Neurology

Slowing progression of, rather than stopping, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) has measurable benefits for patients and families and may be a more realistic goal for clinical AD drug trials, a new report suggests.

The report is a yearlong undertaking by an expert work group convened by the Alzheimer’s Association and was prompted, in part, by the fallout from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s controversial decision to grant aducanumab (Aduhelm) accelerated approval, which came over the objection of an advisory panel that found the drug was ineffective.

The report’s authors call for a “reframing” of how researchers define “clinically meaningful” in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), noting that it’s time to adjust expectations of outcomes from relatively short clinical trials.

“Without lowering the bar, are we expecting too much from a clinical trial by expecting that unless the disease is halted in its tracks and there’s no progression, we failed at treatment?” the report’s lead author and group leader Ronald C. Petersen, MD, PhD, lead author, chair of the work group, and professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization.

Interpretations of clinical meaningfulness are used in the drug approval process and in decisions about whether an insurer will cover the cost of treatment, the authors note.

While the report doesn’t provide a consensus definition of clinically meaningful benefit, it does offer a starting point for a conversation about how the phrase should be defined in the context of RCTs for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in AD, Dr. Petersen said.

“What we tried to do was to put it into some kind of perspective and at least have people reflect on this: If you’re going to design the perfect drug trial in Alzheimer’s disease, what would it be? We wanted to get people to think about it without digging in their heels for or against,” he added.

The report was published online  in Alzheimer’s and Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
 

A proactive measure

The expert group began its work in January 2022, less than a year after the FDA approved aducanumab. Since the panel began its work, the FDA has approved a second AD drug, lecanemab (Leqembi), and denied accelerated approval of a third medication, donanemab.

“At the time we started this group, we had one approved treatment, and we just knew that there were others on the way, and we needed to be prepared to have this conversation and be more proactive than reactive,” Christopher Weber, PhD, director of global science initiatives for the Alzheimer’s Association and co-author of the report, said in an interview.

The work group suggests that simply slowing disease progression might be a desired goal for drug trials, especially early on, before cognition and memory are affected.

They also note that a benefit identified during an 18-month clinical trial may ultimately lead to even more meaningful changes over coming years, well beyond the trial’s end.

In addition, the report authors call for the development of better research tools to more accurately assess meaningful change. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale is currently the key instrument used as a primary outcome measure in RCTs. However, the report’s authors note that it may not be adequate to measure meaningful change in early-stage disease.

“Developing better tools certainly should be on the radar screen for all of us, because I think we can do better,” Dr. Petersen said. “The CDR, as good as it is and as long as it’s been used in the field, is a pretty blunt instrument, and it’s the result of subjective ratings.”
 

‘Quality of mind’

Jason Karlawish, MD, professor of medicine, medical ethics, health policy, and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said measuring the actual impact of a drug on a patient’s disease and quality of life has been a hot topic in the AD field for some time, but settling on a definition of “clinically meaningful” that everyone agrees upon will be a challenge.

“I think the idea of ‘clinically meaningful’ is truly a socially constructed idea,” said Dr. Karlawish, co-director of Penn’s Memory Center, who did not work on the report.

“You can come up with objective measures of cognition, but a measure to call something ‘clinically meaningful’ ultimately requires some sort of negotiated social order among clinicians and patients and others who have immediate interest in the health and well-being of the patient.”

Dr. Karlawish added that he’s interested in the conversations the report might prompt and the challenges it could highlight, especially when it comes to how meaningful clinical benefit can be measured, regardless of how it’s defined.

“Hidden in this conversation about clinically meaningful treatments in Alzheimer’s disease is, frankly, not quality of life, but quality of mind,” said Dr. Karlawish. “No measure captures acceptably the very thing that everyone actually cares a lot about and why we view this disease as so dreadful, which is damage to our mind.”
 

More evidence needed

The development of such tools will take time. What does that mean for drugs already in the pipeline? Members of the work group argue that those trials must move forward at the same time new tools are being created.

“We need to continue to refine, develop better instruments, [and] develop tools that are going to assess the disease in its more subtle features early on, even in the so-called ‘pre-symptomatic’ stage of the disease,” said lead author Dr. Petersen. “We shouldn’t wait for the development of that before intervening if we have a drug that seems to work.”

However, not everyone who agrees with the premise of the report agrees with this position, including Joel S. Perlmutter, MD, professor of neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who also commented on the report.

As reported by this news organization, Dr. Perlmutter was one of three physicians who resigned from the FDA advisory panel that voted against approving aducanumab after the agency moved forward anyway.

“We have to be careful not to recommend DMTs that we hope will help without strong evidence, especially when potential side effects are not trivial,” Dr. Perlmutter said. “We have to have evidence before making these recommendations so we don’t end up harming people more than helping them.”

The report received no specific funding. Dr. Petersen received consulting fees from Roche, Nestle, Merck, Biogen, Eisai, and Genentech. Full disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Perlmutter and Dr. Karlawish report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Slowing progression of, rather than stopping, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) has measurable benefits for patients and families and may be a more realistic goal for clinical AD drug trials, a new report suggests.

The report is a yearlong undertaking by an expert work group convened by the Alzheimer’s Association and was prompted, in part, by the fallout from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s controversial decision to grant aducanumab (Aduhelm) accelerated approval, which came over the objection of an advisory panel that found the drug was ineffective.

The report’s authors call for a “reframing” of how researchers define “clinically meaningful” in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), noting that it’s time to adjust expectations of outcomes from relatively short clinical trials.

“Without lowering the bar, are we expecting too much from a clinical trial by expecting that unless the disease is halted in its tracks and there’s no progression, we failed at treatment?” the report’s lead author and group leader Ronald C. Petersen, MD, PhD, lead author, chair of the work group, and professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization.

Interpretations of clinical meaningfulness are used in the drug approval process and in decisions about whether an insurer will cover the cost of treatment, the authors note.

While the report doesn’t provide a consensus definition of clinically meaningful benefit, it does offer a starting point for a conversation about how the phrase should be defined in the context of RCTs for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in AD, Dr. Petersen said.

“What we tried to do was to put it into some kind of perspective and at least have people reflect on this: If you’re going to design the perfect drug trial in Alzheimer’s disease, what would it be? We wanted to get people to think about it without digging in their heels for or against,” he added.

The report was published online  in Alzheimer’s and Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
 

A proactive measure

The expert group began its work in January 2022, less than a year after the FDA approved aducanumab. Since the panel began its work, the FDA has approved a second AD drug, lecanemab (Leqembi), and denied accelerated approval of a third medication, donanemab.

“At the time we started this group, we had one approved treatment, and we just knew that there were others on the way, and we needed to be prepared to have this conversation and be more proactive than reactive,” Christopher Weber, PhD, director of global science initiatives for the Alzheimer’s Association and co-author of the report, said in an interview.

The work group suggests that simply slowing disease progression might be a desired goal for drug trials, especially early on, before cognition and memory are affected.

They also note that a benefit identified during an 18-month clinical trial may ultimately lead to even more meaningful changes over coming years, well beyond the trial’s end.

In addition, the report authors call for the development of better research tools to more accurately assess meaningful change. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale is currently the key instrument used as a primary outcome measure in RCTs. However, the report’s authors note that it may not be adequate to measure meaningful change in early-stage disease.

“Developing better tools certainly should be on the radar screen for all of us, because I think we can do better,” Dr. Petersen said. “The CDR, as good as it is and as long as it’s been used in the field, is a pretty blunt instrument, and it’s the result of subjective ratings.”
 

‘Quality of mind’

Jason Karlawish, MD, professor of medicine, medical ethics, health policy, and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said measuring the actual impact of a drug on a patient’s disease and quality of life has been a hot topic in the AD field for some time, but settling on a definition of “clinically meaningful” that everyone agrees upon will be a challenge.

“I think the idea of ‘clinically meaningful’ is truly a socially constructed idea,” said Dr. Karlawish, co-director of Penn’s Memory Center, who did not work on the report.

“You can come up with objective measures of cognition, but a measure to call something ‘clinically meaningful’ ultimately requires some sort of negotiated social order among clinicians and patients and others who have immediate interest in the health and well-being of the patient.”

Dr. Karlawish added that he’s interested in the conversations the report might prompt and the challenges it could highlight, especially when it comes to how meaningful clinical benefit can be measured, regardless of how it’s defined.

“Hidden in this conversation about clinically meaningful treatments in Alzheimer’s disease is, frankly, not quality of life, but quality of mind,” said Dr. Karlawish. “No measure captures acceptably the very thing that everyone actually cares a lot about and why we view this disease as so dreadful, which is damage to our mind.”
 

More evidence needed

The development of such tools will take time. What does that mean for drugs already in the pipeline? Members of the work group argue that those trials must move forward at the same time new tools are being created.

“We need to continue to refine, develop better instruments, [and] develop tools that are going to assess the disease in its more subtle features early on, even in the so-called ‘pre-symptomatic’ stage of the disease,” said lead author Dr. Petersen. “We shouldn’t wait for the development of that before intervening if we have a drug that seems to work.”

However, not everyone who agrees with the premise of the report agrees with this position, including Joel S. Perlmutter, MD, professor of neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who also commented on the report.

As reported by this news organization, Dr. Perlmutter was one of three physicians who resigned from the FDA advisory panel that voted against approving aducanumab after the agency moved forward anyway.

“We have to be careful not to recommend DMTs that we hope will help without strong evidence, especially when potential side effects are not trivial,” Dr. Perlmutter said. “We have to have evidence before making these recommendations so we don’t end up harming people more than helping them.”

The report received no specific funding. Dr. Petersen received consulting fees from Roche, Nestle, Merck, Biogen, Eisai, and Genentech. Full disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Perlmutter and Dr. Karlawish report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Slowing progression of, rather than stopping, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) has measurable benefits for patients and families and may be a more realistic goal for clinical AD drug trials, a new report suggests.

The report is a yearlong undertaking by an expert work group convened by the Alzheimer’s Association and was prompted, in part, by the fallout from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s controversial decision to grant aducanumab (Aduhelm) accelerated approval, which came over the objection of an advisory panel that found the drug was ineffective.

The report’s authors call for a “reframing” of how researchers define “clinically meaningful” in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), noting that it’s time to adjust expectations of outcomes from relatively short clinical trials.

“Without lowering the bar, are we expecting too much from a clinical trial by expecting that unless the disease is halted in its tracks and there’s no progression, we failed at treatment?” the report’s lead author and group leader Ronald C. Petersen, MD, PhD, lead author, chair of the work group, and professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization.

Interpretations of clinical meaningfulness are used in the drug approval process and in decisions about whether an insurer will cover the cost of treatment, the authors note.

While the report doesn’t provide a consensus definition of clinically meaningful benefit, it does offer a starting point for a conversation about how the phrase should be defined in the context of RCTs for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in AD, Dr. Petersen said.

“What we tried to do was to put it into some kind of perspective and at least have people reflect on this: If you’re going to design the perfect drug trial in Alzheimer’s disease, what would it be? We wanted to get people to think about it without digging in their heels for or against,” he added.

The report was published online  in Alzheimer’s and Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
 

A proactive measure

The expert group began its work in January 2022, less than a year after the FDA approved aducanumab. Since the panel began its work, the FDA has approved a second AD drug, lecanemab (Leqembi), and denied accelerated approval of a third medication, donanemab.

“At the time we started this group, we had one approved treatment, and we just knew that there were others on the way, and we needed to be prepared to have this conversation and be more proactive than reactive,” Christopher Weber, PhD, director of global science initiatives for the Alzheimer’s Association and co-author of the report, said in an interview.

The work group suggests that simply slowing disease progression might be a desired goal for drug trials, especially early on, before cognition and memory are affected.

They also note that a benefit identified during an 18-month clinical trial may ultimately lead to even more meaningful changes over coming years, well beyond the trial’s end.

In addition, the report authors call for the development of better research tools to more accurately assess meaningful change. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale is currently the key instrument used as a primary outcome measure in RCTs. However, the report’s authors note that it may not be adequate to measure meaningful change in early-stage disease.

“Developing better tools certainly should be on the radar screen for all of us, because I think we can do better,” Dr. Petersen said. “The CDR, as good as it is and as long as it’s been used in the field, is a pretty blunt instrument, and it’s the result of subjective ratings.”
 

‘Quality of mind’

Jason Karlawish, MD, professor of medicine, medical ethics, health policy, and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said measuring the actual impact of a drug on a patient’s disease and quality of life has been a hot topic in the AD field for some time, but settling on a definition of “clinically meaningful” that everyone agrees upon will be a challenge.

“I think the idea of ‘clinically meaningful’ is truly a socially constructed idea,” said Dr. Karlawish, co-director of Penn’s Memory Center, who did not work on the report.

“You can come up with objective measures of cognition, but a measure to call something ‘clinically meaningful’ ultimately requires some sort of negotiated social order among clinicians and patients and others who have immediate interest in the health and well-being of the patient.”

Dr. Karlawish added that he’s interested in the conversations the report might prompt and the challenges it could highlight, especially when it comes to how meaningful clinical benefit can be measured, regardless of how it’s defined.

“Hidden in this conversation about clinically meaningful treatments in Alzheimer’s disease is, frankly, not quality of life, but quality of mind,” said Dr. Karlawish. “No measure captures acceptably the very thing that everyone actually cares a lot about and why we view this disease as so dreadful, which is damage to our mind.”
 

More evidence needed

The development of such tools will take time. What does that mean for drugs already in the pipeline? Members of the work group argue that those trials must move forward at the same time new tools are being created.

“We need to continue to refine, develop better instruments, [and] develop tools that are going to assess the disease in its more subtle features early on, even in the so-called ‘pre-symptomatic’ stage of the disease,” said lead author Dr. Petersen. “We shouldn’t wait for the development of that before intervening if we have a drug that seems to work.”

However, not everyone who agrees with the premise of the report agrees with this position, including Joel S. Perlmutter, MD, professor of neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who also commented on the report.

As reported by this news organization, Dr. Perlmutter was one of three physicians who resigned from the FDA advisory panel that voted against approving aducanumab after the agency moved forward anyway.

“We have to be careful not to recommend DMTs that we hope will help without strong evidence, especially when potential side effects are not trivial,” Dr. Perlmutter said. “We have to have evidence before making these recommendations so we don’t end up harming people more than helping them.”

The report received no specific funding. Dr. Petersen received consulting fees from Roche, Nestle, Merck, Biogen, Eisai, and Genentech. Full disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Perlmutter and Dr. Karlawish report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Butylphthalide, a medication derived from celery seed, may improve outcomes after an acute ischemic stroke when given in addition to thrombolysis or endovascular treatment, a new report suggests.

Patients treated with butylphthalide had fewer severe neurologic symptoms and better function 90 days after the stroke, compared with those receiving placebo.

Butylphthalide is approved and available for use in China, where the study was conducted. However, the medication hasn’t been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“Patients who received butylphthalide had less severe neurological symptoms and a better living status at 90 days post stroke, compared to those who received the placebo,” said coauthor Baixue Jia, MD, an attending physician in interventional neuroradiology at the Beijing Tiantan Hospital of Capital Medical University and a faculty member at the China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases in Beijing. “If the results are confirmed in other trials, this may lead to more options to treat strokes caused by clots.”

The study was presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Studying stroke outcomes

The researchers described butylphthalide as a cerebroprotective drug that was originally extracted from seeds of Apium graveolens. In China, previous studies have shown that the drug has cerebroprotective effects in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion, they noted.

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Dr. Jia and colleagues evaluated whether treatment with butylphthalide could improve 90-day outcomes for adults with acute ischemic stroke who received intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), endovascular treatment, or both.

The participants were treated at one of 59 medical centers in China between July 2018 and February 2022. Those who had minimal stroke symptoms on their initial exam, defined as a score of 0-3 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, or had severe stroke symptoms, defined as having a score of 26 or higher on the NIHSS, were excluded from the study.

Along with an initial revascularization intervention chosen by their physician, participants were randomly selected to receive either butylphthalide or a placebo daily for 90 days. The drug was administered through daily intravenous injections for the first 14 days, after which patients received oral capsules for 76 days.

The research team defined the outcomes as “favorable” if a patient fell into one of the following categories 90 days after the stroke: an initially mild to moderate stroke (NIHSS, 4-7) and no symptoms after treatment, defined as a score of 0 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), which measures disability and dependence; an initially moderate to serious stroke (NIHSS, 8-14) and no residual symptoms or mild symptoms that don’t impair the ability to perform routine activities of daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-1); or an initially serious to severe stroke (NIHSS, 15-25) and no remaining symptoms or a slight disability that impairs some activities but allows one to conduct daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-2).

Secondary outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, recurrent stroke, and mortality.

Among the 1,216 participants, 607 were assigned to the treatment group, and 609 were assigned to the placebo group. The average age was 66 years, and 68% were men.

Overall, participants in the butylphthalide group were 70% more likely to have a favorable 90-day outcome, compared with the placebo group. Favorable outcomes occurred in 344 patients (56.7%) in the butylphthalide group, compared with 268 patients (44%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.14; P < .001).

In addition, butylphthalide improved function equally well for the patients who initially received tPA, those who received endovascular treatment, and those who received both tPA and endovascular treatment.

Secondary events, such as recurrent stroke and intracranial hemorrhage, weren’t significantly different between the butylphthalide and placebo groups.
 

Ongoing questions

Dr. Jia and colleagues noted the need to understand how butylphthalide works in the brain. Animal studies have suggested several possible mechanisms, but it remains unclear.

“The next step should be investigating the exact mechanisms of butylphthalide in humans,” Dr. Jia said.

Additional research should assess the medication in other populations, the authors noted, particularly because the study involved participants who received initial treatment with tPA, endovascular treatment, or both. The results may not be generalizable to stroke patients who receive other treatments or to populations outside of China.

“While these are interesting results, this is only one relatively small study on a fairly select population in China. Butylphthalide, a medication initially compounded from celery seed, is not ready for use in standard stroke treatment,” said Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology and director of the division of translational neurosciences and population studies at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Dr. Lackland, who wasn’t involved with the study, is a member of the American Stroke Association’s Stroke Council. Although butylphthalide was originally extracted from seeds, he noted, it’s not what patients would find commercially available.

“The medication used in this study is not the same as celery seed or celery seed extract supplements,” he said. “Stroke survivors should always consult with their neurologist or healthcare professional regarding diet after a stroke.”

The study was funded by the National Key Technology Research and Development Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China and Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Group dl-3-butylphthalide Pharmaceutical. Several authors are employed with Beijing Tiantan Hospital and the Beijing Institute of Brain Disorders. Dr. Lackland reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Butylphthalide, a medication derived from celery seed, may improve outcomes after an acute ischemic stroke when given in addition to thrombolysis or endovascular treatment, a new report suggests.

Patients treated with butylphthalide had fewer severe neurologic symptoms and better function 90 days after the stroke, compared with those receiving placebo.

Butylphthalide is approved and available for use in China, where the study was conducted. However, the medication hasn’t been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“Patients who received butylphthalide had less severe neurological symptoms and a better living status at 90 days post stroke, compared to those who received the placebo,” said coauthor Baixue Jia, MD, an attending physician in interventional neuroradiology at the Beijing Tiantan Hospital of Capital Medical University and a faculty member at the China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases in Beijing. “If the results are confirmed in other trials, this may lead to more options to treat strokes caused by clots.”

The study was presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Studying stroke outcomes

The researchers described butylphthalide as a cerebroprotective drug that was originally extracted from seeds of Apium graveolens. In China, previous studies have shown that the drug has cerebroprotective effects in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion, they noted.

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Dr. Jia and colleagues evaluated whether treatment with butylphthalide could improve 90-day outcomes for adults with acute ischemic stroke who received intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), endovascular treatment, or both.

The participants were treated at one of 59 medical centers in China between July 2018 and February 2022. Those who had minimal stroke symptoms on their initial exam, defined as a score of 0-3 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, or had severe stroke symptoms, defined as having a score of 26 or higher on the NIHSS, were excluded from the study.

Along with an initial revascularization intervention chosen by their physician, participants were randomly selected to receive either butylphthalide or a placebo daily for 90 days. The drug was administered through daily intravenous injections for the first 14 days, after which patients received oral capsules for 76 days.

The research team defined the outcomes as “favorable” if a patient fell into one of the following categories 90 days after the stroke: an initially mild to moderate stroke (NIHSS, 4-7) and no symptoms after treatment, defined as a score of 0 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), which measures disability and dependence; an initially moderate to serious stroke (NIHSS, 8-14) and no residual symptoms or mild symptoms that don’t impair the ability to perform routine activities of daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-1); or an initially serious to severe stroke (NIHSS, 15-25) and no remaining symptoms or a slight disability that impairs some activities but allows one to conduct daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-2).

Secondary outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, recurrent stroke, and mortality.

Among the 1,216 participants, 607 were assigned to the treatment group, and 609 were assigned to the placebo group. The average age was 66 years, and 68% were men.

Overall, participants in the butylphthalide group were 70% more likely to have a favorable 90-day outcome, compared with the placebo group. Favorable outcomes occurred in 344 patients (56.7%) in the butylphthalide group, compared with 268 patients (44%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.14; P < .001).

In addition, butylphthalide improved function equally well for the patients who initially received tPA, those who received endovascular treatment, and those who received both tPA and endovascular treatment.

Secondary events, such as recurrent stroke and intracranial hemorrhage, weren’t significantly different between the butylphthalide and placebo groups.
 

Ongoing questions

Dr. Jia and colleagues noted the need to understand how butylphthalide works in the brain. Animal studies have suggested several possible mechanisms, but it remains unclear.

“The next step should be investigating the exact mechanisms of butylphthalide in humans,” Dr. Jia said.

Additional research should assess the medication in other populations, the authors noted, particularly because the study involved participants who received initial treatment with tPA, endovascular treatment, or both. The results may not be generalizable to stroke patients who receive other treatments or to populations outside of China.

“While these are interesting results, this is only one relatively small study on a fairly select population in China. Butylphthalide, a medication initially compounded from celery seed, is not ready for use in standard stroke treatment,” said Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology and director of the division of translational neurosciences and population studies at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Dr. Lackland, who wasn’t involved with the study, is a member of the American Stroke Association’s Stroke Council. Although butylphthalide was originally extracted from seeds, he noted, it’s not what patients would find commercially available.

“The medication used in this study is not the same as celery seed or celery seed extract supplements,” he said. “Stroke survivors should always consult with their neurologist or healthcare professional regarding diet after a stroke.”

The study was funded by the National Key Technology Research and Development Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China and Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Group dl-3-butylphthalide Pharmaceutical. Several authors are employed with Beijing Tiantan Hospital and the Beijing Institute of Brain Disorders. Dr. Lackland reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Butylphthalide, a medication derived from celery seed, may improve outcomes after an acute ischemic stroke when given in addition to thrombolysis or endovascular treatment, a new report suggests.

Patients treated with butylphthalide had fewer severe neurologic symptoms and better function 90 days after the stroke, compared with those receiving placebo.

Butylphthalide is approved and available for use in China, where the study was conducted. However, the medication hasn’t been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“Patients who received butylphthalide had less severe neurological symptoms and a better living status at 90 days post stroke, compared to those who received the placebo,” said coauthor Baixue Jia, MD, an attending physician in interventional neuroradiology at the Beijing Tiantan Hospital of Capital Medical University and a faculty member at the China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases in Beijing. “If the results are confirmed in other trials, this may lead to more options to treat strokes caused by clots.”

The study was presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Studying stroke outcomes

The researchers described butylphthalide as a cerebroprotective drug that was originally extracted from seeds of Apium graveolens. In China, previous studies have shown that the drug has cerebroprotective effects in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion, they noted.

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Dr. Jia and colleagues evaluated whether treatment with butylphthalide could improve 90-day outcomes for adults with acute ischemic stroke who received intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), endovascular treatment, or both.

The participants were treated at one of 59 medical centers in China between July 2018 and February 2022. Those who had minimal stroke symptoms on their initial exam, defined as a score of 0-3 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, or had severe stroke symptoms, defined as having a score of 26 or higher on the NIHSS, were excluded from the study.

Along with an initial revascularization intervention chosen by their physician, participants were randomly selected to receive either butylphthalide or a placebo daily for 90 days. The drug was administered through daily intravenous injections for the first 14 days, after which patients received oral capsules for 76 days.

The research team defined the outcomes as “favorable” if a patient fell into one of the following categories 90 days after the stroke: an initially mild to moderate stroke (NIHSS, 4-7) and no symptoms after treatment, defined as a score of 0 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), which measures disability and dependence; an initially moderate to serious stroke (NIHSS, 8-14) and no residual symptoms or mild symptoms that don’t impair the ability to perform routine activities of daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-1); or an initially serious to severe stroke (NIHSS, 15-25) and no remaining symptoms or a slight disability that impairs some activities but allows one to conduct daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-2).

Secondary outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, recurrent stroke, and mortality.

Among the 1,216 participants, 607 were assigned to the treatment group, and 609 were assigned to the placebo group. The average age was 66 years, and 68% were men.

Overall, participants in the butylphthalide group were 70% more likely to have a favorable 90-day outcome, compared with the placebo group. Favorable outcomes occurred in 344 patients (56.7%) in the butylphthalide group, compared with 268 patients (44%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.14; P < .001).

In addition, butylphthalide improved function equally well for the patients who initially received tPA, those who received endovascular treatment, and those who received both tPA and endovascular treatment.

Secondary events, such as recurrent stroke and intracranial hemorrhage, weren’t significantly different between the butylphthalide and placebo groups.
 

Ongoing questions

Dr. Jia and colleagues noted the need to understand how butylphthalide works in the brain. Animal studies have suggested several possible mechanisms, but it remains unclear.

“The next step should be investigating the exact mechanisms of butylphthalide in humans,” Dr. Jia said.

Additional research should assess the medication in other populations, the authors noted, particularly because the study involved participants who received initial treatment with tPA, endovascular treatment, or both. The results may not be generalizable to stroke patients who receive other treatments or to populations outside of China.

“While these are interesting results, this is only one relatively small study on a fairly select population in China. Butylphthalide, a medication initially compounded from celery seed, is not ready for use in standard stroke treatment,” said Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology and director of the division of translational neurosciences and population studies at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Dr. Lackland, who wasn’t involved with the study, is a member of the American Stroke Association’s Stroke Council. Although butylphthalide was originally extracted from seeds, he noted, it’s not what patients would find commercially available.

“The medication used in this study is not the same as celery seed or celery seed extract supplements,” he said. “Stroke survivors should always consult with their neurologist or healthcare professional regarding diet after a stroke.”

The study was funded by the National Key Technology Research and Development Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China and Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Group dl-3-butylphthalide Pharmaceutical. Several authors are employed with Beijing Tiantan Hospital and the Beijing Institute of Brain Disorders. Dr. Lackland reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the medical faculty of the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany. Today, I would like to discuss what happened in neurology in the past month.
 

Treatment of tension-type headache

I would like to start with headache. You are all aware that we have several new studies regarding the prevention of migraine, but very few studies involving nondrug treatments for tension-type headache.

A working group in Göttingen, Germany, conducted a study in people with frequent episodic and chronic tension-type headache. The first of the four randomized groups received traditional Chinese acupuncture for 3 months. The second group received physical therapy and exercise for 1 hour per week for 12 weeks. The third group received a combination of acupuncture and exercise. The last was a control group that received only standard care.

The outcome parameters of tension-type headache were evaluated after 6 months and again after 12 months. Previously, these same researchers published that the intensity but not the frequency of tension-type headache was reduced by active therapy.

In Cephalalgia, they published the outcome for the endpoints of depression, anxiety, and quality of life. Acupuncture, exercise, and the combination of the two improved depression, anxiety, and quality of life. This shows that nonmedical treatment is effective in people with frequent episodic and chronic tension-type headache.
 

Headache after COVID-19

The next study was published in Headache and discusses headache after COVID-19. In this review of published studies, more than 50% of people with COVID-19 develop headache. It is more frequent in young patients and people with preexisting primary headaches, such as migraine and tension-type headache. Prognosis is usually good, but some patients develop new, daily persistent headache, which is a major problem because treatment is unclear. We desperately need studies investigating how to treat this new, daily persistent headache after COVID-19.

SSRIs during COVID-19 infection

The next study also focuses on COVID-19. We have conflicting results from several studies suggesting that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors might be effective in people with mild COVID-19 infection. This hypothesis was tested in a study in Brazil and was published in JAMA, The study included 1,288 outpatients with mild COVID-19 who either received 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days or placebo. There was no benefit of the treatment for any outcome.

Preventing dementia with antihypertensive treatment

The next study was published in the European Heart Journal and addresses the question of whether effective antihypertensive treatment in elderly persons can prevent dementia. This is a meta-analysis of five placebo-controlled trials with more than 28,000 patients. The meta-analysis clearly shows that treating hypertension in elderly patients does prevent dementia. The benefit is higher if the blood pressure is lowered by a larger amount which also stays true for elderly patients. There is no negative impact of lowering blood pressure in this population.

Antiplatelet therapy

The next study was published in Stroke and reexamines whether resumption of antiplatelet therapy should be early or late in people who had an intracerebral hemorrhage while on antiplatelet therapy. In the Taiwanese Health Registry, this was studied in 1,584 patients. The researchers divided participants into groups based on whether antiplatelet therapy was resumed within 30 days or after 30 days. In 1 year, the rate of recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage was 3.2%. There was no difference whether antiplatelet therapy was resumed early or late.

Regular exercise in Parkinson’s disease

The final study is a review of nonmedical therapy. This meta-analysis of 19 randomized trials looked at the benefit of regular exercise in patients with Parkinson’s disease and depression. The analysis clearly showed that rigorous and moderate exercise improved depression in patients with Parkinson’s disease. This is very important because exercise improves not only the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease but also comorbid depression while presenting no serious adverse events or side effects.

Dr. Diener is a professor in the department of neurology at Stroke Center–Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Addex Pharma, Alder, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Autonomic Technology, AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, Berlin Chemie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chordate, CoAxia, Corimmun, Covidien, Coherex, CoLucid, Daiichi Sankyo, D-Pharm, Electrocore, Fresenius, GlaxoSmithKline, Grunenthal, Janssen-Cilag, Labrys Biologics Lilly, La Roche, Lundbeck, 3M Medica, MSD, Medtronic, Menarini, MindFrame, Minster, Neuroscore, Neurobiological Technologies, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Johnson & Johnson, Knoll, Paion, Parke-Davis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer Inc, Schaper and Brummer, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering-Plough, Servier, Solvay, St. Jude, Talecris, Thrombogenics, WebMD Global, Weber and Weber, Wyeth, and Yamanouchi. Dr. Diener has served as editor of Aktuelle Neurologie, Arzneimitteltherapie, Kopfschmerz News, Stroke News, and the Treatment Guidelines of the German Neurological Society; as co-editor of Cephalalgia; and on the editorial board of The Lancet Neurology, Stroke, European Neurology, and Cerebrovascular Disorders. The department of neurology in Essen is supported by the German Research Council, the German Ministry of Education and Research, European Union, National Institutes of Health, Bertelsmann Foundation, and Heinz Nixdorf Foundation. Dr. Diener has no ownership interest and does not own stocks in any pharmaceutical company. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the medical faculty of the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany. Today, I would like to discuss what happened in neurology in the past month.
 

Treatment of tension-type headache

I would like to start with headache. You are all aware that we have several new studies regarding the prevention of migraine, but very few studies involving nondrug treatments for tension-type headache.

A working group in Göttingen, Germany, conducted a study in people with frequent episodic and chronic tension-type headache. The first of the four randomized groups received traditional Chinese acupuncture for 3 months. The second group received physical therapy and exercise for 1 hour per week for 12 weeks. The third group received a combination of acupuncture and exercise. The last was a control group that received only standard care.

The outcome parameters of tension-type headache were evaluated after 6 months and again after 12 months. Previously, these same researchers published that the intensity but not the frequency of tension-type headache was reduced by active therapy.

In Cephalalgia, they published the outcome for the endpoints of depression, anxiety, and quality of life. Acupuncture, exercise, and the combination of the two improved depression, anxiety, and quality of life. This shows that nonmedical treatment is effective in people with frequent episodic and chronic tension-type headache.
 

Headache after COVID-19

The next study was published in Headache and discusses headache after COVID-19. In this review of published studies, more than 50% of people with COVID-19 develop headache. It is more frequent in young patients and people with preexisting primary headaches, such as migraine and tension-type headache. Prognosis is usually good, but some patients develop new, daily persistent headache, which is a major problem because treatment is unclear. We desperately need studies investigating how to treat this new, daily persistent headache after COVID-19.

SSRIs during COVID-19 infection

The next study also focuses on COVID-19. We have conflicting results from several studies suggesting that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors might be effective in people with mild COVID-19 infection. This hypothesis was tested in a study in Brazil and was published in JAMA, The study included 1,288 outpatients with mild COVID-19 who either received 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days or placebo. There was no benefit of the treatment for any outcome.

Preventing dementia with antihypertensive treatment

The next study was published in the European Heart Journal and addresses the question of whether effective antihypertensive treatment in elderly persons can prevent dementia. This is a meta-analysis of five placebo-controlled trials with more than 28,000 patients. The meta-analysis clearly shows that treating hypertension in elderly patients does prevent dementia. The benefit is higher if the blood pressure is lowered by a larger amount which also stays true for elderly patients. There is no negative impact of lowering blood pressure in this population.

Antiplatelet therapy

The next study was published in Stroke and reexamines whether resumption of antiplatelet therapy should be early or late in people who had an intracerebral hemorrhage while on antiplatelet therapy. In the Taiwanese Health Registry, this was studied in 1,584 patients. The researchers divided participants into groups based on whether antiplatelet therapy was resumed within 30 days or after 30 days. In 1 year, the rate of recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage was 3.2%. There was no difference whether antiplatelet therapy was resumed early or late.

Regular exercise in Parkinson’s disease

The final study is a review of nonmedical therapy. This meta-analysis of 19 randomized trials looked at the benefit of regular exercise in patients with Parkinson’s disease and depression. The analysis clearly showed that rigorous and moderate exercise improved depression in patients with Parkinson’s disease. This is very important because exercise improves not only the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease but also comorbid depression while presenting no serious adverse events or side effects.

Dr. Diener is a professor in the department of neurology at Stroke Center–Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Addex Pharma, Alder, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Autonomic Technology, AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, Berlin Chemie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chordate, CoAxia, Corimmun, Covidien, Coherex, CoLucid, Daiichi Sankyo, D-Pharm, Electrocore, Fresenius, GlaxoSmithKline, Grunenthal, Janssen-Cilag, Labrys Biologics Lilly, La Roche, Lundbeck, 3M Medica, MSD, Medtronic, Menarini, MindFrame, Minster, Neuroscore, Neurobiological Technologies, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Johnson & Johnson, Knoll, Paion, Parke-Davis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer Inc, Schaper and Brummer, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering-Plough, Servier, Solvay, St. Jude, Talecris, Thrombogenics, WebMD Global, Weber and Weber, Wyeth, and Yamanouchi. Dr. Diener has served as editor of Aktuelle Neurologie, Arzneimitteltherapie, Kopfschmerz News, Stroke News, and the Treatment Guidelines of the German Neurological Society; as co-editor of Cephalalgia; and on the editorial board of The Lancet Neurology, Stroke, European Neurology, and Cerebrovascular Disorders. The department of neurology in Essen is supported by the German Research Council, the German Ministry of Education and Research, European Union, National Institutes of Health, Bertelsmann Foundation, and Heinz Nixdorf Foundation. Dr. Diener has no ownership interest and does not own stocks in any pharmaceutical company. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the medical faculty of the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany. Today, I would like to discuss what happened in neurology in the past month.
 

Treatment of tension-type headache

I would like to start with headache. You are all aware that we have several new studies regarding the prevention of migraine, but very few studies involving nondrug treatments for tension-type headache.

A working group in Göttingen, Germany, conducted a study in people with frequent episodic and chronic tension-type headache. The first of the four randomized groups received traditional Chinese acupuncture for 3 months. The second group received physical therapy and exercise for 1 hour per week for 12 weeks. The third group received a combination of acupuncture and exercise. The last was a control group that received only standard care.

The outcome parameters of tension-type headache were evaluated after 6 months and again after 12 months. Previously, these same researchers published that the intensity but not the frequency of tension-type headache was reduced by active therapy.

In Cephalalgia, they published the outcome for the endpoints of depression, anxiety, and quality of life. Acupuncture, exercise, and the combination of the two improved depression, anxiety, and quality of life. This shows that nonmedical treatment is effective in people with frequent episodic and chronic tension-type headache.
 

Headache after COVID-19

The next study was published in Headache and discusses headache after COVID-19. In this review of published studies, more than 50% of people with COVID-19 develop headache. It is more frequent in young patients and people with preexisting primary headaches, such as migraine and tension-type headache. Prognosis is usually good, but some patients develop new, daily persistent headache, which is a major problem because treatment is unclear. We desperately need studies investigating how to treat this new, daily persistent headache after COVID-19.

SSRIs during COVID-19 infection

The next study also focuses on COVID-19. We have conflicting results from several studies suggesting that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors might be effective in people with mild COVID-19 infection. This hypothesis was tested in a study in Brazil and was published in JAMA, The study included 1,288 outpatients with mild COVID-19 who either received 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days or placebo. There was no benefit of the treatment for any outcome.

Preventing dementia with antihypertensive treatment

The next study was published in the European Heart Journal and addresses the question of whether effective antihypertensive treatment in elderly persons can prevent dementia. This is a meta-analysis of five placebo-controlled trials with more than 28,000 patients. The meta-analysis clearly shows that treating hypertension in elderly patients does prevent dementia. The benefit is higher if the blood pressure is lowered by a larger amount which also stays true for elderly patients. There is no negative impact of lowering blood pressure in this population.

Antiplatelet therapy

The next study was published in Stroke and reexamines whether resumption of antiplatelet therapy should be early or late in people who had an intracerebral hemorrhage while on antiplatelet therapy. In the Taiwanese Health Registry, this was studied in 1,584 patients. The researchers divided participants into groups based on whether antiplatelet therapy was resumed within 30 days or after 30 days. In 1 year, the rate of recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage was 3.2%. There was no difference whether antiplatelet therapy was resumed early or late.

Regular exercise in Parkinson’s disease

The final study is a review of nonmedical therapy. This meta-analysis of 19 randomized trials looked at the benefit of regular exercise in patients with Parkinson’s disease and depression. The analysis clearly showed that rigorous and moderate exercise improved depression in patients with Parkinson’s disease. This is very important because exercise improves not only the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease but also comorbid depression while presenting no serious adverse events or side effects.

Dr. Diener is a professor in the department of neurology at Stroke Center–Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Addex Pharma, Alder, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Autonomic Technology, AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, Berlin Chemie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chordate, CoAxia, Corimmun, Covidien, Coherex, CoLucid, Daiichi Sankyo, D-Pharm, Electrocore, Fresenius, GlaxoSmithKline, Grunenthal, Janssen-Cilag, Labrys Biologics Lilly, La Roche, Lundbeck, 3M Medica, MSD, Medtronic, Menarini, MindFrame, Minster, Neuroscore, Neurobiological Technologies, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Johnson & Johnson, Knoll, Paion, Parke-Davis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer Inc, Schaper and Brummer, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering-Plough, Servier, Solvay, St. Jude, Talecris, Thrombogenics, WebMD Global, Weber and Weber, Wyeth, and Yamanouchi. Dr. Diener has served as editor of Aktuelle Neurologie, Arzneimitteltherapie, Kopfschmerz News, Stroke News, and the Treatment Guidelines of the German Neurological Society; as co-editor of Cephalalgia; and on the editorial board of The Lancet Neurology, Stroke, European Neurology, and Cerebrovascular Disorders. The department of neurology in Essen is supported by the German Research Council, the German Ministry of Education and Research, European Union, National Institutes of Health, Bertelsmann Foundation, and Heinz Nixdorf Foundation. Dr. Diener has no ownership interest and does not own stocks in any pharmaceutical company. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Tenecteplase is as effective as alteplase with respect to disability outcomes and safety in Chinese patients with ischemic stroke, a new study has found. “This was a pivotal trial in establishing the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase in the thrombolytic treatment of acute ischemic stroke within 4.5 hours in Asian patients,” said study author Shuya Li, MD, associate chief physician, department of neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing.

The findings in this all-Chinese population should have an impact on the use of tenecteplase going forward, said Dr. Li. “The results provide further evidence to support a worldwide switch to tenecteplase as the preferred thrombolytic for acute ischemic stroke.”

The findings were presented at the 2023 International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Single bolus

Use of alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]) has for years been the main approach to thrombolytic reperfusion therapy for patients with acute stroke, but tenecteplase has recently emerged as a potential successor.

Tenecteplase is a tPA produced by recombinant DNA technology. It has a relatively long half-life and can be delivered in a single bolus instead of requiring an hour-long infusion, as is the case with alteplase.

The phase 3 noninferiority Tenecteplase Reperfusion Therapy in Acute ischemic Cerebrovascular Events (TRACE-2) trial – the first of its kind in an Asian population – included 1,430 adult ischemic stroke patients at 53 Chinese centers. Patients had to have a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5-25 and either not be eligible for or have refused endovascular therapy.

The mean age of study participants was about 66 years, and the percentage of women was about 31%. The mean baseline NIHSS score was 7 in both groups, and the symptom-onset-to-needle time was similar at 180 minutes for the tenecteplase group and 178.5 minutes for the alteplase group.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive tenecteplase or alteplase within 4.5 hours of symptom onset.

Those in the tenecteplase group received 0.25 mg/kg of the drug in a single IV bolus (maximum dose, 25 mg). Control group members who were treated with alteplase were given the drug as a 10% bolus, with the remainder given as a 1-hour infusion (0.9 mg/kg with a maximum dose of 90 mg).
 

Showed noninferiority

The primary efficacy outcome was a modified Rankins scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, which is considered excellent function. About 62% of tenecteplase patients and 58% of alteplase patients attained this outcome (risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.18).

The P value was .001 for noninferiority and .06 for superiority, but Dr. Li explained that these values may change when considering the site effect.

There were no statistically significant differences between the two drugs on secondary outcomes of favorable function. For example, 73% of tenecteplase patients and 72% of alteplase patients had an mRS score of 0-2 at 3 months, and 50% in the tenecteplase and 49% in the alteplase group improved by 4 or more points on the NIHSS, or had a score of 1 or less, at 24 hours.

The groups also had comparable scores on the European quality-of-life visual analogue scale and on the Barthel index, which measures functional independence related to personal care and mobility.

Tenecteplase also turned out to be as safe at alteplase. About 2% in both groups had symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours, and both groups had that same percentage for such hemorrhages within 90 days. As well, the groups had a similar rate of any intracranial hemorrhage within 90 days (6% and 7%).

The mortality rate was 7% in the tenecteplase group, compared with 5% in the alteplase group.

Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86% and 87%, and serious AEs in 16% and 15%, of the tenecteplase and alteplase groups, respectively, again with no statistically significant differences.

The research team aims to test the effectiveness of tenecteplase in other stroke patients, including those with minor strokes, those receiving thrombolysis in a later window, and those receiving endovascular therapy, said Dr. Li.
 

Strong evidence

Commenting on the study findings, Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chair of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, said it is important to determine the efficacy of tenecteplase among Asians, as they represent “an entirely different population” with unique concerns, such as bleeding complications from anticoagulants.

He noted an advantage of tenecteplase is ease of administration. “You don’t have to go through the loading dose and then the 1-hour infusion,” which poses an “additional hassle” when transferring patients between institutions, he said.

However, he noted that a possible “downside” to having both drugs available in the emergency department is “using the wrong drug at the wrong dose” because of their similar sounding names.

Also commenting on the study, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he welcomes another trial that confirms that these two drugs are biologically similar.

“I’m very glad this trial was done because it adds another very strong piece of evidence of equivalency.”

But the two drugs are not the same in some important respects, said Dr. Jovin, whose center switched to using tenecteplase almost 3 years ago. That switch has resulted in cutting 17 minutes from the door-to-needle time “which is quite significant,” he said.

“There’s no question that once we used tenecteplase in lieu of tPA, it’s been just so much easier to administer and affects the interhospital transfer protocols, because you’re not transferring the patient with a critical care IV. It’s a win-win situation for everyone.”

The study received funding from the National Science and Technology Major Project, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the China Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Company Recomgen Pharmaceutical (Guangzhou). Dr. Li, Dr. Goldstein, and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Tenecteplase is as effective as alteplase with respect to disability outcomes and safety in Chinese patients with ischemic stroke, a new study has found. “This was a pivotal trial in establishing the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase in the thrombolytic treatment of acute ischemic stroke within 4.5 hours in Asian patients,” said study author Shuya Li, MD, associate chief physician, department of neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing.

The findings in this all-Chinese population should have an impact on the use of tenecteplase going forward, said Dr. Li. “The results provide further evidence to support a worldwide switch to tenecteplase as the preferred thrombolytic for acute ischemic stroke.”

The findings were presented at the 2023 International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Single bolus

Use of alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]) has for years been the main approach to thrombolytic reperfusion therapy for patients with acute stroke, but tenecteplase has recently emerged as a potential successor.

Tenecteplase is a tPA produced by recombinant DNA technology. It has a relatively long half-life and can be delivered in a single bolus instead of requiring an hour-long infusion, as is the case with alteplase.

The phase 3 noninferiority Tenecteplase Reperfusion Therapy in Acute ischemic Cerebrovascular Events (TRACE-2) trial – the first of its kind in an Asian population – included 1,430 adult ischemic stroke patients at 53 Chinese centers. Patients had to have a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5-25 and either not be eligible for or have refused endovascular therapy.

The mean age of study participants was about 66 years, and the percentage of women was about 31%. The mean baseline NIHSS score was 7 in both groups, and the symptom-onset-to-needle time was similar at 180 minutes for the tenecteplase group and 178.5 minutes for the alteplase group.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive tenecteplase or alteplase within 4.5 hours of symptom onset.

Those in the tenecteplase group received 0.25 mg/kg of the drug in a single IV bolus (maximum dose, 25 mg). Control group members who were treated with alteplase were given the drug as a 10% bolus, with the remainder given as a 1-hour infusion (0.9 mg/kg with a maximum dose of 90 mg).
 

Showed noninferiority

The primary efficacy outcome was a modified Rankins scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, which is considered excellent function. About 62% of tenecteplase patients and 58% of alteplase patients attained this outcome (risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.18).

The P value was .001 for noninferiority and .06 for superiority, but Dr. Li explained that these values may change when considering the site effect.

There were no statistically significant differences between the two drugs on secondary outcomes of favorable function. For example, 73% of tenecteplase patients and 72% of alteplase patients had an mRS score of 0-2 at 3 months, and 50% in the tenecteplase and 49% in the alteplase group improved by 4 or more points on the NIHSS, or had a score of 1 or less, at 24 hours.

The groups also had comparable scores on the European quality-of-life visual analogue scale and on the Barthel index, which measures functional independence related to personal care and mobility.

Tenecteplase also turned out to be as safe at alteplase. About 2% in both groups had symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours, and both groups had that same percentage for such hemorrhages within 90 days. As well, the groups had a similar rate of any intracranial hemorrhage within 90 days (6% and 7%).

The mortality rate was 7% in the tenecteplase group, compared with 5% in the alteplase group.

Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86% and 87%, and serious AEs in 16% and 15%, of the tenecteplase and alteplase groups, respectively, again with no statistically significant differences.

The research team aims to test the effectiveness of tenecteplase in other stroke patients, including those with minor strokes, those receiving thrombolysis in a later window, and those receiving endovascular therapy, said Dr. Li.
 

Strong evidence

Commenting on the study findings, Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chair of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, said it is important to determine the efficacy of tenecteplase among Asians, as they represent “an entirely different population” with unique concerns, such as bleeding complications from anticoagulants.

He noted an advantage of tenecteplase is ease of administration. “You don’t have to go through the loading dose and then the 1-hour infusion,” which poses an “additional hassle” when transferring patients between institutions, he said.

However, he noted that a possible “downside” to having both drugs available in the emergency department is “using the wrong drug at the wrong dose” because of their similar sounding names.

Also commenting on the study, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he welcomes another trial that confirms that these two drugs are biologically similar.

“I’m very glad this trial was done because it adds another very strong piece of evidence of equivalency.”

But the two drugs are not the same in some important respects, said Dr. Jovin, whose center switched to using tenecteplase almost 3 years ago. That switch has resulted in cutting 17 minutes from the door-to-needle time “which is quite significant,” he said.

“There’s no question that once we used tenecteplase in lieu of tPA, it’s been just so much easier to administer and affects the interhospital transfer protocols, because you’re not transferring the patient with a critical care IV. It’s a win-win situation for everyone.”

The study received funding from the National Science and Technology Major Project, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the China Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Company Recomgen Pharmaceutical (Guangzhou). Dr. Li, Dr. Goldstein, and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Tenecteplase is as effective as alteplase with respect to disability outcomes and safety in Chinese patients with ischemic stroke, a new study has found. “This was a pivotal trial in establishing the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase in the thrombolytic treatment of acute ischemic stroke within 4.5 hours in Asian patients,” said study author Shuya Li, MD, associate chief physician, department of neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing.

The findings in this all-Chinese population should have an impact on the use of tenecteplase going forward, said Dr. Li. “The results provide further evidence to support a worldwide switch to tenecteplase as the preferred thrombolytic for acute ischemic stroke.”

The findings were presented at the 2023 International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Single bolus

Use of alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]) has for years been the main approach to thrombolytic reperfusion therapy for patients with acute stroke, but tenecteplase has recently emerged as a potential successor.

Tenecteplase is a tPA produced by recombinant DNA technology. It has a relatively long half-life and can be delivered in a single bolus instead of requiring an hour-long infusion, as is the case with alteplase.

The phase 3 noninferiority Tenecteplase Reperfusion Therapy in Acute ischemic Cerebrovascular Events (TRACE-2) trial – the first of its kind in an Asian population – included 1,430 adult ischemic stroke patients at 53 Chinese centers. Patients had to have a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5-25 and either not be eligible for or have refused endovascular therapy.

The mean age of study participants was about 66 years, and the percentage of women was about 31%. The mean baseline NIHSS score was 7 in both groups, and the symptom-onset-to-needle time was similar at 180 minutes for the tenecteplase group and 178.5 minutes for the alteplase group.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive tenecteplase or alteplase within 4.5 hours of symptom onset.

Those in the tenecteplase group received 0.25 mg/kg of the drug in a single IV bolus (maximum dose, 25 mg). Control group members who were treated with alteplase were given the drug as a 10% bolus, with the remainder given as a 1-hour infusion (0.9 mg/kg with a maximum dose of 90 mg).
 

Showed noninferiority

The primary efficacy outcome was a modified Rankins scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, which is considered excellent function. About 62% of tenecteplase patients and 58% of alteplase patients attained this outcome (risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.18).

The P value was .001 for noninferiority and .06 for superiority, but Dr. Li explained that these values may change when considering the site effect.

There were no statistically significant differences between the two drugs on secondary outcomes of favorable function. For example, 73% of tenecteplase patients and 72% of alteplase patients had an mRS score of 0-2 at 3 months, and 50% in the tenecteplase and 49% in the alteplase group improved by 4 or more points on the NIHSS, or had a score of 1 or less, at 24 hours.

The groups also had comparable scores on the European quality-of-life visual analogue scale and on the Barthel index, which measures functional independence related to personal care and mobility.

Tenecteplase also turned out to be as safe at alteplase. About 2% in both groups had symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours, and both groups had that same percentage for such hemorrhages within 90 days. As well, the groups had a similar rate of any intracranial hemorrhage within 90 days (6% and 7%).

The mortality rate was 7% in the tenecteplase group, compared with 5% in the alteplase group.

Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86% and 87%, and serious AEs in 16% and 15%, of the tenecteplase and alteplase groups, respectively, again with no statistically significant differences.

The research team aims to test the effectiveness of tenecteplase in other stroke patients, including those with minor strokes, those receiving thrombolysis in a later window, and those receiving endovascular therapy, said Dr. Li.
 

Strong evidence

Commenting on the study findings, Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chair of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, said it is important to determine the efficacy of tenecteplase among Asians, as they represent “an entirely different population” with unique concerns, such as bleeding complications from anticoagulants.

He noted an advantage of tenecteplase is ease of administration. “You don’t have to go through the loading dose and then the 1-hour infusion,” which poses an “additional hassle” when transferring patients between institutions, he said.

However, he noted that a possible “downside” to having both drugs available in the emergency department is “using the wrong drug at the wrong dose” because of their similar sounding names.

Also commenting on the study, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he welcomes another trial that confirms that these two drugs are biologically similar.

“I’m very glad this trial was done because it adds another very strong piece of evidence of equivalency.”

But the two drugs are not the same in some important respects, said Dr. Jovin, whose center switched to using tenecteplase almost 3 years ago. That switch has resulted in cutting 17 minutes from the door-to-needle time “which is quite significant,” he said.

“There’s no question that once we used tenecteplase in lieu of tPA, it’s been just so much easier to administer and affects the interhospital transfer protocols, because you’re not transferring the patient with a critical care IV. It’s a win-win situation for everyone.”

The study received funding from the National Science and Technology Major Project, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the China Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Company Recomgen Pharmaceutical (Guangzhou). Dr. Li, Dr. Goldstein, and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dilating eye drops may delay – and perhaps even prevent – the onset of myopia in children, according to findings from a study published in JAMA. The study was conducted by researchers in Hong Kong.

Myopia is irreversible once it takes root and can contribute to other vision problems, such as macular degeneration, retinal detachment, glaucoma, and cataracts. The incidence of nearsightedness has nearly doubled since the 1970s, rising from 25% of the U.S. population to nearly 42%. Children have been particularly affected by the increase; reasons may include spending more time indoors looking at screens, experts say.

“Myopia is an ongoing and growing worldwide concern. This is of particular importance because of the change in children’s lifestyle, such as decreased outdoor time and increased screen time during and after the COVID-19 pandemic,” Jason C. Yam, MPH, of the department of ophthalmology and visual services at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said in an interview.

Mr. Yam said that, while encouraging children to engage more in outdoor activity and spend less time using screens would help delay myopia, pharmaceutical interventions are needed, given myopia’s potential lifelong effects.
 

Putting eye drops to the test

In 2020, Mr. Yam and colleagues reported results of the Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP) study, which showed that eye drops containing a solution of 0.05% atropine worked best at slowing the progression of myopia in 4- to 12-year-olds who already had the condition. Atropine relaxes eye muscles, causing dilation.

In that study, Mr. Yam and colleagues measured the rate of change in the eye’s ability to see at a great distance using a unit of measure known as the diopter. The higher the diopter, the more myopic a person’s vision. The 0.05% atropine solution was better at slowing this decline than placebo or solutions that contained a lower concentration of the substance.

The new study enrolled 474 children who were evenly divided by sex. None of the children had myopia when the trial began. Of that starting group, 353 children (age, 4-9 years) completed the study, which involved receiving eye drops once nightly in both eyes for 2 years.

Some children (n = 116) received 0.05% atropine, others (n = 122) received 0.01% atropine, and the rest (n = 115) received placebo drops. Mr. Yam and colleagues assessed how many children in each group had myopia after 2 years, as measured by a decline of at least a half diopter in one eye.

At the 2-year mark, more than half of children who received the placebo drops (61/115) had developed myopia, as had nearly half of those given 0.01% atropine (56/122). But fewer than one-third of children (33/116, 28.4%) who had received the drops with 0.05% atropine developed myopia during that period, the researchers reported.

The percentage of children with myopia in the placebo group (39/128, 30.5%) was larger by the end of the first year of the study than was the share of children in the 0.05% atropine group by the end of the trial. (Between 12 months and 24 months, 13 children in the placebo group left the study.) The main adverse event, in all treatment groups, was discomfort when exposed to bright light, according to the researchers.

“We are continuing the current study with the total intended follow-up duration of at least 6years,” added Mr. Yam, who hopes to determine whether the 0.05% atropine solution not only delays myopia but also prevents it altogether. While myopia is a concern worldwide, the condition is particularly prevalent in East Asia.

Mark A. Bullimore, MCOptom, PhD, FAAO, an adjunct professor at the University of Houston, and a consultant to ophthalmologic companies, called the trial “a landmark study. Finding children who are eligible and parents who are willing to deal with 2 years of drops is no small feat.

“The 0.05% atropine, on average, delays onset of myopia by a year,” Dr. Bullimore noted. He pointed to the similar percentages of myopia with placebo at 12 months, compared with 0.05% atropine 1 year later. He added that few clinicians in the United States use higher than 0.05% atropine for control of myopia because doing so can lead to excessive dilation and difficulty focusing.

While preventing myopia altogether would be ideal, simply delaying its onset can also be of tangible benefit, Bullimore said. In an article published in January, Dr. Bullimore and Noel A. Brennan of Johnson & Johnson Vision showed that delaying the onset of myopia reduces its severity.

“Optometrists prescribe low-concentration atropine already for myopia control, and there’s no reason now – in the light of this study – that they wouldn’t also do it to delay onset,” Dr. Bullimore said.

But in an editorial accompanying the journal article David A. Berntsen, OD, PhD, and Jeffrey J. Walline, OD, PhD, both of the University of Houston, wrote that a change in practice would be premature.

“The evidence presented does not yet warrant a change in the standard care of children because we do not yet know the long-term effects of delaying the onset of myopia with low-concentration atropine,” they wrote.

Identifying which children to consider for treatment is “a challenge,” they noted, because those who are not nearsighted typically do not undergo routine examination unless they have failed a vision test.

“Ultimately, the implementation of vision screenings that include determining a child’s prescription will likely be needed to identify children most likely to become myopic who may benefit from low-concentration atropine,” Dr. Berntsen and Dr. Walline wrote.

Mr. Yam and coinvestigators have applied for a patent on a 0.05% atropine solution. Dr. Bullimore reported relationships with Alcon Research,CooperVision, CorneaGen, EssilorLuxottica, Eyenovia, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Lentechs, Novartis, and Vyluma, and is the sole owner of Ridgevue Publishing and Ridgevue Vision.

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

Dilating eye drops may delay – and perhaps even prevent – the onset of myopia in children, according to findings from a study published in JAMA. The study was conducted by researchers in Hong Kong.

Myopia is irreversible once it takes root and can contribute to other vision problems, such as macular degeneration, retinal detachment, glaucoma, and cataracts. The incidence of nearsightedness has nearly doubled since the 1970s, rising from 25% of the U.S. population to nearly 42%. Children have been particularly affected by the increase; reasons may include spending more time indoors looking at screens, experts say.

“Myopia is an ongoing and growing worldwide concern. This is of particular importance because of the change in children’s lifestyle, such as decreased outdoor time and increased screen time during and after the COVID-19 pandemic,” Jason C. Yam, MPH, of the department of ophthalmology and visual services at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said in an interview.

Mr. Yam said that, while encouraging children to engage more in outdoor activity and spend less time using screens would help delay myopia, pharmaceutical interventions are needed, given myopia’s potential lifelong effects.
 

Putting eye drops to the test

In 2020, Mr. Yam and colleagues reported results of the Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP) study, which showed that eye drops containing a solution of 0.05% atropine worked best at slowing the progression of myopia in 4- to 12-year-olds who already had the condition. Atropine relaxes eye muscles, causing dilation.

In that study, Mr. Yam and colleagues measured the rate of change in the eye’s ability to see at a great distance using a unit of measure known as the diopter. The higher the diopter, the more myopic a person’s vision. The 0.05% atropine solution was better at slowing this decline than placebo or solutions that contained a lower concentration of the substance.

The new study enrolled 474 children who were evenly divided by sex. None of the children had myopia when the trial began. Of that starting group, 353 children (age, 4-9 years) completed the study, which involved receiving eye drops once nightly in both eyes for 2 years.

Some children (n = 116) received 0.05% atropine, others (n = 122) received 0.01% atropine, and the rest (n = 115) received placebo drops. Mr. Yam and colleagues assessed how many children in each group had myopia after 2 years, as measured by a decline of at least a half diopter in one eye.

At the 2-year mark, more than half of children who received the placebo drops (61/115) had developed myopia, as had nearly half of those given 0.01% atropine (56/122). But fewer than one-third of children (33/116, 28.4%) who had received the drops with 0.05% atropine developed myopia during that period, the researchers reported.

The percentage of children with myopia in the placebo group (39/128, 30.5%) was larger by the end of the first year of the study than was the share of children in the 0.05% atropine group by the end of the trial. (Between 12 months and 24 months, 13 children in the placebo group left the study.) The main adverse event, in all treatment groups, was discomfort when exposed to bright light, according to the researchers.

“We are continuing the current study with the total intended follow-up duration of at least 6years,” added Mr. Yam, who hopes to determine whether the 0.05% atropine solution not only delays myopia but also prevents it altogether. While myopia is a concern worldwide, the condition is particularly prevalent in East Asia.

Mark A. Bullimore, MCOptom, PhD, FAAO, an adjunct professor at the University of Houston, and a consultant to ophthalmologic companies, called the trial “a landmark study. Finding children who are eligible and parents who are willing to deal with 2 years of drops is no small feat.

“The 0.05% atropine, on average, delays onset of myopia by a year,” Dr. Bullimore noted. He pointed to the similar percentages of myopia with placebo at 12 months, compared with 0.05% atropine 1 year later. He added that few clinicians in the United States use higher than 0.05% atropine for control of myopia because doing so can lead to excessive dilation and difficulty focusing.

While preventing myopia altogether would be ideal, simply delaying its onset can also be of tangible benefit, Bullimore said. In an article published in January, Dr. Bullimore and Noel A. Brennan of Johnson & Johnson Vision showed that delaying the onset of myopia reduces its severity.

“Optometrists prescribe low-concentration atropine already for myopia control, and there’s no reason now – in the light of this study – that they wouldn’t also do it to delay onset,” Dr. Bullimore said.

But in an editorial accompanying the journal article David A. Berntsen, OD, PhD, and Jeffrey J. Walline, OD, PhD, both of the University of Houston, wrote that a change in practice would be premature.

“The evidence presented does not yet warrant a change in the standard care of children because we do not yet know the long-term effects of delaying the onset of myopia with low-concentration atropine,” they wrote.

Identifying which children to consider for treatment is “a challenge,” they noted, because those who are not nearsighted typically do not undergo routine examination unless they have failed a vision test.

“Ultimately, the implementation of vision screenings that include determining a child’s prescription will likely be needed to identify children most likely to become myopic who may benefit from low-concentration atropine,” Dr. Berntsen and Dr. Walline wrote.

Mr. Yam and coinvestigators have applied for a patent on a 0.05% atropine solution. Dr. Bullimore reported relationships with Alcon Research,CooperVision, CorneaGen, EssilorLuxottica, Eyenovia, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Lentechs, Novartis, and Vyluma, and is the sole owner of Ridgevue Publishing and Ridgevue Vision.

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

Dilating eye drops may delay – and perhaps even prevent – the onset of myopia in children, according to findings from a study published in JAMA. The study was conducted by researchers in Hong Kong.

Myopia is irreversible once it takes root and can contribute to other vision problems, such as macular degeneration, retinal detachment, glaucoma, and cataracts. The incidence of nearsightedness has nearly doubled since the 1970s, rising from 25% of the U.S. population to nearly 42%. Children have been particularly affected by the increase; reasons may include spending more time indoors looking at screens, experts say.

“Myopia is an ongoing and growing worldwide concern. This is of particular importance because of the change in children’s lifestyle, such as decreased outdoor time and increased screen time during and after the COVID-19 pandemic,” Jason C. Yam, MPH, of the department of ophthalmology and visual services at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said in an interview.

Mr. Yam said that, while encouraging children to engage more in outdoor activity and spend less time using screens would help delay myopia, pharmaceutical interventions are needed, given myopia’s potential lifelong effects.
 

Putting eye drops to the test

In 2020, Mr. Yam and colleagues reported results of the Low-Concentration Atropine for Myopia Progression (LAMP) study, which showed that eye drops containing a solution of 0.05% atropine worked best at slowing the progression of myopia in 4- to 12-year-olds who already had the condition. Atropine relaxes eye muscles, causing dilation.

In that study, Mr. Yam and colleagues measured the rate of change in the eye’s ability to see at a great distance using a unit of measure known as the diopter. The higher the diopter, the more myopic a person’s vision. The 0.05% atropine solution was better at slowing this decline than placebo or solutions that contained a lower concentration of the substance.

The new study enrolled 474 children who were evenly divided by sex. None of the children had myopia when the trial began. Of that starting group, 353 children (age, 4-9 years) completed the study, which involved receiving eye drops once nightly in both eyes for 2 years.

Some children (n = 116) received 0.05% atropine, others (n = 122) received 0.01% atropine, and the rest (n = 115) received placebo drops. Mr. Yam and colleagues assessed how many children in each group had myopia after 2 years, as measured by a decline of at least a half diopter in one eye.

At the 2-year mark, more than half of children who received the placebo drops (61/115) had developed myopia, as had nearly half of those given 0.01% atropine (56/122). But fewer than one-third of children (33/116, 28.4%) who had received the drops with 0.05% atropine developed myopia during that period, the researchers reported.

The percentage of children with myopia in the placebo group (39/128, 30.5%) was larger by the end of the first year of the study than was the share of children in the 0.05% atropine group by the end of the trial. (Between 12 months and 24 months, 13 children in the placebo group left the study.) The main adverse event, in all treatment groups, was discomfort when exposed to bright light, according to the researchers.

“We are continuing the current study with the total intended follow-up duration of at least 6years,” added Mr. Yam, who hopes to determine whether the 0.05% atropine solution not only delays myopia but also prevents it altogether. While myopia is a concern worldwide, the condition is particularly prevalent in East Asia.

Mark A. Bullimore, MCOptom, PhD, FAAO, an adjunct professor at the University of Houston, and a consultant to ophthalmologic companies, called the trial “a landmark study. Finding children who are eligible and parents who are willing to deal with 2 years of drops is no small feat.

“The 0.05% atropine, on average, delays onset of myopia by a year,” Dr. Bullimore noted. He pointed to the similar percentages of myopia with placebo at 12 months, compared with 0.05% atropine 1 year later. He added that few clinicians in the United States use higher than 0.05% atropine for control of myopia because doing so can lead to excessive dilation and difficulty focusing.

While preventing myopia altogether would be ideal, simply delaying its onset can also be of tangible benefit, Bullimore said. In an article published in January, Dr. Bullimore and Noel A. Brennan of Johnson & Johnson Vision showed that delaying the onset of myopia reduces its severity.

“Optometrists prescribe low-concentration atropine already for myopia control, and there’s no reason now – in the light of this study – that they wouldn’t also do it to delay onset,” Dr. Bullimore said.

But in an editorial accompanying the journal article David A. Berntsen, OD, PhD, and Jeffrey J. Walline, OD, PhD, both of the University of Houston, wrote that a change in practice would be premature.

“The evidence presented does not yet warrant a change in the standard care of children because we do not yet know the long-term effects of delaying the onset of myopia with low-concentration atropine,” they wrote.

Identifying which children to consider for treatment is “a challenge,” they noted, because those who are not nearsighted typically do not undergo routine examination unless they have failed a vision test.

“Ultimately, the implementation of vision screenings that include determining a child’s prescription will likely be needed to identify children most likely to become myopic who may benefit from low-concentration atropine,” Dr. Berntsen and Dr. Walline wrote.

Mr. Yam and coinvestigators have applied for a patent on a 0.05% atropine solution. Dr. Bullimore reported relationships with Alcon Research,CooperVision, CorneaGen, EssilorLuxottica, Eyenovia, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Lentechs, Novartis, and Vyluma, and is the sole owner of Ridgevue Publishing and Ridgevue Vision.

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

Caring for a child with autism is a long haul for families and not often a smooth ride. Medications can help improve child functioning and family quality of life but the evidence may require our careful consideration.

Although I am discussing medication treatment here, the best evidence-based treatments for autism symptoms such as poor social communication and repetitive restricted behavior (RRB) are behavioral (for example, applied behavior analysis), cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and parent training. These modalities also augment the effectiveness of medications in many cases. Educational adjustments and specific therapies, when indicated, such as speech-language, occupational, and physical therapy are also beneficial.

Autism symptoms change with age from early regression, later to RRB, then depression, and they are complicated by coexisting conditions. Not surprisingly then, studying the effectiveness and side effects of medications is complex and guidance is in flux as reliable data emerge.

Because of the shortage of specialists and increasing prevalence of autism, we need to be prepared to manage, monitor, and sometimes start medications for our autistic patients. With great individual differences and the hopes and fears of distressed parents making them desperate for help, we need to be as evidence-based as possible to avoid serious side effects or delay effective behavioral treatments.

Our assistance is mainly to address the many co-occurring symptoms in autism: 37%-85% ADHD, 50% anxiety, 7.3% bipolar disorder, and 54.1% depression (by age 30). Many autistic children have problematic irritability, explosive episodes, repetitive or rigid routines, difficulty with social engagement, or trouble sleeping.

We need to be clear with families about the evidence and, whenever possible, use our own time-limited trials with placebos and objective measures that target symptoms and goals for improvement. This is complicated by that fact that the child may have trouble communicating about how they feel, have hypo- or hypersensitivity to feelings, as well as confounding coexisting conditions.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the atypical antipsychotics risperidone (ages 5-16) and aripiprazole (ages 6-17) for reducing symptoms of irritability by 25%-50% – such as agitation, stereotypy, anger outbursts, self-injurious behavior, and hyperactivity within 8 weeks. The Aberrant Behavior Checklist can be used for monitoring. These benefits are largest with behavior therapy and at doses of 1.25-1.75  mg/day (risperidone) or 2-15 mg/day (aripiprazole). Unfortunately, side effects of these medications include somnolence, increased appetite and weight gain (average of 5.1 kg), abnormal blood lipids and glucose, dyskinesia, and elevated prolactin (sometimes galactorrhea). Aripiprazole is equivalent to risperidone for irritability, has less prolactin and fewer metabolic effects, but sometimes has extrapyramidal symptoms. Other second-generation atypical antipsychotics have less evidence but may have fewer side effects. With careful monitoring, these medications can make a major difference in child behavior.

ADHD symptoms often respond to methylphenidate within 4 weeks but at a lower dose and with more side effects of irritability, social withdrawal, and emotional outbursts than for children with ADHD without autism. Formulations such as liquid (short or long acting) or dermal patch may facilitate the important small-dose adjustments and slow ramp-up we should use with checklist monitoring (for example, Vanderbilt Assessment). Atomoxetine also reduces hyperactivity, especially when used with parent training, but has associated nausea, anorexia, early awakening, and rare unpredictable liver failure. Mixed amphetamine salts have not been studied. Clonidine (oral or patch) and guanfacine extended release have also shown some effectiveness for hyperarousal, social interaction, and sleep although they can cause drowsiness/hypotension.

Sleep issues such as sleep onset, duration, and disruptions can improve with melatonin, especially combined with CBT, and it can even sometimes help with anxiety, rigidity, and communication. Use a certified brand and prevent accidental ingestion of gummy forms. Note that obstructive sleep apnea is significantly more common in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and should be evaluated if there are signs. The Childhood Sleep Questionnaire can be used to monitor.

There aren’t data available for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in treating depression and anxiety in autistic children but CBT may help. Buspirone improved RRB (at 2.5 mg b.i.d.) but did not help mood. Mood-stabilizing antiepileptics have had mixed results (valproate reduced irritability but with serious side effects), no benefits (lamotrigine and levetiracetam), or no trials (lithium, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate). In spite of this, a Cochrane report recommends antidepressants “on a case by case basis” for children with ASD, keeping in mind the higher risks of behavioral activation (consider comorbid bipolar disorder), irritability, akathisia, and sleep disturbance. We can monitor with Short Moods and Feelings Questionnaire and Problem Behavior Checklist.

NMDA and GABA receptors are implicated in the genesis of ASD. Bumetanide, a GABA modulator, at 1 mg b.i.d., improved social communication and restricted interests, but had dose-related hypokalemia, increased urination, dehydration, loss of appetite, and asthenia. Donepezil (cholinesterase inhibitor) in small studies improved autism scores and expressive/receptive language. N-acetylcysteine, D-cycloserine, and arbaclofen did not show efficacy.

Currently, 64% of children with ASD are prescribed one psychotropic medication, 35% more than two classes, and 15% more than three. While we may look askance at polypharmacy, several medications not effective as monotherapy for children with ASD have significant effects in combination with risperidone; notably memantine, riluzole, N-acetylcysteine, amantadine, topiramate, and buspirone, compared with placebo. Memantine alone has shown benefits in 60% of autistic patients on social, language, and self-stimulatory behaviors at 2.5-30 mg; effective enough that 80% chose continuation.

Families often use complementary or alternative medicines (CAM) so we need to ask about them because CAM may interact with prescribed drugs or complicate determining the source of side effects or benefits. Oxytocin has promising but inconclusive data for improving social cognition but only for 3-8 year olds. Omega-3 fatty acid had benefits for young child stereotypy and lethargy but only by parent report. Vitamin B12, folinic acid, vitamin D3, and digestive enzymes may help but lack data. It is important that families not replace evidence-based treatments with CAM when there are significant symptoms needing treatment.

Being a person with autism, beyond the stress of rigid routines and social difficulties, may include being a target of physical or sexual abuse or bullying, which are risks for suicide. Suicide is eightfold greater in people with autism, especially those who are high functioning; thus, we need to include children with ASD in our routine suicide screening.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

References

Goel R et al. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2018;30(1):78-95.

Stepanova E et al. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2017;19(4):395-402.

Caring for a child with autism is a long haul for families and not often a smooth ride. Medications can help improve child functioning and family quality of life but the evidence may require our careful consideration.

Although I am discussing medication treatment here, the best evidence-based treatments for autism symptoms such as poor social communication and repetitive restricted behavior (RRB) are behavioral (for example, applied behavior analysis), cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and parent training. These modalities also augment the effectiveness of medications in many cases. Educational adjustments and specific therapies, when indicated, such as speech-language, occupational, and physical therapy are also beneficial.

Autism symptoms change with age from early regression, later to RRB, then depression, and they are complicated by coexisting conditions. Not surprisingly then, studying the effectiveness and side effects of medications is complex and guidance is in flux as reliable data emerge.

Because of the shortage of specialists and increasing prevalence of autism, we need to be prepared to manage, monitor, and sometimes start medications for our autistic patients. With great individual differences and the hopes and fears of distressed parents making them desperate for help, we need to be as evidence-based as possible to avoid serious side effects or delay effective behavioral treatments.

Our assistance is mainly to address the many co-occurring symptoms in autism: 37%-85% ADHD, 50% anxiety, 7.3% bipolar disorder, and 54.1% depression (by age 30). Many autistic children have problematic irritability, explosive episodes, repetitive or rigid routines, difficulty with social engagement, or trouble sleeping.

We need to be clear with families about the evidence and, whenever possible, use our own time-limited trials with placebos and objective measures that target symptoms and goals for improvement. This is complicated by that fact that the child may have trouble communicating about how they feel, have hypo- or hypersensitivity to feelings, as well as confounding coexisting conditions.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the atypical antipsychotics risperidone (ages 5-16) and aripiprazole (ages 6-17) for reducing symptoms of irritability by 25%-50% – such as agitation, stereotypy, anger outbursts, self-injurious behavior, and hyperactivity within 8 weeks. The Aberrant Behavior Checklist can be used for monitoring. These benefits are largest with behavior therapy and at doses of 1.25-1.75  mg/day (risperidone) or 2-15 mg/day (aripiprazole). Unfortunately, side effects of these medications include somnolence, increased appetite and weight gain (average of 5.1 kg), abnormal blood lipids and glucose, dyskinesia, and elevated prolactin (sometimes galactorrhea). Aripiprazole is equivalent to risperidone for irritability, has less prolactin and fewer metabolic effects, but sometimes has extrapyramidal symptoms. Other second-generation atypical antipsychotics have less evidence but may have fewer side effects. With careful monitoring, these medications can make a major difference in child behavior.

ADHD symptoms often respond to methylphenidate within 4 weeks but at a lower dose and with more side effects of irritability, social withdrawal, and emotional outbursts than for children with ADHD without autism. Formulations such as liquid (short or long acting) or dermal patch may facilitate the important small-dose adjustments and slow ramp-up we should use with checklist monitoring (for example, Vanderbilt Assessment). Atomoxetine also reduces hyperactivity, especially when used with parent training, but has associated nausea, anorexia, early awakening, and rare unpredictable liver failure. Mixed amphetamine salts have not been studied. Clonidine (oral or patch) and guanfacine extended release have also shown some effectiveness for hyperarousal, social interaction, and sleep although they can cause drowsiness/hypotension.

Sleep issues such as sleep onset, duration, and disruptions can improve with melatonin, especially combined with CBT, and it can even sometimes help with anxiety, rigidity, and communication. Use a certified brand and prevent accidental ingestion of gummy forms. Note that obstructive sleep apnea is significantly more common in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and should be evaluated if there are signs. The Childhood Sleep Questionnaire can be used to monitor.

There aren’t data available for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in treating depression and anxiety in autistic children but CBT may help. Buspirone improved RRB (at 2.5 mg b.i.d.) but did not help mood. Mood-stabilizing antiepileptics have had mixed results (valproate reduced irritability but with serious side effects), no benefits (lamotrigine and levetiracetam), or no trials (lithium, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate). In spite of this, a Cochrane report recommends antidepressants “on a case by case basis” for children with ASD, keeping in mind the higher risks of behavioral activation (consider comorbid bipolar disorder), irritability, akathisia, and sleep disturbance. We can monitor with Short Moods and Feelings Questionnaire and Problem Behavior Checklist.

NMDA and GABA receptors are implicated in the genesis of ASD. Bumetanide, a GABA modulator, at 1 mg b.i.d., improved social communication and restricted interests, but had dose-related hypokalemia, increased urination, dehydration, loss of appetite, and asthenia. Donepezil (cholinesterase inhibitor) in small studies improved autism scores and expressive/receptive language. N-acetylcysteine, D-cycloserine, and arbaclofen did not show efficacy.

Currently, 64% of children with ASD are prescribed one psychotropic medication, 35% more than two classes, and 15% more than three. While we may look askance at polypharmacy, several medications not effective as monotherapy for children with ASD have significant effects in combination with risperidone; notably memantine, riluzole, N-acetylcysteine, amantadine, topiramate, and buspirone, compared with placebo. Memantine alone has shown benefits in 60% of autistic patients on social, language, and self-stimulatory behaviors at 2.5-30 mg; effective enough that 80% chose continuation.

Families often use complementary or alternative medicines (CAM) so we need to ask about them because CAM may interact with prescribed drugs or complicate determining the source of side effects or benefits. Oxytocin has promising but inconclusive data for improving social cognition but only for 3-8 year olds. Omega-3 fatty acid had benefits for young child stereotypy and lethargy but only by parent report. Vitamin B12, folinic acid, vitamin D3, and digestive enzymes may help but lack data. It is important that families not replace evidence-based treatments with CAM when there are significant symptoms needing treatment.

Being a person with autism, beyond the stress of rigid routines and social difficulties, may include being a target of physical or sexual abuse or bullying, which are risks for suicide. Suicide is eightfold greater in people with autism, especially those who are high functioning; thus, we need to include children with ASD in our routine suicide screening.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

References

Goel R et al. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2018;30(1):78-95.

Stepanova E et al. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2017;19(4):395-402.

Caring for a child with autism is a long haul for families and not often a smooth ride. Medications can help improve child functioning and family quality of life but the evidence may require our careful consideration.

Although I am discussing medication treatment here, the best evidence-based treatments for autism symptoms such as poor social communication and repetitive restricted behavior (RRB) are behavioral (for example, applied behavior analysis), cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and parent training. These modalities also augment the effectiveness of medications in many cases. Educational adjustments and specific therapies, when indicated, such as speech-language, occupational, and physical therapy are also beneficial.

Autism symptoms change with age from early regression, later to RRB, then depression, and they are complicated by coexisting conditions. Not surprisingly then, studying the effectiveness and side effects of medications is complex and guidance is in flux as reliable data emerge.

Because of the shortage of specialists and increasing prevalence of autism, we need to be prepared to manage, monitor, and sometimes start medications for our autistic patients. With great individual differences and the hopes and fears of distressed parents making them desperate for help, we need to be as evidence-based as possible to avoid serious side effects or delay effective behavioral treatments.

Our assistance is mainly to address the many co-occurring symptoms in autism: 37%-85% ADHD, 50% anxiety, 7.3% bipolar disorder, and 54.1% depression (by age 30). Many autistic children have problematic irritability, explosive episodes, repetitive or rigid routines, difficulty with social engagement, or trouble sleeping.

We need to be clear with families about the evidence and, whenever possible, use our own time-limited trials with placebos and objective measures that target symptoms and goals for improvement. This is complicated by that fact that the child may have trouble communicating about how they feel, have hypo- or hypersensitivity to feelings, as well as confounding coexisting conditions.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the atypical antipsychotics risperidone (ages 5-16) and aripiprazole (ages 6-17) for reducing symptoms of irritability by 25%-50% – such as agitation, stereotypy, anger outbursts, self-injurious behavior, and hyperactivity within 8 weeks. The Aberrant Behavior Checklist can be used for monitoring. These benefits are largest with behavior therapy and at doses of 1.25-1.75  mg/day (risperidone) or 2-15 mg/day (aripiprazole). Unfortunately, side effects of these medications include somnolence, increased appetite and weight gain (average of 5.1 kg), abnormal blood lipids and glucose, dyskinesia, and elevated prolactin (sometimes galactorrhea). Aripiprazole is equivalent to risperidone for irritability, has less prolactin and fewer metabolic effects, but sometimes has extrapyramidal symptoms. Other second-generation atypical antipsychotics have less evidence but may have fewer side effects. With careful monitoring, these medications can make a major difference in child behavior.

ADHD symptoms often respond to methylphenidate within 4 weeks but at a lower dose and with more side effects of irritability, social withdrawal, and emotional outbursts than for children with ADHD without autism. Formulations such as liquid (short or long acting) or dermal patch may facilitate the important small-dose adjustments and slow ramp-up we should use with checklist monitoring (for example, Vanderbilt Assessment). Atomoxetine also reduces hyperactivity, especially when used with parent training, but has associated nausea, anorexia, early awakening, and rare unpredictable liver failure. Mixed amphetamine salts have not been studied. Clonidine (oral or patch) and guanfacine extended release have also shown some effectiveness for hyperarousal, social interaction, and sleep although they can cause drowsiness/hypotension.

Sleep issues such as sleep onset, duration, and disruptions can improve with melatonin, especially combined with CBT, and it can even sometimes help with anxiety, rigidity, and communication. Use a certified brand and prevent accidental ingestion of gummy forms. Note that obstructive sleep apnea is significantly more common in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and should be evaluated if there are signs. The Childhood Sleep Questionnaire can be used to monitor.

There aren’t data available for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in treating depression and anxiety in autistic children but CBT may help. Buspirone improved RRB (at 2.5 mg b.i.d.) but did not help mood. Mood-stabilizing antiepileptics have had mixed results (valproate reduced irritability but with serious side effects), no benefits (lamotrigine and levetiracetam), or no trials (lithium, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate). In spite of this, a Cochrane report recommends antidepressants “on a case by case basis” for children with ASD, keeping in mind the higher risks of behavioral activation (consider comorbid bipolar disorder), irritability, akathisia, and sleep disturbance. We can monitor with Short Moods and Feelings Questionnaire and Problem Behavior Checklist.

NMDA and GABA receptors are implicated in the genesis of ASD. Bumetanide, a GABA modulator, at 1 mg b.i.d., improved social communication and restricted interests, but had dose-related hypokalemia, increased urination, dehydration, loss of appetite, and asthenia. Donepezil (cholinesterase inhibitor) in small studies improved autism scores and expressive/receptive language. N-acetylcysteine, D-cycloserine, and arbaclofen did not show efficacy.

Currently, 64% of children with ASD are prescribed one psychotropic medication, 35% more than two classes, and 15% more than three. While we may look askance at polypharmacy, several medications not effective as monotherapy for children with ASD have significant effects in combination with risperidone; notably memantine, riluzole, N-acetylcysteine, amantadine, topiramate, and buspirone, compared with placebo. Memantine alone has shown benefits in 60% of autistic patients on social, language, and self-stimulatory behaviors at 2.5-30 mg; effective enough that 80% chose continuation.

Families often use complementary or alternative medicines (CAM) so we need to ask about them because CAM may interact with prescribed drugs or complicate determining the source of side effects or benefits. Oxytocin has promising but inconclusive data for improving social cognition but only for 3-8 year olds. Omega-3 fatty acid had benefits for young child stereotypy and lethargy but only by parent report. Vitamin B12, folinic acid, vitamin D3, and digestive enzymes may help but lack data. It is important that families not replace evidence-based treatments with CAM when there are significant symptoms needing treatment.

Being a person with autism, beyond the stress of rigid routines and social difficulties, may include being a target of physical or sexual abuse or bullying, which are risks for suicide. Suicide is eightfold greater in people with autism, especially those who are high functioning; thus, we need to include children with ASD in our routine suicide screening.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

References

Goel R et al. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2018;30(1):78-95.

Stepanova E et al. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2017;19(4):395-402.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

I visited a legal cannabis dispensary in Massachusetts a few years ago, mostly to see what the hype was about. There I was, knowing basically nothing about pot, as the gentle stoner behind the counter explained to me the differences between the various strains. Acapulco Gold is buoyant and energizing; Purple Kush is sleepy, relaxed, dissociative. Here’s a strain that makes you feel nostalgic; here’s one that helps you focus. It was as complicated and as oddly specific as a fancy wine tasting – and, I had a feeling, about as reliable.

And while a strain that evokes memories of your first kiss is beyond the reach of modern cultivation practices, it is true that not all marijuana is created equal. It’s a plant, after all, and though delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the chemical responsible for its euphoric effects, it is far from the only substance in there.

The second most important compound in cannabis is cannabidiol, and most people will tell you that CBD is the gentle yin to THC’s paranoiac yang. Hence your local ganja barista reminding you that, if you don›t want all those anxiety-inducing side effects of THC, grab a strain with a nice CBD balance.

Courtesy F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

Courtesy F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

I visited a legal cannabis dispensary in Massachusetts a few years ago, mostly to see what the hype was about. There I was, knowing basically nothing about pot, as the gentle stoner behind the counter explained to me the differences between the various strains. Acapulco Gold is buoyant and energizing; Purple Kush is sleepy, relaxed, dissociative. Here’s a strain that makes you feel nostalgic; here’s one that helps you focus. It was as complicated and as oddly specific as a fancy wine tasting – and, I had a feeling, about as reliable.

And while a strain that evokes memories of your first kiss is beyond the reach of modern cultivation practices, it is true that not all marijuana is created equal. It’s a plant, after all, and though delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the chemical responsible for its euphoric effects, it is far from the only substance in there.

The second most important compound in cannabis is cannabidiol, and most people will tell you that CBD is the gentle yin to THC’s paranoiac yang. Hence your local ganja barista reminding you that, if you don›t want all those anxiety-inducing side effects of THC, grab a strain with a nice CBD balance.

Courtesy F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

Courtesy F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

I visited a legal cannabis dispensary in Massachusetts a few years ago, mostly to see what the hype was about. There I was, knowing basically nothing about pot, as the gentle stoner behind the counter explained to me the differences between the various strains. Acapulco Gold is buoyant and energizing; Purple Kush is sleepy, relaxed, dissociative. Here’s a strain that makes you feel nostalgic; here’s one that helps you focus. It was as complicated and as oddly specific as a fancy wine tasting – and, I had a feeling, about as reliable.

And while a strain that evokes memories of your first kiss is beyond the reach of modern cultivation practices, it is true that not all marijuana is created equal. It’s a plant, after all, and though delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the chemical responsible for its euphoric effects, it is far from the only substance in there.

The second most important compound in cannabis is cannabidiol, and most people will tell you that CBD is the gentle yin to THC’s paranoiac yang. Hence your local ganja barista reminding you that, if you don›t want all those anxiety-inducing side effects of THC, grab a strain with a nice CBD balance.

Courtesy F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

Courtesy F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn.

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

Both public and private health plans score poorly when it comes to providing access to autoimmune medication, according to a report commissioned by the Autoimmune Association and Let My Doctors Decide, a national partnership of health care professionals. The analysis, published Jan. 26, found that 75% of insurers in the United States have policies that can limit coverage for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for Crohn’s disease, lupus nephritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis.

“Choice among health plans is a hallmark of the American health insurance system, yet this analysis shows that people living with autoimmune conditions have few, if any, coverage choices that do not involve significant to severe access restrictions,” the authors wrote.

The study looked at three common utilization management policies by health plans that can limit coverage of certain medications: step therapy, formulary/tier placement, and prior authorization. To compare health plans, researchers weighted these policies using a point system. Each medication indicated for each condition was given a score of 0-4 based on access restrictions in a health plan. If a plan used step therapy, it received one point, and requiring prior authorization added an additional point. They also added points based on where a drug appeared on a plan’s formulary. A lower total score meant fewer access barriers. The numbers were then added, and each health plan received a grade of A, B, C, or F based on their average score. The datasets and analysis were provided and performed by the data analytics firm MMIT.

Nearly 9 in 10 Medicare plans received a C or worse for coverage of medication received via mail order or the pharmacy. In commercial plans, the majority of plans scored Cs or Fs for six of the seven conditions, excluding lupus nephritis, where 67% of all commercial health plans scored a B for access to these medications.

Physician-administered medications tended to receive poorer coverage than drugs received via pharmacy. Across all conditions, 65% of Medicare Advantage plans scored an F for physician-administered medication access. For both psoriasis and multiple sclerosis, at least 80% of Medicare plans earned failing scores because of these restrictions. Coverage was poorer on both commercial and health exchange plans, where across all conditions, 83% achieved failing scores. Two exceptions were the Southern and Northern California PPO plans by the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Out of the largest 25 health plans in the United States, these two plans earned As in coverage for physician-administered medications across all seven autoimmune conditions.

The report shows “a growing disconnect between science and health insurance benefit designs that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s,” Kenneth Thorpe, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. Insurers originally designed these benefits to prevent excessive utilization in a population of mostly acutely ill patients, he said, whereas now, 90% of healthcare spending is linked to chronic conditions. For these patients, research shows that incentivizing patients to adhere to medications results in fewer hospitalizations and, therefore, more cost savings, Thorpe noted. These plans also do not consider that there is no average patient, he said, and healthcare providers should be able to match each patient to the best treatment option for them rather than trying out other less expensive medications first. “To the extent that physicians can have the flexibility to provide medications and treatments to patients that are going to have the best clinical response, that’s better outcomes at lower cost,” Dr. Thorpe said. While research shows heterogeneity in patient outcomes with different medication, “benefit designs from the past just don’t recognize that.”

Neither America’s Health Insurance Plans nor Pharmaceutical Care Management Association responded to a request for comment.

Quardricos Driskell, executive director of Let My Doctors Decide and vice president of government relations and public policy at the Autoimmune Association, hopes the study will spur action by policy makers and health plans to improve access to medications for the people who need them. Another larger point of the report is to “uphold the sanctity of protecting the doctor and patient relationship,” he said in an interview, adding “that decisions fundamentally need to be made not by insurance plans or middleman pharmacy benefit managers, but by the provider and patient.”

Mr. Driskell and Dr. Thorpe reported no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Both public and private health plans score poorly when it comes to providing access to autoimmune medication, according to a report commissioned by the Autoimmune Association and Let My Doctors Decide, a national partnership of health care professionals. The analysis, published Jan. 26, found that 75% of insurers in the United States have policies that can limit coverage for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for Crohn’s disease, lupus nephritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis.

“Choice among health plans is a hallmark of the American health insurance system, yet this analysis shows that people living with autoimmune conditions have few, if any, coverage choices that do not involve significant to severe access restrictions,” the authors wrote.

The study looked at three common utilization management policies by health plans that can limit coverage of certain medications: step therapy, formulary/tier placement, and prior authorization. To compare health plans, researchers weighted these policies using a point system. Each medication indicated for each condition was given a score of 0-4 based on access restrictions in a health plan. If a plan used step therapy, it received one point, and requiring prior authorization added an additional point. They also added points based on where a drug appeared on a plan’s formulary. A lower total score meant fewer access barriers. The numbers were then added, and each health plan received a grade of A, B, C, or F based on their average score. The datasets and analysis were provided and performed by the data analytics firm MMIT.

Nearly 9 in 10 Medicare plans received a C or worse for coverage of medication received via mail order or the pharmacy. In commercial plans, the majority of plans scored Cs or Fs for six of the seven conditions, excluding lupus nephritis, where 67% of all commercial health plans scored a B for access to these medications.

Physician-administered medications tended to receive poorer coverage than drugs received via pharmacy. Across all conditions, 65% of Medicare Advantage plans scored an F for physician-administered medication access. For both psoriasis and multiple sclerosis, at least 80% of Medicare plans earned failing scores because of these restrictions. Coverage was poorer on both commercial and health exchange plans, where across all conditions, 83% achieved failing scores. Two exceptions were the Southern and Northern California PPO plans by the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Out of the largest 25 health plans in the United States, these two plans earned As in coverage for physician-administered medications across all seven autoimmune conditions.

The report shows “a growing disconnect between science and health insurance benefit designs that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s,” Kenneth Thorpe, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. Insurers originally designed these benefits to prevent excessive utilization in a population of mostly acutely ill patients, he said, whereas now, 90% of healthcare spending is linked to chronic conditions. For these patients, research shows that incentivizing patients to adhere to medications results in fewer hospitalizations and, therefore, more cost savings, Thorpe noted. These plans also do not consider that there is no average patient, he said, and healthcare providers should be able to match each patient to the best treatment option for them rather than trying out other less expensive medications first. “To the extent that physicians can have the flexibility to provide medications and treatments to patients that are going to have the best clinical response, that’s better outcomes at lower cost,” Dr. Thorpe said. While research shows heterogeneity in patient outcomes with different medication, “benefit designs from the past just don’t recognize that.”

Neither America’s Health Insurance Plans nor Pharmaceutical Care Management Association responded to a request for comment.

Quardricos Driskell, executive director of Let My Doctors Decide and vice president of government relations and public policy at the Autoimmune Association, hopes the study will spur action by policy makers and health plans to improve access to medications for the people who need them. Another larger point of the report is to “uphold the sanctity of protecting the doctor and patient relationship,” he said in an interview, adding “that decisions fundamentally need to be made not by insurance plans or middleman pharmacy benefit managers, but by the provider and patient.”

Mr. Driskell and Dr. Thorpe reported no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Both public and private health plans score poorly when it comes to providing access to autoimmune medication, according to a report commissioned by the Autoimmune Association and Let My Doctors Decide, a national partnership of health care professionals. The analysis, published Jan. 26, found that 75% of insurers in the United States have policies that can limit coverage for Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for Crohn’s disease, lupus nephritis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis.

“Choice among health plans is a hallmark of the American health insurance system, yet this analysis shows that people living with autoimmune conditions have few, if any, coverage choices that do not involve significant to severe access restrictions,” the authors wrote.

The study looked at three common utilization management policies by health plans that can limit coverage of certain medications: step therapy, formulary/tier placement, and prior authorization. To compare health plans, researchers weighted these policies using a point system. Each medication indicated for each condition was given a score of 0-4 based on access restrictions in a health plan. If a plan used step therapy, it received one point, and requiring prior authorization added an additional point. They also added points based on where a drug appeared on a plan’s formulary. A lower total score meant fewer access barriers. The numbers were then added, and each health plan received a grade of A, B, C, or F based on their average score. The datasets and analysis were provided and performed by the data analytics firm MMIT.

Nearly 9 in 10 Medicare plans received a C or worse for coverage of medication received via mail order or the pharmacy. In commercial plans, the majority of plans scored Cs or Fs for six of the seven conditions, excluding lupus nephritis, where 67% of all commercial health plans scored a B for access to these medications.

Physician-administered medications tended to receive poorer coverage than drugs received via pharmacy. Across all conditions, 65% of Medicare Advantage plans scored an F for physician-administered medication access. For both psoriasis and multiple sclerosis, at least 80% of Medicare plans earned failing scores because of these restrictions. Coverage was poorer on both commercial and health exchange plans, where across all conditions, 83% achieved failing scores. Two exceptions were the Southern and Northern California PPO plans by the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Out of the largest 25 health plans in the United States, these two plans earned As in coverage for physician-administered medications across all seven autoimmune conditions.

The report shows “a growing disconnect between science and health insurance benefit designs that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s,” Kenneth Thorpe, PhD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. Insurers originally designed these benefits to prevent excessive utilization in a population of mostly acutely ill patients, he said, whereas now, 90% of healthcare spending is linked to chronic conditions. For these patients, research shows that incentivizing patients to adhere to medications results in fewer hospitalizations and, therefore, more cost savings, Thorpe noted. These plans also do not consider that there is no average patient, he said, and healthcare providers should be able to match each patient to the best treatment option for them rather than trying out other less expensive medications first. “To the extent that physicians can have the flexibility to provide medications and treatments to patients that are going to have the best clinical response, that’s better outcomes at lower cost,” Dr. Thorpe said. While research shows heterogeneity in patient outcomes with different medication, “benefit designs from the past just don’t recognize that.”

Neither America’s Health Insurance Plans nor Pharmaceutical Care Management Association responded to a request for comment.

Quardricos Driskell, executive director of Let My Doctors Decide and vice president of government relations and public policy at the Autoimmune Association, hopes the study will spur action by policy makers and health plans to improve access to medications for the people who need them. Another larger point of the report is to “uphold the sanctity of protecting the doctor and patient relationship,” he said in an interview, adding “that decisions fundamentally need to be made not by insurance plans or middleman pharmacy benefit managers, but by the provider and patient.”

Mr. Driskell and Dr. Thorpe reported no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article first 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.

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.

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.