Rheumatology News

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the interleukin-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in pediatric patients aged 6 years and older who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. The expanded indication marks the first time the drug has been available for a pediatric population in the United States.

Children with plaque psoriasis are often undertreated because of fear of side effects of therapies, according to Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. “Now, more and more medicines are being tested for safety and efficacy in children, and we no longer have to rely on adult studies to inform treatment choices for children,” Dr. Cordoro told this news organization.

The FDA approval of secukinumab for children aged 6 and older with moderate to severe psoriasis “is a welcome addition to the therapeutic toolbox for pediatric psoriasis,” she said. “We’ve entered an era where severe pediatric psoriasis has become a condition that can be adequately controlled with minimal risk and with the convenience of intermittent injections. This has changed the playing field for these children and their families completely. Given the potential short- and long-term negative impact of chronic inflammation on the body of a growing child, we now have approved treatments that can safely offset the risks of undertreated severe psoriasis on the functional and psychological health of the child.”

The approved pediatric dosing for secukinumab is 75 mg or 150 mg depending on the child’s weight at the time of dosing, and it is administered by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks after an initial loading regimen. According to a press release from Novartis, the FDA approval came on the heels of two phase 3 studies that evaluated the use of secukinumab in children aged 6 to younger than 18 years with plaque psoriasis. The first was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled study which included 162 children 6 years of age and older with severe plaque psoriasis. The doses evaluated were 75 mg for children who weighed less than 50 kg and 150 mg for those 50 kg or greater.

At week 12, the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI)-75 response was 55% among children in the 75-mg dosing group vs. 10% in the placebo group and 86% in the 150-mg dosing group vs. 19% in the placebo group.

Meanwhile, the Investigator’s Global Assessment modified 2011 (IGA) “clear” response was achieved in 32% of children in the 75-mg dosing group vs. 5% in the placebo group and in 81% of children in the 150-mg dosing group vs. 5% in the placebo group. An IGA “almost clear” skin response was achieved in 81% of children in the 75-mg dosing group vs. 5% in the placebo group.

The second phase 3 study was a randomized open-label, 208-week trial of 84 subjects 6 years of age and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. According to the Novartis press release, the safety profile reported in both trials was consistent with the safety profile reported in adult plaque psoriasis trials and no new safety signals were observed. The updated prescribing information for secukinumab can be found here.

“When considering treatment with a systemic agent such as a biologic, it is important to consider objective measures of severity, such as extent of disease and involvement of joints but also subjective indicators of severity such as impact beyond the skin on psychological well-being,” Dr. Cordoro said in the interview. “Kids with psoriasis in visible locations may socially isolate themselves due to embarrassment or bullying. Therefore, the impact of moderate to severe psoriasis not only on overall health but on self-esteem and identity formation can be significant, and therefore adequately treating children of all ages to prevent the downstream negative consequences of childhood psoriasis is critical.”

Dr. Cordoro reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the interleukin-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in pediatric patients aged 6 years and older who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. The expanded indication marks the first time the drug has been available for a pediatric population in the United States.

Children with plaque psoriasis are often undertreated because of fear of side effects of therapies, according to Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. “Now, more and more medicines are being tested for safety and efficacy in children, and we no longer have to rely on adult studies to inform treatment choices for children,” Dr. Cordoro told this news organization.

The FDA approval of secukinumab for children aged 6 and older with moderate to severe psoriasis “is a welcome addition to the therapeutic toolbox for pediatric psoriasis,” she said. “We’ve entered an era where severe pediatric psoriasis has become a condition that can be adequately controlled with minimal risk and with the convenience of intermittent injections. This has changed the playing field for these children and their families completely. Given the potential short- and long-term negative impact of chronic inflammation on the body of a growing child, we now have approved treatments that can safely offset the risks of undertreated severe psoriasis on the functional and psychological health of the child.”

The approved pediatric dosing for secukinumab is 75 mg or 150 mg depending on the child’s weight at the time of dosing, and it is administered by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks after an initial loading regimen. According to a press release from Novartis, the FDA approval came on the heels of two phase 3 studies that evaluated the use of secukinumab in children aged 6 to younger than 18 years with plaque psoriasis. The first was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled study which included 162 children 6 years of age and older with severe plaque psoriasis. The doses evaluated were 75 mg for children who weighed less than 50 kg and 150 mg for those 50 kg or greater.

At week 12, the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI)-75 response was 55% among children in the 75-mg dosing group vs. 10% in the placebo group and 86% in the 150-mg dosing group vs. 19% in the placebo group.

Meanwhile, the Investigator’s Global Assessment modified 2011 (IGA) “clear” response was achieved in 32% of children in the 75-mg dosing group vs. 5% in the placebo group and in 81% of children in the 150-mg dosing group vs. 5% in the placebo group. An IGA “almost clear” skin response was achieved in 81% of children in the 75-mg dosing group vs. 5% in the placebo group.

The second phase 3 study was a randomized open-label, 208-week trial of 84 subjects 6 years of age and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. According to the Novartis press release, the safety profile reported in both trials was consistent with the safety profile reported in adult plaque psoriasis trials and no new safety signals were observed. The updated prescribing information for secukinumab can be found here.

“When considering treatment with a systemic agent such as a biologic, it is important to consider objective measures of severity, such as extent of disease and involvement of joints but also subjective indicators of severity such as impact beyond the skin on psychological well-being,” Dr. Cordoro said in the interview. “Kids with psoriasis in visible locations may socially isolate themselves due to embarrassment or bullying. Therefore, the impact of moderate to severe psoriasis not only on overall health but on self-esteem and identity formation can be significant, and therefore adequately treating children of all ages to prevent the downstream negative consequences of childhood psoriasis is critical.”

Dr. Cordoro reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the interleukin-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in pediatric patients aged 6 years and older who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. The expanded indication marks the first time the drug has been available for a pediatric population in the United States.

Children with plaque psoriasis are often undertreated because of fear of side effects of therapies, according to Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. “Now, more and more medicines are being tested for safety and efficacy in children, and we no longer have to rely on adult studies to inform treatment choices for children,” Dr. Cordoro told this news organization.

The FDA approval of secukinumab for children aged 6 and older with moderate to severe psoriasis “is a welcome addition to the therapeutic toolbox for pediatric psoriasis,” she said. “We’ve entered an era where severe pediatric psoriasis has become a condition that can be adequately controlled with minimal risk and with the convenience of intermittent injections. This has changed the playing field for these children and their families completely. Given the potential short- and long-term negative impact of chronic inflammation on the body of a growing child, we now have approved treatments that can safely offset the risks of undertreated severe psoriasis on the functional and psychological health of the child.”

The approved pediatric dosing for secukinumab is 75 mg or 150 mg depending on the child’s weight at the time of dosing, and it is administered by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks after an initial loading regimen. According to a press release from Novartis, the FDA approval came on the heels of two phase 3 studies that evaluated the use of secukinumab in children aged 6 to younger than 18 years with plaque psoriasis. The first was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled study which included 162 children 6 years of age and older with severe plaque psoriasis. The doses evaluated were 75 mg for children who weighed less than 50 kg and 150 mg for those 50 kg or greater.

At week 12, the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI)-75 response was 55% among children in the 75-mg dosing group vs. 10% in the placebo group and 86% in the 150-mg dosing group vs. 19% in the placebo group.

Meanwhile, the Investigator’s Global Assessment modified 2011 (IGA) “clear” response was achieved in 32% of children in the 75-mg dosing group vs. 5% in the placebo group and in 81% of children in the 150-mg dosing group vs. 5% in the placebo group. An IGA “almost clear” skin response was achieved in 81% of children in the 75-mg dosing group vs. 5% in the placebo group.

The second phase 3 study was a randomized open-label, 208-week trial of 84 subjects 6 years of age and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. According to the Novartis press release, the safety profile reported in both trials was consistent with the safety profile reported in adult plaque psoriasis trials and no new safety signals were observed. The updated prescribing information for secukinumab can be found here.

“When considering treatment with a systemic agent such as a biologic, it is important to consider objective measures of severity, such as extent of disease and involvement of joints but also subjective indicators of severity such as impact beyond the skin on psychological well-being,” Dr. Cordoro said in the interview. “Kids with psoriasis in visible locations may socially isolate themselves due to embarrassment or bullying. Therefore, the impact of moderate to severe psoriasis not only on overall health but on self-esteem and identity formation can be significant, and therefore adequately treating children of all ages to prevent the downstream negative consequences of childhood psoriasis is critical.”

Dr. Cordoro reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Myocarditis is present in a small percentage of competitive athletes after COVID-19 infection, even in those without symptoms, new research suggests.

In a cohort study of 1,597 competitive collegiate athletes undergoing comprehensive cardiovascular testing in the United States, the prevalence of clinical myocarditis based on a symptom-based screening strategy was only 0.31%.

But screening with cardiac MRI increased the prevalence of clinical and subclinical myocarditis by a factor of 7.4, to 2.3%, the authors reported.

The findings are published online May 27, 2021, in JAMA Cardiology.

“It was the largest study to evaluate college athletes who have had COVID with extensive cardiac testing, including MRI, and this gave us a very objective look at the cardiac findings, as they were not purely based upon a subjective evaluation of symptoms,” lead investigator Curt J. Daniels, MD, professor at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

“Unfortunately, our study showed that athletes can be asymptomatic, or at least not report symptoms. This is a very subjective feature, and we don’t know if they don’t report symptoms because they didn’t want to get tested. That is why we took a very objective approach,” Dr. Daniels said.

The finding that more than half of the asymptomatic athletes had myocarditis, or as the investigators called it, “subclinical myocarditis,” was a surprise, he acknowledged.

“More than half of the athletes found to have myocarditis reported no symptoms, and yes, that was a surprise, because prior to this study, the protocols that had been published stated that you had to have symptoms to even enter into the protocol for cardiac MRI. But, as our ... paper shows, if we had followed that protocol, we only would have found about 5 cases of myocarditis, as opposed to the total of 37 we found with cardiac MRI,” Dr. Daniels said.

In October 2020, the American College of Cardiology’s Sports and Exercise Council recommended that cardiac MRI be limited to athletes who exhibited symptoms as part of their guide to ensuring a safe return to play.

As reported by this news organization the council recommended a tiered approach to screening based on the presence of symptoms, followed by electrocardiography, injury biomarkers, and echocardiography. Any abnormalities detected were to be further characterized by the selective use of cardiac MRI.

At the time, there were relatively few data to support the recommendations, and all stakeholders called for larger datasets to better drive informed recommendations in the future.

In the current study, Dr. Daniels and associates conducted comprehensive cardiac screening – including ECG, troponin testing, echocardiography, and cardiac MRI – of 1,597 college athlete survivors of COVID-19.

The athletes were part of the Big Ten athletic conference, which consists of 13 major American universities.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

Cardiac MRI revealed that 37 (2.3%) of these athletes demonstrated diagnostic criteria for COVID-19 myocarditis; of these, 20 had no cardiovascular symptoms and had normal ECGs, echocardiography, and troponin test results.

“These patients would not have been identified without CMR imaging. If we were going according to the older protocol, we would not have made this discovery. Cardiac MRI is the most sensitive and specific test for myocardial inflammation, there is no argument about that,” Dr. Daniels said.

The catch is, cardiac MRI is expensive and often difficult to access, especially in remote, rural, or other underserviced areas.

“You can’t get an MRI for every person who has had COVID, it’s just not feasible,” Dr. Daniels said. “We are not advocating that everybody get an MRI. But we do hope that our study creates awareness among clinicians and athletes themselves that if you’ve had COVID, even if you’re asymptomatic, there may be some heart changes. So be aware when you start to exercise again, if you have any symptoms, pause and seek medical care.”
 

Kudos to the sports cardiology community

In an accompanying editorial, James E. Udelson, MD, Ethan J. Rowin, MD, and Barry J. Maron, MD, from the CardioVascular Center at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, applauded the sports cardiology community for its diligence in acquiring and publishing data about the post–COVID-19 prevalence of cardiac abnormalities in competitive athletes.

“It is a real tribute to the sports cardiology community. There has been an amazing growth of information, and they not only gathered this information, they analyzed and published it, starting out with a study of 29 or 30 athletes, and now thousands,” Dr. Udelson said in an interview.

At the start of the pandemic, it appeared that 15%-20% of athletes had myocarditis, and athletic conferences were discussing canceling sports events.

However, with greater numbers comes a more accurate picture of the extent of the problem.

“Once you get thousands of subjects in these studies, you can hone in on what the real number is, so now we understand that if you screen everybody with a cardiac MRI, 1%, 2%, or 3% will have some evidence of what looks like myocarditis,” he said.

Dr. Udelson agreed that doing cardiac imaging in everyone is not feasible.

“This study looked at a very large number of people who all had an MRI, but that doesn’t mean everyone should have them. If you just do an echo, an EKG, and a troponin test, and if everything is normal, which is kind of what current recommendations are, this paper tells us that we are going to miss one or two people out of a hundred, and that might be okay,” he said. “So, if you are at a huge university that has a large medical center and you want to screen all your athletes with MRI, great. But if you’re at a high school in a remote area, you know that the alternative, not having an MRI, isn’t so bad, either.”

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

Myocarditis is present in a small percentage of competitive athletes after COVID-19 infection, even in those without symptoms, new research suggests.

In a cohort study of 1,597 competitive collegiate athletes undergoing comprehensive cardiovascular testing in the United States, the prevalence of clinical myocarditis based on a symptom-based screening strategy was only 0.31%.

But screening with cardiac MRI increased the prevalence of clinical and subclinical myocarditis by a factor of 7.4, to 2.3%, the authors reported.

The findings are published online May 27, 2021, in JAMA Cardiology.

“It was the largest study to evaluate college athletes who have had COVID with extensive cardiac testing, including MRI, and this gave us a very objective look at the cardiac findings, as they were not purely based upon a subjective evaluation of symptoms,” lead investigator Curt J. Daniels, MD, professor at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

“Unfortunately, our study showed that athletes can be asymptomatic, or at least not report symptoms. This is a very subjective feature, and we don’t know if they don’t report symptoms because they didn’t want to get tested. That is why we took a very objective approach,” Dr. Daniels said.

The finding that more than half of the asymptomatic athletes had myocarditis, or as the investigators called it, “subclinical myocarditis,” was a surprise, he acknowledged.

“More than half of the athletes found to have myocarditis reported no symptoms, and yes, that was a surprise, because prior to this study, the protocols that had been published stated that you had to have symptoms to even enter into the protocol for cardiac MRI. But, as our ... paper shows, if we had followed that protocol, we only would have found about 5 cases of myocarditis, as opposed to the total of 37 we found with cardiac MRI,” Dr. Daniels said.

In October 2020, the American College of Cardiology’s Sports and Exercise Council recommended that cardiac MRI be limited to athletes who exhibited symptoms as part of their guide to ensuring a safe return to play.

As reported by this news organization the council recommended a tiered approach to screening based on the presence of symptoms, followed by electrocardiography, injury biomarkers, and echocardiography. Any abnormalities detected were to be further characterized by the selective use of cardiac MRI.

At the time, there were relatively few data to support the recommendations, and all stakeholders called for larger datasets to better drive informed recommendations in the future.

In the current study, Dr. Daniels and associates conducted comprehensive cardiac screening – including ECG, troponin testing, echocardiography, and cardiac MRI – of 1,597 college athlete survivors of COVID-19.

The athletes were part of the Big Ten athletic conference, which consists of 13 major American universities.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

Cardiac MRI revealed that 37 (2.3%) of these athletes demonstrated diagnostic criteria for COVID-19 myocarditis; of these, 20 had no cardiovascular symptoms and had normal ECGs, echocardiography, and troponin test results.

“These patients would not have been identified without CMR imaging. If we were going according to the older protocol, we would not have made this discovery. Cardiac MRI is the most sensitive and specific test for myocardial inflammation, there is no argument about that,” Dr. Daniels said.

The catch is, cardiac MRI is expensive and often difficult to access, especially in remote, rural, or other underserviced areas.

“You can’t get an MRI for every person who has had COVID, it’s just not feasible,” Dr. Daniels said. “We are not advocating that everybody get an MRI. But we do hope that our study creates awareness among clinicians and athletes themselves that if you’ve had COVID, even if you’re asymptomatic, there may be some heart changes. So be aware when you start to exercise again, if you have any symptoms, pause and seek medical care.”
 

Kudos to the sports cardiology community

In an accompanying editorial, James E. Udelson, MD, Ethan J. Rowin, MD, and Barry J. Maron, MD, from the CardioVascular Center at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, applauded the sports cardiology community for its diligence in acquiring and publishing data about the post–COVID-19 prevalence of cardiac abnormalities in competitive athletes.

“It is a real tribute to the sports cardiology community. There has been an amazing growth of information, and they not only gathered this information, they analyzed and published it, starting out with a study of 29 or 30 athletes, and now thousands,” Dr. Udelson said in an interview.

At the start of the pandemic, it appeared that 15%-20% of athletes had myocarditis, and athletic conferences were discussing canceling sports events.

However, with greater numbers comes a more accurate picture of the extent of the problem.

“Once you get thousands of subjects in these studies, you can hone in on what the real number is, so now we understand that if you screen everybody with a cardiac MRI, 1%, 2%, or 3% will have some evidence of what looks like myocarditis,” he said.

Dr. Udelson agreed that doing cardiac imaging in everyone is not feasible.

“This study looked at a very large number of people who all had an MRI, but that doesn’t mean everyone should have them. If you just do an echo, an EKG, and a troponin test, and if everything is normal, which is kind of what current recommendations are, this paper tells us that we are going to miss one or two people out of a hundred, and that might be okay,” he said. “So, if you are at a huge university that has a large medical center and you want to screen all your athletes with MRI, great. But if you’re at a high school in a remote area, you know that the alternative, not having an MRI, isn’t so bad, either.”

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

Myocarditis is present in a small percentage of competitive athletes after COVID-19 infection, even in those without symptoms, new research suggests.

In a cohort study of 1,597 competitive collegiate athletes undergoing comprehensive cardiovascular testing in the United States, the prevalence of clinical myocarditis based on a symptom-based screening strategy was only 0.31%.

But screening with cardiac MRI increased the prevalence of clinical and subclinical myocarditis by a factor of 7.4, to 2.3%, the authors reported.

The findings are published online May 27, 2021, in JAMA Cardiology.

“It was the largest study to evaluate college athletes who have had COVID with extensive cardiac testing, including MRI, and this gave us a very objective look at the cardiac findings, as they were not purely based upon a subjective evaluation of symptoms,” lead investigator Curt J. Daniels, MD, professor at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

“Unfortunately, our study showed that athletes can be asymptomatic, or at least not report symptoms. This is a very subjective feature, and we don’t know if they don’t report symptoms because they didn’t want to get tested. That is why we took a very objective approach,” Dr. Daniels said.

The finding that more than half of the asymptomatic athletes had myocarditis, or as the investigators called it, “subclinical myocarditis,” was a surprise, he acknowledged.

“More than half of the athletes found to have myocarditis reported no symptoms, and yes, that was a surprise, because prior to this study, the protocols that had been published stated that you had to have symptoms to even enter into the protocol for cardiac MRI. But, as our ... paper shows, if we had followed that protocol, we only would have found about 5 cases of myocarditis, as opposed to the total of 37 we found with cardiac MRI,” Dr. Daniels said.

In October 2020, the American College of Cardiology’s Sports and Exercise Council recommended that cardiac MRI be limited to athletes who exhibited symptoms as part of their guide to ensuring a safe return to play.

As reported by this news organization the council recommended a tiered approach to screening based on the presence of symptoms, followed by electrocardiography, injury biomarkers, and echocardiography. Any abnormalities detected were to be further characterized by the selective use of cardiac MRI.

At the time, there were relatively few data to support the recommendations, and all stakeholders called for larger datasets to better drive informed recommendations in the future.

In the current study, Dr. Daniels and associates conducted comprehensive cardiac screening – including ECG, troponin testing, echocardiography, and cardiac MRI – of 1,597 college athlete survivors of COVID-19.

The athletes were part of the Big Ten athletic conference, which consists of 13 major American universities.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

Cardiac MRI revealed that 37 (2.3%) of these athletes demonstrated diagnostic criteria for COVID-19 myocarditis; of these, 20 had no cardiovascular symptoms and had normal ECGs, echocardiography, and troponin test results.

“These patients would not have been identified without CMR imaging. If we were going according to the older protocol, we would not have made this discovery. Cardiac MRI is the most sensitive and specific test for myocardial inflammation, there is no argument about that,” Dr. Daniels said.

The catch is, cardiac MRI is expensive and often difficult to access, especially in remote, rural, or other underserviced areas.

“You can’t get an MRI for every person who has had COVID, it’s just not feasible,” Dr. Daniels said. “We are not advocating that everybody get an MRI. But we do hope that our study creates awareness among clinicians and athletes themselves that if you’ve had COVID, even if you’re asymptomatic, there may be some heart changes. So be aware when you start to exercise again, if you have any symptoms, pause and seek medical care.”
 

Kudos to the sports cardiology community

In an accompanying editorial, James E. Udelson, MD, Ethan J. Rowin, MD, and Barry J. Maron, MD, from the CardioVascular Center at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, applauded the sports cardiology community for its diligence in acquiring and publishing data about the post–COVID-19 prevalence of cardiac abnormalities in competitive athletes.

“It is a real tribute to the sports cardiology community. There has been an amazing growth of information, and they not only gathered this information, they analyzed and published it, starting out with a study of 29 or 30 athletes, and now thousands,” Dr. Udelson said in an interview.

At the start of the pandemic, it appeared that 15%-20% of athletes had myocarditis, and athletic conferences were discussing canceling sports events.

However, with greater numbers comes a more accurate picture of the extent of the problem.

“Once you get thousands of subjects in these studies, you can hone in on what the real number is, so now we understand that if you screen everybody with a cardiac MRI, 1%, 2%, or 3% will have some evidence of what looks like myocarditis,” he said.

Dr. Udelson agreed that doing cardiac imaging in everyone is not feasible.

“This study looked at a very large number of people who all had an MRI, but that doesn’t mean everyone should have them. If you just do an echo, an EKG, and a troponin test, and if everything is normal, which is kind of what current recommendations are, this paper tells us that we are going to miss one or two people out of a hundred, and that might be okay,” he said. “So, if you are at a huge university that has a large medical center and you want to screen all your athletes with MRI, great. But if you’re at a high school in a remote area, you know that the alternative, not having an MRI, isn’t so bad, either.”

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

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on May 26 announced charges against 14 defendants across the country who allegedly engaged in health care fraud schemes that exploited the COVID-19 pandemic and resulted in over $143 million in false billings to Medicare.

Among the defendants, a DOJ news release said, were a telemedicine company executive, a physician, marketers, and medical business owners.

In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services separately announced that it had taken “adverse administrative actions” against more than 50 providers for their involvement in fraud schemes related to COVID-19 or the abuse of CMS programs that were designed to encourage access to medical care during the pandemic.

Several of the defendants allegedly offered COVID-19 tests to Medicare beneficiaries in senior living facilities, drive-through COVID-19 testing sites, and medical offices to induce the beneficiaries to provide their personal identifying information and a saliva or a blood sample.

The DOJ charges claim the defendants then misused the information and the samples to submit claims to Medicare for unrelated, medically unnecessary, and far more expensive lab tests, including cancer genetic testing, allergy testing, and respiratory pathogen panel tests.

In some cases, it’s alleged, the lab results were not provided to the individuals in a timely fashion or were not reliable.

Other defendants are charged with exploiting temporary changes in CMS telehealth regulations that were designed to increase access to health care during the pandemic. In these cases, which the DOJ said were the first charges related to the expansion of telehealth under the COVID-19 emergency declaration, the defendants allegedly submitted false and fraudulent claims to Medicare for sham telemedicine encounters that did not occur.

“As part of these cases, medical professionals are alleged to have [been] offered and paid bribes in exchange for the medical professionals’ referral of unnecessary testing,” the DOJ news release said. However, no physicians were identified by the department.

Commenting on this aspect of the law enforcement action, FBI Director Christopher Wray said in the release: “Medical providers have been the unsung heroes for the American public throughout the pandemic. It’s disheartening that some have abused their authorities and committed COVID-19–related fraud against trusting citizens. The FBI, along with our federal law enforcement and private sector partners, are committed to continuing to combat health care fraud and protect the American people.”

The law enforcement action includes the third set of criminal charges related to the misuse of Provider Relief Fund monies, according to the release.

More than 340 individuals were charged in September 2020 with submitting $6 billion in fraudulent claims to federal health care programs and private insurers for telehealth consultations and substance abuse treatment. About $4.5 billion of that was related to telehealth, as reported by this news organization.

The new criminal charges were brought in federal district courts in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, and New York.
 

Case summaries

The DOJ provided several case summaries. One defendant, lab owner Billy Joe Taylor of Lavaca, Ark., was charged with participating in a scheme to defraud the government of over $42 million by filing false claims that were billed in combination with COVID-19 testing claims. He also allegedly billed for tests that were not performed.

Petros Hannesyan of Burbank, Calif., the owner of a home health agency, was charged with obtaining over $229,000 from COVID-19 relief programs under false pretenses. His firm allegedly misappropriated funds from the CARES Act Provider Relief Fund and submitted false loan applications and a false loan agreement to the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program.

Michael Stein and Leonel Palatnik of Palm Beach County, Fla., were charged in a connection with an alleged $73 million conspiracy to defraud the government and to pay and receive health care kickbacks during the pandemic.

Mr. Stein, who owned a “purported” consulting company, and Mr. Palatnik, who owned testing labs in Texas, allegedly exploited Medicare’s waiver of telehealth restrictions “by offering telehealth providers access to Medicare beneficiaries for whom they could bill consultations. In exchange, these providers agreed to refer beneficiaries to [Mr. Palatnik’s] laboratories for expensive and medically unnecessary cancer and cardiovascular genetic testing.”
 

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

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on May 26 announced charges against 14 defendants across the country who allegedly engaged in health care fraud schemes that exploited the COVID-19 pandemic and resulted in over $143 million in false billings to Medicare.

Among the defendants, a DOJ news release said, were a telemedicine company executive, a physician, marketers, and medical business owners.

In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services separately announced that it had taken “adverse administrative actions” against more than 50 providers for their involvement in fraud schemes related to COVID-19 or the abuse of CMS programs that were designed to encourage access to medical care during the pandemic.

Several of the defendants allegedly offered COVID-19 tests to Medicare beneficiaries in senior living facilities, drive-through COVID-19 testing sites, and medical offices to induce the beneficiaries to provide their personal identifying information and a saliva or a blood sample.

The DOJ charges claim the defendants then misused the information and the samples to submit claims to Medicare for unrelated, medically unnecessary, and far more expensive lab tests, including cancer genetic testing, allergy testing, and respiratory pathogen panel tests.

In some cases, it’s alleged, the lab results were not provided to the individuals in a timely fashion or were not reliable.

Other defendants are charged with exploiting temporary changes in CMS telehealth regulations that were designed to increase access to health care during the pandemic. In these cases, which the DOJ said were the first charges related to the expansion of telehealth under the COVID-19 emergency declaration, the defendants allegedly submitted false and fraudulent claims to Medicare for sham telemedicine encounters that did not occur.

“As part of these cases, medical professionals are alleged to have [been] offered and paid bribes in exchange for the medical professionals’ referral of unnecessary testing,” the DOJ news release said. However, no physicians were identified by the department.

Commenting on this aspect of the law enforcement action, FBI Director Christopher Wray said in the release: “Medical providers have been the unsung heroes for the American public throughout the pandemic. It’s disheartening that some have abused their authorities and committed COVID-19–related fraud against trusting citizens. The FBI, along with our federal law enforcement and private sector partners, are committed to continuing to combat health care fraud and protect the American people.”

The law enforcement action includes the third set of criminal charges related to the misuse of Provider Relief Fund monies, according to the release.

More than 340 individuals were charged in September 2020 with submitting $6 billion in fraudulent claims to federal health care programs and private insurers for telehealth consultations and substance abuse treatment. About $4.5 billion of that was related to telehealth, as reported by this news organization.

The new criminal charges were brought in federal district courts in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, and New York.
 

Case summaries

The DOJ provided several case summaries. One defendant, lab owner Billy Joe Taylor of Lavaca, Ark., was charged with participating in a scheme to defraud the government of over $42 million by filing false claims that were billed in combination with COVID-19 testing claims. He also allegedly billed for tests that were not performed.

Petros Hannesyan of Burbank, Calif., the owner of a home health agency, was charged with obtaining over $229,000 from COVID-19 relief programs under false pretenses. His firm allegedly misappropriated funds from the CARES Act Provider Relief Fund and submitted false loan applications and a false loan agreement to the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program.

Michael Stein and Leonel Palatnik of Palm Beach County, Fla., were charged in a connection with an alleged $73 million conspiracy to defraud the government and to pay and receive health care kickbacks during the pandemic.

Mr. Stein, who owned a “purported” consulting company, and Mr. Palatnik, who owned testing labs in Texas, allegedly exploited Medicare’s waiver of telehealth restrictions “by offering telehealth providers access to Medicare beneficiaries for whom they could bill consultations. In exchange, these providers agreed to refer beneficiaries to [Mr. Palatnik’s] laboratories for expensive and medically unnecessary cancer and cardiovascular genetic testing.”
 

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

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on May 26 announced charges against 14 defendants across the country who allegedly engaged in health care fraud schemes that exploited the COVID-19 pandemic and resulted in over $143 million in false billings to Medicare.

Among the defendants, a DOJ news release said, were a telemedicine company executive, a physician, marketers, and medical business owners.

In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services separately announced that it had taken “adverse administrative actions” against more than 50 providers for their involvement in fraud schemes related to COVID-19 or the abuse of CMS programs that were designed to encourage access to medical care during the pandemic.

Several of the defendants allegedly offered COVID-19 tests to Medicare beneficiaries in senior living facilities, drive-through COVID-19 testing sites, and medical offices to induce the beneficiaries to provide their personal identifying information and a saliva or a blood sample.

The DOJ charges claim the defendants then misused the information and the samples to submit claims to Medicare for unrelated, medically unnecessary, and far more expensive lab tests, including cancer genetic testing, allergy testing, and respiratory pathogen panel tests.

In some cases, it’s alleged, the lab results were not provided to the individuals in a timely fashion or were not reliable.

Other defendants are charged with exploiting temporary changes in CMS telehealth regulations that were designed to increase access to health care during the pandemic. In these cases, which the DOJ said were the first charges related to the expansion of telehealth under the COVID-19 emergency declaration, the defendants allegedly submitted false and fraudulent claims to Medicare for sham telemedicine encounters that did not occur.

“As part of these cases, medical professionals are alleged to have [been] offered and paid bribes in exchange for the medical professionals’ referral of unnecessary testing,” the DOJ news release said. However, no physicians were identified by the department.

Commenting on this aspect of the law enforcement action, FBI Director Christopher Wray said in the release: “Medical providers have been the unsung heroes for the American public throughout the pandemic. It’s disheartening that some have abused their authorities and committed COVID-19–related fraud against trusting citizens. The FBI, along with our federal law enforcement and private sector partners, are committed to continuing to combat health care fraud and protect the American people.”

The law enforcement action includes the third set of criminal charges related to the misuse of Provider Relief Fund monies, according to the release.

More than 340 individuals were charged in September 2020 with submitting $6 billion in fraudulent claims to federal health care programs and private insurers for telehealth consultations and substance abuse treatment. About $4.5 billion of that was related to telehealth, as reported by this news organization.

The new criminal charges were brought in federal district courts in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, and New York.
 

Case summaries

The DOJ provided several case summaries. One defendant, lab owner Billy Joe Taylor of Lavaca, Ark., was charged with participating in a scheme to defraud the government of over $42 million by filing false claims that were billed in combination with COVID-19 testing claims. He also allegedly billed for tests that were not performed.

Petros Hannesyan of Burbank, Calif., the owner of a home health agency, was charged with obtaining over $229,000 from COVID-19 relief programs under false pretenses. His firm allegedly misappropriated funds from the CARES Act Provider Relief Fund and submitted false loan applications and a false loan agreement to the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program.

Michael Stein and Leonel Palatnik of Palm Beach County, Fla., were charged in a connection with an alleged $73 million conspiracy to defraud the government and to pay and receive health care kickbacks during the pandemic.

Mr. Stein, who owned a “purported” consulting company, and Mr. Palatnik, who owned testing labs in Texas, allegedly exploited Medicare’s waiver of telehealth restrictions “by offering telehealth providers access to Medicare beneficiaries for whom they could bill consultations. In exchange, these providers agreed to refer beneficiaries to [Mr. Palatnik’s] laboratories for expensive and medically unnecessary cancer and cardiovascular genetic testing.”
 

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

A reduced dose of prednisolone plus rituximab was as effective as a conventionally high dose in treating patients with newly diagnosed antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis, according to a new Japanese study, along with significantly fewer adverse events as well.

“To our knowledge, this is the first trial in ANCA-associated vasculitis showing that a lower glucocorticoid dose may reduce serious adverse events,” wrote Shunsuke Furuta, MD, PhD, of the department of allergy and clinical immunology at Chiba (Japan) University Hospital, and colleagues. The study was published June 1, 2021, in JAMA.

To determine the most effective and safe dose of glucocorticoids for treating this specific subset of patients with vasculitis, the researchers launched an open-label noninferiority clinical trial at 21 hospitals in Japan. A group of 140 patients with new-onset ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) without severe glomerulonephritis or alveolar hemorrhage were enrolled and split evenly into two treatment subgroups: reduced-dose prednisolone (0.5 mg/kg per day) plus four doses of rituximab (375 mg/m² per week) or high-dose prednisolone (1 mg/kg per day) plus rituximab. The median age for all enrolled patients was 73, and approximately 58% were women.

Of the 140 original patients, 134 (95.7%) completed the trial. After 6 months, 49 participants in the reduced-dose group (71%) and 45 in the high-dose group (69.2%) achieved remission, as assessed via the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score. The difference between the two groups – 1.8 percentage points (one-sided 97.5% confidence interval, –13.7 to infinity) – met the prespecified margin of –20 percentage points for noninferiority (P = .003 for noninferiority). Relapse within 6 months occurred in three participants in the reduced-dose group and zero in the high-dose group, frequencies that the researchers identified as not statistically different (difference, 4.3%; 95% CI, –0.5% to 9.3%; P = .24).

Serious adverse events occurred less frequently in the reduced-dose group (21 events in 13 patients, 18.8%), compared with the high-dose group (41 events in 24 patients, 36.9%), as did serious infections in the reduced-dose group (7 events in 5 patients, 7.2%) versus the high-dose group (20 events in 13 patients, 20%). Two patients died in the reduced-dose group and three died in the high-dose group; those frequencies were noted as not statistically different (difference, –1.7%; 95% CI, –4.7% to 8.2%; P = .67). Causes of death included subarachnoid hemorrhage in a 58-year-old in the reduced-dose group, along with a case of sepsis in an 80-year-old and two gastrointestinal bleedings in a 75-year-old and an 85-year-old in the high-dose group.

End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) occurred in one patient in the high-dose group and none in the reduced-dose group. Cumulative survival rates at 6 months were not significantly different between the reduced-dose (97.1%) and the high-dose (95.3%) groups (95% CI, –4.7% to 8.2%; P = .58).

Less glucocorticoids makes sense for subset of patients with milder vasculitis

“We always worry about how much steroids we’re giving our patients,” said Anisha B. Dua, MD, an associate professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “And it’s not a shock to find out that we can use less. That’s been the theme of many studies across vasculitities that have been coming out: ‘Maybe we are using too much steroids.’ It’s really important to have actual data supporting that, though, so clinicians can feel more confident and figure out what population it applies to.”

M. Alexander Otto

She added that, because the study focused on patients with milder disease, it’s no surprise that remission was achieved with a lesser dose.

“I see a lot of vasculitis patients, and this gives me more confidence in a subset of them – new ANCA vasculitis, MPO positive, not very severe disease – to get away with using less steroids up front,” she said.

To apply these findings more broadly across vasculitis patients, Dr. Dua stressed the need for a follow-up study, preferably a randomized, controlled trial, with an expanded population and a longer duration.

“There were 3 relapses in the low-dose group and zero in the high-dose group in the first 6 months,” she said. “I’d be interested to know when those happened and also, over time, whether the low-dose regiment up front impacts the rate of relapse in the long term.”

The authors acknowledged the study’s limitations, including the necessity of an open-label trial because of the inevitable visible effects of high-dose glucocorticoid on patients. They also addressed the potential subjectivity of the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score, though they added that “other endpoints, including death, ESKD, and serious adverse events, were objective.” Finally, they acknowledged that their study was nationwide but not international, with disease phenotypes that were typical of Japanese patients with AAV. That said, “previous studies have shown that treatment responses are similar between Japan and other countries,” they wrote.

The study was funded by an intramural competitive grant from Chiba University Hospital. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grant support, lecture fees, and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

A reduced dose of prednisolone plus rituximab was as effective as a conventionally high dose in treating patients with newly diagnosed antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis, according to a new Japanese study, along with significantly fewer adverse events as well.

“To our knowledge, this is the first trial in ANCA-associated vasculitis showing that a lower glucocorticoid dose may reduce serious adverse events,” wrote Shunsuke Furuta, MD, PhD, of the department of allergy and clinical immunology at Chiba (Japan) University Hospital, and colleagues. The study was published June 1, 2021, in JAMA.

To determine the most effective and safe dose of glucocorticoids for treating this specific subset of patients with vasculitis, the researchers launched an open-label noninferiority clinical trial at 21 hospitals in Japan. A group of 140 patients with new-onset ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) without severe glomerulonephritis or alveolar hemorrhage were enrolled and split evenly into two treatment subgroups: reduced-dose prednisolone (0.5 mg/kg per day) plus four doses of rituximab (375 mg/m² per week) or high-dose prednisolone (1 mg/kg per day) plus rituximab. The median age for all enrolled patients was 73, and approximately 58% were women.

Of the 140 original patients, 134 (95.7%) completed the trial. After 6 months, 49 participants in the reduced-dose group (71%) and 45 in the high-dose group (69.2%) achieved remission, as assessed via the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score. The difference between the two groups – 1.8 percentage points (one-sided 97.5% confidence interval, –13.7 to infinity) – met the prespecified margin of –20 percentage points for noninferiority (P = .003 for noninferiority). Relapse within 6 months occurred in three participants in the reduced-dose group and zero in the high-dose group, frequencies that the researchers identified as not statistically different (difference, 4.3%; 95% CI, –0.5% to 9.3%; P = .24).

Serious adverse events occurred less frequently in the reduced-dose group (21 events in 13 patients, 18.8%), compared with the high-dose group (41 events in 24 patients, 36.9%), as did serious infections in the reduced-dose group (7 events in 5 patients, 7.2%) versus the high-dose group (20 events in 13 patients, 20%). Two patients died in the reduced-dose group and three died in the high-dose group; those frequencies were noted as not statistically different (difference, –1.7%; 95% CI, –4.7% to 8.2%; P = .67). Causes of death included subarachnoid hemorrhage in a 58-year-old in the reduced-dose group, along with a case of sepsis in an 80-year-old and two gastrointestinal bleedings in a 75-year-old and an 85-year-old in the high-dose group.

End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) occurred in one patient in the high-dose group and none in the reduced-dose group. Cumulative survival rates at 6 months were not significantly different between the reduced-dose (97.1%) and the high-dose (95.3%) groups (95% CI, –4.7% to 8.2%; P = .58).

Less glucocorticoids makes sense for subset of patients with milder vasculitis

“We always worry about how much steroids we’re giving our patients,” said Anisha B. Dua, MD, an associate professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “And it’s not a shock to find out that we can use less. That’s been the theme of many studies across vasculitities that have been coming out: ‘Maybe we are using too much steroids.’ It’s really important to have actual data supporting that, though, so clinicians can feel more confident and figure out what population it applies to.”

M. Alexander Otto

She added that, because the study focused on patients with milder disease, it’s no surprise that remission was achieved with a lesser dose.

“I see a lot of vasculitis patients, and this gives me more confidence in a subset of them – new ANCA vasculitis, MPO positive, not very severe disease – to get away with using less steroids up front,” she said.

To apply these findings more broadly across vasculitis patients, Dr. Dua stressed the need for a follow-up study, preferably a randomized, controlled trial, with an expanded population and a longer duration.

“There were 3 relapses in the low-dose group and zero in the high-dose group in the first 6 months,” she said. “I’d be interested to know when those happened and also, over time, whether the low-dose regiment up front impacts the rate of relapse in the long term.”

The authors acknowledged the study’s limitations, including the necessity of an open-label trial because of the inevitable visible effects of high-dose glucocorticoid on patients. They also addressed the potential subjectivity of the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score, though they added that “other endpoints, including death, ESKD, and serious adverse events, were objective.” Finally, they acknowledged that their study was nationwide but not international, with disease phenotypes that were typical of Japanese patients with AAV. That said, “previous studies have shown that treatment responses are similar between Japan and other countries,” they wrote.

The study was funded by an intramural competitive grant from Chiba University Hospital. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grant support, lecture fees, and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

A reduced dose of prednisolone plus rituximab was as effective as a conventionally high dose in treating patients with newly diagnosed antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis, according to a new Japanese study, along with significantly fewer adverse events as well.

“To our knowledge, this is the first trial in ANCA-associated vasculitis showing that a lower glucocorticoid dose may reduce serious adverse events,” wrote Shunsuke Furuta, MD, PhD, of the department of allergy and clinical immunology at Chiba (Japan) University Hospital, and colleagues. The study was published June 1, 2021, in JAMA.

To determine the most effective and safe dose of glucocorticoids for treating this specific subset of patients with vasculitis, the researchers launched an open-label noninferiority clinical trial at 21 hospitals in Japan. A group of 140 patients with new-onset ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) without severe glomerulonephritis or alveolar hemorrhage were enrolled and split evenly into two treatment subgroups: reduced-dose prednisolone (0.5 mg/kg per day) plus four doses of rituximab (375 mg/m² per week) or high-dose prednisolone (1 mg/kg per day) plus rituximab. The median age for all enrolled patients was 73, and approximately 58% were women.

Of the 140 original patients, 134 (95.7%) completed the trial. After 6 months, 49 participants in the reduced-dose group (71%) and 45 in the high-dose group (69.2%) achieved remission, as assessed via the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score. The difference between the two groups – 1.8 percentage points (one-sided 97.5% confidence interval, –13.7 to infinity) – met the prespecified margin of –20 percentage points for noninferiority (P = .003 for noninferiority). Relapse within 6 months occurred in three participants in the reduced-dose group and zero in the high-dose group, frequencies that the researchers identified as not statistically different (difference, 4.3%; 95% CI, –0.5% to 9.3%; P = .24).

Serious adverse events occurred less frequently in the reduced-dose group (21 events in 13 patients, 18.8%), compared with the high-dose group (41 events in 24 patients, 36.9%), as did serious infections in the reduced-dose group (7 events in 5 patients, 7.2%) versus the high-dose group (20 events in 13 patients, 20%). Two patients died in the reduced-dose group and three died in the high-dose group; those frequencies were noted as not statistically different (difference, –1.7%; 95% CI, –4.7% to 8.2%; P = .67). Causes of death included subarachnoid hemorrhage in a 58-year-old in the reduced-dose group, along with a case of sepsis in an 80-year-old and two gastrointestinal bleedings in a 75-year-old and an 85-year-old in the high-dose group.

End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) occurred in one patient in the high-dose group and none in the reduced-dose group. Cumulative survival rates at 6 months were not significantly different between the reduced-dose (97.1%) and the high-dose (95.3%) groups (95% CI, –4.7% to 8.2%; P = .58).

Less glucocorticoids makes sense for subset of patients with milder vasculitis

“We always worry about how much steroids we’re giving our patients,” said Anisha B. Dua, MD, an associate professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “And it’s not a shock to find out that we can use less. That’s been the theme of many studies across vasculitities that have been coming out: ‘Maybe we are using too much steroids.’ It’s really important to have actual data supporting that, though, so clinicians can feel more confident and figure out what population it applies to.”

M. Alexander Otto

She added that, because the study focused on patients with milder disease, it’s no surprise that remission was achieved with a lesser dose.

“I see a lot of vasculitis patients, and this gives me more confidence in a subset of them – new ANCA vasculitis, MPO positive, not very severe disease – to get away with using less steroids up front,” she said.

To apply these findings more broadly across vasculitis patients, Dr. Dua stressed the need for a follow-up study, preferably a randomized, controlled trial, with an expanded population and a longer duration.

“There were 3 relapses in the low-dose group and zero in the high-dose group in the first 6 months,” she said. “I’d be interested to know when those happened and also, over time, whether the low-dose regiment up front impacts the rate of relapse in the long term.”

The authors acknowledged the study’s limitations, including the necessity of an open-label trial because of the inevitable visible effects of high-dose glucocorticoid on patients. They also addressed the potential subjectivity of the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score, though they added that “other endpoints, including death, ESKD, and serious adverse events, were objective.” Finally, they acknowledged that their study was nationwide but not international, with disease phenotypes that were typical of Japanese patients with AAV. That said, “previous studies have shown that treatment responses are similar between Japan and other countries,” they wrote.

The study was funded by an intramural competitive grant from Chiba University Hospital. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grant support, lecture fees, and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

A group of bipartisan lawmakers intends to compel insurers to streamline prior authorization processes for Medicare Advantage plans, including a bid to end the use of faxes and develop systems that can allow for real-time decisions.

Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) on May 13 introduced a bill that would task federal officials with refining standards regarding prior authorization for Medicare Advantage. Titled the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, the bill would direct the Department of Health & Human Services to create rules intended to make prior authorization more transparent and speedy for the insurer-run Medicare plans. Known as Medicare Advantage, these plans cover about 24.1 million people of the 62 million enrolled in the giant federal health program, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

These revamped prior authorization systems could not rely on faxes nor could they employ proprietary payer portals that did not meet HHS’ standards, says the text of the bill released by Rep. DelBene. Insurers would also have to report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. The bill seeks to encourage plans to adopt prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians.

There were several reasons for focusing on Medicare Advantage plans, although prior authorization concerns extend more broadly in the U.S. health care system, said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.

There’s an ample body of research about issues seen in the Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Bailey also said that, in her experience, Medicare Advantage plans have had some of the most restrictive policies. And, by starting with Medicare Advantage, there’s a potential for a ripple effect in the industry, easing this issue when physicians work with other insurers as well.

“When Medicare adopts a policy whether it be a payment policy or a coverage policy, private insurers typically follow along,” she said.
 

Strong support among health care groups

There’s strong support for streamlining prior authorization both in the medical community and in Congress.

The bill has the support of about 70 health care organizations, including the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians, according to its sponsors. As of May 17, the bill had attracted the backing of 97 members of the House of Representatives, roughly evenly split among Democrats and Republicans.

Rep. DelBene’s previous version of this bill, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, attracted 143 Democratic cosponsors and 137 Republican ones, or more than half of the members of the House. This bill was not completed during the previous session of Congress (January 2019–January 2021) because of the more urgent needs of pandemic response, said Rep. Bucshon, who practiced cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress.

“It wasn’t quite on the radar as much as it might have been if we didn’t have COVID,” Rep. Bucshon said.

Rep. Bucshon added that he expects strong Senate support for a companion measure of the House bill, which could make the difference for efforts to pass it this year.

Insurers have become more aggressive over time in denying payments through prior authorization systems for services that physicians say their patients need, according to Rep. Bucshon. There may be some “bad actors” in medicine who would order unnecessary procedures, Rep. Bucshon allowed, but in most cases, the cumbersome prior authorization processes only put a hurdle for patients seeking needed treatments, he said.

“The premise is that it controls health care costs but actually what it does is it helps insurance company’s bottom line,” Rep. Bucshon said.

In a prepared statement, former Pennsylvania representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, now CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, said her group had spoken with sponsors of this legislation and appreciates “their receptiveness to feedback in this process.”

“Prior authorization ensures beneficiaries receive clinically appropriate care and reduces exposures to duplicative and unnecessary services,” Ms. Schwartz said. “We share an interest in ensuring prior authorization works as smoothly and effectively as possible for beneficiaries while protecting its essential function of facilitating safe, evidenced-based care.”

The Better Medicare Alliance said its funders include UnitedHealth, Humana, and CVS Health/Aetna, which run Advantage plans. The group also lists as its partners many medical organizations.
 

“Rationing care by hassling”

Like Rep. Bucshon, Dr. Bailey sees a different motivation in insurers’ persistence in keeping the prior authorization process cumbersome.

Phone calls and faxes remain the key methods for handling prior authorization for medical services, according to the results of a survey done by the AMA in December. Phone calls were always or often required for prior authorization for medical services (59%), with faxes the second-most common approach (46%), followed by health plans’ online portals (39%), electronic health records and practice management systems (29%), and email or U.S. mail (26%), according to the AMA’s report on the survey.

“It seems like every step in the process is designed to make the patient less likely to get the therapy that the doctor thinks that the patient needs,” Dr. Bailey said. “It’s almost like rationing care by hassling the patient and the physician.”

The findings of an investigation by HHS’ internal watchdog unit appear to support Dr. Bailey’s view, showing that insurer-run Medicare plans had a pattern of often walking back their initial rejections.

In 2018, the Office of the Inspector General for HHS reported that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-16. In addition, independent reviewers within the appeals process overturned additional denials in favor of patients and clinicians, OIG said.

“The high number of overturned denials raises concerns that some Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and providers were initially denied services and payments that should have been provided,” the OIG said in the report. “This is especially concerning because beneficiaries and providers rarely used the appeals process, which is designed to ensure access to care and payment.”

During 2014-2016, patients and clinicians appealed only 1% of denials to the first level of appeal, OIG said. In the report, the watchdog group noted that CMS audits had highlighted “widespread and persistent MAO performance problems related to denials of care and payment.” In 2015, for example, CMS cited 56% of audited contracts for making inappropriate denials.

Dr. Bailey also said in an interview that she routinely encounters problems with prior authorization in her own practice as an allergist and immunologist in Fort Worth, Tex.

In late May, for example, a Medicare Advantage plan made a patient whose chronic asthma had been stable for years change to a new inhaler that resulted in him developing a yeast infection in his mouth, Dr. Bailey said.

“We treated the yeast infection, made some changes in the way he uses his inhaler, so hopefully he would tolerate it better,” Dr. Bailey said. “He had a reaction to the medication to treat the yeast infection and ended up in the hospital. How is that helping anyone? It certainly hasn’t helped my patient.”

Dr. Bailey said insurers have also asked to seek prior authorization to prescribe medications that have been generic for years and have used the process to challenge her on cases of what seem to be common sense in medical practice. This included a bid to have Dr. Bailey prescribe a medication in pill form for a 6-month-old baby who had no teeth.

“Every doctor has got absurd stories like that, but unfortunately, every doctor is going to have tragic stories where prior authorization has resulted in death and harm to the patients,” Dr. Bailey said.

Some physicians leave it to the patient to try to overcome insurers’ decisions on prior authorization, seeing this task as falling outside of their duties, Dr. Bailey said.

“I don’t do that. I fight. I spend a lot of time fighting. I don’t like to lose. I don’t like my patients to lose, so I will go to the mat for them,” Dr. Bailey said. “But I’m blessed to be in a specialty where I’ve got loads more control over my schedule than many other specialties do.”

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

A group of bipartisan lawmakers intends to compel insurers to streamline prior authorization processes for Medicare Advantage plans, including a bid to end the use of faxes and develop systems that can allow for real-time decisions.

Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) on May 13 introduced a bill that would task federal officials with refining standards regarding prior authorization for Medicare Advantage. Titled the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, the bill would direct the Department of Health & Human Services to create rules intended to make prior authorization more transparent and speedy for the insurer-run Medicare plans. Known as Medicare Advantage, these plans cover about 24.1 million people of the 62 million enrolled in the giant federal health program, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

These revamped prior authorization systems could not rely on faxes nor could they employ proprietary payer portals that did not meet HHS’ standards, says the text of the bill released by Rep. DelBene. Insurers would also have to report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. The bill seeks to encourage plans to adopt prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians.

There were several reasons for focusing on Medicare Advantage plans, although prior authorization concerns extend more broadly in the U.S. health care system, said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.

There’s an ample body of research about issues seen in the Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Bailey also said that, in her experience, Medicare Advantage plans have had some of the most restrictive policies. And, by starting with Medicare Advantage, there’s a potential for a ripple effect in the industry, easing this issue when physicians work with other insurers as well.

“When Medicare adopts a policy whether it be a payment policy or a coverage policy, private insurers typically follow along,” she said.
 

Strong support among health care groups

There’s strong support for streamlining prior authorization both in the medical community and in Congress.

The bill has the support of about 70 health care organizations, including the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians, according to its sponsors. As of May 17, the bill had attracted the backing of 97 members of the House of Representatives, roughly evenly split among Democrats and Republicans.

Rep. DelBene’s previous version of this bill, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, attracted 143 Democratic cosponsors and 137 Republican ones, or more than half of the members of the House. This bill was not completed during the previous session of Congress (January 2019–January 2021) because of the more urgent needs of pandemic response, said Rep. Bucshon, who practiced cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress.

“It wasn’t quite on the radar as much as it might have been if we didn’t have COVID,” Rep. Bucshon said.

Rep. Bucshon added that he expects strong Senate support for a companion measure of the House bill, which could make the difference for efforts to pass it this year.

Insurers have become more aggressive over time in denying payments through prior authorization systems for services that physicians say their patients need, according to Rep. Bucshon. There may be some “bad actors” in medicine who would order unnecessary procedures, Rep. Bucshon allowed, but in most cases, the cumbersome prior authorization processes only put a hurdle for patients seeking needed treatments, he said.

“The premise is that it controls health care costs but actually what it does is it helps insurance company’s bottom line,” Rep. Bucshon said.

In a prepared statement, former Pennsylvania representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, now CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, said her group had spoken with sponsors of this legislation and appreciates “their receptiveness to feedback in this process.”

“Prior authorization ensures beneficiaries receive clinically appropriate care and reduces exposures to duplicative and unnecessary services,” Ms. Schwartz said. “We share an interest in ensuring prior authorization works as smoothly and effectively as possible for beneficiaries while protecting its essential function of facilitating safe, evidenced-based care.”

The Better Medicare Alliance said its funders include UnitedHealth, Humana, and CVS Health/Aetna, which run Advantage plans. The group also lists as its partners many medical organizations.
 

“Rationing care by hassling”

Like Rep. Bucshon, Dr. Bailey sees a different motivation in insurers’ persistence in keeping the prior authorization process cumbersome.

Phone calls and faxes remain the key methods for handling prior authorization for medical services, according to the results of a survey done by the AMA in December. Phone calls were always or often required for prior authorization for medical services (59%), with faxes the second-most common approach (46%), followed by health plans’ online portals (39%), electronic health records and practice management systems (29%), and email or U.S. mail (26%), according to the AMA’s report on the survey.

“It seems like every step in the process is designed to make the patient less likely to get the therapy that the doctor thinks that the patient needs,” Dr. Bailey said. “It’s almost like rationing care by hassling the patient and the physician.”

The findings of an investigation by HHS’ internal watchdog unit appear to support Dr. Bailey’s view, showing that insurer-run Medicare plans had a pattern of often walking back their initial rejections.

In 2018, the Office of the Inspector General for HHS reported that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-16. In addition, independent reviewers within the appeals process overturned additional denials in favor of patients and clinicians, OIG said.

“The high number of overturned denials raises concerns that some Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and providers were initially denied services and payments that should have been provided,” the OIG said in the report. “This is especially concerning because beneficiaries and providers rarely used the appeals process, which is designed to ensure access to care and payment.”

During 2014-2016, patients and clinicians appealed only 1% of denials to the first level of appeal, OIG said. In the report, the watchdog group noted that CMS audits had highlighted “widespread and persistent MAO performance problems related to denials of care and payment.” In 2015, for example, CMS cited 56% of audited contracts for making inappropriate denials.

Dr. Bailey also said in an interview that she routinely encounters problems with prior authorization in her own practice as an allergist and immunologist in Fort Worth, Tex.

In late May, for example, a Medicare Advantage plan made a patient whose chronic asthma had been stable for years change to a new inhaler that resulted in him developing a yeast infection in his mouth, Dr. Bailey said.

“We treated the yeast infection, made some changes in the way he uses his inhaler, so hopefully he would tolerate it better,” Dr. Bailey said. “He had a reaction to the medication to treat the yeast infection and ended up in the hospital. How is that helping anyone? It certainly hasn’t helped my patient.”

Dr. Bailey said insurers have also asked to seek prior authorization to prescribe medications that have been generic for years and have used the process to challenge her on cases of what seem to be common sense in medical practice. This included a bid to have Dr. Bailey prescribe a medication in pill form for a 6-month-old baby who had no teeth.

“Every doctor has got absurd stories like that, but unfortunately, every doctor is going to have tragic stories where prior authorization has resulted in death and harm to the patients,” Dr. Bailey said.

Some physicians leave it to the patient to try to overcome insurers’ decisions on prior authorization, seeing this task as falling outside of their duties, Dr. Bailey said.

“I don’t do that. I fight. I spend a lot of time fighting. I don’t like to lose. I don’t like my patients to lose, so I will go to the mat for them,” Dr. Bailey said. “But I’m blessed to be in a specialty where I’ve got loads more control over my schedule than many other specialties do.”

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

A group of bipartisan lawmakers intends to compel insurers to streamline prior authorization processes for Medicare Advantage plans, including a bid to end the use of faxes and develop systems that can allow for real-time decisions.

Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) on May 13 introduced a bill that would task federal officials with refining standards regarding prior authorization for Medicare Advantage. Titled the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, the bill would direct the Department of Health & Human Services to create rules intended to make prior authorization more transparent and speedy for the insurer-run Medicare plans. Known as Medicare Advantage, these plans cover about 24.1 million people of the 62 million enrolled in the giant federal health program, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

These revamped prior authorization systems could not rely on faxes nor could they employ proprietary payer portals that did not meet HHS’ standards, says the text of the bill released by Rep. DelBene. Insurers would also have to report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. The bill seeks to encourage plans to adopt prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians.

There were several reasons for focusing on Medicare Advantage plans, although prior authorization concerns extend more broadly in the U.S. health care system, said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.

There’s an ample body of research about issues seen in the Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Bailey also said that, in her experience, Medicare Advantage plans have had some of the most restrictive policies. And, by starting with Medicare Advantage, there’s a potential for a ripple effect in the industry, easing this issue when physicians work with other insurers as well.

“When Medicare adopts a policy whether it be a payment policy or a coverage policy, private insurers typically follow along,” she said.
 

Strong support among health care groups

There’s strong support for streamlining prior authorization both in the medical community and in Congress.

The bill has the support of about 70 health care organizations, including the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians, according to its sponsors. As of May 17, the bill had attracted the backing of 97 members of the House of Representatives, roughly evenly split among Democrats and Republicans.

Rep. DelBene’s previous version of this bill, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, attracted 143 Democratic cosponsors and 137 Republican ones, or more than half of the members of the House. This bill was not completed during the previous session of Congress (January 2019–January 2021) because of the more urgent needs of pandemic response, said Rep. Bucshon, who practiced cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress.

“It wasn’t quite on the radar as much as it might have been if we didn’t have COVID,” Rep. Bucshon said.

Rep. Bucshon added that he expects strong Senate support for a companion measure of the House bill, which could make the difference for efforts to pass it this year.

Insurers have become more aggressive over time in denying payments through prior authorization systems for services that physicians say their patients need, according to Rep. Bucshon. There may be some “bad actors” in medicine who would order unnecessary procedures, Rep. Bucshon allowed, but in most cases, the cumbersome prior authorization processes only put a hurdle for patients seeking needed treatments, he said.

“The premise is that it controls health care costs but actually what it does is it helps insurance company’s bottom line,” Rep. Bucshon said.

In a prepared statement, former Pennsylvania representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, now CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, said her group had spoken with sponsors of this legislation and appreciates “their receptiveness to feedback in this process.”

“Prior authorization ensures beneficiaries receive clinically appropriate care and reduces exposures to duplicative and unnecessary services,” Ms. Schwartz said. “We share an interest in ensuring prior authorization works as smoothly and effectively as possible for beneficiaries while protecting its essential function of facilitating safe, evidenced-based care.”

The Better Medicare Alliance said its funders include UnitedHealth, Humana, and CVS Health/Aetna, which run Advantage plans. The group also lists as its partners many medical organizations.
 

“Rationing care by hassling”

Like Rep. Bucshon, Dr. Bailey sees a different motivation in insurers’ persistence in keeping the prior authorization process cumbersome.

Phone calls and faxes remain the key methods for handling prior authorization for medical services, according to the results of a survey done by the AMA in December. Phone calls were always or often required for prior authorization for medical services (59%), with faxes the second-most common approach (46%), followed by health plans’ online portals (39%), electronic health records and practice management systems (29%), and email or U.S. mail (26%), according to the AMA’s report on the survey.

“It seems like every step in the process is designed to make the patient less likely to get the therapy that the doctor thinks that the patient needs,” Dr. Bailey said. “It’s almost like rationing care by hassling the patient and the physician.”

The findings of an investigation by HHS’ internal watchdog unit appear to support Dr. Bailey’s view, showing that insurer-run Medicare plans had a pattern of often walking back their initial rejections.

In 2018, the Office of the Inspector General for HHS reported that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-16. In addition, independent reviewers within the appeals process overturned additional denials in favor of patients and clinicians, OIG said.

“The high number of overturned denials raises concerns that some Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and providers were initially denied services and payments that should have been provided,” the OIG said in the report. “This is especially concerning because beneficiaries and providers rarely used the appeals process, which is designed to ensure access to care and payment.”

During 2014-2016, patients and clinicians appealed only 1% of denials to the first level of appeal, OIG said. In the report, the watchdog group noted that CMS audits had highlighted “widespread and persistent MAO performance problems related to denials of care and payment.” In 2015, for example, CMS cited 56% of audited contracts for making inappropriate denials.

Dr. Bailey also said in an interview that she routinely encounters problems with prior authorization in her own practice as an allergist and immunologist in Fort Worth, Tex.

In late May, for example, a Medicare Advantage plan made a patient whose chronic asthma had been stable for years change to a new inhaler that resulted in him developing a yeast infection in his mouth, Dr. Bailey said.

“We treated the yeast infection, made some changes in the way he uses his inhaler, so hopefully he would tolerate it better,” Dr. Bailey said. “He had a reaction to the medication to treat the yeast infection and ended up in the hospital. How is that helping anyone? It certainly hasn’t helped my patient.”

Dr. Bailey said insurers have also asked to seek prior authorization to prescribe medications that have been generic for years and have used the process to challenge her on cases of what seem to be common sense in medical practice. This included a bid to have Dr. Bailey prescribe a medication in pill form for a 6-month-old baby who had no teeth.

“Every doctor has got absurd stories like that, but unfortunately, every doctor is going to have tragic stories where prior authorization has resulted in death and harm to the patients,” Dr. Bailey said.

Some physicians leave it to the patient to try to overcome insurers’ decisions on prior authorization, seeing this task as falling outside of their duties, Dr. Bailey said.

“I don’t do that. I fight. I spend a lot of time fighting. I don’t like to lose. I don’t like my patients to lose, so I will go to the mat for them,” Dr. Bailey said. “But I’m blessed to be in a specialty where I’ve got loads more control over my schedule than many other specialties do.”

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

William Lynes, MD, had a flourishing medical practice and a fulfilling family life with three children when he first attempted suicide in 1999 at age 45. By 2003, depression and two more suicide attempts led to his early retirement.

In a session at the recent virtual American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2021 annual meeting, Dr. Lynes talked about the challenges of dealing with depression while managing the stresses of a career in medicine. The session in which he spoke was called, “The Suicidal Physician: Narratives From a Physician Who Survived and the Physician Widow of One Who Did Not.”

By writing and speaking about his experiences, he says, he has been able to retain his identity as a physician and avoid obsessive thoughts about suicide. He hopes conversations like these help other physicians feel less alone and enable them to push past stigmas to get the help they need. He suspects they do. More than 600 people joined the APA session, and Dr. Lynes received dozens of thankful messages afterward.

“I love medicine, but intrinsically, the practice of medicine is stressful, and you can’t get away,” said Dr. Lynes, a retired urologist in Temecula, Calif. “As far as feedback, it made me feel like it’s something I should continue to do.”
 

A way to heal

For Dr. Lynes, his “downward spiral into darkness” began with a series of catastrophic medical events starting in 1998, when he came home from a family vacation in Mexico feeling unwell. He didn’t bother to do anything about it – typical of a physician, he says. Then one night he woke up shaking with chills and fever. Soon he was in the hospital with respiratory failure from septic shock.

Dr. Lynes spent 6 weeks in the intensive care unit, including 4 weeks on a ventilator. He underwent a tracheostomy. He lost 40 pounds and experienced ICU-related delirium. It was a terrifying time, he said. When he tried to return to work 10 months later, he didn’t feel as though he could function normally.

Having once been a driven doctor who worked long hours, he now doubted himself and dreaded giving patients bad news. Spontaneously, he tried to take his own life.

Afterward, he concealed what had happened from everyone except his wife and managed to resume his practice. However, he was unable to regain the enthusiasm he had once had for his work. Although he had experienced depression before, this time it was unrelenting.

He sought help from a psychiatrist, received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and began taking medication. Still, he struggled to fulfill his responsibilities. Then in April 2002, he had a snowboarding accident that caused multiple facial fractures and required five operations. When he returned to work this time, he felt like a failure but resisted asking colleagues for help.

A few months later, Dr. Lynes again attempted suicide, which led to another stay in the ICU and more time on a ventilator. Doctors told his family they didn’t think he would survive. When he recovered, he spent time as an inpatient in a psychiatric ward, where he received the first of a series of electroconvulsive therapy sessions. Compounding his anxiety and depression was the inability to come to terms with his life if he were not able to practice medicine.

The next fall, in September 2003, his third suicide attempt took place in his office on a weekend when no one was around. After locking the door, he looked at his reflection in the frame of his medical school diploma. The glass was cracked. “It was dark, it was black, it was cold,” he said. “I can remember seeing my reflection and thinking how disgusted I was.”

For years after that, Dr. Lynes struggled with his sense of self-worth. He hid from the medical system and dreaded doctors’ appointments. Finally in 2016, he found new meaning at a writing conference, where he met a fellow physician whose story was similar to his. She encouraged him to write about his experience. His essay was published in Annals of Internal Medicine that year. “Then I started speaking, and I feel like I’m a physician again,” he said. “That has really healed me quite a bit.”
 

Why physicians die by suicide

Working in health care can be extremely stressful, even in the best of times, said Michael Myers, MD, a psychiatrist at State University of New York, Brooklyn, and author of the book, “Why Physicians Die By Suicide: Lessons Learned From Their Families and Others Who Cared.”

Years of school and training culminate in a career in which demands are relentless. Societal expectations are high. Many doctors are perfectionists by nature, and physicians tend to feel intense pressure to compete for coveted positions.

Stress starts early in a medical career. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of 183 studies from 43 countries showed that nearly 30% of medical students experienced symptoms of depression and that 11% reported suicidal thoughts, but only 15% sought help.

A 2015 review of 31 studies that involved residents showed that rates of depression remained close to 30% and that about three-quarters of trainees meet criteria for burnout, a type of emotional exhaustion and sense of inadequacy that can result from chronic stress at work.

The stress of medical training appears to be a direct cause of mental health struggles. Rates of depression are higher among those working to become physicians than among their peers of the same age, research shows. In addition, symptoms become more prevalent as people progress through their training.

The COVID-19 pandemic has added stress to an already stressful job. Of more than 2,300 physicians surveyed in August 2020 by the Physicians Foundation, a physicians advocacy organization, 50% indicated that they experienced excessive anger, tearfulness, or anxiety because of the way the pandemic affected their work; 30% felt hopeless or lacking purpose; and 8% had thoughts of self-harm related to the pandemic. Rates of burnout had risen from 40% in 2018 to 58%.

Those problems might be even more acute in places experiencing other types of crises. A 2020 study of 154 emergency department (ED) physicians in Libya, which is in the midst of a civil war, found that 65% were experiencing anxiety, 73% were showing signs of depression, and 68% felt emotionally exhausted.
 

Every story is different

It is unclear how common suicide is among physicians. One often-repeated estimate is that 300-400 physicians die by suicide each year, but no one is certain how that number was determined, said Dr. Myers, who organized the APA panel.

Studies on suicide are inconsistent, and trends are hard to pinpoint. Anecdotally, he has received just as many calls about physician suicides in the past year as he did before the pandemic started. “What I can tell you is that this is a serious subject,” Dr. Myers said. “And it’s not going away.”

Every person is different, and so is every death. Sometimes, career problems have nothing to do with a physician’s suicide, Dr. Myers said. When job stress does play a role, factors are often varied and complex.

After a 35-year career as a double board certified ED physician, Matthew Seaman, MD, retired in January 2017. The same month, a patient filed a complaint against him with the Washington State medical board, which led to an investigation and a lawsuit.

The case was hard on Dr. Seaman, who had continued to work night shifts throughout his career and had won a Hero Award from the American Board of Emergency Medicine, said his wife, Linda Seaman, MD, a family practitioner in Yakima, Wash., who also spoke on the APA panel.

Dr. Seaman said that 2 years after the investigation started, her husband was growing increasingly depressed. In 2019, he testified in a deposition. She said the plaintiff’s attorney “tried every way he could to shame Matt, humiliate Matt, make him believe he was a very bad doctor.” Three days later, he died by suicide at age 62.

Looking back at the year leading up to her husband’s death, Dr. Seaman recognizes multiple obstacles that interfered with her husband’s ability to get help, including frustrating interactions with psychiatrists and the couple’s insurance company.

His identity and experience as a physician also played a role. A couple of months before he died, she tried unsuccessfully to reach his psychiatrist, whose office suggested he go to the ED. However, because he worked as an ED doctor in their small town, he wouldn’t go. Dr. Seaman suspects he was wary of the stigma.

Burnout likely set him up to cave in after decades of work on the front lines, she added. Working in the ED exposes providers to horrific, traumatic cases every day, she said. Physicians learn to suppress their own emotions to deal with what they encounter. Stuffing their feelings can lead to posttraumatic stress. “You just perform,” she said. “You learn to do that.”
 

A real gift

Whenever Dr. Myers hears stories about doctors who died by suicide or who have written about their mental health struggles to help others, he contacts them. One goal of his own writing and of the conference sessions he organizes is to make it easier for others to share their own stories.

“I tell them, first of all, their courage and honesty is a real gift, and they’re saving lives,” he said. “There are so many suffering doctors out there who think that they’re the only one.”

Public conversations such as those that occurred in the APA session also offer opportunities to share advice, including Dr. Myers’ recommendation that doctors be sure they have a primary care physician of their own.

Many don’t, he says, because they say they are too busy, they can treat their own symptoms, or they can self-refer to specialists when needed. But physicians don’t always recognize symptoms of depression in themselves, and when mental health problems arise, they may not seek help or treat themselves appropriately.

A primary care physician can be the first person to recognize a mental health problem and refer a patient for mental health care, said Dr. Myers, whose latest book, “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir,” explores his experiences treating doctors with burnout and other mental health problems.

Whether they have a primary care doctor or not, he suggests that physicians talk to anyone they trust – a social worker, a religious leader, or a family member who can then help them find the right sort of care.

In the United States, around-the-clock help is available through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. A psychiatrist-run hotline specifically for physicians is available at 888-409-0141. “Reach out and get some help,” Dr. Myers said. “Just don’t do it alone.”

Dr. Lynes advocates setting boundaries between life and work. He has also benefited from writing about his experiences. A blog or a diary can help physicians process their feelings, he said. His 2016 essay marked a major turning point in his life, giving his life meaning in helping others.

“Since I wrote that article, I can’t tell you how much better I am,” he said. “Now, I’m not embarrassed to be around physicians. I actually consider myself a physician. I didn’t for many, many years. So, I’m doing pretty well.”
 

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

William Lynes, MD, had a flourishing medical practice and a fulfilling family life with three children when he first attempted suicide in 1999 at age 45. By 2003, depression and two more suicide attempts led to his early retirement.

In a session at the recent virtual American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2021 annual meeting, Dr. Lynes talked about the challenges of dealing with depression while managing the stresses of a career in medicine. The session in which he spoke was called, “The Suicidal Physician: Narratives From a Physician Who Survived and the Physician Widow of One Who Did Not.”

By writing and speaking about his experiences, he says, he has been able to retain his identity as a physician and avoid obsessive thoughts about suicide. He hopes conversations like these help other physicians feel less alone and enable them to push past stigmas to get the help they need. He suspects they do. More than 600 people joined the APA session, and Dr. Lynes received dozens of thankful messages afterward.

“I love medicine, but intrinsically, the practice of medicine is stressful, and you can’t get away,” said Dr. Lynes, a retired urologist in Temecula, Calif. “As far as feedback, it made me feel like it’s something I should continue to do.”
 

A way to heal

For Dr. Lynes, his “downward spiral into darkness” began with a series of catastrophic medical events starting in 1998, when he came home from a family vacation in Mexico feeling unwell. He didn’t bother to do anything about it – typical of a physician, he says. Then one night he woke up shaking with chills and fever. Soon he was in the hospital with respiratory failure from septic shock.

Dr. Lynes spent 6 weeks in the intensive care unit, including 4 weeks on a ventilator. He underwent a tracheostomy. He lost 40 pounds and experienced ICU-related delirium. It was a terrifying time, he said. When he tried to return to work 10 months later, he didn’t feel as though he could function normally.

Having once been a driven doctor who worked long hours, he now doubted himself and dreaded giving patients bad news. Spontaneously, he tried to take his own life.

Afterward, he concealed what had happened from everyone except his wife and managed to resume his practice. However, he was unable to regain the enthusiasm he had once had for his work. Although he had experienced depression before, this time it was unrelenting.

He sought help from a psychiatrist, received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and began taking medication. Still, he struggled to fulfill his responsibilities. Then in April 2002, he had a snowboarding accident that caused multiple facial fractures and required five operations. When he returned to work this time, he felt like a failure but resisted asking colleagues for help.

A few months later, Dr. Lynes again attempted suicide, which led to another stay in the ICU and more time on a ventilator. Doctors told his family they didn’t think he would survive. When he recovered, he spent time as an inpatient in a psychiatric ward, where he received the first of a series of electroconvulsive therapy sessions. Compounding his anxiety and depression was the inability to come to terms with his life if he were not able to practice medicine.

The next fall, in September 2003, his third suicide attempt took place in his office on a weekend when no one was around. After locking the door, he looked at his reflection in the frame of his medical school diploma. The glass was cracked. “It was dark, it was black, it was cold,” he said. “I can remember seeing my reflection and thinking how disgusted I was.”

For years after that, Dr. Lynes struggled with his sense of self-worth. He hid from the medical system and dreaded doctors’ appointments. Finally in 2016, he found new meaning at a writing conference, where he met a fellow physician whose story was similar to his. She encouraged him to write about his experience. His essay was published in Annals of Internal Medicine that year. “Then I started speaking, and I feel like I’m a physician again,” he said. “That has really healed me quite a bit.”
 

Why physicians die by suicide

Working in health care can be extremely stressful, even in the best of times, said Michael Myers, MD, a psychiatrist at State University of New York, Brooklyn, and author of the book, “Why Physicians Die By Suicide: Lessons Learned From Their Families and Others Who Cared.”

Years of school and training culminate in a career in which demands are relentless. Societal expectations are high. Many doctors are perfectionists by nature, and physicians tend to feel intense pressure to compete for coveted positions.

Stress starts early in a medical career. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of 183 studies from 43 countries showed that nearly 30% of medical students experienced symptoms of depression and that 11% reported suicidal thoughts, but only 15% sought help.

A 2015 review of 31 studies that involved residents showed that rates of depression remained close to 30% and that about three-quarters of trainees meet criteria for burnout, a type of emotional exhaustion and sense of inadequacy that can result from chronic stress at work.

The stress of medical training appears to be a direct cause of mental health struggles. Rates of depression are higher among those working to become physicians than among their peers of the same age, research shows. In addition, symptoms become more prevalent as people progress through their training.

The COVID-19 pandemic has added stress to an already stressful job. Of more than 2,300 physicians surveyed in August 2020 by the Physicians Foundation, a physicians advocacy organization, 50% indicated that they experienced excessive anger, tearfulness, or anxiety because of the way the pandemic affected their work; 30% felt hopeless or lacking purpose; and 8% had thoughts of self-harm related to the pandemic. Rates of burnout had risen from 40% in 2018 to 58%.

Those problems might be even more acute in places experiencing other types of crises. A 2020 study of 154 emergency department (ED) physicians in Libya, which is in the midst of a civil war, found that 65% were experiencing anxiety, 73% were showing signs of depression, and 68% felt emotionally exhausted.
 

Every story is different

It is unclear how common suicide is among physicians. One often-repeated estimate is that 300-400 physicians die by suicide each year, but no one is certain how that number was determined, said Dr. Myers, who organized the APA panel.

Studies on suicide are inconsistent, and trends are hard to pinpoint. Anecdotally, he has received just as many calls about physician suicides in the past year as he did before the pandemic started. “What I can tell you is that this is a serious subject,” Dr. Myers said. “And it’s not going away.”

Every person is different, and so is every death. Sometimes, career problems have nothing to do with a physician’s suicide, Dr. Myers said. When job stress does play a role, factors are often varied and complex.

After a 35-year career as a double board certified ED physician, Matthew Seaman, MD, retired in January 2017. The same month, a patient filed a complaint against him with the Washington State medical board, which led to an investigation and a lawsuit.

The case was hard on Dr. Seaman, who had continued to work night shifts throughout his career and had won a Hero Award from the American Board of Emergency Medicine, said his wife, Linda Seaman, MD, a family practitioner in Yakima, Wash., who also spoke on the APA panel.

Dr. Seaman said that 2 years after the investigation started, her husband was growing increasingly depressed. In 2019, he testified in a deposition. She said the plaintiff’s attorney “tried every way he could to shame Matt, humiliate Matt, make him believe he was a very bad doctor.” Three days later, he died by suicide at age 62.

Looking back at the year leading up to her husband’s death, Dr. Seaman recognizes multiple obstacles that interfered with her husband’s ability to get help, including frustrating interactions with psychiatrists and the couple’s insurance company.

His identity and experience as a physician also played a role. A couple of months before he died, she tried unsuccessfully to reach his psychiatrist, whose office suggested he go to the ED. However, because he worked as an ED doctor in their small town, he wouldn’t go. Dr. Seaman suspects he was wary of the stigma.

Burnout likely set him up to cave in after decades of work on the front lines, she added. Working in the ED exposes providers to horrific, traumatic cases every day, she said. Physicians learn to suppress their own emotions to deal with what they encounter. Stuffing their feelings can lead to posttraumatic stress. “You just perform,” she said. “You learn to do that.”
 

A real gift

Whenever Dr. Myers hears stories about doctors who died by suicide or who have written about their mental health struggles to help others, he contacts them. One goal of his own writing and of the conference sessions he organizes is to make it easier for others to share their own stories.

“I tell them, first of all, their courage and honesty is a real gift, and they’re saving lives,” he said. “There are so many suffering doctors out there who think that they’re the only one.”

Public conversations such as those that occurred in the APA session also offer opportunities to share advice, including Dr. Myers’ recommendation that doctors be sure they have a primary care physician of their own.

Many don’t, he says, because they say they are too busy, they can treat their own symptoms, or they can self-refer to specialists when needed. But physicians don’t always recognize symptoms of depression in themselves, and when mental health problems arise, they may not seek help or treat themselves appropriately.

A primary care physician can be the first person to recognize a mental health problem and refer a patient for mental health care, said Dr. Myers, whose latest book, “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir,” explores his experiences treating doctors with burnout and other mental health problems.

Whether they have a primary care doctor or not, he suggests that physicians talk to anyone they trust – a social worker, a religious leader, or a family member who can then help them find the right sort of care.

In the United States, around-the-clock help is available through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. A psychiatrist-run hotline specifically for physicians is available at 888-409-0141. “Reach out and get some help,” Dr. Myers said. “Just don’t do it alone.”

Dr. Lynes advocates setting boundaries between life and work. He has also benefited from writing about his experiences. A blog or a diary can help physicians process their feelings, he said. His 2016 essay marked a major turning point in his life, giving his life meaning in helping others.

“Since I wrote that article, I can’t tell you how much better I am,” he said. “Now, I’m not embarrassed to be around physicians. I actually consider myself a physician. I didn’t for many, many years. So, I’m doing pretty well.”
 

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

William Lynes, MD, had a flourishing medical practice and a fulfilling family life with three children when he first attempted suicide in 1999 at age 45. By 2003, depression and two more suicide attempts led to his early retirement.

In a session at the recent virtual American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2021 annual meeting, Dr. Lynes talked about the challenges of dealing with depression while managing the stresses of a career in medicine. The session in which he spoke was called, “The Suicidal Physician: Narratives From a Physician Who Survived and the Physician Widow of One Who Did Not.”

By writing and speaking about his experiences, he says, he has been able to retain his identity as a physician and avoid obsessive thoughts about suicide. He hopes conversations like these help other physicians feel less alone and enable them to push past stigmas to get the help they need. He suspects they do. More than 600 people joined the APA session, and Dr. Lynes received dozens of thankful messages afterward.

“I love medicine, but intrinsically, the practice of medicine is stressful, and you can’t get away,” said Dr. Lynes, a retired urologist in Temecula, Calif. “As far as feedback, it made me feel like it’s something I should continue to do.”
 

A way to heal

For Dr. Lynes, his “downward spiral into darkness” began with a series of catastrophic medical events starting in 1998, when he came home from a family vacation in Mexico feeling unwell. He didn’t bother to do anything about it – typical of a physician, he says. Then one night he woke up shaking with chills and fever. Soon he was in the hospital with respiratory failure from septic shock.

Dr. Lynes spent 6 weeks in the intensive care unit, including 4 weeks on a ventilator. He underwent a tracheostomy. He lost 40 pounds and experienced ICU-related delirium. It was a terrifying time, he said. When he tried to return to work 10 months later, he didn’t feel as though he could function normally.

Having once been a driven doctor who worked long hours, he now doubted himself and dreaded giving patients bad news. Spontaneously, he tried to take his own life.

Afterward, he concealed what had happened from everyone except his wife and managed to resume his practice. However, he was unable to regain the enthusiasm he had once had for his work. Although he had experienced depression before, this time it was unrelenting.

He sought help from a psychiatrist, received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and began taking medication. Still, he struggled to fulfill his responsibilities. Then in April 2002, he had a snowboarding accident that caused multiple facial fractures and required five operations. When he returned to work this time, he felt like a failure but resisted asking colleagues for help.

A few months later, Dr. Lynes again attempted suicide, which led to another stay in the ICU and more time on a ventilator. Doctors told his family they didn’t think he would survive. When he recovered, he spent time as an inpatient in a psychiatric ward, where he received the first of a series of electroconvulsive therapy sessions. Compounding his anxiety and depression was the inability to come to terms with his life if he were not able to practice medicine.

The next fall, in September 2003, his third suicide attempt took place in his office on a weekend when no one was around. After locking the door, he looked at his reflection in the frame of his medical school diploma. The glass was cracked. “It was dark, it was black, it was cold,” he said. “I can remember seeing my reflection and thinking how disgusted I was.”

For years after that, Dr. Lynes struggled with his sense of self-worth. He hid from the medical system and dreaded doctors’ appointments. Finally in 2016, he found new meaning at a writing conference, where he met a fellow physician whose story was similar to his. She encouraged him to write about his experience. His essay was published in Annals of Internal Medicine that year. “Then I started speaking, and I feel like I’m a physician again,” he said. “That has really healed me quite a bit.”
 

Why physicians die by suicide

Working in health care can be extremely stressful, even in the best of times, said Michael Myers, MD, a psychiatrist at State University of New York, Brooklyn, and author of the book, “Why Physicians Die By Suicide: Lessons Learned From Their Families and Others Who Cared.”

Years of school and training culminate in a career in which demands are relentless. Societal expectations are high. Many doctors are perfectionists by nature, and physicians tend to feel intense pressure to compete for coveted positions.

Stress starts early in a medical career. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of 183 studies from 43 countries showed that nearly 30% of medical students experienced symptoms of depression and that 11% reported suicidal thoughts, but only 15% sought help.

A 2015 review of 31 studies that involved residents showed that rates of depression remained close to 30% and that about three-quarters of trainees meet criteria for burnout, a type of emotional exhaustion and sense of inadequacy that can result from chronic stress at work.

The stress of medical training appears to be a direct cause of mental health struggles. Rates of depression are higher among those working to become physicians than among their peers of the same age, research shows. In addition, symptoms become more prevalent as people progress through their training.

The COVID-19 pandemic has added stress to an already stressful job. Of more than 2,300 physicians surveyed in August 2020 by the Physicians Foundation, a physicians advocacy organization, 50% indicated that they experienced excessive anger, tearfulness, or anxiety because of the way the pandemic affected their work; 30% felt hopeless or lacking purpose; and 8% had thoughts of self-harm related to the pandemic. Rates of burnout had risen from 40% in 2018 to 58%.

Those problems might be even more acute in places experiencing other types of crises. A 2020 study of 154 emergency department (ED) physicians in Libya, which is in the midst of a civil war, found that 65% were experiencing anxiety, 73% were showing signs of depression, and 68% felt emotionally exhausted.
 

Every story is different

It is unclear how common suicide is among physicians. One often-repeated estimate is that 300-400 physicians die by suicide each year, but no one is certain how that number was determined, said Dr. Myers, who organized the APA panel.

Studies on suicide are inconsistent, and trends are hard to pinpoint. Anecdotally, he has received just as many calls about physician suicides in the past year as he did before the pandemic started. “What I can tell you is that this is a serious subject,” Dr. Myers said. “And it’s not going away.”

Every person is different, and so is every death. Sometimes, career problems have nothing to do with a physician’s suicide, Dr. Myers said. When job stress does play a role, factors are often varied and complex.

After a 35-year career as a double board certified ED physician, Matthew Seaman, MD, retired in January 2017. The same month, a patient filed a complaint against him with the Washington State medical board, which led to an investigation and a lawsuit.

The case was hard on Dr. Seaman, who had continued to work night shifts throughout his career and had won a Hero Award from the American Board of Emergency Medicine, said his wife, Linda Seaman, MD, a family practitioner in Yakima, Wash., who also spoke on the APA panel.

Dr. Seaman said that 2 years after the investigation started, her husband was growing increasingly depressed. In 2019, he testified in a deposition. She said the plaintiff’s attorney “tried every way he could to shame Matt, humiliate Matt, make him believe he was a very bad doctor.” Three days later, he died by suicide at age 62.

Looking back at the year leading up to her husband’s death, Dr. Seaman recognizes multiple obstacles that interfered with her husband’s ability to get help, including frustrating interactions with psychiatrists and the couple’s insurance company.

His identity and experience as a physician also played a role. A couple of months before he died, she tried unsuccessfully to reach his psychiatrist, whose office suggested he go to the ED. However, because he worked as an ED doctor in their small town, he wouldn’t go. Dr. Seaman suspects he was wary of the stigma.

Burnout likely set him up to cave in after decades of work on the front lines, she added. Working in the ED exposes providers to horrific, traumatic cases every day, she said. Physicians learn to suppress their own emotions to deal with what they encounter. Stuffing their feelings can lead to posttraumatic stress. “You just perform,” she said. “You learn to do that.”
 

A real gift

Whenever Dr. Myers hears stories about doctors who died by suicide or who have written about their mental health struggles to help others, he contacts them. One goal of his own writing and of the conference sessions he organizes is to make it easier for others to share their own stories.

“I tell them, first of all, their courage and honesty is a real gift, and they’re saving lives,” he said. “There are so many suffering doctors out there who think that they’re the only one.”

Public conversations such as those that occurred in the APA session also offer opportunities to share advice, including Dr. Myers’ recommendation that doctors be sure they have a primary care physician of their own.

Many don’t, he says, because they say they are too busy, they can treat their own symptoms, or they can self-refer to specialists when needed. But physicians don’t always recognize symptoms of depression in themselves, and when mental health problems arise, they may not seek help or treat themselves appropriately.

A primary care physician can be the first person to recognize a mental health problem and refer a patient for mental health care, said Dr. Myers, whose latest book, “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir,” explores his experiences treating doctors with burnout and other mental health problems.

Whether they have a primary care doctor or not, he suggests that physicians talk to anyone they trust – a social worker, a religious leader, or a family member who can then help them find the right sort of care.

In the United States, around-the-clock help is available through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. A psychiatrist-run hotline specifically for physicians is available at 888-409-0141. “Reach out and get some help,” Dr. Myers said. “Just don’t do it alone.”

Dr. Lynes advocates setting boundaries between life and work. He has also benefited from writing about his experiences. A blog or a diary can help physicians process their feelings, he said. His 2016 essay marked a major turning point in his life, giving his life meaning in helping others.

“Since I wrote that article, I can’t tell you how much better I am,” he said. “Now, I’m not embarrassed to be around physicians. I actually consider myself a physician. I didn’t for many, many years. So, I’m doing pretty well.”
 

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

The first cases of large vessel arterial occlusion strokes linked to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine have been described in the United Kingdom. The three cases (one of which was fatal) occurred in two women and one man in their 30s or 40s and involved blockages of the carotid and middle cerebral artery. Two of the three patients also had venous thrombosis involving the portal and cerebral venous system. All three also had extremely low platelet counts, confirmed antibodies to platelet factor 4, and raised D-dimer levels, all characteristic of the vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) reaction associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.  

They are described in detail in a letter published online on May 25 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

“These are [the] first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” said senior author David Werring, PhD, FRCP.

“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST [Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis] which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” explained Dr. Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London.

“In patients who present with ischemic stroke, especially younger patients, and who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine within the past month, clinicians need to consider VITT as a possible cause, as there is a specific treatment needed for this syndrome,” he said.  

Young patients presenting with ischemic stroke after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT with laboratory tests, including platelet count, D-dimers, fibrinogen, and anti-PF4 antibodies, the authors wrote, and then managed by a multidisciplinary team, including hematology, neurology, stroke, neurosurgery, and neuroradiology, for rapid access to treatments including intravenous immune globulin, methylprednisolone, plasmapheresis, and nonheparin anticoagulants such as fondaparinux, argatroban, or direct oral anticoagulants.

Dr. Werring noted that these reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are only describing three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said. “Around 40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experience some sort of thrombosis and about 1.5% have an ischemic stroke. Whereas latest figures from the U.K. estimate the incidence of VITT with the AstraZeneca vaccine of 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 100,000.

“Our report doesn’t suggest that VITT is more common than these latest figures estimate, but we are just drawing attention to an alternative presentation,” he added.  
 

Three cases

The first patient in the current case series, a woman in her 30s, experienced an intermittent headache on the right side and around her eyes 6 days after the vaccine. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm, and leg.

Imaging revealed a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and received the anticoagulant fondaparinux, but she still unfortunately died.

The second patient, a woman in her late 30s, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm, and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after having received the vaccine. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as pulmonary embolism and a left cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.  

Her platelet count increased following plasma removal and replacement and intravenous corticosteroids, and her condition improved after fondaparinux treatment.

The third patient, a man in his early 40s, presented 3 weeks after receiving his vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery, but there was no evidence of clots in the cerebral venous sinuses. He received a platelet and plasma transfusion, and fondaparinux, and remains stable.
 

High index of suspicion required

In a linked commentary, Hugh Markus, PhD, FRCP, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, wrote: “This report emphasizes that the immune mediated coagulopathy can also cause arterial thrombosis, including ischemic stroke, although venous thrombosis and especially cerebral venous sinus thrombosis appear more frequent.

“During the current period of COVID vaccination, a high index of suspicion is required to identify thrombotic episodes following vaccination,” he added. “However, it is important to remember that these side effects are rare and much less common than both cerebral venous thrombosis and ischemic stroke associated with COVID-19 infection itself.”
 

Risk/benefit unaltered

Several experts who commented on these reports for the Science Media Centre all agreed with Dr. Werring and Dr. Markus that these reports do not alter the current risk/benefit estimates with the vaccine.

Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who sits on the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Expert Advisory Group, said: “The picture regarding the rare syndrome of blood clots combined with low platelet counts associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine is becoming clearer. Until now, the cases described have tended to involve clots in veins such as cerebral vein thrombosis. In this series of three case reports, we now have some evidence that the types of blood vessels affected include arteries as well as veins.”  

“It’s important to stress that such cases remain very rare, and it’s certainly much rarer in people who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine than it is in people affected by COVID-19 itself,” Dr. Douglas emphasized.

“The description of the cases suggests the patients involved presented with the same kind of symptoms as already described in cases involving cerebral vein thrombosis, and they don’t suggest patients need to be on the alert for anything different,” he added.

“However, the emergence of details like this will help guide health professionals who may be faced with similar cases in future; the sooner such cases are recognized, the more chance they will quickly receive the right kind of treatment, hopefully leading to better outcomes.”

Will Lester, MBChB, PhD, consultant hematologist, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, said: “VITT remains a rare complication, and patients with a history of thrombosis, including stroke, should not consider themselves to be at any higher risk of this type of rare thrombosis after vaccination, and COVID infection itself is a significant risk for stroke and other types of thrombosis.”

Many countries have paused use of the AstraZeneca vaccine because of its link to the VITT syndrome or restricted its use to older people as the VITT reaction appears to be slightly more common in younger people. In the United Kingdom, the current recommendation is that individuals under 40 years of age should be offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca vaccine where possible.

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

The first cases of large vessel arterial occlusion strokes linked to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine have been described in the United Kingdom. The three cases (one of which was fatal) occurred in two women and one man in their 30s or 40s and involved blockages of the carotid and middle cerebral artery. Two of the three patients also had venous thrombosis involving the portal and cerebral venous system. All three also had extremely low platelet counts, confirmed antibodies to platelet factor 4, and raised D-dimer levels, all characteristic of the vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) reaction associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.  

They are described in detail in a letter published online on May 25 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

“These are [the] first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” said senior author David Werring, PhD, FRCP.

“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST [Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis] which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” explained Dr. Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London.

“In patients who present with ischemic stroke, especially younger patients, and who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine within the past month, clinicians need to consider VITT as a possible cause, as there is a specific treatment needed for this syndrome,” he said.  

Young patients presenting with ischemic stroke after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT with laboratory tests, including platelet count, D-dimers, fibrinogen, and anti-PF4 antibodies, the authors wrote, and then managed by a multidisciplinary team, including hematology, neurology, stroke, neurosurgery, and neuroradiology, for rapid access to treatments including intravenous immune globulin, methylprednisolone, plasmapheresis, and nonheparin anticoagulants such as fondaparinux, argatroban, or direct oral anticoagulants.

Dr. Werring noted that these reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are only describing three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said. “Around 40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experience some sort of thrombosis and about 1.5% have an ischemic stroke. Whereas latest figures from the U.K. estimate the incidence of VITT with the AstraZeneca vaccine of 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 100,000.

“Our report doesn’t suggest that VITT is more common than these latest figures estimate, but we are just drawing attention to an alternative presentation,” he added.  
 

Three cases

The first patient in the current case series, a woman in her 30s, experienced an intermittent headache on the right side and around her eyes 6 days after the vaccine. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm, and leg.

Imaging revealed a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and received the anticoagulant fondaparinux, but she still unfortunately died.

The second patient, a woman in her late 30s, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm, and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after having received the vaccine. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as pulmonary embolism and a left cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.  

Her platelet count increased following plasma removal and replacement and intravenous corticosteroids, and her condition improved after fondaparinux treatment.

The third patient, a man in his early 40s, presented 3 weeks after receiving his vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery, but there was no evidence of clots in the cerebral venous sinuses. He received a platelet and plasma transfusion, and fondaparinux, and remains stable.
 

High index of suspicion required

In a linked commentary, Hugh Markus, PhD, FRCP, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, wrote: “This report emphasizes that the immune mediated coagulopathy can also cause arterial thrombosis, including ischemic stroke, although venous thrombosis and especially cerebral venous sinus thrombosis appear more frequent.

“During the current period of COVID vaccination, a high index of suspicion is required to identify thrombotic episodes following vaccination,” he added. “However, it is important to remember that these side effects are rare and much less common than both cerebral venous thrombosis and ischemic stroke associated with COVID-19 infection itself.”
 

Risk/benefit unaltered

Several experts who commented on these reports for the Science Media Centre all agreed with Dr. Werring and Dr. Markus that these reports do not alter the current risk/benefit estimates with the vaccine.

Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who sits on the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Expert Advisory Group, said: “The picture regarding the rare syndrome of blood clots combined with low platelet counts associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine is becoming clearer. Until now, the cases described have tended to involve clots in veins such as cerebral vein thrombosis. In this series of three case reports, we now have some evidence that the types of blood vessels affected include arteries as well as veins.”  

“It’s important to stress that such cases remain very rare, and it’s certainly much rarer in people who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine than it is in people affected by COVID-19 itself,” Dr. Douglas emphasized.

“The description of the cases suggests the patients involved presented with the same kind of symptoms as already described in cases involving cerebral vein thrombosis, and they don’t suggest patients need to be on the alert for anything different,” he added.

“However, the emergence of details like this will help guide health professionals who may be faced with similar cases in future; the sooner such cases are recognized, the more chance they will quickly receive the right kind of treatment, hopefully leading to better outcomes.”

Will Lester, MBChB, PhD, consultant hematologist, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, said: “VITT remains a rare complication, and patients with a history of thrombosis, including stroke, should not consider themselves to be at any higher risk of this type of rare thrombosis after vaccination, and COVID infection itself is a significant risk for stroke and other types of thrombosis.”

Many countries have paused use of the AstraZeneca vaccine because of its link to the VITT syndrome or restricted its use to older people as the VITT reaction appears to be slightly more common in younger people. In the United Kingdom, the current recommendation is that individuals under 40 years of age should be offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca vaccine where possible.

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

The first cases of large vessel arterial occlusion strokes linked to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine have been described in the United Kingdom. The three cases (one of which was fatal) occurred in two women and one man in their 30s or 40s and involved blockages of the carotid and middle cerebral artery. Two of the three patients also had venous thrombosis involving the portal and cerebral venous system. All three also had extremely low platelet counts, confirmed antibodies to platelet factor 4, and raised D-dimer levels, all characteristic of the vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) reaction associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.  

They are described in detail in a letter published online on May 25 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

“These are [the] first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” said senior author David Werring, PhD, FRCP.

“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST [Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis] which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” explained Dr. Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London.

“In patients who present with ischemic stroke, especially younger patients, and who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine within the past month, clinicians need to consider VITT as a possible cause, as there is a specific treatment needed for this syndrome,” he said.  

Young patients presenting with ischemic stroke after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT with laboratory tests, including platelet count, D-dimers, fibrinogen, and anti-PF4 antibodies, the authors wrote, and then managed by a multidisciplinary team, including hematology, neurology, stroke, neurosurgery, and neuroradiology, for rapid access to treatments including intravenous immune globulin, methylprednisolone, plasmapheresis, and nonheparin anticoagulants such as fondaparinux, argatroban, or direct oral anticoagulants.

Dr. Werring noted that these reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are only describing three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said. “Around 40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experience some sort of thrombosis and about 1.5% have an ischemic stroke. Whereas latest figures from the U.K. estimate the incidence of VITT with the AstraZeneca vaccine of 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 100,000.

“Our report doesn’t suggest that VITT is more common than these latest figures estimate, but we are just drawing attention to an alternative presentation,” he added.  
 

Three cases

The first patient in the current case series, a woman in her 30s, experienced an intermittent headache on the right side and around her eyes 6 days after the vaccine. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm, and leg.

Imaging revealed a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and received the anticoagulant fondaparinux, but she still unfortunately died.

The second patient, a woman in her late 30s, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm, and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after having received the vaccine. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as pulmonary embolism and a left cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.  

Her platelet count increased following plasma removal and replacement and intravenous corticosteroids, and her condition improved after fondaparinux treatment.

The third patient, a man in his early 40s, presented 3 weeks after receiving his vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery, but there was no evidence of clots in the cerebral venous sinuses. He received a platelet and plasma transfusion, and fondaparinux, and remains stable.
 

High index of suspicion required

In a linked commentary, Hugh Markus, PhD, FRCP, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, wrote: “This report emphasizes that the immune mediated coagulopathy can also cause arterial thrombosis, including ischemic stroke, although venous thrombosis and especially cerebral venous sinus thrombosis appear more frequent.

“During the current period of COVID vaccination, a high index of suspicion is required to identify thrombotic episodes following vaccination,” he added. “However, it is important to remember that these side effects are rare and much less common than both cerebral venous thrombosis and ischemic stroke associated with COVID-19 infection itself.”
 

Risk/benefit unaltered

Several experts who commented on these reports for the Science Media Centre all agreed with Dr. Werring and Dr. Markus that these reports do not alter the current risk/benefit estimates with the vaccine.

Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who sits on the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Expert Advisory Group, said: “The picture regarding the rare syndrome of blood clots combined with low platelet counts associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine is becoming clearer. Until now, the cases described have tended to involve clots in veins such as cerebral vein thrombosis. In this series of three case reports, we now have some evidence that the types of blood vessels affected include arteries as well as veins.”  

“It’s important to stress that such cases remain very rare, and it’s certainly much rarer in people who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine than it is in people affected by COVID-19 itself,” Dr. Douglas emphasized.

“The description of the cases suggests the patients involved presented with the same kind of symptoms as already described in cases involving cerebral vein thrombosis, and they don’t suggest patients need to be on the alert for anything different,” he added.

“However, the emergence of details like this will help guide health professionals who may be faced with similar cases in future; the sooner such cases are recognized, the more chance they will quickly receive the right kind of treatment, hopefully leading to better outcomes.”

Will Lester, MBChB, PhD, consultant hematologist, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, said: “VITT remains a rare complication, and patients with a history of thrombosis, including stroke, should not consider themselves to be at any higher risk of this type of rare thrombosis after vaccination, and COVID infection itself is a significant risk for stroke and other types of thrombosis.”

Many countries have paused use of the AstraZeneca vaccine because of its link to the VITT syndrome or restricted its use to older people as the VITT reaction appears to be slightly more common in younger people. In the United Kingdom, the current recommendation is that individuals under 40 years of age should be offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca vaccine where possible.

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

Ten percent of patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) fail to respond properly to COVID-19 vaccinations regardless of medication, researchers report, and small new studies suggest those on methotrexate and rituximab may be especially vulnerable to vaccine failure.

Even so, it’s still crucially vital for patients with IMIDs to get vaccinated and for clinicians to follow recommendations to temporarily withhold certain medications around the time of vaccination, rheumatologist Anne R. Bass, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview. “We’re not making any significant adjustments,” added Dr. Bass, a coauthor of the American College of Rheumatology’s COVID-19 vaccination guidelines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

The findings appear in a trio of studies in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. The most recent study, which appeared May 25, 2021, found that more than one-third of patients with IMIDs who took methotrexate didn’t produce adequate antibody levels after vaccination versus 10% of those in other groups. (P < .001) A May 11 study found that 20 of 30 patients with rheumatic diseases on rituximab failed to respond to vaccination. And a May 6 study reported that immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 are “somewhat delayed and reduced” in patients with IMID, with 99.5% of a control group developing neutralizing antibody activity after vaccination versus 90% of those with IMID (P = .0008).


 

Development of neutralizing antibodies somewhat delayed and reduced

Team members were surprised by the high number of vaccine nonresponders in the May 6 IMID study, coauthor Georg Schett, MD, of Germany’s Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and University Hospital Erlangen, said in an interview.

The researchers compared two groups of patients who had no history of COVID-19 and received COVID-19 vaccinations, mostly two shots of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (96%): 84 with IMID (mean age, 53.1 years; 65.5% females) and 182 healthy controls (mean age, 40.8 years; 57.1% females).

The patients with IMID most commonly had spondyloarthritis (32.1%), RA (29.8%), inflammatory bowel disease (9.5%), and psoriasis (9.5%). Nearly 43% of the patients were treated with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and 23.9% with conventional synthetic DMARDSs. Another 29% were not treated.

All of the controls developed anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG, but 6% of the patients with IMID did not (P = .003). The gap in development of neutralizing antibodies was even higher: 99.5% of the controls developed neutralizing antibody activity versus 90% of the IMID group. “Neutralizing antibodies are more relevant because the test shows how much the antibodies interfere with the binding of SARS-CoV-2 proteins to the receptor,” Dr. Schett said.

The study authors concluded that “our study provides evidence that, while vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is well tolerated and even associated with lower incidence of side effects in patients with IMID, its efficacy is somewhat delayed and reduced. Nonetheless, the data also show that, in principle, patients with IMID respond to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, supporting an aggressive vaccination strategy.”
 

Lowered antibody response to vaccination for some methotrexate users

In the newer study, led by Rebecca H. Haberman, MD, of New York University Langone Health, researchers examined COVID-19 vaccine response in cohorts in New York City and Erlangen, Germany.

The New York cohort included 25 patients with IMID who were taking methotrexate by itself or with other immunomodulatory medications (mean age, 63.2 years), 26 with IMID who were on anticytokine therapy and/or other oral immunomodulators (mean age, 49.1 years) and 26 healthy controls (mean age, 49.2 years). Most patients with IMID had psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis or RA.

The German validation cohort included 182 healthy subjects (mean age, 45.0 years), 11 subjects with IMID who received TNF inhibitor monotherapy (mean age, 40.8 years), and 20 subjects with IMID on methotrexate monotherapy (mean age, 54.5 years).

In the New York cohort, 96.1% of healthy controls showed “adequate humoral immune response,” along with 92.3% of patients with IMID who weren’t taking methotrexate. However, those on methotrexate had a lower rate of adequate response (72.0%), and the gap persisted even after researchers removed those who showed signs of previous COVID-19 infection (P = .045).

In the German cohort, 98.3% of healthy cohorts and 90.9% of patients with IMID who didn’t receive methotrexate reached an “adequate” humoral response versus just half (50.0%) of those who were taking methotrexate.

When both cohorts are combined, over 90% of the healthy subjects and the patients with IMID on biologic treatments (mainly TNF blockers, n = 37) showed “robust” antibody response. However, only 62% of patients with IMID who took methotrexate (n = 45) reached an “adequate” level of response. The methotrexate gap remained after researchers accounted for differences in age among the cohorts.

What’s going on? “We think that the underlying chronic immune stimulation in autoimmune patients may cause T-cell exhaustion and thus blunts the immune response,” said Dr. Schett, who’s also a coauthor of this study. “In addition, specific drugs such as methotrexate could additionally impair the immune response.”

Still, the findings “reiterate that vaccinations are safe and effective, which is what the recommendations state,” he said, adding that more testing of vaccination immune response is wise.
 

Insights into vaccine response while on rituximab

Two more reports, also published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, offer insight into vaccine response in patients with IMID who take rituximab.

Ridofranz/Getty Images

In one report, published May 11, U.S. researchers retrospectively tracked 89 rheumatic disease patients (76% female; mean age, 61) at a single clinic who’d received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Of those, 21 patients showed no sign of vaccine antibody response, and 20 of them were in the group taking rituximab. (The other patient was taking belimumab.) Another 10 patients taking rituximab did show a response.

“Longer duration from most recent rituximab exposure was associated with a greater likelihood of response,” the report’s authors wrote. “The results suggest that time from last rituximab exposure is an important consideration in maximizing the likelihood of a serological response, but this likely is related to the substantial variation in the period of B-cell depletion following rituximab.”

Finally, an Austrian report published May 6 examined COVID-19 vaccine immune response in five patients who were taking rituximab (four with other drugs such as methotrexate and prednisone). Researchers compared them with eight healthy controls, half who’d been vaccinated.

The researchers found evidence that rituximab “may not have to preclude SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, since a cellular immune response will be mounted even in the absence of circulating B cells. Alternatively, in patients with stable disease, delaying [rituximab] treatment until after the second vaccination may be warranted and, therefore, vaccines with a short interval between first and second vaccination or those showing full protection after a single vaccination may be preferable. Importantly, in the presence of circulating B cells also a humoral immune response may be expected despite prior [rituximab] therapy.”

Dr. Bass said the findings reflect growing awareness that “patients with autoimmune disease, especially when they’re on immunosuppressant medications, don’t quite have as optimal responses to the vaccinations.” However, she said, the vaccines are so potent that they’re likely to still have significant efficacy in these patients even if there’s a reduction in response.

What’s next? Dr. Schett said “testing immune response to vaccination is important for patients with autoimmune disease. Some of them may need a third vaccination.”

The American College of Rheumatology’s COVID-19 vaccination guidelines do not recommend third vaccinations or postvaccination immune testing at this time. However, Dr. Bass, one of the coauthors of the recommendations, said it’s likely that postvaccination immune testing and booster shots will become routine.

Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Schett reported receiving consulting fees from AbbVie. The May 6 German vaccine study was funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, the ERC Synergy grant 4D Nanoscope, the IMI funded project RTCure, the Emerging Fields Initiative MIRACLE of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, the Schreiber Stiftung, and the Else Kröner-Memorial Scholarship. The study authors reported no disclosures. The May 25 study of German and American cohorts was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskletal and Skin Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Rheumatology Research Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies COVID-19 Initiative, Pfizer COVID-19 Competitive Grant Program, Beatrice Snyder Foundation, Riley Family Foundation, National Psoriasis Foundation, and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The authors reported a range of financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. No specific funding was reported for the other two studies mentioned.

Ten percent of patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) fail to respond properly to COVID-19 vaccinations regardless of medication, researchers report, and small new studies suggest those on methotrexate and rituximab may be especially vulnerable to vaccine failure.

Even so, it’s still crucially vital for patients with IMIDs to get vaccinated and for clinicians to follow recommendations to temporarily withhold certain medications around the time of vaccination, rheumatologist Anne R. Bass, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview. “We’re not making any significant adjustments,” added Dr. Bass, a coauthor of the American College of Rheumatology’s COVID-19 vaccination guidelines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

The findings appear in a trio of studies in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. The most recent study, which appeared May 25, 2021, found that more than one-third of patients with IMIDs who took methotrexate didn’t produce adequate antibody levels after vaccination versus 10% of those in other groups. (P < .001) A May 11 study found that 20 of 30 patients with rheumatic diseases on rituximab failed to respond to vaccination. And a May 6 study reported that immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 are “somewhat delayed and reduced” in patients with IMID, with 99.5% of a control group developing neutralizing antibody activity after vaccination versus 90% of those with IMID (P = .0008).


 

Development of neutralizing antibodies somewhat delayed and reduced

Team members were surprised by the high number of vaccine nonresponders in the May 6 IMID study, coauthor Georg Schett, MD, of Germany’s Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and University Hospital Erlangen, said in an interview.

The researchers compared two groups of patients who had no history of COVID-19 and received COVID-19 vaccinations, mostly two shots of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (96%): 84 with IMID (mean age, 53.1 years; 65.5% females) and 182 healthy controls (mean age, 40.8 years; 57.1% females).

The patients with IMID most commonly had spondyloarthritis (32.1%), RA (29.8%), inflammatory bowel disease (9.5%), and psoriasis (9.5%). Nearly 43% of the patients were treated with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and 23.9% with conventional synthetic DMARDSs. Another 29% were not treated.

All of the controls developed anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG, but 6% of the patients with IMID did not (P = .003). The gap in development of neutralizing antibodies was even higher: 99.5% of the controls developed neutralizing antibody activity versus 90% of the IMID group. “Neutralizing antibodies are more relevant because the test shows how much the antibodies interfere with the binding of SARS-CoV-2 proteins to the receptor,” Dr. Schett said.

The study authors concluded that “our study provides evidence that, while vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is well tolerated and even associated with lower incidence of side effects in patients with IMID, its efficacy is somewhat delayed and reduced. Nonetheless, the data also show that, in principle, patients with IMID respond to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, supporting an aggressive vaccination strategy.”
 

Lowered antibody response to vaccination for some methotrexate users

In the newer study, led by Rebecca H. Haberman, MD, of New York University Langone Health, researchers examined COVID-19 vaccine response in cohorts in New York City and Erlangen, Germany.

The New York cohort included 25 patients with IMID who were taking methotrexate by itself or with other immunomodulatory medications (mean age, 63.2 years), 26 with IMID who were on anticytokine therapy and/or other oral immunomodulators (mean age, 49.1 years) and 26 healthy controls (mean age, 49.2 years). Most patients with IMID had psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis or RA.

The German validation cohort included 182 healthy subjects (mean age, 45.0 years), 11 subjects with IMID who received TNF inhibitor monotherapy (mean age, 40.8 years), and 20 subjects with IMID on methotrexate monotherapy (mean age, 54.5 years).

In the New York cohort, 96.1% of healthy controls showed “adequate humoral immune response,” along with 92.3% of patients with IMID who weren’t taking methotrexate. However, those on methotrexate had a lower rate of adequate response (72.0%), and the gap persisted even after researchers removed those who showed signs of previous COVID-19 infection (P = .045).

In the German cohort, 98.3% of healthy cohorts and 90.9% of patients with IMID who didn’t receive methotrexate reached an “adequate” humoral response versus just half (50.0%) of those who were taking methotrexate.

When both cohorts are combined, over 90% of the healthy subjects and the patients with IMID on biologic treatments (mainly TNF blockers, n = 37) showed “robust” antibody response. However, only 62% of patients with IMID who took methotrexate (n = 45) reached an “adequate” level of response. The methotrexate gap remained after researchers accounted for differences in age among the cohorts.

What’s going on? “We think that the underlying chronic immune stimulation in autoimmune patients may cause T-cell exhaustion and thus blunts the immune response,” said Dr. Schett, who’s also a coauthor of this study. “In addition, specific drugs such as methotrexate could additionally impair the immune response.”

Still, the findings “reiterate that vaccinations are safe and effective, which is what the recommendations state,” he said, adding that more testing of vaccination immune response is wise.
 

Insights into vaccine response while on rituximab

Two more reports, also published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, offer insight into vaccine response in patients with IMID who take rituximab.