Rheumatology News

People taking even low-dose methotrexate need tuberculosis screening and ongoing clinical care if they live in areas where TB is common, results of a study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology suggest.

Coauthor Carol Hitchon, MD, MSc, a rheumatologist with the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, who presented the findings, warned that methotrexate (MTX) users who also take corticosteroids or other immunosuppressants are at particular risk and need TB screening.

Current management guidelines for rheumatic disease address TB in relation to biologics, but not in relation to methotrexate, Dr. Hitchon said.

“We know that methotrexate is the foundational DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] for many rheumatic diseases, especially rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Hitchon noted at a press conference. “It’s safe and effective when dosed properly. However, methotrexate does have the potential for significant liver toxicity as well as infection, particularly for infectious organisms that are targeted by cell-mediated immunity, and TB is one of those agents.”

Using multiple databases, researchers conducted a systematic review of the literature published from 1990 to 2018 on TB rates among people who take less than 30 mg of methotrexate a week. Of the 4,700 studies they examined, 31 fit the criteria for this analysis.

They collected data on tuberculosis incidence or new TB diagnoses vs. reactivation of latent TB infection as well as TB outcomes, such as pulmonary symptoms, dissemination, and mortality.

They found a modest increase in the risk of TB infections in the setting of low-dose methotrexate. In addition, rates of TB in people with rheumatic disease who are treated with either methotrexate or biologics are generally higher than in the general population.

They also found that methotrexate users had higher rates of the type of TB that spreads beyond a patient’s lungs, compared with the general population.

Safety of INH with methotrexate

Researchers also looked at the safety of isoniazid (INH), the antibiotic used to treat TB, and found that isoniazid-related liver toxicity and neutropenia were more common when people took the antibiotic along with methotrexate, but those effects were usually reversible.

TB is endemic in various regions around the world. Historically there hasn’t been much rheumatology capacity in many of these areas, but as that capacity increases more people who are at high risk for developing or reactivating TB will be receiving methotrexate for rheumatic diseases, Dr. Hitchon said.

“It’s prudent for people managing patients who may be at higher risk for TB either from where they live or from where they travel that we should have a high suspicion for TB and consider screening as part of our workup in the course of initiating treatment like methotrexate,” she said.

Narender Annapureddy, MD, a rheumatologist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved in the research, pointed out that a limitation of the work is that only 27% of the studies are from developing countries, which are more likely to have endemic TB, and those studies had very few cases.

“This finding needs to be studied in larger populations in TB-endemic areas and in high-risk populations,” he said in an interview.

As for practice implications in the United States, Dr. Annapureddy noted that TB is rare in the United States and most of the cases occur in people born in other countries.

“This population may be at risk for TB and should probably be screened for TB before initiating methotrexate,” he said. “Since biologics are usually the next step, especially in RA after patients fail methotrexate, having information on TB status may also help guide management options after MTX failure.

“Since high-dose steroids are another important risk factor for TB activation,” Dr. Annapureddy continued, “rheumatologists should likely consider screening patients who are going to be on moderate to high doses of steroids with MTX.”

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

People taking even low-dose methotrexate need tuberculosis screening and ongoing clinical care if they live in areas where TB is common, results of a study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology suggest.

Coauthor Carol Hitchon, MD, MSc, a rheumatologist with the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, who presented the findings, warned that methotrexate (MTX) users who also take corticosteroids or other immunosuppressants are at particular risk and need TB screening.

Current management guidelines for rheumatic disease address TB in relation to biologics, but not in relation to methotrexate, Dr. Hitchon said.

“We know that methotrexate is the foundational DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] for many rheumatic diseases, especially rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Hitchon noted at a press conference. “It’s safe and effective when dosed properly. However, methotrexate does have the potential for significant liver toxicity as well as infection, particularly for infectious organisms that are targeted by cell-mediated immunity, and TB is one of those agents.”

Using multiple databases, researchers conducted a systematic review of the literature published from 1990 to 2018 on TB rates among people who take less than 30 mg of methotrexate a week. Of the 4,700 studies they examined, 31 fit the criteria for this analysis.

They collected data on tuberculosis incidence or new TB diagnoses vs. reactivation of latent TB infection as well as TB outcomes, such as pulmonary symptoms, dissemination, and mortality.

They found a modest increase in the risk of TB infections in the setting of low-dose methotrexate. In addition, rates of TB in people with rheumatic disease who are treated with either methotrexate or biologics are generally higher than in the general population.

They also found that methotrexate users had higher rates of the type of TB that spreads beyond a patient’s lungs, compared with the general population.

Safety of INH with methotrexate

Researchers also looked at the safety of isoniazid (INH), the antibiotic used to treat TB, and found that isoniazid-related liver toxicity and neutropenia were more common when people took the antibiotic along with methotrexate, but those effects were usually reversible.

TB is endemic in various regions around the world. Historically there hasn’t been much rheumatology capacity in many of these areas, but as that capacity increases more people who are at high risk for developing or reactivating TB will be receiving methotrexate for rheumatic diseases, Dr. Hitchon said.

“It’s prudent for people managing patients who may be at higher risk for TB either from where they live or from where they travel that we should have a high suspicion for TB and consider screening as part of our workup in the course of initiating treatment like methotrexate,” she said.

Narender Annapureddy, MD, a rheumatologist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved in the research, pointed out that a limitation of the work is that only 27% of the studies are from developing countries, which are more likely to have endemic TB, and those studies had very few cases.

“This finding needs to be studied in larger populations in TB-endemic areas and in high-risk populations,” he said in an interview.

As for practice implications in the United States, Dr. Annapureddy noted that TB is rare in the United States and most of the cases occur in people born in other countries.

“This population may be at risk for TB and should probably be screened for TB before initiating methotrexate,” he said. “Since biologics are usually the next step, especially in RA after patients fail methotrexate, having information on TB status may also help guide management options after MTX failure.

“Since high-dose steroids are another important risk factor for TB activation,” Dr. Annapureddy continued, “rheumatologists should likely consider screening patients who are going to be on moderate to high doses of steroids with MTX.”

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

People taking even low-dose methotrexate need tuberculosis screening and ongoing clinical care if they live in areas where TB is common, results of a study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology suggest.

Coauthor Carol Hitchon, MD, MSc, a rheumatologist with the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, who presented the findings, warned that methotrexate (MTX) users who also take corticosteroids or other immunosuppressants are at particular risk and need TB screening.

Current management guidelines for rheumatic disease address TB in relation to biologics, but not in relation to methotrexate, Dr. Hitchon said.

“We know that methotrexate is the foundational DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] for many rheumatic diseases, especially rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Hitchon noted at a press conference. “It’s safe and effective when dosed properly. However, methotrexate does have the potential for significant liver toxicity as well as infection, particularly for infectious organisms that are targeted by cell-mediated immunity, and TB is one of those agents.”

Using multiple databases, researchers conducted a systematic review of the literature published from 1990 to 2018 on TB rates among people who take less than 30 mg of methotrexate a week. Of the 4,700 studies they examined, 31 fit the criteria for this analysis.

They collected data on tuberculosis incidence or new TB diagnoses vs. reactivation of latent TB infection as well as TB outcomes, such as pulmonary symptoms, dissemination, and mortality.

They found a modest increase in the risk of TB infections in the setting of low-dose methotrexate. In addition, rates of TB in people with rheumatic disease who are treated with either methotrexate or biologics are generally higher than in the general population.

They also found that methotrexate users had higher rates of the type of TB that spreads beyond a patient’s lungs, compared with the general population.

Safety of INH with methotrexate

Researchers also looked at the safety of isoniazid (INH), the antibiotic used to treat TB, and found that isoniazid-related liver toxicity and neutropenia were more common when people took the antibiotic along with methotrexate, but those effects were usually reversible.

TB is endemic in various regions around the world. Historically there hasn’t been much rheumatology capacity in many of these areas, but as that capacity increases more people who are at high risk for developing or reactivating TB will be receiving methotrexate for rheumatic diseases, Dr. Hitchon said.

“It’s prudent for people managing patients who may be at higher risk for TB either from where they live or from where they travel that we should have a high suspicion for TB and consider screening as part of our workup in the course of initiating treatment like methotrexate,” she said.

Narender Annapureddy, MD, a rheumatologist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved in the research, pointed out that a limitation of the work is that only 27% of the studies are from developing countries, which are more likely to have endemic TB, and those studies had very few cases.

“This finding needs to be studied in larger populations in TB-endemic areas and in high-risk populations,” he said in an interview.

As for practice implications in the United States, Dr. Annapureddy noted that TB is rare in the United States and most of the cases occur in people born in other countries.

“This population may be at risk for TB and should probably be screened for TB before initiating methotrexate,” he said. “Since biologics are usually the next step, especially in RA after patients fail methotrexate, having information on TB status may also help guide management options after MTX failure.

“Since high-dose steroids are another important risk factor for TB activation,” Dr. Annapureddy continued, “rheumatologists should likely consider screening patients who are going to be on moderate to high doses of steroids with MTX.”

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

Pregnant women with interstitial lung disease (ILD) related to autoimmune disease may not need to terminate their pregnancies if they have close monitoring before, during, and after pregnancy with a multidisciplinary team of physicians, new research suggests.

Senior author Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., explained during a press conference at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that women with ILD are often advised by obstetricians or rheumatologists to avoid conception or terminate their pregnancies, though evidence for that has been based on small studies of 9-15 patients that have had mixed results.

“Many of these pregnancies were delivered 20-30 years ago, definitely with different rheumatic and obstetric care than we can provide now,” she said. “It’s really time to rethink our approach to interstitial lung disease and pregnancy.”

This study showed that while adverse pregnancy outcomes are common in these women, overall maternal morbidity and mortality are low.

ILD may be a secondary disease in people who have scleroderma, lupus, and sarcoidosis.

Largest study to date

This Pfizer-sponsored retrospective study of 67 pregnant women is the largest to date, and it analyzed 94 pregnancies (including five sets of twins).

Sarah Rae Easter, MD, maternal-fetal medicine doctor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, called the work “exciting” as the researchers were able to look back at a large number of cases for a rare condition for more than 20 years.

“Their data provides much-needed evidence to provide some reassurance for women affected by this type of pulmonary disease regarding the relative safety of pregnancy,” she said in an interview.
 

Study spanned 23 years

The researchers reviewed pregnancy records in patients diagnosed with ILD secondary to autoimmune disease at Duke University Health System from January 1996 to July 2019.

They classified the severity of ILD based on two standard breathing tests – forced vital capacity and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide.

Overall, 69% of the women were diagnosed with sarcoidosis and the remaining 31% had a connective tissue disease associated with ILD (CTD-ILD). Of those measured for ILD severity, 11% were severe, 25% were moderate, 50% were mild, and 14% were normal. Their average maternal age was 32.1 and 83% were Black.

While 70% of the pregnancies resulted in live births, 9% were terminated. The remainder resulted in miscarriage or stillbirth.

Researchers reported a 15% rate of preeclampsia, a 34% rate of the composite measure PROMISSE-Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (APO), and a 15% rate of PROMISSE-APO SEVERE. Patients with severe disease had the highest rates of PROMISSE-APO (P = .03 across groups).

(PROMISSE stands for the Predictors of Pregnancy Outcome: Biomarkers in Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus study.)

None of the women died

Dr. Clowse said it was a pleasant surprise to find that none of the women died, though patients with severe ILD had more adverse outcomes. Only 2.1% were treated in an intensive care unit during or soon after delivery. In 4.2%, ILD patients had significant shortness of breath due to fluid volume overload around the time of delivery.

For the women who had normal-to-moderate lung disease, Dr. Clowse said, “they really had remarkably good outcomes, really pretty comparable to the general population. About 15% delivered preterm and about 20% suffered a pregnancy loss.”

Dr. Easter, who was not involved with the study, noted the large number of Black women in the cohort.

“Focusing in on improving outcomes for Black and Brown women related to pregnancy in our country is a much-needed undertaking,” Dr. Easter said.

Being able to quote percentages from this research, based on a good-sized study “at least gives people a benchmark about what kind of risk they are willing to assume for themselves,” she said.

For providers, being able to place this rare disease within the spectrum of other diseases where there is more data is also very helpful, she said.

Dr. Clowse said in an interview that the preponderance of Black women in the study was a surprise but may be explained by two factors: Sarcoidosis is seen more frequently in Black women and in the study area in North Carolina there is a large population of Black women.

“Also, our patients with more severe lupus, the ones who are more likely to have interstitial lung disease, are often Black and that’s likely contributing as well,” she said.
 

Multidisciplinary teams advised

Dr. Clowse emphasized that women with ILD need multidisciplinary teams in pregnancy and should be managed at tertiary care centers where there is a full complement of obstetric and internal medicine experts.

“We do recommend evaluating the severity of their lungs and their heart disease around the time of pregnancy and during pregnancy if they have shortness of breath,” she said.

“We currently recommend that these patients with moderate or severe disease stay in the hospital for up to a week, just for monitoring,” she said.

Dr. Easter said having that kind of access to a large academic healthcare center should be an important part of the decision-making.

Patients need to think about whether they would have access to care similar to what the researchers are describing when they are making the decision to pursue or continue pregnancy, she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Dr. Clowse reported relationships with UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. Dr. Easter has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women with interstitial lung disease (ILD) related to autoimmune disease may not need to terminate their pregnancies if they have close monitoring before, during, and after pregnancy with a multidisciplinary team of physicians, new research suggests.

Senior author Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., explained during a press conference at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that women with ILD are often advised by obstetricians or rheumatologists to avoid conception or terminate their pregnancies, though evidence for that has been based on small studies of 9-15 patients that have had mixed results.

“Many of these pregnancies were delivered 20-30 years ago, definitely with different rheumatic and obstetric care than we can provide now,” she said. “It’s really time to rethink our approach to interstitial lung disease and pregnancy.”

This study showed that while adverse pregnancy outcomes are common in these women, overall maternal morbidity and mortality are low.

ILD may be a secondary disease in people who have scleroderma, lupus, and sarcoidosis.

Largest study to date

This Pfizer-sponsored retrospective study of 67 pregnant women is the largest to date, and it analyzed 94 pregnancies (including five sets of twins).

Sarah Rae Easter, MD, maternal-fetal medicine doctor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, called the work “exciting” as the researchers were able to look back at a large number of cases for a rare condition for more than 20 years.

“Their data provides much-needed evidence to provide some reassurance for women affected by this type of pulmonary disease regarding the relative safety of pregnancy,” she said in an interview.
 

Study spanned 23 years

The researchers reviewed pregnancy records in patients diagnosed with ILD secondary to autoimmune disease at Duke University Health System from January 1996 to July 2019.

They classified the severity of ILD based on two standard breathing tests – forced vital capacity and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide.

Overall, 69% of the women were diagnosed with sarcoidosis and the remaining 31% had a connective tissue disease associated with ILD (CTD-ILD). Of those measured for ILD severity, 11% were severe, 25% were moderate, 50% were mild, and 14% were normal. Their average maternal age was 32.1 and 83% were Black.

While 70% of the pregnancies resulted in live births, 9% were terminated. The remainder resulted in miscarriage or stillbirth.

Researchers reported a 15% rate of preeclampsia, a 34% rate of the composite measure PROMISSE-Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (APO), and a 15% rate of PROMISSE-APO SEVERE. Patients with severe disease had the highest rates of PROMISSE-APO (P = .03 across groups).

(PROMISSE stands for the Predictors of Pregnancy Outcome: Biomarkers in Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus study.)

None of the women died

Dr. Clowse said it was a pleasant surprise to find that none of the women died, though patients with severe ILD had more adverse outcomes. Only 2.1% were treated in an intensive care unit during or soon after delivery. In 4.2%, ILD patients had significant shortness of breath due to fluid volume overload around the time of delivery.

For the women who had normal-to-moderate lung disease, Dr. Clowse said, “they really had remarkably good outcomes, really pretty comparable to the general population. About 15% delivered preterm and about 20% suffered a pregnancy loss.”

Dr. Easter, who was not involved with the study, noted the large number of Black women in the cohort.

“Focusing in on improving outcomes for Black and Brown women related to pregnancy in our country is a much-needed undertaking,” Dr. Easter said.

Being able to quote percentages from this research, based on a good-sized study “at least gives people a benchmark about what kind of risk they are willing to assume for themselves,” she said.

For providers, being able to place this rare disease within the spectrum of other diseases where there is more data is also very helpful, she said.

Dr. Clowse said in an interview that the preponderance of Black women in the study was a surprise but may be explained by two factors: Sarcoidosis is seen more frequently in Black women and in the study area in North Carolina there is a large population of Black women.

“Also, our patients with more severe lupus, the ones who are more likely to have interstitial lung disease, are often Black and that’s likely contributing as well,” she said.
 

Multidisciplinary teams advised

Dr. Clowse emphasized that women with ILD need multidisciplinary teams in pregnancy and should be managed at tertiary care centers where there is a full complement of obstetric and internal medicine experts.

“We do recommend evaluating the severity of their lungs and their heart disease around the time of pregnancy and during pregnancy if they have shortness of breath,” she said.

“We currently recommend that these patients with moderate or severe disease stay in the hospital for up to a week, just for monitoring,” she said.

Dr. Easter said having that kind of access to a large academic healthcare center should be an important part of the decision-making.

Patients need to think about whether they would have access to care similar to what the researchers are describing when they are making the decision to pursue or continue pregnancy, she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Dr. Clowse reported relationships with UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. Dr. Easter has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women with interstitial lung disease (ILD) related to autoimmune disease may not need to terminate their pregnancies if they have close monitoring before, during, and after pregnancy with a multidisciplinary team of physicians, new research suggests.

Senior author Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., explained during a press conference at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that women with ILD are often advised by obstetricians or rheumatologists to avoid conception or terminate their pregnancies, though evidence for that has been based on small studies of 9-15 patients that have had mixed results.

“Many of these pregnancies were delivered 20-30 years ago, definitely with different rheumatic and obstetric care than we can provide now,” she said. “It’s really time to rethink our approach to interstitial lung disease and pregnancy.”

This study showed that while adverse pregnancy outcomes are common in these women, overall maternal morbidity and mortality are low.

ILD may be a secondary disease in people who have scleroderma, lupus, and sarcoidosis.

Largest study to date

This Pfizer-sponsored retrospective study of 67 pregnant women is the largest to date, and it analyzed 94 pregnancies (including five sets of twins).

Sarah Rae Easter, MD, maternal-fetal medicine doctor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, called the work “exciting” as the researchers were able to look back at a large number of cases for a rare condition for more than 20 years.

“Their data provides much-needed evidence to provide some reassurance for women affected by this type of pulmonary disease regarding the relative safety of pregnancy,” she said in an interview.
 

Study spanned 23 years

The researchers reviewed pregnancy records in patients diagnosed with ILD secondary to autoimmune disease at Duke University Health System from January 1996 to July 2019.

They classified the severity of ILD based on two standard breathing tests – forced vital capacity and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide.

Overall, 69% of the women were diagnosed with sarcoidosis and the remaining 31% had a connective tissue disease associated with ILD (CTD-ILD). Of those measured for ILD severity, 11% were severe, 25% were moderate, 50% were mild, and 14% were normal. Their average maternal age was 32.1 and 83% were Black.

While 70% of the pregnancies resulted in live births, 9% were terminated. The remainder resulted in miscarriage or stillbirth.

Researchers reported a 15% rate of preeclampsia, a 34% rate of the composite measure PROMISSE-Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (APO), and a 15% rate of PROMISSE-APO SEVERE. Patients with severe disease had the highest rates of PROMISSE-APO (P = .03 across groups).

(PROMISSE stands for the Predictors of Pregnancy Outcome: Biomarkers in Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus study.)

None of the women died

Dr. Clowse said it was a pleasant surprise to find that none of the women died, though patients with severe ILD had more adverse outcomes. Only 2.1% were treated in an intensive care unit during or soon after delivery. In 4.2%, ILD patients had significant shortness of breath due to fluid volume overload around the time of delivery.

For the women who had normal-to-moderate lung disease, Dr. Clowse said, “they really had remarkably good outcomes, really pretty comparable to the general population. About 15% delivered preterm and about 20% suffered a pregnancy loss.”

Dr. Easter, who was not involved with the study, noted the large number of Black women in the cohort.

“Focusing in on improving outcomes for Black and Brown women related to pregnancy in our country is a much-needed undertaking,” Dr. Easter said.

Being able to quote percentages from this research, based on a good-sized study “at least gives people a benchmark about what kind of risk they are willing to assume for themselves,” she said.

For providers, being able to place this rare disease within the spectrum of other diseases where there is more data is also very helpful, she said.

Dr. Clowse said in an interview that the preponderance of Black women in the study was a surprise but may be explained by two factors: Sarcoidosis is seen more frequently in Black women and in the study area in North Carolina there is a large population of Black women.

“Also, our patients with more severe lupus, the ones who are more likely to have interstitial lung disease, are often Black and that’s likely contributing as well,” she said.
 

Multidisciplinary teams advised

Dr. Clowse emphasized that women with ILD need multidisciplinary teams in pregnancy and should be managed at tertiary care centers where there is a full complement of obstetric and internal medicine experts.

“We do recommend evaluating the severity of their lungs and their heart disease around the time of pregnancy and during pregnancy if they have shortness of breath,” she said.

“We currently recommend that these patients with moderate or severe disease stay in the hospital for up to a week, just for monitoring,” she said.

Dr. Easter said having that kind of access to a large academic healthcare center should be an important part of the decision-making.

Patients need to think about whether they would have access to care similar to what the researchers are describing when they are making the decision to pursue or continue pregnancy, she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Dr. Clowse reported relationships with UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. Dr. Easter has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who take the vitamin K antagonist warfarin to prevent thromboembolic events are significantly more likely to require knee or hip replacement surgery – a surrogate endpoint for end-stage osteoarthritis – than are patients who take direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), results of a U.K.-based study showed.

In a nested case-control study, warfarin use was associated with a 1.5-fold risk for knee and hip replacement, compared with use of DOACs.

The findings provide additional evidence for the role of vitamin K and vitamin K–dependent proteins for limiting osteoarthritis progression, said lead author Priyanka Ballal, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Boston University.

“Given the prevalence and impact of osteoarthritis, our data, along with the existing literature, support the need for a well-powered, randomized, controlled trial for evaluating vitamin K supplementation in osteoarthritis. Our study also raises the consideration of using DOACs over warfarin when indicated in people with or at risk of osteoarthritis,“ she said in a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Warfarin targets vitamin K for its role in coagulation, but vitamin K is also an essential co-factor for vitamin K-dependent proteins in bone and cartilage, Dr. Ballal said,

Inadequate vitamin K levels are associated with abnormal joint tissue mineralization, and with increased incidence and prevalence of osteoarthritis. In a randomized, controlled trial, vitamin K supplementation was associated with trends toward less osteoarthritis progression among patients with vitamin K deficiency, she said.

To see whether warfarin therapy has biologic effects similar to that seen in patients with vitamin K deficiency, Dr. Ballal and colleagues conducted a nested, case-control study using data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN), an electronic medical record database of patients enrolled with general practitioners in the United Kingdom.

The sample included adults aged 40-80 years with atrial fibrillation who had received one or more prescriptions for warfarin or a DOAC beginning in 2009, a year after DOACs were first marketed in the United Kingdom, and within 1 year of the index date (date of joint replacement surgery). The researchers excluded patients with knee or hip replacements before 2014, severe comorbidities that would limit joint replacement, or who had used either warfarin or a DOAC prior to study entry. Each case was matched by age, gender, and index date with up to four control patients (those who did not have surgery).

A total of 913 cases and 3,652 controls were included. The groups had similar characteristics (sex, age, cancer, renal disease, chronic lung disease, hypertension, and incidence of venous thromboembolism [VTE]), except for somewhat higher rates of diabetes and heart failure among controls, and a higher rate of obesity among cases.

The investigators first looked at warfarin use among all knee and/or hip replacement cases and controls and calculated an odds ratio of 1.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.89) for knee and hip replacement with warfarin after adjustment for body mass index, factors influencing choice of anticoagulant, comorbidities, other medications, general practitioner visits, and hospitalizations.

The association between warfarin and joint replacement held up in an analysis restricted to knee replacement only, with an adjusted OR of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.16-1.89).

There was also a clear association between duration of warfarin use and risk of knee and hip replacement.

“This abstract suggests the role of adequate vitamin K may be important in decreasing progression of osteoarthritis, which would then favor patients with OA who are on warfarin to consider changing to a DOAC; however, further studies are needed to confirm this finding and consider its impact on VTE and wound healing postop,” said Minna Kohler, MD, director of the rheumatology musculoskeletal ultrasound program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. Dr. Kohler, who was not involved in the study, replied to an email request for comment.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ballal and Dr. Kohler reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Ballal P et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0934.

Patients who take the vitamin K antagonist warfarin to prevent thromboembolic events are significantly more likely to require knee or hip replacement surgery – a surrogate endpoint for end-stage osteoarthritis – than are patients who take direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), results of a U.K.-based study showed.

In a nested case-control study, warfarin use was associated with a 1.5-fold risk for knee and hip replacement, compared with use of DOACs.

The findings provide additional evidence for the role of vitamin K and vitamin K–dependent proteins for limiting osteoarthritis progression, said lead author Priyanka Ballal, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Boston University.

“Given the prevalence and impact of osteoarthritis, our data, along with the existing literature, support the need for a well-powered, randomized, controlled trial for evaluating vitamin K supplementation in osteoarthritis. Our study also raises the consideration of using DOACs over warfarin when indicated in people with or at risk of osteoarthritis,“ she said in a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Warfarin targets vitamin K for its role in coagulation, but vitamin K is also an essential co-factor for vitamin K-dependent proteins in bone and cartilage, Dr. Ballal said,

Inadequate vitamin K levels are associated with abnormal joint tissue mineralization, and with increased incidence and prevalence of osteoarthritis. In a randomized, controlled trial, vitamin K supplementation was associated with trends toward less osteoarthritis progression among patients with vitamin K deficiency, she said.

To see whether warfarin therapy has biologic effects similar to that seen in patients with vitamin K deficiency, Dr. Ballal and colleagues conducted a nested, case-control study using data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN), an electronic medical record database of patients enrolled with general practitioners in the United Kingdom.

The sample included adults aged 40-80 years with atrial fibrillation who had received one or more prescriptions for warfarin or a DOAC beginning in 2009, a year after DOACs were first marketed in the United Kingdom, and within 1 year of the index date (date of joint replacement surgery). The researchers excluded patients with knee or hip replacements before 2014, severe comorbidities that would limit joint replacement, or who had used either warfarin or a DOAC prior to study entry. Each case was matched by age, gender, and index date with up to four control patients (those who did not have surgery).

A total of 913 cases and 3,652 controls were included. The groups had similar characteristics (sex, age, cancer, renal disease, chronic lung disease, hypertension, and incidence of venous thromboembolism [VTE]), except for somewhat higher rates of diabetes and heart failure among controls, and a higher rate of obesity among cases.

The investigators first looked at warfarin use among all knee and/or hip replacement cases and controls and calculated an odds ratio of 1.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.89) for knee and hip replacement with warfarin after adjustment for body mass index, factors influencing choice of anticoagulant, comorbidities, other medications, general practitioner visits, and hospitalizations.

The association between warfarin and joint replacement held up in an analysis restricted to knee replacement only, with an adjusted OR of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.16-1.89).

There was also a clear association between duration of warfarin use and risk of knee and hip replacement.

“This abstract suggests the role of adequate vitamin K may be important in decreasing progression of osteoarthritis, which would then favor patients with OA who are on warfarin to consider changing to a DOAC; however, further studies are needed to confirm this finding and consider its impact on VTE and wound healing postop,” said Minna Kohler, MD, director of the rheumatology musculoskeletal ultrasound program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. Dr. Kohler, who was not involved in the study, replied to an email request for comment.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ballal and Dr. Kohler reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Ballal P et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0934.

Patients who take the vitamin K antagonist warfarin to prevent thromboembolic events are significantly more likely to require knee or hip replacement surgery – a surrogate endpoint for end-stage osteoarthritis – than are patients who take direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), results of a U.K.-based study showed.

In a nested case-control study, warfarin use was associated with a 1.5-fold risk for knee and hip replacement, compared with use of DOACs.

The findings provide additional evidence for the role of vitamin K and vitamin K–dependent proteins for limiting osteoarthritis progression, said lead author Priyanka Ballal, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Boston University.

“Given the prevalence and impact of osteoarthritis, our data, along with the existing literature, support the need for a well-powered, randomized, controlled trial for evaluating vitamin K supplementation in osteoarthritis. Our study also raises the consideration of using DOACs over warfarin when indicated in people with or at risk of osteoarthritis,“ she said in a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Warfarin targets vitamin K for its role in coagulation, but vitamin K is also an essential co-factor for vitamin K-dependent proteins in bone and cartilage, Dr. Ballal said,

Inadequate vitamin K levels are associated with abnormal joint tissue mineralization, and with increased incidence and prevalence of osteoarthritis. In a randomized, controlled trial, vitamin K supplementation was associated with trends toward less osteoarthritis progression among patients with vitamin K deficiency, she said.

To see whether warfarin therapy has biologic effects similar to that seen in patients with vitamin K deficiency, Dr. Ballal and colleagues conducted a nested, case-control study using data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN), an electronic medical record database of patients enrolled with general practitioners in the United Kingdom.

The sample included adults aged 40-80 years with atrial fibrillation who had received one or more prescriptions for warfarin or a DOAC beginning in 2009, a year after DOACs were first marketed in the United Kingdom, and within 1 year of the index date (date of joint replacement surgery). The researchers excluded patients with knee or hip replacements before 2014, severe comorbidities that would limit joint replacement, or who had used either warfarin or a DOAC prior to study entry. Each case was matched by age, gender, and index date with up to four control patients (those who did not have surgery).

A total of 913 cases and 3,652 controls were included. The groups had similar characteristics (sex, age, cancer, renal disease, chronic lung disease, hypertension, and incidence of venous thromboembolism [VTE]), except for somewhat higher rates of diabetes and heart failure among controls, and a higher rate of obesity among cases.

The investigators first looked at warfarin use among all knee and/or hip replacement cases and controls and calculated an odds ratio of 1.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.89) for knee and hip replacement with warfarin after adjustment for body mass index, factors influencing choice of anticoagulant, comorbidities, other medications, general practitioner visits, and hospitalizations.

The association between warfarin and joint replacement held up in an analysis restricted to knee replacement only, with an adjusted OR of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.16-1.89).

There was also a clear association between duration of warfarin use and risk of knee and hip replacement.

“This abstract suggests the role of adequate vitamin K may be important in decreasing progression of osteoarthritis, which would then favor patients with OA who are on warfarin to consider changing to a DOAC; however, further studies are needed to confirm this finding and consider its impact on VTE and wound healing postop,” said Minna Kohler, MD, director of the rheumatology musculoskeletal ultrasound program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. Dr. Kohler, who was not involved in the study, replied to an email request for comment.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ballal and Dr. Kohler reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Ballal P et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0934.

Among people with COVID-19, those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had an elevated 30-day risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury, compared to a group without rheumatic diseases at 4 months in a match-controlled study.

When investigators expanded the study to 6 months, the difference in need for mechanical ventilation disappeared. However, relative risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) emerged as 74% higher among people with COVID-19 and with rheumatic disease, said Kristin D’Silva, MD, who presented the findings during a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. She noted that rheumatic disease itself could contribute to VTE risk.

Comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and asthma were more common among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). After adjustment for comorbidities, “the risks of hospitalization and ICU admission were attenuated, suggesting comorbidities are likely key mediators of the increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes observed in SARDs patients versus comparators,” Dr. D’Silva, a rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

“The risk of venous thromboembolism persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities,” Dr. D’Silva said. Patients with SARDs should be closely monitored for VTE during COVID-19 infection, she added. “Patients with significant cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic comorbidities should be closely monitored for severe COVID-19.”

At the same time, a systematic review of 15 published studies revealed a low incidence of COVID-19 infection among people with rheumatic disease. Furthermore, most experienced a mild clinical course and low mortality, Akhil Sood, MD, said when presenting results of his poster at the meeting.

Underlying immunosuppression, chronic inflammation, comorbidities, and disparities based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic status could predispose people with rheumatic disease to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. However, the risks and outcomes of COVID-19 infection among this population “are not well understood,” said Dr. Sood, a second-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

Dr. D’Silva and colleagues examined a COVID-19 population and compared 716 people with SARDs and another 716 people from the general public at 4 months, as well as 2,379 people each in similar groups at 6 months. They used real-time electronic medical record data from the TriNetX research network to identify ICD-10 codes for inflammatory arthritis, connective tissue diseases, and systemic vasculitis. They also used ICD-10 codes and positive PCR tests to identify people with COVID-19.

Mean age was 57 years and women accounted for 79% of both groups evaluated at 4 months. Those with SARDs were 23% more likely to be hospitalized (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.50). This group was 75% more likely to be admitted to the ICU (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75), 77% more likely to require mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.06-2.96), and 83% more likely to experience acute kidney injury (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00).

Risk of death was not significantly higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.73-1.86).

When Dr. D’Silva expanded the study to more people at 6 months, they added additional 30-day outcomes of interest: renal replacement therapy, VTE, and ischemic stroke. Risk of need for renal replacement therapy, for example, was 81% higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.07). Risk of stroke was not significantly different between groups.The improvement in mechanical ventilation risk between 4 and 6 months was not completely unexpected, Dr. D’Silva said. The relative risk dropped from 1.77 to 1.05. “This is not particularly surprising given national trends in the general population reporting decreased severe outcomes of COVID-19 including mortality as the pandemic progresses. This is likely multifactorial including changes in COVID-19 management (such as increasing use of nonintubated prone positioning rather than early intubation and treatments such as dexamethasone and remdesivir), decreased strain on hospitals and staffing compared to the early crisis phase of the pandemic, and higher testing capacity leading to detection of milder cases.”

When the 6-month analysis was further adjusted for comorbidities and a history of prior hospitalization within 1 year, only risk for acute kidney injury and VTE remained significant with relative risks of 1.33 and 1.60, respectively, likely because comorbidities are causal intermediates of COVID-19 30-day outcomes rather than confounders.

When asked to comment on the results, session comoderator Victoria K. Shanmugam, MD, said in an interview that the study “is of great interest both to rheumatologists and to patients with rheumatic disease.”

The higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and heart failure “is an important finding with implications for how our patients navigate risk during this pandemic,” said Dr. Shanmugam, director of the division of rheumatology at George Washington University in Washington.
 

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

The 15 observational studies in the systematic review included 11,815 participants. A total of 179, or 1.5%, tested positive for COVID-19.

“The incidence of COVID-19 infection among patients with rheumatic disease was low,” Dr. Sood said.

Within the COVID-19-positive group, almost 50% required hospitalization, 10% required ICU admission, and 8% died. The pooled event rate for hospitalization was 0.440 (95% CI, 0.296-0.596), while for ICU admission it was 0.132 (95% CI, 0.087-0.194) and for death it was 0.125 (95% CI, 0.082-0.182).
 

Different calculations of risk

The two studies seem to offer contradictory findings, but the disparities could be explained by study design differences. For example, Dr. D’Silva’s study evaluated a population with COVID-19 and compared those with SARDs versus a matched group from the general public. Dr. Sood and colleagues assessed study populations with rheumatic disease and assessed incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and difference in outcomes.

“We are asking very different questions,” Dr. D’Silva said.

“The study by D’Silva et al. was able to account for different factors to reduce confounding,” Dr. Sood said, adding that Dr. D’Silva and colleagues included a high proportion of minorities, compared with a less diverse population in the systematic review, which featured a large number of studies from Italy.

The authors of the two studies had no relevant financial disclosures to report.

SOURCES: D’Silva K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0430, and Sood A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0008.

Among people with COVID-19, those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had an elevated 30-day risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury, compared to a group without rheumatic diseases at 4 months in a match-controlled study.

When investigators expanded the study to 6 months, the difference in need for mechanical ventilation disappeared. However, relative risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) emerged as 74% higher among people with COVID-19 and with rheumatic disease, said Kristin D’Silva, MD, who presented the findings during a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. She noted that rheumatic disease itself could contribute to VTE risk.

Comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and asthma were more common among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). After adjustment for comorbidities, “the risks of hospitalization and ICU admission were attenuated, suggesting comorbidities are likely key mediators of the increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes observed in SARDs patients versus comparators,” Dr. D’Silva, a rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

“The risk of venous thromboembolism persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities,” Dr. D’Silva said. Patients with SARDs should be closely monitored for VTE during COVID-19 infection, she added. “Patients with significant cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic comorbidities should be closely monitored for severe COVID-19.”

At the same time, a systematic review of 15 published studies revealed a low incidence of COVID-19 infection among people with rheumatic disease. Furthermore, most experienced a mild clinical course and low mortality, Akhil Sood, MD, said when presenting results of his poster at the meeting.

Underlying immunosuppression, chronic inflammation, comorbidities, and disparities based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic status could predispose people with rheumatic disease to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. However, the risks and outcomes of COVID-19 infection among this population “are not well understood,” said Dr. Sood, a second-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

Dr. D’Silva and colleagues examined a COVID-19 population and compared 716 people with SARDs and another 716 people from the general public at 4 months, as well as 2,379 people each in similar groups at 6 months. They used real-time electronic medical record data from the TriNetX research network to identify ICD-10 codes for inflammatory arthritis, connective tissue diseases, and systemic vasculitis. They also used ICD-10 codes and positive PCR tests to identify people with COVID-19.

Mean age was 57 years and women accounted for 79% of both groups evaluated at 4 months. Those with SARDs were 23% more likely to be hospitalized (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.50). This group was 75% more likely to be admitted to the ICU (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75), 77% more likely to require mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.06-2.96), and 83% more likely to experience acute kidney injury (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00).

Risk of death was not significantly higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.73-1.86).

When Dr. D’Silva expanded the study to more people at 6 months, they added additional 30-day outcomes of interest: renal replacement therapy, VTE, and ischemic stroke. Risk of need for renal replacement therapy, for example, was 81% higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.07). Risk of stroke was not significantly different between groups.The improvement in mechanical ventilation risk between 4 and 6 months was not completely unexpected, Dr. D’Silva said. The relative risk dropped from 1.77 to 1.05. “This is not particularly surprising given national trends in the general population reporting decreased severe outcomes of COVID-19 including mortality as the pandemic progresses. This is likely multifactorial including changes in COVID-19 management (such as increasing use of nonintubated prone positioning rather than early intubation and treatments such as dexamethasone and remdesivir), decreased strain on hospitals and staffing compared to the early crisis phase of the pandemic, and higher testing capacity leading to detection of milder cases.”

When the 6-month analysis was further adjusted for comorbidities and a history of prior hospitalization within 1 year, only risk for acute kidney injury and VTE remained significant with relative risks of 1.33 and 1.60, respectively, likely because comorbidities are causal intermediates of COVID-19 30-day outcomes rather than confounders.

When asked to comment on the results, session comoderator Victoria K. Shanmugam, MD, said in an interview that the study “is of great interest both to rheumatologists and to patients with rheumatic disease.”

The higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and heart failure “is an important finding with implications for how our patients navigate risk during this pandemic,” said Dr. Shanmugam, director of the division of rheumatology at George Washington University in Washington.
 

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

The 15 observational studies in the systematic review included 11,815 participants. A total of 179, or 1.5%, tested positive for COVID-19.

“The incidence of COVID-19 infection among patients with rheumatic disease was low,” Dr. Sood said.

Within the COVID-19-positive group, almost 50% required hospitalization, 10% required ICU admission, and 8% died. The pooled event rate for hospitalization was 0.440 (95% CI, 0.296-0.596), while for ICU admission it was 0.132 (95% CI, 0.087-0.194) and for death it was 0.125 (95% CI, 0.082-0.182).
 

Different calculations of risk

The two studies seem to offer contradictory findings, but the disparities could be explained by study design differences. For example, Dr. D’Silva’s study evaluated a population with COVID-19 and compared those with SARDs versus a matched group from the general public. Dr. Sood and colleagues assessed study populations with rheumatic disease and assessed incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and difference in outcomes.

“We are asking very different questions,” Dr. D’Silva said.

“The study by D’Silva et al. was able to account for different factors to reduce confounding,” Dr. Sood said, adding that Dr. D’Silva and colleagues included a high proportion of minorities, compared with a less diverse population in the systematic review, which featured a large number of studies from Italy.

The authors of the two studies had no relevant financial disclosures to report.

SOURCES: D’Silva K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0430, and Sood A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0008.

Among people with COVID-19, those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had an elevated 30-day risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury, compared to a group without rheumatic diseases at 4 months in a match-controlled study.

When investigators expanded the study to 6 months, the difference in need for mechanical ventilation disappeared. However, relative risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) emerged as 74% higher among people with COVID-19 and with rheumatic disease, said Kristin D’Silva, MD, who presented the findings during a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. She noted that rheumatic disease itself could contribute to VTE risk.

Comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and asthma were more common among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). After adjustment for comorbidities, “the risks of hospitalization and ICU admission were attenuated, suggesting comorbidities are likely key mediators of the increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes observed in SARDs patients versus comparators,” Dr. D’Silva, a rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

“The risk of venous thromboembolism persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities,” Dr. D’Silva said. Patients with SARDs should be closely monitored for VTE during COVID-19 infection, she added. “Patients with significant cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic comorbidities should be closely monitored for severe COVID-19.”

At the same time, a systematic review of 15 published studies revealed a low incidence of COVID-19 infection among people with rheumatic disease. Furthermore, most experienced a mild clinical course and low mortality, Akhil Sood, MD, said when presenting results of his poster at the meeting.

Underlying immunosuppression, chronic inflammation, comorbidities, and disparities based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic status could predispose people with rheumatic disease to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. However, the risks and outcomes of COVID-19 infection among this population “are not well understood,” said Dr. Sood, a second-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

Dr. D’Silva and colleagues examined a COVID-19 population and compared 716 people with SARDs and another 716 people from the general public at 4 months, as well as 2,379 people each in similar groups at 6 months. They used real-time electronic medical record data from the TriNetX research network to identify ICD-10 codes for inflammatory arthritis, connective tissue diseases, and systemic vasculitis. They also used ICD-10 codes and positive PCR tests to identify people with COVID-19.

Mean age was 57 years and women accounted for 79% of both groups evaluated at 4 months. Those with SARDs were 23% more likely to be hospitalized (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.50). This group was 75% more likely to be admitted to the ICU (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75), 77% more likely to require mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.06-2.96), and 83% more likely to experience acute kidney injury (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00).

Risk of death was not significantly higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.73-1.86).

When Dr. D’Silva expanded the study to more people at 6 months, they added additional 30-day outcomes of interest: renal replacement therapy, VTE, and ischemic stroke. Risk of need for renal replacement therapy, for example, was 81% higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.07). Risk of stroke was not significantly different between groups.The improvement in mechanical ventilation risk between 4 and 6 months was not completely unexpected, Dr. D’Silva said. The relative risk dropped from 1.77 to 1.05. “This is not particularly surprising given national trends in the general population reporting decreased severe outcomes of COVID-19 including mortality as the pandemic progresses. This is likely multifactorial including changes in COVID-19 management (such as increasing use of nonintubated prone positioning rather than early intubation and treatments such as dexamethasone and remdesivir), decreased strain on hospitals and staffing compared to the early crisis phase of the pandemic, and higher testing capacity leading to detection of milder cases.”

When the 6-month analysis was further adjusted for comorbidities and a history of prior hospitalization within 1 year, only risk for acute kidney injury and VTE remained significant with relative risks of 1.33 and 1.60, respectively, likely because comorbidities are causal intermediates of COVID-19 30-day outcomes rather than confounders.

When asked to comment on the results, session comoderator Victoria K. Shanmugam, MD, said in an interview that the study “is of great interest both to rheumatologists and to patients with rheumatic disease.”

The higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and heart failure “is an important finding with implications for how our patients navigate risk during this pandemic,” said Dr. Shanmugam, director of the division of rheumatology at George Washington University in Washington.
 

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

The 15 observational studies in the systematic review included 11,815 participants. A total of 179, or 1.5%, tested positive for COVID-19.

“The incidence of COVID-19 infection among patients with rheumatic disease was low,” Dr. Sood said.

Within the COVID-19-positive group, almost 50% required hospitalization, 10% required ICU admission, and 8% died. The pooled event rate for hospitalization was 0.440 (95% CI, 0.296-0.596), while for ICU admission it was 0.132 (95% CI, 0.087-0.194) and for death it was 0.125 (95% CI, 0.082-0.182).
 

Different calculations of risk

The two studies seem to offer contradictory findings, but the disparities could be explained by study design differences. For example, Dr. D’Silva’s study evaluated a population with COVID-19 and compared those with SARDs versus a matched group from the general public. Dr. Sood and colleagues assessed study populations with rheumatic disease and assessed incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and difference in outcomes.

“We are asking very different questions,” Dr. D’Silva said.

“The study by D’Silva et al. was able to account for different factors to reduce confounding,” Dr. Sood said, adding that Dr. D’Silva and colleagues included a high proportion of minorities, compared with a less diverse population in the systematic review, which featured a large number of studies from Italy.

The authors of the two studies had no relevant financial disclosures to report.

SOURCES: D’Silva K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0430, and Sood A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0008.

Joe Biden’s victory sets the stage for health care to become a high-profile priority of his presidency.

The former vice president has sketched out a big health agenda: ramping up the federal response to COVID-19, boosting the Affordable Care Act, creating a new “public option” to cover uninsured Americans, and expanding Medicare and Medicaid.

But the president-elect’s long to-do list on health is likely to face significant roadblocks in Congress and the courts, experts say.

For instance, Biden’s ambitious proposals on COVID-19 -- including his recent call for a national mask mandate -- could be waylaid by legal challenges and run into political hurdles on Capitol Hill, where he may face a divided Congress.

Joseph Antos, PhD, a health policy expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, predicts Biden will encounter the same type of congressional “gridlock situation” that President Barack Obama ran into during his second term.

“We have a situation that has been like this for a very, very long time -- lack of cooperation, lack of recognition that either party is capable of rising above their own electoral views to deal with problems that the country actually has.”

Antos also suggests that Biden may also face enormous political pressure to address the economic fallout from the coronavirus, including record unemployment and business closures, before anything else.

“I think it’s really going to be efforts that are intended to promote economic development and promote the economy,” he says.

In addition, Biden’s plans to expand Obamacare might face a new challenge from the Supreme Court in the year ahead. This month, the high court will take up a new case seeking to overturn the law.

Even so, experts say Biden’s plans on COVID-19 and expanding health care are likely to define his tenure in the White House as a central focus of his presidency.

“Health care will be at the very top of the list of the president’s priorities,” says Sabrina Corlette, JD, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. “I do think, however, that the administration is going to be very preoccupied with the response to COVID-19 and the economic fallout … particularly in the first year.”

Here’s a closer look at what we can expect from a Biden presidency.

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

Biden will move to federalize the response to COVID-19. He has said he will take back major responsibilities from the states -- such as setting national policies on mask wearing, social distancing, and the reopening of schools and businesses, based on CDC guidance. In the days leading up to the election, Biden called for a national mask mandate, after waffling on the issue throughout the summer.

He has said he will let public health science drive political policy. Biden is also planning to create his own task force to advise officials during the transition on managing the new surge in COVID-19 cases, vaccine safety and protecting at-risk populations, Politico reported this week. He received a virtual briefing on the pandemic from a panel of experts as he awaited the election’s outcome.

“I think we will no longer have this confused and contradictory public messaging,” Corlette says, “but I also think there will be humility and the recognition that the evidence is evolving -- that we don’t have all the answers, but we’re learning as we go.”

But national mandates on masks and social distancing will be challenging to enforce, experts say. They are also likely to face pushback from business interests, opposition from public officials in GOP-led states, and even legal challenges.

• Providing free COVID-19 testing for all Americans
• Hiring 100,000 contact tracers
• Eliminating out-of-pocket expenses for coronavirus treatment
• Delivering “sufficient” PPE for essential workers
• Supporting science-backed vaccines and medical treatments being developed
• Requiring the reopening of businesses, workplaces, and schools only after “sufficient” reductions in community transmission -- under evidence-based protocols put forward by the CDC
• Giving emergency paid leave for workers dislocated by the pandemic and more financial aid for workers, families, and small businesses
• Shoring up safeguards to protect at-risk Americans, including older people
• Boosting pay for health care workers on the front lines

Biden has not detailed how he would pay for many of these, beyond promising to force wealthy Americans to “pay their fair share” of taxes to help. He has proposed a tax increase on Americans making more than $400,000 a year, which would require congressional approval.

Antos says he expects Biden’s proposed COVID-19 action plan to be virtually the same as Trump’s in two areas: efforts to develop a vaccine and antiviral treatments.

The administration has spent some $225 million on COVID-19 testing efforts, with a particular focus on rural areas.

Trump launched Operation Warp Speed to fast-track a vaccine. As part of that, the federal government has contracted with six drug companies, spending nearly $11 billion. The operation aims to provide at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine by January 2021.

Antos would like to see “a more sophisticated approach to social distancing” from the president-elect that takes into account the different challenges facing Americans depending on their income, work situation, and other factors during the pandemic.

“There are a lot of people in this country where working from home is fine and their jobs are secure,” he notes. “It’s the person who used to work at a restaurant that closed, it’s the line worker at a factory that has severely cut back its hours. It’s basically lower-middle-class people, low-income people, middle-class people, and it’s not the elite.

“And the policies have not given enough consideration to the fact that their circumstances and their tradeoffs would differ from the tradeoffs of somebody who doesn’t have anything to worry about economically.

“So, what we need is a more supple policy [that] will give people the information they need and give them the financial support that they also need … so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families. And we basically haven’t done that.”

Obamacare on the blocks?

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up another case seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act could hand Biden’s health agenda a major setback -- and put the medical care for millions of Americans in jeopardy.

On Nov. 10, the high court will hear oral arguments on a lawsuit that would strike down all of Obamacare. A decision is not expected until next year.

The court has previously upheld the 2010 law, which Biden helped usher through Congress as vice president. But the addition of right-leaning Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the bench last month gives the court a clear conservative majority that could mean the end of Obamacare, legal experts say.

Republicans have opposed the law since its passage, but they have been unable to muster the votes to repeal it, or to pass an alternative

Antos, from the American Enterprise Institute, notes conservatives believe the law has increased costs for health care and insurance over the past decade, in part because of its protections for Americans with preexisting conditions and requiring insurers to provide comprehensive “gold-plated” policies.

“It’s driven up costs, offers plans that are not very strong, put high-risk folks into the same [insurance pool], which has increased costs for everyone, the employer mandate … these are all the reasons,” he says.

The Supreme Court isn’t expected to deliver a decision on the Affordable Care Act before the middle of next year. But the uncertainty will likely push back Biden’s proposals to expand on the law.

• As many as 133 million Americans -- roughly half the U.S. population -- with preexisting conditions could find it harder, if not impossible, to find affordable health insurance. That figure does not include Americans infected with COVID-19.
• About 165 million who require expensive treatments -- for cancer and other conditions -- would no longer be protected from huge costs for care by federal caps on out-of-pocket expenditures the Affordable Care Act requires.
• An estimated 21 million who now buy insurance through the Obamacare Marketplaces could lose their coverage.
• Another 12 million on Medicaid could find themselves without insurance.
• At least 2 million young adults ages 26 and under, now on their parents’ health policies, could be kicked off.
• Millions of people who use Medicare could face higher costs.
• Federal subsidies for lower-income Americans to buy policies would disappear.

Throughout the campaign, Biden repeatedly stressed the need to preserve the law’s provision barring insurance companies from refusing coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. It also outlaws charging higher premiums on the basis of health status, age, or gender.

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

He has proposed a variety of add-ons to the Affordable Care Act he says will “insure more than an estimated 97% of Americans,” according to the Biden campaign site.

Biden’s proposals include offering larger federal subsidies to help low- and middle-income Americans pay for policies purchased through Obamacare insurance Marketplaces.

The boldest of Biden’s proposals is the creation of a “public option” for insurance -- a Medicare-like program that small businesses and individuals could choose if they do not have coverage, cannot afford it, or don’t like their employer-based coverage.

It would also automatically enroll millions of uninsured Americans living in the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid, which covers low-income people.

But such a plan would require congressional approval -- including a “super majority” of 60 Senate votes to block a likely GOP filibuster. That will be a significant challenge Biden will have to overcome, with Congress so evenly divided.

The White House would also have to defeat heavy lobbying from some of the most influential industry interest groups in Washington, Corlette says.

“I’m not even confident they would get all the Democrat votes,” she says.

“So, it’s a going to be an uphill battle to get a public option passed.”

Taken together, Biden’s plans for expanding Obamacare are projected to cost $750 billion over 10 years. He has said much of that financing would come from increasing taxes on the wealthy.

That means it would likely require congressional approval, which Antos suggests is unlikely given the polarization on Capitol Hill.

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

Biden has called for a host of reforms targeting Medicare, Medicaid, and rising drug costs.

On Medicare, which primarily covers seniors 65 and older, Biden has proposed lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 60. That could extend Medicare to up to 20 million more Americans.

On Medicaid, the health care safety net for low-income and disabled Americans, the president-elect supports increased federal funding to states during the current economic crisis, and potentially beyond.

Medicare is likely to become a key focus of the new administration, in light of the pressures the pandemic is placing on Medicare funding.

In April, Medicare’s trustees said that the Part A trust fund for the program, which pays for hospital and inpatient care, could start to run dry in 2026.

But those projections did not include the impact of COVID-19. Some economists have since projected that Medicare Part A could become insolvent as early as 2022.

Medicare Part B, which pays for doctor and outpatient costs, is funded by general tax funding and beneficiary insurance premiums, so it is not in danger of drying up.

Adding to those pressures is an executive order Trump signed in August temporarily deferring payroll taxes, a primary funding vehicle for Medicare and Social Security.

Under these taxes, employees pay 6.2% of their earnings (on annual income up to $137,700) toward Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare taxes each pay period. Employers pay the same rate per paycheck, adding up to a combined 12.4% Social Security tax and 2.9% Medicare tax.

Biden has said he would reverse the tax cut when he takes office.

But to get a handle on Medicare and Medicaid funding issues, he is likely to need congressional support. Corlette and other experts say that could be a challenge while the nation remains in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition to his Medicare and Medicaid reforms, Biden has proposed several plans to lower drug prices, a subset of rising health care and insurance costs.

U.S. spending on prescription drugs has increased nearly 42% over the past decade -- from $253.1 billion in 2010 to $358.7 billion in 2020 (projected) -- according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In 2020, retail prices for 460 commonly prescribed drugs have spiked an average of 5.2%, according to new analysis by 3 Axis Advisors, a health research firm.

That’s more than double the projected rate of inflation.

To control drug costs, Biden supports legislation approved by the Democratic-led House of Representatives last year that would empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices with drug companies, as private insurers do.

Federal law now bars Medicare from negotiating prices on behalf of the 67.7 million Americans who use it. Drug companies and many GOP leaders argue that the current law is necessary to allow them to spend more on research and development of new medications.

In addition, Biden supports the idea of lifting bans on importing drugs from foreign countries with lower costs.

He also backs creating an independent review board to set price caps for new medications with no competitors; making high-quality generics more available; ending tax breaks for drug company advertising; and limiting their leeway in raising prices.

All of these proposals would likely require congressional approval and could face legal challenges in the courts.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Joe Biden’s victory sets the stage for health care to become a high-profile priority of his presidency.

The former vice president has sketched out a big health agenda: ramping up the federal response to COVID-19, boosting the Affordable Care Act, creating a new “public option” to cover uninsured Americans, and expanding Medicare and Medicaid.

But the president-elect’s long to-do list on health is likely to face significant roadblocks in Congress and the courts, experts say.

For instance, Biden’s ambitious proposals on COVID-19 -- including his recent call for a national mask mandate -- could be waylaid by legal challenges and run into political hurdles on Capitol Hill, where he may face a divided Congress.

Joseph Antos, PhD, a health policy expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, predicts Biden will encounter the same type of congressional “gridlock situation” that President Barack Obama ran into during his second term.

“We have a situation that has been like this for a very, very long time -- lack of cooperation, lack of recognition that either party is capable of rising above their own electoral views to deal with problems that the country actually has.”

Antos also suggests that Biden may also face enormous political pressure to address the economic fallout from the coronavirus, including record unemployment and business closures, before anything else.

“I think it’s really going to be efforts that are intended to promote economic development and promote the economy,” he says.

In addition, Biden’s plans to expand Obamacare might face a new challenge from the Supreme Court in the year ahead. This month, the high court will take up a new case seeking to overturn the law.

Even so, experts say Biden’s plans on COVID-19 and expanding health care are likely to define his tenure in the White House as a central focus of his presidency.

“Health care will be at the very top of the list of the president’s priorities,” says Sabrina Corlette, JD, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. “I do think, however, that the administration is going to be very preoccupied with the response to COVID-19 and the economic fallout … particularly in the first year.”

Here’s a closer look at what we can expect from a Biden presidency.

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

Biden will move to federalize the response to COVID-19. He has said he will take back major responsibilities from the states -- such as setting national policies on mask wearing, social distancing, and the reopening of schools and businesses, based on CDC guidance. In the days leading up to the election, Biden called for a national mask mandate, after waffling on the issue throughout the summer.

He has said he will let public health science drive political policy. Biden is also planning to create his own task force to advise officials during the transition on managing the new surge in COVID-19 cases, vaccine safety and protecting at-risk populations, Politico reported this week. He received a virtual briefing on the pandemic from a panel of experts as he awaited the election’s outcome.

“I think we will no longer have this confused and contradictory public messaging,” Corlette says, “but I also think there will be humility and the recognition that the evidence is evolving -- that we don’t have all the answers, but we’re learning as we go.”

But national mandates on masks and social distancing will be challenging to enforce, experts say. They are also likely to face pushback from business interests, opposition from public officials in GOP-led states, and even legal challenges.

• Providing free COVID-19 testing for all Americans
• Hiring 100,000 contact tracers
• Eliminating out-of-pocket expenses for coronavirus treatment
• Delivering “sufficient” PPE for essential workers
• Supporting science-backed vaccines and medical treatments being developed
• Requiring the reopening of businesses, workplaces, and schools only after “sufficient” reductions in community transmission -- under evidence-based protocols put forward by the CDC
• Giving emergency paid leave for workers dislocated by the pandemic and more financial aid for workers, families, and small businesses
• Shoring up safeguards to protect at-risk Americans, including older people
• Boosting pay for health care workers on the front lines

Biden has not detailed how he would pay for many of these, beyond promising to force wealthy Americans to “pay their fair share” of taxes to help. He has proposed a tax increase on Americans making more than $400,000 a year, which would require congressional approval.

Antos says he expects Biden’s proposed COVID-19 action plan to be virtually the same as Trump’s in two areas: efforts to develop a vaccine and antiviral treatments.

The administration has spent some $225 million on COVID-19 testing efforts, with a particular focus on rural areas.

Trump launched Operation Warp Speed to fast-track a vaccine. As part of that, the federal government has contracted with six drug companies, spending nearly $11 billion. The operation aims to provide at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine by January 2021.

Antos would like to see “a more sophisticated approach to social distancing” from the president-elect that takes into account the different challenges facing Americans depending on their income, work situation, and other factors during the pandemic.

“There are a lot of people in this country where working from home is fine and their jobs are secure,” he notes. “It’s the person who used to work at a restaurant that closed, it’s the line worker at a factory that has severely cut back its hours. It’s basically lower-middle-class people, low-income people, middle-class people, and it’s not the elite.

“And the policies have not given enough consideration to the fact that their circumstances and their tradeoffs would differ from the tradeoffs of somebody who doesn’t have anything to worry about economically.

“So, what we need is a more supple policy [that] will give people the information they need and give them the financial support that they also need … so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families. And we basically haven’t done that.”

Obamacare on the blocks?

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up another case seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act could hand Biden’s health agenda a major setback -- and put the medical care for millions of Americans in jeopardy.

On Nov. 10, the high court will hear oral arguments on a lawsuit that would strike down all of Obamacare. A decision is not expected until next year.

The court has previously upheld the 2010 law, which Biden helped usher through Congress as vice president. But the addition of right-leaning Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the bench last month gives the court a clear conservative majority that could mean the end of Obamacare, legal experts say.

Republicans have opposed the law since its passage, but they have been unable to muster the votes to repeal it, or to pass an alternative

Antos, from the American Enterprise Institute, notes conservatives believe the law has increased costs for health care and insurance over the past decade, in part because of its protections for Americans with preexisting conditions and requiring insurers to provide comprehensive “gold-plated” policies.

“It’s driven up costs, offers plans that are not very strong, put high-risk folks into the same [insurance pool], which has increased costs for everyone, the employer mandate … these are all the reasons,” he says.

The Supreme Court isn’t expected to deliver a decision on the Affordable Care Act before the middle of next year. But the uncertainty will likely push back Biden’s proposals to expand on the law.

• As many as 133 million Americans -- roughly half the U.S. population -- with preexisting conditions could find it harder, if not impossible, to find affordable health insurance. That figure does not include Americans infected with COVID-19.
• About 165 million who require expensive treatments -- for cancer and other conditions -- would no longer be protected from huge costs for care by federal caps on out-of-pocket expenditures the Affordable Care Act requires.
• An estimated 21 million who now buy insurance through the Obamacare Marketplaces could lose their coverage.
• Another 12 million on Medicaid could find themselves without insurance.
• At least 2 million young adults ages 26 and under, now on their parents’ health policies, could be kicked off.
• Millions of people who use Medicare could face higher costs.
• Federal subsidies for lower-income Americans to buy policies would disappear.

Throughout the campaign, Biden repeatedly stressed the need to preserve the law’s provision barring insurance companies from refusing coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. It also outlaws charging higher premiums on the basis of health status, age, or gender.

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

He has proposed a variety of add-ons to the Affordable Care Act he says will “insure more than an estimated 97% of Americans,” according to the Biden campaign site.

Biden’s proposals include offering larger federal subsidies to help low- and middle-income Americans pay for policies purchased through Obamacare insurance Marketplaces.

The boldest of Biden’s proposals is the creation of a “public option” for insurance -- a Medicare-like program that small businesses and individuals could choose if they do not have coverage, cannot afford it, or don’t like their employer-based coverage.

It would also automatically enroll millions of uninsured Americans living in the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid, which covers low-income people.

But such a plan would require congressional approval -- including a “super majority” of 60 Senate votes to block a likely GOP filibuster. That will be a significant challenge Biden will have to overcome, with Congress so evenly divided.

The White House would also have to defeat heavy lobbying from some of the most influential industry interest groups in Washington, Corlette says.

“I’m not even confident they would get all the Democrat votes,” she says.

“So, it’s a going to be an uphill battle to get a public option passed.”

Taken together, Biden’s plans for expanding Obamacare are projected to cost $750 billion over 10 years. He has said much of that financing would come from increasing taxes on the wealthy.

That means it would likely require congressional approval, which Antos suggests is unlikely given the polarization on Capitol Hill.

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

Biden has called for a host of reforms targeting Medicare, Medicaid, and rising drug costs.

On Medicare, which primarily covers seniors 65 and older, Biden has proposed lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 60. That could extend Medicare to up to 20 million more Americans.

On Medicaid, the health care safety net for low-income and disabled Americans, the president-elect supports increased federal funding to states during the current economic crisis, and potentially beyond.

Medicare is likely to become a key focus of the new administration, in light of the pressures the pandemic is placing on Medicare funding.

In April, Medicare’s trustees said that the Part A trust fund for the program, which pays for hospital and inpatient care, could start to run dry in 2026.

But those projections did not include the impact of COVID-19. Some economists have since projected that Medicare Part A could become insolvent as early as 2022.

Medicare Part B, which pays for doctor and outpatient costs, is funded by general tax funding and beneficiary insurance premiums, so it is not in danger of drying up.

Adding to those pressures is an executive order Trump signed in August temporarily deferring payroll taxes, a primary funding vehicle for Medicare and Social Security.

Under these taxes, employees pay 6.2% of their earnings (on annual income up to $137,700) toward Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare taxes each pay period. Employers pay the same rate per paycheck, adding up to a combined 12.4% Social Security tax and 2.9% Medicare tax.

Biden has said he would reverse the tax cut when he takes office.

But to get a handle on Medicare and Medicaid funding issues, he is likely to need congressional support. Corlette and other experts say that could be a challenge while the nation remains in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition to his Medicare and Medicaid reforms, Biden has proposed several plans to lower drug prices, a subset of rising health care and insurance costs.

U.S. spending on prescription drugs has increased nearly 42% over the past decade -- from $253.1 billion in 2010 to $358.7 billion in 2020 (projected) -- according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In 2020, retail prices for 460 commonly prescribed drugs have spiked an average of 5.2%, according to new analysis by 3 Axis Advisors, a health research firm.

That’s more than double the projected rate of inflation.

To control drug costs, Biden supports legislation approved by the Democratic-led House of Representatives last year that would empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices with drug companies, as private insurers do.

Federal law now bars Medicare from negotiating prices on behalf of the 67.7 million Americans who use it. Drug companies and many GOP leaders argue that the current law is necessary to allow them to spend more on research and development of new medications.

In addition, Biden supports the idea of lifting bans on importing drugs from foreign countries with lower costs.

He also backs creating an independent review board to set price caps for new medications with no competitors; making high-quality generics more available; ending tax breaks for drug company advertising; and limiting their leeway in raising prices.

All of these proposals would likely require congressional approval and could face legal challenges in the courts.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Joe Biden’s victory sets the stage for health care to become a high-profile priority of his presidency.

The former vice president has sketched out a big health agenda: ramping up the federal response to COVID-19, boosting the Affordable Care Act, creating a new “public option” to cover uninsured Americans, and expanding Medicare and Medicaid.

But the president-elect’s long to-do list on health is likely to face significant roadblocks in Congress and the courts, experts say.

For instance, Biden’s ambitious proposals on COVID-19 -- including his recent call for a national mask mandate -- could be waylaid by legal challenges and run into political hurdles on Capitol Hill, where he may face a divided Congress.

Joseph Antos, PhD, a health policy expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, predicts Biden will encounter the same type of congressional “gridlock situation” that President Barack Obama ran into during his second term.

“We have a situation that has been like this for a very, very long time -- lack of cooperation, lack of recognition that either party is capable of rising above their own electoral views to deal with problems that the country actually has.”

Antos also suggests that Biden may also face enormous political pressure to address the economic fallout from the coronavirus, including record unemployment and business closures, before anything else.

“I think it’s really going to be efforts that are intended to promote economic development and promote the economy,” he says.

In addition, Biden’s plans to expand Obamacare might face a new challenge from the Supreme Court in the year ahead. This month, the high court will take up a new case seeking to overturn the law.

Even so, experts say Biden’s plans on COVID-19 and expanding health care are likely to define his tenure in the White House as a central focus of his presidency.

“Health care will be at the very top of the list of the president’s priorities,” says Sabrina Corlette, JD, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. “I do think, however, that the administration is going to be very preoccupied with the response to COVID-19 and the economic fallout … particularly in the first year.”

Here’s a closer look at what we can expect from a Biden presidency.

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

Biden will move to federalize the response to COVID-19. He has said he will take back major responsibilities from the states -- such as setting national policies on mask wearing, social distancing, and the reopening of schools and businesses, based on CDC guidance. In the days leading up to the election, Biden called for a national mask mandate, after waffling on the issue throughout the summer.

He has said he will let public health science drive political policy. Biden is also planning to create his own task force to advise officials during the transition on managing the new surge in COVID-19 cases, vaccine safety and protecting at-risk populations, Politico reported this week. He received a virtual briefing on the pandemic from a panel of experts as he awaited the election’s outcome.

“I think we will no longer have this confused and contradictory public messaging,” Corlette says, “but I also think there will be humility and the recognition that the evidence is evolving -- that we don’t have all the answers, but we’re learning as we go.”

But national mandates on masks and social distancing will be challenging to enforce, experts say. They are also likely to face pushback from business interests, opposition from public officials in GOP-led states, and even legal challenges.

• Providing free COVID-19 testing for all Americans
• Hiring 100,000 contact tracers
• Eliminating out-of-pocket expenses for coronavirus treatment
• Delivering “sufficient” PPE for essential workers
• Supporting science-backed vaccines and medical treatments being developed
• Requiring the reopening of businesses, workplaces, and schools only after “sufficient” reductions in community transmission -- under evidence-based protocols put forward by the CDC
• Giving emergency paid leave for workers dislocated by the pandemic and more financial aid for workers, families, and small businesses
• Shoring up safeguards to protect at-risk Americans, including older people
• Boosting pay for health care workers on the front lines

Biden has not detailed how he would pay for many of these, beyond promising to force wealthy Americans to “pay their fair share” of taxes to help. He has proposed a tax increase on Americans making more than $400,000 a year, which would require congressional approval.

Antos says he expects Biden’s proposed COVID-19 action plan to be virtually the same as Trump’s in two areas: efforts to develop a vaccine and antiviral treatments.

The administration has spent some $225 million on COVID-19 testing efforts, with a particular focus on rural areas.

Trump launched Operation Warp Speed to fast-track a vaccine. As part of that, the federal government has contracted with six drug companies, spending nearly $11 billion. The operation aims to provide at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine by January 2021.

Antos would like to see “a more sophisticated approach to social distancing” from the president-elect that takes into account the different challenges facing Americans depending on their income, work situation, and other factors during the pandemic.

“There are a lot of people in this country where working from home is fine and their jobs are secure,” he notes. “It’s the person who used to work at a restaurant that closed, it’s the line worker at a factory that has severely cut back its hours. It’s basically lower-middle-class people, low-income people, middle-class people, and it’s not the elite.

“And the policies have not given enough consideration to the fact that their circumstances and their tradeoffs would differ from the tradeoffs of somebody who doesn’t have anything to worry about economically.

“So, what we need is a more supple policy [that] will give people the information they need and give them the financial support that they also need … so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families. And we basically haven’t done that.”

Obamacare on the blocks?

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up another case seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act could hand Biden’s health agenda a major setback -- and put the medical care for millions of Americans in jeopardy.

On Nov. 10, the high court will hear oral arguments on a lawsuit that would strike down all of Obamacare. A decision is not expected until next year.

The court has previously upheld the 2010 law, which Biden helped usher through Congress as vice president. But the addition of right-leaning Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the bench last month gives the court a clear conservative majority that could mean the end of Obamacare, legal experts say.

Republicans have opposed the law since its passage, but they have been unable to muster the votes to repeal it, or to pass an alternative

Antos, from the American Enterprise Institute, notes conservatives believe the law has increased costs for health care and insurance over the past decade, in part because of its protections for Americans with preexisting conditions and requiring insurers to provide comprehensive “gold-plated” policies.

“It’s driven up costs, offers plans that are not very strong, put high-risk folks into the same [insurance pool], which has increased costs for everyone, the employer mandate … these are all the reasons,” he says.

The Supreme Court isn’t expected to deliver a decision on the Affordable Care Act before the middle of next year. But the uncertainty will likely push back Biden’s proposals to expand on the law.

• As many as 133 million Americans -- roughly half the U.S. population -- with preexisting conditions could find it harder, if not impossible, to find affordable health insurance. That figure does not include Americans infected with COVID-19.
• About 165 million who require expensive treatments -- for cancer and other conditions -- would no longer be protected from huge costs for care by federal caps on out-of-pocket expenditures the Affordable Care Act requires.
• An estimated 21 million who now buy insurance through the Obamacare Marketplaces could lose their coverage.
• Another 12 million on Medicaid could find themselves without insurance.
• At least 2 million young adults ages 26 and under, now on their parents’ health policies, could be kicked off.
• Millions of people who use Medicare could face higher costs.
• Federal subsidies for lower-income Americans to buy policies would disappear.

Throughout the campaign, Biden repeatedly stressed the need to preserve the law’s provision barring insurance companies from refusing coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. It also outlaws charging higher premiums on the basis of health status, age, or gender.

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

He has proposed a variety of add-ons to the Affordable Care Act he says will “insure more than an estimated 97% of Americans,” according to the Biden campaign site.

Biden’s proposals include offering larger federal subsidies to help low- and middle-income Americans pay for policies purchased through Obamacare insurance Marketplaces.

The boldest of Biden’s proposals is the creation of a “public option” for insurance -- a Medicare-like program that small businesses and individuals could choose if they do not have coverage, cannot afford it, or don’t like their employer-based coverage.

It would also automatically enroll millions of uninsured Americans living in the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid, which covers low-income people.

But such a plan would require congressional approval -- including a “super majority” of 60 Senate votes to block a likely GOP filibuster. That will be a significant challenge Biden will have to overcome, with Congress so evenly divided.

The White House would also have to defeat heavy lobbying from some of the most influential industry interest groups in Washington, Corlette says.

“I’m not even confident they would get all the Democrat votes,” she says.

“So, it’s a going to be an uphill battle to get a public option passed.”

Taken together, Biden’s plans for expanding Obamacare are projected to cost $750 billion over 10 years. He has said much of that financing would come from increasing taxes on the wealthy.

That means it would likely require congressional approval, which Antos suggests is unlikely given the polarization on Capitol Hill.

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

Biden has called for a host of reforms targeting Medicare, Medicaid, and rising drug costs.

On Medicare, which primarily covers seniors 65 and older, Biden has proposed lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 60. That could extend Medicare to up to 20 million more Americans.

On Medicaid, the health care safety net for low-income and disabled Americans, the president-elect supports increased federal funding to states during the current economic crisis, and potentially beyond.

Medicare is likely to become a key focus of the new administration, in light of the pressures the pandemic is placing on Medicare funding.

In April, Medicare’s trustees said that the Part A trust fund for the program, which pays for hospital and inpatient care, could start to run dry in 2026.

But those projections did not include the impact of COVID-19. Some economists have since projected that Medicare Part A could become insolvent as early as 2022.

Medicare Part B, which pays for doctor and outpatient costs, is funded by general tax funding and beneficiary insurance premiums, so it is not in danger of drying up.

Adding to those pressures is an executive order Trump signed in August temporarily deferring payroll taxes, a primary funding vehicle for Medicare and Social Security.

Under these taxes, employees pay 6.2% of their earnings (on annual income up to $137,700) toward Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare taxes each pay period. Employers pay the same rate per paycheck, adding up to a combined 12.4% Social Security tax and 2.9% Medicare tax.

Biden has said he would reverse the tax cut when he takes office.

But to get a handle on Medicare and Medicaid funding issues, he is likely to need congressional support. Corlette and other experts say that could be a challenge while the nation remains in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition to his Medicare and Medicaid reforms, Biden has proposed several plans to lower drug prices, a subset of rising health care and insurance costs.

U.S. spending on prescription drugs has increased nearly 42% over the past decade -- from $253.1 billion in 2010 to $358.7 billion in 2020 (projected) -- according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In 2020, retail prices for 460 commonly prescribed drugs have spiked an average of 5.2%, according to new analysis by 3 Axis Advisors, a health research firm.

That’s more than double the projected rate of inflation.

To control drug costs, Biden supports legislation approved by the Democratic-led House of Representatives last year that would empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices with drug companies, as private insurers do.

Federal law now bars Medicare from negotiating prices on behalf of the 67.7 million Americans who use it. Drug companies and many GOP leaders argue that the current law is necessary to allow them to spend more on research and development of new medications.

In addition, Biden supports the idea of lifting bans on importing drugs from foreign countries with lower costs.

He also backs creating an independent review board to set price caps for new medications with no competitors; making high-quality generics more available; ending tax breaks for drug company advertising; and limiting their leeway in raising prices.

All of these proposals would likely require congressional approval and could face legal challenges in the courts.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Black patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are known to have significantly elevated risk for stroke and ischemic heart disease (IHD), compared with non-Black patients with SLE.

Now a team of investigators has identified SLE-specific predictors for major cardiovascular complications in Black patients, pointing to potential prevention strategies in this high-risk population.

Among Black patients in a study of 336 patients with incident SLE, discoid rash at the time of SLE diagnosis predicted a fivefold higher risk for stroke, and renal disorder at the time of diagnosis was associated with a twofold higher risk, compared with non-Black patients, but neither of these symptoms predicted elevated risk of IHD.

In contrast, neurologic disorders, including prior psychosis or seizure, were associated with a fourfold higher risk for IHD, and immunologic disorders including anti-DNA, anti-Smith, or antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with a nearly fivefold greater risk for IHD in Black patients, but neither of these comorbidities predicted strokes, reported Shivani Garg, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

“Our study was one of the first to highlight racial disparities in CVD subtypes, with a threefold higher stroke risk and 24-fold higher ischemic heart disease risk in Black patients with lupus. Compared to previous studies in Black populations, our study highlights different peak timing of early stroke and ischemic heart disease in our cohort,“ she said at a plenary session during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The study is one of the first to identify specific and unique SLE disease-related predictors of stroke and ischemic heart disease, she said.

Georgia Lupus Registry data

Dr. Garg and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin and Emory University in Atlanta drew on data from the Georgia Lupus Registry, a population-based registry of SLE patients from the Atlanta area. They identified patients diagnosed from 2002 through 2004 who had four or more ACR criteria for SLE, or three or more criteria plus a final diagnosis of SLE made by their board-certified rheumatologists.

The patients were matched to the Georgia Hospital Discharge Database and National Death Index from 2000 through 2013, with stroke- and IHD-related hospitalizations and deaths classified by the first three admission codes or cause-of-death codes.

Patients with transient ischemic attacks were included in the stroke category, and those with myocardial infarction and angina were included in the IHD category.

They identified 336 patients, 87% of whom were female, and 75% of whom were Black. The mean age at SLE diagnosis was 40 years. Among this cohort, there were 38 stroke-related events or deaths and 25 IHD-related events or deaths recorded from the period 2 years before through 14 years after an SLE diagnosis.
 

Early stroke, late IHD

The investigators first looked at the timing of stroke vs. IHD and found that a disproportionately high percentage of stroke events occurred in the second year after SLE diagnosis, whereas the peak of IHD-related events occurred in the 14^th year after diagnosis.

They then performed a race-stratified Cox proportional hazard analysis, and found a threefold higher risk for stroke in Black patients versus non-Black patients (P = .007) and a 24-fold higher risk for IHD (P < .0001).

In multivariate analysis, significant predictors of stroke were Black race with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.4 (P = .028), discoid rash (HR, 4.6; P = .0028), and renal disorder (HR, 2.4; P = .04). However, stroke was not predicted by age, sex, immunologic disorder, serositis, hematologic disorder, or ACR criteria total greater than four.

Significant predictors of IHD included age 65 and older (HR, 61; P = .0007), Black race (HR, 24; P = .004), neurologic disorder (HR, 4.0; P = .018), and immunologic disorder (HR, 4.7; P = .02). But IHD could not be predicted by oral ulcers, discoid rash, or ACR criteria more than four.

“In future studies, we will examine mechanisms that drive the different timing and predictors of CVD subtypes and disparities. We will also examine the impact of timely prevention in high-risk SLE subsets,” Dr. Garg said.
 

Managing CVD risk

Angus Worthing, MD, from Arthritis & Rheumatism Associates in Chevy Chase, Md., and Washington, D.C., who moderated a press briefing where Dr. Garg discussed her data, routinely treats patients of different racial backgrounds with lupus. When asked how he manages patients with SLE and suspected cardiovascular complications, Dr. Worthing said, “I tend to, in my practice – and these kinds of studies may change what I do – watch for symptoms that might reflect coronary artery disease or cerebrovascular disease, potentially looking at the smaller arteries in the hands and feet as clues, and I will refer promptly to a vascular surgery expert or cardiologist for screening,” he said.

Dr. Garg added that in her practice, she and colleagues treat high-risk subsets of patients, such as those with lupus nephritis or multiple comorbidities, with aggressive blood pressure control and monitoring, as well as smoking cessation recommendations and lipid monitoring. They also try to limit or, if possible, decrease steroid doses to reduce risk for cardiovascular side effects.

Support for the study came in part from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Garg and Dr. Worthing reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Garg S et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 433 .

Black patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are known to have significantly elevated risk for stroke and ischemic heart disease (IHD), compared with non-Black patients with SLE.

Now a team of investigators has identified SLE-specific predictors for major cardiovascular complications in Black patients, pointing to potential prevention strategies in this high-risk population.

Among Black patients in a study of 336 patients with incident SLE, discoid rash at the time of SLE diagnosis predicted a fivefold higher risk for stroke, and renal disorder at the time of diagnosis was associated with a twofold higher risk, compared with non-Black patients, but neither of these symptoms predicted elevated risk of IHD.

In contrast, neurologic disorders, including prior psychosis or seizure, were associated with a fourfold higher risk for IHD, and immunologic disorders including anti-DNA, anti-Smith, or antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with a nearly fivefold greater risk for IHD in Black patients, but neither of these comorbidities predicted strokes, reported Shivani Garg, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

“Our study was one of the first to highlight racial disparities in CVD subtypes, with a threefold higher stroke risk and 24-fold higher ischemic heart disease risk in Black patients with lupus. Compared to previous studies in Black populations, our study highlights different peak timing of early stroke and ischemic heart disease in our cohort,“ she said at a plenary session during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The study is one of the first to identify specific and unique SLE disease-related predictors of stroke and ischemic heart disease, she said.

Georgia Lupus Registry data

Dr. Garg and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin and Emory University in Atlanta drew on data from the Georgia Lupus Registry, a population-based registry of SLE patients from the Atlanta area. They identified patients diagnosed from 2002 through 2004 who had four or more ACR criteria for SLE, or three or more criteria plus a final diagnosis of SLE made by their board-certified rheumatologists.

The patients were matched to the Georgia Hospital Discharge Database and National Death Index from 2000 through 2013, with stroke- and IHD-related hospitalizations and deaths classified by the first three admission codes or cause-of-death codes.

Patients with transient ischemic attacks were included in the stroke category, and those with myocardial infarction and angina were included in the IHD category.

They identified 336 patients, 87% of whom were female, and 75% of whom were Black. The mean age at SLE diagnosis was 40 years. Among this cohort, there were 38 stroke-related events or deaths and 25 IHD-related events or deaths recorded from the period 2 years before through 14 years after an SLE diagnosis.
 

Early stroke, late IHD

The investigators first looked at the timing of stroke vs. IHD and found that a disproportionately high percentage of stroke events occurred in the second year after SLE diagnosis, whereas the peak of IHD-related events occurred in the 14^th year after diagnosis.

They then performed a race-stratified Cox proportional hazard analysis, and found a threefold higher risk for stroke in Black patients versus non-Black patients (P = .007) and a 24-fold higher risk for IHD (P < .0001).

In multivariate analysis, significant predictors of stroke were Black race with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.4 (P = .028), discoid rash (HR, 4.6; P = .0028), and renal disorder (HR, 2.4; P = .04). However, stroke was not predicted by age, sex, immunologic disorder, serositis, hematologic disorder, or ACR criteria total greater than four.

Significant predictors of IHD included age 65 and older (HR, 61; P = .0007), Black race (HR, 24; P = .004), neurologic disorder (HR, 4.0; P = .018), and immunologic disorder (HR, 4.7; P = .02). But IHD could not be predicted by oral ulcers, discoid rash, or ACR criteria more than four.

“In future studies, we will examine mechanisms that drive the different timing and predictors of CVD subtypes and disparities. We will also examine the impact of timely prevention in high-risk SLE subsets,” Dr. Garg said.
 

Managing CVD risk

Angus Worthing, MD, from Arthritis & Rheumatism Associates in Chevy Chase, Md., and Washington, D.C., who moderated a press briefing where Dr. Garg discussed her data, routinely treats patients of different racial backgrounds with lupus. When asked how he manages patients with SLE and suspected cardiovascular complications, Dr. Worthing said, “I tend to, in my practice – and these kinds of studies may change what I do – watch for symptoms that might reflect coronary artery disease or cerebrovascular disease, potentially looking at the smaller arteries in the hands and feet as clues, and I will refer promptly to a vascular surgery expert or cardiologist for screening,” he said.

Dr. Garg added that in her practice, she and colleagues treat high-risk subsets of patients, such as those with lupus nephritis or multiple comorbidities, with aggressive blood pressure control and monitoring, as well as smoking cessation recommendations and lipid monitoring. They also try to limit or, if possible, decrease steroid doses to reduce risk for cardiovascular side effects.

Support for the study came in part from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Garg and Dr. Worthing reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Garg S et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 433 .

Black patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are known to have significantly elevated risk for stroke and ischemic heart disease (IHD), compared with non-Black patients with SLE.

Now a team of investigators has identified SLE-specific predictors for major cardiovascular complications in Black patients, pointing to potential prevention strategies in this high-risk population.

Among Black patients in a study of 336 patients with incident SLE, discoid rash at the time of SLE diagnosis predicted a fivefold higher risk for stroke, and renal disorder at the time of diagnosis was associated with a twofold higher risk, compared with non-Black patients, but neither of these symptoms predicted elevated risk of IHD.

In contrast, neurologic disorders, including prior psychosis or seizure, were associated with a fourfold higher risk for IHD, and immunologic disorders including anti-DNA, anti-Smith, or antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with a nearly fivefold greater risk for IHD in Black patients, but neither of these comorbidities predicted strokes, reported Shivani Garg, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

“Our study was one of the first to highlight racial disparities in CVD subtypes, with a threefold higher stroke risk and 24-fold higher ischemic heart disease risk in Black patients with lupus. Compared to previous studies in Black populations, our study highlights different peak timing of early stroke and ischemic heart disease in our cohort,“ she said at a plenary session during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The study is one of the first to identify specific and unique SLE disease-related predictors of stroke and ischemic heart disease, she said.

Georgia Lupus Registry data

Dr. Garg and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin and Emory University in Atlanta drew on data from the Georgia Lupus Registry, a population-based registry of SLE patients from the Atlanta area. They identified patients diagnosed from 2002 through 2004 who had four or more ACR criteria for SLE, or three or more criteria plus a final diagnosis of SLE made by their board-certified rheumatologists.

The patients were matched to the Georgia Hospital Discharge Database and National Death Index from 2000 through 2013, with stroke- and IHD-related hospitalizations and deaths classified by the first three admission codes or cause-of-death codes.

Patients with transient ischemic attacks were included in the stroke category, and those with myocardial infarction and angina were included in the IHD category.

They identified 336 patients, 87% of whom were female, and 75% of whom were Black. The mean age at SLE diagnosis was 40 years. Among this cohort, there were 38 stroke-related events or deaths and 25 IHD-related events or deaths recorded from the period 2 years before through 14 years after an SLE diagnosis.
 

Early stroke, late IHD

The investigators first looked at the timing of stroke vs. IHD and found that a disproportionately high percentage of stroke events occurred in the second year after SLE diagnosis, whereas the peak of IHD-related events occurred in the 14^th year after diagnosis.

They then performed a race-stratified Cox proportional hazard analysis, and found a threefold higher risk for stroke in Black patients versus non-Black patients (P = .007) and a 24-fold higher risk for IHD (P < .0001).

In multivariate analysis, significant predictors of stroke were Black race with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.4 (P = .028), discoid rash (HR, 4.6; P = .0028), and renal disorder (HR, 2.4; P = .04). However, stroke was not predicted by age, sex, immunologic disorder, serositis, hematologic disorder, or ACR criteria total greater than four.

Significant predictors of IHD included age 65 and older (HR, 61; P = .0007), Black race (HR, 24; P = .004), neurologic disorder (HR, 4.0; P = .018), and immunologic disorder (HR, 4.7; P = .02). But IHD could not be predicted by oral ulcers, discoid rash, or ACR criteria more than four.

“In future studies, we will examine mechanisms that drive the different timing and predictors of CVD subtypes and disparities. We will also examine the impact of timely prevention in high-risk SLE subsets,” Dr. Garg said.
 

Managing CVD risk

Angus Worthing, MD, from Arthritis & Rheumatism Associates in Chevy Chase, Md., and Washington, D.C., who moderated a press briefing where Dr. Garg discussed her data, routinely treats patients of different racial backgrounds with lupus. When asked how he manages patients with SLE and suspected cardiovascular complications, Dr. Worthing said, “I tend to, in my practice – and these kinds of studies may change what I do – watch for symptoms that might reflect coronary artery disease or cerebrovascular disease, potentially looking at the smaller arteries in the hands and feet as clues, and I will refer promptly to a vascular surgery expert or cardiologist for screening,” he said.

Dr. Garg added that in her practice, she and colleagues treat high-risk subsets of patients, such as those with lupus nephritis or multiple comorbidities, with aggressive blood pressure control and monitoring, as well as smoking cessation recommendations and lipid monitoring. They also try to limit or, if possible, decrease steroid doses to reduce risk for cardiovascular side effects.

Support for the study came in part from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Garg and Dr. Worthing reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Garg S et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 433 .

Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who received transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) had a clinically significant reduction in musculoskeletal pain when compared with those who received sham stimulation during a brief pilot trial.

“Our study population included individuals with significant pain and exemplifies the unmet need for adequate control of pain and fatigue in SLE. Importantly, this was a double-blind, sham-controlled study and neither the subject nor assessor was aware of a subject’s intervention. Objective outcomes, that is, tender and swollen joint counts, were also significantly reduced in subjects receiving taVNS, compared with those receiving [sham stimulation]. The stimulation was well tolerated with no adverse events attributed to the intervention, and, clinical benefits continued after taVNS was stopped,” first author Cynthia Aranow, MD, and her colleagues at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., wrote in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Stimulation of the vagus nerve can be achieved through the ear via its auricular branch, which innervates the cymba concha in the outer ear. Past pilot studies of implanted VNS devices lasting 6 weeks to 6 months in patients with Crohn’s disease or rheumatoid arthritis have shown improvements in measures of disease activity as well as objective markers of inflammation, and a more recent trial testing a transcutaneous devices’s effect in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome found significant reductions in fatigue over a 26-day period, the investigators noted.

In the taVNS device study, the researchers recruited 18 patients with SLE who had musculoskeletal pain rated as 4 or higher on a 10-cm visual analog scale and randomized them in a 2:1 ratio to receive taVNS once per day for 5 minutes for 4 consecutive days versus sham stimulation. Patients were allowed to be on stable doses of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, and/or prednisone ≤ 10 mg/day, with no change of dose within 28 days prior to baseline. The study excluded patients who used tobacco or an anticholinergic medication and those with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia.

The 12 patients who received actual taVNS had a significantly greater reduction in their pain, compared with 6 sham-treated patients (–5.00 vs. 0.10; P = .049), with 10 of 12 and 1 of 6 having a clinical response (a reduction of at least 1.58 on a 10-cm visual analog scale from baseline to day 5). Stimulation-treated patients also reported significantly greater reductions in fatigue, with 10 of 12 achieving a meaningful reduction, defined as a 4-point improvement on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Subscale; none of the sham-treated patients experienced meaningful improvement of fatigue. The patients who received taVNS had resolution of all swollen and tender joints, compared with 5.3% of tender and 9.1% of swollen joints in sham-treated patients. Ex vivo lipopolysaccharide stimulation of whole-blood samples from taVNS-treated patients, however, showed no reductions of inflammatory mediators or chemokines in tests on day 5 and day 12.

The investigators reported that there were no adverse events attributed to taVNS, including no reports of headache, lightheadedness, tinnitus, ear irritation, or changes to the external skin of the outer ear.

The study was supported by a grant from the John and Marcia Goldman Foundation. One author reported a financial relationship with Set Point Medical and My String, and three authors reported having a provisional patent application titled “Auricular stimulation device, system and methods of use.”

jevans@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Aranow C et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Nov 3. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217872.

Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who received transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) had a clinically significant reduction in musculoskeletal pain when compared with those who received sham stimulation during a brief pilot trial.

“Our study population included individuals with significant pain and exemplifies the unmet need for adequate control of pain and fatigue in SLE. Importantly, this was a double-blind, sham-controlled study and neither the subject nor assessor was aware of a subject’s intervention. Objective outcomes, that is, tender and swollen joint counts, were also significantly reduced in subjects receiving taVNS, compared with those receiving [sham stimulation]. The stimulation was well tolerated with no adverse events attributed to the intervention, and, clinical benefits continued after taVNS was stopped,” first author Cynthia Aranow, MD, and her colleagues at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., wrote in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Stimulation of the vagus nerve can be achieved through the ear via its auricular branch, which innervates the cymba concha in the outer ear. Past pilot studies of implanted VNS devices lasting 6 weeks to 6 months in patients with Crohn’s disease or rheumatoid arthritis have shown improvements in measures of disease activity as well as objective markers of inflammation, and a more recent trial testing a transcutaneous devices’s effect in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome found significant reductions in fatigue over a 26-day period, the investigators noted.

In the taVNS device study, the researchers recruited 18 patients with SLE who had musculoskeletal pain rated as 4 or higher on a 10-cm visual analog scale and randomized them in a 2:1 ratio to receive taVNS once per day for 5 minutes for 4 consecutive days versus sham stimulation. Patients were allowed to be on stable doses of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, and/or prednisone ≤ 10 mg/day, with no change of dose within 28 days prior to baseline. The study excluded patients who used tobacco or an anticholinergic medication and those with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia.

The 12 patients who received actual taVNS had a significantly greater reduction in their pain, compared with 6 sham-treated patients (–5.00 vs. 0.10; P = .049), with 10 of 12 and 1 of 6 having a clinical response (a reduction of at least 1.58 on a 10-cm visual analog scale from baseline to day 5). Stimulation-treated patients also reported significantly greater reductions in fatigue, with 10 of 12 achieving a meaningful reduction, defined as a 4-point improvement on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Subscale; none of the sham-treated patients experienced meaningful improvement of fatigue. The patients who received taVNS had resolution of all swollen and tender joints, compared with 5.3% of tender and 9.1% of swollen joints in sham-treated patients. Ex vivo lipopolysaccharide stimulation of whole-blood samples from taVNS-treated patients, however, showed no reductions of inflammatory mediators or chemokines in tests on day 5 and day 12.

The investigators reported that there were no adverse events attributed to taVNS, including no reports of headache, lightheadedness, tinnitus, ear irritation, or changes to the external skin of the outer ear.

The study was supported by a grant from the John and Marcia Goldman Foundation. One author reported a financial relationship with Set Point Medical and My String, and three authors reported having a provisional patent application titled “Auricular stimulation device, system and methods of use.”

jevans@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Aranow C et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Nov 3. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217872.

Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who received transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) had a clinically significant reduction in musculoskeletal pain when compared with those who received sham stimulation during a brief pilot trial.

“Our study population included individuals with significant pain and exemplifies the unmet need for adequate control of pain and fatigue in SLE. Importantly, this was a double-blind, sham-controlled study and neither the subject nor assessor was aware of a subject’s intervention. Objective outcomes, that is, tender and swollen joint counts, were also significantly reduced in subjects receiving taVNS, compared with those receiving [sham stimulation]. The stimulation was well tolerated with no adverse events attributed to the intervention, and, clinical benefits continued after taVNS was stopped,” first author Cynthia Aranow, MD, and her colleagues at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., wrote in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Stimulation of the vagus nerve can be achieved through the ear via its auricular branch, which innervates the cymba concha in the outer ear. Past pilot studies of implanted VNS devices lasting 6 weeks to 6 months in patients with Crohn’s disease or rheumatoid arthritis have shown improvements in measures of disease activity as well as objective markers of inflammation, and a more recent trial testing a transcutaneous devices’s effect in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome found significant reductions in fatigue over a 26-day period, the investigators noted.

In the taVNS device study, the researchers recruited 18 patients with SLE who had musculoskeletal pain rated as 4 or higher on a 10-cm visual analog scale and randomized them in a 2:1 ratio to receive taVNS once per day for 5 minutes for 4 consecutive days versus sham stimulation. Patients were allowed to be on stable doses of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, and/or prednisone ≤ 10 mg/day, with no change of dose within 28 days prior to baseline. The study excluded patients who used tobacco or an anticholinergic medication and those with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia.

The 12 patients who received actual taVNS had a significantly greater reduction in their pain, compared with 6 sham-treated patients (–5.00 vs. 0.10; P = .049), with 10 of 12 and 1 of 6 having a clinical response (a reduction of at least 1.58 on a 10-cm visual analog scale from baseline to day 5). Stimulation-treated patients also reported significantly greater reductions in fatigue, with 10 of 12 achieving a meaningful reduction, defined as a 4-point improvement on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Subscale; none of the sham-treated patients experienced meaningful improvement of fatigue. The patients who received taVNS had resolution of all swollen and tender joints, compared with 5.3% of tender and 9.1% of swollen joints in sham-treated patients. Ex vivo lipopolysaccharide stimulation of whole-blood samples from taVNS-treated patients, however, showed no reductions of inflammatory mediators or chemokines in tests on day 5 and day 12.

The investigators reported that there were no adverse events attributed to taVNS, including no reports of headache, lightheadedness, tinnitus, ear irritation, or changes to the external skin of the outer ear.

The study was supported by a grant from the John and Marcia Goldman Foundation. One author reported a financial relationship with Set Point Medical and My String, and three authors reported having a provisional patent application titled “Auricular stimulation device, system and methods of use.”

jevans@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Aranow C et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Nov 3. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217872.

Medication adherence remains a truly challenging issue. For most chronic diseases, up to 20%-30% of the pills that are prescribed are not taken. In the case of inhalers for asthma and COPD, patients miss over half of the prescribed doses.

There are many things that contribute to the problem of poor adherence, but people often just simply forget. Thankfully, there are tools designed to help remind patients of what they need to take and when. A survey of apps developed to help patients remember to take their medicines found more than 700 available in Apple and Android app stores.¹ Most apps focus on medication alerts, reminders, and medication logs.² A recent review showed that apps have some – yet limited – effectiveness in increasing adherence, with patient self-reported improvements of 7%-40%.³

Another perhaps more promising area of improving adherence involves high-tech advances in the way medications can be taken. Inhalers are a primary target as they are complicated devices. A patient has to breathe in at the correct time after the inhaler is actuated, and the inhaler works optimally only if the rate of inhalation is sufficient to carry the medication into the lungs.

A number of companies have developed attachments for inhalers (and even inhalers themselves) that can record when the medication is taken through a Bluetooth connection to a patient’s smartphone. These can also assess inspiratory flow. Reminders to take the medication are built into the app, and those reminders disappear if the medication is taken. Patients can receive feedback about the quality of their timing and inspiratory rate to maximize medication delivery to the lungs.⁴

We learned long ago that it is difficult to take medications three to four times a day, so extended-release tablets were developed to reduce the frequency to once or twice a day. A great deal of work is now being done behind the scenes to develop medications that decrease the need for patients to remember to take their medications. The best examples of this are the long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices, specifically IUDs and Nexplanon. Compared with traditional oral contraceptives that need to be taken daily, LARCs reduce the rate of pregnancy by five- to tenfold.

We also now have medications for osteoporosis that can be taken monthly, or even annually. When bisphosphonates were first developed for osteoporosis prevention, they needed to be taken daily. Then a weekly bisphosphonate was developed. Now there is a once-monthly oral bisphosphonate, Ibandronate, and even a once yearly IV bisphosphonate.

Exciting developments have also occurred in the management of diabetes. We may be tempted to take for granted how once-daily long-acting insulin, which releases insulin slowly over the course of a day, has revolutionized the diabetic treatment since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2000. Yet progress did not end there. The first GLP-1 receptor agonist for diabetes was approved in 2005 and was a twice-a-day medicine. Shortly afterward, a daily GLP-1 was approved, and now there are three once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers are now working on a once-weekly insulin,⁵ as well as an implantable GLP-1 receptor agonist that will need to be replaced every 6-12 months.⁶ Imagine your patient coming in once a year to replace his or her potent glucose lowering medication – one that offers a low incidence of hypoglycemia, maintains glucose control all year long, and requires no adherence to a complicated medication regimen.

Similar technology is being used to develop a once-yearly anti-HIV prophylactic medication delivery system.⁷ This could help prevent the spread of HIV in areas of the world where it may be difficult for people to take daily medications.⁷

The many technological advances we have described may help us reduce our likelihood of missing a dose of a medication. We are hopeful that progress in this area will continue, and that one day medication adherence will require even less effort from patients than it does today.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Tabi K et al. Mobile apps for medication management: Review and analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Sep 7(9):13608.

2. Park JYE et al. Mobile phone apps targeting medication adherence: Quality assessment and content analysis of user reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 31;7(1):e11919.

3. Pérez-Jover V et al. Mobile apps for increasing treatment adherence: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(6):e12505. doi: 10.2196/12505.

4. 4 Smart inhalers that could be lifesaving for people living with asthma & COPD. MyTherapy, July 11, 2019.

5. Rosenstock J et al. Once-weekly insulin for type 2 diabetes without previous insulin treatment. N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022474.

6. GLP-1 agonists: From 2 daily injections to 1 per week and beyond. DiaTribe, Jan. 10, 2018.

7. Long-acting HIV prevention tools. Hiv.gov, July 20, 2019.

Medication adherence remains a truly challenging issue. For most chronic diseases, up to 20%-30% of the pills that are prescribed are not taken. In the case of inhalers for asthma and COPD, patients miss over half of the prescribed doses.

There are many things that contribute to the problem of poor adherence, but people often just simply forget. Thankfully, there are tools designed to help remind patients of what they need to take and when. A survey of apps developed to help patients remember to take their medicines found more than 700 available in Apple and Android app stores.¹ Most apps focus on medication alerts, reminders, and medication logs.² A recent review showed that apps have some – yet limited – effectiveness in increasing adherence, with patient self-reported improvements of 7%-40%.³

Another perhaps more promising area of improving adherence involves high-tech advances in the way medications can be taken. Inhalers are a primary target as they are complicated devices. A patient has to breathe in at the correct time after the inhaler is actuated, and the inhaler works optimally only if the rate of inhalation is sufficient to carry the medication into the lungs.

A number of companies have developed attachments for inhalers (and even inhalers themselves) that can record when the medication is taken through a Bluetooth connection to a patient’s smartphone. These can also assess inspiratory flow. Reminders to take the medication are built into the app, and those reminders disappear if the medication is taken. Patients can receive feedback about the quality of their timing and inspiratory rate to maximize medication delivery to the lungs.⁴

We learned long ago that it is difficult to take medications three to four times a day, so extended-release tablets were developed to reduce the frequency to once or twice a day. A great deal of work is now being done behind the scenes to develop medications that decrease the need for patients to remember to take their medications. The best examples of this are the long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices, specifically IUDs and Nexplanon. Compared with traditional oral contraceptives that need to be taken daily, LARCs reduce the rate of pregnancy by five- to tenfold.

We also now have medications for osteoporosis that can be taken monthly, or even annually. When bisphosphonates were first developed for osteoporosis prevention, they needed to be taken daily. Then a weekly bisphosphonate was developed. Now there is a once-monthly oral bisphosphonate, Ibandronate, and even a once yearly IV bisphosphonate.

Exciting developments have also occurred in the management of diabetes. We may be tempted to take for granted how once-daily long-acting insulin, which releases insulin slowly over the course of a day, has revolutionized the diabetic treatment since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2000. Yet progress did not end there. The first GLP-1 receptor agonist for diabetes was approved in 2005 and was a twice-a-day medicine. Shortly afterward, a daily GLP-1 was approved, and now there are three once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers are now working on a once-weekly insulin,⁵ as well as an implantable GLP-1 receptor agonist that will need to be replaced every 6-12 months.⁶ Imagine your patient coming in once a year to replace his or her potent glucose lowering medication – one that offers a low incidence of hypoglycemia, maintains glucose control all year long, and requires no adherence to a complicated medication regimen.

Similar technology is being used to develop a once-yearly anti-HIV prophylactic medication delivery system.⁷ This could help prevent the spread of HIV in areas of the world where it may be difficult for people to take daily medications.⁷

The many technological advances we have described may help us reduce our likelihood of missing a dose of a medication. We are hopeful that progress in this area will continue, and that one day medication adherence will require even less effort from patients than it does today.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Tabi K et al. Mobile apps for medication management: Review and analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Sep 7(9):13608.

2. Park JYE et al. Mobile phone apps targeting medication adherence: Quality assessment and content analysis of user reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 31;7(1):e11919.

3. Pérez-Jover V et al. Mobile apps for increasing treatment adherence: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(6):e12505. doi: 10.2196/12505.

4. 4 Smart inhalers that could be lifesaving for people living with asthma & COPD. MyTherapy, July 11, 2019.

5. Rosenstock J et al. Once-weekly insulin for type 2 diabetes without previous insulin treatment. N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022474.

6. GLP-1 agonists: From 2 daily injections to 1 per week and beyond. DiaTribe, Jan. 10, 2018.

7. Long-acting HIV prevention tools. Hiv.gov, July 20, 2019.

Medication adherence remains a truly challenging issue. For most chronic diseases, up to 20%-30% of the pills that are prescribed are not taken. In the case of inhalers for asthma and COPD, patients miss over half of the prescribed doses.

There are many things that contribute to the problem of poor adherence, but people often just simply forget. Thankfully, there are tools designed to help remind patients of what they need to take and when. A survey of apps developed to help patients remember to take their medicines found more than 700 available in Apple and Android app stores.¹ Most apps focus on medication alerts, reminders, and medication logs.² A recent review showed that apps have some – yet limited – effectiveness in increasing adherence, with patient self-reported improvements of 7%-40%.³

Another perhaps more promising area of improving adherence involves high-tech advances in the way medications can be taken. Inhalers are a primary target as they are complicated devices. A patient has to breathe in at the correct time after the inhaler is actuated, and the inhaler works optimally only if the rate of inhalation is sufficient to carry the medication into the lungs.

A number of companies have developed attachments for inhalers (and even inhalers themselves) that can record when the medication is taken through a Bluetooth connection to a patient’s smartphone. These can also assess inspiratory flow. Reminders to take the medication are built into the app, and those reminders disappear if the medication is taken. Patients can receive feedback about the quality of their timing and inspiratory rate to maximize medication delivery to the lungs.⁴

We learned long ago that it is difficult to take medications three to four times a day, so extended-release tablets were developed to reduce the frequency to once or twice a day. A great deal of work is now being done behind the scenes to develop medications that decrease the need for patients to remember to take their medications. The best examples of this are the long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices, specifically IUDs and Nexplanon. Compared with traditional oral contraceptives that need to be taken daily, LARCs reduce the rate of pregnancy by five- to tenfold.

We also now have medications for osteoporosis that can be taken monthly, or even annually. When bisphosphonates were first developed for osteoporosis prevention, they needed to be taken daily. Then a weekly bisphosphonate was developed. Now there is a once-monthly oral bisphosphonate, Ibandronate, and even a once yearly IV bisphosphonate.

Exciting developments have also occurred in the management of diabetes. We may be tempted to take for granted how once-daily long-acting insulin, which releases insulin slowly over the course of a day, has revolutionized the diabetic treatment since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2000. Yet progress did not end there. The first GLP-1 receptor agonist for diabetes was approved in 2005 and was a twice-a-day medicine. Shortly afterward, a daily GLP-1 was approved, and now there are three once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers are now working on a once-weekly insulin,⁵ as well as an implantable GLP-1 receptor agonist that will need to be replaced every 6-12 months.⁶ Imagine your patient coming in once a year to replace his or her potent glucose lowering medication – one that offers a low incidence of hypoglycemia, maintains glucose control all year long, and requires no adherence to a complicated medication regimen.

Similar technology is being used to develop a once-yearly anti-HIV prophylactic medication delivery system.⁷ This could help prevent the spread of HIV in areas of the world where it may be difficult for people to take daily medications.⁷

The many technological advances we have described may help us reduce our likelihood of missing a dose of a medication. We are hopeful that progress in this area will continue, and that one day medication adherence will require even less effort from patients than it does today.