SAN DIEGO – According to the latest American Cancer Society (ACS) data, cutaneous melanoma was the 5th most common cancer in 2022, with an estimated 99,780 new cases and 7,650 deaths, following cancer of the colorectal area, lung and bronchus, prostate, and breast.

“The incidence of melanoma seems to have continued to go up since the early 1990s,” David E. Kent, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Macon, Ga., said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The death rates have been flat and may have slightly decreased.”

In 2023, the ACS estimates that about 97,610 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States (58,120 men and 39,490 women), and about 7,990 people are expected to die of melanoma (5,420 men and 2,570 women). In addition, ACS data from 2017-2019 project that about 2.1% of men and women will be diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma in their lifetime. To date, more than 1.3 million people in the United States live with cutaneous melanoma, and the overall 5-year survival is 93.7%.

Epidemiologic studies show an increase in melanoma incidence, primarily among White populations. “This is believed to be due primarily to sun exposure and to changing recreational behaviors and tanning bed exposures,” said Dr. Kent, who holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. Increased surveillance and diagnosis also play a role. In the medical literature, annual increases in melanoma incidence vary from 3% to 7% per year, “which translates into a doubling of rates every 10-20 years,” he said, noting that annual melanoma costs are approximately $3.3 billion.

While incidence rates are lower in non-White, non-Hispanic populations, poor outcomes are disproportionately higher in persons of color. Blacks present at diagnosis with more advanced stage disease and are 1.5 times more likely to die from melanoma, he said, while Hispanics are 2.4 times more likely to present with stage III disease and 3.6 times more likely to have distant metastases. Persons of color also have higher rates of mucosal, acral lentiginous, and subungual melanoma.

Known genetic risk factors for melanoma include having skin types I and II, particularly those with light hair, light eyes, and freckling, and those with a family history have a twofold increased risk. Also, up to 40% of genetic cases are from inherited mutations in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1, and MCR1. Other genetic-related risk factors include the number and size of nevi, having atypical nevus syndrome, DNA repair defects, large congenital nevi, and a personal history of melanoma.

The main environmental risk factor for melanoma is exposure to ultraviolet radiation. “You can break it down in terms of whether this exposure is lifetime, intermittent intense UV exposure, from the use of tanning beds, or due to sunburns during childhood,” Dr. Kent said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. Other environmental risk factors include distance from the equator, having a high socioeconomic status, being immunosuppressed, and exposure to heavy metals, insecticides, or hormones.

In a recently published study, researchers investigated the risk factors associated with first and second primary melanomas in 38,845 patients who were followed in Australia between 2011 and 2018. During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 1,212 patients (3.1%) had a single primary melanoma diagnosis and 245 (0.6%) had a secondary primary melanoma diagnosis. The researchers found that second melanomas were more likely than were first melanomas to be in situ; for invasive tumors, second melanomas were more likely to be thin (defined as 1 mm or less) than were first melanomas.

In addition, having many self-reported moles at age 21 years was more strongly associated with second melanomas compared with first melanomas (hazard ratio [HR], 6.36 vs. 3.46, respectively; P = .01), as was having a high genetic predisposition (HR, 3.28 vs. 2.06; P = .03).

Second melanomas were also more strongly associated with a history of multiple skin cancer excisions than were first melanomas (HR, 2.63 vs. 1.86; P = .05). “Interestingly, there were no differences in UV exposure between the first primary and second primary melanoma groups,” said Dr. Kent, who was not involved with the study.

He noted that while sunscreen use protects against melanoma, a National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) found that internists and pediatricians mentioned sunscreen at fewer than 0.1% of visits – even those with patients who have a diagnosis of skin disease. “Physicians need to do better,” he said. “We as dermatologists have work to do to help educate them.”

Dr. Kent reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – According to the latest American Cancer Society (ACS) data, cutaneous melanoma was the 5th most common cancer in 2022, with an estimated 99,780 new cases and 7,650 deaths, following cancer of the colorectal area, lung and bronchus, prostate, and breast.

“The incidence of melanoma seems to have continued to go up since the early 1990s,” David E. Kent, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Macon, Ga., said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The death rates have been flat and may have slightly decreased.”

In 2023, the ACS estimates that about 97,610 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States (58,120 men and 39,490 women), and about 7,990 people are expected to die of melanoma (5,420 men and 2,570 women). In addition, ACS data from 2017-2019 project that about 2.1% of men and women will be diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma in their lifetime. To date, more than 1.3 million people in the United States live with cutaneous melanoma, and the overall 5-year survival is 93.7%.

Epidemiologic studies show an increase in melanoma incidence, primarily among White populations. “This is believed to be due primarily to sun exposure and to changing recreational behaviors and tanning bed exposures,” said Dr. Kent, who holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. Increased surveillance and diagnosis also play a role. In the medical literature, annual increases in melanoma incidence vary from 3% to 7% per year, “which translates into a doubling of rates every 10-20 years,” he said, noting that annual melanoma costs are approximately $3.3 billion.

While incidence rates are lower in non-White, non-Hispanic populations, poor outcomes are disproportionately higher in persons of color. Blacks present at diagnosis with more advanced stage disease and are 1.5 times more likely to die from melanoma, he said, while Hispanics are 2.4 times more likely to present with stage III disease and 3.6 times more likely to have distant metastases. Persons of color also have higher rates of mucosal, acral lentiginous, and subungual melanoma.

Known genetic risk factors for melanoma include having skin types I and II, particularly those with light hair, light eyes, and freckling, and those with a family history have a twofold increased risk. Also, up to 40% of genetic cases are from inherited mutations in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1, and MCR1. Other genetic-related risk factors include the number and size of nevi, having atypical nevus syndrome, DNA repair defects, large congenital nevi, and a personal history of melanoma.

The main environmental risk factor for melanoma is exposure to ultraviolet radiation. “You can break it down in terms of whether this exposure is lifetime, intermittent intense UV exposure, from the use of tanning beds, or due to sunburns during childhood,” Dr. Kent said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. Other environmental risk factors include distance from the equator, having a high socioeconomic status, being immunosuppressed, and exposure to heavy metals, insecticides, or hormones.

In a recently published study, researchers investigated the risk factors associated with first and second primary melanomas in 38,845 patients who were followed in Australia between 2011 and 2018. During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 1,212 patients (3.1%) had a single primary melanoma diagnosis and 245 (0.6%) had a secondary primary melanoma diagnosis. The researchers found that second melanomas were more likely than were first melanomas to be in situ; for invasive tumors, second melanomas were more likely to be thin (defined as 1 mm or less) than were first melanomas.

In addition, having many self-reported moles at age 21 years was more strongly associated with second melanomas compared with first melanomas (hazard ratio [HR], 6.36 vs. 3.46, respectively; P = .01), as was having a high genetic predisposition (HR, 3.28 vs. 2.06; P = .03).

Second melanomas were also more strongly associated with a history of multiple skin cancer excisions than were first melanomas (HR, 2.63 vs. 1.86; P = .05). “Interestingly, there were no differences in UV exposure between the first primary and second primary melanoma groups,” said Dr. Kent, who was not involved with the study.

He noted that while sunscreen use protects against melanoma, a National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) found that internists and pediatricians mentioned sunscreen at fewer than 0.1% of visits – even those with patients who have a diagnosis of skin disease. “Physicians need to do better,” he said. “We as dermatologists have work to do to help educate them.”

Dr. Kent reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – According to the latest American Cancer Society (ACS) data, cutaneous melanoma was the 5th most common cancer in 2022, with an estimated 99,780 new cases and 7,650 deaths, following cancer of the colorectal area, lung and bronchus, prostate, and breast.

“The incidence of melanoma seems to have continued to go up since the early 1990s,” David E. Kent, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Macon, Ga., said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The death rates have been flat and may have slightly decreased.”

In 2023, the ACS estimates that about 97,610 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States (58,120 men and 39,490 women), and about 7,990 people are expected to die of melanoma (5,420 men and 2,570 women). In addition, ACS data from 2017-2019 project that about 2.1% of men and women will be diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma in their lifetime. To date, more than 1.3 million people in the United States live with cutaneous melanoma, and the overall 5-year survival is 93.7%.

Epidemiologic studies show an increase in melanoma incidence, primarily among White populations. “This is believed to be due primarily to sun exposure and to changing recreational behaviors and tanning bed exposures,” said Dr. Kent, who holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. Increased surveillance and diagnosis also play a role. In the medical literature, annual increases in melanoma incidence vary from 3% to 7% per year, “which translates into a doubling of rates every 10-20 years,” he said, noting that annual melanoma costs are approximately $3.3 billion.

While incidence rates are lower in non-White, non-Hispanic populations, poor outcomes are disproportionately higher in persons of color. Blacks present at diagnosis with more advanced stage disease and are 1.5 times more likely to die from melanoma, he said, while Hispanics are 2.4 times more likely to present with stage III disease and 3.6 times more likely to have distant metastases. Persons of color also have higher rates of mucosal, acral lentiginous, and subungual melanoma.

Known genetic risk factors for melanoma include having skin types I and II, particularly those with light hair, light eyes, and freckling, and those with a family history have a twofold increased risk. Also, up to 40% of genetic cases are from inherited mutations in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1, and MCR1. Other genetic-related risk factors include the number and size of nevi, having atypical nevus syndrome, DNA repair defects, large congenital nevi, and a personal history of melanoma.

The main environmental risk factor for melanoma is exposure to ultraviolet radiation. “You can break it down in terms of whether this exposure is lifetime, intermittent intense UV exposure, from the use of tanning beds, or due to sunburns during childhood,” Dr. Kent said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. Other environmental risk factors include distance from the equator, having a high socioeconomic status, being immunosuppressed, and exposure to heavy metals, insecticides, or hormones.

In a recently published study, researchers investigated the risk factors associated with first and second primary melanomas in 38,845 patients who were followed in Australia between 2011 and 2018. During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 1,212 patients (3.1%) had a single primary melanoma diagnosis and 245 (0.6%) had a secondary primary melanoma diagnosis. The researchers found that second melanomas were more likely than were first melanomas to be in situ; for invasive tumors, second melanomas were more likely to be thin (defined as 1 mm or less) than were first melanomas.

In addition, having many self-reported moles at age 21 years was more strongly associated with second melanomas compared with first melanomas (hazard ratio [HR], 6.36 vs. 3.46, respectively; P = .01), as was having a high genetic predisposition (HR, 3.28 vs. 2.06; P = .03).

Second melanomas were also more strongly associated with a history of multiple skin cancer excisions than were first melanomas (HR, 2.63 vs. 1.86; P = .05). “Interestingly, there were no differences in UV exposure between the first primary and second primary melanoma groups,” said Dr. Kent, who was not involved with the study.

He noted that while sunscreen use protects against melanoma, a National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) found that internists and pediatricians mentioned sunscreen at fewer than 0.1% of visits – even those with patients who have a diagnosis of skin disease. “Physicians need to do better,” he said. “We as dermatologists have work to do to help educate them.”

Dr. Kent reported having no relevant disclosures.

Real-world, population-based data suggest that the discontinuation rates for biosimilars prescribed to treat inflammatory rheumatic diseases are similar to those for their corresponding originator biologics, according to a study of patients in British Columbia who were required to switch to biosimilars.

“The decision to mandate use of biosimilars provided an ideal context for a natural experiment,” Diane Lacaille, MD, chair in arthritis research at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, explained in her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

On the basis of the real-world data, which was collected before and after a province-wide requirement to use biosimilars in place of originator biologics, there was no major difference in discontinuation rates, an outcome that Dr. Lacaille characterized as “a surrogate for both efficacy and safety.”

In the 2019 rheumatoid arthritis treatment guidelines from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, biosimilars are advocated for addressing the high cost of biologics based on evidence of efficacy and safety comparable with originator biologics. According to one of the coauthors of those guidelines, Tom W. J. Huizinga, MD, PhD, head of rheumatology at Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, there is reasonable confidence in biosimilars as an adequate substitute for originator drugs, but real-world data are welcome.

“Real-world data provide different information than controlled trials and long-term data as well, so these [Canadian findings] are useful to support the data from [randomized controlled trials],” Dr. Huizinga said in an interview. He was not involved in the Canadian study.
 

Survivorship evaluated after switch to biosimilars

In British Columbia, biosimilars were mandated province-wide for new prescriptions of infliximab and etanercept in June 2017. In 2019, the mandate was extended to patients already taking originator infliximab (Remicade) and originator etanercept (Enbrel). Since that time, the mandate for biosimilars has also been applied to adalimumab (Humira). For the comparison of infliximab and etanercept originators with their biosimilars, Dr. Lacaille and associates compared survivorship for the 3 years after the policy change, when patients were on biosimilars, with the 3 years prior to the change, when patients were on the originators. They compared survivorship with originator adalimumab with its biosimilars for prior to and after the switch.

”People were followed from anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] initiation until discontinuation for any reason,” reported Dr. Lacaille, who said data were censored for death and moving out of the province. In British Columbia, where there is universal health care, all dispensed medications can be tracked. The definition of anti-TNF discontinuation in this study was no prescription renewal for at least 6 months.

The follow-up was censored at March 2, 2020, to avoid the potential impact of COVID-19 on antirheumatic drug use. Discontinuation was standardized for the comparison of originator with biosimilar drugs as rates per 100 person-years. Statistical adjustments were made for potential confounders.

The researchers compared 1,312 patients on etanercept and 827 on a biosimilar of it, 230 patients on infliximab and 271 on a biosimilar of it, and 1,773 on adalimumab and 2,213 on a biosimilar of it. The indication was RA in approximately 60% of those on etanercept or a biosimilar and 50% of those on infliximab or adalimumab and their biosimilars. More than half of the remaining patients had indications for psoriatic arthritis, and the rest had ankylosing spondylitis.
 

No differences reach statistical significance

On the basis of discontinuation rates per 100 person-years, etanercept and its biosimilars performed almost identically (37.10 vs. 37.02, respectively). Although the discontinuation rate per 100 person-years was lower on infliximab than a biosimilar of it (29.97 vs. 37.96), the difference was not statistically significant (P = .076).

For adalimumab, the discontinuation rate was also lower on the originator drug than a biosimilar of it (32.92 vs. 36.36), but, again, this difference was also insignificant (P = .56).

When the discontinuation data were evaluated on the basis of a Cox model involving a propensity weight overlap, the univariate and the multivariable analyses found that the biosimilars had similar risks for discontinuation. Univariate analysis revealed hazard ratios for discontinuation of the biosimilar relative to the originator were 0.98 (P = .783) for etanercept, 1.17 (P = .242) for infliximab, and 1.08 (P = .09) for adalimumab. In the multivariable model, adjusted HRs for discontinuation were about the same for each of the biosimilars relative to the originator: 0.98 (P = .807) for etanercept, 1.19 (P = .183) for infliximab, and 1.08 (P = .089) for adalimumab.

Relative to previously published direct comparisons, this real-world analysis and its duration of follow-up address the limitations of formal trials. In a 2020 BMJ meta-analysis of published data from 45 trials comparing biosimilar with originator drugs in patients with RA who had failed methotrexate, the authors found only “minor differences in harms and benefits,” but they cautioned that the analysis was “hampered by a lack of long-term direct comparisons.”

In an interview, Dr. Huizinga noted that a systematic review of adalimumab biosimilars that he led 2 years ago showed that they perform comparably with the originator biologics. This and other published studies have consistently shown “that there is no difference between biologics and originators.”

Dr. Lacaille disclosed financial relationships with Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Organon, Pfizer, and Viatris. Dr. Huizinga disclosed financial relationships with Abbott, Ablynx, Biotest, Bioscience, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, MycoMed, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, and Zydus.

Real-world, population-based data suggest that the discontinuation rates for biosimilars prescribed to treat inflammatory rheumatic diseases are similar to those for their corresponding originator biologics, according to a study of patients in British Columbia who were required to switch to biosimilars.

“The decision to mandate use of biosimilars provided an ideal context for a natural experiment,” Diane Lacaille, MD, chair in arthritis research at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, explained in her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

On the basis of the real-world data, which was collected before and after a province-wide requirement to use biosimilars in place of originator biologics, there was no major difference in discontinuation rates, an outcome that Dr. Lacaille characterized as “a surrogate for both efficacy and safety.”

In the 2019 rheumatoid arthritis treatment guidelines from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, biosimilars are advocated for addressing the high cost of biologics based on evidence of efficacy and safety comparable with originator biologics. According to one of the coauthors of those guidelines, Tom W. J. Huizinga, MD, PhD, head of rheumatology at Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, there is reasonable confidence in biosimilars as an adequate substitute for originator drugs, but real-world data are welcome.

“Real-world data provide different information than controlled trials and long-term data as well, so these [Canadian findings] are useful to support the data from [randomized controlled trials],” Dr. Huizinga said in an interview. He was not involved in the Canadian study.
 

Survivorship evaluated after switch to biosimilars

In British Columbia, biosimilars were mandated province-wide for new prescriptions of infliximab and etanercept in June 2017. In 2019, the mandate was extended to patients already taking originator infliximab (Remicade) and originator etanercept (Enbrel). Since that time, the mandate for biosimilars has also been applied to adalimumab (Humira). For the comparison of infliximab and etanercept originators with their biosimilars, Dr. Lacaille and associates compared survivorship for the 3 years after the policy change, when patients were on biosimilars, with the 3 years prior to the change, when patients were on the originators. They compared survivorship with originator adalimumab with its biosimilars for prior to and after the switch.

”People were followed from anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] initiation until discontinuation for any reason,” reported Dr. Lacaille, who said data were censored for death and moving out of the province. In British Columbia, where there is universal health care, all dispensed medications can be tracked. The definition of anti-TNF discontinuation in this study was no prescription renewal for at least 6 months.

The follow-up was censored at March 2, 2020, to avoid the potential impact of COVID-19 on antirheumatic drug use. Discontinuation was standardized for the comparison of originator with biosimilar drugs as rates per 100 person-years. Statistical adjustments were made for potential confounders.

The researchers compared 1,312 patients on etanercept and 827 on a biosimilar of it, 230 patients on infliximab and 271 on a biosimilar of it, and 1,773 on adalimumab and 2,213 on a biosimilar of it. The indication was RA in approximately 60% of those on etanercept or a biosimilar and 50% of those on infliximab or adalimumab and their biosimilars. More than half of the remaining patients had indications for psoriatic arthritis, and the rest had ankylosing spondylitis.
 

No differences reach statistical significance

On the basis of discontinuation rates per 100 person-years, etanercept and its biosimilars performed almost identically (37.10 vs. 37.02, respectively). Although the discontinuation rate per 100 person-years was lower on infliximab than a biosimilar of it (29.97 vs. 37.96), the difference was not statistically significant (P = .076).

For adalimumab, the discontinuation rate was also lower on the originator drug than a biosimilar of it (32.92 vs. 36.36), but, again, this difference was also insignificant (P = .56).

When the discontinuation data were evaluated on the basis of a Cox model involving a propensity weight overlap, the univariate and the multivariable analyses found that the biosimilars had similar risks for discontinuation. Univariate analysis revealed hazard ratios for discontinuation of the biosimilar relative to the originator were 0.98 (P = .783) for etanercept, 1.17 (P = .242) for infliximab, and 1.08 (P = .09) for adalimumab. In the multivariable model, adjusted HRs for discontinuation were about the same for each of the biosimilars relative to the originator: 0.98 (P = .807) for etanercept, 1.19 (P = .183) for infliximab, and 1.08 (P = .089) for adalimumab.

Relative to previously published direct comparisons, this real-world analysis and its duration of follow-up address the limitations of formal trials. In a 2020 BMJ meta-analysis of published data from 45 trials comparing biosimilar with originator drugs in patients with RA who had failed methotrexate, the authors found only “minor differences in harms and benefits,” but they cautioned that the analysis was “hampered by a lack of long-term direct comparisons.”

In an interview, Dr. Huizinga noted that a systematic review of adalimumab biosimilars that he led 2 years ago showed that they perform comparably with the originator biologics. This and other published studies have consistently shown “that there is no difference between biologics and originators.”

Dr. Lacaille disclosed financial relationships with Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Organon, Pfizer, and Viatris. Dr. Huizinga disclosed financial relationships with Abbott, Ablynx, Biotest, Bioscience, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, MycoMed, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, and Zydus.

Real-world, population-based data suggest that the discontinuation rates for biosimilars prescribed to treat inflammatory rheumatic diseases are similar to those for their corresponding originator biologics, according to a study of patients in British Columbia who were required to switch to biosimilars.

“The decision to mandate use of biosimilars provided an ideal context for a natural experiment,” Diane Lacaille, MD, chair in arthritis research at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, explained in her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

On the basis of the real-world data, which was collected before and after a province-wide requirement to use biosimilars in place of originator biologics, there was no major difference in discontinuation rates, an outcome that Dr. Lacaille characterized as “a surrogate for both efficacy and safety.”

In the 2019 rheumatoid arthritis treatment guidelines from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, biosimilars are advocated for addressing the high cost of biologics based on evidence of efficacy and safety comparable with originator biologics. According to one of the coauthors of those guidelines, Tom W. J. Huizinga, MD, PhD, head of rheumatology at Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, there is reasonable confidence in biosimilars as an adequate substitute for originator drugs, but real-world data are welcome.

“Real-world data provide different information than controlled trials and long-term data as well, so these [Canadian findings] are useful to support the data from [randomized controlled trials],” Dr. Huizinga said in an interview. He was not involved in the Canadian study.
 

Survivorship evaluated after switch to biosimilars

In British Columbia, biosimilars were mandated province-wide for new prescriptions of infliximab and etanercept in June 2017. In 2019, the mandate was extended to patients already taking originator infliximab (Remicade) and originator etanercept (Enbrel). Since that time, the mandate for biosimilars has also been applied to adalimumab (Humira). For the comparison of infliximab and etanercept originators with their biosimilars, Dr. Lacaille and associates compared survivorship for the 3 years after the policy change, when patients were on biosimilars, with the 3 years prior to the change, when patients were on the originators. They compared survivorship with originator adalimumab with its biosimilars for prior to and after the switch.

”People were followed from anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] initiation until discontinuation for any reason,” reported Dr. Lacaille, who said data were censored for death and moving out of the province. In British Columbia, where there is universal health care, all dispensed medications can be tracked. The definition of anti-TNF discontinuation in this study was no prescription renewal for at least 6 months.

The follow-up was censored at March 2, 2020, to avoid the potential impact of COVID-19 on antirheumatic drug use. Discontinuation was standardized for the comparison of originator with biosimilar drugs as rates per 100 person-years. Statistical adjustments were made for potential confounders.

The researchers compared 1,312 patients on etanercept and 827 on a biosimilar of it, 230 patients on infliximab and 271 on a biosimilar of it, and 1,773 on adalimumab and 2,213 on a biosimilar of it. The indication was RA in approximately 60% of those on etanercept or a biosimilar and 50% of those on infliximab or adalimumab and their biosimilars. More than half of the remaining patients had indications for psoriatic arthritis, and the rest had ankylosing spondylitis.
 

No differences reach statistical significance

On the basis of discontinuation rates per 100 person-years, etanercept and its biosimilars performed almost identically (37.10 vs. 37.02, respectively). Although the discontinuation rate per 100 person-years was lower on infliximab than a biosimilar of it (29.97 vs. 37.96), the difference was not statistically significant (P = .076).

For adalimumab, the discontinuation rate was also lower on the originator drug than a biosimilar of it (32.92 vs. 36.36), but, again, this difference was also insignificant (P = .56).

When the discontinuation data were evaluated on the basis of a Cox model involving a propensity weight overlap, the univariate and the multivariable analyses found that the biosimilars had similar risks for discontinuation. Univariate analysis revealed hazard ratios for discontinuation of the biosimilar relative to the originator were 0.98 (P = .783) for etanercept, 1.17 (P = .242) for infliximab, and 1.08 (P = .09) for adalimumab. In the multivariable model, adjusted HRs for discontinuation were about the same for each of the biosimilars relative to the originator: 0.98 (P = .807) for etanercept, 1.19 (P = .183) for infliximab, and 1.08 (P = .089) for adalimumab.

Relative to previously published direct comparisons, this real-world analysis and its duration of follow-up address the limitations of formal trials. In a 2020 BMJ meta-analysis of published data from 45 trials comparing biosimilar with originator drugs in patients with RA who had failed methotrexate, the authors found only “minor differences in harms and benefits,” but they cautioned that the analysis was “hampered by a lack of long-term direct comparisons.”

In an interview, Dr. Huizinga noted that a systematic review of adalimumab biosimilars that he led 2 years ago showed that they perform comparably with the originator biologics. This and other published studies have consistently shown “that there is no difference between biologics and originators.”

Dr. Lacaille disclosed financial relationships with Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Organon, Pfizer, and Viatris. Dr. Huizinga disclosed financial relationships with Abbott, Ablynx, Biotest, Bioscience, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, MycoMed, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, and Zydus.

Giving corticosteroids to pregnant women at risk for preterm birth before 34 weeks of gestational age has been the standard of care since the 1990s, but a few scenarios for their use remain up for debate. Two studies presented this week at the 2023 meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine provided some fresh insight into the practice that could help clinicians better manage pregnant patients.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes in late preterm

First, should antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) be given to mothers who present with late preterm labor, defined as 34-36 weeks’ gestational age?

A landmark randomized clinical trial published in 2016 demonstrated that use of ACS in mothers in late preterm labor reduced severe respiratory complications. That practice has largely been adopted by clinicians. The only downside, according to the researchers, was that infants whose mothers received steroid therapy were more likely to develop hypoglycemia. The condition is self-limiting, but studies have raised concern about the potential long-term risk of neurocognitive or psychological outcomes in infants with hypoglycemia.

Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MSc, endowed chair and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, led the 2016 study. Her team was unable to secure funding for their originally planned follow-up study of the infants 2 years later. But once the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorsed the practice and more women received ACS in the late preterm period, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and her colleagues felt the need to “follow up the infants just to see what the outcomes are from a neurodevelopmental standpoint,” she said.

Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and colleagues recruited children older than age 6 from the original trial whose parents were willing to have them participate in a follow-up study. A total of 949 from the initial 2,831 cohort completed cognitive testing and received assessments for cerebral palsy, social impairment within the autism spectrum, and behavioral and emotional problems.

At the SMFM conference, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman reported no differences in the primary outcome of cognitive function between those whose mothers had received a single course of betamethasone and those who did not, or any differences in rates of the other outcomes.

Kathy Zhang-Rutledge, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who practices with Obstetrix Maternal Fetal Medicine Group of Houston, part of Pediatrix Medical Group, said she was glad to see a study that addressed the potential long-term adverse events associated with ACS in the late preterm period.

“Having this pretty large study – with really good neurological testing results – should help reassure clinicians that this is something they should consider adopting in their practice,” Dr. Zhang-Rutledge said.
 

Are boosters better?

The second unresolved question was if a repeat course of ACS should be administered when a woman at risk for preterm birth receives a course of steroids but does not deliver in the following 7 days.

Any benefits to the initial course of ACS wear off after a week. As a result, clinicians often give booster courses 7 days after the first dose if the infant is likely to be delivered in the following week. A 2009 study showed this approach may protect infants from respiratory problems, but data on long-term outcomes have been weak.

ACOG guidelines say to “consider” a booster dose in women who are less than 34 weeks’ gestation at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days.

The exception is when the mother already has experienced preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM), because ACS may increase the risk for infection for both mother and child. ACOG doesn’t take a stand on use of booster doses for PPROM, citing a lack of data to show that potential benefits outweigh the potential risks of this approach.

A recent multicenter, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial attempted to fill that void in knowledge. Between 2016 and 2022, 194 women with PPROM and gestational age less than 32 weeks who had received an initial ACS course at least 7 days prior to randomization received a booster course of ACS or saline placebo.

“Our primary outcome was designed to be like the prior rescue study (in 2009) that we did with patients with intact membranes,” said Andrew Combs, MD, PhD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Pediatrix Medical Group in Sunrise, Fla., who participated in the earlier study. “It was a composite of neonatal morbidity that was any one of a variety of outcomes including respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, and neonatal death.”

The primary outcome occurred in 64% of women who received booster ACS and 66% with placebo (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.57), according to Dr. Combs, who presented the findings at SMFM.

Although the study was not powered to detect significant differences in specific outcomes, the rate of neonatal sepsis was not higher in the ACS group, suggesting that ACS may be safe if membranes have ruptured, the researchers reported. But because the booster course of ACS did not prevent respiratory morbidity, clinicians may wonder what to do with the findings.

Niraj Chavan, MD, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and women’s health at Saint Louis University, said he was unsure how the study would affect clinical practice.

The relatively small sample number of patients prevented analysis of specific outcomes and subgroup analyses of important variables such as race, ethnicity, gestational age, and other comorbid conditions in the mothers, he said. So clinicians still must weigh potential risks and benefits on a case-by-case basis.

“You have to think about it in buckets,” he said, “One is conditions that would increase the risk for neonatal morbidity. The other is the risk for infection, both for the mom and the baby.”

But for Dr. Combs, the interpretation of the findings was simpler: “We concluded that there’s no indication to give a booster course of steroids after a week has elapsed in patients with ruptured membranes.”

The study presented by Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The study presented by Dr. Combs was funded by MEDNAX Center for Research, Education, and Quality, which in 2022 was renamed Pediatrix Center for Research, Education,and Quality. Dr. Combs is an employee of Pediatrix Medical Group but has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman, Dr. Zhang-Rutledge, and Dr. Chavan report no relevant financial relationships.

Ann Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist in Portland, Ore.

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

Giving corticosteroids to pregnant women at risk for preterm birth before 34 weeks of gestational age has been the standard of care since the 1990s, but a few scenarios for their use remain up for debate. Two studies presented this week at the 2023 meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine provided some fresh insight into the practice that could help clinicians better manage pregnant patients.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes in late preterm

First, should antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) be given to mothers who present with late preterm labor, defined as 34-36 weeks’ gestational age?

A landmark randomized clinical trial published in 2016 demonstrated that use of ACS in mothers in late preterm labor reduced severe respiratory complications. That practice has largely been adopted by clinicians. The only downside, according to the researchers, was that infants whose mothers received steroid therapy were more likely to develop hypoglycemia. The condition is self-limiting, but studies have raised concern about the potential long-term risk of neurocognitive or psychological outcomes in infants with hypoglycemia.

Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MSc, endowed chair and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, led the 2016 study. Her team was unable to secure funding for their originally planned follow-up study of the infants 2 years later. But once the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorsed the practice and more women received ACS in the late preterm period, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and her colleagues felt the need to “follow up the infants just to see what the outcomes are from a neurodevelopmental standpoint,” she said.

Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and colleagues recruited children older than age 6 from the original trial whose parents were willing to have them participate in a follow-up study. A total of 949 from the initial 2,831 cohort completed cognitive testing and received assessments for cerebral palsy, social impairment within the autism spectrum, and behavioral and emotional problems.

At the SMFM conference, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman reported no differences in the primary outcome of cognitive function between those whose mothers had received a single course of betamethasone and those who did not, or any differences in rates of the other outcomes.

Kathy Zhang-Rutledge, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who practices with Obstetrix Maternal Fetal Medicine Group of Houston, part of Pediatrix Medical Group, said she was glad to see a study that addressed the potential long-term adverse events associated with ACS in the late preterm period.

“Having this pretty large study – with really good neurological testing results – should help reassure clinicians that this is something they should consider adopting in their practice,” Dr. Zhang-Rutledge said.
 

Are boosters better?

The second unresolved question was if a repeat course of ACS should be administered when a woman at risk for preterm birth receives a course of steroids but does not deliver in the following 7 days.

Any benefits to the initial course of ACS wear off after a week. As a result, clinicians often give booster courses 7 days after the first dose if the infant is likely to be delivered in the following week. A 2009 study showed this approach may protect infants from respiratory problems, but data on long-term outcomes have been weak.

ACOG guidelines say to “consider” a booster dose in women who are less than 34 weeks’ gestation at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days.

The exception is when the mother already has experienced preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM), because ACS may increase the risk for infection for both mother and child. ACOG doesn’t take a stand on use of booster doses for PPROM, citing a lack of data to show that potential benefits outweigh the potential risks of this approach.

A recent multicenter, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial attempted to fill that void in knowledge. Between 2016 and 2022, 194 women with PPROM and gestational age less than 32 weeks who had received an initial ACS course at least 7 days prior to randomization received a booster course of ACS or saline placebo.

“Our primary outcome was designed to be like the prior rescue study (in 2009) that we did with patients with intact membranes,” said Andrew Combs, MD, PhD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Pediatrix Medical Group in Sunrise, Fla., who participated in the earlier study. “It was a composite of neonatal morbidity that was any one of a variety of outcomes including respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, and neonatal death.”

The primary outcome occurred in 64% of women who received booster ACS and 66% with placebo (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.57), according to Dr. Combs, who presented the findings at SMFM.

Although the study was not powered to detect significant differences in specific outcomes, the rate of neonatal sepsis was not higher in the ACS group, suggesting that ACS may be safe if membranes have ruptured, the researchers reported. But because the booster course of ACS did not prevent respiratory morbidity, clinicians may wonder what to do with the findings.

Niraj Chavan, MD, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and women’s health at Saint Louis University, said he was unsure how the study would affect clinical practice.

The relatively small sample number of patients prevented analysis of specific outcomes and subgroup analyses of important variables such as race, ethnicity, gestational age, and other comorbid conditions in the mothers, he said. So clinicians still must weigh potential risks and benefits on a case-by-case basis.

“You have to think about it in buckets,” he said, “One is conditions that would increase the risk for neonatal morbidity. The other is the risk for infection, both for the mom and the baby.”

But for Dr. Combs, the interpretation of the findings was simpler: “We concluded that there’s no indication to give a booster course of steroids after a week has elapsed in patients with ruptured membranes.”

The study presented by Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The study presented by Dr. Combs was funded by MEDNAX Center for Research, Education, and Quality, which in 2022 was renamed Pediatrix Center for Research, Education,and Quality. Dr. Combs is an employee of Pediatrix Medical Group but has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman, Dr. Zhang-Rutledge, and Dr. Chavan report no relevant financial relationships.

Ann Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist in Portland, Ore.

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

Giving corticosteroids to pregnant women at risk for preterm birth before 34 weeks of gestational age has been the standard of care since the 1990s, but a few scenarios for their use remain up for debate. Two studies presented this week at the 2023 meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine provided some fresh insight into the practice that could help clinicians better manage pregnant patients.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes in late preterm

First, should antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) be given to mothers who present with late preterm labor, defined as 34-36 weeks’ gestational age?

A landmark randomized clinical trial published in 2016 demonstrated that use of ACS in mothers in late preterm labor reduced severe respiratory complications. That practice has largely been adopted by clinicians. The only downside, according to the researchers, was that infants whose mothers received steroid therapy were more likely to develop hypoglycemia. The condition is self-limiting, but studies have raised concern about the potential long-term risk of neurocognitive or psychological outcomes in infants with hypoglycemia.

Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, MSc, endowed chair and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, led the 2016 study. Her team was unable to secure funding for their originally planned follow-up study of the infants 2 years later. But once the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorsed the practice and more women received ACS in the late preterm period, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and her colleagues felt the need to “follow up the infants just to see what the outcomes are from a neurodevelopmental standpoint,” she said.

Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman and colleagues recruited children older than age 6 from the original trial whose parents were willing to have them participate in a follow-up study. A total of 949 from the initial 2,831 cohort completed cognitive testing and received assessments for cerebral palsy, social impairment within the autism spectrum, and behavioral and emotional problems.

At the SMFM conference, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman reported no differences in the primary outcome of cognitive function between those whose mothers had received a single course of betamethasone and those who did not, or any differences in rates of the other outcomes.

Kathy Zhang-Rutledge, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who practices with Obstetrix Maternal Fetal Medicine Group of Houston, part of Pediatrix Medical Group, said she was glad to see a study that addressed the potential long-term adverse events associated with ACS in the late preterm period.

“Having this pretty large study – with really good neurological testing results – should help reassure clinicians that this is something they should consider adopting in their practice,” Dr. Zhang-Rutledge said.
 

Are boosters better?

The second unresolved question was if a repeat course of ACS should be administered when a woman at risk for preterm birth receives a course of steroids but does not deliver in the following 7 days.

Any benefits to the initial course of ACS wear off after a week. As a result, clinicians often give booster courses 7 days after the first dose if the infant is likely to be delivered in the following week. A 2009 study showed this approach may protect infants from respiratory problems, but data on long-term outcomes have been weak.

ACOG guidelines say to “consider” a booster dose in women who are less than 34 weeks’ gestation at risk for preterm delivery within 7 days.

The exception is when the mother already has experienced preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM), because ACS may increase the risk for infection for both mother and child. ACOG doesn’t take a stand on use of booster doses for PPROM, citing a lack of data to show that potential benefits outweigh the potential risks of this approach.

A recent multicenter, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial attempted to fill that void in knowledge. Between 2016 and 2022, 194 women with PPROM and gestational age less than 32 weeks who had received an initial ACS course at least 7 days prior to randomization received a booster course of ACS or saline placebo.

“Our primary outcome was designed to be like the prior rescue study (in 2009) that we did with patients with intact membranes,” said Andrew Combs, MD, PhD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Pediatrix Medical Group in Sunrise, Fla., who participated in the earlier study. “It was a composite of neonatal morbidity that was any one of a variety of outcomes including respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, and neonatal death.”

The primary outcome occurred in 64% of women who received booster ACS and 66% with placebo (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.57), according to Dr. Combs, who presented the findings at SMFM.

Although the study was not powered to detect significant differences in specific outcomes, the rate of neonatal sepsis was not higher in the ACS group, suggesting that ACS may be safe if membranes have ruptured, the researchers reported. But because the booster course of ACS did not prevent respiratory morbidity, clinicians may wonder what to do with the findings.

Niraj Chavan, MD, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and women’s health at Saint Louis University, said he was unsure how the study would affect clinical practice.

The relatively small sample number of patients prevented analysis of specific outcomes and subgroup analyses of important variables such as race, ethnicity, gestational age, and other comorbid conditions in the mothers, he said. So clinicians still must weigh potential risks and benefits on a case-by-case basis.

“You have to think about it in buckets,” he said, “One is conditions that would increase the risk for neonatal morbidity. The other is the risk for infection, both for the mom and the baby.”

But for Dr. Combs, the interpretation of the findings was simpler: “We concluded that there’s no indication to give a booster course of steroids after a week has elapsed in patients with ruptured membranes.”

The study presented by Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The study presented by Dr. Combs was funded by MEDNAX Center for Research, Education, and Quality, which in 2022 was renamed Pediatrix Center for Research, Education,and Quality. Dr. Combs is an employee of Pediatrix Medical Group but has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman, Dr. Zhang-Rutledge, and Dr. Chavan report no relevant financial relationships.

Ann Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist in Portland, Ore.

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

Patients with persistent upper-back itch from notalgia paresthetica may get some relief with oral difelikefalin, phase 2 data from a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial suggest.

However, side effects were significant and caused 19% in the intervention group to discontinue the trial versus 6% in the placebo group.

Results of the study were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

There is currently no treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the common condition, which typically causes itch in the hard-to-reach area between the shoulder blades or mid-back.
 

Drug reduced moderate to severe itch

Difelikefalin – a selective kappa-opioid receptor agonist – is  FDA approved only as an injection for treating moderate to severe itch from chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis, and is marketed as Korsuva for that indication.

However, in a new trial, led by Brian S. Kim, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair of research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the drug gave moderate relief to patients with notalgia paresthetica who had moderate to severe itch.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral difelikefalin 2 mg or a placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the weekly average of the daily 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, for which 0 is “no itch” and 10 is “worst itch imaginable.”

Secondary clinical outcomes were itch-related quality-of-life and itch-related sleep measures.

The study included 126 patients; 62 received difelikefalin and 63 received placebo. One patient assigned to the difelikefalin group withdrew consent before the first dose.

The average baseline score on the Worst Itch scale was 7.6 (severe itch) in each group. Mean scores in the difelikefalin dropped by 4 points versus 2.4 points in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, −2.6 to −0.6; P = .001).

Difelikefalin did not help with sleep disturbance, compared with placebo, “except possibly in patients with impaired sleep at baseline,” the authors write. “Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and risks of difelikefalin treatment in this disorder.”

In a Mount Sinai press release, Dr. Kim, who is also director of the Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at Mount Sinai, called the team’s findings “encouraging.”

“The encouraging results achieved in this trial could reenergize the field and mark an important step toward improving symptoms of itch for patients with notalgia paresthetica,” he said.

Side effects ‘worrisome’

The main side effects reported included headaches, dizziness, constipation and increased urine output.

Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Baltimore, told this news organization that dizziness was “especially worrisome,” noting the average age of participants in the trial was 59-60 years. “We are very concerned about folks having falls or hip fractures,” he said.

“Things we use more commonly are topical steroids, topical capsaicin, the capsaicin patch, muscle strengthening, and gabapentin,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Off-label we use botulinum toxin (Botox) as well. I’m able to control” almost all of my notalgia paresthetica patients, he added.

In his view, for this type of drug, he said, “the right home for it is more for a generalized neuropathic pruritus or nociplastic itch vs. something very localized which is more amenable to topical therapies.”

He said that the associated central nervous system effects, such as dizziness and headache, “would limit therapeutic use to only the most severe cases in my mind.”

The trial was funded by Cara Therapeutics, manufacturer of difelikefalin.

Dr. Kim and coauthor Mark Lebwohl, MD, are paid consultants/advisers to Cara Therapeutics. Other coauthors also reported ties to Cara. Dr. Kwatra previously had done consulting work for Cara Therapeutics and is an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Castle Biosciences, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

Patients with persistent upper-back itch from notalgia paresthetica may get some relief with oral difelikefalin, phase 2 data from a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial suggest.

However, side effects were significant and caused 19% in the intervention group to discontinue the trial versus 6% in the placebo group.

Results of the study were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

There is currently no treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the common condition, which typically causes itch in the hard-to-reach area between the shoulder blades or mid-back.
 

Drug reduced moderate to severe itch

Difelikefalin – a selective kappa-opioid receptor agonist – is  FDA approved only as an injection for treating moderate to severe itch from chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis, and is marketed as Korsuva for that indication.

However, in a new trial, led by Brian S. Kim, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair of research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the drug gave moderate relief to patients with notalgia paresthetica who had moderate to severe itch.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral difelikefalin 2 mg or a placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the weekly average of the daily 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, for which 0 is “no itch” and 10 is “worst itch imaginable.”

Secondary clinical outcomes were itch-related quality-of-life and itch-related sleep measures.

The study included 126 patients; 62 received difelikefalin and 63 received placebo. One patient assigned to the difelikefalin group withdrew consent before the first dose.

The average baseline score on the Worst Itch scale was 7.6 (severe itch) in each group. Mean scores in the difelikefalin dropped by 4 points versus 2.4 points in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, −2.6 to −0.6; P = .001).

Difelikefalin did not help with sleep disturbance, compared with placebo, “except possibly in patients with impaired sleep at baseline,” the authors write. “Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and risks of difelikefalin treatment in this disorder.”

In a Mount Sinai press release, Dr. Kim, who is also director of the Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at Mount Sinai, called the team’s findings “encouraging.”

“The encouraging results achieved in this trial could reenergize the field and mark an important step toward improving symptoms of itch for patients with notalgia paresthetica,” he said.

Side effects ‘worrisome’

The main side effects reported included headaches, dizziness, constipation and increased urine output.

Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Baltimore, told this news organization that dizziness was “especially worrisome,” noting the average age of participants in the trial was 59-60 years. “We are very concerned about folks having falls or hip fractures,” he said.

“Things we use more commonly are topical steroids, topical capsaicin, the capsaicin patch, muscle strengthening, and gabapentin,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Off-label we use botulinum toxin (Botox) as well. I’m able to control” almost all of my notalgia paresthetica patients, he added.

In his view, for this type of drug, he said, “the right home for it is more for a generalized neuropathic pruritus or nociplastic itch vs. something very localized which is more amenable to topical therapies.”

He said that the associated central nervous system effects, such as dizziness and headache, “would limit therapeutic use to only the most severe cases in my mind.”

The trial was funded by Cara Therapeutics, manufacturer of difelikefalin.

Dr. Kim and coauthor Mark Lebwohl, MD, are paid consultants/advisers to Cara Therapeutics. Other coauthors also reported ties to Cara. Dr. Kwatra previously had done consulting work for Cara Therapeutics and is an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Castle Biosciences, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

Patients with persistent upper-back itch from notalgia paresthetica may get some relief with oral difelikefalin, phase 2 data from a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial suggest.

However, side effects were significant and caused 19% in the intervention group to discontinue the trial versus 6% in the placebo group.

Results of the study were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

There is currently no treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the common condition, which typically causes itch in the hard-to-reach area between the shoulder blades or mid-back.
 

Drug reduced moderate to severe itch

Difelikefalin – a selective kappa-opioid receptor agonist – is  FDA approved only as an injection for treating moderate to severe itch from chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis, and is marketed as Korsuva for that indication.

However, in a new trial, led by Brian S. Kim, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair of research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the drug gave moderate relief to patients with notalgia paresthetica who had moderate to severe itch.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral difelikefalin 2 mg or a placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the weekly average of the daily 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, for which 0 is “no itch” and 10 is “worst itch imaginable.”

Secondary clinical outcomes were itch-related quality-of-life and itch-related sleep measures.

The study included 126 patients; 62 received difelikefalin and 63 received placebo. One patient assigned to the difelikefalin group withdrew consent before the first dose.

The average baseline score on the Worst Itch scale was 7.6 (severe itch) in each group. Mean scores in the difelikefalin dropped by 4 points versus 2.4 points in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, −2.6 to −0.6; P = .001).

Difelikefalin did not help with sleep disturbance, compared with placebo, “except possibly in patients with impaired sleep at baseline,” the authors write. “Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and risks of difelikefalin treatment in this disorder.”

In a Mount Sinai press release, Dr. Kim, who is also director of the Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at Mount Sinai, called the team’s findings “encouraging.”

“The encouraging results achieved in this trial could reenergize the field and mark an important step toward improving symptoms of itch for patients with notalgia paresthetica,” he said.

Side effects ‘worrisome’

The main side effects reported included headaches, dizziness, constipation and increased urine output.

Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Baltimore, told this news organization that dizziness was “especially worrisome,” noting the average age of participants in the trial was 59-60 years. “We are very concerned about folks having falls or hip fractures,” he said.

“Things we use more commonly are topical steroids, topical capsaicin, the capsaicin patch, muscle strengthening, and gabapentin,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Off-label we use botulinum toxin (Botox) as well. I’m able to control” almost all of my notalgia paresthetica patients, he added.

In his view, for this type of drug, he said, “the right home for it is more for a generalized neuropathic pruritus or nociplastic itch vs. something very localized which is more amenable to topical therapies.”

He said that the associated central nervous system effects, such as dizziness and headache, “would limit therapeutic use to only the most severe cases in my mind.”

The trial was funded by Cara Therapeutics, manufacturer of difelikefalin.

Dr. Kim and coauthor Mark Lebwohl, MD, are paid consultants/advisers to Cara Therapeutics. Other coauthors also reported ties to Cara. Dr. Kwatra previously had done consulting work for Cara Therapeutics and is an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Castle Biosciences, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

The prevalence of contact allergy triggered by a common product preservative, isothiazolinone, has decreased in Europe while it has increased in North America, a trend that is likely driven by regulatory differences, a retrospective cohort study suggests.

“Between 2009 to 2018, the global burden of isothiazolinone allergy showed divergent trends between North American and European countries,” lead study author Margo J. Reeder, MD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison and her colleagues write. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Isothiazolinone contact allergy peaked in Europe in 2013-2014 before gradually decreasing, they found. The prevalence of isothiazolinone allergy steadily increased in North America during the study period. “Earlier and more stringent regulation of MI [methylisothiazolinone] in Europe is associated with these divergent trends,” they write.
 

Common ingredients worldwide

Isothiazolinone preservatives, which are added to personal and industrial products, cause allergic contact dermatitis worldwide, the authors write. The preservatives are found in a wide range of leave-on and rinse-off water-based personal care products, such as shampoo and other hair products, dishwashing liquid, face cream, body lotion, shower gel, liquid soap, and wet wipes, as well as in water-based paint.

A mixture of methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and MI has been used to prevent microbial growth in products since the 1980s. In 2005, U.S. and European regulators approved MI alone at higher concentrations as a preservative in personal care products. Coupled with consumer concerns about other preservatives, such as parabens (a rare allergen), use of MI in personal care products increased, the authors write.

Subsequently, researchers reported a global increase in the prevalence of contact allergy to isothiazolinones, the authors write. Regulatory restrictions on MI in personal care products were implemented in 2013 in Europe and in 2015 in Canada but not in the United States.
 

Patch test data reveal latest trends

To compare prevalence trends of allergic contact allergy to MI and sensitization to the MCI/MI mixture in North America and in Europe, Dr. Reeder and her colleagues compared the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to MCI/MI and to MI alone in North America and in Europe between 2009 and 2018.

They analyzed data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG), the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) in 2-year intervals. The data came from patients who had been patch tested at referral patch test clinics in North America and Europe.

Over the decade, the study sites conducted patch testing for 226,161 patients for MCI/MI and 118,779 for MI. Most data came from Europe. The researchers found the following:

• In Europe, isothiazolinone allergy peaked in 2013 and 2014; MCI/MI positivity reached 7.6% (ESSCA) and 5.4% (IVDK) before decreasing to 4.4% (ESSCA) and 3.2% (IVDK) in 2017-2018.
• In North America, MCI/MI positivity rose steadily from 2.5% in 2009-2010 to 10.8% in 2017-2018.
• In Europe, there were 5.5% (ESSCA) and 3.4% (IVDK) positive reactions to MI, compared with 15% (NACDG) in North America in 2017-2018.

Divergent contact allergy trends linked to regulatory approaches

The downward trend of isothiazolinone allergy in Europe after its peak in 2013 and 2014 may have been due in part, the authors explain, to a memo released in 2013 by Cosmetics Europe after it and the European Society of Contact Dermatitis reviewed reports of increased contact allergy to MI. The memo urged companies to remove MI from leave-on products.

Later that year, the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety advised omitting MI from leave-on consumer personal care products and moved to restrict the ingredient in rinse-off products to less than 15 ppm. The recommendation took effect in 2015.

That year, Canada banned the use of MCI/MI in leave-on products but allowed MI alone in leave-on products until 2018. The total concentration of MI and MCI in wash-off products was limited to less than 15 ppm.

The authors add that, to their knowledge, the U.S. government does not restrict the use of MCI/MI or MI.
 

Policy implications for contact allergy

MI is still widely used in “countless products,” including shampoos, skin cleansers, dishwashing and laundry detergents, paints, and adhesives, Daniel W. Shaw, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization by email.

“Exact figures between the U.S. and Europe are difficult to compare due to differing patch test concentrations, but the overall trends strongly suggest that stricter and earlier regulation in Europe resulted in lower MI allergy prevalence there than in the U.S.,” added Dr. Shaw, who was not involved in the study.

Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., said by email that accurate information on allergic reaction prevalence is difficult to find.

“The NACDG, ESSCA, and IVDK databases may contain the best data available, but the data depend on people who get patch tested and are not directly informative of the allergy rates in the general population,” added Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study.

“The great majority of people in the population may not be allergic,” he said. “For those with itchy rashes, getting patch tested or avoiding products with preservatives may be prudent. Broad regulations, however, should consider the overall risks and benefits in the population, and this particular study does not fully capture those issues.”

“This study shows that government regulations are important to limit consumer exposure to common allergens, especially to the concentrations used in personal care products,” Kelly Tyler, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, noted by email. She was not involved in the study.

She advised clinicians to ask their patients who may have allergic contact dermatitis whether they have been exposed to products containing these compounds.

“All personal care products in the store contain preservatives, and their maximum concentrations should be limited,” she advised. “The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety should establish stricter guidelines for MI use in personal care products, especially given the findings of this study.”
 

Has MI contact allergy in North America peaked?

“In the U.S., MI has not been banned from leave-on skin-care products, but recently, its use has markedly decreased,” Dr. Shaw commented. “Hopefully, the prevalence of MI contact allergy will also begin to decrease.”

New evidence is promising. In a related study published online in Dermatology, Joel G. DeKoven, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, of the University of Toronto and his colleagues reported the NACDG 2019-2020 patch test results for MI in North America. They found that 13.8% of patients tested positive for MI.

“For the first time, MI positivity did not increase between reporting periods,” they conclude. “The epidemic of MI contact allergy in North America may have reached a plateau.”

Information regarding funding for the study was not provided. Dr. Reeder has financial relationships with the American Contact Dermatitis Society and a publishing company. Several coauthors have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Tyler, Dr. Shaw, and Dr. Feldman report no relevant financial relationship.

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

The prevalence of contact allergy triggered by a common product preservative, isothiazolinone, has decreased in Europe while it has increased in North America, a trend that is likely driven by regulatory differences, a retrospective cohort study suggests.

“Between 2009 to 2018, the global burden of isothiazolinone allergy showed divergent trends between North American and European countries,” lead study author Margo J. Reeder, MD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison and her colleagues write. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Isothiazolinone contact allergy peaked in Europe in 2013-2014 before gradually decreasing, they found. The prevalence of isothiazolinone allergy steadily increased in North America during the study period. “Earlier and more stringent regulation of MI [methylisothiazolinone] in Europe is associated with these divergent trends,” they write.
 

Common ingredients worldwide

Isothiazolinone preservatives, which are added to personal and industrial products, cause allergic contact dermatitis worldwide, the authors write. The preservatives are found in a wide range of leave-on and rinse-off water-based personal care products, such as shampoo and other hair products, dishwashing liquid, face cream, body lotion, shower gel, liquid soap, and wet wipes, as well as in water-based paint.

A mixture of methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and MI has been used to prevent microbial growth in products since the 1980s. In 2005, U.S. and European regulators approved MI alone at higher concentrations as a preservative in personal care products. Coupled with consumer concerns about other preservatives, such as parabens (a rare allergen), use of MI in personal care products increased, the authors write.

Subsequently, researchers reported a global increase in the prevalence of contact allergy to isothiazolinones, the authors write. Regulatory restrictions on MI in personal care products were implemented in 2013 in Europe and in 2015 in Canada but not in the United States.
 

Patch test data reveal latest trends

To compare prevalence trends of allergic contact allergy to MI and sensitization to the MCI/MI mixture in North America and in Europe, Dr. Reeder and her colleagues compared the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to MCI/MI and to MI alone in North America and in Europe between 2009 and 2018.

They analyzed data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG), the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) in 2-year intervals. The data came from patients who had been patch tested at referral patch test clinics in North America and Europe.

Over the decade, the study sites conducted patch testing for 226,161 patients for MCI/MI and 118,779 for MI. Most data came from Europe. The researchers found the following:

• In Europe, isothiazolinone allergy peaked in 2013 and 2014; MCI/MI positivity reached 7.6% (ESSCA) and 5.4% (IVDK) before decreasing to 4.4% (ESSCA) and 3.2% (IVDK) in 2017-2018.
• In North America, MCI/MI positivity rose steadily from 2.5% in 2009-2010 to 10.8% in 2017-2018.
• In Europe, there were 5.5% (ESSCA) and 3.4% (IVDK) positive reactions to MI, compared with 15% (NACDG) in North America in 2017-2018.

Divergent contact allergy trends linked to regulatory approaches

The downward trend of isothiazolinone allergy in Europe after its peak in 2013 and 2014 may have been due in part, the authors explain, to a memo released in 2013 by Cosmetics Europe after it and the European Society of Contact Dermatitis reviewed reports of increased contact allergy to MI. The memo urged companies to remove MI from leave-on products.

Later that year, the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety advised omitting MI from leave-on consumer personal care products and moved to restrict the ingredient in rinse-off products to less than 15 ppm. The recommendation took effect in 2015.

That year, Canada banned the use of MCI/MI in leave-on products but allowed MI alone in leave-on products until 2018. The total concentration of MI and MCI in wash-off products was limited to less than 15 ppm.

The authors add that, to their knowledge, the U.S. government does not restrict the use of MCI/MI or MI.
 

Policy implications for contact allergy

MI is still widely used in “countless products,” including shampoos, skin cleansers, dishwashing and laundry detergents, paints, and adhesives, Daniel W. Shaw, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization by email.

“Exact figures between the U.S. and Europe are difficult to compare due to differing patch test concentrations, but the overall trends strongly suggest that stricter and earlier regulation in Europe resulted in lower MI allergy prevalence there than in the U.S.,” added Dr. Shaw, who was not involved in the study.

Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., said by email that accurate information on allergic reaction prevalence is difficult to find.

“The NACDG, ESSCA, and IVDK databases may contain the best data available, but the data depend on people who get patch tested and are not directly informative of the allergy rates in the general population,” added Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study.

“The great majority of people in the population may not be allergic,” he said. “For those with itchy rashes, getting patch tested or avoiding products with preservatives may be prudent. Broad regulations, however, should consider the overall risks and benefits in the population, and this particular study does not fully capture those issues.”

“This study shows that government regulations are important to limit consumer exposure to common allergens, especially to the concentrations used in personal care products,” Kelly Tyler, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, noted by email. She was not involved in the study.

She advised clinicians to ask their patients who may have allergic contact dermatitis whether they have been exposed to products containing these compounds.

“All personal care products in the store contain preservatives, and their maximum concentrations should be limited,” she advised. “The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety should establish stricter guidelines for MI use in personal care products, especially given the findings of this study.”
 

Has MI contact allergy in North America peaked?

“In the U.S., MI has not been banned from leave-on skin-care products, but recently, its use has markedly decreased,” Dr. Shaw commented. “Hopefully, the prevalence of MI contact allergy will also begin to decrease.”

New evidence is promising. In a related study published online in Dermatology, Joel G. DeKoven, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, of the University of Toronto and his colleagues reported the NACDG 2019-2020 patch test results for MI in North America. They found that 13.8% of patients tested positive for MI.

“For the first time, MI positivity did not increase between reporting periods,” they conclude. “The epidemic of MI contact allergy in North America may have reached a plateau.”

Information regarding funding for the study was not provided. Dr. Reeder has financial relationships with the American Contact Dermatitis Society and a publishing company. Several coauthors have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Tyler, Dr. Shaw, and Dr. Feldman report no relevant financial relationship.

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

The prevalence of contact allergy triggered by a common product preservative, isothiazolinone, has decreased in Europe while it has increased in North America, a trend that is likely driven by regulatory differences, a retrospective cohort study suggests.

“Between 2009 to 2018, the global burden of isothiazolinone allergy showed divergent trends between North American and European countries,” lead study author Margo J. Reeder, MD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison and her colleagues write. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Isothiazolinone contact allergy peaked in Europe in 2013-2014 before gradually decreasing, they found. The prevalence of isothiazolinone allergy steadily increased in North America during the study period. “Earlier and more stringent regulation of MI [methylisothiazolinone] in Europe is associated with these divergent trends,” they write.
 

Common ingredients worldwide

Isothiazolinone preservatives, which are added to personal and industrial products, cause allergic contact dermatitis worldwide, the authors write. The preservatives are found in a wide range of leave-on and rinse-off water-based personal care products, such as shampoo and other hair products, dishwashing liquid, face cream, body lotion, shower gel, liquid soap, and wet wipes, as well as in water-based paint.

A mixture of methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and MI has been used to prevent microbial growth in products since the 1980s. In 2005, U.S. and European regulators approved MI alone at higher concentrations as a preservative in personal care products. Coupled with consumer concerns about other preservatives, such as parabens (a rare allergen), use of MI in personal care products increased, the authors write.

Subsequently, researchers reported a global increase in the prevalence of contact allergy to isothiazolinones, the authors write. Regulatory restrictions on MI in personal care products were implemented in 2013 in Europe and in 2015 in Canada but not in the United States.
 

Patch test data reveal latest trends

To compare prevalence trends of allergic contact allergy to MI and sensitization to the MCI/MI mixture in North America and in Europe, Dr. Reeder and her colleagues compared the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to MCI/MI and to MI alone in North America and in Europe between 2009 and 2018.

They analyzed data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG), the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) in 2-year intervals. The data came from patients who had been patch tested at referral patch test clinics in North America and Europe.

Over the decade, the study sites conducted patch testing for 226,161 patients for MCI/MI and 118,779 for MI. Most data came from Europe. The researchers found the following:

• In Europe, isothiazolinone allergy peaked in 2013 and 2014; MCI/MI positivity reached 7.6% (ESSCA) and 5.4% (IVDK) before decreasing to 4.4% (ESSCA) and 3.2% (IVDK) in 2017-2018.
• In North America, MCI/MI positivity rose steadily from 2.5% in 2009-2010 to 10.8% in 2017-2018.
• In Europe, there were 5.5% (ESSCA) and 3.4% (IVDK) positive reactions to MI, compared with 15% (NACDG) in North America in 2017-2018.

Divergent contact allergy trends linked to regulatory approaches

The downward trend of isothiazolinone allergy in Europe after its peak in 2013 and 2014 may have been due in part, the authors explain, to a memo released in 2013 by Cosmetics Europe after it and the European Society of Contact Dermatitis reviewed reports of increased contact allergy to MI. The memo urged companies to remove MI from leave-on products.

Later that year, the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety advised omitting MI from leave-on consumer personal care products and moved to restrict the ingredient in rinse-off products to less than 15 ppm. The recommendation took effect in 2015.

That year, Canada banned the use of MCI/MI in leave-on products but allowed MI alone in leave-on products until 2018. The total concentration of MI and MCI in wash-off products was limited to less than 15 ppm.

The authors add that, to their knowledge, the U.S. government does not restrict the use of MCI/MI or MI.
 

Policy implications for contact allergy

MI is still widely used in “countless products,” including shampoos, skin cleansers, dishwashing and laundry detergents, paints, and adhesives, Daniel W. Shaw, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization by email.

“Exact figures between the U.S. and Europe are difficult to compare due to differing patch test concentrations, but the overall trends strongly suggest that stricter and earlier regulation in Europe resulted in lower MI allergy prevalence there than in the U.S.,” added Dr. Shaw, who was not involved in the study.

Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., said by email that accurate information on allergic reaction prevalence is difficult to find.

“The NACDG, ESSCA, and IVDK databases may contain the best data available, but the data depend on people who get patch tested and are not directly informative of the allergy rates in the general population,” added Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study.

“The great majority of people in the population may not be allergic,” he said. “For those with itchy rashes, getting patch tested or avoiding products with preservatives may be prudent. Broad regulations, however, should consider the overall risks and benefits in the population, and this particular study does not fully capture those issues.”

“This study shows that government regulations are important to limit consumer exposure to common allergens, especially to the concentrations used in personal care products,” Kelly Tyler, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, noted by email. She was not involved in the study.

She advised clinicians to ask their patients who may have allergic contact dermatitis whether they have been exposed to products containing these compounds.

“All personal care products in the store contain preservatives, and their maximum concentrations should be limited,” she advised. “The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety should establish stricter guidelines for MI use in personal care products, especially given the findings of this study.”
 

Has MI contact allergy in North America peaked?

“In the U.S., MI has not been banned from leave-on skin-care products, but recently, its use has markedly decreased,” Dr. Shaw commented. “Hopefully, the prevalence of MI contact allergy will also begin to decrease.”

New evidence is promising. In a related study published online in Dermatology, Joel G. DeKoven, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, of the University of Toronto and his colleagues reported the NACDG 2019-2020 patch test results for MI in North America. They found that 13.8% of patients tested positive for MI.

“For the first time, MI positivity did not increase between reporting periods,” they conclude. “The epidemic of MI contact allergy in North America may have reached a plateau.”

Information regarding funding for the study was not provided. Dr. Reeder has financial relationships with the American Contact Dermatitis Society and a publishing company. Several coauthors have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Tyler, Dr. Shaw, and Dr. Feldman report no relevant financial relationship.

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

Performing endovascular thrombectomy in patients with an ischemic stroke having a large ischemic core has been found to be beneficial in a major international trial, which is expected to lead to a change in clinical practice and the way in which systems of stroke care are organized.

The results of the SELECT2 trial, which was conducted in sites in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, showed that endovascular thrombectomy plus medical care resulted in better clinical outcomes than medical care alone in patients with a large ischemic core who presented within 24 hours after the time they were last known to be well.

The results of the SELECT2 trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference by Amrou Sarraj, MD. Dr. Sarraj is professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center–Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. The study was also simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

A similar trial conducted in China, the ANGEL-ASPECT trial, was also presented at the same ISC session and showed very similar results.

These two trials add to another Japanese study reported last year, the RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT trial, also showing benefit of thrombectomy in patients with large core strokes.

Dr. Sarraj concluded that the results of these three trials together “unequivocally demonstrate the benefit of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with large ischemic core.”
 

A clear benefit

Approximately 20% of large-vessel occlusion strokes have a large core, but these patients have not been considered candidates for endovascular thrombectomy because of concerns about potential reperfusion injury in necrotic brain tissue, resulting in an increased risk of hemorrhage, edema, disability, and death.

This has resulted in uncertainty about how to manage these patients with a core infarct, Dr. Sarraj noted at the conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association. 

The SELECT2 trial involved patients with stroke as a result of occlusion of the internal carotid artery or the first segment of the middle cerebral artery. Patients had a large ischemic core volume, defined as an ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score) of 3-5, or a core volume of at least 50 mL on imaging. They were randomly assigned to endovascular thrombectomy plus medical care or to medical care alone.

The trial was aiming to enroll 560 patients but was stopped early for efficacy after 178 patients had been assigned to the thrombectomy group and 174 to the medical-care group.

The primary outcome – the generalized odds ratio for a shift in the distribution of modified Rankin scale scores toward better outcomes in favor of thrombectomy was 1.51 (P < .001).

“This translates into a 60% probability of achieving a better functional outcome in patients receiving thrombectomy, with a number needed to treat of five. That means five patients need to be treated with thrombectomy for one to achieve a better functional outcome,” Dr. Sarraj stated. 

The secondary outcome of functional independence at 90 days (a score on the modified Rankin scale of 0-2) occurred in 20% of the patients in the thrombectomy group and 7% in the medical-care group (relative risk, 2.97), with a number needed to treat of seven.

Independent ambulation (a score on the modified Rankin Scale of 0-3) at 90 days occurred in 37.9% of the patients in the thrombectomy group and in 18.7% of the patients in the medical-care group (relative risk, 2.06), with a number needed to treat of five.

Mortality was similar in the two groups.

The results for other secondary outcomes were generally in the same direction as those of the primary analysis, with the possible exception of early neurologic improvement, the authors reported.

The incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was low in both trial groups, occurring in one patient in the thrombectomy group and two in the medical care group.

The investigators pointed out that previous studies have reported rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in patients with large ischemic core lesions that are higher than those in this trial. “Therefore, the low percentage of patients with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage observed in both trial groups was unexpected.”

Approximately 20% of the patients in the thrombectomy group had complications associated with the procedure. In the thrombectomy group, arterial access-site complications occurred in 5 patients, dissection in 10, cerebral vessel perforation in 7, and transient vasospasm in 11.

Early neurologic worsening, defined as an increase of 4 or more points on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), occurred in 24.7% in the thrombectomy group and in 15.5% in the medical-care group (relative risk, 1.59).

In a post-hoc analysis, “from which no conclusions can be drawn,” the authors reported,  early neurologic worsening was associated with worse functional outcomes at 90 days, and patients who had neurologic worsening had larger ischemic core lesions at baseline (median volume, 107 mL) versus 77 mL among patients without neurologic worsening.

They noted that a potential cause of deterioration in some of these patients was brain edema associated with reperfusion. However, they emphasize that overall, endovascular thrombectomy was associated with better outcomes than medical care alone.

“Two-thirds of patients had core infarct sizes more than 70 mL, and one-third of patients had core infarct sizes of more than 100 mL, but even in patients with large and very large core volumes, thrombectomy was superior to medical care alone,” Dr. Sarraj said.
 

This will ‘change practice’

In a comment, ISC 2023 chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This trial shows that even patients with a large core infarct who we would not have treated with thrombectomy in the past, actually do benefit from this procedure. And the surprise is that the benefit is nearly to the same extent as that in patients with smaller core infarcts. That is going to change practice.”

Dr. Jovin said that these results should not only change the selection of patients for thrombectomy, but they should also change systems of care. “Because the systems of care now are based around excluding these patients with large infarcts. We won’t need to do that in future.”

He elaborated: “I think imaging has held us back to be honest. We can exclude hemorrhage with a plain CT scan. Then after this, the biggest piece of information we need from imaging is the size of the infarct. We were concerned that we might hurt the patient if the infarct was large. Outside hospitals had to do advanced imaging before deciding whether to transfer patients for thrombectomy. These are all sources of delays.

“I am very pleased to see these results, and I hope to see a much more simplified triage of patients that will be more liberal to patients with the large infarcts,” he added.

Also commenting, Joseph Broderick, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Neuroscience Institute at the University of Cincinnati, said the results were “robust and important.” 

He said the results of the SELECT2 trial, along with the other two similar trials, “will change practice and extend endovascular therapy to more patients with severe strokes.”

But Dr. Broderick believes imaging will still be necessary to exclude patients with ASPECTS scores of 0-2, who were not included in these trials. “These are patients who have very large areas of clear hypodensity on the baseline image (brain already dying or dead). These patients do not benefit from reperfusion with lytic drugs or endovascular therapy,” he noted.
 

‘Welcome news’

In an editorial accompanying the print publication of the two new studies, Pierre Fayad, MD, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, points out that all three trials of thrombectomy in patients with large core infarct strokes “showed remarkably similar results” despite differences in design, patient selection, thrombolytic treatment and dose, geographic location, and imaging criteria.

“Together, the trials provide reassuring information from more than a thousand patients with large ischemic strokes in different medical systems that will probably lead to changes in patterns of care delivery.”

Dr. Fayad said it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center that is capable of performing the procedure, and if the patients have an ASPECTS value of 3-5 or an ischemic core volume of 50 mL or greater.

Higher rates of good outcomes may be anticipated if this treatment is performed, despite increased risks of symptomatic hemorrhage, edema, neurologic worsening, and hemicraniectomy, he noted.  

“Patients and families should be made aware of the limitations of treatment and the anticipated residual neurologic deficits resulting from the large infarction. The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment,” he concluded.

The SELECT2 trial was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Stryker Neurovascular to University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and the University of Texas McGovern Medical School.

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

Performing endovascular thrombectomy in patients with an ischemic stroke having a large ischemic core has been found to be beneficial in a major international trial, which is expected to lead to a change in clinical practice and the way in which systems of stroke care are organized.

The results of the SELECT2 trial, which was conducted in sites in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, showed that endovascular thrombectomy plus medical care resulted in better clinical outcomes than medical care alone in patients with a large ischemic core who presented within 24 hours after the time they were last known to be well.

The results of the SELECT2 trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference by Amrou Sarraj, MD. Dr. Sarraj is professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center–Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. The study was also simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

A similar trial conducted in China, the ANGEL-ASPECT trial, was also presented at the same ISC session and showed very similar results.

These two trials add to another Japanese study reported last year, the RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT trial, also showing benefit of thrombectomy in patients with large core strokes.

Dr. Sarraj concluded that the results of these three trials together “unequivocally demonstrate the benefit of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with large ischemic core.”
 

A clear benefit

Approximately 20% of large-vessel occlusion strokes have a large core, but these patients have not been considered candidates for endovascular thrombectomy because of concerns about potential reperfusion injury in necrotic brain tissue, resulting in an increased risk of hemorrhage, edema, disability, and death.

This has resulted in uncertainty about how to manage these patients with a core infarct, Dr. Sarraj noted at the conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association. 

The SELECT2 trial involved patients with stroke as a result of occlusion of the internal carotid artery or the first segment of the middle cerebral artery. Patients had a large ischemic core volume, defined as an ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score) of 3-5, or a core volume of at least 50 mL on imaging. They were randomly assigned to endovascular thrombectomy plus medical care or to medical care alone.

The trial was aiming to enroll 560 patients but was stopped early for efficacy after 178 patients had been assigned to the thrombectomy group and 174 to the medical-care group.

The primary outcome – the generalized odds ratio for a shift in the distribution of modified Rankin scale scores toward better outcomes in favor of thrombectomy was 1.51 (P < .001).

“This translates into a 60% probability of achieving a better functional outcome in patients receiving thrombectomy, with a number needed to treat of five. That means five patients need to be treated with thrombectomy for one to achieve a better functional outcome,” Dr. Sarraj stated. 

The secondary outcome of functional independence at 90 days (a score on the modified Rankin scale of 0-2) occurred in 20% of the patients in the thrombectomy group and 7% in the medical-care group (relative risk, 2.97), with a number needed to treat of seven.

Independent ambulation (a score on the modified Rankin Scale of 0-3) at 90 days occurred in 37.9% of the patients in the thrombectomy group and in 18.7% of the patients in the medical-care group (relative risk, 2.06), with a number needed to treat of five.

Mortality was similar in the two groups.

The results for other secondary outcomes were generally in the same direction as those of the primary analysis, with the possible exception of early neurologic improvement, the authors reported.

The incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was low in both trial groups, occurring in one patient in the thrombectomy group and two in the medical care group.

The investigators pointed out that previous studies have reported rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in patients with large ischemic core lesions that are higher than those in this trial. “Therefore, the low percentage of patients with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage observed in both trial groups was unexpected.”

Approximately 20% of the patients in the thrombectomy group had complications associated with the procedure. In the thrombectomy group, arterial access-site complications occurred in 5 patients, dissection in 10, cerebral vessel perforation in 7, and transient vasospasm in 11.

Early neurologic worsening, defined as an increase of 4 or more points on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), occurred in 24.7% in the thrombectomy group and in 15.5% in the medical-care group (relative risk, 1.59).

In a post-hoc analysis, “from which no conclusions can be drawn,” the authors reported,  early neurologic worsening was associated with worse functional outcomes at 90 days, and patients who had neurologic worsening had larger ischemic core lesions at baseline (median volume, 107 mL) versus 77 mL among patients without neurologic worsening.

They noted that a potential cause of deterioration in some of these patients was brain edema associated with reperfusion. However, they emphasize that overall, endovascular thrombectomy was associated with better outcomes than medical care alone.

“Two-thirds of patients had core infarct sizes more than 70 mL, and one-third of patients had core infarct sizes of more than 100 mL, but even in patients with large and very large core volumes, thrombectomy was superior to medical care alone,” Dr. Sarraj said.
 

This will ‘change practice’

In a comment, ISC 2023 chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This trial shows that even patients with a large core infarct who we would not have treated with thrombectomy in the past, actually do benefit from this procedure. And the surprise is that the benefit is nearly to the same extent as that in patients with smaller core infarcts. That is going to change practice.”

Dr. Jovin said that these results should not only change the selection of patients for thrombectomy, but they should also change systems of care. “Because the systems of care now are based around excluding these patients with large infarcts. We won’t need to do that in future.”

He elaborated: “I think imaging has held us back to be honest. We can exclude hemorrhage with a plain CT scan. Then after this, the biggest piece of information we need from imaging is the size of the infarct. We were concerned that we might hurt the patient if the infarct was large. Outside hospitals had to do advanced imaging before deciding whether to transfer patients for thrombectomy. These are all sources of delays.

“I am very pleased to see these results, and I hope to see a much more simplified triage of patients that will be more liberal to patients with the large infarcts,” he added.

Also commenting, Joseph Broderick, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Neuroscience Institute at the University of Cincinnati, said the results were “robust and important.” 

He said the results of the SELECT2 trial, along with the other two similar trials, “will change practice and extend endovascular therapy to more patients with severe strokes.”

But Dr. Broderick believes imaging will still be necessary to exclude patients with ASPECTS scores of 0-2, who were not included in these trials. “These are patients who have very large areas of clear hypodensity on the baseline image (brain already dying or dead). These patients do not benefit from reperfusion with lytic drugs or endovascular therapy,” he noted.
 

‘Welcome news’

In an editorial accompanying the print publication of the two new studies, Pierre Fayad, MD, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, points out that all three trials of thrombectomy in patients with large core infarct strokes “showed remarkably similar results” despite differences in design, patient selection, thrombolytic treatment and dose, geographic location, and imaging criteria.

“Together, the trials provide reassuring information from more than a thousand patients with large ischemic strokes in different medical systems that will probably lead to changes in patterns of care delivery.”

Dr. Fayad said it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center that is capable of performing the procedure, and if the patients have an ASPECTS value of 3-5 or an ischemic core volume of 50 mL or greater.

Higher rates of good outcomes may be anticipated if this treatment is performed, despite increased risks of symptomatic hemorrhage, edema, neurologic worsening, and hemicraniectomy, he noted.  

“Patients and families should be made aware of the limitations of treatment and the anticipated residual neurologic deficits resulting from the large infarction. The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment,” he concluded.

The SELECT2 trial was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Stryker Neurovascular to University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and the University of Texas McGovern Medical School.

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

Performing endovascular thrombectomy in patients with an ischemic stroke having a large ischemic core has been found to be beneficial in a major international trial, which is expected to lead to a change in clinical practice and the way in which systems of stroke care are organized.

The results of the SELECT2 trial, which was conducted in sites in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, showed that endovascular thrombectomy plus medical care resulted in better clinical outcomes than medical care alone in patients with a large ischemic core who presented within 24 hours after the time they were last known to be well.

The results of the SELECT2 trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference by Amrou Sarraj, MD. Dr. Sarraj is professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center–Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. The study was also simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

A similar trial conducted in China, the ANGEL-ASPECT trial, was also presented at the same ISC session and showed very similar results.

These two trials add to another Japanese study reported last year, the RESCUE-JAPAN LIMIT trial, also showing benefit of thrombectomy in patients with large core strokes.

Dr. Sarraj concluded that the results of these three trials together “unequivocally demonstrate the benefit of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with large ischemic core.”
 

A clear benefit

Approximately 20% of large-vessel occlusion strokes have a large core, but these patients have not been considered candidates for endovascular thrombectomy because of concerns about potential reperfusion injury in necrotic brain tissue, resulting in an increased risk of hemorrhage, edema, disability, and death.

This has resulted in uncertainty about how to manage these patients with a core infarct, Dr. Sarraj noted at the conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association. 

The SELECT2 trial involved patients with stroke as a result of occlusion of the internal carotid artery or the first segment of the middle cerebral artery. Patients had a large ischemic core volume, defined as an ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score) of 3-5, or a core volume of at least 50 mL on imaging. They were randomly assigned to endovascular thrombectomy plus medical care or to medical care alone.

The trial was aiming to enroll 560 patients but was stopped early for efficacy after 178 patients had been assigned to the thrombectomy group and 174 to the medical-care group.

The primary outcome – the generalized odds ratio for a shift in the distribution of modified Rankin scale scores toward better outcomes in favor of thrombectomy was 1.51 (P < .001).

“This translates into a 60% probability of achieving a better functional outcome in patients receiving thrombectomy, with a number needed to treat of five. That means five patients need to be treated with thrombectomy for one to achieve a better functional outcome,” Dr. Sarraj stated. 

The secondary outcome of functional independence at 90 days (a score on the modified Rankin scale of 0-2) occurred in 20% of the patients in the thrombectomy group and 7% in the medical-care group (relative risk, 2.97), with a number needed to treat of seven.

Independent ambulation (a score on the modified Rankin Scale of 0-3) at 90 days occurred in 37.9% of the patients in the thrombectomy group and in 18.7% of the patients in the medical-care group (relative risk, 2.06), with a number needed to treat of five.

Mortality was similar in the two groups.

The results for other secondary outcomes were generally in the same direction as those of the primary analysis, with the possible exception of early neurologic improvement, the authors reported.

The incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was low in both trial groups, occurring in one patient in the thrombectomy group and two in the medical care group.

The investigators pointed out that previous studies have reported rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in patients with large ischemic core lesions that are higher than those in this trial. “Therefore, the low percentage of patients with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage observed in both trial groups was unexpected.”

Approximately 20% of the patients in the thrombectomy group had complications associated with the procedure. In the thrombectomy group, arterial access-site complications occurred in 5 patients, dissection in 10, cerebral vessel perforation in 7, and transient vasospasm in 11.

Early neurologic worsening, defined as an increase of 4 or more points on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), occurred in 24.7% in the thrombectomy group and in 15.5% in the medical-care group (relative risk, 1.59).

In a post-hoc analysis, “from which no conclusions can be drawn,” the authors reported,  early neurologic worsening was associated with worse functional outcomes at 90 days, and patients who had neurologic worsening had larger ischemic core lesions at baseline (median volume, 107 mL) versus 77 mL among patients without neurologic worsening.

They noted that a potential cause of deterioration in some of these patients was brain edema associated with reperfusion. However, they emphasize that overall, endovascular thrombectomy was associated with better outcomes than medical care alone.

“Two-thirds of patients had core infarct sizes more than 70 mL, and one-third of patients had core infarct sizes of more than 100 mL, but even in patients with large and very large core volumes, thrombectomy was superior to medical care alone,” Dr. Sarraj said.
 

This will ‘change practice’

In a comment, ISC 2023 chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This trial shows that even patients with a large core infarct who we would not have treated with thrombectomy in the past, actually do benefit from this procedure. And the surprise is that the benefit is nearly to the same extent as that in patients with smaller core infarcts. That is going to change practice.”

Dr. Jovin said that these results should not only change the selection of patients for thrombectomy, but they should also change systems of care. “Because the systems of care now are based around excluding these patients with large infarcts. We won’t need to do that in future.”

He elaborated: “I think imaging has held us back to be honest. We can exclude hemorrhage with a plain CT scan. Then after this, the biggest piece of information we need from imaging is the size of the infarct. We were concerned that we might hurt the patient if the infarct was large. Outside hospitals had to do advanced imaging before deciding whether to transfer patients for thrombectomy. These are all sources of delays.

“I am very pleased to see these results, and I hope to see a much more simplified triage of patients that will be more liberal to patients with the large infarcts,” he added.

Also commenting, Joseph Broderick, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Neuroscience Institute at the University of Cincinnati, said the results were “robust and important.” 

He said the results of the SELECT2 trial, along with the other two similar trials, “will change practice and extend endovascular therapy to more patients with severe strokes.”

But Dr. Broderick believes imaging will still be necessary to exclude patients with ASPECTS scores of 0-2, who were not included in these trials. “These are patients who have very large areas of clear hypodensity on the baseline image (brain already dying or dead). These patients do not benefit from reperfusion with lytic drugs or endovascular therapy,” he noted.
 

‘Welcome news’

In an editorial accompanying the print publication of the two new studies, Pierre Fayad, MD, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, points out that all three trials of thrombectomy in patients with large core infarct strokes “showed remarkably similar results” despite differences in design, patient selection, thrombolytic treatment and dose, geographic location, and imaging criteria.

“Together, the trials provide reassuring information from more than a thousand patients with large ischemic strokes in different medical systems that will probably lead to changes in patterns of care delivery.”

Dr. Fayad said it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center that is capable of performing the procedure, and if the patients have an ASPECTS value of 3-5 or an ischemic core volume of 50 mL or greater.

Higher rates of good outcomes may be anticipated if this treatment is performed, despite increased risks of symptomatic hemorrhage, edema, neurologic worsening, and hemicraniectomy, he noted.  

“Patients and families should be made aware of the limitations of treatment and the anticipated residual neurologic deficits resulting from the large infarction. The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment,” he concluded.

The SELECT2 trial was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Stryker Neurovascular to University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and the University of Texas McGovern Medical School.

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

The patient was diagnosed with lichen nitidus, given the characteristic clinical presentation.

Lichen nitidus is a rare chronic inflammatory condition of the skin that most commonly presents in children and young adults and does not seem to be restricted to any sex or race. The classic lesions are described as asymptomatic to slightly pruritic, small (1 mm), skin-colored to hypopigmented flat-topped papules.

Koebner phenomenon is usually seen in which the skin lesions appear in areas of traumatized healthy skin. The extremities, abdomen, chest, and penis are common locations for the lesions to occur. Rarely, the oral mucosa or nails can be involved. It has been described in patients with a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, Niemann-Pick disease, Down syndrome, and HIV. The rare, generalized purpuric variant has been reported in a few cases associated with interferon and ribavirin treatment for hepatitis C infection and nivolumab treatment for cancer. The pathophysiology of lichen nitidus is unknown.

Lichen nitidus can occur in the presence of other skin conditions like lichen planus, atopic dermatitis, vitiligo, erythema nodosum, and lichen spinulosus. Histopathologic characteristics of lichen nitidus are described as a “ball and claw” of epidermal rete around a lymphohistiocytic infiltrate. Parakeratosis overlying epidermal atrophy and focal basal liquefaction degeneration is also seen.

The differential diagnosis of lichen nitidus includes flat warts, which can present as clusters of small flat-topped papules that can show a pseudo-Koebner phenomenon (where the virus is seeded in traumatized skin). The morphological difference between the condition is that lichen nitidus lesions are usually monomorphic, compared with flat warts, which usually present with different sizes and shapes.

Patients with a history of allergic contact dermatitis may present with a generalized monomorphic eruption of skin-colored papules (known as ID reaction) that can sometimes be very similar to lichen nitidus. Allergic contact dermatitis tends to respond fairly quickly to topical or systemic corticosteroids, unlike lichen nitidus. There are a few reports that consider lichen nitidus to be a variant of lichen planus, although they have different histopathologic findings. Lichen planus lesions are described as polygonal, pruritic, purple to pink papules most commonly seen on the wrists, lower back, and ankles. Lichen planus can be seen in patients with hepatitis C and may also occur secondary to medication.

Milia are small keratin cysts on the skin that are commonly seen in babies as primary milia and can be seen in older children secondary to trauma (commonly on the eyelids) or medications. Given their size and monomorphic appearance, they can sometimes be confused with lichen nitidus.

Lichen nitidus is often asymptomatic and the lesions resolve within a few months to years. Topical corticosteroids can be helpful to alleviate the symptoms in patients who present with pruritus. In more persistent and generalized cases, phototherapy, systemic corticosteroids, acitretin, isotretinoin, or cyclosporine can be considered.

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.

References

Chu J and Lam JM. CMAJ. 2014 Dec 9;186(18):E688.

Lestringant G et al. Dermatology 1996;192:171-3.

Peterson JA et al. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2021 Aug 25;35(1):70-2.

Schwartz C and Goodman MB. “Lichen nitidus,” in StatPearls. Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing, 2022.

The patient was diagnosed with lichen nitidus, given the characteristic clinical presentation.

Lichen nitidus is a rare chronic inflammatory condition of the skin that most commonly presents in children and young adults and does not seem to be restricted to any sex or race. The classic lesions are described as asymptomatic to slightly pruritic, small (1 mm), skin-colored to hypopigmented flat-topped papules.

Koebner phenomenon is usually seen in which the skin lesions appear in areas of traumatized healthy skin. The extremities, abdomen, chest, and penis are common locations for the lesions to occur. Rarely, the oral mucosa or nails can be involved. It has been described in patients with a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, Niemann-Pick disease, Down syndrome, and HIV. The rare, generalized purpuric variant has been reported in a few cases associated with interferon and ribavirin treatment for hepatitis C infection and nivolumab treatment for cancer. The pathophysiology of lichen nitidus is unknown.

Lichen nitidus can occur in the presence of other skin conditions like lichen planus, atopic dermatitis, vitiligo, erythema nodosum, and lichen spinulosus. Histopathologic characteristics of lichen nitidus are described as a “ball and claw” of epidermal rete around a lymphohistiocytic infiltrate. Parakeratosis overlying epidermal atrophy and focal basal liquefaction degeneration is also seen.

The differential diagnosis of lichen nitidus includes flat warts, which can present as clusters of small flat-topped papules that can show a pseudo-Koebner phenomenon (where the virus is seeded in traumatized skin). The morphological difference between the condition is that lichen nitidus lesions are usually monomorphic, compared with flat warts, which usually present with different sizes and shapes.

Patients with a history of allergic contact dermatitis may present with a generalized monomorphic eruption of skin-colored papules (known as ID reaction) that can sometimes be very similar to lichen nitidus. Allergic contact dermatitis tends to respond fairly quickly to topical or systemic corticosteroids, unlike lichen nitidus. There are a few reports that consider lichen nitidus to be a variant of lichen planus, although they have different histopathologic findings. Lichen planus lesions are described as polygonal, pruritic, purple to pink papules most commonly seen on the wrists, lower back, and ankles. Lichen planus can be seen in patients with hepatitis C and may also occur secondary to medication.

Milia are small keratin cysts on the skin that are commonly seen in babies as primary milia and can be seen in older children secondary to trauma (commonly on the eyelids) or medications. Given their size and monomorphic appearance, they can sometimes be confused with lichen nitidus.

Lichen nitidus is often asymptomatic and the lesions resolve within a few months to years. Topical corticosteroids can be helpful to alleviate the symptoms in patients who present with pruritus. In more persistent and generalized cases, phototherapy, systemic corticosteroids, acitretin, isotretinoin, or cyclosporine can be considered.

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.

References

Chu J and Lam JM. CMAJ. 2014 Dec 9;186(18):E688.

Lestringant G et al. Dermatology 1996;192:171-3.

Peterson JA et al. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2021 Aug 25;35(1):70-2.

Schwartz C and Goodman MB. “Lichen nitidus,” in StatPearls. Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing, 2022.

The patient was diagnosed with lichen nitidus, given the characteristic clinical presentation.

Lichen nitidus is a rare chronic inflammatory condition of the skin that most commonly presents in children and young adults and does not seem to be restricted to any sex or race. The classic lesions are described as asymptomatic to slightly pruritic, small (1 mm), skin-colored to hypopigmented flat-topped papules.

Koebner phenomenon is usually seen in which the skin lesions appear in areas of traumatized healthy skin. The extremities, abdomen, chest, and penis are common locations for the lesions to occur. Rarely, the oral mucosa or nails can be involved. It has been described in patients with a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, Niemann-Pick disease, Down syndrome, and HIV. The rare, generalized purpuric variant has been reported in a few cases associated with interferon and ribavirin treatment for hepatitis C infection and nivolumab treatment for cancer. The pathophysiology of lichen nitidus is unknown.

Lichen nitidus can occur in the presence of other skin conditions like lichen planus, atopic dermatitis, vitiligo, erythema nodosum, and lichen spinulosus. Histopathologic characteristics of lichen nitidus are described as a “ball and claw” of epidermal rete around a lymphohistiocytic infiltrate. Parakeratosis overlying epidermal atrophy and focal basal liquefaction degeneration is also seen.

The differential diagnosis of lichen nitidus includes flat warts, which can present as clusters of small flat-topped papules that can show a pseudo-Koebner phenomenon (where the virus is seeded in traumatized skin). The morphological difference between the condition is that lichen nitidus lesions are usually monomorphic, compared with flat warts, which usually present with different sizes and shapes.

Patients with a history of allergic contact dermatitis may present with a generalized monomorphic eruption of skin-colored papules (known as ID reaction) that can sometimes be very similar to lichen nitidus. Allergic contact dermatitis tends to respond fairly quickly to topical or systemic corticosteroids, unlike lichen nitidus. There are a few reports that consider lichen nitidus to be a variant of lichen planus, although they have different histopathologic findings. Lichen planus lesions are described as polygonal, pruritic, purple to pink papules most commonly seen on the wrists, lower back, and ankles. Lichen planus can be seen in patients with hepatitis C and may also occur secondary to medication.

Milia are small keratin cysts on the skin that are commonly seen in babies as primary milia and can be seen in older children secondary to trauma (commonly on the eyelids) or medications. Given their size and monomorphic appearance, they can sometimes be confused with lichen nitidus.

Lichen nitidus is often asymptomatic and the lesions resolve within a few months to years. Topical corticosteroids can be helpful to alleviate the symptoms in patients who present with pruritus. In more persistent and generalized cases, phototherapy, systemic corticosteroids, acitretin, isotretinoin, or cyclosporine can be considered.

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.

References

Chu J and Lam JM. CMAJ. 2014 Dec 9;186(18):E688.

Lestringant G et al. Dermatology 1996;192:171-3.

Peterson JA et al. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2021 Aug 25;35(1):70-2.

Schwartz C and Goodman MB. “Lichen nitidus,” in StatPearls. Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing, 2022.

In May 2021, a nurse at UnitedHealthcare called a colleague to share some welcome news about a problem the two had been grappling with for weeks.

United provided the health insurance plan for students at Penn State University. It was a large and potentially lucrative account: lots of young, healthy students paying premiums in, not too many huge medical reimbursements going out.

But one student was costing United a lot of money. Christopher McNaughton suffered from a crippling case of ulcerative colitis – an ailment that caused him to develop severe arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, numbing fatigue, and life-threatening blood clots. His medical bills were running nearly $2 million a year.

United had flagged Mr. McNaughton’s case as a “high dollar account,” and the company was reviewing whether it needed to keep paying for the expensive cocktail of drugs crafted by a Mayo Clinic specialist that had brought Mr. McNaughton’s disease under control after he’d been through years of misery.

On the 2021 phone call, which was recorded by the company, nurse Victoria Kavanaugh told her colleague that a doctor contracted by United to review the case had concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was “not medically necessary.” Her colleague, Dave Opperman, reacted to the news with a long laugh.

“I knew that was coming,” said Mr. Opperman, who heads up a United subsidiary that brokered the health insurance contract between United and Penn State. “I did too,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied.

Mr. Opperman then complained about Mr. McNaughton’s mother, whom he referred to as “this woman,” for “screaming and yelling” and “throwing tantrums” during calls with United.

The pair agreed that any appeal of the United doctor’s denial of the treatment would be a waste of the family’s time and money.

“We’re still gonna say no,” Mr. Opperman said.

More than 200 million Americans are covered by private health insurance. But data from state and federal regulators shows that insurers reject about 1 in 7 claims for treatment. Many people, faced with fighting insurance companies, simply give up: One study found that Americans file formal appeals on only 0.1% of claims denied by insurers under the Affordable Care Act.

Insurers have wide discretion in crafting what is covered by their policies, beyond some basic services mandated by federal and state law. They often deny claims for services that they deem not “medically necessary.”

When United refused to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment for that reason, his family did something unusual. They fought back with a lawsuit, which uncovered a trove of materials, including internal emails and tape-recorded exchanges among company employees. Those records offer an extraordinary behind-the-scenes look at how one of America’s leading health care insurers relentlessly fought to reduce spending on care, even as its profits rose to record levels.

As United reviewed Mr. McNaughton’s treatment, he and his family were often in the dark about what was happening or their rights. Meanwhile, United employees misrepresented critical findings and ignored warnings from doctors about the risks of altering Mr. McNaughton’s drug plan.

At one point, court records show, United inaccurately reported to Penn State and the family that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to lower the doses of his medication. Another time, a doctor paid by United concluded that denying payments for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment could put his health at risk, but the company buried his report and did not consider its findings. The insurer did, however, consider a report submitted by a company doctor who rubber-stamped the recommendation of a United nurse to reject paying for the treatment.

United declined to answer specific questions about the case, even after Mr. McNaughton signed a release provided by the insurer to allow it to discuss details of his interactions with the company. United noted that it ultimately paid for all of Mr. McNaughton’s treatments. In a written response, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo wrote that the company’s guiding concern was Mr. McNaughton’s well-being.

“Mr. McNaughton’s treatment involves medication dosages that far exceed [Food and Drug Administration] guidelines,” the statement said. “In cases like this, we review treatment plans based on current clinical guidelines to help ensure patient safety.”

But the records reviewed by ProPublica show that United had another, equally urgent goal in dealing with Mr. McNaughton. In emails, officials calculated what Mr. McNaughton was costing them to keep his crippling disease at bay and how much they would save if they forced him to undergo a cheaper treatment that had already failed him. As the family pressed the company to back down, first through Penn State and then through a lawsuit, the United officials handling the case bristled.

“This is just unbelievable,” Ms. Kavanaugh said of Mr. McNaughton’s family in one call to discuss his case. ”They’re just really pushing the envelope, and I’m surprised, like I don’t even know what to say.”
 

The same meal every day

Now 31, Mr. McNaughton grew up in State College, Pa., just blocks from the Penn State campus. Both of his parents are faculty members at the university.

In the winter of 2014, Mr. McNaughton was halfway through his junior year at Bard College in New York. At 6 feet, 4 inches tall, he was a guard on the basketball team and had started most of the team’s games since the start of his sophomore year. He was majoring in psychology.

When Mr. McNaughton returned to school after the winter holiday break, he started to experience frequent bouts of bloody diarrhea. After just a few days on campus, he went home to State College, where doctors diagnosed him with a severe case of ulcerative colitis.

A chronic inflammatory bowel disease that causes swelling and ulcers in the digestive tract, ulcerative colitis has no cure, and ongoing treatment is needed to alleviate symptoms and prevent serious health complications. The majority of cases produce mild to moderate symptoms. Mr. McNaughton’s case was severe.

Treatments for ulcerative colitis include steroids and special drugs known as biologics that work to reduce inflammation in the large intestine.

Mr. McNaughton, however, failed to get meaningful relief from the drugs his doctors initially prescribed. He was experiencing bloody diarrhea up to 20 times a day, with such severe stomach pain that he spent much of his day curled up on a couch. He had little appetite and lost 50 pounds. Severe anemia left him fatigued. He suffered from other conditions related to his colitis, including crippling arthritis. He was hospitalized several times to treat dangerous blood clots.

For 2 years, in an effort to help alleviate his symptoms, he ate the same meals every day: Rice Chex cereal and scrambled eggs for breakfast, a cup of white rice with plain chicken breast for lunch, and a similar meal for dinner, occasionally swapping in tilapia.

His hometown doctors referred him to a specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, who tried unsuccessfully to bring his disease under control. That doctor ended up referring Mr. McNaughton to Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been ranked as the best gastroenterology hospital in the country every year since 1990 by U.S. News & World Report.

For his first visit with Dr. Loftus in May 2015, Mr. McNaughton and his mother, Janice Light, charted hospitals along the 900-mile drive from Pennsylvania to Minnesota in case they needed medical help along the way.

Mornings were the hardest. Mr. McNaughton often spent several hours in the bathroom at the start of the day. To prepare for his meeting with Dr. Loftus, he set his alarm for 3:30 a.m. so he could be ready for the 7:30 a.m. appointment. Even with that preparation, he had to stop twice to use a bathroom on the 5-minute walk from the hotel to the clinic. When they met, Dr. Loftus looked at Mr. McNaughton and told him that he appeared incapacitated. It was, he told the student, as if Mr. McNaughton were chained to the bathroom, with no outside life. He had not been able to return to school and spent most days indoors, managing his symptoms as best he could.

Mr. McNaughton had tried a number of medications by this point, none of which worked. This pattern would repeat itself during the first couple of years that Dr. Loftus treated him.

In addition to trying to find a treatment that would bring Mr. McNaughton’s colitis into remission, Dr. Loftus wanted to wean him off the steroid prednisone, which he had been taking since his initial diagnosis in 2014. The drug is commonly prescribed to colitis patients to control inflammation, but prolonged use can lead to severe side effects including cataracts, osteoporosis, increased risk of infection, and fatigue. Mr. McNaughton also experienced “moon face,” a side effect caused by the shifting of fat deposits that results in the face becoming puffy and rounder.

In 2018, Dr. Loftus and Mr. McNaughton decided to try an unusual regimen. Many patients with inflammatory bowel diseases such as colitis take a single biologic drug as treatment. Whereas traditional drugs are chemically synthesized, biologics are manufactured in living systems, such as plant or animal cells. A year’s supply of an individual biologic drug can cost up to $500,000. They are often given through infusions in a medical facility, which adds to the cost.

Mr. McNaughton had tried individual biologics, and then two in combination, without much success. He and Dr. Loftus then agreed to try two biologic drugs together at doses well above those recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. The federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimates one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label uses.

There are drawbacks to the practice. Since some uses and doses of particular drugs have not been extensively studied, the risks and efficacy of using them off-label are not well known. Also, some drug manufacturers have improperly pushed off-label usage of their products to boost sales despite little or no evidence to support their use in those situations. Like many leading experts and researchers in his field, Dr. Loftus has been paid to do consulting related to the biologic drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton. The payments related to those drugs have ranged from a total of $1,440 in 2020 to $51,235 in 2018. Dr. Loftus said much of his work with pharmaceutical companies was related to conducting clinical trials on new drugs.

In cases of off-label prescribing, patients are depending upon their doctors’ expertise and experience with the drug. “In this case, I was comfortable that the potential benefits to Chris outweighed the risks,” Dr. Loftus said.

There was evidence that the treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton might work, including studies that had found dual biologic therapy to be efficacious and safe. The two drugs he takes, Entyvio and Remicade, have the same purpose – to reduce inflammation in the large intestine – but each works differently in the body. Remicade, marketed by Janssen Biotech, targets a protein that causes inflammation. Entyvio, made by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, works by preventing an excess of white blood cells from entering into the gastrointestinal tract.

As for any suggestion by United doctors that his treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton was out of bounds or dangerous, Dr. Loftus said “my treatment of Chris was not clinically inappropriate – as was shown by Chris’ positive outcome.”

The unusual high-dose combination of two biologic drugs produced a remarkable change in Mr. McNaughton. He no longer had blood in his stool, and his trips to the bathroom were cut from 20 times a day to 3 or 4. He was able to eat different foods and put on weight. He had more energy. He tapered off prednisone.

“If you told me in 2015 that I would be living like this, I would have asked where do I sign up,” Mr. McNaughton said of the change he experienced with the new drug regimen.

When he first started the new treatment, Mr. McNaughton was covered under his family’s plan, and all his bills were paid. Mr. McNaughton enrolled at the university in 2020. Before switching to United’s plan for students, Mr. McNaughton and his parents consulted with a health advocacy service offered to faculty members. A benefits specialist assured them the drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton would be covered by United.

Mr. McNaughton joined the student plan in July 2020, and his infusions that month and the following month were paid for by United. In September, the insurer indicated payment on his claims was “pending,” something it did for his other claims that came in during the rest of the year.

Mr. McNaughton and his family were worried. They called United to make sure there wasn’t a problem; the insurer told them, they said, that it only needed to check his medical records. When the family called again, United told them it had the documentation needed, they said. United, in a court filing last year, said it received two calls from the family and each time indicated that all of the necessary medical records had not yet been received.

In January 2021, Mr. McNaughton received a new explanation of benefits for the prior months. All of the claims for his care, beginning in September, were no longer “pending.” They were stamped “DENIED.” The total outstanding bill for his treatment was $807,086.

When Mr. McNaughton’s mother reached a United customer service representative the next day to ask why bills that had been paid in the summer were being denied for the fall, the representative told her the account was being reviewed because of “a high dollar amount on the claims,” according to a recording of the call.


 

Misrepresentations

With United refusing to pay, the family was terrified of being stuck with medical bills that would bankrupt them and deprive Mr. McNaughton of treatment that they considered miraculous.

They turned to Penn State for help. Ms. Light and Mr. McNaughton’s father, David McNaughton, hoped their position as faculty members would make the school more willing to intervene on their behalf.

“After more than 30 years on faculty, my husband and I know that this is not how Penn State would want its students to be treated,” Ms. Light wrote to a school official in February 2021.

In response to questions from ProPublica, Penn State spokesperson Lisa Powers wrote that “supporting the health and well-being of our students is always of primary importance” and that “our hearts go out to any student and family impacted by a serious medical condition.” The university, she wrote, does “not comment on students’ individual circumstances or disclose information from their records.” Mr. McNaughton offered to grant Penn State whatever permissions it needed to speak about his case with ProPublica. The school, however, wrote that it would not comment “even if confidentiality has been waived.”

The family appealed to school administrators. Because the effectiveness of biologics wanes in some patients if doses are skipped, Mr. McNaughton and his parents were worried about even a delay in treatment. His doctor wrote that if he missed scheduled infusions of the drugs, there was “a high likelihood they would no longer be effective.”

During a conference call arranged by Penn State officials on March 5, 2021, United agreed to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s care through the end of the plan year that August. Penn State immediately notified the family of the “wonderful news” while also apologizing for “the stress this has caused Chris and your family.”

Behind the scenes, Mr. McNaughton’s review had “gone all the way to the top” at United’s student health plan division, Ms. Kavanaugh, the nurse, said in a recorded conversation.

The family’s relief was short-lived. A month later, United started another review of Mr. McNaughton’s care, overseen by Ms. Kavanaugh, to determine if it would pay for the treatment in the upcoming plan year.

The nurse sent the Mr. McNaughton case to a company called Medical Review Institute of America. Insurers often turn to companies like MRIoA to review coverage decisions involving expensive treatments or specialized care.

Ms. Kavanaugh, who was assigned to a special investigations unit at United, let her feelings about the matter be known in a recorded telephone call with a representative of MRIoA.

“This school apparently is a big client of ours,” she said. She then shared her opinion of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment. “Really this is a case of a kid who’s getting a drug way too much, like too much of a dose,” Ms. Kavanaugh said. She said it was “insane that they would even think that this is reasonable” and “to be honest with you, they’re awfully pushy considering that we are paying through the end of this school year.”

On a call with an outside contractor, the United nurse claimed Mr. McNaughton was on a higher dose of medication than the FDA approved, which is a common practice.

MRIoA sent the case to Vikas Pabby, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health and a professor at the university’s medical school. His May 2021 review of Mr. McNaughton’s case was just one of more than 300 Dr. Pabby did for MRIoA that month, for which he was paid $23,000 in total, according to a log of his work produced in the lawsuit.

In a May 4, 2021, report, Dr. Pabby concluded Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was not medically necessary, because United’s policies for the two drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton did not support using them in combination.

Insurers spell out what services they cover in plan policies, lengthy documents that can be confusing and difficult to understand. Many policies, such as Mr. McNaughton’s, contain a provision that treatments and procedures must be “medically necessary” in order to be covered. The definition of medically necessary differs by plan. Some don’t even define the term. Mr. McNaughton’s policy contains a five-part definition, including that the treatment must be “in accordance with the standards of good medical policy” and “the most appropriate supply or level of service which can be safely provided.”

Behind the scenes at United, Mr. Opperman and Ms. Kavanaugh agreed that if Mr. McNaughton were to appeal Dr. Pabby’s decision, the insurer would simply rule against him. “I just think it’s a waste of money and time to appeal and send it to another one when we know we’re gonna get the same answer,” Mr. Opperman said, according to a recording in court files. At Mr. Opperman’s urging, United decided to skip the usual appeals process and arrange for Dr. Pabby to have a so-called “peer-to-peer” discussion with Dr. Loftus, the Mayo physician treating Mr. McNaughton. Such a conversation, in which a patient’s doctor talks with an insurance company’s doctor to advocate for the prescribed treatment, usually occurs only after a customer has appealed a denial and the appeal has been rejected.

When Ms. Kavanaugh called Dr. Loftus’ office to set up a conversation with Dr. Pabby, she explained it was an urgent matter and had been requested by Mr. McNaughton. “You know I’ve just gotten to know Christopher,” she explained, although she had never spoken with him. “We’re trying to advocate and help and get this peer-to-peer set up.”

Mr. McNaughton, meanwhile, had no idea at the time that a United doctor had decided his treatment was unnecessary and that the insurer was trying to set up a phone call with his physician.

In the peer-to-peer conversation, Dr. Loftus told Dr. Pabby that Mr. McNaughton had “a very complicated case” and that lower doses had not worked for him, according to an internal MRIoA memo.

Following his conversation with Dr. Loftus, Dr. Pabby created a second report for United. He recommended the insurer pay for both drugs, but at reduced doses. He added new language saying that the safety of using both drugs at the higher levels “is not established.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh shared the May 12 decision from Dr. Pabby with others at United, her boss responded with an email calling it “great news.”

Then Mr. Opperman sent an email that puzzled the McNaughtons.

In it, Mr. Opperman claimed that Dr. Loftus and Dr. Pabby had agreed that Mr. McNaughton should be on significantly lower doses of both drugs. He said Dr. Loftus “will work with the patient to start titrating them down to a normal dose range.” Mr. Opperman wrote that United would cover Mr. McNaughton’s treatment in the coming year, but only at the reduced doses. Mr. Opperman did not respond to emails and phone messages seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton didn’t believe a word of it. He had already tried and failed treatment with those drugs at lower doses, and it was Dr. Loftus who had upped the doses, leading to his remission from severe colitis.

The only thing that made sense to Mr. McNaughton was that the treatment United said it would now pay for was dramatically cheaper – saving the company at least hundreds of thousands of dollars a year – than his prescribed treatment because it sliced the size of the doses by more than half.

When the family contacted Dr. Loftus for an explanation, they were outraged by what they heard. Dr. Loftus told them that he had never recommended lowering the dosage. In a letter, Dr. Loftus wrote that changing Mr. McNaughton’s treatment “would have serious detrimental effects on both his short term and long term health and could potentially involve life threatening complications. This would ultimately incur far greater medical costs. Chris was on the doses suggested by United Healthcare before, and they were not at all effective.”

It would not be until the lawsuit that it would become clear how Dr. Loftus’ conversations had been so seriously misrepresented.

Under questioning by Mr. McNaughton’s lawyers, Ms. Kavanaugh acknowledged that she was the source of the incorrect claim that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to a change in treatment.

“I incorrectly made an assumption that they had come to some sort of agreement,” she said in a deposition last August. “It was my first peer-to-peer. I did not realize that that simply does not occur.”

Ms. Kavanaugh did not respond to emails and telephone messages seeking comment.

When the McNaughtons first learned of Mr. Opperman’s inaccurate report of the phone call with Dr. Loftus, it unnerved them. They started to question if their case would be fairly reviewed.

“When we got the denial and they lied about what Dr. Loftus said, it just hit me that none of this matters,” Mr. McNaughton said. “They will just say or do anything to get rid of me. It delegitimized the entire review process. When I got that denial, I was crushed.”


 

A buried report

While the family tried to sort out the inaccurate report, United continued putting the McNaughton case in front of more company doctors.

On May 21, 2021, United sent the case to one of its own doctors, Nady Cates, MD, for an additional review. The review was marked “escalated issue.” Dr. Cates is a United medical director, a title used by many insurers for physicians who review cases. It is work he has been doing as an employee of health insurers since 1989 and at United since 2010. He has not practiced medicine since the early 1990s.

Dr. Cates, in a deposition, said he stopped seeing patients because of the long hours involved and because “AIDS was coming around then. I was seeing a lot of military folks who had venereal diseases, and I guess I was concerned about being exposed.” He transitioned to reviewing paperwork for the insurance industry, he said, because “I guess I was a chicken.”

When he had practiced, Dr. Cates said, he hadn’t treated patients with ulcerative colitis and had referred those cases to a gastroenterologist.

He said his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case primarily involved reading a United nurse’s recommendation to deny his care and making sure “that there wasn’t a decimal place that was out of line.” He said he copied and pasted the nurse’s recommendation and typed “agree” on his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case.

Dr. Cates said that he does about a hundred reviews a week. He said that in his reviews he typically checks to see if any medications are prescribed in accordance with the insurer’s guidelines, and if not, he denies it. United’s policies, he said, prevented him from considering that Mr. McNaughton had failed other treatments or that Dr. Loftus was a leading expert in his field.

“You are giving zero weight to the treating doctor’s opinion on the necessity of the treatment regimen?” a lawyer asked Dr. Cates in his deposition. He responded, “Yeah.”

Attempts to contact Dr. Cates for comment were unsuccessful.

At the same time Dr. Cates was looking at Mr. McNaughton’s case, yet another review was underway at MRIoA. United said it sent the case back to MRIoA after the insurer received the letter from Dr. Loftus warning of the life-threatening complications that might occur if the dosages were reduced.

On May 24, 2021, the new report requested by MRIoA arrived. It came to a completely different conclusion than all of the previous reviews.

Nitin Kumar, MD, a gastroenterologist in Illinois, concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s established treatment plan was not only medically necessary and appropriate but that lowering his doses “can result in a lack of effective therapy of Ulcerative Colitis, with complications of uncontrolled disease (including dysplasia leading to colorectal cancer), flare, hospitalization, need for surgery, and toxic megacolon.”

Unlike other doctors who produced reports for United, Dr. Kumar discussed the harm that Mr. McNaughton might suffer if United required him to change his treatment. “His disease is significantly severe, with diagnosis at a young age,” Dr. Kumar wrote. “He has failed every biologic medication class recommended by guidelines. Therefore, guidelines can no longer be applied in this case.” He cited six studies of patients using two biologic drugs together and wrote that they revealed no significant safety issues and found the therapy to be “broadly successful.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh learned of Dr. Kumar’s report, she quickly moved to quash it and get the case returned to Dr. Pabby, according to her deposition.

In a recorded telephone call, Ms. Kavanaugh told an MRIoA representative that “I had asked that this go back through Dr. Pabby, and it went through a different doctor and they had a much different result.” After further discussion, the MRIoA representative agreed to send the case back to Dr. Pabby. “I appreciate that,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied. “I just want to make sure, because, I mean, it’s obviously a very different result than what we’ve been getting on this case.”

MRIoA case notes show that at 7:04 a.m. on May 25, 2021, Dr. Pabby was assigned to take a look at the case for the third time. At 7:27 a.m., the notes indicate, Dr. Pabby again rejected Mr. McNaughton’s treatment plan. While noting it was “difficult to control” Mr. McNaughton’s ulcerative colitis, Dr. Pabby added that his doses “far exceed what is approved by literature” and that the “safety of the requested doses is not supported by literature.”

In a deposition, Ms. Kavanaugh said that after she opened the Kumar report and read that he was supporting Mr. McNaughton’s current treatment plan, she immediately spoke to her supervisor, who told her to call MRIoA and have the case sent back to Dr. Pabby for review.

Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t save a copy of the Kumar report, nor did she forward it to anyone at United or to officials at Penn State who had been inquiring about the McNaughton case. “I didn’t because it shouldn’t have existed,” she said. “It should have gone back to Dr. Pabby.”

When asked if the Kumar report caused her any concerns given his warning that Mr. McNaughton risked cancer or hospitalization if his regimen were changed, Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t read his full report. “I saw that it was not the correct doctor, I saw the initial outcome and I was asked to send it back,” she said. Ms. Kavanaugh added, “I have a lot of empathy for this member, but it needed to go back to the peer-to-peer reviewer.”

In a court filing, United said Ms. Kavanaugh was correct in insisting that Dr. Pabby conduct the review and that MRIoA confirmed that Dr. Pabby should have been the one doing the review.

The Kumar report was not provided to Mr. McNaughton when his lawyer, Jonathan M. Gesk, first asked United and MRIoA for any reviews of the case. Mr. Gesk discovered it by accident when he was listening to a recorded telephone call produced by United in which Ms. Kavanaugh mentioned a report number Mr. Gesk had not heard before. He then called MRIoA, which confirmed the report existed and eventually provided it to him.

Dr. Pabby asked ProPublica to direct any questions about his involvement in the matter to MRIoA. The company did not respond to questions from ProPublica about the case.
 

A sense of hopelessness

When Mr. McNaughton enrolled at Penn State in 2020, it brought a sense of normalcy that he had lost when he was first diagnosed with colitis. He still needed monthly hours-long infusions and suffered occasional flare-ups and symptoms, but he was attending classes in person and living a life similar to the one he had before his diagnosis.

It was a striking contrast to the previous 6 years, which he had spent largely confined to his parents’ house in State College. The frequent bouts of diarrhea made it difficult to go out. He didn’t talk much to friends and spent as much time as he could studying potential treatments and reviewing ongoing clinical trials. He tried to keep up with the occasional online course, but his disease made it difficult to make any real progress toward a degree.

United, in correspondence with Mr. McNaughton, noted that its review of his care was “not a treatment decision. Treatment decisions are made between you and your physician.” But by threatening not to pay for his medications, or only to pay for a different regimen, Mr. McNaughton said, United was in fact attempting to dictate his treatment. From his perspective, the insurer was playing doctor, making decisions without ever examining him or even speaking to him.

The idea of changing his treatment or stopping it altogether caused constant worry for Mr. McNaughton, exacerbating his colitis and triggering physical symptoms, according to his doctors. Those included a large ulcer on his leg and welts under his skin on his thighs and shin that made his leg muscles stiff and painful to the point where he couldn’t bend his leg or walk properly. There were daily migraines and severe stomach pain. “I was consumed with this situation,” Mr. McNaughton said. “My path was unconventional, but I was proud of myself for fighting back and finishing school and getting my life back on track. I thought they were singling me out. My biggest fear was going back to the hell.”

Mr. McNaughton said he contemplated suicide on several occasions, dreading a return to a life where he was housebound or hospitalized.

Mr. McNaughton and his parents talked about his possibly moving to Canada where his grandmother lived and seeking treatment there under the nation’s government health plan.

Dr. Loftus connected Mr. McNaughton with a psychologist who specializes in helping patients with chronic digestive diseases.

The psychologist, Tiffany Taft, PsyD, said Mr. McNaughton was not an unusual case. About one in three patients with diseases like colitis suffer from medical trauma or PTSD related to it, she said, often the result of issues related to getting appropriate treatment approved by insurers.

“You get into hopelessness,” she said of the depression that accompanies fighting with insurance companies over care. “They feel like ‘I can’t fix that. I am screwed.’ When you can’t control things with what an insurance company is doing, anxiety, PTSD and depression get mixed together.”

In the case of Mr. McNaughton, Dr. Taft said, he was being treated by one of the best gastroenterologists in the world, was doing well with his treatment, and then was suddenly notified he might be on the hook for nearly a million dollars in medical charges without access to his medications. “It sends you immediately into panic about all these horrific things that could happen,” Dr. Taft said. The physical and mental symptoms Mr. McNaughton suffered after his care was threatened were “triggered” by the stress he experienced, she said.

In early June 2021, United informed Mr. McNaughton in a letter that it would not cover the cost of his treatment regimen in the next academic year, starting in August. The insurer said it would pay only for a treatment plan that called for a significant reduction in the doses of the drugs he took.

United wrote that the decision came after his “records have been reviewed three times and the medical reviewers have concluded that the medication as prescribed does not meet the Medical Necessity requirement of the plan.”

In August 2021, Mr. McNaughton filed a federal lawsuit accusing United of acting in bad faith and unreasonably making treatment decisions based on financial concerns and not what was the best and most effective treatment. It claims United had a duty to find information that supported Mr. McNaughton’s claim for treatment rather than looking for ways to deny coverage.

United, in a court filing, said it did not breach any duty it owed to Mr. McNaughton and acted in good faith. On Sept. 20, 2021, a month after filing the lawsuit, and with United again balking at paying for his treatment, Mr. McNaughton asked a judge to grant a temporary restraining order requiring United to pay for his care. With the looming threat of a court hearing on the motion, United quickly agreed to cover the cost of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment through the end of the 2021-2022 academic year. It also dropped a demand requiring Mr. McNaughton to settle the matter as a condition of the insurer paying for his treatment as prescribed by Dr. Loftus, according to an email sent by United’s lawyer.
 

The cost of treatment

It is not surprising that insurers are carefully scrutinizing the care of patients treated with biologics, which are among the most expensive medications on the market. Biologics are considered specialty drugs, a class that includes the best-selling Humira, used to treat arthritis. Specialty drug spending in the United States is expected to reach $505 billion in 2023, according to an estimate from Optum, United’s health services division. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit that analyzes the value of drugs, found in 2020 that the biologic drugs used to treat patients like Mr. McNaughton are often effective but overpriced for their therapeutic benefit. To be judged cost-effective by ICER, the biologics should sell at a steep discount to their current market price, the panel found.

A panel convened by ICER to review its analysis cautioned that insurance coverage “should be structured to prevent situations in which patients are forced to choose a treatment approach on the basis of cost.” ICER also found examples where insurance company policies failed to keep pace with updates to clinical practice guidelines based on emerging research.

United officials did not make the cost of treatment an issue when discussing Mr. McNaughton’s care with Penn State administrators or the family.

Bill Truxal, the president of UnitedHealthcare StudentResources, the company’s student health plan division, told a Penn State official that the insurer wanted the “best for the student” and it had “nothing to do with cost,” according to notes the official took of the conversation.

Behind the scenes, however, the price of Mr. McNaughton’s care was front and center at United.

In one email, Mr. Opperman asked about the cost difference if the insurer insisted on paying only for greatly reduced doses of the biologic drugs. Ms. Kavanaugh responded that the insurer had paid $1.1 million in claims for Mr. McNaughton’s care as of the middle of May 2021. If the reduced doses had been in place, the amount would have been cut to $260,218, she wrote.

United was keeping close tabs on Mr. McNaughton at the highest levels of the company. On Aug. 2, 2021, Mr. Opperman notified Mr. Truxal and a United lawyer that Mr. McNaughton “has just purchased the plan again for the 21-22 school year.”

A month later, Ms. Kavanaugh shared another calculation with United executives showing that the insurer spent over $1.7 million on Mr. McNaughton in the prior plan year.

United officials strategized about how to best explain why it was reviewing Mr. McNaughton’s drug regimen, according to an internal email. They pointed to a justification often used by health insurers when denying claims. “As the cost of healthcare continues to climb to soaring heights, it has been determined that a judicious review of these drugs should be included” in order to “make healthcare more affordable for our members,” Ms. Kavanaugh offered as a potential talking point in an April 23, 2021, email.

Three days later, UnitedHealth Group filed an annual statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing its pay for top executives in the prior year. Then-CEO David Wichmann was paid $17.9 million in salary and other compensation in 2020. Wichmann retired early the following year, and his total compensation that year exceeded $140 million, according to calculations in a compensation database maintained by the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. The newspaper said the amount was the most paid to an executive in the state since it started tracking pay more than 2 decades ago. About $110 million of that total came from Wichmann exercising stock options accumulated during his stewardship.

The McNaughtons were well aware of the financial situation at United. They looked at publicly available financial results and annual reports. Last year, United reported a profit of $20.1 billion on revenues of $324.2 billion.

When discussing the case with Penn State, Ms. Light said, she told university administrators that United could pay for a year of her son’s treatment using just minutes’ worth of profit.
 

‘Betrayed’

Mr. McNaughton has been able to continue receiving his infusions for now, anyway. In October, United notified him it was once again reviewing his care, although the insurer quickly reversed course when his lawyer intervened. United, in a court filing, said the review was a mistake and that it had erred in putting Mr. McNaughton’s claims into pending status.

Mr. McNaughton said he is fortunate his parents were employed at the same school he was attending, which was critical in getting the attention of administrators there. But that help had its limits.

In June 2021, just a week after United told Mr. McNaughton it would not cover his treatment plan in the upcoming plan year, Penn State essentially walked away from the matter.

In an email to the McNaughtons and United, Penn State Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Andrea Dowhower wrote that administrators “have observed an unfortunate breakdown in communication” between Mr. McNaughton and his family and the university health insurance plan, “which appears from our perspective to have resulted in a standstill between the two parties.” While she proposed some potential steps to help settle the matter, she wrote that “Penn State’s role in this process is as a resource for students like Chris who, for whatever reason, have experienced difficulty navigating the complex world of health insurance.” The university’s role “is limited,” she wrote, and the school “simply must leave” the issue of the best treatment for Mr. McNaughton to “the appropriate health care professionals.”

In a statement, a Penn State spokesperson wrote that “as a third party in this arrangement, the University’s role is limited and Penn State officials can only help a student manage an issue based on information that a student/family, medical personnel, and/or insurance provider give – with the hope that all information is accurate and that the lines of communication remain open between the insured and the insurer.”

Penn State declined to provide financial information about the plan. However, the university and United share at least one tie that they have not publicly disclosed.

When the McNaughtons first reached out to the university for help, they were referred to the school’s student health insurance coordinator. The official, Heather Klinger, wrote in an email to the family in February 2021 that “I appreciate your trusting me to resolve this for you.”

In April 2022, United began paying Ms. Klinger’s salary, an arrangement which is not noted on the university website. Ms. Klinger appears in the online staff directory on the Penn State University Health Services web page, and has a university phone number, a university address, and a Penn State email listed as her contact. The school said she has maintained a part-time status with the university to allow her to access relevant data systems at both the university and United.

The university said students “benefit” from having a United employee to handle questions about insurance coverage and that the arrangement is “not uncommon” for student health plans.

The family was dismayed to learn that Ms. Klinger was now a full-time employee of United.

“We did feel betrayed,” Ms. Light said. Ms. Klinger did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton’s fight to maintain his treatment regimen has come at a cost of time, debilitating stress, and depression. “My biggest fear is realizing I might have to do this every year of my life,” he said.

Mr. McNaughton said one motivation for his lawsuit was to expose how insurers like United make decisions about what care they will pay for and what they will not. The case remains pending, a court docket shows.

He has been accepted to Penn State’s law school. He hopes to become a health care lawyer working for patients who find themselves in situations similar to his.

He plans to re-enroll in the United health care plan when he starts school next fall.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In May 2021, a nurse at UnitedHealthcare called a colleague to share some welcome news about a problem the two had been grappling with for weeks.

United provided the health insurance plan for students at Penn State University. It was a large and potentially lucrative account: lots of young, healthy students paying premiums in, not too many huge medical reimbursements going out.

But one student was costing United a lot of money. Christopher McNaughton suffered from a crippling case of ulcerative colitis – an ailment that caused him to develop severe arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, numbing fatigue, and life-threatening blood clots. His medical bills were running nearly $2 million a year.

United had flagged Mr. McNaughton’s case as a “high dollar account,” and the company was reviewing whether it needed to keep paying for the expensive cocktail of drugs crafted by a Mayo Clinic specialist that had brought Mr. McNaughton’s disease under control after he’d been through years of misery.

On the 2021 phone call, which was recorded by the company, nurse Victoria Kavanaugh told her colleague that a doctor contracted by United to review the case had concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was “not medically necessary.” Her colleague, Dave Opperman, reacted to the news with a long laugh.

“I knew that was coming,” said Mr. Opperman, who heads up a United subsidiary that brokered the health insurance contract between United and Penn State. “I did too,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied.

Mr. Opperman then complained about Mr. McNaughton’s mother, whom he referred to as “this woman,” for “screaming and yelling” and “throwing tantrums” during calls with United.

The pair agreed that any appeal of the United doctor’s denial of the treatment would be a waste of the family’s time and money.

“We’re still gonna say no,” Mr. Opperman said.

More than 200 million Americans are covered by private health insurance. But data from state and federal regulators shows that insurers reject about 1 in 7 claims for treatment. Many people, faced with fighting insurance companies, simply give up: One study found that Americans file formal appeals on only 0.1% of claims denied by insurers under the Affordable Care Act.

Insurers have wide discretion in crafting what is covered by their policies, beyond some basic services mandated by federal and state law. They often deny claims for services that they deem not “medically necessary.”

When United refused to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment for that reason, his family did something unusual. They fought back with a lawsuit, which uncovered a trove of materials, including internal emails and tape-recorded exchanges among company employees. Those records offer an extraordinary behind-the-scenes look at how one of America’s leading health care insurers relentlessly fought to reduce spending on care, even as its profits rose to record levels.

As United reviewed Mr. McNaughton’s treatment, he and his family were often in the dark about what was happening or their rights. Meanwhile, United employees misrepresented critical findings and ignored warnings from doctors about the risks of altering Mr. McNaughton’s drug plan.

At one point, court records show, United inaccurately reported to Penn State and the family that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to lower the doses of his medication. Another time, a doctor paid by United concluded that denying payments for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment could put his health at risk, but the company buried his report and did not consider its findings. The insurer did, however, consider a report submitted by a company doctor who rubber-stamped the recommendation of a United nurse to reject paying for the treatment.

United declined to answer specific questions about the case, even after Mr. McNaughton signed a release provided by the insurer to allow it to discuss details of his interactions with the company. United noted that it ultimately paid for all of Mr. McNaughton’s treatments. In a written response, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo wrote that the company’s guiding concern was Mr. McNaughton’s well-being.

“Mr. McNaughton’s treatment involves medication dosages that far exceed [Food and Drug Administration] guidelines,” the statement said. “In cases like this, we review treatment plans based on current clinical guidelines to help ensure patient safety.”

But the records reviewed by ProPublica show that United had another, equally urgent goal in dealing with Mr. McNaughton. In emails, officials calculated what Mr. McNaughton was costing them to keep his crippling disease at bay and how much they would save if they forced him to undergo a cheaper treatment that had already failed him. As the family pressed the company to back down, first through Penn State and then through a lawsuit, the United officials handling the case bristled.

“This is just unbelievable,” Ms. Kavanaugh said of Mr. McNaughton’s family in one call to discuss his case. ”They’re just really pushing the envelope, and I’m surprised, like I don’t even know what to say.”
 

The same meal every day

Now 31, Mr. McNaughton grew up in State College, Pa., just blocks from the Penn State campus. Both of his parents are faculty members at the university.

In the winter of 2014, Mr. McNaughton was halfway through his junior year at Bard College in New York. At 6 feet, 4 inches tall, he was a guard on the basketball team and had started most of the team’s games since the start of his sophomore year. He was majoring in psychology.

When Mr. McNaughton returned to school after the winter holiday break, he started to experience frequent bouts of bloody diarrhea. After just a few days on campus, he went home to State College, where doctors diagnosed him with a severe case of ulcerative colitis.

A chronic inflammatory bowel disease that causes swelling and ulcers in the digestive tract, ulcerative colitis has no cure, and ongoing treatment is needed to alleviate symptoms and prevent serious health complications. The majority of cases produce mild to moderate symptoms. Mr. McNaughton’s case was severe.

Treatments for ulcerative colitis include steroids and special drugs known as biologics that work to reduce inflammation in the large intestine.

Mr. McNaughton, however, failed to get meaningful relief from the drugs his doctors initially prescribed. He was experiencing bloody diarrhea up to 20 times a day, with such severe stomach pain that he spent much of his day curled up on a couch. He had little appetite and lost 50 pounds. Severe anemia left him fatigued. He suffered from other conditions related to his colitis, including crippling arthritis. He was hospitalized several times to treat dangerous blood clots.

For 2 years, in an effort to help alleviate his symptoms, he ate the same meals every day: Rice Chex cereal and scrambled eggs for breakfast, a cup of white rice with plain chicken breast for lunch, and a similar meal for dinner, occasionally swapping in tilapia.

His hometown doctors referred him to a specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, who tried unsuccessfully to bring his disease under control. That doctor ended up referring Mr. McNaughton to Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been ranked as the best gastroenterology hospital in the country every year since 1990 by U.S. News & World Report.

For his first visit with Dr. Loftus in May 2015, Mr. McNaughton and his mother, Janice Light, charted hospitals along the 900-mile drive from Pennsylvania to Minnesota in case they needed medical help along the way.

Mornings were the hardest. Mr. McNaughton often spent several hours in the bathroom at the start of the day. To prepare for his meeting with Dr. Loftus, he set his alarm for 3:30 a.m. so he could be ready for the 7:30 a.m. appointment. Even with that preparation, he had to stop twice to use a bathroom on the 5-minute walk from the hotel to the clinic. When they met, Dr. Loftus looked at Mr. McNaughton and told him that he appeared incapacitated. It was, he told the student, as if Mr. McNaughton were chained to the bathroom, with no outside life. He had not been able to return to school and spent most days indoors, managing his symptoms as best he could.

Mr. McNaughton had tried a number of medications by this point, none of which worked. This pattern would repeat itself during the first couple of years that Dr. Loftus treated him.

In addition to trying to find a treatment that would bring Mr. McNaughton’s colitis into remission, Dr. Loftus wanted to wean him off the steroid prednisone, which he had been taking since his initial diagnosis in 2014. The drug is commonly prescribed to colitis patients to control inflammation, but prolonged use can lead to severe side effects including cataracts, osteoporosis, increased risk of infection, and fatigue. Mr. McNaughton also experienced “moon face,” a side effect caused by the shifting of fat deposits that results in the face becoming puffy and rounder.

In 2018, Dr. Loftus and Mr. McNaughton decided to try an unusual regimen. Many patients with inflammatory bowel diseases such as colitis take a single biologic drug as treatment. Whereas traditional drugs are chemically synthesized, biologics are manufactured in living systems, such as plant or animal cells. A year’s supply of an individual biologic drug can cost up to $500,000. They are often given through infusions in a medical facility, which adds to the cost.

Mr. McNaughton had tried individual biologics, and then two in combination, without much success. He and Dr. Loftus then agreed to try two biologic drugs together at doses well above those recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. The federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimates one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label uses.

There are drawbacks to the practice. Since some uses and doses of particular drugs have not been extensively studied, the risks and efficacy of using them off-label are not well known. Also, some drug manufacturers have improperly pushed off-label usage of their products to boost sales despite little or no evidence to support their use in those situations. Like many leading experts and researchers in his field, Dr. Loftus has been paid to do consulting related to the biologic drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton. The payments related to those drugs have ranged from a total of $1,440 in 2020 to $51,235 in 2018. Dr. Loftus said much of his work with pharmaceutical companies was related to conducting clinical trials on new drugs.

In cases of off-label prescribing, patients are depending upon their doctors’ expertise and experience with the drug. “In this case, I was comfortable that the potential benefits to Chris outweighed the risks,” Dr. Loftus said.

There was evidence that the treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton might work, including studies that had found dual biologic therapy to be efficacious and safe. The two drugs he takes, Entyvio and Remicade, have the same purpose – to reduce inflammation in the large intestine – but each works differently in the body. Remicade, marketed by Janssen Biotech, targets a protein that causes inflammation. Entyvio, made by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, works by preventing an excess of white blood cells from entering into the gastrointestinal tract.

As for any suggestion by United doctors that his treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton was out of bounds or dangerous, Dr. Loftus said “my treatment of Chris was not clinically inappropriate – as was shown by Chris’ positive outcome.”

The unusual high-dose combination of two biologic drugs produced a remarkable change in Mr. McNaughton. He no longer had blood in his stool, and his trips to the bathroom were cut from 20 times a day to 3 or 4. He was able to eat different foods and put on weight. He had more energy. He tapered off prednisone.

“If you told me in 2015 that I would be living like this, I would have asked where do I sign up,” Mr. McNaughton said of the change he experienced with the new drug regimen.

When he first started the new treatment, Mr. McNaughton was covered under his family’s plan, and all his bills were paid. Mr. McNaughton enrolled at the university in 2020. Before switching to United’s plan for students, Mr. McNaughton and his parents consulted with a health advocacy service offered to faculty members. A benefits specialist assured them the drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton would be covered by United.

Mr. McNaughton joined the student plan in July 2020, and his infusions that month and the following month were paid for by United. In September, the insurer indicated payment on his claims was “pending,” something it did for his other claims that came in during the rest of the year.

Mr. McNaughton and his family were worried. They called United to make sure there wasn’t a problem; the insurer told them, they said, that it only needed to check his medical records. When the family called again, United told them it had the documentation needed, they said. United, in a court filing last year, said it received two calls from the family and each time indicated that all of the necessary medical records had not yet been received.

In January 2021, Mr. McNaughton received a new explanation of benefits for the prior months. All of the claims for his care, beginning in September, were no longer “pending.” They were stamped “DENIED.” The total outstanding bill for his treatment was $807,086.

When Mr. McNaughton’s mother reached a United customer service representative the next day to ask why bills that had been paid in the summer were being denied for the fall, the representative told her the account was being reviewed because of “a high dollar amount on the claims,” according to a recording of the call.


 

Misrepresentations

With United refusing to pay, the family was terrified of being stuck with medical bills that would bankrupt them and deprive Mr. McNaughton of treatment that they considered miraculous.

They turned to Penn State for help. Ms. Light and Mr. McNaughton’s father, David McNaughton, hoped their position as faculty members would make the school more willing to intervene on their behalf.

“After more than 30 years on faculty, my husband and I know that this is not how Penn State would want its students to be treated,” Ms. Light wrote to a school official in February 2021.

In response to questions from ProPublica, Penn State spokesperson Lisa Powers wrote that “supporting the health and well-being of our students is always of primary importance” and that “our hearts go out to any student and family impacted by a serious medical condition.” The university, she wrote, does “not comment on students’ individual circumstances or disclose information from their records.” Mr. McNaughton offered to grant Penn State whatever permissions it needed to speak about his case with ProPublica. The school, however, wrote that it would not comment “even if confidentiality has been waived.”

The family appealed to school administrators. Because the effectiveness of biologics wanes in some patients if doses are skipped, Mr. McNaughton and his parents were worried about even a delay in treatment. His doctor wrote that if he missed scheduled infusions of the drugs, there was “a high likelihood they would no longer be effective.”

During a conference call arranged by Penn State officials on March 5, 2021, United agreed to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s care through the end of the plan year that August. Penn State immediately notified the family of the “wonderful news” while also apologizing for “the stress this has caused Chris and your family.”

Behind the scenes, Mr. McNaughton’s review had “gone all the way to the top” at United’s student health plan division, Ms. Kavanaugh, the nurse, said in a recorded conversation.

The family’s relief was short-lived. A month later, United started another review of Mr. McNaughton’s care, overseen by Ms. Kavanaugh, to determine if it would pay for the treatment in the upcoming plan year.

The nurse sent the Mr. McNaughton case to a company called Medical Review Institute of America. Insurers often turn to companies like MRIoA to review coverage decisions involving expensive treatments or specialized care.

Ms. Kavanaugh, who was assigned to a special investigations unit at United, let her feelings about the matter be known in a recorded telephone call with a representative of MRIoA.

“This school apparently is a big client of ours,” she said. She then shared her opinion of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment. “Really this is a case of a kid who’s getting a drug way too much, like too much of a dose,” Ms. Kavanaugh said. She said it was “insane that they would even think that this is reasonable” and “to be honest with you, they’re awfully pushy considering that we are paying through the end of this school year.”

On a call with an outside contractor, the United nurse claimed Mr. McNaughton was on a higher dose of medication than the FDA approved, which is a common practice.

MRIoA sent the case to Vikas Pabby, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health and a professor at the university’s medical school. His May 2021 review of Mr. McNaughton’s case was just one of more than 300 Dr. Pabby did for MRIoA that month, for which he was paid $23,000 in total, according to a log of his work produced in the lawsuit.

In a May 4, 2021, report, Dr. Pabby concluded Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was not medically necessary, because United’s policies for the two drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton did not support using them in combination.

Insurers spell out what services they cover in plan policies, lengthy documents that can be confusing and difficult to understand. Many policies, such as Mr. McNaughton’s, contain a provision that treatments and procedures must be “medically necessary” in order to be covered. The definition of medically necessary differs by plan. Some don’t even define the term. Mr. McNaughton’s policy contains a five-part definition, including that the treatment must be “in accordance with the standards of good medical policy” and “the most appropriate supply or level of service which can be safely provided.”

Behind the scenes at United, Mr. Opperman and Ms. Kavanaugh agreed that if Mr. McNaughton were to appeal Dr. Pabby’s decision, the insurer would simply rule against him. “I just think it’s a waste of money and time to appeal and send it to another one when we know we’re gonna get the same answer,” Mr. Opperman said, according to a recording in court files. At Mr. Opperman’s urging, United decided to skip the usual appeals process and arrange for Dr. Pabby to have a so-called “peer-to-peer” discussion with Dr. Loftus, the Mayo physician treating Mr. McNaughton. Such a conversation, in which a patient’s doctor talks with an insurance company’s doctor to advocate for the prescribed treatment, usually occurs only after a customer has appealed a denial and the appeal has been rejected.

When Ms. Kavanaugh called Dr. Loftus’ office to set up a conversation with Dr. Pabby, she explained it was an urgent matter and had been requested by Mr. McNaughton. “You know I’ve just gotten to know Christopher,” she explained, although she had never spoken with him. “We’re trying to advocate and help and get this peer-to-peer set up.”

Mr. McNaughton, meanwhile, had no idea at the time that a United doctor had decided his treatment was unnecessary and that the insurer was trying to set up a phone call with his physician.

In the peer-to-peer conversation, Dr. Loftus told Dr. Pabby that Mr. McNaughton had “a very complicated case” and that lower doses had not worked for him, according to an internal MRIoA memo.

Following his conversation with Dr. Loftus, Dr. Pabby created a second report for United. He recommended the insurer pay for both drugs, but at reduced doses. He added new language saying that the safety of using both drugs at the higher levels “is not established.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh shared the May 12 decision from Dr. Pabby with others at United, her boss responded with an email calling it “great news.”

Then Mr. Opperman sent an email that puzzled the McNaughtons.

In it, Mr. Opperman claimed that Dr. Loftus and Dr. Pabby had agreed that Mr. McNaughton should be on significantly lower doses of both drugs. He said Dr. Loftus “will work with the patient to start titrating them down to a normal dose range.” Mr. Opperman wrote that United would cover Mr. McNaughton’s treatment in the coming year, but only at the reduced doses. Mr. Opperman did not respond to emails and phone messages seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton didn’t believe a word of it. He had already tried and failed treatment with those drugs at lower doses, and it was Dr. Loftus who had upped the doses, leading to his remission from severe colitis.

The only thing that made sense to Mr. McNaughton was that the treatment United said it would now pay for was dramatically cheaper – saving the company at least hundreds of thousands of dollars a year – than his prescribed treatment because it sliced the size of the doses by more than half.

When the family contacted Dr. Loftus for an explanation, they were outraged by what they heard. Dr. Loftus told them that he had never recommended lowering the dosage. In a letter, Dr. Loftus wrote that changing Mr. McNaughton’s treatment “would have serious detrimental effects on both his short term and long term health and could potentially involve life threatening complications. This would ultimately incur far greater medical costs. Chris was on the doses suggested by United Healthcare before, and they were not at all effective.”

It would not be until the lawsuit that it would become clear how Dr. Loftus’ conversations had been so seriously misrepresented.

Under questioning by Mr. McNaughton’s lawyers, Ms. Kavanaugh acknowledged that she was the source of the incorrect claim that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to a change in treatment.

“I incorrectly made an assumption that they had come to some sort of agreement,” she said in a deposition last August. “It was my first peer-to-peer. I did not realize that that simply does not occur.”

Ms. Kavanaugh did not respond to emails and telephone messages seeking comment.

When the McNaughtons first learned of Mr. Opperman’s inaccurate report of the phone call with Dr. Loftus, it unnerved them. They started to question if their case would be fairly reviewed.

“When we got the denial and they lied about what Dr. Loftus said, it just hit me that none of this matters,” Mr. McNaughton said. “They will just say or do anything to get rid of me. It delegitimized the entire review process. When I got that denial, I was crushed.”


 

A buried report

While the family tried to sort out the inaccurate report, United continued putting the McNaughton case in front of more company doctors.

On May 21, 2021, United sent the case to one of its own doctors, Nady Cates, MD, for an additional review. The review was marked “escalated issue.” Dr. Cates is a United medical director, a title used by many insurers for physicians who review cases. It is work he has been doing as an employee of health insurers since 1989 and at United since 2010. He has not practiced medicine since the early 1990s.

Dr. Cates, in a deposition, said he stopped seeing patients because of the long hours involved and because “AIDS was coming around then. I was seeing a lot of military folks who had venereal diseases, and I guess I was concerned about being exposed.” He transitioned to reviewing paperwork for the insurance industry, he said, because “I guess I was a chicken.”

When he had practiced, Dr. Cates said, he hadn’t treated patients with ulcerative colitis and had referred those cases to a gastroenterologist.

He said his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case primarily involved reading a United nurse’s recommendation to deny his care and making sure “that there wasn’t a decimal place that was out of line.” He said he copied and pasted the nurse’s recommendation and typed “agree” on his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case.

Dr. Cates said that he does about a hundred reviews a week. He said that in his reviews he typically checks to see if any medications are prescribed in accordance with the insurer’s guidelines, and if not, he denies it. United’s policies, he said, prevented him from considering that Mr. McNaughton had failed other treatments or that Dr. Loftus was a leading expert in his field.

“You are giving zero weight to the treating doctor’s opinion on the necessity of the treatment regimen?” a lawyer asked Dr. Cates in his deposition. He responded, “Yeah.”

Attempts to contact Dr. Cates for comment were unsuccessful.

At the same time Dr. Cates was looking at Mr. McNaughton’s case, yet another review was underway at MRIoA. United said it sent the case back to MRIoA after the insurer received the letter from Dr. Loftus warning of the life-threatening complications that might occur if the dosages were reduced.

On May 24, 2021, the new report requested by MRIoA arrived. It came to a completely different conclusion than all of the previous reviews.

Nitin Kumar, MD, a gastroenterologist in Illinois, concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s established treatment plan was not only medically necessary and appropriate but that lowering his doses “can result in a lack of effective therapy of Ulcerative Colitis, with complications of uncontrolled disease (including dysplasia leading to colorectal cancer), flare, hospitalization, need for surgery, and toxic megacolon.”

Unlike other doctors who produced reports for United, Dr. Kumar discussed the harm that Mr. McNaughton might suffer if United required him to change his treatment. “His disease is significantly severe, with diagnosis at a young age,” Dr. Kumar wrote. “He has failed every biologic medication class recommended by guidelines. Therefore, guidelines can no longer be applied in this case.” He cited six studies of patients using two biologic drugs together and wrote that they revealed no significant safety issues and found the therapy to be “broadly successful.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh learned of Dr. Kumar’s report, she quickly moved to quash it and get the case returned to Dr. Pabby, according to her deposition.

In a recorded telephone call, Ms. Kavanaugh told an MRIoA representative that “I had asked that this go back through Dr. Pabby, and it went through a different doctor and they had a much different result.” After further discussion, the MRIoA representative agreed to send the case back to Dr. Pabby. “I appreciate that,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied. “I just want to make sure, because, I mean, it’s obviously a very different result than what we’ve been getting on this case.”

MRIoA case notes show that at 7:04 a.m. on May 25, 2021, Dr. Pabby was assigned to take a look at the case for the third time. At 7:27 a.m., the notes indicate, Dr. Pabby again rejected Mr. McNaughton’s treatment plan. While noting it was “difficult to control” Mr. McNaughton’s ulcerative colitis, Dr. Pabby added that his doses “far exceed what is approved by literature” and that the “safety of the requested doses is not supported by literature.”

In a deposition, Ms. Kavanaugh said that after she opened the Kumar report and read that he was supporting Mr. McNaughton’s current treatment plan, she immediately spoke to her supervisor, who told her to call MRIoA and have the case sent back to Dr. Pabby for review.

Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t save a copy of the Kumar report, nor did she forward it to anyone at United or to officials at Penn State who had been inquiring about the McNaughton case. “I didn’t because it shouldn’t have existed,” she said. “It should have gone back to Dr. Pabby.”

When asked if the Kumar report caused her any concerns given his warning that Mr. McNaughton risked cancer or hospitalization if his regimen were changed, Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t read his full report. “I saw that it was not the correct doctor, I saw the initial outcome and I was asked to send it back,” she said. Ms. Kavanaugh added, “I have a lot of empathy for this member, but it needed to go back to the peer-to-peer reviewer.”

In a court filing, United said Ms. Kavanaugh was correct in insisting that Dr. Pabby conduct the review and that MRIoA confirmed that Dr. Pabby should have been the one doing the review.

The Kumar report was not provided to Mr. McNaughton when his lawyer, Jonathan M. Gesk, first asked United and MRIoA for any reviews of the case. Mr. Gesk discovered it by accident when he was listening to a recorded telephone call produced by United in which Ms. Kavanaugh mentioned a report number Mr. Gesk had not heard before. He then called MRIoA, which confirmed the report existed and eventually provided it to him.

Dr. Pabby asked ProPublica to direct any questions about his involvement in the matter to MRIoA. The company did not respond to questions from ProPublica about the case.
 

A sense of hopelessness

When Mr. McNaughton enrolled at Penn State in 2020, it brought a sense of normalcy that he had lost when he was first diagnosed with colitis. He still needed monthly hours-long infusions and suffered occasional flare-ups and symptoms, but he was attending classes in person and living a life similar to the one he had before his diagnosis.

It was a striking contrast to the previous 6 years, which he had spent largely confined to his parents’ house in State College. The frequent bouts of diarrhea made it difficult to go out. He didn’t talk much to friends and spent as much time as he could studying potential treatments and reviewing ongoing clinical trials. He tried to keep up with the occasional online course, but his disease made it difficult to make any real progress toward a degree.

United, in correspondence with Mr. McNaughton, noted that its review of his care was “not a treatment decision. Treatment decisions are made between you and your physician.” But by threatening not to pay for his medications, or only to pay for a different regimen, Mr. McNaughton said, United was in fact attempting to dictate his treatment. From his perspective, the insurer was playing doctor, making decisions without ever examining him or even speaking to him.

The idea of changing his treatment or stopping it altogether caused constant worry for Mr. McNaughton, exacerbating his colitis and triggering physical symptoms, according to his doctors. Those included a large ulcer on his leg and welts under his skin on his thighs and shin that made his leg muscles stiff and painful to the point where he couldn’t bend his leg or walk properly. There were daily migraines and severe stomach pain. “I was consumed with this situation,” Mr. McNaughton said. “My path was unconventional, but I was proud of myself for fighting back and finishing school and getting my life back on track. I thought they were singling me out. My biggest fear was going back to the hell.”

Mr. McNaughton said he contemplated suicide on several occasions, dreading a return to a life where he was housebound or hospitalized.

Mr. McNaughton and his parents talked about his possibly moving to Canada where his grandmother lived and seeking treatment there under the nation’s government health plan.

Dr. Loftus connected Mr. McNaughton with a psychologist who specializes in helping patients with chronic digestive diseases.

The psychologist, Tiffany Taft, PsyD, said Mr. McNaughton was not an unusual case. About one in three patients with diseases like colitis suffer from medical trauma or PTSD related to it, she said, often the result of issues related to getting appropriate treatment approved by insurers.

“You get into hopelessness,” she said of the depression that accompanies fighting with insurance companies over care. “They feel like ‘I can’t fix that. I am screwed.’ When you can’t control things with what an insurance company is doing, anxiety, PTSD and depression get mixed together.”

In the case of Mr. McNaughton, Dr. Taft said, he was being treated by one of the best gastroenterologists in the world, was doing well with his treatment, and then was suddenly notified he might be on the hook for nearly a million dollars in medical charges without access to his medications. “It sends you immediately into panic about all these horrific things that could happen,” Dr. Taft said. The physical and mental symptoms Mr. McNaughton suffered after his care was threatened were “triggered” by the stress he experienced, she said.

In early June 2021, United informed Mr. McNaughton in a letter that it would not cover the cost of his treatment regimen in the next academic year, starting in August. The insurer said it would pay only for a treatment plan that called for a significant reduction in the doses of the drugs he took.

United wrote that the decision came after his “records have been reviewed three times and the medical reviewers have concluded that the medication as prescribed does not meet the Medical Necessity requirement of the plan.”

In August 2021, Mr. McNaughton filed a federal lawsuit accusing United of acting in bad faith and unreasonably making treatment decisions based on financial concerns and not what was the best and most effective treatment. It claims United had a duty to find information that supported Mr. McNaughton’s claim for treatment rather than looking for ways to deny coverage.

United, in a court filing, said it did not breach any duty it owed to Mr. McNaughton and acted in good faith. On Sept. 20, 2021, a month after filing the lawsuit, and with United again balking at paying for his treatment, Mr. McNaughton asked a judge to grant a temporary restraining order requiring United to pay for his care. With the looming threat of a court hearing on the motion, United quickly agreed to cover the cost of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment through the end of the 2021-2022 academic year. It also dropped a demand requiring Mr. McNaughton to settle the matter as a condition of the insurer paying for his treatment as prescribed by Dr. Loftus, according to an email sent by United’s lawyer.
 

The cost of treatment

It is not surprising that insurers are carefully scrutinizing the care of patients treated with biologics, which are among the most expensive medications on the market. Biologics are considered specialty drugs, a class that includes the best-selling Humira, used to treat arthritis. Specialty drug spending in the United States is expected to reach $505 billion in 2023, according to an estimate from Optum, United’s health services division. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit that analyzes the value of drugs, found in 2020 that the biologic drugs used to treat patients like Mr. McNaughton are often effective but overpriced for their therapeutic benefit. To be judged cost-effective by ICER, the biologics should sell at a steep discount to their current market price, the panel found.

A panel convened by ICER to review its analysis cautioned that insurance coverage “should be structured to prevent situations in which patients are forced to choose a treatment approach on the basis of cost.” ICER also found examples where insurance company policies failed to keep pace with updates to clinical practice guidelines based on emerging research.

United officials did not make the cost of treatment an issue when discussing Mr. McNaughton’s care with Penn State administrators or the family.

Bill Truxal, the president of UnitedHealthcare StudentResources, the company’s student health plan division, told a Penn State official that the insurer wanted the “best for the student” and it had “nothing to do with cost,” according to notes the official took of the conversation.

Behind the scenes, however, the price of Mr. McNaughton’s care was front and center at United.

In one email, Mr. Opperman asked about the cost difference if the insurer insisted on paying only for greatly reduced doses of the biologic drugs. Ms. Kavanaugh responded that the insurer had paid $1.1 million in claims for Mr. McNaughton’s care as of the middle of May 2021. If the reduced doses had been in place, the amount would have been cut to $260,218, she wrote.

United was keeping close tabs on Mr. McNaughton at the highest levels of the company. On Aug. 2, 2021, Mr. Opperman notified Mr. Truxal and a United lawyer that Mr. McNaughton “has just purchased the plan again for the 21-22 school year.”

A month later, Ms. Kavanaugh shared another calculation with United executives showing that the insurer spent over $1.7 million on Mr. McNaughton in the prior plan year.

United officials strategized about how to best explain why it was reviewing Mr. McNaughton’s drug regimen, according to an internal email. They pointed to a justification often used by health insurers when denying claims. “As the cost of healthcare continues to climb to soaring heights, it has been determined that a judicious review of these drugs should be included” in order to “make healthcare more affordable for our members,” Ms. Kavanaugh offered as a potential talking point in an April 23, 2021, email.

Three days later, UnitedHealth Group filed an annual statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing its pay for top executives in the prior year. Then-CEO David Wichmann was paid $17.9 million in salary and other compensation in 2020. Wichmann retired early the following year, and his total compensation that year exceeded $140 million, according to calculations in a compensation database maintained by the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. The newspaper said the amount was the most paid to an executive in the state since it started tracking pay more than 2 decades ago. About $110 million of that total came from Wichmann exercising stock options accumulated during his stewardship.

The McNaughtons were well aware of the financial situation at United. They looked at publicly available financial results and annual reports. Last year, United reported a profit of $20.1 billion on revenues of $324.2 billion.

When discussing the case with Penn State, Ms. Light said, she told university administrators that United could pay for a year of her son’s treatment using just minutes’ worth of profit.
 

‘Betrayed’

Mr. McNaughton has been able to continue receiving his infusions for now, anyway. In October, United notified him it was once again reviewing his care, although the insurer quickly reversed course when his lawyer intervened. United, in a court filing, said the review was a mistake and that it had erred in putting Mr. McNaughton’s claims into pending status.

Mr. McNaughton said he is fortunate his parents were employed at the same school he was attending, which was critical in getting the attention of administrators there. But that help had its limits.

In June 2021, just a week after United told Mr. McNaughton it would not cover his treatment plan in the upcoming plan year, Penn State essentially walked away from the matter.

In an email to the McNaughtons and United, Penn State Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Andrea Dowhower wrote that administrators “have observed an unfortunate breakdown in communication” between Mr. McNaughton and his family and the university health insurance plan, “which appears from our perspective to have resulted in a standstill between the two parties.” While she proposed some potential steps to help settle the matter, she wrote that “Penn State’s role in this process is as a resource for students like Chris who, for whatever reason, have experienced difficulty navigating the complex world of health insurance.” The university’s role “is limited,” she wrote, and the school “simply must leave” the issue of the best treatment for Mr. McNaughton to “the appropriate health care professionals.”

In a statement, a Penn State spokesperson wrote that “as a third party in this arrangement, the University’s role is limited and Penn State officials can only help a student manage an issue based on information that a student/family, medical personnel, and/or insurance provider give – with the hope that all information is accurate and that the lines of communication remain open between the insured and the insurer.”

Penn State declined to provide financial information about the plan. However, the university and United share at least one tie that they have not publicly disclosed.

When the McNaughtons first reached out to the university for help, they were referred to the school’s student health insurance coordinator. The official, Heather Klinger, wrote in an email to the family in February 2021 that “I appreciate your trusting me to resolve this for you.”

In April 2022, United began paying Ms. Klinger’s salary, an arrangement which is not noted on the university website. Ms. Klinger appears in the online staff directory on the Penn State University Health Services web page, and has a university phone number, a university address, and a Penn State email listed as her contact. The school said she has maintained a part-time status with the university to allow her to access relevant data systems at both the university and United.

The university said students “benefit” from having a United employee to handle questions about insurance coverage and that the arrangement is “not uncommon” for student health plans.

The family was dismayed to learn that Ms. Klinger was now a full-time employee of United.

“We did feel betrayed,” Ms. Light said. Ms. Klinger did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton’s fight to maintain his treatment regimen has come at a cost of time, debilitating stress, and depression. “My biggest fear is realizing I might have to do this every year of my life,” he said.

Mr. McNaughton said one motivation for his lawsuit was to expose how insurers like United make decisions about what care they will pay for and what they will not. The case remains pending, a court docket shows.

He has been accepted to Penn State’s law school. He hopes to become a health care lawyer working for patients who find themselves in situations similar to his.

He plans to re-enroll in the United health care plan when he starts school next fall.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In May 2021, a nurse at UnitedHealthcare called a colleague to share some welcome news about a problem the two had been grappling with for weeks.

United provided the health insurance plan for students at Penn State University. It was a large and potentially lucrative account: lots of young, healthy students paying premiums in, not too many huge medical reimbursements going out.

But one student was costing United a lot of money. Christopher McNaughton suffered from a crippling case of ulcerative colitis – an ailment that caused him to develop severe arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, numbing fatigue, and life-threatening blood clots. His medical bills were running nearly $2 million a year.

United had flagged Mr. McNaughton’s case as a “high dollar account,” and the company was reviewing whether it needed to keep paying for the expensive cocktail of drugs crafted by a Mayo Clinic specialist that had brought Mr. McNaughton’s disease under control after he’d been through years of misery.

On the 2021 phone call, which was recorded by the company, nurse Victoria Kavanaugh told her colleague that a doctor contracted by United to review the case had concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was “not medically necessary.” Her colleague, Dave Opperman, reacted to the news with a long laugh.

“I knew that was coming,” said Mr. Opperman, who heads up a United subsidiary that brokered the health insurance contract between United and Penn State. “I did too,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied.

Mr. Opperman then complained about Mr. McNaughton’s mother, whom he referred to as “this woman,” for “screaming and yelling” and “throwing tantrums” during calls with United.

The pair agreed that any appeal of the United doctor’s denial of the treatment would be a waste of the family’s time and money.

“We’re still gonna say no,” Mr. Opperman said.

More than 200 million Americans are covered by private health insurance. But data from state and federal regulators shows that insurers reject about 1 in 7 claims for treatment. Many people, faced with fighting insurance companies, simply give up: One study found that Americans file formal appeals on only 0.1% of claims denied by insurers under the Affordable Care Act.

Insurers have wide discretion in crafting what is covered by their policies, beyond some basic services mandated by federal and state law. They often deny claims for services that they deem not “medically necessary.”

When United refused to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment for that reason, his family did something unusual. They fought back with a lawsuit, which uncovered a trove of materials, including internal emails and tape-recorded exchanges among company employees. Those records offer an extraordinary behind-the-scenes look at how one of America’s leading health care insurers relentlessly fought to reduce spending on care, even as its profits rose to record levels.

As United reviewed Mr. McNaughton’s treatment, he and his family were often in the dark about what was happening or their rights. Meanwhile, United employees misrepresented critical findings and ignored warnings from doctors about the risks of altering Mr. McNaughton’s drug plan.

At one point, court records show, United inaccurately reported to Penn State and the family that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to lower the doses of his medication. Another time, a doctor paid by United concluded that denying payments for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment could put his health at risk, but the company buried his report and did not consider its findings. The insurer did, however, consider a report submitted by a company doctor who rubber-stamped the recommendation of a United nurse to reject paying for the treatment.

United declined to answer specific questions about the case, even after Mr. McNaughton signed a release provided by the insurer to allow it to discuss details of his interactions with the company. United noted that it ultimately paid for all of Mr. McNaughton’s treatments. In a written response, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo wrote that the company’s guiding concern was Mr. McNaughton’s well-being.

“Mr. McNaughton’s treatment involves medication dosages that far exceed [Food and Drug Administration] guidelines,” the statement said. “In cases like this, we review treatment plans based on current clinical guidelines to help ensure patient safety.”

But the records reviewed by ProPublica show that United had another, equally urgent goal in dealing with Mr. McNaughton. In emails, officials calculated what Mr. McNaughton was costing them to keep his crippling disease at bay and how much they would save if they forced him to undergo a cheaper treatment that had already failed him. As the family pressed the company to back down, first through Penn State and then through a lawsuit, the United officials handling the case bristled.

“This is just unbelievable,” Ms. Kavanaugh said of Mr. McNaughton’s family in one call to discuss his case. ”They’re just really pushing the envelope, and I’m surprised, like I don’t even know what to say.”
 

The same meal every day

Now 31, Mr. McNaughton grew up in State College, Pa., just blocks from the Penn State campus. Both of his parents are faculty members at the university.

In the winter of 2014, Mr. McNaughton was halfway through his junior year at Bard College in New York. At 6 feet, 4 inches tall, he was a guard on the basketball team and had started most of the team’s games since the start of his sophomore year. He was majoring in psychology.

When Mr. McNaughton returned to school after the winter holiday break, he started to experience frequent bouts of bloody diarrhea. After just a few days on campus, he went home to State College, where doctors diagnosed him with a severe case of ulcerative colitis.

A chronic inflammatory bowel disease that causes swelling and ulcers in the digestive tract, ulcerative colitis has no cure, and ongoing treatment is needed to alleviate symptoms and prevent serious health complications. The majority of cases produce mild to moderate symptoms. Mr. McNaughton’s case was severe.

Treatments for ulcerative colitis include steroids and special drugs known as biologics that work to reduce inflammation in the large intestine.

Mr. McNaughton, however, failed to get meaningful relief from the drugs his doctors initially prescribed. He was experiencing bloody diarrhea up to 20 times a day, with such severe stomach pain that he spent much of his day curled up on a couch. He had little appetite and lost 50 pounds. Severe anemia left him fatigued. He suffered from other conditions related to his colitis, including crippling arthritis. He was hospitalized several times to treat dangerous blood clots.

For 2 years, in an effort to help alleviate his symptoms, he ate the same meals every day: Rice Chex cereal and scrambled eggs for breakfast, a cup of white rice with plain chicken breast for lunch, and a similar meal for dinner, occasionally swapping in tilapia.

His hometown doctors referred him to a specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, who tried unsuccessfully to bring his disease under control. That doctor ended up referring Mr. McNaughton to Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been ranked as the best gastroenterology hospital in the country every year since 1990 by U.S. News & World Report.

For his first visit with Dr. Loftus in May 2015, Mr. McNaughton and his mother, Janice Light, charted hospitals along the 900-mile drive from Pennsylvania to Minnesota in case they needed medical help along the way.

Mornings were the hardest. Mr. McNaughton often spent several hours in the bathroom at the start of the day. To prepare for his meeting with Dr. Loftus, he set his alarm for 3:30 a.m. so he could be ready for the 7:30 a.m. appointment. Even with that preparation, he had to stop twice to use a bathroom on the 5-minute walk from the hotel to the clinic. When they met, Dr. Loftus looked at Mr. McNaughton and told him that he appeared incapacitated. It was, he told the student, as if Mr. McNaughton were chained to the bathroom, with no outside life. He had not been able to return to school and spent most days indoors, managing his symptoms as best he could.

Mr. McNaughton had tried a number of medications by this point, none of which worked. This pattern would repeat itself during the first couple of years that Dr. Loftus treated him.

In addition to trying to find a treatment that would bring Mr. McNaughton’s colitis into remission, Dr. Loftus wanted to wean him off the steroid prednisone, which he had been taking since his initial diagnosis in 2014. The drug is commonly prescribed to colitis patients to control inflammation, but prolonged use can lead to severe side effects including cataracts, osteoporosis, increased risk of infection, and fatigue. Mr. McNaughton also experienced “moon face,” a side effect caused by the shifting of fat deposits that results in the face becoming puffy and rounder.

In 2018, Dr. Loftus and Mr. McNaughton decided to try an unusual regimen. Many patients with inflammatory bowel diseases such as colitis take a single biologic drug as treatment. Whereas traditional drugs are chemically synthesized, biologics are manufactured in living systems, such as plant or animal cells. A year’s supply of an individual biologic drug can cost up to $500,000. They are often given through infusions in a medical facility, which adds to the cost.

Mr. McNaughton had tried individual biologics, and then two in combination, without much success. He and Dr. Loftus then agreed to try two biologic drugs together at doses well above those recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. The federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimates one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label uses.

There are drawbacks to the practice. Since some uses and doses of particular drugs have not been extensively studied, the risks and efficacy of using them off-label are not well known. Also, some drug manufacturers have improperly pushed off-label usage of their products to boost sales despite little or no evidence to support their use in those situations. Like many leading experts and researchers in his field, Dr. Loftus has been paid to do consulting related to the biologic drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton. The payments related to those drugs have ranged from a total of $1,440 in 2020 to $51,235 in 2018. Dr. Loftus said much of his work with pharmaceutical companies was related to conducting clinical trials on new drugs.

In cases of off-label prescribing, patients are depending upon their doctors’ expertise and experience with the drug. “In this case, I was comfortable that the potential benefits to Chris outweighed the risks,” Dr. Loftus said.

There was evidence that the treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton might work, including studies that had found dual biologic therapy to be efficacious and safe. The two drugs he takes, Entyvio and Remicade, have the same purpose – to reduce inflammation in the large intestine – but each works differently in the body. Remicade, marketed by Janssen Biotech, targets a protein that causes inflammation. Entyvio, made by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, works by preventing an excess of white blood cells from entering into the gastrointestinal tract.

As for any suggestion by United doctors that his treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton was out of bounds or dangerous, Dr. Loftus said “my treatment of Chris was not clinically inappropriate – as was shown by Chris’ positive outcome.”

The unusual high-dose combination of two biologic drugs produced a remarkable change in Mr. McNaughton. He no longer had blood in his stool, and his trips to the bathroom were cut from 20 times a day to 3 or 4. He was able to eat different foods and put on weight. He had more energy. He tapered off prednisone.

“If you told me in 2015 that I would be living like this, I would have asked where do I sign up,” Mr. McNaughton said of the change he experienced with the new drug regimen.

When he first started the new treatment, Mr. McNaughton was covered under his family’s plan, and all his bills were paid. Mr. McNaughton enrolled at the university in 2020. Before switching to United’s plan for students, Mr. McNaughton and his parents consulted with a health advocacy service offered to faculty members. A benefits specialist assured them the drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton would be covered by United.

Mr. McNaughton joined the student plan in July 2020, and his infusions that month and the following month were paid for by United. In September, the insurer indicated payment on his claims was “pending,” something it did for his other claims that came in during the rest of the year.

Mr. McNaughton and his family were worried. They called United to make sure there wasn’t a problem; the insurer told them, they said, that it only needed to check his medical records. When the family called again, United told them it had the documentation needed, they said. United, in a court filing last year, said it received two calls from the family and each time indicated that all of the necessary medical records had not yet been received.

In January 2021, Mr. McNaughton received a new explanation of benefits for the prior months. All of the claims for his care, beginning in September, were no longer “pending.” They were stamped “DENIED.” The total outstanding bill for his treatment was $807,086.

When Mr. McNaughton’s mother reached a United customer service representative the next day to ask why bills that had been paid in the summer were being denied for the fall, the representative told her the account was being reviewed because of “a high dollar amount on the claims,” according to a recording of the call.


 

Misrepresentations

With United refusing to pay, the family was terrified of being stuck with medical bills that would bankrupt them and deprive Mr. McNaughton of treatment that they considered miraculous.

They turned to Penn State for help. Ms. Light and Mr. McNaughton’s father, David McNaughton, hoped their position as faculty members would make the school more willing to intervene on their behalf.

“After more than 30 years on faculty, my husband and I know that this is not how Penn State would want its students to be treated,” Ms. Light wrote to a school official in February 2021.

In response to questions from ProPublica, Penn State spokesperson Lisa Powers wrote that “supporting the health and well-being of our students is always of primary importance” and that “our hearts go out to any student and family impacted by a serious medical condition.” The university, she wrote, does “not comment on students’ individual circumstances or disclose information from their records.” Mr. McNaughton offered to grant Penn State whatever permissions it needed to speak about his case with ProPublica. The school, however, wrote that it would not comment “even if confidentiality has been waived.”

The family appealed to school administrators. Because the effectiveness of biologics wanes in some patients if doses are skipped, Mr. McNaughton and his parents were worried about even a delay in treatment. His doctor wrote that if he missed scheduled infusions of the drugs, there was “a high likelihood they would no longer be effective.”

During a conference call arranged by Penn State officials on March 5, 2021, United agreed to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s care through the end of the plan year that August. Penn State immediately notified the family of the “wonderful news” while also apologizing for “the stress this has caused Chris and your family.”

Behind the scenes, Mr. McNaughton’s review had “gone all the way to the top” at United’s student health plan division, Ms. Kavanaugh, the nurse, said in a recorded conversation.

The family’s relief was short-lived. A month later, United started another review of Mr. McNaughton’s care, overseen by Ms. Kavanaugh, to determine if it would pay for the treatment in the upcoming plan year.

The nurse sent the Mr. McNaughton case to a company called Medical Review Institute of America. Insurers often turn to companies like MRIoA to review coverage decisions involving expensive treatments or specialized care.

Ms. Kavanaugh, who was assigned to a special investigations unit at United, let her feelings about the matter be known in a recorded telephone call with a representative of MRIoA.

“This school apparently is a big client of ours,” she said. She then shared her opinion of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment. “Really this is a case of a kid who’s getting a drug way too much, like too much of a dose,” Ms. Kavanaugh said. She said it was “insane that they would even think that this is reasonable” and “to be honest with you, they’re awfully pushy considering that we are paying through the end of this school year.”

On a call with an outside contractor, the United nurse claimed Mr. McNaughton was on a higher dose of medication than the FDA approved, which is a common practice.

MRIoA sent the case to Vikas Pabby, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health and a professor at the university’s medical school. His May 2021 review of Mr. McNaughton’s case was just one of more than 300 Dr. Pabby did for MRIoA that month, for which he was paid $23,000 in total, according to a log of his work produced in the lawsuit.

In a May 4, 2021, report, Dr. Pabby concluded Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was not medically necessary, because United’s policies for the two drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton did not support using them in combination.

Insurers spell out what services they cover in plan policies, lengthy documents that can be confusing and difficult to understand. Many policies, such as Mr. McNaughton’s, contain a provision that treatments and procedures must be “medically necessary” in order to be covered. The definition of medically necessary differs by plan. Some don’t even define the term. Mr. McNaughton’s policy contains a five-part definition, including that the treatment must be “in accordance with the standards of good medical policy” and “the most appropriate supply or level of service which can be safely provided.”

Behind the scenes at United, Mr. Opperman and Ms. Kavanaugh agreed that if Mr. McNaughton were to appeal Dr. Pabby’s decision, the insurer would simply rule against him. “I just think it’s a waste of money and time to appeal and send it to another one when we know we’re gonna get the same answer,” Mr. Opperman said, according to a recording in court files. At Mr. Opperman’s urging, United decided to skip the usual appeals process and arrange for Dr. Pabby to have a so-called “peer-to-peer” discussion with Dr. Loftus, the Mayo physician treating Mr. McNaughton. Such a conversation, in which a patient’s doctor talks with an insurance company’s doctor to advocate for the prescribed treatment, usually occurs only after a customer has appealed a denial and the appeal has been rejected.

When Ms. Kavanaugh called Dr. Loftus’ office to set up a conversation with Dr. Pabby, she explained it was an urgent matter and had been requested by Mr. McNaughton. “You know I’ve just gotten to know Christopher,” she explained, although she had never spoken with him. “We’re trying to advocate and help and get this peer-to-peer set up.”

Mr. McNaughton, meanwhile, had no idea at the time that a United doctor had decided his treatment was unnecessary and that the insurer was trying to set up a phone call with his physician.

In the peer-to-peer conversation, Dr. Loftus told Dr. Pabby that Mr. McNaughton had “a very complicated case” and that lower doses had not worked for him, according to an internal MRIoA memo.

Following his conversation with Dr. Loftus, Dr. Pabby created a second report for United. He recommended the insurer pay for both drugs, but at reduced doses. He added new language saying that the safety of using both drugs at the higher levels “is not established.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh shared the May 12 decision from Dr. Pabby with others at United, her boss responded with an email calling it “great news.”

Then Mr. Opperman sent an email that puzzled the McNaughtons.

In it, Mr. Opperman claimed that Dr. Loftus and Dr. Pabby had agreed that Mr. McNaughton should be on significantly lower doses of both drugs. He said Dr. Loftus “will work with the patient to start titrating them down to a normal dose range.” Mr. Opperman wrote that United would cover Mr. McNaughton’s treatment in the coming year, but only at the reduced doses. Mr. Opperman did not respond to emails and phone messages seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton didn’t believe a word of it. He had already tried and failed treatment with those drugs at lower doses, and it was Dr. Loftus who had upped the doses, leading to his remission from severe colitis.

The only thing that made sense to Mr. McNaughton was that the treatment United said it would now pay for was dramatically cheaper – saving the company at least hundreds of thousands of dollars a year – than his prescribed treatment because it sliced the size of the doses by more than half.

When the family contacted Dr. Loftus for an explanation, they were outraged by what they heard. Dr. Loftus told them that he had never recommended lowering the dosage. In a letter, Dr. Loftus wrote that changing Mr. McNaughton’s treatment “would have serious detrimental effects on both his short term and long term health and could potentially involve life threatening complications. This would ultimately incur far greater medical costs. Chris was on the doses suggested by United Healthcare before, and they were not at all effective.”

It would not be until the lawsuit that it would become clear how Dr. Loftus’ conversations had been so seriously misrepresented.

Under questioning by Mr. McNaughton’s lawyers, Ms. Kavanaugh acknowledged that she was the source of the incorrect claim that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to a change in treatment.

“I incorrectly made an assumption that they had come to some sort of agreement,” she said in a deposition last August. “It was my first peer-to-peer. I did not realize that that simply does not occur.”

Ms. Kavanaugh did not respond to emails and telephone messages seeking comment.

When the McNaughtons first learned of Mr. Opperman’s inaccurate report of the phone call with Dr. Loftus, it unnerved them. They started to question if their case would be fairly reviewed.

“When we got the denial and they lied about what Dr. Loftus said, it just hit me that none of this matters,” Mr. McNaughton said. “They will just say or do anything to get rid of me. It delegitimized the entire review process. When I got that denial, I was crushed.”


 

A buried report

While the family tried to sort out the inaccurate report, United continued putting the McNaughton case in front of more company doctors.

On May 21, 2021, United sent the case to one of its own doctors, Nady Cates, MD, for an additional review. The review was marked “escalated issue.” Dr. Cates is a United medical director, a title used by many insurers for physicians who review cases. It is work he has been doing as an employee of health insurers since 1989 and at United since 2010. He has not practiced medicine since the early 1990s.

Dr. Cates, in a deposition, said he stopped seeing patients because of the long hours involved and because “AIDS was coming around then. I was seeing a lot of military folks who had venereal diseases, and I guess I was concerned about being exposed.” He transitioned to reviewing paperwork for the insurance industry, he said, because “I guess I was a chicken.”

When he had practiced, Dr. Cates said, he hadn’t treated patients with ulcerative colitis and had referred those cases to a gastroenterologist.

He said his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case primarily involved reading a United nurse’s recommendation to deny his care and making sure “that there wasn’t a decimal place that was out of line.” He said he copied and pasted the nurse’s recommendation and typed “agree” on his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case.

Dr. Cates said that he does about a hundred reviews a week. He said that in his reviews he typically checks to see if any medications are prescribed in accordance with the insurer’s guidelines, and if not, he denies it. United’s policies, he said, prevented him from considering that Mr. McNaughton had failed other treatments or that Dr. Loftus was a leading expert in his field.

“You are giving zero weight to the treating doctor’s opinion on the necessity of the treatment regimen?” a lawyer asked Dr. Cates in his deposition. He responded, “Yeah.”

Attempts to contact Dr. Cates for comment were unsuccessful.

At the same time Dr. Cates was looking at Mr. McNaughton’s case, yet another review was underway at MRIoA. United said it sent the case back to MRIoA after the insurer received the letter from Dr. Loftus warning of the life-threatening complications that might occur if the dosages were reduced.

On May 24, 2021, the new report requested by MRIoA arrived. It came to a completely different conclusion than all of the previous reviews.

Nitin Kumar, MD, a gastroenterologist in Illinois, concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s established treatment plan was not only medically necessary and appropriate but that lowering his doses “can result in a lack of effective therapy of Ulcerative Colitis, with complications of uncontrolled disease (including dysplasia leading to colorectal cancer), flare, hospitalization, need for surgery, and toxic megacolon.”

Unlike other doctors who produced reports for United, Dr. Kumar discussed the harm that Mr. McNaughton might suffer if United required him to change his treatment. “His disease is significantly severe, with diagnosis at a young age,” Dr. Kumar wrote. “He has failed every biologic medication class recommended by guidelines. Therefore, guidelines can no longer be applied in this case.” He cited six studies of patients using two biologic drugs together and wrote that they revealed no significant safety issues and found the therapy to be “broadly successful.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh learned of Dr. Kumar’s report, she quickly moved to quash it and get the case returned to Dr. Pabby, according to her deposition.

In a recorded telephone call, Ms. Kavanaugh told an MRIoA representative that “I had asked that this go back through Dr. Pabby, and it went through a different doctor and they had a much different result.” After further discussion, the MRIoA representative agreed to send the case back to Dr. Pabby. “I appreciate that,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied. “I just want to make sure, because, I mean, it’s obviously a very different result than what we’ve been getting on this case.”

MRIoA case notes show that at 7:04 a.m. on May 25, 2021, Dr. Pabby was assigned to take a look at the case for the third time. At 7:27 a.m., the notes indicate, Dr. Pabby again rejected Mr. McNaughton’s treatment plan. While noting it was “difficult to control” Mr. McNaughton’s ulcerative colitis, Dr. Pabby added that his doses “far exceed what is approved by literature” and that the “safety of the requested doses is not supported by literature.”

In a deposition, Ms. Kavanaugh said that after she opened the Kumar report and read that he was supporting Mr. McNaughton’s current treatment plan, she immediately spoke to her supervisor, who told her to call MRIoA and have the case sent back to Dr. Pabby for review.

Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t save a copy of the Kumar report, nor did she forward it to anyone at United or to officials at Penn State who had been inquiring about the McNaughton case. “I didn’t because it shouldn’t have existed,” she said. “It should have gone back to Dr. Pabby.”

When asked if the Kumar report caused her any concerns given his warning that Mr. McNaughton risked cancer or hospitalization if his regimen were changed, Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t read his full report. “I saw that it was not the correct doctor, I saw the initial outcome and I was asked to send it back,” she said. Ms. Kavanaugh added, “I have a lot of empathy for this member, but it needed to go back to the peer-to-peer reviewer.”

In a court filing, United said Ms. Kavanaugh was correct in insisting that Dr. Pabby conduct the review and that MRIoA confirmed that Dr. Pabby should have been the one doing the review.

The Kumar report was not provided to Mr. McNaughton when his lawyer, Jonathan M. Gesk, first asked United and MRIoA for any reviews of the case. Mr. Gesk discovered it by accident when he was listening to a recorded telephone call produced by United in which Ms. Kavanaugh mentioned a report number Mr. Gesk had not heard before. He then called MRIoA, which confirmed the report existed and eventually provided it to him.

Dr. Pabby asked ProPublica to direct any questions about his involvement in the matter to MRIoA. The company did not respond to questions from ProPublica about the case.
 

A sense of hopelessness

When Mr. McNaughton enrolled at Penn State in 2020, it brought a sense of normalcy that he had lost when he was first diagnosed with colitis. He still needed monthly hours-long infusions and suffered occasional flare-ups and symptoms, but he was attending classes in person and living a life similar to the one he had before his diagnosis.

It was a striking contrast to the previous 6 years, which he had spent largely confined to his parents’ house in State College. The frequent bouts of diarrhea made it difficult to go out. He didn’t talk much to friends and spent as much time as he could studying potential treatments and reviewing ongoing clinical trials. He tried to keep up with the occasional online course, but his disease made it difficult to make any real progress toward a degree.

United, in correspondence with Mr. McNaughton, noted that its review of his care was “not a treatment decision. Treatment decisions are made between you and your physician.” But by threatening not to pay for his medications, or only to pay for a different regimen, Mr. McNaughton said, United was in fact attempting to dictate his treatment. From his perspective, the insurer was playing doctor, making decisions without ever examining him or even speaking to him.

The idea of changing his treatment or stopping it altogether caused constant worry for Mr. McNaughton, exacerbating his colitis and triggering physical symptoms, according to his doctors. Those included a large ulcer on his leg and welts under his skin on his thighs and shin that made his leg muscles stiff and painful to the point where he couldn’t bend his leg or walk properly. There were daily migraines and severe stomach pain. “I was consumed with this situation,” Mr. McNaughton said. “My path was unconventional, but I was proud of myself for fighting back and finishing school and getting my life back on track. I thought they were singling me out. My biggest fear was going back to the hell.”

Mr. McNaughton said he contemplated suicide on several occasions, dreading a return to a life where he was housebound or hospitalized.

Mr. McNaughton and his parents talked about his possibly moving to Canada where his grandmother lived and seeking treatment there under the nation’s government health plan.

Dr. Loftus connected Mr. McNaughton with a psychologist who specializes in helping patients with chronic digestive diseases.

The psychologist, Tiffany Taft, PsyD, said Mr. McNaughton was not an unusual case. About one in three patients with diseases like colitis suffer from medical trauma or PTSD related to it, she said, often the result of issues related to getting appropriate treatment approved by insurers.

“You get into hopelessness,” she said of the depression that accompanies fighting with insurance companies over care. “They feel like ‘I can’t fix that. I am screwed.’ When you can’t control things with what an insurance company is doing, anxiety, PTSD and depression get mixed together.”

In the case of Mr. McNaughton, Dr. Taft said, he was being treated by one of the best gastroenterologists in the world, was doing well with his treatment, and then was suddenly notified he might be on the hook for nearly a million dollars in medical charges without access to his medications. “It sends you immediately into panic about all these horrific things that could happen,” Dr. Taft said. The physical and mental symptoms Mr. McNaughton suffered after his care was threatened were “triggered” by the stress he experienced, she said.

In early June 2021, United informed Mr. McNaughton in a letter that it would not cover the cost of his treatment regimen in the next academic year, starting in August. The insurer said it would pay only for a treatment plan that called for a significant reduction in the doses of the drugs he took.

United wrote that the decision came after his “records have been reviewed three times and the medical reviewers have concluded that the medication as prescribed does not meet the Medical Necessity requirement of the plan.”

In August 2021, Mr. McNaughton filed a federal lawsuit accusing United of acting in bad faith and unreasonably making treatment decisions based on financial concerns and not what was the best and most effective treatment. It claims United had a duty to find information that supported Mr. McNaughton’s claim for treatment rather than looking for ways to deny coverage.

United, in a court filing, said it did not breach any duty it owed to Mr. McNaughton and acted in good faith. On Sept. 20, 2021, a month after filing the lawsuit, and with United again balking at paying for his treatment, Mr. McNaughton asked a judge to grant a temporary restraining order requiring United to pay for his care. With the looming threat of a court hearing on the motion, United quickly agreed to cover the cost of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment through the end of the 2021-2022 academic year. It also dropped a demand requiring Mr. McNaughton to settle the matter as a condition of the insurer paying for his treatment as prescribed by Dr. Loftus, according to an email sent by United’s lawyer.
 

The cost of treatment

It is not surprising that insurers are carefully scrutinizing the care of patients treated with biologics, which are among the most expensive medications on the market. Biologics are considered specialty drugs, a class that includes the best-selling Humira, used to treat arthritis. Specialty drug spending in the United States is expected to reach $505 billion in 2023, according to an estimate from Optum, United’s health services division. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit that analyzes the value of drugs, found in 2020 that the biologic drugs used to treat patients like Mr. McNaughton are often effective but overpriced for their therapeutic benefit. To be judged cost-effective by ICER, the biologics should sell at a steep discount to their current market price, the panel found.

A panel convened by ICER to review its analysis cautioned that insurance coverage “should be structured to prevent situations in which patients are forced to choose a treatment approach on the basis of cost.” ICER also found examples where insurance company policies failed to keep pace with updates to clinical practice guidelines based on emerging research.

United officials did not make the cost of treatment an issue when discussing Mr. McNaughton’s care with Penn State administrators or the family.

Bill Truxal, the president of UnitedHealthcare StudentResources, the company’s student health plan division, told a Penn State official that the insurer wanted the “best for the student” and it had “nothing to do with cost,” according to notes the official took of the conversation.

Behind the scenes, however, the price of Mr. McNaughton’s care was front and center at United.

In one email, Mr. Opperman asked about the cost difference if the insurer insisted on paying only for greatly reduced doses of the biologic drugs. Ms. Kavanaugh responded that the insurer had paid $1.1 million in claims for Mr. McNaughton’s care as of the middle of May 2021. If the reduced doses had been in place, the amount would have been cut to $260,218, she wrote.

United was keeping close tabs on Mr. McNaughton at the highest levels of the company. On Aug. 2, 2021, Mr. Opperman notified Mr. Truxal and a United lawyer that Mr. McNaughton “has just purchased the plan again for the 21-22 school year.”

A month later, Ms. Kavanaugh shared another calculation with United executives showing that the insurer spent over $1.7 million on Mr. McNaughton in the prior plan year.

United officials strategized about how to best explain why it was reviewing Mr. McNaughton’s drug regimen, according to an internal email. They pointed to a justification often used by health insurers when denying claims. “As the cost of healthcare continues to climb to soaring heights, it has been determined that a judicious review of these drugs should be included” in order to “make healthcare more affordable for our members,” Ms. Kavanaugh offered as a potential talking point in an April 23, 2021, email.

Three days later, UnitedHealth Group filed an annual statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing its pay for top executives in the prior year. Then-CEO David Wichmann was paid $17.9 million in salary and other compensation in 2020. Wichmann retired early the following year, and his total compensation that year exceeded $140 million, according to calculations in a compensation database maintained by the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. The newspaper said the amount was the most paid to an executive in the state since it started tracking pay more than 2 decades ago. About $110 million of that total came from Wichmann exercising stock options accumulated during his stewardship.

The McNaughtons were well aware of the financial situation at United. They looked at publicly available financial results and annual reports. Last year, United reported a profit of $20.1 billion on revenues of $324.2 billion.

When discussing the case with Penn State, Ms. Light said, she told university administrators that United could pay for a year of her son’s treatment using just minutes’ worth of profit.
 

‘Betrayed’

Mr. McNaughton has been able to continue receiving his infusions for now, anyway. In October, United notified him it was once again reviewing his care, although the insurer quickly reversed course when his lawyer intervened. United, in a court filing, said the review was a mistake and that it had erred in putting Mr. McNaughton’s claims into pending status.

Mr. McNaughton said he is fortunate his parents were employed at the same school he was attending, which was critical in getting the attention of administrators there. But that help had its limits.

In June 2021, just a week after United told Mr. McNaughton it would not cover his treatment plan in the upcoming plan year, Penn State essentially walked away from the matter.

In an email to the McNaughtons and United, Penn State Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Andrea Dowhower wrote that administrators “have observed an unfortunate breakdown in communication” between Mr. McNaughton and his family and the university health insurance plan, “which appears from our perspective to have resulted in a standstill between the two parties.” While she proposed some potential steps to help settle the matter, she wrote that “Penn State’s role in this process is as a resource for students like Chris who, for whatever reason, have experienced difficulty navigating the complex world of health insurance.” The university’s role “is limited,” she wrote, and the school “simply must leave” the issue of the best treatment for Mr. McNaughton to “the appropriate health care professionals.”

In a statement, a Penn State spokesperson wrote that “as a third party in this arrangement, the University’s role is limited and Penn State officials can only help a student manage an issue based on information that a student/family, medical personnel, and/or insurance provider give – with the hope that all information is accurate and that the lines of communication remain open between the insured and the insurer.”

Penn State declined to provide financial information about the plan. However, the university and United share at least one tie that they have not publicly disclosed.

When the McNaughtons first reached out to the university for help, they were referred to the school’s student health insurance coordinator. The official, Heather Klinger, wrote in an email to the family in February 2021 that “I appreciate your trusting me to resolve this for you.”

In April 2022, United began paying Ms. Klinger’s salary, an arrangement which is not noted on the university website. Ms. Klinger appears in the online staff directory on the Penn State University Health Services web page, and has a university phone number, a university address, and a Penn State email listed as her contact. The school said she has maintained a part-time status with the university to allow her to access relevant data systems at both the university and United.

The university said students “benefit” from having a United employee to handle questions about insurance coverage and that the arrangement is “not uncommon” for student health plans.

The family was dismayed to learn that Ms. Klinger was now a full-time employee of United.

“We did feel betrayed,” Ms. Light said. Ms. Klinger did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton’s fight to maintain his treatment regimen has come at a cost of time, debilitating stress, and depression. “My biggest fear is realizing I might have to do this every year of my life,” he said.

Mr. McNaughton said one motivation for his lawsuit was to expose how insurers like United make decisions about what care they will pay for and what they will not. The case remains pending, a court docket shows.

He has been accepted to Penn State’s law school. He hopes to become a health care lawyer working for patients who find themselves in situations similar to his.

He plans to re-enroll in the United health care plan when he starts school next fall.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.