasion, according to The New York Times.

In September, The Hill reported that Trump told reporters that he’d chastised Redfield by phone soon after Redfield had told a Senate committee that a coronavirus vaccine would not be available until mid-2021.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As President Donald J. Trump starts firing officials of his administration – even if it appears that they would only have a few months left in the job – some health officials may find their positions on the line.

Others may soon depart voluntarily. Politico reported in late October that more than two dozen political appointees had already left the U.S. Department Health and Human Services (HHS) since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in February and that potentially dozens of the more than 100 in the department would leave if Trump was not reelected.

Trump hasn’t conceded, he is challenging the election results, and he has already fired his Defense Secretary, Mark Esper.

Among those possibly in Trump’s sights: HHS Secretary Alex Azar, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield, MD, and White House Coronavirus Task Force member Anthony Fauci, MD, who is also the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), is likely safe. According to Politico, Verma is expected to leave on her own terms.

Azar has had a long run as a Trump appointee. He took office in January 2018 and has been a staunch loyalist. But he’s frequently been the butt of grousing by Trump for not doing enough to help lower drug prices and for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Azar was initially in charge of the Trump virus effort but was quickly replaced by Vice President Mike Pence.

It was widely reported in late April that Trump was considering firing Azar, but the president called that “fake news” in a tweet.

Azar has complained about Hahn, who was confirmed in December 2019. According to Politico, Azar was looking into how to remove Hahn as commissioner because of the FDA’s battle with the White House over standards for emergency use authorization of a coronavirus vaccine.

In addition, Trump was infuriated by the agency’s insistence that it stick to the highest bar for an emergency approval. “The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics. Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd,” Trump tweeted at Hahn.
 

Fauci on the firing line?

Most of the president’s ire has been directed at Fauci. As far back as April, Trump retweeted a call for Fauci’s firing. Twitter removed the original tweet but kept Trump’s comments on the original tweet.

The president has frequently questioned Fauci’s advice, sidelined him from task force meetings, and infrequently met with him. Trump called Fauci a “disaster” during a call with supporters in October, and then, at a campaign rally in November, intimated that he would fire the scientist after the election, according to The Washington Post.

But such a firing cannot be easily done. Some have speculated that Trump could pressure Fauci’s boss, Francis Collins, MD, PhD — the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who is a political appointee — to get rid of him. But Collins would have to come up with a reason to fire Fauci. Because he is not a political appointee, Fauci is afforded a raft of protections given to civil service employees of the federal government.

To demote or fire Fauci, Collins would have to give him 30 days’ notice unless there’s a belief that he committed a crime. Fauci would have at least a week to offer evidence and affidavits in support of his service.

He’d also be entitled to legal representation, a written decision, and the specific reasons for the action being taken quickly. He could also request a hearing, and he’d be able to appeal any action to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The process could take months, if not years.

In late October, Trump issued an executive order that would reclassify certain federal employees so that they wouldn’t have such protections. But agencies have until mid-January to come up with lists of such workers, according to Government Executive.

Collins has been with NIH since 1993, when he headed the Human Genome Project and the National Human Genome Research Institute. Politico has speculated that Collins, 70, might retire if Trump was reelected. It’s unclear what he’ll do now.

Redfield, who has taken heat for his leadership from many in public health — and was asked in October to stand up to Trump by former CDC Director William H. Foege, MD — has been openly contradicted by the president on more than one occasion, according to The New York Times.

In September, The Hill reported that Trump told reporters that he’d chastised Redfield by phone soon after Redfield had told a Senate committee that a coronavirus vaccine would not be available until mid-2021.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many of the US Supreme Court Justices seem disinclined to throw out the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – at least that was the takeaway from the questions they asked during oral arguments on whether the law is unconstitutional.

The Justices conducted arguments by telephone in the case, California v Texas (previously California v US), which was brought by 18 Republican state officials and two individual plaintiffs. The Trump administration joined the plaintiffs in June, arguing that the entire law should be overturned. The ACA is being defended by Democratic state officials from 16 states and Washington, D.C.

The Republican plaintiffs have essentially argued that the ACA cannot stand without the individual mandate requirement – that it is not possible to “sever” it from the rest of the Act. In 2017, Congress set the tax penalty to $0 if an individual did not buy insurance. The mandate to buy insurance was left in place, but there were no longer any consequences. The plaintiffs said that congressional act was equivalent to severing the mandate.

But many Justices appeared to take a dim view of that argument.

“It’s a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “Meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the Act in play. Congress knows how to write an inseverability clause and that is not the language that they chose here,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan also questioned how it would jibe with legal precedent to allow the severing of one part of a law when there was no clear instruction from Congress on the issue. She also raised the concern that it would open the door to all sorts of challenges.

“It would seem a big deal to say that, if you can point to injury with respect to one provision and you can concoct some kind of inseverability argument, that allows you to challenge anything else in the statute,” she said.

“Isn’t that something that really cuts against all of our doctrine?” asked Kagan.

“I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.

“I think, frankly, that they wanted the Court to do that but that’s not our job,” he added.
 

Proof of harm?

To have the standing to sue, the plaintiffs have to prove they have been harmed by the ACA. Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins said that individuals feel compelled to buy insurance – even without a penalty hanging over their heads.

Justice Stephen Breyer argued that many laws include what he called “precatory” language – that is, they seek to compel citizens to do something. But most don’t penalize those who fail to act – just like the ACA currently.

If, as the Texas plaintiffs argued, it’s still unconstitutional to make such a request, “I think there will be an awful lot of language in an awful lot of statutes that will suddenly be the subject of court constitutional challenge,” he said.

Hawkins disagreed. He said the ACA’s mandate “is not some suggestion, not some hortatory statement. It is the law of the United States of America today that you have to purchase health insurance and not just any health insurance, but health insurance that the federal government has decided would be best for you.”

Hawkins said that, if just one additional person signed up for Medicaid, the state of Texas and the other plaintiff states would be harmed. He said people were continuing to enroll in the program because they believed the law required them to get health insurance.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that defied common sense. “The problem is that your theory assumes people that people are going to pay a tax and break the law by not buying insurance, but they wouldn’t do it when the tax is zero.”
 

What’s at stake

It’s unlikely the justices will issue a decision immediately. They have until the end of the term in June to rule.

Katie Keith, JD, MPH, a principal at Keith Policy Solutions, LLC, outlined the potential outcomes in Health Affairs .

“The most likely scenario is that the Court maintains the status quo,” she wrote. They could get there by deciding Texas et al. did not have standing to bring the case. Or they could decide that either the mandate is constitutional or that it is unconstitutional but can be severed from the rest of the ACA.

The Court could alternatively find that some or all of the law’s insurance provisions – such as protections for people with pre-existing conditions – can’t be severed from the mandate. Or the justices could strike down all of the insurance consumer protections, the health insurance marketplaces, premium tax credits, and other provisions, which would force states to come up with the money to help people buy insurance. And states are unlikely to be able to do so, especially with the pandemic stretching their budgets.

Finally, the Court could find that the mandate can’t be separated, which would essentially overturn the law.

If that happens, some 15 million people could lose Medicaid coverage, 11 million who buy on health insurance exchanges could lose coverage, and 2.3 million young adults would no longer be able to stay on parents’ policies, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser also estimates that 54 million people under age 65 who have pre-existing conditions would no longer be guaranteed coverage.

The Urban Institute estimates that 21 million people could lose insurance – 15 million through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and 7.6 million through private nongroup coverage.
 

Medical societies weigh in

Multiple physicians’ groups, patient advocates, and hospital organizations have filed briefs with the Court in favor of keeping the law intact.

Twenty patient groups representing millions with pre-existing conditions – including the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Organization for Rare Disorders, and the Kennedy Forum – filed a court brief in May arguing that the law has expanded access to insurance and improved patient outcomes.

“The coronavirus pandemic has only served to underscore the necessity of meaningful coverage – especially for those who are at high risk of being severely affected by the virus – including countless Americans who have pre-existing, acute or chronic conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, lung diseases and multiple sclerosis,” they said in a statement.

Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, MACP, president of the American College of Physicians, which joined a court brief in support of the law with 19 other medical organizations, said the law has worked.

“The coverage, protections and benefits provided by the ACA are critical to the well-being of millions of Americans,” she said in a statement.

“If the ACA were to be thrown out at the same time that we face the pandemic, it would cause chaos for physicians and our patients, and for the entire health care system,” said Fincher, adding that millions of Americans who have been infected could lose insurance if protections for pre-existing conditions disappeared.

“The ACA has revolutionized access to care for tens of millions of women by helping them obtain meaningful health coverage, ensuring that essential care is covered by insurers, and protecting patients from unfair insurance practices,” said Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in a statement.

Overturning the ACA “would be one of the most singularly disruptive acts to be committed during this public health crisis,” she said.

American Psychiatric Association President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, also warned of disruptions to care, especially for those with mental health and substance use disorders. “We urge the Supreme Court to preserve the entire Act, including the individual mandate,” he said, in a statement.

“In the midst of COVID is no time to let down the millions who we serve as our patients,” said Chip Kahn, Federation of American Health Systems president and CEO, in a statement.

“As caregivers, the goal of hospitals for our patients is to see increased access to affordable coverage for all Americans – not new obstacles,” he said, adding that the ACA “can accomplish this goal. We hope the Supreme Court will see its way clear to allow it to go forward.”
 

For the defense

Many legal analysts on social media who listened in to today’s hearing agreed that the tenor of the proceedings seemed to lean toward survival of the ACA.

“At this point I would say it is *extremely* likely that the ACA will be upheld, but the mandate struck down and severed out,” tweeted Raffi Melkonian, an appellate lawyer in Houston, Texas. “A decision on standing (throwing out the case entirely) is also possible. The chance that the ACA is struck down v. low.”

“Both Kavanaugh and Roberts have suggested this morning that they may view the individual mandate as severable from the rest of the law. If those two justices join the court’s three liberals in finding that the mandate is severable, that would be five votes to save the ACA,” tweeted the analysts at SCOTUS Blog.

Sean Marotta, a lawyer with Hogan Lovells’ Supreme Court group, agreed. “Oral argument is always an imperfect measure, but the Act’s defenders should feel good today,” he tweeted.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many of the US Supreme Court Justices seem disinclined to throw out the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – at least that was the takeaway from the questions they asked during oral arguments on whether the law is unconstitutional.

The Justices conducted arguments by telephone in the case, California v Texas (previously California v US), which was brought by 18 Republican state officials and two individual plaintiffs. The Trump administration joined the plaintiffs in June, arguing that the entire law should be overturned. The ACA is being defended by Democratic state officials from 16 states and Washington, D.C.

The Republican plaintiffs have essentially argued that the ACA cannot stand without the individual mandate requirement – that it is not possible to “sever” it from the rest of the Act. In 2017, Congress set the tax penalty to $0 if an individual did not buy insurance. The mandate to buy insurance was left in place, but there were no longer any consequences. The plaintiffs said that congressional act was equivalent to severing the mandate.

But many Justices appeared to take a dim view of that argument.

“It’s a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “Meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the Act in play. Congress knows how to write an inseverability clause and that is not the language that they chose here,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan also questioned how it would jibe with legal precedent to allow the severing of one part of a law when there was no clear instruction from Congress on the issue. She also raised the concern that it would open the door to all sorts of challenges.

“It would seem a big deal to say that, if you can point to injury with respect to one provision and you can concoct some kind of inseverability argument, that allows you to challenge anything else in the statute,” she said.

“Isn’t that something that really cuts against all of our doctrine?” asked Kagan.

“I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.

“I think, frankly, that they wanted the Court to do that but that’s not our job,” he added.
 

Proof of harm?

To have the standing to sue, the plaintiffs have to prove they have been harmed by the ACA. Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins said that individuals feel compelled to buy insurance – even without a penalty hanging over their heads.

Justice Stephen Breyer argued that many laws include what he called “precatory” language – that is, they seek to compel citizens to do something. But most don’t penalize those who fail to act – just like the ACA currently.

If, as the Texas plaintiffs argued, it’s still unconstitutional to make such a request, “I think there will be an awful lot of language in an awful lot of statutes that will suddenly be the subject of court constitutional challenge,” he said.

Hawkins disagreed. He said the ACA’s mandate “is not some suggestion, not some hortatory statement. It is the law of the United States of America today that you have to purchase health insurance and not just any health insurance, but health insurance that the federal government has decided would be best for you.”

Hawkins said that, if just one additional person signed up for Medicaid, the state of Texas and the other plaintiff states would be harmed. He said people were continuing to enroll in the program because they believed the law required them to get health insurance.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that defied common sense. “The problem is that your theory assumes people that people are going to pay a tax and break the law by not buying insurance, but they wouldn’t do it when the tax is zero.”
 

What’s at stake

It’s unlikely the justices will issue a decision immediately. They have until the end of the term in June to rule.

Katie Keith, JD, MPH, a principal at Keith Policy Solutions, LLC, outlined the potential outcomes in Health Affairs .

“The most likely scenario is that the Court maintains the status quo,” she wrote. They could get there by deciding Texas et al. did not have standing to bring the case. Or they could decide that either the mandate is constitutional or that it is unconstitutional but can be severed from the rest of the ACA.

The Court could alternatively find that some or all of the law’s insurance provisions – such as protections for people with pre-existing conditions – can’t be severed from the mandate. Or the justices could strike down all of the insurance consumer protections, the health insurance marketplaces, premium tax credits, and other provisions, which would force states to come up with the money to help people buy insurance. And states are unlikely to be able to do so, especially with the pandemic stretching their budgets.

Finally, the Court could find that the mandate can’t be separated, which would essentially overturn the law.

If that happens, some 15 million people could lose Medicaid coverage, 11 million who buy on health insurance exchanges could lose coverage, and 2.3 million young adults would no longer be able to stay on parents’ policies, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser also estimates that 54 million people under age 65 who have pre-existing conditions would no longer be guaranteed coverage.

The Urban Institute estimates that 21 million people could lose insurance – 15 million through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and 7.6 million through private nongroup coverage.
 

Medical societies weigh in

Multiple physicians’ groups, patient advocates, and hospital organizations have filed briefs with the Court in favor of keeping the law intact.

Twenty patient groups representing millions with pre-existing conditions – including the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Organization for Rare Disorders, and the Kennedy Forum – filed a court brief in May arguing that the law has expanded access to insurance and improved patient outcomes.

“The coronavirus pandemic has only served to underscore the necessity of meaningful coverage – especially for those who are at high risk of being severely affected by the virus – including countless Americans who have pre-existing, acute or chronic conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, lung diseases and multiple sclerosis,” they said in a statement.

Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, MACP, president of the American College of Physicians, which joined a court brief in support of the law with 19 other medical organizations, said the law has worked.

“The coverage, protections and benefits provided by the ACA are critical to the well-being of millions of Americans,” she said in a statement.

“If the ACA were to be thrown out at the same time that we face the pandemic, it would cause chaos for physicians and our patients, and for the entire health care system,” said Fincher, adding that millions of Americans who have been infected could lose insurance if protections for pre-existing conditions disappeared.

“The ACA has revolutionized access to care for tens of millions of women by helping them obtain meaningful health coverage, ensuring that essential care is covered by insurers, and protecting patients from unfair insurance practices,” said Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in a statement.

Overturning the ACA “would be one of the most singularly disruptive acts to be committed during this public health crisis,” she said.

American Psychiatric Association President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, also warned of disruptions to care, especially for those with mental health and substance use disorders. “We urge the Supreme Court to preserve the entire Act, including the individual mandate,” he said, in a statement.

“In the midst of COVID is no time to let down the millions who we serve as our patients,” said Chip Kahn, Federation of American Health Systems president and CEO, in a statement.

“As caregivers, the goal of hospitals for our patients is to see increased access to affordable coverage for all Americans – not new obstacles,” he said, adding that the ACA “can accomplish this goal. We hope the Supreme Court will see its way clear to allow it to go forward.”
 

For the defense

Many legal analysts on social media who listened in to today’s hearing agreed that the tenor of the proceedings seemed to lean toward survival of the ACA.

“At this point I would say it is *extremely* likely that the ACA will be upheld, but the mandate struck down and severed out,” tweeted Raffi Melkonian, an appellate lawyer in Houston, Texas. “A decision on standing (throwing out the case entirely) is also possible. The chance that the ACA is struck down v. low.”

“Both Kavanaugh and Roberts have suggested this morning that they may view the individual mandate as severable from the rest of the law. If those two justices join the court’s three liberals in finding that the mandate is severable, that would be five votes to save the ACA,” tweeted the analysts at SCOTUS Blog.

Sean Marotta, a lawyer with Hogan Lovells’ Supreme Court group, agreed. “Oral argument is always an imperfect measure, but the Act’s defenders should feel good today,” he tweeted.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many of the US Supreme Court Justices seem disinclined to throw out the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – at least that was the takeaway from the questions they asked during oral arguments on whether the law is unconstitutional.

The Justices conducted arguments by telephone in the case, California v Texas (previously California v US), which was brought by 18 Republican state officials and two individual plaintiffs. The Trump administration joined the plaintiffs in June, arguing that the entire law should be overturned. The ACA is being defended by Democratic state officials from 16 states and Washington, D.C.

The Republican plaintiffs have essentially argued that the ACA cannot stand without the individual mandate requirement – that it is not possible to “sever” it from the rest of the Act. In 2017, Congress set the tax penalty to $0 if an individual did not buy insurance. The mandate to buy insurance was left in place, but there were no longer any consequences. The plaintiffs said that congressional act was equivalent to severing the mandate.

But many Justices appeared to take a dim view of that argument.

“It’s a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “Meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the Act in play. Congress knows how to write an inseverability clause and that is not the language that they chose here,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan also questioned how it would jibe with legal precedent to allow the severing of one part of a law when there was no clear instruction from Congress on the issue. She also raised the concern that it would open the door to all sorts of challenges.

“It would seem a big deal to say that, if you can point to injury with respect to one provision and you can concoct some kind of inseverability argument, that allows you to challenge anything else in the statute,” she said.

“Isn’t that something that really cuts against all of our doctrine?” asked Kagan.

“I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.

“I think, frankly, that they wanted the Court to do that but that’s not our job,” he added.
 

Proof of harm?

To have the standing to sue, the plaintiffs have to prove they have been harmed by the ACA. Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins said that individuals feel compelled to buy insurance – even without a penalty hanging over their heads.

Justice Stephen Breyer argued that many laws include what he called “precatory” language – that is, they seek to compel citizens to do something. But most don’t penalize those who fail to act – just like the ACA currently.

If, as the Texas plaintiffs argued, it’s still unconstitutional to make such a request, “I think there will be an awful lot of language in an awful lot of statutes that will suddenly be the subject of court constitutional challenge,” he said.

Hawkins disagreed. He said the ACA’s mandate “is not some suggestion, not some hortatory statement. It is the law of the United States of America today that you have to purchase health insurance and not just any health insurance, but health insurance that the federal government has decided would be best for you.”

Hawkins said that, if just one additional person signed up for Medicaid, the state of Texas and the other plaintiff states would be harmed. He said people were continuing to enroll in the program because they believed the law required them to get health insurance.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that defied common sense. “The problem is that your theory assumes people that people are going to pay a tax and break the law by not buying insurance, but they wouldn’t do it when the tax is zero.”
 

What’s at stake

It’s unlikely the justices will issue a decision immediately. They have until the end of the term in June to rule.

Katie Keith, JD, MPH, a principal at Keith Policy Solutions, LLC, outlined the potential outcomes in Health Affairs .

“The most likely scenario is that the Court maintains the status quo,” she wrote. They could get there by deciding Texas et al. did not have standing to bring the case. Or they could decide that either the mandate is constitutional or that it is unconstitutional but can be severed from the rest of the ACA.

The Court could alternatively find that some or all of the law’s insurance provisions – such as protections for people with pre-existing conditions – can’t be severed from the mandate. Or the justices could strike down all of the insurance consumer protections, the health insurance marketplaces, premium tax credits, and other provisions, which would force states to come up with the money to help people buy insurance. And states are unlikely to be able to do so, especially with the pandemic stretching their budgets.

Finally, the Court could find that the mandate can’t be separated, which would essentially overturn the law.

If that happens, some 15 million people could lose Medicaid coverage, 11 million who buy on health insurance exchanges could lose coverage, and 2.3 million young adults would no longer be able to stay on parents’ policies, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser also estimates that 54 million people under age 65 who have pre-existing conditions would no longer be guaranteed coverage.

The Urban Institute estimates that 21 million people could lose insurance – 15 million through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and 7.6 million through private nongroup coverage.
 

Medical societies weigh in

Multiple physicians’ groups, patient advocates, and hospital organizations have filed briefs with the Court in favor of keeping the law intact.

Twenty patient groups representing millions with pre-existing conditions – including the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Organization for Rare Disorders, and the Kennedy Forum – filed a court brief in May arguing that the law has expanded access to insurance and improved patient outcomes.

“The coronavirus pandemic has only served to underscore the necessity of meaningful coverage – especially for those who are at high risk of being severely affected by the virus – including countless Americans who have pre-existing, acute or chronic conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, lung diseases and multiple sclerosis,” they said in a statement.

Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, MACP, president of the American College of Physicians, which joined a court brief in support of the law with 19 other medical organizations, said the law has worked.

“The coverage, protections and benefits provided by the ACA are critical to the well-being of millions of Americans,” she said in a statement.

“If the ACA were to be thrown out at the same time that we face the pandemic, it would cause chaos for physicians and our patients, and for the entire health care system,” said Fincher, adding that millions of Americans who have been infected could lose insurance if protections for pre-existing conditions disappeared.

“The ACA has revolutionized access to care for tens of millions of women by helping them obtain meaningful health coverage, ensuring that essential care is covered by insurers, and protecting patients from unfair insurance practices,” said Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in a statement.

Overturning the ACA “would be one of the most singularly disruptive acts to be committed during this public health crisis,” she said.

American Psychiatric Association President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, also warned of disruptions to care, especially for those with mental health and substance use disorders. “We urge the Supreme Court to preserve the entire Act, including the individual mandate,” he said, in a statement.

“In the midst of COVID is no time to let down the millions who we serve as our patients,” said Chip Kahn, Federation of American Health Systems president and CEO, in a statement.

“As caregivers, the goal of hospitals for our patients is to see increased access to affordable coverage for all Americans – not new obstacles,” he said, adding that the ACA “can accomplish this goal. We hope the Supreme Court will see its way clear to allow it to go forward.”
 

For the defense

Many legal analysts on social media who listened in to today’s hearing agreed that the tenor of the proceedings seemed to lean toward survival of the ACA.

“At this point I would say it is *extremely* likely that the ACA will be upheld, but the mandate struck down and severed out,” tweeted Raffi Melkonian, an appellate lawyer in Houston, Texas. “A decision on standing (throwing out the case entirely) is also possible. The chance that the ACA is struck down v. low.”

“Both Kavanaugh and Roberts have suggested this morning that they may view the individual mandate as severable from the rest of the law. If those two justices join the court’s three liberals in finding that the mandate is severable, that would be five votes to save the ACA,” tweeted the analysts at SCOTUS Blog.

Sean Marotta, a lawyer with Hogan Lovells’ Supreme Court group, agreed. “Oral argument is always an imperfect measure, but the Act’s defenders should feel good today,” he tweeted.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) Nov. 9 for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab (Eli Lilly) to treat adults and children with mild to moderate COVID-19.

The monoclonal antibody therapy has emergency authorization for treating patients who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and who are considered to be at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 or hospitalization. To be eligible for treatment with bamlanivimab, patients must be at least 12 years of age and weigh at least 40 kg (approximately 88 lb). The agency notes that this includes patients aged 65 years and older or people with certain chronic conditions.

Bamlanivimab is not authorized for use in patients who are hospitalized or who require oxygen therapy because of COVID-19. The FDA’s action comes less than 2 weeks after Eli Lilly halted the ACTIV-3 study of the therapy for severe, hospitalized COVID-19 patients after evidence showed that adding the antibody therapy to standard care did not improve outcomes over standard care alone for patients with advanced COVID-19.

The government contract with Eli Lilly involves the purchase of 300,000 doses through December, with the option to procure another 650,000 doses through June 2021.

Because of Operation Warp Speed, “we have supplies to distribute now. Product distribution will begin this week,” US Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar said at a news conference today.

“We talked about building the bridge to safe and effective vaccines” for COVID-19, Azar added. “With this therapeutic, the bridge is taking shape.”

Bamlanivimab 700 mg will be administered as a 1-hour infusion followed by a 1-hour observation period for detecting any infusion-related side effects. The authorized dose is 700 mg, which was on the lower end of the dose range evaluated in studies.

During the press conference, a reporter asked whether the lower dose was chosen in order that more doses of the antibody could be made available. “The lower dose is a rational choice in this situation because we don’t want to give more of a drug than you need,” said Janet Woodcock, MD, the therapeutics lead for Operation Warp Speed. “I think we could probably go lower.”

Bamlanivimab works by attaching to the virus and blocking its entry into the cells and possibly by helping the patients’ immune system clear the virus, said Woodcock, who is also director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“The goal is to treat high-risk people as soon as possible after they show symptoms and are diagnosed,” she added.
 

Infusions an initial challenge?

There could be some logistic challenges at first because the antibody is administered via infusion. “We expect there will initially be a challenge in administering ... these infusions and setting up infusion centers,” Woodcock said.

Outpatient intravenous infusions are normally performed at infusion centers for patients with cancer and immune disorders, she noted. “You really don’t want them mixing with people who have COVID-19 disease, so we will need to set up separate sites.”

Bamlanivimab will be provided free of cost to patients, Azar said. Patients should be aware that coinsurance may be required for the infusion.
 

“Fair and equitable” distribution planned

During phase 1 of distribution, the agent will first be allocated to hospitals and hospital-affiliated locations only, John Redd, MD, MPH, chief medical officer, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at HHS, said at the press conference.

During phase 2, “there will be expanded distribution to outpatient sites,” he said. In an effort to keep the process transparent, a new website features the latest updates on the distribution of bamlanivimab.

Allocation will be based on two factors: the number of new cases reported in a state or territory in the prior 7 days, and rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period.

Asked why the government would determine distribution of the antibody on the basis of the number of hospitalized patients when the indication includes prevention of admission, Woodcock replied that hospitalization is a surrogate measure that can reflect risk factors in a particular state population, such as obesity, diabetes, or the proportion of older people.

Furthermore, the confirmed cases are a “leading indicator,” she said, that can help identify a steep rise in COVID-19 cases that could indicate more hospitalizations are likely soon. “We don’t want to miss that.”
 

Data underlying the EUA decision

A decrease in hospitalizations or emergency department visits within 28 days of treatment in preclinical studies was “the most important evidence that bamlanivimab may be effective,” the agency noted in the press release announcing the EUA. Among patients at high risk for progression, 3% required such interventions, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.

Potential side effects of bamlanivimab include anaphylaxis, infusion-related reactions, nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, headache, itching, and vomiting.

“As illustrated by today’s action, the FDA remains committed to expediting the development and availability of potential COVID-19 treatments and providing sick patients timely access to new therapies where appropriate,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in the news release.

Healthcare providers can download a detailed FDA fact sheet on the EUA for bamlanivimab, which includes dosing instructions.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) Nov. 9 for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab (Eli Lilly) to treat adults and children with mild to moderate COVID-19.

The monoclonal antibody therapy has emergency authorization for treating patients who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and who are considered to be at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 or hospitalization. To be eligible for treatment with bamlanivimab, patients must be at least 12 years of age and weigh at least 40 kg (approximately 88 lb). The agency notes that this includes patients aged 65 years and older or people with certain chronic conditions.

Bamlanivimab is not authorized for use in patients who are hospitalized or who require oxygen therapy because of COVID-19. The FDA’s action comes less than 2 weeks after Eli Lilly halted the ACTIV-3 study of the therapy for severe, hospitalized COVID-19 patients after evidence showed that adding the antibody therapy to standard care did not improve outcomes over standard care alone for patients with advanced COVID-19.

The government contract with Eli Lilly involves the purchase of 300,000 doses through December, with the option to procure another 650,000 doses through June 2021.

Because of Operation Warp Speed, “we have supplies to distribute now. Product distribution will begin this week,” US Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar said at a news conference today.

“We talked about building the bridge to safe and effective vaccines” for COVID-19, Azar added. “With this therapeutic, the bridge is taking shape.”

Bamlanivimab 700 mg will be administered as a 1-hour infusion followed by a 1-hour observation period for detecting any infusion-related side effects. The authorized dose is 700 mg, which was on the lower end of the dose range evaluated in studies.

During the press conference, a reporter asked whether the lower dose was chosen in order that more doses of the antibody could be made available. “The lower dose is a rational choice in this situation because we don’t want to give more of a drug than you need,” said Janet Woodcock, MD, the therapeutics lead for Operation Warp Speed. “I think we could probably go lower.”

Bamlanivimab works by attaching to the virus and blocking its entry into the cells and possibly by helping the patients’ immune system clear the virus, said Woodcock, who is also director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“The goal is to treat high-risk people as soon as possible after they show symptoms and are diagnosed,” she added.
 

Infusions an initial challenge?

There could be some logistic challenges at first because the antibody is administered via infusion. “We expect there will initially be a challenge in administering ... these infusions and setting up infusion centers,” Woodcock said.

Outpatient intravenous infusions are normally performed at infusion centers for patients with cancer and immune disorders, she noted. “You really don’t want them mixing with people who have COVID-19 disease, so we will need to set up separate sites.”

Bamlanivimab will be provided free of cost to patients, Azar said. Patients should be aware that coinsurance may be required for the infusion.
 

“Fair and equitable” distribution planned

During phase 1 of distribution, the agent will first be allocated to hospitals and hospital-affiliated locations only, John Redd, MD, MPH, chief medical officer, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at HHS, said at the press conference.

During phase 2, “there will be expanded distribution to outpatient sites,” he said. In an effort to keep the process transparent, a new website features the latest updates on the distribution of bamlanivimab.

Allocation will be based on two factors: the number of new cases reported in a state or territory in the prior 7 days, and rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period.

Asked why the government would determine distribution of the antibody on the basis of the number of hospitalized patients when the indication includes prevention of admission, Woodcock replied that hospitalization is a surrogate measure that can reflect risk factors in a particular state population, such as obesity, diabetes, or the proportion of older people.

Furthermore, the confirmed cases are a “leading indicator,” she said, that can help identify a steep rise in COVID-19 cases that could indicate more hospitalizations are likely soon. “We don’t want to miss that.”
 

Data underlying the EUA decision

A decrease in hospitalizations or emergency department visits within 28 days of treatment in preclinical studies was “the most important evidence that bamlanivimab may be effective,” the agency noted in the press release announcing the EUA. Among patients at high risk for progression, 3% required such interventions, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.

Potential side effects of bamlanivimab include anaphylaxis, infusion-related reactions, nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, headache, itching, and vomiting.

“As illustrated by today’s action, the FDA remains committed to expediting the development and availability of potential COVID-19 treatments and providing sick patients timely access to new therapies where appropriate,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in the news release.

Healthcare providers can download a detailed FDA fact sheet on the EUA for bamlanivimab, which includes dosing instructions.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) Nov. 9 for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab (Eli Lilly) to treat adults and children with mild to moderate COVID-19.

The monoclonal antibody therapy has emergency authorization for treating patients who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and who are considered to be at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 or hospitalization. To be eligible for treatment with bamlanivimab, patients must be at least 12 years of age and weigh at least 40 kg (approximately 88 lb). The agency notes that this includes patients aged 65 years and older or people with certain chronic conditions.

Bamlanivimab is not authorized for use in patients who are hospitalized or who require oxygen therapy because of COVID-19. The FDA’s action comes less than 2 weeks after Eli Lilly halted the ACTIV-3 study of the therapy for severe, hospitalized COVID-19 patients after evidence showed that adding the antibody therapy to standard care did not improve outcomes over standard care alone for patients with advanced COVID-19.

The government contract with Eli Lilly involves the purchase of 300,000 doses through December, with the option to procure another 650,000 doses through June 2021.

Because of Operation Warp Speed, “we have supplies to distribute now. Product distribution will begin this week,” US Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar said at a news conference today.

“We talked about building the bridge to safe and effective vaccines” for COVID-19, Azar added. “With this therapeutic, the bridge is taking shape.”

Bamlanivimab 700 mg will be administered as a 1-hour infusion followed by a 1-hour observation period for detecting any infusion-related side effects. The authorized dose is 700 mg, which was on the lower end of the dose range evaluated in studies.

During the press conference, a reporter asked whether the lower dose was chosen in order that more doses of the antibody could be made available. “The lower dose is a rational choice in this situation because we don’t want to give more of a drug than you need,” said Janet Woodcock, MD, the therapeutics lead for Operation Warp Speed. “I think we could probably go lower.”

Bamlanivimab works by attaching to the virus and blocking its entry into the cells and possibly by helping the patients’ immune system clear the virus, said Woodcock, who is also director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“The goal is to treat high-risk people as soon as possible after they show symptoms and are diagnosed,” she added.
 

Infusions an initial challenge?

There could be some logistic challenges at first because the antibody is administered via infusion. “We expect there will initially be a challenge in administering ... these infusions and setting up infusion centers,” Woodcock said.

Outpatient intravenous infusions are normally performed at infusion centers for patients with cancer and immune disorders, she noted. “You really don’t want them mixing with people who have COVID-19 disease, so we will need to set up separate sites.”

Bamlanivimab will be provided free of cost to patients, Azar said. Patients should be aware that coinsurance may be required for the infusion.
 

“Fair and equitable” distribution planned

During phase 1 of distribution, the agent will first be allocated to hospitals and hospital-affiliated locations only, John Redd, MD, MPH, chief medical officer, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at HHS, said at the press conference.

During phase 2, “there will be expanded distribution to outpatient sites,” he said. In an effort to keep the process transparent, a new website features the latest updates on the distribution of bamlanivimab.

Allocation will be based on two factors: the number of new cases reported in a state or territory in the prior 7 days, and rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period.

Asked why the government would determine distribution of the antibody on the basis of the number of hospitalized patients when the indication includes prevention of admission, Woodcock replied that hospitalization is a surrogate measure that can reflect risk factors in a particular state population, such as obesity, diabetes, or the proportion of older people.

Furthermore, the confirmed cases are a “leading indicator,” she said, that can help identify a steep rise in COVID-19 cases that could indicate more hospitalizations are likely soon. “We don’t want to miss that.”
 

Data underlying the EUA decision

A decrease in hospitalizations or emergency department visits within 28 days of treatment in preclinical studies was “the most important evidence that bamlanivimab may be effective,” the agency noted in the press release announcing the EUA. Among patients at high risk for progression, 3% required such interventions, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.

Potential side effects of bamlanivimab include anaphylaxis, infusion-related reactions, nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, headache, itching, and vomiting.

“As illustrated by today’s action, the FDA remains committed to expediting the development and availability of potential COVID-19 treatments and providing sick patients timely access to new therapies where appropriate,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in the news release.

Healthcare providers can download a detailed FDA fact sheet on the EUA for bamlanivimab, which includes dosing instructions.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Febuxostat (Uloric) emerged as noninferior to allopurinol regarding risk of cardiovascular death among people 60 years and older with gout and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor, results of the Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST) suggest.

This primary outcome of the FAST trial stands in contrast to results of the CARES trial in 2018. The CARES researchers previously reported a 4.3% increased risk of cardiovascular death associated with febuxostat, compared with a 3.2% rate with allopurinol, a statistically significant 34% increase in the relative risk.

“In contrast to previous studies, there was no evidence of increased mortality with febuxostat, and we believe the regulators should review febuxostat licensing restrictions,” senior author Thomas MacDonald, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), said during a late-breaking abstract session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The results of the FAST trial were simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Both febuxostat and allopurinol treat gout by lowering urate levels. Concerns about the cardiovascular safety of febuxostat led to two post-licensing studies: the Cardiovascular Safety of Febuxostat and Allopurinol in Participants with Gout and Cardiovascular Comorbidities (CARES) study, mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and FAST, requested by the European Medicines Agency. In February 2019, the FDA added a warning about elevated cardiovascular death and death risk associated with febuxostat.

“When CARES was published, it was somewhat of a threat to our study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “After hearing from our data-monitoring committee, we were told we could continue the trial.”
 

Some switched from allopurinol to febuxostat

So Dr. MacDonald, lead author Isla Mackenzie, MBChB, and their colleagues enrolled 6,128 people with gout in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark between December 2011 and January 2018. They followed patients for a median of 4 years. Participants had a mean age of 71 years, 85% were men, and 33% had a history of cardiovascular disease. The investigators excluded anyone with a stroke or myocardial infarction in the previous 6 months.

All participants were being treated with allopurinol. The investigators titrated those not at target up to an ideal dose that achieved a serum urate concentration of less than 0.357 mmol/L (< 6 mg/dL). Next, they randomly assigned 3,065 people to continue allopurinol and another 3,063 to switch to 80-120 mg of febuxostat.

The primary outcome of the multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label FAST trial was a composite of hospitalization for nonfatal MI or biomarker positive for acute coronary syndrome, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death.
 

Key findings

“There was definitely a noninferior primary outcome,” Dr. MacDonald said. In the on-treatment analysis, 172 patients in the febuxostat group reached the composite endpoint versus 241 patients in the allopurinol group. There were 1.72 events per 100 patient-years in the febuxostat group versus 2.05 events in the allopurinol group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.03). An intent-to-treat analysis also found that febuxostat was noninferior to allopurinol on this measure.

Urate levels were approximately 80 micromoles lower in the febuxostat group versus the allopurinol group each year of the study, Dr. MacDonald said.

At least one gout flare was experienced by 1,017 patients in the febuxostat group and by 1,044 participants in the allopurinol group. “However, there was no placebo group, so we don’t know the effectiveness of either of these agents at preventing flares” based on this research, he said.

Both the on-treatment and intention-to-treat (ITT) secondary analyses demonstrated the noninferiority of febuxostat, compared with allopurinol, for all-cause death, each individual component of the composite primary outcome – cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for new, unstable, or worsening angina.

In contrast, the ITT analysis revealed a “nominally significant increase” in hospitalization for arrhythmia with no evidence of ischemia in the febuxostat group. The 0.583 events per 100 patient-years in this group versus 0.385 events in the allopurinol cohort generated an adjusted HR of 1.51 (95% CI, 1.05-2.17).

In terms of all-cause mortality, 222 participants (7.2%) in the febuxostat group died, compared with 263 people (8.6%) in the allopurinol group.

Adverse events and withdrawals

A total 1,720 participants (57.3%) in the febuxostat group experienced at least one serious adverse event, as did 1,812 participants (59.4%) in the allopurinol group. Less than 1% of serious adverse events in each group were considered treatment-related.

Dr. MacDonald said that 6.2% of the febuxostat patients and 5.5% of the allopurinol group withdrew from the study. “We had pretty good follow-up [94%],” Dr. MacDonald said. “I don’t want to criticize CARES, but 47% did drop out of that study, and they could not follow them anymore.”

Limitations of FAST include its open-label design and lack of a placebo group, although Dr. MacDonald pointed out that a placebo group would have been unethical. Strengths included its large randomized trial design and good external validity, he added. “This is what will happen in clinical practice if you switch people from allopurinol to febuxostat.”

When asked how he would treat people with gout now given the FAST findings, Dr. MacDonald said, “I’m not a rheumatologist, I’m a cardiovascular physician. But I would say from the evidence from the FAST trial, it appears to be safe to give patients febuxostat whether or not they have cardiovascular risk factors or prior cardiovascular disease.”

“The FAST study indicates that febuxostat is similar to allopurinol in terms of cardiovascular events during the treatment period. The strengths of this study are its large sample size, excellent follow-up rate, and the relatively long follow-up time,” session moderator Shervin Assassi, MD, said when asked for comment. Dr. Assassi, director of the division of rheumatology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, was not involved in the research.

Menarini, Ipsen, and Teijin Pharma funded the study. The University of Dundee receives research funds from Menarini. Dr. MacDonald disclosed that he received speaker or consultant fees from Menarini. Dr. Assassi had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: MacDonald T et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). ACR 2020, Abstract L08.

Febuxostat (Uloric) emerged as noninferior to allopurinol regarding risk of cardiovascular death among people 60 years and older with gout and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor, results of the Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST) suggest.

This primary outcome of the FAST trial stands in contrast to results of the CARES trial in 2018. The CARES researchers previously reported a 4.3% increased risk of cardiovascular death associated with febuxostat, compared with a 3.2% rate with allopurinol, a statistically significant 34% increase in the relative risk.

“In contrast to previous studies, there was no evidence of increased mortality with febuxostat, and we believe the regulators should review febuxostat licensing restrictions,” senior author Thomas MacDonald, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), said during a late-breaking abstract session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The results of the FAST trial were simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Both febuxostat and allopurinol treat gout by lowering urate levels. Concerns about the cardiovascular safety of febuxostat led to two post-licensing studies: the Cardiovascular Safety of Febuxostat and Allopurinol in Participants with Gout and Cardiovascular Comorbidities (CARES) study, mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and FAST, requested by the European Medicines Agency. In February 2019, the FDA added a warning about elevated cardiovascular death and death risk associated with febuxostat.

“When CARES was published, it was somewhat of a threat to our study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “After hearing from our data-monitoring committee, we were told we could continue the trial.”
 

Some switched from allopurinol to febuxostat

So Dr. MacDonald, lead author Isla Mackenzie, MBChB, and their colleagues enrolled 6,128 people with gout in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark between December 2011 and January 2018. They followed patients for a median of 4 years. Participants had a mean age of 71 years, 85% were men, and 33% had a history of cardiovascular disease. The investigators excluded anyone with a stroke or myocardial infarction in the previous 6 months.

All participants were being treated with allopurinol. The investigators titrated those not at target up to an ideal dose that achieved a serum urate concentration of less than 0.357 mmol/L (< 6 mg/dL). Next, they randomly assigned 3,065 people to continue allopurinol and another 3,063 to switch to 80-120 mg of febuxostat.

The primary outcome of the multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label FAST trial was a composite of hospitalization for nonfatal MI or biomarker positive for acute coronary syndrome, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death.
 

Key findings

“There was definitely a noninferior primary outcome,” Dr. MacDonald said. In the on-treatment analysis, 172 patients in the febuxostat group reached the composite endpoint versus 241 patients in the allopurinol group. There were 1.72 events per 100 patient-years in the febuxostat group versus 2.05 events in the allopurinol group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.03). An intent-to-treat analysis also found that febuxostat was noninferior to allopurinol on this measure.

Urate levels were approximately 80 micromoles lower in the febuxostat group versus the allopurinol group each year of the study, Dr. MacDonald said.

At least one gout flare was experienced by 1,017 patients in the febuxostat group and by 1,044 participants in the allopurinol group. “However, there was no placebo group, so we don’t know the effectiveness of either of these agents at preventing flares” based on this research, he said.

Both the on-treatment and intention-to-treat (ITT) secondary analyses demonstrated the noninferiority of febuxostat, compared with allopurinol, for all-cause death, each individual component of the composite primary outcome – cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for new, unstable, or worsening angina.

In contrast, the ITT analysis revealed a “nominally significant increase” in hospitalization for arrhythmia with no evidence of ischemia in the febuxostat group. The 0.583 events per 100 patient-years in this group versus 0.385 events in the allopurinol cohort generated an adjusted HR of 1.51 (95% CI, 1.05-2.17).

In terms of all-cause mortality, 222 participants (7.2%) in the febuxostat group died, compared with 263 people (8.6%) in the allopurinol group.

Adverse events and withdrawals

A total 1,720 participants (57.3%) in the febuxostat group experienced at least one serious adverse event, as did 1,812 participants (59.4%) in the allopurinol group. Less than 1% of serious adverse events in each group were considered treatment-related.

Dr. MacDonald said that 6.2% of the febuxostat patients and 5.5% of the allopurinol group withdrew from the study. “We had pretty good follow-up [94%],” Dr. MacDonald said. “I don’t want to criticize CARES, but 47% did drop out of that study, and they could not follow them anymore.”

Limitations of FAST include its open-label design and lack of a placebo group, although Dr. MacDonald pointed out that a placebo group would have been unethical. Strengths included its large randomized trial design and good external validity, he added. “This is what will happen in clinical practice if you switch people from allopurinol to febuxostat.”

When asked how he would treat people with gout now given the FAST findings, Dr. MacDonald said, “I’m not a rheumatologist, I’m a cardiovascular physician. But I would say from the evidence from the FAST trial, it appears to be safe to give patients febuxostat whether or not they have cardiovascular risk factors or prior cardiovascular disease.”

“The FAST study indicates that febuxostat is similar to allopurinol in terms of cardiovascular events during the treatment period. The strengths of this study are its large sample size, excellent follow-up rate, and the relatively long follow-up time,” session moderator Shervin Assassi, MD, said when asked for comment. Dr. Assassi, director of the division of rheumatology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, was not involved in the research.

Menarini, Ipsen, and Teijin Pharma funded the study. The University of Dundee receives research funds from Menarini. Dr. MacDonald disclosed that he received speaker or consultant fees from Menarini. Dr. Assassi had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: MacDonald T et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). ACR 2020, Abstract L08.

Febuxostat (Uloric) emerged as noninferior to allopurinol regarding risk of cardiovascular death among people 60 years and older with gout and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor, results of the Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST) suggest.

This primary outcome of the FAST trial stands in contrast to results of the CARES trial in 2018. The CARES researchers previously reported a 4.3% increased risk of cardiovascular death associated with febuxostat, compared with a 3.2% rate with allopurinol, a statistically significant 34% increase in the relative risk.

“In contrast to previous studies, there was no evidence of increased mortality with febuxostat, and we believe the regulators should review febuxostat licensing restrictions,” senior author Thomas MacDonald, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), said during a late-breaking abstract session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The results of the FAST trial were simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Both febuxostat and allopurinol treat gout by lowering urate levels. Concerns about the cardiovascular safety of febuxostat led to two post-licensing studies: the Cardiovascular Safety of Febuxostat and Allopurinol in Participants with Gout and Cardiovascular Comorbidities (CARES) study, mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and FAST, requested by the European Medicines Agency. In February 2019, the FDA added a warning about elevated cardiovascular death and death risk associated with febuxostat.

“When CARES was published, it was somewhat of a threat to our study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “After hearing from our data-monitoring committee, we were told we could continue the trial.”
 

Some switched from allopurinol to febuxostat

So Dr. MacDonald, lead author Isla Mackenzie, MBChB, and their colleagues enrolled 6,128 people with gout in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark between December 2011 and January 2018. They followed patients for a median of 4 years. Participants had a mean age of 71 years, 85% were men, and 33% had a history of cardiovascular disease. The investigators excluded anyone with a stroke or myocardial infarction in the previous 6 months.

All participants were being treated with allopurinol. The investigators titrated those not at target up to an ideal dose that achieved a serum urate concentration of less than 0.357 mmol/L (< 6 mg/dL). Next, they randomly assigned 3,065 people to continue allopurinol and another 3,063 to switch to 80-120 mg of febuxostat.

The primary outcome of the multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label FAST trial was a composite of hospitalization for nonfatal MI or biomarker positive for acute coronary syndrome, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death.
 

Key findings

“There was definitely a noninferior primary outcome,” Dr. MacDonald said. In the on-treatment analysis, 172 patients in the febuxostat group reached the composite endpoint versus 241 patients in the allopurinol group. There were 1.72 events per 100 patient-years in the febuxostat group versus 2.05 events in the allopurinol group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.03). An intent-to-treat analysis also found that febuxostat was noninferior to allopurinol on this measure.

Urate levels were approximately 80 micromoles lower in the febuxostat group versus the allopurinol group each year of the study, Dr. MacDonald said.

At least one gout flare was experienced by 1,017 patients in the febuxostat group and by 1,044 participants in the allopurinol group. “However, there was no placebo group, so we don’t know the effectiveness of either of these agents at preventing flares” based on this research, he said.

Both the on-treatment and intention-to-treat (ITT) secondary analyses demonstrated the noninferiority of febuxostat, compared with allopurinol, for all-cause death, each individual component of the composite primary outcome – cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for new, unstable, or worsening angina.

In contrast, the ITT analysis revealed a “nominally significant increase” in hospitalization for arrhythmia with no evidence of ischemia in the febuxostat group. The 0.583 events per 100 patient-years in this group versus 0.385 events in the allopurinol cohort generated an adjusted HR of 1.51 (95% CI, 1.05-2.17).

In terms of all-cause mortality, 222 participants (7.2%) in the febuxostat group died, compared with 263 people (8.6%) in the allopurinol group.

Adverse events and withdrawals

A total 1,720 participants (57.3%) in the febuxostat group experienced at least one serious adverse event, as did 1,812 participants (59.4%) in the allopurinol group. Less than 1% of serious adverse events in each group were considered treatment-related.

Dr. MacDonald said that 6.2% of the febuxostat patients and 5.5% of the allopurinol group withdrew from the study. “We had pretty good follow-up [94%],” Dr. MacDonald said. “I don’t want to criticize CARES, but 47% did drop out of that study, and they could not follow them anymore.”

Limitations of FAST include its open-label design and lack of a placebo group, although Dr. MacDonald pointed out that a placebo group would have been unethical. Strengths included its large randomized trial design and good external validity, he added. “This is what will happen in clinical practice if you switch people from allopurinol to febuxostat.”

When asked how he would treat people with gout now given the FAST findings, Dr. MacDonald said, “I’m not a rheumatologist, I’m a cardiovascular physician. But I would say from the evidence from the FAST trial, it appears to be safe to give patients febuxostat whether or not they have cardiovascular risk factors or prior cardiovascular disease.”

“The FAST study indicates that febuxostat is similar to allopurinol in terms of cardiovascular events during the treatment period. The strengths of this study are its large sample size, excellent follow-up rate, and the relatively long follow-up time,” session moderator Shervin Assassi, MD, said when asked for comment. Dr. Assassi, director of the division of rheumatology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, was not involved in the research.

Menarini, Ipsen, and Teijin Pharma funded the study. The University of Dundee receives research funds from Menarini. Dr. MacDonald disclosed that he received speaker or consultant fees from Menarini. Dr. Assassi had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: MacDonald T et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). ACR 2020, Abstract L08.

A coauthor of the Great Barrington Declaration says that he and colleagues have never argued against using mitigation strategies to keep COVID-19 from spreading, and that critics have mischaracterized the document as a “let it rip” strategy.

Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, a professor and public health policy expert in infectious diseases at Stanford University in California, spoke on a JAMA Livestream debate on November 6. Marc Lipsitch, MD, an epidemiology professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, represented the 6900 signatories of the John Snow Memorandum, a rebuttal to the Great Barrington document.

The Great Barrington approach of “Focused Protection” advocates isolation and protection of people who are most vulnerable to COVID-19 while avoiding what they characterize as lockdowns. “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk,” the document reads.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and its HIV Medicine Association denounced the declaration, as reported by Medscape Medical News, and the World Health Organization (WHO) Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called the proposal “unethical.” But the idea has gained some traction at the White House, where Coronavirus Task Force Member and Stanford professor Scott Atlas, MD, has been advising President Donald J. Trump.

On the JAMA debate, Bhattacharya said, “I think all of the mitigation measures are really important,” listing social distancing, hand washing, and masks when distancing is not possible as chief among those strategies for the less vulnerable. “I don’t want to create infections intentionally, but I want us to allow people to go back to their lives as best they can, understanding of the risks they are taking when they do it,” he said, claiming that 99.95% of the population will survive infection.

“The harmful lockdowns are worse for many, many people,” Bhattacharya said.

“I think Jay is moving towards a middle ground which is not really what the Great Barrington Declaration seems to promote,” countered Lipsitch. The declaration does not say use masks or social distance, he said. “It just says we need to go back to a normal life.” 

Bhattacharya’s statements to JAMA mean that “maybe we are approaching some common ground,” Lipsitch said.
 

Definition of a lockdown

Both men were asked to give their definition of a “lockdown.” To Lipsitch, it means people are not allowed out except for essential services and that most businesses are closed, with exceptions for those deemed essential.

Bhattacharya, however, said he views that as a quarantine. Lockdowns “are what we’re currently doing,” he said. Schools, churches, businesses, and arts and culture organizations are shuttered, and “almost every aspect of society is restricted in some way,” Bhattacharya said.

He blamed these lockdowns for most of the excess deaths over and above the COVID-19 deaths and said they had failed to control the pandemic.

Lipsitch said that “it feels to me that Jay is describing as lockdown everything that causes harm, even when it’s not locked down.” He noted that the country was truly closed down for 2 months or so in the spring.

“All of these harms I agree are real,” said Lipsitch. “But they are because the normal life of our society is being interfered with by viral transmission and by people’s inability to live their normal lives.”

Closures and lockdowns are essential to delaying cases and deaths, said Lipsitch. “A case today is worse than a case tomorrow and a lot worse than a case 6 months from now,” he said, noting that a vaccine or improved therapeutics could evolve.

“Delay is not nothing,” Lipsitch added. “It’s actually the goal as I see it, and as the John Snow memo says, we want to keep the virus under control in such a way as that the vulnerable people are not at risk.”

He predicted that cases will continue to grow exponentially because the nation is “not even close to herd immunity.” And, if intensive care units fill up, “there will be a responsive lockdown,” he said, adding that he did not endorse that as a general matter or favor it as a default position.

Bhattacharya claimed that Sweden has tallied only 1800 excess deaths since the pandemic began. “That’s lockdown harm avoided,” he said, advocating a similar strategy for the United States. But, infections have been on the rise in Sweden, and the nation has a higher COVID-19 death rate — with 6000 deaths — than other Nordic countries.

“If we keep this policy of lockdown we will have the same kind of outcomes we’ve already had — high excess deaths and sort of indifferent control of COVID,” Bhattacharya said.

“We’re still going to have misery and death going forward until we reach a point where there’s sufficient immunity either though a vaccine or through natural infection,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A coauthor of the Great Barrington Declaration says that he and colleagues have never argued against using mitigation strategies to keep COVID-19 from spreading, and that critics have mischaracterized the document as a “let it rip” strategy.

Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, a professor and public health policy expert in infectious diseases at Stanford University in California, spoke on a JAMA Livestream debate on November 6. Marc Lipsitch, MD, an epidemiology professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, represented the 6900 signatories of the John Snow Memorandum, a rebuttal to the Great Barrington document.

The Great Barrington approach of “Focused Protection” advocates isolation and protection of people who are most vulnerable to COVID-19 while avoiding what they characterize as lockdowns. “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk,” the document reads.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and its HIV Medicine Association denounced the declaration, as reported by Medscape Medical News, and the World Health Organization (WHO) Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called the proposal “unethical.” But the idea has gained some traction at the White House, where Coronavirus Task Force Member and Stanford professor Scott Atlas, MD, has been advising President Donald J. Trump.

On the JAMA debate, Bhattacharya said, “I think all of the mitigation measures are really important,” listing social distancing, hand washing, and masks when distancing is not possible as chief among those strategies for the less vulnerable. “I don’t want to create infections intentionally, but I want us to allow people to go back to their lives as best they can, understanding of the risks they are taking when they do it,” he said, claiming that 99.95% of the population will survive infection.

“The harmful lockdowns are worse for many, many people,” Bhattacharya said.

“I think Jay is moving towards a middle ground which is not really what the Great Barrington Declaration seems to promote,” countered Lipsitch. The declaration does not say use masks or social distance, he said. “It just says we need to go back to a normal life.” 

Bhattacharya’s statements to JAMA mean that “maybe we are approaching some common ground,” Lipsitch said.
 

Definition of a lockdown

Both men were asked to give their definition of a “lockdown.” To Lipsitch, it means people are not allowed out except for essential services and that most businesses are closed, with exceptions for those deemed essential.

Bhattacharya, however, said he views that as a quarantine. Lockdowns “are what we’re currently doing,” he said. Schools, churches, businesses, and arts and culture organizations are shuttered, and “almost every aspect of society is restricted in some way,” Bhattacharya said.

He blamed these lockdowns for most of the excess deaths over and above the COVID-19 deaths and said they had failed to control the pandemic.

Lipsitch said that “it feels to me that Jay is describing as lockdown everything that causes harm, even when it’s not locked down.” He noted that the country was truly closed down for 2 months or so in the spring.

“All of these harms I agree are real,” said Lipsitch. “But they are because the normal life of our society is being interfered with by viral transmission and by people’s inability to live their normal lives.”

Closures and lockdowns are essential to delaying cases and deaths, said Lipsitch. “A case today is worse than a case tomorrow and a lot worse than a case 6 months from now,” he said, noting that a vaccine or improved therapeutics could evolve.

“Delay is not nothing,” Lipsitch added. “It’s actually the goal as I see it, and as the John Snow memo says, we want to keep the virus under control in such a way as that the vulnerable people are not at risk.”

He predicted that cases will continue to grow exponentially because the nation is “not even close to herd immunity.” And, if intensive care units fill up, “there will be a responsive lockdown,” he said, adding that he did not endorse that as a general matter or favor it as a default position.

Bhattacharya claimed that Sweden has tallied only 1800 excess deaths since the pandemic began. “That’s lockdown harm avoided,” he said, advocating a similar strategy for the United States. But, infections have been on the rise in Sweden, and the nation has a higher COVID-19 death rate — with 6000 deaths — than other Nordic countries.

“If we keep this policy of lockdown we will have the same kind of outcomes we’ve already had — high excess deaths and sort of indifferent control of COVID,” Bhattacharya said.

“We’re still going to have misery and death going forward until we reach a point where there’s sufficient immunity either though a vaccine or through natural infection,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.