MDedge Cardiology

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

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

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

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

Different calculations of risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

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

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

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

Different calculations of risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

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

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

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

Different calculations of risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obamacare on the blocks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obamacare on the blocks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obamacare on the blocks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Georgia Lupus Registry data

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

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

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

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

Early stroke, late IHD

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

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

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

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

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

Managing CVD risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Georgia Lupus Registry data

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

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

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

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

Early stroke, late IHD

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

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

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

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

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

Managing CVD risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Georgia Lupus Registry data

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

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

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

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

Early stroke, late IHD

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

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

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

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

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

Managing CVD risk

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

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

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

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

New data document the global fallout for rheumatology patients when hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) supplies were being diverted to hospitals for COVID-19 patients.

Demand for HCQ soared on evidence-lacking claims that the drug was effective in treating and preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further research has since shown HCQ to be ineffective for COVID-19 and potentially harmful to patients.

But during the height of the COVID-19-related hype, patients worldwide with autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, had trouble getting the pills at all or couldn’t get as many as they needed for their chronic conditions.

Emily Sirotich, MSc, a PhD student at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., presented data at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology demonstrating that the severity of shortages differed widely.

Whereas 26.7% of rheumatology patients in Africa and 21.4% in southeast Asia said their pharmacy ran short of HCQ – which was originally developed as an antimalarial drug but has been found effective in treating some rheumatic diseases – only 6.8% of patients in the Americas and 2.1% in European regions reported the shortages.

“There are large regional disparities in access to antimalarials whether they were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or already existed,” she said in an interview.

Global survey polled patient experience

Ms. Sirotich’s team analyzed data from the Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey.

They found that from 9,393 respondents (average age 46.1 years and 90% female), 3,872 (41.2%) were taking antimalarials. Of these, 230 (6.2% globally) were unable to keep taking the drugs because their pharmacy ran out.

Researchers evaluated the effect of drug shortages on disease activity, mental health, and physical health by comparing mean values with two-sided independent t-tests to identify significant differences.

They found that patients who were unable to obtain antimalarials had significantly higher levels of rheumatic disease activity as well as poorer mental and physical health (all P < .001).

The survey was distributed online through patient support groups and on social media. Patients with rheumatic diseases or their parents anonymously entered data including their rheumatic disease diagnosis, medications, COVID-19 status, and disease outcomes.

Ms. Sirotich said they are currently gathering new data to see if the gaps in access to HCQ persist and whether the physical and mental consequences of not having the medications continue.

Hospitals stockpiled HCQ in the U.S.

Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), said in an interview that hospitals in the United States received large amounts of HCQ in late spring and early summer, donated by pharmaceutical companies for COVID-19 before the lack of evidence for efficacy became clear.

Hospitals found themselves sitting on large quantities of HCQ they couldn’t use while prescriptions for rheumatology outpatients were going unfilled.

It is only in recent months that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has given clear direction to hospitals on how to redistribute those supplies, Dr. Ganio said.

“There’s no good real good way to move a product from a hospital to a [drug store] down the street,” he said.

The Food and Drug Administration now lists the HCQ shortages as resolved.
 

Declined prescriptions have frustrated physicians

Brett Smith, DO, a pediatric and adult rheumatologist in Alcoa, Tenn., said he was frustrated by pharmacies declining his prescriptions for HCQ for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“I got notes from pharmacies that I should consider alternative agents,” he said in an interview. But the safety profiles of the alternatives were not as good, he said.

“Hydroxychloroquine has no risk of infection and no risk of malignancy, and they were proposing alternative agents that carry those risks,” he said.

“I had some people with RA who couldn’t get [HCQ] who had a substantial increase in swollen joints and pain without it,” he said.

Dr. Smith said some patients who use HCQ for off-label uses such as certain skin disorders still aren’t getting the drug, as off-label use has been discouraged to make sure those with lupus and RA have enough, he said.

Saira Sheikh, MD, director of the University of North Carolina Rheumatology Lupus Clinic in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that during the summer months pharmacists required additional documentation of the diagnosis of autoimmune disease, resulting in unnecessary delays even when patients had been on the medication for many years.

She said emerging research has found patient-reported barriers to filling prescriptions, interruptions in HCQ treatment, and reported emotional stress and anxiety related to medication access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This experience with HCQ during the COVID-19 pandemic teaches us that while swift action and progress to address the immediate threats of the pandemic should be commended, it is important that we move forward in a conscious manner, guided by an evidence base that comes from high-quality research, not from rushed judgments based on preliminary studies, or pressure from political leaders,” Dr. Sheikh said.

Ms. Sirotich, Dr. Smith, Dr. Sheikh, and Dr. Ganio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New data document the global fallout for rheumatology patients when hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) supplies were being diverted to hospitals for COVID-19 patients.

Demand for HCQ soared on evidence-lacking claims that the drug was effective in treating and preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further research has since shown HCQ to be ineffective for COVID-19 and potentially harmful to patients.

But during the height of the COVID-19-related hype, patients worldwide with autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, had trouble getting the pills at all or couldn’t get as many as they needed for their chronic conditions.

Emily Sirotich, MSc, a PhD student at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., presented data at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology demonstrating that the severity of shortages differed widely.

Whereas 26.7% of rheumatology patients in Africa and 21.4% in southeast Asia said their pharmacy ran short of HCQ – which was originally developed as an antimalarial drug but has been found effective in treating some rheumatic diseases – only 6.8% of patients in the Americas and 2.1% in European regions reported the shortages.

“There are large regional disparities in access to antimalarials whether they were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or already existed,” she said in an interview.

Global survey polled patient experience

Ms. Sirotich’s team analyzed data from the Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey.

They found that from 9,393 respondents (average age 46.1 years and 90% female), 3,872 (41.2%) were taking antimalarials. Of these, 230 (6.2% globally) were unable to keep taking the drugs because their pharmacy ran out.

Researchers evaluated the effect of drug shortages on disease activity, mental health, and physical health by comparing mean values with two-sided independent t-tests to identify significant differences.

They found that patients who were unable to obtain antimalarials had significantly higher levels of rheumatic disease activity as well as poorer mental and physical health (all P < .001).

The survey was distributed online through patient support groups and on social media. Patients with rheumatic diseases or their parents anonymously entered data including their rheumatic disease diagnosis, medications, COVID-19 status, and disease outcomes.

Ms. Sirotich said they are currently gathering new data to see if the gaps in access to HCQ persist and whether the physical and mental consequences of not having the medications continue.

Hospitals stockpiled HCQ in the U.S.

Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), said in an interview that hospitals in the United States received large amounts of HCQ in late spring and early summer, donated by pharmaceutical companies for COVID-19 before the lack of evidence for efficacy became clear.

Hospitals found themselves sitting on large quantities of HCQ they couldn’t use while prescriptions for rheumatology outpatients were going unfilled.

It is only in recent months that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has given clear direction to hospitals on how to redistribute those supplies, Dr. Ganio said.

“There’s no good real good way to move a product from a hospital to a [drug store] down the street,” he said.

The Food and Drug Administration now lists the HCQ shortages as resolved.
 

Declined prescriptions have frustrated physicians

Brett Smith, DO, a pediatric and adult rheumatologist in Alcoa, Tenn., said he was frustrated by pharmacies declining his prescriptions for HCQ for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“I got notes from pharmacies that I should consider alternative agents,” he said in an interview. But the safety profiles of the alternatives were not as good, he said.

“Hydroxychloroquine has no risk of infection and no risk of malignancy, and they were proposing alternative agents that carry those risks,” he said.

“I had some people with RA who couldn’t get [HCQ] who had a substantial increase in swollen joints and pain without it,” he said.

Dr. Smith said some patients who use HCQ for off-label uses such as certain skin disorders still aren’t getting the drug, as off-label use has been discouraged to make sure those with lupus and RA have enough, he said.

Saira Sheikh, MD, director of the University of North Carolina Rheumatology Lupus Clinic in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that during the summer months pharmacists required additional documentation of the diagnosis of autoimmune disease, resulting in unnecessary delays even when patients had been on the medication for many years.

She said emerging research has found patient-reported barriers to filling prescriptions, interruptions in HCQ treatment, and reported emotional stress and anxiety related to medication access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This experience with HCQ during the COVID-19 pandemic teaches us that while swift action and progress to address the immediate threats of the pandemic should be commended, it is important that we move forward in a conscious manner, guided by an evidence base that comes from high-quality research, not from rushed judgments based on preliminary studies, or pressure from political leaders,” Dr. Sheikh said.

Ms. Sirotich, Dr. Smith, Dr. Sheikh, and Dr. Ganio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New data document the global fallout for rheumatology patients when hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) supplies were being diverted to hospitals for COVID-19 patients.

Demand for HCQ soared on evidence-lacking claims that the drug was effective in treating and preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further research has since shown HCQ to be ineffective for COVID-19 and potentially harmful to patients.

But during the height of the COVID-19-related hype, patients worldwide with autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, had trouble getting the pills at all or couldn’t get as many as they needed for their chronic conditions.

Emily Sirotich, MSc, a PhD student at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., presented data at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology demonstrating that the severity of shortages differed widely.

Whereas 26.7% of rheumatology patients in Africa and 21.4% in southeast Asia said their pharmacy ran short of HCQ – which was originally developed as an antimalarial drug but has been found effective in treating some rheumatic diseases – only 6.8% of patients in the Americas and 2.1% in European regions reported the shortages.

“There are large regional disparities in access to antimalarials whether they were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or already existed,” she said in an interview.

Global survey polled patient experience

Ms. Sirotich’s team analyzed data from the Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey.

They found that from 9,393 respondents (average age 46.1 years and 90% female), 3,872 (41.2%) were taking antimalarials. Of these, 230 (6.2% globally) were unable to keep taking the drugs because their pharmacy ran out.

Researchers evaluated the effect of drug shortages on disease activity, mental health, and physical health by comparing mean values with two-sided independent t-tests to identify significant differences.

They found that patients who were unable to obtain antimalarials had significantly higher levels of rheumatic disease activity as well as poorer mental and physical health (all P < .001).

The survey was distributed online through patient support groups and on social media. Patients with rheumatic diseases or their parents anonymously entered data including their rheumatic disease diagnosis, medications, COVID-19 status, and disease outcomes.

Ms. Sirotich said they are currently gathering new data to see if the gaps in access to HCQ persist and whether the physical and mental consequences of not having the medications continue.

Hospitals stockpiled HCQ in the U.S.

Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), said in an interview that hospitals in the United States received large amounts of HCQ in late spring and early summer, donated by pharmaceutical companies for COVID-19 before the lack of evidence for efficacy became clear.

Hospitals found themselves sitting on large quantities of HCQ they couldn’t use while prescriptions for rheumatology outpatients were going unfilled.

It is only in recent months that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has given clear direction to hospitals on how to redistribute those supplies, Dr. Ganio said.

“There’s no good real good way to move a product from a hospital to a [drug store] down the street,” he said.

The Food and Drug Administration now lists the HCQ shortages as resolved.
 

Declined prescriptions have frustrated physicians

Brett Smith, DO, a pediatric and adult rheumatologist in Alcoa, Tenn., said he was frustrated by pharmacies declining his prescriptions for HCQ for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“I got notes from pharmacies that I should consider alternative agents,” he said in an interview. But the safety profiles of the alternatives were not as good, he said.

“Hydroxychloroquine has no risk of infection and no risk of malignancy, and they were proposing alternative agents that carry those risks,” he said.

“I had some people with RA who couldn’t get [HCQ] who had a substantial increase in swollen joints and pain without it,” he said.

Dr. Smith said some patients who use HCQ for off-label uses such as certain skin disorders still aren’t getting the drug, as off-label use has been discouraged to make sure those with lupus and RA have enough, he said.

Saira Sheikh, MD, director of the University of North Carolina Rheumatology Lupus Clinic in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that during the summer months pharmacists required additional documentation of the diagnosis of autoimmune disease, resulting in unnecessary delays even when patients had been on the medication for many years.

She said emerging research has found patient-reported barriers to filling prescriptions, interruptions in HCQ treatment, and reported emotional stress and anxiety related to medication access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This experience with HCQ during the COVID-19 pandemic teaches us that while swift action and progress to address the immediate threats of the pandemic should be commended, it is important that we move forward in a conscious manner, guided by an evidence base that comes from high-quality research, not from rushed judgments based on preliminary studies, or pressure from political leaders,” Dr. Sheikh said.

Ms. Sirotich, Dr. Smith, Dr. Sheikh, and Dr. Ganio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Endocrine diseases of any type – not just diabetes – can represent a cardiovascular risk and patients with those disorders should be screened for high cholesterol, according to a new clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.

“The simple recommendation to check a lipid panel in patients with endocrine diseases and calculate cardiovascular risk may be practice changing because that is not done routinely,” Connie Newman, MD, chair of the Endocrine Society committee that developed the guideline, said in an interview.

“Usually the focus is on assessment and treatment of the endocrine disease, rather than on assessment and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk,” said Newman, an adjunct professor of medicine in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, at New York University.

Whereas diabetes, well-known for its increased cardiovascular risk profile, is commonly addressed in other cardiovascular and cholesterol practice management guidelines, the array of other endocrine diseases are not typically included.

“This guideline is the first of its kind,” Dr. Newman said. “The Endocrine Society has not previously issued a guideline on lipid management in endocrine disorders [and] other organizations have not written guidelines on this topic. 

“Rather, guidelines have been written on cholesterol management, but these do not describe cholesterol management in patients with endocrine diseases such as thyroid disease [hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism], Cushing’s syndrome, acromegaly, growth hormone deficiency, menopause, male hypogonadism, and obesity,” she noted.

But these conditions carry a host of cardiovascular risk factors that may require careful monitoring and management.

“Although endocrine hormones, such as thyroid hormone, cortisol, estrogen, testosterone, growth hormone, and insulin, affect pathways for lipid metabolism, physicians lack guidance on lipid abnormalities, cardiovascular risk, and treatment to reduce lipids and cardiovascular risk in patients with endocrine diseases,” she explained.

Vinaya Simha, MD, an internal medicine specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agrees that the guideline is notable in addressing an unmet need.

Recommendations that stand out to Dr. Simha include the suggestion of adding eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) ethyl ester to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in adults with diabetes or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who have elevated triglyceride levels despite statin treatment.

James L. Rosenzweig, MD, an endocrinologist at Hebrew SeniorLife in Boston, agreed that this is an important addition to an area that needs more guidance.

“Many of these clinical situations can exacerbate dyslipidemia and some also increase the cardiovascular risk to a greater extent in combination with elevated cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” he said in an interview. 

“In many cases, treatment of the underlying disorder appropriately can have an important impact in resolving the lipid disorder. In others, more aggressive pharmacological treatment is indicated,” he said.

“I think that this will be a valuable resource, especially for endocrinologists, but it can be used as well by providers in other disciplines.”
 

Key recommendations for different endocrine conditions

The guideline, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, details those risks and provides evidence-based recommendations on their management and treatment.

Key recommendations include:

• Obtain a lipid panel and evaluate cardiovascular risk factors in all adults with endocrine disorders.
• In patients with  and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, start statin therapy in addition to lifestyle modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. “This could mean earlier treatment because other guidelines recommend consideration of therapy at age 40,” Dr. Newman said.
• Statin therapy is also recommended for adults over 40 with  with a duration of diabetes of more than 20 years and/or microvascular complications, regardless of their cardiovascular risk score. “This means earlier treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes with statins in order to reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Newman noted.
• In patients with hyperlipidemia, rule out  as the cause before treating with lipid-lowering medications. And among patients who are found to have hypothyroidism, reevaluate the lipid profile when the patient has thyroid hormone levels in the normal range.
• Adults with persistent endogenous Cushing’s syndrome should have their lipid profile monitored. Statin therapy should be considered in addition to lifestyle modifications, irrespective of the cardiovascular risk score.
• In postmenopausal women, high cholesterol or triglycerides should be treated with statins rather than hormone therapy.
• Evaluate and treat lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors in women who enter menopause early (before the age of 40-45 years).

Nice summary of ‘risk-enhancing’ endocrine disorders

Dr. Simha said in an interview that the new guideline is “probably the first comprehensive statement addressing lipid treatment in patients with a broad range of endocrine disorders besides diabetes.”

“Most of the treatment recommendations are congruent with other current guidelines such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association [guidelines], but there is specific mention of which endocrine disorders represent enhanced cardiovascular risk,” she explained.

The new recommendations are notable for including “a nice summary of how different endocrine disorders affect lipid values, and also which endocrine disorders need to be considered as ‘risk-enhancing factors,’ ” Dr. Simha noted.

“The use of EPA in patients with hypertriglyceridemia is novel, compared to the ACC/AHA recommendation. This reflects new data which is now available,” she added.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists also just issued a new algorithm on lipid management and prevention of cardiovascular disease in which treatment of hypertriglyceridemia is emphasized.

In addition, the new Endocrine Society guideline “also mentions an LDL [cholesterol] treatment threshold of 70 mg/dL, and 55 mg/dL in some patient categories, which previous guidelines have not,” Dr. Simha noted.

Overall, Dr. Newman added that the goal of the guideline is to increase awareness of key issues with endocrine diseases that may not necessarily be on clinicians’ radars.

“We hope that it will make a lipid panel and cardiovascular risk evaluation routine in adults with endocrine diseases and cause a greater focus on therapies to reduce heart disease and stroke,” she said.

Dr. Newman, Dr. Simha, and Dr. Rosenzweig reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Endocrine diseases of any type – not just diabetes – can represent a cardiovascular risk and patients with those disorders should be screened for high cholesterol, according to a new clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.

“The simple recommendation to check a lipid panel in patients with endocrine diseases and calculate cardiovascular risk may be practice changing because that is not done routinely,” Connie Newman, MD, chair of the Endocrine Society committee that developed the guideline, said in an interview.

“Usually the focus is on assessment and treatment of the endocrine disease, rather than on assessment and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk,” said Newman, an adjunct professor of medicine in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, at New York University.

Whereas diabetes, well-known for its increased cardiovascular risk profile, is commonly addressed in other cardiovascular and cholesterol practice management guidelines, the array of other endocrine diseases are not typically included.

“This guideline is the first of its kind,” Dr. Newman said. “The Endocrine Society has not previously issued a guideline on lipid management in endocrine disorders [and] other organizations have not written guidelines on this topic. 

“Rather, guidelines have been written on cholesterol management, but these do not describe cholesterol management in patients with endocrine diseases such as thyroid disease [hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism], Cushing’s syndrome, acromegaly, growth hormone deficiency, menopause, male hypogonadism, and obesity,” she noted.

But these conditions carry a host of cardiovascular risk factors that may require careful monitoring and management.

“Although endocrine hormones, such as thyroid hormone, cortisol, estrogen, testosterone, growth hormone, and insulin, affect pathways for lipid metabolism, physicians lack guidance on lipid abnormalities, cardiovascular risk, and treatment to reduce lipids and cardiovascular risk in patients with endocrine diseases,” she explained.

Vinaya Simha, MD, an internal medicine specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agrees that the guideline is notable in addressing an unmet need.

Recommendations that stand out to Dr. Simha include the suggestion of adding eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) ethyl ester to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in adults with diabetes or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who have elevated triglyceride levels despite statin treatment.

James L. Rosenzweig, MD, an endocrinologist at Hebrew SeniorLife in Boston, agreed that this is an important addition to an area that needs more guidance.

“Many of these clinical situations can exacerbate dyslipidemia and some also increase the cardiovascular risk to a greater extent in combination with elevated cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” he said in an interview. 

“In many cases, treatment of the underlying disorder appropriately can have an important impact in resolving the lipid disorder. In others, more aggressive pharmacological treatment is indicated,” he said.

“I think that this will be a valuable resource, especially for endocrinologists, but it can be used as well by providers in other disciplines.”
 

Key recommendations for different endocrine conditions

The guideline, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, details those risks and provides evidence-based recommendations on their management and treatment.

Key recommendations include:

• Obtain a lipid panel and evaluate cardiovascular risk factors in all adults with endocrine disorders.
• In patients with  and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, start statin therapy in addition to lifestyle modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. “This could mean earlier treatment because other guidelines recommend consideration of therapy at age 40,” Dr. Newman said.
• Statin therapy is also recommended for adults over 40 with  with a duration of diabetes of more than 20 years and/or microvascular complications, regardless of their cardiovascular risk score. “This means earlier treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes with statins in order to reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Newman noted.
• In patients with hyperlipidemia, rule out  as the cause before treating with lipid-lowering medications. And among patients who are found to have hypothyroidism, reevaluate the lipid profile when the patient has thyroid hormone levels in the normal range.
• Adults with persistent endogenous Cushing’s syndrome should have their lipid profile monitored. Statin therapy should be considered in addition to lifestyle modifications, irrespective of the cardiovascular risk score.
• In postmenopausal women, high cholesterol or triglycerides should be treated with statins rather than hormone therapy.
• Evaluate and treat lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors in women who enter menopause early (before the age of 40-45 years).

Nice summary of ‘risk-enhancing’ endocrine disorders

Dr. Simha said in an interview that the new guideline is “probably the first comprehensive statement addressing lipid treatment in patients with a broad range of endocrine disorders besides diabetes.”

“Most of the treatment recommendations are congruent with other current guidelines such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association [guidelines], but there is specific mention of which endocrine disorders represent enhanced cardiovascular risk,” she explained.

The new recommendations are notable for including “a nice summary of how different endocrine disorders affect lipid values, and also which endocrine disorders need to be considered as ‘risk-enhancing factors,’ ” Dr. Simha noted.

“The use of EPA in patients with hypertriglyceridemia is novel, compared to the ACC/AHA recommendation. This reflects new data which is now available,” she added.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists also just issued a new algorithm on lipid management and prevention of cardiovascular disease in which treatment of hypertriglyceridemia is emphasized.

In addition, the new Endocrine Society guideline “also mentions an LDL [cholesterol] treatment threshold of 70 mg/dL, and 55 mg/dL in some patient categories, which previous guidelines have not,” Dr. Simha noted.

Overall, Dr. Newman added that the goal of the guideline is to increase awareness of key issues with endocrine diseases that may not necessarily be on clinicians’ radars.

“We hope that it will make a lipid panel and cardiovascular risk evaluation routine in adults with endocrine diseases and cause a greater focus on therapies to reduce heart disease and stroke,” she said.

Dr. Newman, Dr. Simha, and Dr. Rosenzweig reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Endocrine diseases of any type – not just diabetes – can represent a cardiovascular risk and patients with those disorders should be screened for high cholesterol, according to a new clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.

“The simple recommendation to check a lipid panel in patients with endocrine diseases and calculate cardiovascular risk may be practice changing because that is not done routinely,” Connie Newman, MD, chair of the Endocrine Society committee that developed the guideline, said in an interview.

“Usually the focus is on assessment and treatment of the endocrine disease, rather than on assessment and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk,” said Newman, an adjunct professor of medicine in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, at New York University.

Whereas diabetes, well-known for its increased cardiovascular risk profile, is commonly addressed in other cardiovascular and cholesterol practice management guidelines, the array of other endocrine diseases are not typically included.

“This guideline is the first of its kind,” Dr. Newman said. “The Endocrine Society has not previously issued a guideline on lipid management in endocrine disorders [and] other organizations have not written guidelines on this topic. 

“Rather, guidelines have been written on cholesterol management, but these do not describe cholesterol management in patients with endocrine diseases such as thyroid disease [hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism], Cushing’s syndrome, acromegaly, growth hormone deficiency, menopause, male hypogonadism, and obesity,” she noted.

But these conditions carry a host of cardiovascular risk factors that may require careful monitoring and management.

“Although endocrine hormones, such as thyroid hormone, cortisol, estrogen, testosterone, growth hormone, and insulin, affect pathways for lipid metabolism, physicians lack guidance on lipid abnormalities, cardiovascular risk, and treatment to reduce lipids and cardiovascular risk in patients with endocrine diseases,” she explained.

Vinaya Simha, MD, an internal medicine specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agrees that the guideline is notable in addressing an unmet need.

Recommendations that stand out to Dr. Simha include the suggestion of adding eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) ethyl ester to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in adults with diabetes or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who have elevated triglyceride levels despite statin treatment.

James L. Rosenzweig, MD, an endocrinologist at Hebrew SeniorLife in Boston, agreed that this is an important addition to an area that needs more guidance.

“Many of these clinical situations can exacerbate dyslipidemia and some also increase the cardiovascular risk to a greater extent in combination with elevated cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” he said in an interview. 

“In many cases, treatment of the underlying disorder appropriately can have an important impact in resolving the lipid disorder. In others, more aggressive pharmacological treatment is indicated,” he said.

“I think that this will be a valuable resource, especially for endocrinologists, but it can be used as well by providers in other disciplines.”
 

Key recommendations for different endocrine conditions

The guideline, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, details those risks and provides evidence-based recommendations on their management and treatment.

Key recommendations include:

• Obtain a lipid panel and evaluate cardiovascular risk factors in all adults with endocrine disorders.
• In patients with  and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, start statin therapy in addition to lifestyle modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. “This could mean earlier treatment because other guidelines recommend consideration of therapy at age 40,” Dr. Newman said.
• Statin therapy is also recommended for adults over 40 with  with a duration of diabetes of more than 20 years and/or microvascular complications, regardless of their cardiovascular risk score. “This means earlier treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes with statins in order to reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Newman noted.
• In patients with hyperlipidemia, rule out  as the cause before treating with lipid-lowering medications. And among patients who are found to have hypothyroidism, reevaluate the lipid profile when the patient has thyroid hormone levels in the normal range.
• Adults with persistent endogenous Cushing’s syndrome should have their lipid profile monitored. Statin therapy should be considered in addition to lifestyle modifications, irrespective of the cardiovascular risk score.
• In postmenopausal women, high cholesterol or triglycerides should be treated with statins rather than hormone therapy.
• Evaluate and treat lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors in women who enter menopause early (before the age of 40-45 years).

Nice summary of ‘risk-enhancing’ endocrine disorders

Dr. Simha said in an interview that the new guideline is “probably the first comprehensive statement addressing lipid treatment in patients with a broad range of endocrine disorders besides diabetes.”

“Most of the treatment recommendations are congruent with other current guidelines such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association [guidelines], but there is specific mention of which endocrine disorders represent enhanced cardiovascular risk,” she explained.

The new recommendations are notable for including “a nice summary of how different endocrine disorders affect lipid values, and also which endocrine disorders need to be considered as ‘risk-enhancing factors,’ ” Dr. Simha noted.

“The use of EPA in patients with hypertriglyceridemia is novel, compared to the ACC/AHA recommendation. This reflects new data which is now available,” she added.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists also just issued a new algorithm on lipid management and prevention of cardiovascular disease in which treatment of hypertriglyceridemia is emphasized.

In addition, the new Endocrine Society guideline “also mentions an LDL [cholesterol] treatment threshold of 70 mg/dL, and 55 mg/dL in some patient categories, which previous guidelines have not,” Dr. Simha noted.

Overall, Dr. Newman added that the goal of the guideline is to increase awareness of key issues with endocrine diseases that may not necessarily be on clinicians’ radars.

“We hope that it will make a lipid panel and cardiovascular risk evaluation routine in adults with endocrine diseases and cause a greater focus on therapies to reduce heart disease and stroke,” she said.

Dr. Newman, Dr. Simha, and Dr. Rosenzweig reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection posed increased risk for pregnant women in terms of severe disease and poor pregnancy outcomes including preterm birth, based on data from two studies published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In a study of birth and infant outcomes, rates of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks’ gestational age) were higher among women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections compared with the national average (12.9% vs. 10.2%) wrote Kate R. Woodworth, MD, and colleagues of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team.

The researchers collected information on pregnancy and infant outcomes from 16 jurisdictions through the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Mothers and Babies Network (SET-NET). The study included 5,252 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported during March 29–Oct. 14, 2020.

Overall, 12.9% of the 3,912 live births with known gestational age were preterm. A total of 610 infants were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 2.6% were positive. Most of these perinatal infections (85%) occurred among infants born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection within 1 week of delivery.

Half of the infants with positive test results were preterm, possibly reflecting higher screening rates in the ICU, the researchers said. “These findings also support the growing evidence that although severe COVID-19 does occur in neonates the majority of term neonates experience asymptomatic infection or mild disease; however, information on long term outcomes among exposed infants is unknown.”

Address disparities that amplify risk

The study findings were limited by several factors including inconsistent symptom reporting, overrepresentation of Hispanic women, and incomplete information on pregnancy loss, Dr. Woodworth and associates noted. However, the results add to the knowledge about the impact of COVID-19 disease on pregnancy by providing a large, population-based cohort with completed pregnancy outcomes as well as infant testing.

“SET-NET will continue to follow pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2 through completion of pregnancy and infants until age 6 months to guide clinical and public health practice,” the researchers noted. “Longer-term investigation into solutions to alleviate underlying inequities in social determinants of health associated with disparities in maternal morbidity, mortality, and adverse pregnancy outcomes, and effectively addressing these inequities, could reduce the prevalence of conditions and experiences that might amplify risks from COVID-19,” they added.

Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women

In a second study published in the MMWR, Laura D. Zambrano, PhD, and colleagues, also of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team, compared data on 23,434 reportedly pregnant and 386,028 nonpregnant women of reproductive age (15-44 years) with confirmed and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections reported to the CDC between Jan. 22, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020.

After adjustment for age, race, and underlying medical conditions, pregnant women with COVID-19 disease were significantly more likely than were nonpregnant women to be admitted to intensive care (10.5 per 1,000 cases vs. 3.9 per 1,000 cases), to receive invasive ventilation (2.9 vs. 1.1), receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.7 vs. 0.3) and to die (1.5 vs. 1.2).

“Irrespective of pregnancy status, ICU admissions, receipt of invasive ventilation, and death occurred more often among women aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24 years,” Dr. Zambrano and associates noted. In addition, non-Hispanic Black and Black women comprised 14.1% of the study population but accounted for 36.6% of deaths overall (9 in pregnant women and 167 in nonpregnant women).

The findings in the study of characteristics were limited by several factors including the voluntary reporting of COVID-19 cases, potential reporting bias, and inadequate time to assess severe cases, the researchers noted. However, “data from previous influenza pandemics, including 2009 H1N1, have shown that pregnant women are at increased risk for severe outcomes including death and the absolute risks for severe outcomes were higher than in this study of COVID-19 during pregnancy.”

“Pregnant women should be informed of their risk for severe COVID-19–associated illness and the warning signs of severe COVID-19,” Dr. Zambrano and associates said. “Providers who care for pregnant women should be familiar with guidelines for medical management of COVID-19, including considerations for management of COVID-19 in pregnancy.”

More data needed for informed counseling

“It is important to conduct research trials involving pregnant women so that we have reliable data regarding outcomes with which to counsel women,” Angela Bianco, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, said in an interview.

“Often pregnant women are excluded from research trials, but the impact of the current public health crisis affects all persons regardless of pregnancy status,” she said.

Dr. Bianco said that she was not surprised by the findings of either study. “In fact, our own research produced similar results.”

“These recent publications found that age-matched pregnant versus nonpregnant women had more severe manifestations of COVID-19, and specifically that pregnant women had a higher risk of requiring ventilation and intensive care admission, as well as higher risk of death,” she said. “Previous studies examining the effect of other SARS viruses have demonstrated that pregnancy is associated with worse outcomes; these findings are likely attributable to the relative state of immunosuppression in pregnancy.” Also, “one of these trials found a greater risk of premature birth in women with COVID-19; this may largely be attributable to iatrogenic delivery due to maternal illness as opposed to spontaneous preterm birth,” Dr. Bianco explained.

“Data are emerging regarding the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pregnancy outcomes, however information remains limited,” Dr. Bianco noted. “Clinicians need to make patients aware that SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of severe illness requiring intensive care and/or ventilatory support and even death; however, the precise rates remain unknown. “COVID-19 during pregnancy may result in a preterm birth, but at this time the rate of fetal infection remains unknown,” she said. “Clinicians need to reinforce the importance of physical distancing, mask use, and proper hand hygiene, particularly in this vulnerable population.”

Dr. Bianco emphasized: “Longitudinal studies assessing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection at various gestational age periods are needed, as at this time most of the available data includes women with SARS-CoV-2 infection around the time of delivery. Long-term infant outcomes are needed, as well as studies assessing the risk of fetal infection.”

The studies were supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bianco had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Woodworth KR et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e2; Zambrano LD et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e3.

SARS-CoV-2 infection posed increased risk for pregnant women in terms of severe disease and poor pregnancy outcomes including preterm birth, based on data from two studies published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In a study of birth and infant outcomes, rates of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks’ gestational age) were higher among women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections compared with the national average (12.9% vs. 10.2%) wrote Kate R. Woodworth, MD, and colleagues of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team.

The researchers collected information on pregnancy and infant outcomes from 16 jurisdictions through the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Mothers and Babies Network (SET-NET). The study included 5,252 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported during March 29–Oct. 14, 2020.

Overall, 12.9% of the 3,912 live births with known gestational age were preterm. A total of 610 infants were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 2.6% were positive. Most of these perinatal infections (85%) occurred among infants born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection within 1 week of delivery.

Half of the infants with positive test results were preterm, possibly reflecting higher screening rates in the ICU, the researchers said. “These findings also support the growing evidence that although severe COVID-19 does occur in neonates the majority of term neonates experience asymptomatic infection or mild disease; however, information on long term outcomes among exposed infants is unknown.”

Address disparities that amplify risk

The study findings were limited by several factors including inconsistent symptom reporting, overrepresentation of Hispanic women, and incomplete information on pregnancy loss, Dr. Woodworth and associates noted. However, the results add to the knowledge about the impact of COVID-19 disease on pregnancy by providing a large, population-based cohort with completed pregnancy outcomes as well as infant testing.

“SET-NET will continue to follow pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2 through completion of pregnancy and infants until age 6 months to guide clinical and public health practice,” the researchers noted. “Longer-term investigation into solutions to alleviate underlying inequities in social determinants of health associated with disparities in maternal morbidity, mortality, and adverse pregnancy outcomes, and effectively addressing these inequities, could reduce the prevalence of conditions and experiences that might amplify risks from COVID-19,” they added.

Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women

In a second study published in the MMWR, Laura D. Zambrano, PhD, and colleagues, also of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team, compared data on 23,434 reportedly pregnant and 386,028 nonpregnant women of reproductive age (15-44 years) with confirmed and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections reported to the CDC between Jan. 22, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020.

After adjustment for age, race, and underlying medical conditions, pregnant women with COVID-19 disease were significantly more likely than were nonpregnant women to be admitted to intensive care (10.5 per 1,000 cases vs. 3.9 per 1,000 cases), to receive invasive ventilation (2.9 vs. 1.1), receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.7 vs. 0.3) and to die (1.5 vs. 1.2).

“Irrespective of pregnancy status, ICU admissions, receipt of invasive ventilation, and death occurred more often among women aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24 years,” Dr. Zambrano and associates noted. In addition, non-Hispanic Black and Black women comprised 14.1% of the study population but accounted for 36.6% of deaths overall (9 in pregnant women and 167 in nonpregnant women).

The findings in the study of characteristics were limited by several factors including the voluntary reporting of COVID-19 cases, potential reporting bias, and inadequate time to assess severe cases, the researchers noted. However, “data from previous influenza pandemics, including 2009 H1N1, have shown that pregnant women are at increased risk for severe outcomes including death and the absolute risks for severe outcomes were higher than in this study of COVID-19 during pregnancy.”

“Pregnant women should be informed of their risk for severe COVID-19–associated illness and the warning signs of severe COVID-19,” Dr. Zambrano and associates said. “Providers who care for pregnant women should be familiar with guidelines for medical management of COVID-19, including considerations for management of COVID-19 in pregnancy.”

More data needed for informed counseling

“It is important to conduct research trials involving pregnant women so that we have reliable data regarding outcomes with which to counsel women,” Angela Bianco, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, said in an interview.

“Often pregnant women are excluded from research trials, but the impact of the current public health crisis affects all persons regardless of pregnancy status,” she said.

Dr. Bianco said that she was not surprised by the findings of either study. “In fact, our own research produced similar results.”

“These recent publications found that age-matched pregnant versus nonpregnant women had more severe manifestations of COVID-19, and specifically that pregnant women had a higher risk of requiring ventilation and intensive care admission, as well as higher risk of death,” she said. “Previous studies examining the effect of other SARS viruses have demonstrated that pregnancy is associated with worse outcomes; these findings are likely attributable to the relative state of immunosuppression in pregnancy.” Also, “one of these trials found a greater risk of premature birth in women with COVID-19; this may largely be attributable to iatrogenic delivery due to maternal illness as opposed to spontaneous preterm birth,” Dr. Bianco explained.

“Data are emerging regarding the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pregnancy outcomes, however information remains limited,” Dr. Bianco noted. “Clinicians need to make patients aware that SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of severe illness requiring intensive care and/or ventilatory support and even death; however, the precise rates remain unknown. “COVID-19 during pregnancy may result in a preterm birth, but at this time the rate of fetal infection remains unknown,” she said. “Clinicians need to reinforce the importance of physical distancing, mask use, and proper hand hygiene, particularly in this vulnerable population.”

Dr. Bianco emphasized: “Longitudinal studies assessing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection at various gestational age periods are needed, as at this time most of the available data includes women with SARS-CoV-2 infection around the time of delivery. Long-term infant outcomes are needed, as well as studies assessing the risk of fetal infection.”

The studies were supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bianco had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Woodworth KR et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e2; Zambrano LD et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e3.

SARS-CoV-2 infection posed increased risk for pregnant women in terms of severe disease and poor pregnancy outcomes including preterm birth, based on data from two studies published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In a study of birth and infant outcomes, rates of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks’ gestational age) were higher among women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections compared with the national average (12.9% vs. 10.2%) wrote Kate R. Woodworth, MD, and colleagues of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team.

The researchers collected information on pregnancy and infant outcomes from 16 jurisdictions through the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Mothers and Babies Network (SET-NET). The study included 5,252 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported during March 29–Oct. 14, 2020.

Overall, 12.9% of the 3,912 live births with known gestational age were preterm. A total of 610 infants were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 2.6% were positive. Most of these perinatal infections (85%) occurred among infants born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection within 1 week of delivery.

Half of the infants with positive test results were preterm, possibly reflecting higher screening rates in the ICU, the researchers said. “These findings also support the growing evidence that although severe COVID-19 does occur in neonates the majority of term neonates experience asymptomatic infection or mild disease; however, information on long term outcomes among exposed infants is unknown.”

Address disparities that amplify risk

The study findings were limited by several factors including inconsistent symptom reporting, overrepresentation of Hispanic women, and incomplete information on pregnancy loss, Dr. Woodworth and associates noted. However, the results add to the knowledge about the impact of COVID-19 disease on pregnancy by providing a large, population-based cohort with completed pregnancy outcomes as well as infant testing.

“SET-NET will continue to follow pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2 through completion of pregnancy and infants until age 6 months to guide clinical and public health practice,” the researchers noted. “Longer-term investigation into solutions to alleviate underlying inequities in social determinants of health associated with disparities in maternal morbidity, mortality, and adverse pregnancy outcomes, and effectively addressing these inequities, could reduce the prevalence of conditions and experiences that might amplify risks from COVID-19,” they added.

Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women

In a second study published in the MMWR, Laura D. Zambrano, PhD, and colleagues, also of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team, compared data on 23,434 reportedly pregnant and 386,028 nonpregnant women of reproductive age (15-44 years) with confirmed and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections reported to the CDC between Jan. 22, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020.

After adjustment for age, race, and underlying medical conditions, pregnant women with COVID-19 disease were significantly more likely than were nonpregnant women to be admitted to intensive care (10.5 per 1,000 cases vs. 3.9 per 1,000 cases), to receive invasive ventilation (2.9 vs. 1.1), receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.7 vs. 0.3) and to die (1.5 vs. 1.2).

“Irrespective of pregnancy status, ICU admissions, receipt of invasive ventilation, and death occurred more often among women aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24 years,” Dr. Zambrano and associates noted. In addition, non-Hispanic Black and Black women comprised 14.1% of the study population but accounted for 36.6% of deaths overall (9 in pregnant women and 167 in nonpregnant women).

The findings in the study of characteristics were limited by several factors including the voluntary reporting of COVID-19 cases, potential reporting bias, and inadequate time to assess severe cases, the researchers noted. However, “data from previous influenza pandemics, including 2009 H1N1, have shown that pregnant women are at increased risk for severe outcomes including death and the absolute risks for severe outcomes were higher than in this study of COVID-19 during pregnancy.”

“Pregnant women should be informed of their risk for severe COVID-19–associated illness and the warning signs of severe COVID-19,” Dr. Zambrano and associates said. “Providers who care for pregnant women should be familiar with guidelines for medical management of COVID-19, including considerations for management of COVID-19 in pregnancy.”

More data needed for informed counseling

“It is important to conduct research trials involving pregnant women so that we have reliable data regarding outcomes with which to counsel women,” Angela Bianco, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, said in an interview.

“Often pregnant women are excluded from research trials, but the impact of the current public health crisis affects all persons regardless of pregnancy status,” she said.

Dr. Bianco said that she was not surprised by the findings of either study. “In fact, our own research produced similar results.”

“These recent publications found that age-matched pregnant versus nonpregnant women had more severe manifestations of COVID-19, and specifically that pregnant women had a higher risk of requiring ventilation and intensive care admission, as well as higher risk of death,” she said. “Previous studies examining the effect of other SARS viruses have demonstrated that pregnancy is associated with worse outcomes; these findings are likely attributable to the relative state of immunosuppression in pregnancy.” Also, “one of these trials found a greater risk of premature birth in women with COVID-19; this may largely be attributable to iatrogenic delivery due to maternal illness as opposed to spontaneous preterm birth,” Dr. Bianco explained.

“Data are emerging regarding the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pregnancy outcomes, however information remains limited,” Dr. Bianco noted. “Clinicians need to make patients aware that SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of severe illness requiring intensive care and/or ventilatory support and even death; however, the precise rates remain unknown. “COVID-19 during pregnancy may result in a preterm birth, but at this time the rate of fetal infection remains unknown,” she said. “Clinicians need to reinforce the importance of physical distancing, mask use, and proper hand hygiene, particularly in this vulnerable population.”

Dr. Bianco emphasized: “Longitudinal studies assessing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection at various gestational age periods are needed, as at this time most of the available data includes women with SARS-CoV-2 infection around the time of delivery. Long-term infant outcomes are needed, as well as studies assessing the risk of fetal infection.”

The studies were supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bianco had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Woodworth KR et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e2; Zambrano LD et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e3.

A new report of mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through umbilical cord blood adds to a small but growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted in utero.

Further, this case suggests such infections may not be easily detectable in neonates until days after birth.
 

The data

In a report published in the Journal of The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Isabelle Von Kohorn, MD, PhD, of Holy Cross Health in Silver Spring, Md., and colleagues, described a case of neonatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a boy delivered by C-section at 34 weeks to a mother diagnosed with COVID-19 some 14 hours before. The newborn was immediately removed to a neonatal ICU and reunited with his mother a week later, once the mother had recovered.

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues reported that, while the infant’s nasopharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative at 24 hours after birth, repeat molecular tests (using different assays) from 49 hours on were positive and indicated an increasing viral burden, although the infant never developed symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to being found in the nasopharynx, viral RNA also was detected in cord blood and in urine. No viral RNA was found in the placenta.

The circumstances of the birth, and the care taken to keep mother and her infant at a safe distance along with masking of the mother, made it “extremely unlikely” that the infant acquired his infection by the respiratory route, Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues wrote.

“While we cannot rule out microscopic maternal blood contamination of cord blood in this or any other delivery, cord blood collection procedures are designed to avoid gross contamination with maternal blood. Microscopic contamination would not explain the RNA levels observed in our patient’s cord blood,” they wrote.

Clinicians should note that a neonate born to a mother with COVID-19 may take time to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the investigators argued, though the current recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to test nasopharyngeal secretions of well newborns at 24 and 48 hours but not again in the absence of symptoms. “This case suggests that some cases of SARS-CoV-2 in newborns may be detectable only after 48 hours of life.”

The authors hypothesized that virus transmitted by cord blood “seeded the nasopharynx and required 2 days for incubation and replication sufficient for detection.”
 

Some perspective

In an interview, Andrea Edlow, MD, A maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, called the findings provocative if not definitive in establishing in utero or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the same way that a Nature Communications case report did in July 2020. In that case, of a baby born to a mother with COVID-19, virus was seen at high levels in the placenta.

With the current case, “the absence of detectable virus in the placenta is certainly inconsistent/confusing if the authors claim hematogenous spread from mother to baby,” Dr. Edlow commented, “but the authors do offer plausible explanations, such as examination of limited areas within the placenta (when we know infection is likely to be patchy) and possible degradation of RNA prior to attempting to measure placental viral presence.”

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the investigators disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Edlow had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Von Kohorn I et al. J Pediat Inf Dis Soc. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa127

A new report of mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through umbilical cord blood adds to a small but growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted in utero.

Further, this case suggests such infections may not be easily detectable in neonates until days after birth.
 

The data

In a report published in the Journal of The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Isabelle Von Kohorn, MD, PhD, of Holy Cross Health in Silver Spring, Md., and colleagues, described a case of neonatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a boy delivered by C-section at 34 weeks to a mother diagnosed with COVID-19 some 14 hours before. The newborn was immediately removed to a neonatal ICU and reunited with his mother a week later, once the mother had recovered.

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues reported that, while the infant’s nasopharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative at 24 hours after birth, repeat molecular tests (using different assays) from 49 hours on were positive and indicated an increasing viral burden, although the infant never developed symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to being found in the nasopharynx, viral RNA also was detected in cord blood and in urine. No viral RNA was found in the placenta.

The circumstances of the birth, and the care taken to keep mother and her infant at a safe distance along with masking of the mother, made it “extremely unlikely” that the infant acquired his infection by the respiratory route, Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues wrote.

“While we cannot rule out microscopic maternal blood contamination of cord blood in this or any other delivery, cord blood collection procedures are designed to avoid gross contamination with maternal blood. Microscopic contamination would not explain the RNA levels observed in our patient’s cord blood,” they wrote.

Clinicians should note that a neonate born to a mother with COVID-19 may take time to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the investigators argued, though the current recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to test nasopharyngeal secretions of well newborns at 24 and 48 hours but not again in the absence of symptoms. “This case suggests that some cases of SARS-CoV-2 in newborns may be detectable only after 48 hours of life.”

The authors hypothesized that virus transmitted by cord blood “seeded the nasopharynx and required 2 days for incubation and replication sufficient for detection.”
 

Some perspective

In an interview, Andrea Edlow, MD, A maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, called the findings provocative if not definitive in establishing in utero or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the same way that a Nature Communications case report did in July 2020. In that case, of a baby born to a mother with COVID-19, virus was seen at high levels in the placenta.

With the current case, “the absence of detectable virus in the placenta is certainly inconsistent/confusing if the authors claim hematogenous spread from mother to baby,” Dr. Edlow commented, “but the authors do offer plausible explanations, such as examination of limited areas within the placenta (when we know infection is likely to be patchy) and possible degradation of RNA prior to attempting to measure placental viral presence.”

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the investigators disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Edlow had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Von Kohorn I et al. J Pediat Inf Dis Soc. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa127

A new report of mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through umbilical cord blood adds to a small but growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted in utero.

Further, this case suggests such infections may not be easily detectable in neonates until days after birth.
 

The data

In a report published in the Journal of The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Isabelle Von Kohorn, MD, PhD, of Holy Cross Health in Silver Spring, Md., and colleagues, described a case of neonatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a boy delivered by C-section at 34 weeks to a mother diagnosed with COVID-19 some 14 hours before. The newborn was immediately removed to a neonatal ICU and reunited with his mother a week later, once the mother had recovered.

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues reported that, while the infant’s nasopharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative at 24 hours after birth, repeat molecular tests (using different assays) from 49 hours on were positive and indicated an increasing viral burden, although the infant never developed symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to being found in the nasopharynx, viral RNA also was detected in cord blood and in urine. No viral RNA was found in the placenta.

The circumstances of the birth, and the care taken to keep mother and her infant at a safe distance along with masking of the mother, made it “extremely unlikely” that the infant acquired his infection by the respiratory route, Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues wrote.

“While we cannot rule out microscopic maternal blood contamination of cord blood in this or any other delivery, cord blood collection procedures are designed to avoid gross contamination with maternal blood. Microscopic contamination would not explain the RNA levels observed in our patient’s cord blood,” they wrote.

Clinicians should note that a neonate born to a mother with COVID-19 may take time to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the investigators argued, though the current recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to test nasopharyngeal secretions of well newborns at 24 and 48 hours but not again in the absence of symptoms. “This case suggests that some cases of SARS-CoV-2 in newborns may be detectable only after 48 hours of life.”

The authors hypothesized that virus transmitted by cord blood “seeded the nasopharynx and required 2 days for incubation and replication sufficient for detection.”
 

Some perspective

In an interview, Andrea Edlow, MD, A maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, called the findings provocative if not definitive in establishing in utero or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the same way that a Nature Communications case report did in July 2020. In that case, of a baby born to a mother with COVID-19, virus was seen at high levels in the placenta.

With the current case, “the absence of detectable virus in the placenta is certainly inconsistent/confusing if the authors claim hematogenous spread from mother to baby,” Dr. Edlow commented, “but the authors do offer plausible explanations, such as examination of limited areas within the placenta (when we know infection is likely to be patchy) and possible degradation of RNA prior to attempting to measure placental viral presence.”

Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the investigators disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Edlow had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Von Kohorn I et al. J Pediat Inf Dis Soc. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa127

As COVID-19 cases surge in the United States, one Texas veterinarian has been quietly tracking the spread of the disease – not in people, but in their pets.

Since June, Dr. Sarah Hamer and her team at Texas A&M University have tested hundreds of animals from area households where humans contracted COVID-19. They’ve swabbed dogs and cats, sure, but also pet hamsters and guinea pigs, looking for signs of infection. “We’re open to all of it,” said Dr. Hamer, a professor of epidemiology, who has found at least 19 cases of infection.

One pet that tested positive was Phoenix, a 7-year-old part Siamese cat owned by Kaitlyn Romoser, who works in a university lab. Ms. Romoser, 23, was confirmed to have COVID-19 twice, once in March and again in September. The second time she was much sicker, she said, and Phoenix was her constant companion.

“If I would have known animals were just getting it everywhere, I would have tried to distance myself, but he will not distance himself from me,” Ms. Romoser said. “He sleeps in my bed with me. There was absolutely no social distancing.”

Across the country, veterinarians and other researchers are scouring the animal kingdom for signs of the virus that causes COVID-19. At least 2,000 animals in the U.S. have been tested for the coronavirus since the pandemic began, according to federal records. Cats and dogs that were exposed to sick owners represent most of the animals tested and 80% of the positive cases found.

But scientists have cast a wide net investigating other animals that could be at risk. In states from California to Florida, researchers have tested species ranging from farmed minks and zoo cats to unexpected critters like dolphins, armadillos, and anteaters.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps an official tally of confirmed animal COVID cases that stands at several dozen. But that list is a vast undercount of actual infections. In Utah and Wisconsin, for instance, more than 14,000 minks died in recent weeks after contracting COVID infections initially spread by humans.

So far, there’s limited evidence that animals are transmitting the virus to people. Veterinarians emphasize that pet owners appear to be in no danger from their animal companions and should continue to love and care for them. But scientists say continued testing is one way to remain vigilant in the face of a previously unknown pathogen.

“We just know that coronaviruses, as a family, infect a lot of species, mostly mammals,” said Dr. Peter Rabinowitz, a professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and the director of the University of Washington Center for One Health Research in Seattle. “It makes sense to take a species-spanning approach and look at a wide spectrum.”

Much of the testing has been rooted in scientific curiosity. Since the pandemic began, a major puzzle has been how the virus, which likely originated in bats, spread to humans. A leading theory is that it jumped to an intermediate species, still unknown, and then to people.

In April, a 4-year-old Malayan tiger at the Bronx Zoo tested positive for COVID-19 in a first-of-its-kind case after seven big cats showed signs of respiratory illness. The tiger, Nadia, contracted the virus from a caretaker, federal health officials said. Four other tigers and three African lions were also confirmed to be infected.

In Washington state, the site of the first U.S. outbreak in humans, scientists rushed to design a COVID test for animals in March, said Charlie Powell, a spokesperson for the Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Pullman. “We knew with warm-blooded animals, housed together, there’s going to be some cross-infection,” he said. Tests for animals use different reagent compounds than those used for tests in people, so they don’t deplete the human supply, Mr. Powell added.

Since spring, the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory has tested nearly 80 animals, including 38 dogs, 29 cats, 2 ferrets, a camel, and 2 tamanduas, a type of anteater. The lab also tested six minks from the outbreak in Utah, five of which accounted for the lab’s only positive tests.

All told, nearly 1,400 animals have been tested for COVID-19 through the National Animal Health Laboratory Network or private labs, said Lyndsay Cole, a spokesperson for the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. More than 400 animals have been tested through the National Veterinary Services Laboratories. At least 250 more have been tested through academic research projects.

Most of the tests have been in household cats and dogs with suspicious respiratory symptoms. In June, the USDA reported that a dog in New York was the first pet dog to test positive for the coronavirus after falling ill and struggling to breathe. The dog, a 7-year-old German shepherd named Buddy, later died. Officials determined he’d contracted the virus from his owner.

Neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor the USDA recommends routine testing for house pets or other animals – but that hasn’t stopped owners from asking, said Dr. Douglas Kratt, president of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

“The questions have become a little more consistent at my practice,” he said. “People do want to know about COVID-19 and their pets. Can their pet pick it up at a clinic or boarding or in doggie day care?”

The answer, so far, is that humans are the primary source of infection in pets. In September, a small, unpublished study from the University of Guelph in Canada found that companion cats and dogs appeared to be infected by their sick owners, judging by antibodies to the coronavirus detected in their blood.

In Texas, Dr. Hamer started testing animals from households where someone had contracted COVID-19 to learn more about transmission pathways. “Right now, we’re very much trying to describe what’s happening in nature,” she said.

So far, most of the animals – including Phoenix, Ms. Romoser’s cat – have shown no signs of illness or disease. That’s true so far for many species of animals tested for COVID-19, veterinarians said. Most nonhuman creatures appear to weather COVID infection with mild symptoms like sniffles and lethargy, if any.

Still, owners should apply best practices for avoiding COVID infection to pets, too, Dr. Kratt said. Don’t let pets come into contact with unfamiliar animals, he suggested. Owners should wash their hands frequently and avoid nuzzling and other very close contact, if possible.

Cats appear to be more susceptible to COVID-19 than dogs, researchers said. And minks, which are farmed in the U.S. and elsewhere for their fur, appear quite vulnerable.

In the meantime, the list of creatures tested for COVID-19 – whether for illness or science – is growing. In Florida, 22 animals had been tested as of early October, including 3 wild dolphins, 2 civets, 2 clouded leopards, a gorilla, an orangutan, an alpaca, and a bush baby, state officials said.

In California, 29 animals had been tested by the end of September, including a meerkat, a monkey, and a coatimundi, a member of the raccoon family.

In Seattle, a plan to test orcas, or killer whales, in Puget Sound was called off at the last minute after a member of the scientific team was exposed to COVID-19 and had to quarantine, said Dr. Joe Gaydos, a senior wildlife veterinarian and science director for the SeaDoc Society, a conservation program at the University of California-Davis. The group missed its September window to locate the animals and obtain breath and fecal samples for analysis.

No one thinks marine animals will play a big role in the pandemic decimating the human population, Dr. Gaydos said. But testing many creatures on both land and sea is vital.

“We don’t know what this virus is going to do or can do,” Dr. Gaydos said.

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

As COVID-19 cases surge in the United States, one Texas veterinarian has been quietly tracking the spread of the disease – not in people, but in their pets.

Since June, Dr. Sarah Hamer and her team at Texas A&M University have tested hundreds of animals from area households where humans contracted COVID-19. They’ve swabbed dogs and cats, sure, but also pet hamsters and guinea pigs, looking for signs of infection. “We’re open to all of it,” said Dr. Hamer, a professor of epidemiology, who has found at least 19 cases of infection.

One pet that tested positive was Phoenix, a 7-year-old part Siamese cat owned by Kaitlyn Romoser, who works in a university lab. Ms. Romoser, 23, was confirmed to have COVID-19 twice, once in March and again in September. The second time she was much sicker, she said, and Phoenix was her constant companion.

“If I would have known animals were just getting it everywhere, I would have tried to distance myself, but he will not distance himself from me,” Ms. Romoser said. “He sleeps in my bed with me. There was absolutely no social distancing.”

Across the country, veterinarians and other researchers are scouring the animal kingdom for signs of the virus that causes COVID-19. At least 2,000 animals in the U.S. have been tested for the coronavirus since the pandemic began, according to federal records. Cats and dogs that were exposed to sick owners represent most of the animals tested and 80% of the positive cases found.

But scientists have cast a wide net investigating other animals that could be at risk. In states from California to Florida, researchers have tested species ranging from farmed minks and zoo cats to unexpected critters like dolphins, armadillos, and anteaters.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps an official tally of confirmed animal COVID cases that stands at several dozen. But that list is a vast undercount of actual infections. In Utah and Wisconsin, for instance, more than 14,000 minks died in recent weeks after contracting COVID infections initially spread by humans.

So far, there’s limited evidence that animals are transmitting the virus to people. Veterinarians emphasize that pet owners appear to be in no danger from their animal companions and should continue to love and care for them. But scientists say continued testing is one way to remain vigilant in the face of a previously unknown pathogen.

“We just know that coronaviruses, as a family, infect a lot of species, mostly mammals,” said Dr. Peter Rabinowitz, a professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and the director of the University of Washington Center for One Health Research in Seattle. “It makes sense to take a species-spanning approach and look at a wide spectrum.”

Much of the testing has been rooted in scientific curiosity. Since the pandemic began, a major puzzle has been how the virus, which likely originated in bats, spread to humans. A leading theory is that it jumped to an intermediate species, still unknown, and then to people.

In April, a 4-year-old Malayan tiger at the Bronx Zoo tested positive for COVID-19 in a first-of-its-kind case after seven big cats showed signs of respiratory illness. The tiger, Nadia, contracted the virus from a caretaker, federal health officials said. Four other tigers and three African lions were also confirmed to be infected.

In Washington state, the site of the first U.S. outbreak in humans, scientists rushed to design a COVID test for animals in March, said Charlie Powell, a spokesperson for the Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Pullman. “We knew with warm-blooded animals, housed together, there’s going to be some cross-infection,” he said. Tests for animals use different reagent compounds than those used for tests in people, so they don’t deplete the human supply, Mr. Powell added.

Since spring, the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory has tested nearly 80 animals, including 38 dogs, 29 cats, 2 ferrets, a camel, and 2 tamanduas, a type of anteater. The lab also tested six minks from the outbreak in Utah, five of which accounted for the lab’s only positive tests.

All told, nearly 1,400 animals have been tested for COVID-19 through the National Animal Health Laboratory Network or private labs, said Lyndsay Cole, a spokesperson for the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. More than 400 animals have been tested through the National Veterinary Services Laboratories. At least 250 more have been tested through academic research projects.

Most of the tests have been in household cats and dogs with suspicious respiratory symptoms. In June, the USDA reported that a dog in New York was the first pet dog to test positive for the coronavirus after falling ill and struggling to breathe. The dog, a 7-year-old German shepherd named Buddy, later died. Officials determined he’d contracted the virus from his owner.

Neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor the USDA recommends routine testing for house pets or other animals – but that hasn’t stopped owners from asking, said Dr. Douglas Kratt, president of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

“The questions have become a little more consistent at my practice,” he said. “People do want to know about COVID-19 and their pets. Can their pet pick it up at a clinic or boarding or in doggie day care?”

The answer, so far, is that humans are the primary source of infection in pets. In September, a small, unpublished study from the University of Guelph in Canada found that companion cats and dogs appeared to be infected by their sick owners, judging by antibodies to the coronavirus detected in their blood.

In Texas, Dr. Hamer started testing animals from households where someone had contracted COVID-19 to learn more about transmission pathways. “Right now, we’re very much trying to describe what’s happening in nature,” she said.

So far, most of the animals – including Phoenix, Ms. Romoser’s cat – have shown no signs of illness or disease. That’s true so far for many species of animals tested for COVID-19, veterinarians said. Most nonhuman creatures appear to weather COVID infection with mild symptoms like sniffles and lethargy, if any.

Still, owners should apply best practices for avoiding COVID infection to pets, too, Dr. Kratt said. Don’t let pets come into contact with unfamiliar animals, he suggested. Owners should wash their hands frequently and avoid nuzzling and other very close contact, if possible.

Cats appear to be more susceptible to COVID-19 than dogs, researchers said. And minks, which are farmed in the U.S. and elsewhere for their fur, appear quite vulnerable.

In the meantime, the list of creatures tested for COVID-19 – whether for illness or science – is growing. In Florida, 22 animals had been tested as of early October, including 3 wild dolphins, 2 civets, 2 clouded leopards, a gorilla, an orangutan, an alpaca, and a bush baby, state officials said.

In California, 29 animals had been tested by the end of September, including a meerkat, a monkey, and a coatimundi, a member of the raccoon family.

In Seattle, a plan to test orcas, or killer whales, in Puget Sound was called off at the last minute after a member of the scientific team was exposed to COVID-19 and had to quarantine, said Dr. Joe Gaydos, a senior wildlife veterinarian and science director for the SeaDoc Society, a conservation program at the University of California-Davis. The group missed its September window to locate the animals and obtain breath and fecal samples for analysis.

No one thinks marine animals will play a big role in the pandemic decimating the human population, Dr. Gaydos said. But testing many creatures on both land and sea is vital.

“We don’t know what this virus is going to do or can do,” Dr. Gaydos said.

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

As COVID-19 cases surge in the United States, one Texas veterinarian has been quietly tracking the spread of the disease – not in people, but in their pets.

Since June, Dr. Sarah Hamer and her team at Texas A&M University have tested hundreds of animals from area households where humans contracted COVID-19. They’ve swabbed dogs and cats, sure, but also pet hamsters and guinea pigs, looking for signs of infection. “We’re open to all of it,” said Dr. Hamer, a professor of epidemiology, who has found at least 19 cases of infection.

One pet that tested positive was Phoenix, a 7-year-old part Siamese cat owned by Kaitlyn Romoser, who works in a university lab. Ms. Romoser, 23, was confirmed to have COVID-19 twice, once in March and again in September. The second time she was much sicker, she said, and Phoenix was her constant companion.

“If I would have known animals were just getting it everywhere, I would have tried to distance myself, but he will not distance himself from me,” Ms. Romoser said. “He sleeps in my bed with me. There was absolutely no social distancing.”

Across the country, veterinarians and other researchers are scouring the animal kingdom for signs of the virus that causes COVID-19. At least 2,000 animals in the U.S. have been tested for the coronavirus since the pandemic began, according to federal records. Cats and dogs that were exposed to sick owners represent most of the animals tested and 80% of the positive cases found.

But scientists have cast a wide net investigating other animals that could be at risk. In states from California to Florida, researchers have tested species ranging from farmed minks and zoo cats to unexpected critters like dolphins, armadillos, and anteaters.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps an official tally of confirmed animal COVID cases that stands at several dozen. But that list is a vast undercount of actual infections. In Utah and Wisconsin, for instance, more than 14,000 minks died in recent weeks after contracting COVID infections initially spread by humans.

So far, there’s limited evidence that animals are transmitting the virus to people. Veterinarians emphasize that pet owners appear to be in no danger from their animal companions and should continue to love and care for them. But scientists say continued testing is one way to remain vigilant in the face of a previously unknown pathogen.

“We just know that coronaviruses, as a family, infect a lot of species, mostly mammals,” said Dr. Peter Rabinowitz, a professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and the director of the University of Washington Center for One Health Research in Seattle. “It makes sense to take a species-spanning approach and look at a wide spectrum.”

Much of the testing has been rooted in scientific curiosity. Since the pandemic began, a major puzzle has been how the virus, which likely originated in bats, spread to humans. A leading theory is that it jumped to an intermediate species, still unknown, and then to people.

In April, a 4-year-old Malayan tiger at the Bronx Zoo tested positive for COVID-19 in a first-of-its-kind case after seven big cats showed signs of respiratory illness. The tiger, Nadia, contracted the virus from a caretaker, federal health officials said. Four other tigers and three African lions were also confirmed to be infected.

In Washington state, the site of the first U.S. outbreak in humans, scientists rushed to design a COVID test for animals in March, said Charlie Powell, a spokesperson for the Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Pullman. “We knew with warm-blooded animals, housed together, there’s going to be some cross-infection,” he said. Tests for animals use different reagent compounds than those used for tests in people, so they don’t deplete the human supply, Mr. Powell added.

Since spring, the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory has tested nearly 80 animals, including 38 dogs, 29 cats, 2 ferrets, a camel, and 2 tamanduas, a type of anteater. The lab also tested six minks from the outbreak in Utah, five of which accounted for the lab’s only positive tests.

All told, nearly 1,400 animals have been tested for COVID-19 through the National Animal Health Laboratory Network or private labs, said Lyndsay Cole, a spokesperson for the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. More than 400 animals have been tested through the National Veterinary Services Laboratories. At least 250 more have been tested through academic research projects.

Most of the tests have been in household cats and dogs with suspicious respiratory symptoms. In June, the USDA reported that a dog in New York was the first pet dog to test positive for the coronavirus after falling ill and struggling to breathe. The dog, a 7-year-old German shepherd named Buddy, later died. Officials determined he’d contracted the virus from his owner.

Neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor the USDA recommends routine testing for house pets or other animals – but that hasn’t stopped owners from asking, said Dr. Douglas Kratt, president of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

“The questions have become a little more consistent at my practice,” he said. “People do want to know about COVID-19 and their pets. Can their pet pick it up at a clinic or boarding or in doggie day care?”

The answer, so far, is that humans are the primary source of infection in pets. In September, a small, unpublished study from the University of Guelph in Canada found that companion cats and dogs appeared to be infected by their sick owners, judging by antibodies to the coronavirus detected in their blood.

In Texas, Dr. Hamer started testing animals from households where someone had contracted COVID-19 to learn more about transmission pathways. “Right now, we’re very much trying to describe what’s happening in nature,” she said.

So far, most of the animals – including Phoenix, Ms. Romoser’s cat – have shown no signs of illness or disease. That’s true so far for many species of animals tested for COVID-19, veterinarians said. Most nonhuman creatures appear to weather COVID infection with mild symptoms like sniffles and lethargy, if any.

Still, owners should apply best practices for avoiding COVID infection to pets, too, Dr. Kratt said. Don’t let pets come into contact with unfamiliar animals, he suggested. Owners should wash their hands frequently and avoid nuzzling and other very close contact, if possible.

Cats appear to be more susceptible to COVID-19 than dogs, researchers said. And minks, which are farmed in the U.S. and elsewhere for their fur, appear quite vulnerable.

In the meantime, the list of creatures tested for COVID-19 – whether for illness or science – is growing. In Florida, 22 animals had been tested as of early October, including 3 wild dolphins, 2 civets, 2 clouded leopards, a gorilla, an orangutan, an alpaca, and a bush baby, state officials said.

In California, 29 animals had been tested by the end of September, including a meerkat, a monkey, and a coatimundi, a member of the raccoon family.

In Seattle, a plan to test orcas, or killer whales, in Puget Sound was called off at the last minute after a member of the scientific team was exposed to COVID-19 and had to quarantine, said Dr. Joe Gaydos, a senior wildlife veterinarian and science director for the SeaDoc Society, a conservation program at the University of California-Davis. The group missed its September window to locate the animals and obtain breath and fecal samples for analysis.

No one thinks marine animals will play a big role in the pandemic decimating the human population, Dr. Gaydos said. But testing many creatures on both land and sea is vital.

“We don’t know what this virus is going to do or can do,” Dr. Gaydos said.

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

Most SARS-CoV-2 virus strains feature a specific mutation that makes them more transmissible, to the point that these strains now predominate globally, new evidence shows.

In contrast to a greater variety of strains early in the pandemic, now 99.9% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the study feature the D614G mutation on the spike protein. In addition, people infected with a D614G strain have higher nasopharynx viral loads at diagnosis.

It’s not all bad news. This single-point mutation was not associated with worse clinical COVID-19 severity. Also, the mutation isn’t expected to interfere with the efficacy any of the antibody cocktails, small molecule therapies or vaccines in development.

Furthermore, “as bad as SARS-CoV-2 is, we may have dodged a bullet in terms of how quickly it mutates,” study author Ilya Finkelstein, PhD, said in an interview. This virus mutates much slower than HIV, for example, giving researchers a greater chance to stay one step ahead, he said.

The study was published online Oct. 30 in the journal mBio.
 

Molecular sleuthing

The research was possible because colleagues at the Houston Methodist Hospital system sequenced the genome of 5085 SARS-CoV-2 strains early in the outbreak and during a second wave of infection over the summer, Dr. Finkelstein said.

The unique data source also includes information from plasma, convalescent plasma, and patient outcomes. Studying a large and diverse population in a major metropolitan area like Houston helps create a “molecular fingerprint” for the virus that will continue to be very useful, said Dr. Finkelstein, a researcher and director of the Finkelstein Lab at the University of Texas, Austin.

D614G was the most common genetic substitution the researchers found, appearing in 82% of SARS-CoV-2 strains during the first wave from March 5 to May 11. The proportion with this mutation jumped to 99.9% by the second wave, defined as occurring between May 12 and July 7 in the study.

The jump in mutation frequency “occurred very rapidly, in a matter of just a few months,” the researchers noted.

The presence of the mutation during the first wave was independently associated with mechanical ventilation days, overall length of stay, and ICU length of stay. However, it was not associated with any significant differences in patient outcomes.

The D614G mutation is now so common worldwide that these viruses are considered reference strains. Researchers believe D614G predominates because it increases the spike protein’s ability to open cells for the virus to enter.

Despite the large number of virus strains evaluated, the samples only represent about 10% of COVID-19 cases in Houston during the study, a potential limitation. Also, some collected samples could not be used for high-quality genome analysis because of limited virus nucleic acid.

Also, it remains unclear if host-virus immune interactions play a significant role. However, the researchers noted in the paper that “available data suggest that, in the aggregate, host genetics does not play an overwhelming role in determining outcome in the great majority of adult patients, once virus infection is established.”
 

Surveillance ongoing

“The findings will help us to understand the origin, composition, and trajectory of future infection waves and the potential effect of the host immune response and therapeutic maneuvers on SARS-CoV-2 evolution,” the researchers added.

Going forward, the ongoing molecular surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 “may provide critical insights into the origin of the new infection spikes and waves that are occurring as public health constraints are further relaxed, schools and colleges reopen, holidays occur, commercial air travel increases and individuals change their behavior because of COVID-19 ‘fatigue,’ ” the researchers noted.

They added that the genome data will also be useful in assessing ongoing molecular evolution in spike and other proteins “as baseline herd immunity is generated, either by natural exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or by vaccination.”
 

Further validation warranted

“The study is very interesting and well performed,” Noam Shomron, PhD, a member of the faculty of medicine at Tel Aviv University, said in an interview.

Analyzing the “SARS-CoV-2 molecular evolution in a specific region in the USA … could be viewed as a microcosm of what occurs in other large cities in the USA,” he said.

However, “before jumping to conclusions, this should be further validated,” added Dr. Shomron, who authored a study suggesting differences in genetic alleles could partially explain variations across countries in the infection rates, severity, and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2.

“We know that many other features and contributors might affect the results – even social constraints could generate a bias in the observations,” he said. 

Dr. Finkelstein and Dr. Shomron disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most SARS-CoV-2 virus strains feature a specific mutation that makes them more transmissible, to the point that these strains now predominate globally, new evidence shows.

In contrast to a greater variety of strains early in the pandemic, now 99.9% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the study feature the D614G mutation on the spike protein. In addition, people infected with a D614G strain have higher nasopharynx viral loads at diagnosis.

It’s not all bad news. This single-point mutation was not associated with worse clinical COVID-19 severity. Also, the mutation isn’t expected to interfere with the efficacy any of the antibody cocktails, small molecule therapies or vaccines in development.

Furthermore, “as bad as SARS-CoV-2 is, we may have dodged a bullet in terms of how quickly it mutates,” study author Ilya Finkelstein, PhD, said in an interview. This virus mutates much slower than HIV, for example, giving researchers a greater chance to stay one step ahead, he said.

The study was published online Oct. 30 in the journal mBio.
 

Molecular sleuthing

The research was possible because colleagues at the Houston Methodist Hospital system sequenced the genome of 5085 SARS-CoV-2 strains early in the outbreak and during a second wave of infection over the summer, Dr. Finkelstein said.

The unique data source also includes information from plasma, convalescent plasma, and patient outcomes. Studying a large and diverse population in a major metropolitan area like Houston helps create a “molecular fingerprint” for the virus that will continue to be very useful, said Dr. Finkelstein, a researcher and director of the Finkelstein Lab at the University of Texas, Austin.

D614G was the most common genetic substitution the researchers found, appearing in 82% of SARS-CoV-2 strains during the first wave from March 5 to May 11. The proportion with this mutation jumped to 99.9% by the second wave, defined as occurring between May 12 and July 7 in the study.

The jump in mutation frequency “occurred very rapidly, in a matter of just a few months,” the researchers noted.

The presence of the mutation during the first wave was independently associated with mechanical ventilation days, overall length of stay, and ICU length of stay. However, it was not associated with any significant differences in patient outcomes.

The D614G mutation is now so common worldwide that these viruses are considered reference strains. Researchers believe D614G predominates because it increases the spike protein’s ability to open cells for the virus to enter.

Despite the large number of virus strains evaluated, the samples only represent about 10% of COVID-19 cases in Houston during the study, a potential limitation. Also, some collected samples could not be used for high-quality genome analysis because of limited virus nucleic acid.

Also, it remains unclear if host-virus immune interactions play a significant role. However, the researchers noted in the paper that “available data suggest that, in the aggregate, host genetics does not play an overwhelming role in determining outcome in the great majority of adult patients, once virus infection is established.”
 

Surveillance ongoing

“The findings will help us to understand the origin, composition, and trajectory of future infection waves and the potential effect of the host immune response and therapeutic maneuvers on SARS-CoV-2 evolution,” the researchers added.

Going forward, the ongoing molecular surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 “may provide critical insights into the origin of the new infection spikes and waves that are occurring as public health constraints are further relaxed, schools and colleges reopen, holidays occur, commercial air travel increases and individuals change their behavior because of COVID-19 ‘fatigue,’ ” the researchers noted.

They added that the genome data will also be useful in assessing ongoing molecular evolution in spike and other proteins “as baseline herd immunity is generated, either by natural exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or by vaccination.”
 

Further validation warranted

“The study is very interesting and well performed,” Noam Shomron, PhD, a member of the faculty of medicine at Tel Aviv University, said in an interview.

Analyzing the “SARS-CoV-2 molecular evolution in a specific region in the USA … could be viewed as a microcosm of what occurs in other large cities in the USA,” he said.

However, “before jumping to conclusions, this should be further validated,” added Dr. Shomron, who authored a study suggesting differences in genetic alleles could partially explain variations across countries in the infection rates, severity, and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2.

“We know that many other features and contributors might affect the results – even social constraints could generate a bias in the observations,” he said. 

Dr. Finkelstein and Dr. Shomron disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most SARS-CoV-2 virus strains feature a specific mutation that makes them more transmissible, to the point that these strains now predominate globally, new evidence shows.

In contrast to a greater variety of strains early in the pandemic, now 99.9% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the study feature the D614G mutation on the spike protein. In addition, people infected with a D614G strain have higher nasopharynx viral loads at diagnosis.

It’s not all bad news. This single-point mutation was not associated with worse clinical COVID-19 severity. Also, the mutation isn’t expected to interfere with the efficacy any of the antibody cocktails, small molecule therapies or vaccines in development.

Furthermore, “as bad as SARS-CoV-2 is, we may have dodged a bullet in terms of how quickly it mutates,” study author Ilya Finkelstein, PhD, said in an interview. This virus mutates much slower than HIV, for example, giving researchers a greater chance to stay one step ahead, he said.

The study was published online Oct. 30 in the journal mBio.
 

Molecular sleuthing

The research was possible because colleagues at the Houston Methodist Hospital system sequenced the genome of 5085 SARS-CoV-2 strains early in the outbreak and during a second wave of infection over the summer, Dr. Finkelstein said.

The unique data source also includes information from plasma, convalescent plasma, and patient outcomes. Studying a large and diverse population in a major metropolitan area like Houston helps create a “molecular fingerprint” for the virus that will continue to be very useful, said Dr. Finkelstein, a researcher and director of the Finkelstein Lab at the University of Texas, Austin.

D614G was the most common genetic substitution the researchers found, appearing in 82% of SARS-CoV-2 strains during the first wave from March 5 to May 11. The proportion with this mutation jumped to 99.9% by the second wave, defined as occurring between May 12 and July 7 in the study.

The jump in mutation frequency “occurred very rapidly, in a matter of just a few months,” the researchers noted.

The presence of the mutation during the first wave was independently associated with mechanical ventilation days, overall length of stay, and ICU length of stay. However, it was not associated with any significant differences in patient outcomes.

The D614G mutation is now so common worldwide that these viruses are considered reference strains. Researchers believe D614G predominates because it increases the spike protein’s ability to open cells for the virus to enter.

Despite the large number of virus strains evaluated, the samples only represent about 10% of COVID-19 cases in Houston during the study, a potential limitation. Also, some collected samples could not be used for high-quality genome analysis because of limited virus nucleic acid.

Also, it remains unclear if host-virus immune interactions play a significant role. However, the researchers noted in the paper that “available data suggest that, in the aggregate, host genetics does not play an overwhelming role in determining outcome in the great majority of adult patients, once virus infection is established.”
 

Surveillance ongoing

“The findings will help us to understand the origin, composition, and trajectory of future infection waves and the potential effect of the host immune response and therapeutic maneuvers on SARS-CoV-2 evolution,” the researchers added.

Going forward, the ongoing molecular surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 “may provide critical insights into the origin of the new infection spikes and waves that are occurring as public health constraints are further relaxed, schools and colleges reopen, holidays occur, commercial air travel increases and individuals change their behavior because of COVID-19 ‘fatigue,’ ” the researchers noted.

They added that the genome data will also be useful in assessing ongoing molecular evolution in spike and other proteins “as baseline herd immunity is generated, either by natural exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or by vaccination.”
 

Further validation warranted

“The study is very interesting and well performed,” Noam Shomron, PhD, a member of the faculty of medicine at Tel Aviv University, said in an interview.

Analyzing the “SARS-CoV-2 molecular evolution in a specific region in the USA … could be viewed as a microcosm of what occurs in other large cities in the USA,” he said.

However, “before jumping to conclusions, this should be further validated,” added Dr. Shomron, who authored a study suggesting differences in genetic alleles could partially explain variations across countries in the infection rates, severity, and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2.

“We know that many other features and contributors might affect the results – even social constraints could generate a bias in the observations,” he said. 

Dr. Finkelstein and Dr. Shomron disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a large international study of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, the likelihood of having severe pneumonia (i.e., needing invasive mechanical ventilation) increased stepwise with increasing body mass index (BMI) – independent of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or current smoking.

The main finding was a linear correlation between BMI and need for invasive mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for center, age, sex, and other prespecified metabolic risk factors.

Risk was “highest for older people and males, but the next most important risk factor to developing severe pneumonia if infected [was] obesity,” said François Pattou, MD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille (France), who presented the findings at the ObesityWeek 2020 virtual meeting. The results were also recently published in a preprint article in The Lancet.

Dr. Pattou and colleagues first reported back in April that obesity is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, especially in younger patients. Many further reports linked the two, and the French researchers then set out to conduct the current large, international, multicenter cohort study.

“The high number of patients included here [allowed us] to disentangle the role of various metabolic cofactors and to show that obesity, not diabetes or hypertension, was the main determinant of severe pneumonia [after age and gender],” Dr. Pattou said in an interview.

And the impact of obesity was most pronounced in women younger than 50 years.
 

Patients with severe obesity must protect themselves

Of interest, the study also found an “obesity paradox” for mortality after admission to the ICU.

Specifically, compared with leaner patients (BMI < 25 kg/m²), those with severe obesity (obesity class III, BMI ≥ 40) had an increased risk of dying within 28 days of admission to ICU. But patients with overweight to moderate obesity (BMI 25-39.9) had a lower risk of this outcome.

“The second original finding of our study,” Dr. Pattou continued, was the “nonlinear relation observed between BMI and all-cause mortality rate in ICU patients.”

Matteo Rottoli, MD, PhD, author of a related study reported by in July, said the new trial “confirms the findings of our study, which are that obesity is an independent risk factor for intensive care admission and death.”

Dr. Rottoli, from Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues found that in their population of patients with COVID-19, a BMI > 35 was associated with a greater risk of death.

The takeaway message from the research is that “obesity should be considered one of the most important parameters to identify the population at risk” of getting COVID-19 who need to take extra precautions such as social distancing, Dr. Rottoli stressed.

Dr. Pattou agrees, particularly when it comes to severe obesity.

Intensive care physicians have learned a lot in the past months about COVID-19 pneumonia and how to address it (such as not precipitating intubation, using corticosteroids), he explained.

“Importantly, the general population has also learned a lot, and we can hope that patients with obesity, especially those with severe obesity, will take extra measures to protect themselves, resulting in a decrease of the incidence of severe pneumonia in young and severely obese patients,” he added.
 

Untangling BMI from other metabolic risk factors

Dr. Pattou said that, from Dec. 16, 2019, to Nov. 1, 2020, more than 45 million people worldwide tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 1.2 million people died from it.

Multiple studies have reported that, among people with COVID-19, those with obesity are at higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, invasive ventilation, and death, but it had not been clear if BMI was an independent risk factor.

Dr. Pattou and colleagues aimed to examine the relationship between BMI and COVID-19 pneumonia severity, defined by the need for mechanical ventilation (primary outcome), as well as 28-day all-cause mortality (secondary outcome) among patients admitted to the ICU.

They also sought to disentangle the effect of BMI from other metabolic risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and current smoking) and examine the influence of age and sex on outcomes.

They performed a retrospective analysis of 1,461 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (positive reverse polymerase chain reaction test using a nasal or pharyngeal swab specimen) who were admitted to the ICU at 21 centers from Feb. 19 to May 11, 2020.

Participating centers were in France (13), Italy (3), the United States (1 in New York and 1 in Providence, R.I.), Israel (1), Belgium (1), and Spain (1).

Close to three-quarters of patients were men (73%), which is similar to multiple other studies, Dr. Pattou said. Patients were a mean age of 64 years and had a mean BMI of 28.1.

Half of patients had hypertension (52%), 29% had diabetes, 29% had hyperlipidemia, and 6.5% were current smokers.

Close to three-quarters (74%) required invasive mechanical ventilation, and 36% died within 28 days of ICU admission.

Each 5-kg/m² increase in BMI was associated with a 27% increased risk of mechanical ventilation in the overall cohort and a 65% increased risk of this outcome among women younger than 50 years, after adjustment for other risk factors.

Male sex and each 10-year increase in age were associated with an 82% and a 17% increased risk of ventilation, respectively, but hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and current smoking were not associated with a greater risk. After adjustment for center, age, sex, and prespecified metabolic risk factors, obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40) was associated with a 68% increase in mortality, compared with the risk seen in lean patients.

The findings were similar across different centers.

“To our knowledge, this study represents the first international collaborative effort to explore the association of BMI with the outcomes of pneumonia among COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU,” said the investigators.

They conclude that “available evidence should foster more focused and effective interventions in COVID-19 patients with the highest risk of severe pneumonia, in order to reduce future strain on intensive care resources worldwide, and inform physio-pathological research to elucidate the mechanism of severe lung damage in COVID-19.”

The study did not receive specific funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

In a large international study of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, the likelihood of having severe pneumonia (i.e., needing invasive mechanical ventilation) increased stepwise with increasing body mass index (BMI) – independent of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or current smoking.

The main finding was a linear correlation between BMI and need for invasive mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for center, age, sex, and other prespecified metabolic risk factors.

Risk was “highest for older people and males, but the next most important risk factor to developing severe pneumonia if infected [was] obesity,” said François Pattou, MD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille (France), who presented the findings at the ObesityWeek 2020 virtual meeting. The results were also recently published in a preprint article in The Lancet.

Dr. Pattou and colleagues first reported back in April that obesity is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, especially in younger patients. Many further reports linked the two, and the French researchers then set out to conduct the current large, international, multicenter cohort study.

“The high number of patients included here [allowed us] to disentangle the role of various metabolic cofactors and to show that obesity, not diabetes or hypertension, was the main determinant of severe pneumonia [after age and gender],” Dr. Pattou said in an interview.

And the impact of obesity was most pronounced in women younger than 50 years.
 

Patients with severe obesity must protect themselves

Of interest, the study also found an “obesity paradox” for mortality after admission to the ICU.

Specifically, compared with leaner patients (BMI < 25 kg/m²), those with severe obesity (obesity class III, BMI ≥ 40) had an increased risk of dying within 28 days of admission to ICU. But patients with overweight to moderate obesity (BMI 25-39.9) had a lower risk of this outcome.

“The second original finding of our study,” Dr. Pattou continued, was the “nonlinear relation observed between BMI and all-cause mortality rate in ICU patients.”

Matteo Rottoli, MD, PhD, author of a related study reported by in July, said the new trial “confirms the findings of our study, which are that obesity is an independent risk factor for intensive care admission and death.”

Dr. Rottoli, from Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues found that in their population of patients with COVID-19, a BMI > 35 was associated with a greater risk of death.

The takeaway message from the research is that “obesity should be considered one of the most important parameters to identify the population at risk” of getting COVID-19 who need to take extra precautions such as social distancing, Dr. Rottoli stressed.

Dr. Pattou agrees, particularly when it comes to severe obesity.

Intensive care physicians have learned a lot in the past months about COVID-19 pneumonia and how to address it (such as not precipitating intubation, using corticosteroids), he explained.

“Importantly, the general population has also learned a lot, and we can hope that patients with obesity, especially those with severe obesity, will take extra measures to protect themselves, resulting in a decrease of the incidence of severe pneumonia in young and severely obese patients,” he added.
 

Untangling BMI from other metabolic risk factors

Dr. Pattou said that, from Dec. 16, 2019, to Nov. 1, 2020, more than 45 million people worldwide tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 1.2 million people died from it.

Multiple studies have reported that, among people with COVID-19, those with obesity are at higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, invasive ventilation, and death, but it had not been clear if BMI was an independent risk factor.

Dr. Pattou and colleagues aimed to examine the relationship between BMI and COVID-19 pneumonia severity, defined by the need for mechanical ventilation (primary outcome), as well as 28-day all-cause mortality (secondary outcome) among patients admitted to the ICU.

They also sought to disentangle the effect of BMI from other metabolic risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and current smoking) and examine the influence of age and sex on outcomes.

They performed a retrospective analysis of 1,461 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (positive reverse polymerase chain reaction test using a nasal or pharyngeal swab specimen) who were admitted to the ICU at 21 centers from Feb. 19 to May 11, 2020.

Participating centers were in France (13), Italy (3), the United States (1 in New York and 1 in Providence, R.I.), Israel (1), Belgium (1), and Spain (1).

Close to three-quarters of patients were men (73%), which is similar to multiple other studies, Dr. Pattou said. Patients were a mean age of 64 years and had a mean BMI of 28.1.

Half of patients had hypertension (52%), 29% had diabetes, 29% had hyperlipidemia, and 6.5% were current smokers.

Close to three-quarters (74%) required invasive mechanical ventilation, and 36% died within 28 days of ICU admission.

Each 5-kg/m² increase in BMI was associated with a 27% increased risk of mechanical ventilation in the overall cohort and a 65% increased risk of this outcome among women younger than 50 years, after adjustment for other risk factors.

Male sex and each 10-year increase in age were associated with an 82% and a 17% increased risk of ventilation, respectively, but hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and current smoking were not associated with a greater risk. After adjustment for center, age, sex, and prespecified metabolic risk factors, obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40) was associated with a 68% increase in mortality, compared with the risk seen in lean patients.

The findings were similar across different centers.

“To our knowledge, this study represents the first international collaborative effort to explore the association of BMI with the outcomes of pneumonia among COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU,” said the investigators.

They conclude that “available evidence should foster more focused and effective interventions in COVID-19 patients with the highest risk of severe pneumonia, in order to reduce future strain on intensive care resources worldwide, and inform physio-pathological research to elucidate the mechanism of severe lung damage in COVID-19.”

The study did not receive specific funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

In a large international study of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, the likelihood of having severe pneumonia (i.e., needing invasive mechanical ventilation) increased stepwise with increasing body mass index (BMI) – independent of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or current smoking.

The main finding was a linear correlation between BMI and need for invasive mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for center, age, sex, and other prespecified metabolic risk factors.

Risk was “highest for older people and males, but the next most important risk factor to developing severe pneumonia if infected [was] obesity,” said François Pattou, MD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille (France), who presented the findings at the ObesityWeek 2020 virtual meeting. The results were also recently published in a preprint article in The Lancet.

Dr. Pattou and colleagues first reported back in April that obesity is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, especially in younger patients. Many further reports linked the two, and the French researchers then set out to conduct the current large, international, multicenter cohort study.

“The high number of patients included here [allowed us] to disentangle the role of various metabolic cofactors and to show that obesity, not diabetes or hypertension, was the main determinant of severe pneumonia [after age and gender],” Dr. Pattou said in an interview.

And the impact of obesity was most pronounced in women younger than 50 years.
 

Patients with severe obesity must protect themselves

Of interest, the study also found an “obesity paradox” for mortality after admission to the ICU.

Specifically, compared with leaner patients (BMI < 25 kg/m²), those with severe obesity (obesity class III, BMI ≥ 40) had an increased risk of dying within 28 days of admission to ICU. But patients with overweight to moderate obesity (BMI 25-39.9) had a lower risk of this outcome.

“The second original finding of our study,” Dr. Pattou continued, was the “nonlinear relation observed between BMI and all-cause mortality rate in ICU patients.”

Matteo Rottoli, MD, PhD, author of a related study reported by in July, said the new trial “confirms the findings of our study, which are that obesity is an independent risk factor for intensive care admission and death.”

Dr. Rottoli, from Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues found that in their population of patients with COVID-19, a BMI > 35 was associated with a greater risk of death.

The takeaway message from the research is that “obesity should be considered one of the most important parameters to identify the population at risk” of getting COVID-19 who need to take extra precautions such as social distancing, Dr. Rottoli stressed.

Dr. Pattou agrees, particularly when it comes to severe obesity.

Intensive care physicians have learned a lot in the past months about COVID-19 pneumonia and how to address it (such as not precipitating intubation, using corticosteroids), he explained.

“Importantly, the general population has also learned a lot, and we can hope that patients with obesity, especially those with severe obesity, will take extra measures to protect themselves, resulting in a decrease of the incidence of severe pneumonia in young and severely obese patients,” he added.
 

Untangling BMI from other metabolic risk factors

Dr. Pattou said that, from Dec. 16, 2019, to Nov. 1, 2020, more than 45 million people worldwide tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 1.2 million people died from it.

Multiple studies have reported that, among people with COVID-19, those with obesity are at higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, invasive ventilation, and death, but it had not been clear if BMI was an independent risk factor.

Dr. Pattou and colleagues aimed to examine the relationship between BMI and COVID-19 pneumonia severity, defined by the need for mechanical ventilation (primary outcome), as well as 28-day all-cause mortality (secondary outcome) among patients admitted to the ICU.

They also sought to disentangle the effect of BMI from other metabolic risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and current smoking) and examine the influence of age and sex on outcomes.

They performed a retrospective analysis of 1,461 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (positive reverse polymerase chain reaction test using a nasal or pharyngeal swab specimen) who were admitted to the ICU at 21 centers from Feb. 19 to May 11, 2020.

Participating centers were in France (13), Italy (3), the United States (1 in New York and 1 in Providence, R.I.), Israel (1), Belgium (1), and Spain (1).

Close to three-quarters of patients were men (73%), which is similar to multiple other studies, Dr. Pattou said. Patients were a mean age of 64 years and had a mean BMI of 28.1.

Half of patients had hypertension (52%), 29% had diabetes, 29% had hyperlipidemia, and 6.5% were current smokers.

Close to three-quarters (74%) required invasive mechanical ventilation, and 36% died within 28 days of ICU admission.

Each 5-kg/m² increase in BMI was associated with a 27% increased risk of mechanical ventilation in the overall cohort and a 65% increased risk of this outcome among women younger than 50 years, after adjustment for other risk factors.

Male sex and each 10-year increase in age were associated with an 82% and a 17% increased risk of ventilation, respectively, but hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and current smoking were not associated with a greater risk. After adjustment for center, age, sex, and prespecified metabolic risk factors, obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40) was associated with a 68% increase in mortality, compared with the risk seen in lean patients.

The findings were similar across different centers.

“To our knowledge, this study represents the first international collaborative effort to explore the association of BMI with the outcomes of pneumonia among COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU,” said the investigators.

They conclude that “available evidence should foster more focused and effective interventions in COVID-19 patients with the highest risk of severe pneumonia, in order to reduce future strain on intensive care resources worldwide, and inform physio-pathological research to elucidate the mechanism of severe lung damage in COVID-19.”

The study did not receive specific funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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