CHEST Physician

Having had a recent acute febrile illness was associated with an increased risk for ischemic stroke, whereas having received an influenza vaccination was associated with a reduced risk for stroke in a large new case-control study.

“While influenza vaccination is a cost-effective method to prevent influenza, it is also an effective way to reduce the burden of stroke,” said study author Christopher Schwarzbach, MD, of Ludwigshafen (Germany) Hospital.  

“Our results therefore encourage the wider use of influenza vaccination,” he concluded.

Dr. Schwarzbach presented these data from the INTERSTROKE study at the 2022 European Stroke Organisation Conference.

He explained that acute inflammatory disease is thought to increase the risk for cerebrovascular events, and the seasonality of influenza-like illness appears to be associated with the seasonality of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Previous observational studies have also shown a link between influenza vaccination and a reduced risk for stroke.

The current INTERSTROKE study was a large international case-control study conducted between 2007 and 2015 that involved 13,447 cases (patients within 5 days of their first stroke) and a similar number of age- and gender-matched people from 32 countries across the world.

All cases and control subjects were systematically asked whether they had acute febrile illness in the previous 4 weeks and whether they had received an influenza vaccination within the previous year.

Conditional logistical regression was used to quantify the results, with adjustment for 13 different possible confounding factors, including hypertension, activity, smoking, cardiovascular risk factors, and socioeconomic factors.

Results showed that having had an acute febrile illness in the previous 4 weeks was more commonly reported in the patients with an acute ischemic stroke (8.7%) than in control patients (5.6%). After adjustment for confounding factors, this gives an adjusted risk ratio of 1.18, which was of borderline statistical significance (95% confidence limits, 1.01-1.39), Dr. Schwarzbach reported.

The association between recent febrile illness and acute ischemic stroke was stronger when compared with community control subjects (adjusted odds ratio, 2.0), but it was absent when compared with hospital control subjects.

The association was also only apparent in Australia, China, North America, and Western Europe; it was not seen in other parts of the world.

There was no association between acute febrile illness and acute cerebral hemorrhage.
 

Flu vaccine linked to halving of stroke risk

Having received a flu vaccine in the previous year was strongly associated with a lower risk for any type of stroke (aOR, 0.53), ischemic stroke (aOR, 0.57), and hemorrhagic stroke (aOR, 0.34).

Dr. Schwarzbach noted that these results were also consistent in an extended statistical model that included variables that might reflect a willingness to be vaccinated and when compared with both community and hospital-based control subjects.

The strength of the association between influenza vaccination and reduced risk for stroke was similar when compared with either community or hospital control subjects, and was only moderately stronger during than outside the influenza season.

The association was also seen in all regions of the world apart from Africa and South Asia, Dr. Schwarzbach reported, but he noted that vaccination rates in these two regions were extremely low.  

The researchers also found that the magnitude of the associations between flu vaccination and lower risk for stroke were stronger in individuals who had multiple annual vaccinations, with an odds ratio of 0.54 in those who had received a vaccine every year for the previous 5 years, and of 0.79 in those who had received one to four vaccinations in the previous 5 years.
 

Mechanism: Immune stimulation?

Discussing possible mechanisms behind these results, Dr. Schwarzbach noted that the finding that the association with influenza vaccination and reduced stroke risk was independent of seasonality was surprising. “We had expected the protective effect of vaccination to be bigger during the influenza season, but this wasn’t the case.”

He suggested that one explanation might be the inclusion of regions of the world where this seasonality doesn’t exist.

But he pointed out that the finding of a stronger association between flu vaccination and lower stroke risk in those who had received more vaccinations has given rise to another theory: that it is the stimulation of the immune system rather than the protection of infection against influenza that is the key factor.

In an interview with Dr. Schwarzbach, Guillaume Turk, MD, professor of neurology at GHU Paris, pointed out that causal inferences are always difficult in case-control studies and in clinical epidemiology in general.

“What makes you think that this association between influenza vaccination and decreased risk is causal rather than due to unmeasured confounders? For example, patients who received vaccination may have received more medical attention and may have been more aware of the risk factors for stroke,” he asked.  

Dr. Schwarzbach replied: “Yes, this is the issue of healthy user bias, which is always a problem in this type of research and is hard to address.”

“What we tried to do here is to adjust for variables that might influence the willingness of people to get vaccinated,” he added. “These were mainly socioeconomic factors. But, of course, this is something that we can’t rule out.”

Dr. Schwarzbach noted that, for more reliable information on this association, prospective studies are needed.
 

‘A plausible effect’

Discussing the study after the presentation, William Whiteley, BM, PhD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh and a consultant neurologist in NHS Lothian, said vaccination was a potentially important way to reduce stroke.

“In this study, there was a plausible effect on reducing stroke incidence from vaccination against influenza, and also a plausible increase in the risk of stroke from having a recent febrile illness, which we have seen in other studies,” he commented.

Dr. Whiteley noted that this observation was particularly relevant now because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We’ve all been worried about the risk of heart attack and stroke after COVID, where we’ve seen quite early high risks, and we are also optimistic about the effect of vaccination on reducing those incidences. We’ve seen data from the U.K. that there may be around a 20% reduction in risk of stroke from vaccination. So, it’s all quite plausible, but at the moment it’s all based on observational evidence and we really need some randomized evidence,” he said.  

“Vaccination and infections have all sorts of odd confounders,” he added. “People who get vaccines tend to be more healthy than those who don’t get vaccines, so you can start to see quite implausible effects of vaccination on overall mortality, which probably aren’t real, and you probably can’t get rid of that totally with statistical methods.”

Alastair Webb, MD, University of Oxford (England), asked how reliable the current findings were, given that the occurrence of febrile illnesses and receipt of vaccines were all self-reported, and although there was an association for ischemic stroke and febrile illness, this seemed to go in the opposite direction for hemorrhagic stroke. He also noted that the 50% reduction in stroke risk with vaccination in this study seemed “quite a large magnitude of effect.”

Dr. Whiteley replied: “Yes, it is large, but it is promising.” He cited a previous meta-analysis of randomized studies that showed a roughly 25%-35% reduction in vascular events after flu vaccination, but noted that there was a lot of heterogeneity between studies.

“I’m not sure we’re going to see much more randomized evidence, but I think we can probably all agree that having a vaccine against flu or COVID is a good thing for all of us,” Dr. Whiteley concluded.

The INTERSTROKE study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Stroke Network, Health Research Board Ireland, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Vastra Gotaland (Sweden), AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, MSD, Chest, Heart and Stroke Scotland, and The Stroke Association, with support from The UK Stroke Research Network. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Having had a recent acute febrile illness was associated with an increased risk for ischemic stroke, whereas having received an influenza vaccination was associated with a reduced risk for stroke in a large new case-control study.

“While influenza vaccination is a cost-effective method to prevent influenza, it is also an effective way to reduce the burden of stroke,” said study author Christopher Schwarzbach, MD, of Ludwigshafen (Germany) Hospital.  

“Our results therefore encourage the wider use of influenza vaccination,” he concluded.

Dr. Schwarzbach presented these data from the INTERSTROKE study at the 2022 European Stroke Organisation Conference.

He explained that acute inflammatory disease is thought to increase the risk for cerebrovascular events, and the seasonality of influenza-like illness appears to be associated with the seasonality of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Previous observational studies have also shown a link between influenza vaccination and a reduced risk for stroke.

The current INTERSTROKE study was a large international case-control study conducted between 2007 and 2015 that involved 13,447 cases (patients within 5 days of their first stroke) and a similar number of age- and gender-matched people from 32 countries across the world.

All cases and control subjects were systematically asked whether they had acute febrile illness in the previous 4 weeks and whether they had received an influenza vaccination within the previous year.

Conditional logistical regression was used to quantify the results, with adjustment for 13 different possible confounding factors, including hypertension, activity, smoking, cardiovascular risk factors, and socioeconomic factors.

Results showed that having had an acute febrile illness in the previous 4 weeks was more commonly reported in the patients with an acute ischemic stroke (8.7%) than in control patients (5.6%). After adjustment for confounding factors, this gives an adjusted risk ratio of 1.18, which was of borderline statistical significance (95% confidence limits, 1.01-1.39), Dr. Schwarzbach reported.

The association between recent febrile illness and acute ischemic stroke was stronger when compared with community control subjects (adjusted odds ratio, 2.0), but it was absent when compared with hospital control subjects.

The association was also only apparent in Australia, China, North America, and Western Europe; it was not seen in other parts of the world.

There was no association between acute febrile illness and acute cerebral hemorrhage.
 

Flu vaccine linked to halving of stroke risk

Having received a flu vaccine in the previous year was strongly associated with a lower risk for any type of stroke (aOR, 0.53), ischemic stroke (aOR, 0.57), and hemorrhagic stroke (aOR, 0.34).

Dr. Schwarzbach noted that these results were also consistent in an extended statistical model that included variables that might reflect a willingness to be vaccinated and when compared with both community and hospital-based control subjects.

The strength of the association between influenza vaccination and reduced risk for stroke was similar when compared with either community or hospital control subjects, and was only moderately stronger during than outside the influenza season.

The association was also seen in all regions of the world apart from Africa and South Asia, Dr. Schwarzbach reported, but he noted that vaccination rates in these two regions were extremely low.  

The researchers also found that the magnitude of the associations between flu vaccination and lower risk for stroke were stronger in individuals who had multiple annual vaccinations, with an odds ratio of 0.54 in those who had received a vaccine every year for the previous 5 years, and of 0.79 in those who had received one to four vaccinations in the previous 5 years.
 

Mechanism: Immune stimulation?

Discussing possible mechanisms behind these results, Dr. Schwarzbach noted that the finding that the association with influenza vaccination and reduced stroke risk was independent of seasonality was surprising. “We had expected the protective effect of vaccination to be bigger during the influenza season, but this wasn’t the case.”

He suggested that one explanation might be the inclusion of regions of the world where this seasonality doesn’t exist.

But he pointed out that the finding of a stronger association between flu vaccination and lower stroke risk in those who had received more vaccinations has given rise to another theory: that it is the stimulation of the immune system rather than the protection of infection against influenza that is the key factor.

In an interview with Dr. Schwarzbach, Guillaume Turk, MD, professor of neurology at GHU Paris, pointed out that causal inferences are always difficult in case-control studies and in clinical epidemiology in general.

“What makes you think that this association between influenza vaccination and decreased risk is causal rather than due to unmeasured confounders? For example, patients who received vaccination may have received more medical attention and may have been more aware of the risk factors for stroke,” he asked.  

Dr. Schwarzbach replied: “Yes, this is the issue of healthy user bias, which is always a problem in this type of research and is hard to address.”

“What we tried to do here is to adjust for variables that might influence the willingness of people to get vaccinated,” he added. “These were mainly socioeconomic factors. But, of course, this is something that we can’t rule out.”

Dr. Schwarzbach noted that, for more reliable information on this association, prospective studies are needed.
 

‘A plausible effect’

Discussing the study after the presentation, William Whiteley, BM, PhD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh and a consultant neurologist in NHS Lothian, said vaccination was a potentially important way to reduce stroke.

“In this study, there was a plausible effect on reducing stroke incidence from vaccination against influenza, and also a plausible increase in the risk of stroke from having a recent febrile illness, which we have seen in other studies,” he commented.

Dr. Whiteley noted that this observation was particularly relevant now because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We’ve all been worried about the risk of heart attack and stroke after COVID, where we’ve seen quite early high risks, and we are also optimistic about the effect of vaccination on reducing those incidences. We’ve seen data from the U.K. that there may be around a 20% reduction in risk of stroke from vaccination. So, it’s all quite plausible, but at the moment it’s all based on observational evidence and we really need some randomized evidence,” he said.  

“Vaccination and infections have all sorts of odd confounders,” he added. “People who get vaccines tend to be more healthy than those who don’t get vaccines, so you can start to see quite implausible effects of vaccination on overall mortality, which probably aren’t real, and you probably can’t get rid of that totally with statistical methods.”

Alastair Webb, MD, University of Oxford (England), asked how reliable the current findings were, given that the occurrence of febrile illnesses and receipt of vaccines were all self-reported, and although there was an association for ischemic stroke and febrile illness, this seemed to go in the opposite direction for hemorrhagic stroke. He also noted that the 50% reduction in stroke risk with vaccination in this study seemed “quite a large magnitude of effect.”

Dr. Whiteley replied: “Yes, it is large, but it is promising.” He cited a previous meta-analysis of randomized studies that showed a roughly 25%-35% reduction in vascular events after flu vaccination, but noted that there was a lot of heterogeneity between studies.

“I’m not sure we’re going to see much more randomized evidence, but I think we can probably all agree that having a vaccine against flu or COVID is a good thing for all of us,” Dr. Whiteley concluded.

The INTERSTROKE study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Stroke Network, Health Research Board Ireland, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Vastra Gotaland (Sweden), AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, MSD, Chest, Heart and Stroke Scotland, and The Stroke Association, with support from The UK Stroke Research Network. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Having had a recent acute febrile illness was associated with an increased risk for ischemic stroke, whereas having received an influenza vaccination was associated with a reduced risk for stroke in a large new case-control study.

“While influenza vaccination is a cost-effective method to prevent influenza, it is also an effective way to reduce the burden of stroke,” said study author Christopher Schwarzbach, MD, of Ludwigshafen (Germany) Hospital.  

“Our results therefore encourage the wider use of influenza vaccination,” he concluded.

Dr. Schwarzbach presented these data from the INTERSTROKE study at the 2022 European Stroke Organisation Conference.

He explained that acute inflammatory disease is thought to increase the risk for cerebrovascular events, and the seasonality of influenza-like illness appears to be associated with the seasonality of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Previous observational studies have also shown a link between influenza vaccination and a reduced risk for stroke.

The current INTERSTROKE study was a large international case-control study conducted between 2007 and 2015 that involved 13,447 cases (patients within 5 days of their first stroke) and a similar number of age- and gender-matched people from 32 countries across the world.

All cases and control subjects were systematically asked whether they had acute febrile illness in the previous 4 weeks and whether they had received an influenza vaccination within the previous year.

Conditional logistical regression was used to quantify the results, with adjustment for 13 different possible confounding factors, including hypertension, activity, smoking, cardiovascular risk factors, and socioeconomic factors.

Results showed that having had an acute febrile illness in the previous 4 weeks was more commonly reported in the patients with an acute ischemic stroke (8.7%) than in control patients (5.6%). After adjustment for confounding factors, this gives an adjusted risk ratio of 1.18, which was of borderline statistical significance (95% confidence limits, 1.01-1.39), Dr. Schwarzbach reported.

The association between recent febrile illness and acute ischemic stroke was stronger when compared with community control subjects (adjusted odds ratio, 2.0), but it was absent when compared with hospital control subjects.

The association was also only apparent in Australia, China, North America, and Western Europe; it was not seen in other parts of the world.

There was no association between acute febrile illness and acute cerebral hemorrhage.
 

Flu vaccine linked to halving of stroke risk

Having received a flu vaccine in the previous year was strongly associated with a lower risk for any type of stroke (aOR, 0.53), ischemic stroke (aOR, 0.57), and hemorrhagic stroke (aOR, 0.34).

Dr. Schwarzbach noted that these results were also consistent in an extended statistical model that included variables that might reflect a willingness to be vaccinated and when compared with both community and hospital-based control subjects.

The strength of the association between influenza vaccination and reduced risk for stroke was similar when compared with either community or hospital control subjects, and was only moderately stronger during than outside the influenza season.

The association was also seen in all regions of the world apart from Africa and South Asia, Dr. Schwarzbach reported, but he noted that vaccination rates in these two regions were extremely low.  

The researchers also found that the magnitude of the associations between flu vaccination and lower risk for stroke were stronger in individuals who had multiple annual vaccinations, with an odds ratio of 0.54 in those who had received a vaccine every year for the previous 5 years, and of 0.79 in those who had received one to four vaccinations in the previous 5 years.
 

Mechanism: Immune stimulation?

Discussing possible mechanisms behind these results, Dr. Schwarzbach noted that the finding that the association with influenza vaccination and reduced stroke risk was independent of seasonality was surprising. “We had expected the protective effect of vaccination to be bigger during the influenza season, but this wasn’t the case.”

He suggested that one explanation might be the inclusion of regions of the world where this seasonality doesn’t exist.

But he pointed out that the finding of a stronger association between flu vaccination and lower stroke risk in those who had received more vaccinations has given rise to another theory: that it is the stimulation of the immune system rather than the protection of infection against influenza that is the key factor.

In an interview with Dr. Schwarzbach, Guillaume Turk, MD, professor of neurology at GHU Paris, pointed out that causal inferences are always difficult in case-control studies and in clinical epidemiology in general.

“What makes you think that this association between influenza vaccination and decreased risk is causal rather than due to unmeasured confounders? For example, patients who received vaccination may have received more medical attention and may have been more aware of the risk factors for stroke,” he asked.  

Dr. Schwarzbach replied: “Yes, this is the issue of healthy user bias, which is always a problem in this type of research and is hard to address.”

“What we tried to do here is to adjust for variables that might influence the willingness of people to get vaccinated,” he added. “These were mainly socioeconomic factors. But, of course, this is something that we can’t rule out.”

Dr. Schwarzbach noted that, for more reliable information on this association, prospective studies are needed.
 

‘A plausible effect’

Discussing the study after the presentation, William Whiteley, BM, PhD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh and a consultant neurologist in NHS Lothian, said vaccination was a potentially important way to reduce stroke.

“In this study, there was a plausible effect on reducing stroke incidence from vaccination against influenza, and also a plausible increase in the risk of stroke from having a recent febrile illness, which we have seen in other studies,” he commented.

Dr. Whiteley noted that this observation was particularly relevant now because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We’ve all been worried about the risk of heart attack and stroke after COVID, where we’ve seen quite early high risks, and we are also optimistic about the effect of vaccination on reducing those incidences. We’ve seen data from the U.K. that there may be around a 20% reduction in risk of stroke from vaccination. So, it’s all quite plausible, but at the moment it’s all based on observational evidence and we really need some randomized evidence,” he said.  

“Vaccination and infections have all sorts of odd confounders,” he added. “People who get vaccines tend to be more healthy than those who don’t get vaccines, so you can start to see quite implausible effects of vaccination on overall mortality, which probably aren’t real, and you probably can’t get rid of that totally with statistical methods.”

Alastair Webb, MD, University of Oxford (England), asked how reliable the current findings were, given that the occurrence of febrile illnesses and receipt of vaccines were all self-reported, and although there was an association for ischemic stroke and febrile illness, this seemed to go in the opposite direction for hemorrhagic stroke. He also noted that the 50% reduction in stroke risk with vaccination in this study seemed “quite a large magnitude of effect.”

Dr. Whiteley replied: “Yes, it is large, but it is promising.” He cited a previous meta-analysis of randomized studies that showed a roughly 25%-35% reduction in vascular events after flu vaccination, but noted that there was a lot of heterogeneity between studies.

“I’m not sure we’re going to see much more randomized evidence, but I think we can probably all agree that having a vaccine against flu or COVID is a good thing for all of us,” Dr. Whiteley concluded.

The INTERSTROKE study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Stroke Network, Health Research Board Ireland, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Vastra Gotaland (Sweden), AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, MSD, Chest, Heart and Stroke Scotland, and The Stroke Association, with support from The UK Stroke Research Network. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

When the hospital’s trauma team could not get an IV inserted into an accident victim, they called Illinois emergency physician William Sullivan, DO, JD, for help. Dr. Sullivan, who is based in the Chicago suburb of Frankfort, inserted a central line into the patient’s leg on his first attempt – a task that took about 20 minutes.

A year later, Dr. Sullivan was shocked and angry to learn he was being sued by the trauma patient’s family. Inserting the line was his only interaction with the woman, and he had no role in her care management, he said. Yet, the suit claimed he was negligent for failing to diagnose the patient with internal bleeding and for not performing surgery. 

“The lawsuit put a lot of stress on our family,” Dr. Sullivan recalled. “At the time my wife was pregnant. I was in law school, and I was also working full time in the ER to support our family. I remember my wife crying on the couch after reading the complaint and asking how the plaintiff’s attorney could get away with making the allegations he made.”

Dr. Sullivan soon learned that 15 medical providers in the patient’s medical record were named as defendants. This included the director of the radiology department, whose name was on a radiology report as “director” but who was actually out of the country when the incident occurred.

Despite some of the accusations being impossible, a medical expert had claimed there was a “meritorious claim” against every health professional named in the suit. Illinois is among the 28 states that require plaintiffs’ attorneys to file an affidavit of merit for medical malpractice claims to move forward.

Dr. Sullivan wondered who would endorse such outlandish accusations, but the expert’s identity was a mystery. According to Illinois law, plaintiffs’ attorneys can withhold the identity of medical experts with whom they consult for affidavits of merit. About one-third of states with merit requirements permit anonymous experts, according to research and attorneys familiar with the issue.

Because the expert’s identity remains hidden, physicians have no way of knowing whether they were qualified to render an opinion, Dr. Sullivan said. The loopholes can drag out frivolous claims and waste significant time and expense, say legal experts. Frequently, it takes a year or more before innocent physicians are dismissed from unfounded lawsuits by the court or dropped when plaintiffs can’t support the claim.

“It’s hugely frustrating,” said Bruce Montoya, JD, a Colorado medical liability defense attorney. “You have an expert who is not disclosed. Further down the road, when experts are being deposed, the plaintiff does not have to reveal whether any of those testifying experts is the same one who certified the case. You never get to determine whether they, in fact, had a certificate reviewer who was legitimate.”

The laws have led to a recent outcry among physicians and fueled a revised resolution by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) denouncing anonymous affidavits of merit. (The revision has not yet been published online.)

“The minute experts are identified, they can be vetted,” said Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, chair of ACEP’s Medical Legal Committee. “There are reasons that you want to clarify the qualification and veracity of the witness. [Anonymous affidavits of merit] don’t allow that, and there’s something inherently wrong with that.”

Because the identities of consulting experts are unknown, it’s hard to know how many are unqualified. Expert witnesses who testify during trials, on the other hand, have long come under scrutiny for questionable qualifications. Some have come under fire for allegedly lying under oath about their experience, misrepresenting their credentials, and falsely representing their knowledge.

“Considering the known problem of potentially unethical expert witness testimony at trial, there’s is the potential likelihood that experts in anonymous affidavits of merit may sometimes lack the qualifications to give opinions,” said Dr. Vukmir, an emergency care physician in Pittsburgh.
 

Attorneys: Hidden experts increase costs, waste time

In Colorado, Mr. Montoya has seen firsthand how anonymous experts can prolong questionable claims and burden defendants.

Like Illinois, Colorado does not require attorneys to identify the medical experts used to fulfill its certificate of review statute. The expert consulted must have expertise in the same area of the alleged negligence, but does not have to practice in the same specialty, and the statute allows one expert to certify a lawsuit against multiple doctors.

In a recent case, Mr. Montoya represented a Denver neurosurgeon who was sued along with multiple other health care professionals. From the outset, Mr. Montoya argued the claim had no merit against the neurosurgeon, but the plaintiff’s attorney refused to dismiss the physician. Mr. Montoya asked whether the expert consulted for the certificate of merit was a neurosurgeon, but the attorney declined to disclose that information, he said.

The case progressed and Mr. Montoya eventually asked the judge to review the certificate of merit. By law, a judge can confidentially review the certificate of merit and decide whether it aligns with the state statute, but without disclosing the expert’s identity to the defense. The judge ruled the certificate appeared to conform with state law, and the case continued.

A year later, as both sides were getting ready to disclose their experts who would testify, Mr. Montoya again argued the neurosurgeon should be dropped from the suit. This time, he warned if the claim continued against the neurosurgeon, the defense would be filing a motion for summary judgment and pursuing attorney fees and costs. Colorado law allows for such fees if the filing or pursuit of an action is frivolous.

“Boom, my client was dismissed,” Mr. Montoya said. “This is a year later, after multiple conferences among the attorneys, multiple pleadings filed, expert witnesses retained to review the care, discovery exchanged, and records obtained. If we had [a stronger] certificate of review statute, it would have been a different ballgame. It’s never going to get a year down the road.”

In New York, physician defendants have experienced similar woes. The state’s law requires plaintiffs’ attorneys to certify that they consulted with a physician prior to filing the claim, and that they believe based on that discussion, there’s a reasonable basis for the claim to move forward. Attorneys are not required to disclose the expert’s identity.

The law also allows “an out,” explained Morris Auster, JD, senior vice president and chief legislative counsel for the Medical Society of the State of New York. If the attorney made three separate attempts to obtain a consultation, and all three experts would not agree to the consultation, the lawsuit can be filed anyway, he said.

“From our standpoint, it’s important to have an affidavit of merit requirement; it’s better than not having it,” Mr. Auster said. “But its effectiveness in providing control over the filing of lawsuits in New York has never been as strong as it could’ve been.”

Mr. Auster notes that New York has some of the highest liability costs in the country in addition to doctors paying some of the steepest medical liability insurance premiums.

“This really affects a lot of physicians and it’s driving physicians into employment arrangements, so they don’t have to deal with it on their own,” he said. “We support a number of measures to address these significantly high costs, and stronger certificate of merit requirements would certainly be one of those advocacy goals.”
 

Why are anonymous experts allowed?

Certificates of merit that shield the identity of consultants encourage a greater pool of physicians willing to review cases, said J. Matthew Dudley, JD, president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. When the requirements first went into effect in Illinois, there was significant animosity among physicians toward doctors who testified in medical malpractice cases for patients, Mr. Dudley explained.

“Sometimes they would be ostracized from their professional societies, or it would hurt a referral relationship.” he said. “Over time, that animosity has lessened, but there was a concern that if the identity of physicians in certificates of merit weren’t protected, then doctors would not look at cases for patients.”

This would result in additional barriers for patients and their attorneys in pursuing their legal rights, Mr. Dudley said. He said Illinois’ certificate of merit statute is successful in fulfilling its intended purpose, and he has not seen any statistical evidence to suggest otherwise.

“It has proven effective at decreasing filings in medical malpractice and effectively screening medical malpractice cases,” he said. “Certificates of merit help to decrease filings by firms that aren’t that experienced in dealing with those kinds of cases.”

Kentucky is another state that does not require attorneys to identity the experts consulted for certificates of merit. Malpractice defense attorney Andrew DeSimone, JD, who practices in Kentucky, said this isn’t a problem since attorneys eventually must disclose the expert witnesses who will testify at trial.

“Knowing the name behind the certificate of merit is not that pertinent,” Mr. DeSimone said. “Physicians and their attorneys will ultimately have the chance to question and evaluate the expert witnesses used at trial. The certificate of merit is designed to weed out totally frivolous cases that do not have expert support. It’s not designed to be a trial on the merits.” 

The belief that plaintiffs’ attorneys frequently bring weak cases and use unqualified experts to certify claims is not realistic or logical, added Sean Domnick, JD, a Florida medical malpractice attorney and vice president for the American Association for Justice. Medical malpractice cases are extremely challenging for plaintiffs – and they’re expensive, Mr. Domnick said.  

“We can’t afford to take bad cases,” he said. “For me to take on a medical malpractice case, it’s not unusual for me to spend well over $100,000. Remember, if we lose, I don’t get that money back and I don’t get paid. Why in the world would a plaintiff take on that type of a burden for a case they didn’t believe in? The logic escapes me.”

In Florida, where Mr. Domnick practices, plaintiffs’ attorneys must send their certificates of merit to the defense with the expert identified. Domnick believes the requirement is a hindrance.

“It creates a delay that is unnecessary in a system that is already designed to wear our clients down,” he said. “It’s just another component that makes it harder on them.”
 

Hidden experts may insulate plaintiffs’ attorneys from liability

Dr. Sullivan, the Illinois emergency physician, was ultimately dismissed from the multiparty lawsuit, but not for roughly 18 months. After the dismissal, he fought back. He sued the plaintiff’s law firm for malicious prosecution, negligence in hiring, and relying on the opinion of an expert who was unqualified to render an opinion against an emergency physician.

The law firm, however, argued that it was immune from liability because it reasonably relied on the expert’s opinion as required by Illinois law. A trial court agreed with the plaintiffs’ firm. The judge denied Dr. Sullivan’s request to identify the expert, ruling there was no finding that the affidavit was untrue or made without reasonable cause. Dr. Sullivan appealed, and the appellate court upheld the trial’s court decision.

“As happened with my case, law firms can use the affidavit as a defense against countersuits or motions for sanctions,” Dr. Sullivan said. “Although the certificate of merit is intended to prevent attorneys from filing frivolous cases, it can also have the opposite effect of helping to insulate plaintiff attorneys from liability for filing a frivolous lawsuit.”

In Colorado, complaints about the state’s certificate of merit statute have gone before the Colorado Supreme Court. In one case, a lower court ruled that a certificate of merit was deficient because the consultants were not chiropractors. In another case, a nurse defendant argued the claim’s certificate of review was insufficient because the consulting expert was a physician.

In both instances, Colorado judges held the state’s statute does not require consultants to be in the same profession or the same specialty as the health professional defendant. 

In New York, meanwhile, Mr. Auster said several bills to strengthen the state’s certificate of merit requirements have failed in recent years.

“It’s hard to say whether it will improve anytime soon,” he said. “The trial lawyers are a very powerful advocacy force in the state, and they tend to oppose even the slightest of changes in civil liability. [In addition], some of these issues have been put on a lower tier because of trying to manage the pandemic.”

Ultimately, Dr. Sullivan said that courts and legislatures need to strongly consider the ethics of allowing anonymous experts to provide testimony against defendant physicians.

“I also think we need to consider how the notion of a secret expert comports with a defendant physician’s due process,” he said. “If an expert’s opinion is appropriate, why would there be a need to shroud one’s identity in a veil of secrecy?” 

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

When the hospital’s trauma team could not get an IV inserted into an accident victim, they called Illinois emergency physician William Sullivan, DO, JD, for help. Dr. Sullivan, who is based in the Chicago suburb of Frankfort, inserted a central line into the patient’s leg on his first attempt – a task that took about 20 minutes.

A year later, Dr. Sullivan was shocked and angry to learn he was being sued by the trauma patient’s family. Inserting the line was his only interaction with the woman, and he had no role in her care management, he said. Yet, the suit claimed he was negligent for failing to diagnose the patient with internal bleeding and for not performing surgery. 

“The lawsuit put a lot of stress on our family,” Dr. Sullivan recalled. “At the time my wife was pregnant. I was in law school, and I was also working full time in the ER to support our family. I remember my wife crying on the couch after reading the complaint and asking how the plaintiff’s attorney could get away with making the allegations he made.”

Dr. Sullivan soon learned that 15 medical providers in the patient’s medical record were named as defendants. This included the director of the radiology department, whose name was on a radiology report as “director” but who was actually out of the country when the incident occurred.

Despite some of the accusations being impossible, a medical expert had claimed there was a “meritorious claim” against every health professional named in the suit. Illinois is among the 28 states that require plaintiffs’ attorneys to file an affidavit of merit for medical malpractice claims to move forward.

Dr. Sullivan wondered who would endorse such outlandish accusations, but the expert’s identity was a mystery. According to Illinois law, plaintiffs’ attorneys can withhold the identity of medical experts with whom they consult for affidavits of merit. About one-third of states with merit requirements permit anonymous experts, according to research and attorneys familiar with the issue.

Because the expert’s identity remains hidden, physicians have no way of knowing whether they were qualified to render an opinion, Dr. Sullivan said. The loopholes can drag out frivolous claims and waste significant time and expense, say legal experts. Frequently, it takes a year or more before innocent physicians are dismissed from unfounded lawsuits by the court or dropped when plaintiffs can’t support the claim.

“It’s hugely frustrating,” said Bruce Montoya, JD, a Colorado medical liability defense attorney. “You have an expert who is not disclosed. Further down the road, when experts are being deposed, the plaintiff does not have to reveal whether any of those testifying experts is the same one who certified the case. You never get to determine whether they, in fact, had a certificate reviewer who was legitimate.”

The laws have led to a recent outcry among physicians and fueled a revised resolution by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) denouncing anonymous affidavits of merit. (The revision has not yet been published online.)

“The minute experts are identified, they can be vetted,” said Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, chair of ACEP’s Medical Legal Committee. “There are reasons that you want to clarify the qualification and veracity of the witness. [Anonymous affidavits of merit] don’t allow that, and there’s something inherently wrong with that.”

Because the identities of consulting experts are unknown, it’s hard to know how many are unqualified. Expert witnesses who testify during trials, on the other hand, have long come under scrutiny for questionable qualifications. Some have come under fire for allegedly lying under oath about their experience, misrepresenting their credentials, and falsely representing their knowledge.

“Considering the known problem of potentially unethical expert witness testimony at trial, there’s is the potential likelihood that experts in anonymous affidavits of merit may sometimes lack the qualifications to give opinions,” said Dr. Vukmir, an emergency care physician in Pittsburgh.
 

Attorneys: Hidden experts increase costs, waste time

In Colorado, Mr. Montoya has seen firsthand how anonymous experts can prolong questionable claims and burden defendants.

Like Illinois, Colorado does not require attorneys to identify the medical experts used to fulfill its certificate of review statute. The expert consulted must have expertise in the same area of the alleged negligence, but does not have to practice in the same specialty, and the statute allows one expert to certify a lawsuit against multiple doctors.

In a recent case, Mr. Montoya represented a Denver neurosurgeon who was sued along with multiple other health care professionals. From the outset, Mr. Montoya argued the claim had no merit against the neurosurgeon, but the plaintiff’s attorney refused to dismiss the physician. Mr. Montoya asked whether the expert consulted for the certificate of merit was a neurosurgeon, but the attorney declined to disclose that information, he said.

The case progressed and Mr. Montoya eventually asked the judge to review the certificate of merit. By law, a judge can confidentially review the certificate of merit and decide whether it aligns with the state statute, but without disclosing the expert’s identity to the defense. The judge ruled the certificate appeared to conform with state law, and the case continued.

A year later, as both sides were getting ready to disclose their experts who would testify, Mr. Montoya again argued the neurosurgeon should be dropped from the suit. This time, he warned if the claim continued against the neurosurgeon, the defense would be filing a motion for summary judgment and pursuing attorney fees and costs. Colorado law allows for such fees if the filing or pursuit of an action is frivolous.

“Boom, my client was dismissed,” Mr. Montoya said. “This is a year later, after multiple conferences among the attorneys, multiple pleadings filed, expert witnesses retained to review the care, discovery exchanged, and records obtained. If we had [a stronger] certificate of review statute, it would have been a different ballgame. It’s never going to get a year down the road.”

In New York, physician defendants have experienced similar woes. The state’s law requires plaintiffs’ attorneys to certify that they consulted with a physician prior to filing the claim, and that they believe based on that discussion, there’s a reasonable basis for the claim to move forward. Attorneys are not required to disclose the expert’s identity.

The law also allows “an out,” explained Morris Auster, JD, senior vice president and chief legislative counsel for the Medical Society of the State of New York. If the attorney made three separate attempts to obtain a consultation, and all three experts would not agree to the consultation, the lawsuit can be filed anyway, he said.

“From our standpoint, it’s important to have an affidavit of merit requirement; it’s better than not having it,” Mr. Auster said. “But its effectiveness in providing control over the filing of lawsuits in New York has never been as strong as it could’ve been.”

Mr. Auster notes that New York has some of the highest liability costs in the country in addition to doctors paying some of the steepest medical liability insurance premiums.

“This really affects a lot of physicians and it’s driving physicians into employment arrangements, so they don’t have to deal with it on their own,” he said. “We support a number of measures to address these significantly high costs, and stronger certificate of merit requirements would certainly be one of those advocacy goals.”
 

Why are anonymous experts allowed?

Certificates of merit that shield the identity of consultants encourage a greater pool of physicians willing to review cases, said J. Matthew Dudley, JD, president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. When the requirements first went into effect in Illinois, there was significant animosity among physicians toward doctors who testified in medical malpractice cases for patients, Mr. Dudley explained.

“Sometimes they would be ostracized from their professional societies, or it would hurt a referral relationship.” he said. “Over time, that animosity has lessened, but there was a concern that if the identity of physicians in certificates of merit weren’t protected, then doctors would not look at cases for patients.”

This would result in additional barriers for patients and their attorneys in pursuing their legal rights, Mr. Dudley said. He said Illinois’ certificate of merit statute is successful in fulfilling its intended purpose, and he has not seen any statistical evidence to suggest otherwise.

“It has proven effective at decreasing filings in medical malpractice and effectively screening medical malpractice cases,” he said. “Certificates of merit help to decrease filings by firms that aren’t that experienced in dealing with those kinds of cases.”

Kentucky is another state that does not require attorneys to identity the experts consulted for certificates of merit. Malpractice defense attorney Andrew DeSimone, JD, who practices in Kentucky, said this isn’t a problem since attorneys eventually must disclose the expert witnesses who will testify at trial.

“Knowing the name behind the certificate of merit is not that pertinent,” Mr. DeSimone said. “Physicians and their attorneys will ultimately have the chance to question and evaluate the expert witnesses used at trial. The certificate of merit is designed to weed out totally frivolous cases that do not have expert support. It’s not designed to be a trial on the merits.” 

The belief that plaintiffs’ attorneys frequently bring weak cases and use unqualified experts to certify claims is not realistic or logical, added Sean Domnick, JD, a Florida medical malpractice attorney and vice president for the American Association for Justice. Medical malpractice cases are extremely challenging for plaintiffs – and they’re expensive, Mr. Domnick said.  

“We can’t afford to take bad cases,” he said. “For me to take on a medical malpractice case, it’s not unusual for me to spend well over $100,000. Remember, if we lose, I don’t get that money back and I don’t get paid. Why in the world would a plaintiff take on that type of a burden for a case they didn’t believe in? The logic escapes me.”

In Florida, where Mr. Domnick practices, plaintiffs’ attorneys must send their certificates of merit to the defense with the expert identified. Domnick believes the requirement is a hindrance.

“It creates a delay that is unnecessary in a system that is already designed to wear our clients down,” he said. “It’s just another component that makes it harder on them.”
 

Hidden experts may insulate plaintiffs’ attorneys from liability

Dr. Sullivan, the Illinois emergency physician, was ultimately dismissed from the multiparty lawsuit, but not for roughly 18 months. After the dismissal, he fought back. He sued the plaintiff’s law firm for malicious prosecution, negligence in hiring, and relying on the opinion of an expert who was unqualified to render an opinion against an emergency physician.

The law firm, however, argued that it was immune from liability because it reasonably relied on the expert’s opinion as required by Illinois law. A trial court agreed with the plaintiffs’ firm. The judge denied Dr. Sullivan’s request to identify the expert, ruling there was no finding that the affidavit was untrue or made without reasonable cause. Dr. Sullivan appealed, and the appellate court upheld the trial’s court decision.

“As happened with my case, law firms can use the affidavit as a defense against countersuits or motions for sanctions,” Dr. Sullivan said. “Although the certificate of merit is intended to prevent attorneys from filing frivolous cases, it can also have the opposite effect of helping to insulate plaintiff attorneys from liability for filing a frivolous lawsuit.”

In Colorado, complaints about the state’s certificate of merit statute have gone before the Colorado Supreme Court. In one case, a lower court ruled that a certificate of merit was deficient because the consultants were not chiropractors. In another case, a nurse defendant argued the claim’s certificate of review was insufficient because the consulting expert was a physician.

In both instances, Colorado judges held the state’s statute does not require consultants to be in the same profession or the same specialty as the health professional defendant. 

In New York, meanwhile, Mr. Auster said several bills to strengthen the state’s certificate of merit requirements have failed in recent years.

“It’s hard to say whether it will improve anytime soon,” he said. “The trial lawyers are a very powerful advocacy force in the state, and they tend to oppose even the slightest of changes in civil liability. [In addition], some of these issues have been put on a lower tier because of trying to manage the pandemic.”

Ultimately, Dr. Sullivan said that courts and legislatures need to strongly consider the ethics of allowing anonymous experts to provide testimony against defendant physicians.

“I also think we need to consider how the notion of a secret expert comports with a defendant physician’s due process,” he said. “If an expert’s opinion is appropriate, why would there be a need to shroud one’s identity in a veil of secrecy?” 

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

When the hospital’s trauma team could not get an IV inserted into an accident victim, they called Illinois emergency physician William Sullivan, DO, JD, for help. Dr. Sullivan, who is based in the Chicago suburb of Frankfort, inserted a central line into the patient’s leg on his first attempt – a task that took about 20 minutes.

A year later, Dr. Sullivan was shocked and angry to learn he was being sued by the trauma patient’s family. Inserting the line was his only interaction with the woman, and he had no role in her care management, he said. Yet, the suit claimed he was negligent for failing to diagnose the patient with internal bleeding and for not performing surgery. 

“The lawsuit put a lot of stress on our family,” Dr. Sullivan recalled. “At the time my wife was pregnant. I was in law school, and I was also working full time in the ER to support our family. I remember my wife crying on the couch after reading the complaint and asking how the plaintiff’s attorney could get away with making the allegations he made.”

Dr. Sullivan soon learned that 15 medical providers in the patient’s medical record were named as defendants. This included the director of the radiology department, whose name was on a radiology report as “director” but who was actually out of the country when the incident occurred.

Despite some of the accusations being impossible, a medical expert had claimed there was a “meritorious claim” against every health professional named in the suit. Illinois is among the 28 states that require plaintiffs’ attorneys to file an affidavit of merit for medical malpractice claims to move forward.

Dr. Sullivan wondered who would endorse such outlandish accusations, but the expert’s identity was a mystery. According to Illinois law, plaintiffs’ attorneys can withhold the identity of medical experts with whom they consult for affidavits of merit. About one-third of states with merit requirements permit anonymous experts, according to research and attorneys familiar with the issue.

Because the expert’s identity remains hidden, physicians have no way of knowing whether they were qualified to render an opinion, Dr. Sullivan said. The loopholes can drag out frivolous claims and waste significant time and expense, say legal experts. Frequently, it takes a year or more before innocent physicians are dismissed from unfounded lawsuits by the court or dropped when plaintiffs can’t support the claim.

“It’s hugely frustrating,” said Bruce Montoya, JD, a Colorado medical liability defense attorney. “You have an expert who is not disclosed. Further down the road, when experts are being deposed, the plaintiff does not have to reveal whether any of those testifying experts is the same one who certified the case. You never get to determine whether they, in fact, had a certificate reviewer who was legitimate.”

The laws have led to a recent outcry among physicians and fueled a revised resolution by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) denouncing anonymous affidavits of merit. (The revision has not yet been published online.)

“The minute experts are identified, they can be vetted,” said Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, chair of ACEP’s Medical Legal Committee. “There are reasons that you want to clarify the qualification and veracity of the witness. [Anonymous affidavits of merit] don’t allow that, and there’s something inherently wrong with that.”

Because the identities of consulting experts are unknown, it’s hard to know how many are unqualified. Expert witnesses who testify during trials, on the other hand, have long come under scrutiny for questionable qualifications. Some have come under fire for allegedly lying under oath about their experience, misrepresenting their credentials, and falsely representing their knowledge.

“Considering the known problem of potentially unethical expert witness testimony at trial, there’s is the potential likelihood that experts in anonymous affidavits of merit may sometimes lack the qualifications to give opinions,” said Dr. Vukmir, an emergency care physician in Pittsburgh.
 

Attorneys: Hidden experts increase costs, waste time

In Colorado, Mr. Montoya has seen firsthand how anonymous experts can prolong questionable claims and burden defendants.

Like Illinois, Colorado does not require attorneys to identify the medical experts used to fulfill its certificate of review statute. The expert consulted must have expertise in the same area of the alleged negligence, but does not have to practice in the same specialty, and the statute allows one expert to certify a lawsuit against multiple doctors.

In a recent case, Mr. Montoya represented a Denver neurosurgeon who was sued along with multiple other health care professionals. From the outset, Mr. Montoya argued the claim had no merit against the neurosurgeon, but the plaintiff’s attorney refused to dismiss the physician. Mr. Montoya asked whether the expert consulted for the certificate of merit was a neurosurgeon, but the attorney declined to disclose that information, he said.

The case progressed and Mr. Montoya eventually asked the judge to review the certificate of merit. By law, a judge can confidentially review the certificate of merit and decide whether it aligns with the state statute, but without disclosing the expert’s identity to the defense. The judge ruled the certificate appeared to conform with state law, and the case continued.

A year later, as both sides were getting ready to disclose their experts who would testify, Mr. Montoya again argued the neurosurgeon should be dropped from the suit. This time, he warned if the claim continued against the neurosurgeon, the defense would be filing a motion for summary judgment and pursuing attorney fees and costs. Colorado law allows for such fees if the filing or pursuit of an action is frivolous.

“Boom, my client was dismissed,” Mr. Montoya said. “This is a year later, after multiple conferences among the attorneys, multiple pleadings filed, expert witnesses retained to review the care, discovery exchanged, and records obtained. If we had [a stronger] certificate of review statute, it would have been a different ballgame. It’s never going to get a year down the road.”

In New York, physician defendants have experienced similar woes. The state’s law requires plaintiffs’ attorneys to certify that they consulted with a physician prior to filing the claim, and that they believe based on that discussion, there’s a reasonable basis for the claim to move forward. Attorneys are not required to disclose the expert’s identity.

The law also allows “an out,” explained Morris Auster, JD, senior vice president and chief legislative counsel for the Medical Society of the State of New York. If the attorney made three separate attempts to obtain a consultation, and all three experts would not agree to the consultation, the lawsuit can be filed anyway, he said.

“From our standpoint, it’s important to have an affidavit of merit requirement; it’s better than not having it,” Mr. Auster said. “But its effectiveness in providing control over the filing of lawsuits in New York has never been as strong as it could’ve been.”

Mr. Auster notes that New York has some of the highest liability costs in the country in addition to doctors paying some of the steepest medical liability insurance premiums.

“This really affects a lot of physicians and it’s driving physicians into employment arrangements, so they don’t have to deal with it on their own,” he said. “We support a number of measures to address these significantly high costs, and stronger certificate of merit requirements would certainly be one of those advocacy goals.”
 

Why are anonymous experts allowed?

Certificates of merit that shield the identity of consultants encourage a greater pool of physicians willing to review cases, said J. Matthew Dudley, JD, president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. When the requirements first went into effect in Illinois, there was significant animosity among physicians toward doctors who testified in medical malpractice cases for patients, Mr. Dudley explained.

“Sometimes they would be ostracized from their professional societies, or it would hurt a referral relationship.” he said. “Over time, that animosity has lessened, but there was a concern that if the identity of physicians in certificates of merit weren’t protected, then doctors would not look at cases for patients.”

This would result in additional barriers for patients and their attorneys in pursuing their legal rights, Mr. Dudley said. He said Illinois’ certificate of merit statute is successful in fulfilling its intended purpose, and he has not seen any statistical evidence to suggest otherwise.

“It has proven effective at decreasing filings in medical malpractice and effectively screening medical malpractice cases,” he said. “Certificates of merit help to decrease filings by firms that aren’t that experienced in dealing with those kinds of cases.”

Kentucky is another state that does not require attorneys to identity the experts consulted for certificates of merit. Malpractice defense attorney Andrew DeSimone, JD, who practices in Kentucky, said this isn’t a problem since attorneys eventually must disclose the expert witnesses who will testify at trial.

“Knowing the name behind the certificate of merit is not that pertinent,” Mr. DeSimone said. “Physicians and their attorneys will ultimately have the chance to question and evaluate the expert witnesses used at trial. The certificate of merit is designed to weed out totally frivolous cases that do not have expert support. It’s not designed to be a trial on the merits.” 

The belief that plaintiffs’ attorneys frequently bring weak cases and use unqualified experts to certify claims is not realistic or logical, added Sean Domnick, JD, a Florida medical malpractice attorney and vice president for the American Association for Justice. Medical malpractice cases are extremely challenging for plaintiffs – and they’re expensive, Mr. Domnick said.  

“We can’t afford to take bad cases,” he said. “For me to take on a medical malpractice case, it’s not unusual for me to spend well over $100,000. Remember, if we lose, I don’t get that money back and I don’t get paid. Why in the world would a plaintiff take on that type of a burden for a case they didn’t believe in? The logic escapes me.”

In Florida, where Mr. Domnick practices, plaintiffs’ attorneys must send their certificates of merit to the defense with the expert identified. Domnick believes the requirement is a hindrance.

“It creates a delay that is unnecessary in a system that is already designed to wear our clients down,” he said. “It’s just another component that makes it harder on them.”
 

Hidden experts may insulate plaintiffs’ attorneys from liability

Dr. Sullivan, the Illinois emergency physician, was ultimately dismissed from the multiparty lawsuit, but not for roughly 18 months. After the dismissal, he fought back. He sued the plaintiff’s law firm for malicious prosecution, negligence in hiring, and relying on the opinion of an expert who was unqualified to render an opinion against an emergency physician.

The law firm, however, argued that it was immune from liability because it reasonably relied on the expert’s opinion as required by Illinois law. A trial court agreed with the plaintiffs’ firm. The judge denied Dr. Sullivan’s request to identify the expert, ruling there was no finding that the affidavit was untrue or made without reasonable cause. Dr. Sullivan appealed, and the appellate court upheld the trial’s court decision.

“As happened with my case, law firms can use the affidavit as a defense against countersuits or motions for sanctions,” Dr. Sullivan said. “Although the certificate of merit is intended to prevent attorneys from filing frivolous cases, it can also have the opposite effect of helping to insulate plaintiff attorneys from liability for filing a frivolous lawsuit.”

In Colorado, complaints about the state’s certificate of merit statute have gone before the Colorado Supreme Court. In one case, a lower court ruled that a certificate of merit was deficient because the consultants were not chiropractors. In another case, a nurse defendant argued the claim’s certificate of review was insufficient because the consulting expert was a physician.

In both instances, Colorado judges held the state’s statute does not require consultants to be in the same profession or the same specialty as the health professional defendant. 

In New York, meanwhile, Mr. Auster said several bills to strengthen the state’s certificate of merit requirements have failed in recent years.

“It’s hard to say whether it will improve anytime soon,” he said. “The trial lawyers are a very powerful advocacy force in the state, and they tend to oppose even the slightest of changes in civil liability. [In addition], some of these issues have been put on a lower tier because of trying to manage the pandemic.”

Ultimately, Dr. Sullivan said that courts and legislatures need to strongly consider the ethics of allowing anonymous experts to provide testimony against defendant physicians.

“I also think we need to consider how the notion of a secret expert comports with a defendant physician’s due process,” he said. “If an expert’s opinion is appropriate, why would there be a need to shroud one’s identity in a veil of secrecy?” 

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

Stanford Health Care’s resident physicians voted May 2 in favor of joining the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR-SEIU), part of a growing trend in unionization within the medical profession.

More than 81% of the health system’s resident physicians voted to join the union; the decision garnered 835 yes votes and 214 no votes, according to a CIR-SEIU announcement. The largest housestaff union in the United States and a local of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), CIR-SEIU represents more than 20,000 resident physicians and fellows.

“With its successful representation with the Committee of Interns and Residents, Stanford housestaff now join the strong community of allied unions and fellow health care workers such as the Committee for Recognition of Nursing Achievement (CRONA), an independent union of Stanford nurses,” according to CIR-SEIU.

“We are organizing not only for a new economic contract that enables all potential housestaff and their families to afford living in the Bay Area but also for a new social contract that redefines how we are valued by the hospital system,” Ben Solomon, MD, PhD, a third-year resident physician in pediatrics at Stanford Medicine and a member of CIR-SEIU, said in an interview.

“This includes advocating for more humane working hours, reasonable parental leave, and childcare support, as well as resources to combat burnout in young physicians,” he added.

Lisa Kim, a spokesperson for Stanford Health Care, told this news organization that “a majority of residents and fellows at Stanford Health Care voted in favor of unionization. Of 1,478 total residents and fellows, 835 voted in favor. CIR/SEIU will be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for all residents and fellows. Stanford Health Care does not plan to contest the election results.”

“As we begin the collective bargaining process, our goal remains unchanged: providing our residents and fellows with a world-class training experience. We will bring this same focus to negotiations as we strive to support their development as physician leaders,” she added.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must certify the election results before they are considered final, per CIR-SEIU. An independent federal agency, the NLRB safeguards employees’ rights to organize and determines whether union participation is appropriate while also preventing and remedying unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.
 

Concerns date back to initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout

The residents delivered a formal demand to Stanford Health Care to recognize the union in February; their request was not accepted by the health system. The residents’ concerns date as far back as the availability of the COVID-19 vaccines at the end of 2020.

Of the health system’s 5,000 doses, only seven residents and fellows were included in the initial round.

Niraj Sehgal, MD, chief medical officer for Stanford Health Care, apologized in a letter to the graduate medical education community, posted by Palo Alto Weekly, which revealed the root causes to be an algorithm used by the hospital and the age of the residents.

The vote by Stanford Health Care’s residents comes a day after nurses at Stanford and Lucile Packard Children’s hospitals ratified a new contract with their union after a strike for better working conditions and higher pay stretched on for a week, reported Palo Alto Online.
 

Part of a growing trend

Dr. Solomon got involved in the unionization effort at Stanford Health Care “to have a say in working conditions for residents and fellows,” he said. “As individuals, it’s virtually impossible to make demands to our hospital without risking our careers, but together we can demand improvements on the job and in patient care.”

The health system’s inability to extend COVID-19 vaccines during the initial rollout, “despite our role working with COVID patients on the frontlines,” spurred his involvement in the union effort, said Dr. Solomon.

In the short term, the union will be involved in negotiating its first contract, he said. “However, in the long term, we are committed to supporting the unionization efforts of residents and fellows across the country, including partnering with many housestaff unions here in California.”

Stanford Health Care’s residents are participating in a growing trend. In Worcester, Mass., UMass Medical School’s 613 residents and fellow physicians, who are also represented by CIR-SEIU, had their union certified by the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations in March 2021, reported the (Worcester) Telegram & Gazette.

Other unionization efforts across the country include a supermajority of 85 interns, residents, and fellows employed by Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California , who requested that Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center recognize their union, per an announcement. That’s in addition to residents at University of Vermont Medical Center, who announced their intention to unionize in March, reported VTDigger.org.

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

Stanford Health Care’s resident physicians voted May 2 in favor of joining the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR-SEIU), part of a growing trend in unionization within the medical profession.

More than 81% of the health system’s resident physicians voted to join the union; the decision garnered 835 yes votes and 214 no votes, according to a CIR-SEIU announcement. The largest housestaff union in the United States and a local of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), CIR-SEIU represents more than 20,000 resident physicians and fellows.

“With its successful representation with the Committee of Interns and Residents, Stanford housestaff now join the strong community of allied unions and fellow health care workers such as the Committee for Recognition of Nursing Achievement (CRONA), an independent union of Stanford nurses,” according to CIR-SEIU.

“We are organizing not only for a new economic contract that enables all potential housestaff and their families to afford living in the Bay Area but also for a new social contract that redefines how we are valued by the hospital system,” Ben Solomon, MD, PhD, a third-year resident physician in pediatrics at Stanford Medicine and a member of CIR-SEIU, said in an interview.

“This includes advocating for more humane working hours, reasonable parental leave, and childcare support, as well as resources to combat burnout in young physicians,” he added.

Lisa Kim, a spokesperson for Stanford Health Care, told this news organization that “a majority of residents and fellows at Stanford Health Care voted in favor of unionization. Of 1,478 total residents and fellows, 835 voted in favor. CIR/SEIU will be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for all residents and fellows. Stanford Health Care does not plan to contest the election results.”

“As we begin the collective bargaining process, our goal remains unchanged: providing our residents and fellows with a world-class training experience. We will bring this same focus to negotiations as we strive to support their development as physician leaders,” she added.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must certify the election results before they are considered final, per CIR-SEIU. An independent federal agency, the NLRB safeguards employees’ rights to organize and determines whether union participation is appropriate while also preventing and remedying unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.
 

Concerns date back to initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout

The residents delivered a formal demand to Stanford Health Care to recognize the union in February; their request was not accepted by the health system. The residents’ concerns date as far back as the availability of the COVID-19 vaccines at the end of 2020.

Of the health system’s 5,000 doses, only seven residents and fellows were included in the initial round.

Niraj Sehgal, MD, chief medical officer for Stanford Health Care, apologized in a letter to the graduate medical education community, posted by Palo Alto Weekly, which revealed the root causes to be an algorithm used by the hospital and the age of the residents.

The vote by Stanford Health Care’s residents comes a day after nurses at Stanford and Lucile Packard Children’s hospitals ratified a new contract with their union after a strike for better working conditions and higher pay stretched on for a week, reported Palo Alto Online.
 

Part of a growing trend

Dr. Solomon got involved in the unionization effort at Stanford Health Care “to have a say in working conditions for residents and fellows,” he said. “As individuals, it’s virtually impossible to make demands to our hospital without risking our careers, but together we can demand improvements on the job and in patient care.”

The health system’s inability to extend COVID-19 vaccines during the initial rollout, “despite our role working with COVID patients on the frontlines,” spurred his involvement in the union effort, said Dr. Solomon.

In the short term, the union will be involved in negotiating its first contract, he said. “However, in the long term, we are committed to supporting the unionization efforts of residents and fellows across the country, including partnering with many housestaff unions here in California.”

Stanford Health Care’s residents are participating in a growing trend. In Worcester, Mass., UMass Medical School’s 613 residents and fellow physicians, who are also represented by CIR-SEIU, had their union certified by the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations in March 2021, reported the (Worcester) Telegram & Gazette.

Other unionization efforts across the country include a supermajority of 85 interns, residents, and fellows employed by Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California , who requested that Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center recognize their union, per an announcement. That’s in addition to residents at University of Vermont Medical Center, who announced their intention to unionize in March, reported VTDigger.org.

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

Stanford Health Care’s resident physicians voted May 2 in favor of joining the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR-SEIU), part of a growing trend in unionization within the medical profession.

More than 81% of the health system’s resident physicians voted to join the union; the decision garnered 835 yes votes and 214 no votes, according to a CIR-SEIU announcement. The largest housestaff union in the United States and a local of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), CIR-SEIU represents more than 20,000 resident physicians and fellows.

“With its successful representation with the Committee of Interns and Residents, Stanford housestaff now join the strong community of allied unions and fellow health care workers such as the Committee for Recognition of Nursing Achievement (CRONA), an independent union of Stanford nurses,” according to CIR-SEIU.

“We are organizing not only for a new economic contract that enables all potential housestaff and their families to afford living in the Bay Area but also for a new social contract that redefines how we are valued by the hospital system,” Ben Solomon, MD, PhD, a third-year resident physician in pediatrics at Stanford Medicine and a member of CIR-SEIU, said in an interview.

“This includes advocating for more humane working hours, reasonable parental leave, and childcare support, as well as resources to combat burnout in young physicians,” he added.

Lisa Kim, a spokesperson for Stanford Health Care, told this news organization that “a majority of residents and fellows at Stanford Health Care voted in favor of unionization. Of 1,478 total residents and fellows, 835 voted in favor. CIR/SEIU will be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for all residents and fellows. Stanford Health Care does not plan to contest the election results.”

“As we begin the collective bargaining process, our goal remains unchanged: providing our residents and fellows with a world-class training experience. We will bring this same focus to negotiations as we strive to support their development as physician leaders,” she added.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must certify the election results before they are considered final, per CIR-SEIU. An independent federal agency, the NLRB safeguards employees’ rights to organize and determines whether union participation is appropriate while also preventing and remedying unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.
 

Concerns date back to initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout

The residents delivered a formal demand to Stanford Health Care to recognize the union in February; their request was not accepted by the health system. The residents’ concerns date as far back as the availability of the COVID-19 vaccines at the end of 2020.

Of the health system’s 5,000 doses, only seven residents and fellows were included in the initial round.

Niraj Sehgal, MD, chief medical officer for Stanford Health Care, apologized in a letter to the graduate medical education community, posted by Palo Alto Weekly, which revealed the root causes to be an algorithm used by the hospital and the age of the residents.

The vote by Stanford Health Care’s residents comes a day after nurses at Stanford and Lucile Packard Children’s hospitals ratified a new contract with their union after a strike for better working conditions and higher pay stretched on for a week, reported Palo Alto Online.
 

Part of a growing trend

Dr. Solomon got involved in the unionization effort at Stanford Health Care “to have a say in working conditions for residents and fellows,” he said. “As individuals, it’s virtually impossible to make demands to our hospital without risking our careers, but together we can demand improvements on the job and in patient care.”

The health system’s inability to extend COVID-19 vaccines during the initial rollout, “despite our role working with COVID patients on the frontlines,” spurred his involvement in the union effort, said Dr. Solomon.

In the short term, the union will be involved in negotiating its first contract, he said. “However, in the long term, we are committed to supporting the unionization efforts of residents and fellows across the country, including partnering with many housestaff unions here in California.”

Stanford Health Care’s residents are participating in a growing trend. In Worcester, Mass., UMass Medical School’s 613 residents and fellow physicians, who are also represented by CIR-SEIU, had their union certified by the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations in March 2021, reported the (Worcester) Telegram & Gazette.

Other unionization efforts across the country include a supermajority of 85 interns, residents, and fellows employed by Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California , who requested that Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center recognize their union, per an announcement. That’s in addition to residents at University of Vermont Medical Center, who announced their intention to unionize in March, reported VTDigger.org.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is limiting who can receive the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine because of concerns about the risk of a rare blood clotting condition.

In a statement issued May 5, the FDA said the J&J vaccine should only be given to people 18 and older who don’t have access to other vaccines or for whom other vaccines are not clinically appropriate. People 18 and older can also get the J&J vaccine if they choose to because they wouldn’t otherwise receive any vaccine, the FDA said.

The FDA statement was similar to the recommendation made in December by a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committee of experts.

The FDA said the decision was made after more information was shared about the occurrence of a rare blood clotting condition, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), 1 or 2 weeks after people received the J&J vaccine. The finding “warrants limiting the authorized use of the vaccine,” the FDA said.

“We recognize that the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine still has a role in the current pandemic response in the United States and across the global community,” Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in the statement.

“Our action reflects our updated analysis of the risk of TTS following administration of this vaccine and limits the use of the vaccine to certain individuals.”

The CDC says 16.9 million people are fully vaccinated with the J&J vaccine, compared with 76.5 million with Moderna and 126.3 million with Pfizer.

Through March 18, the CDC and FDA have detected 60 confirmed cases of TTS, including 9 fatal cases, ABC News reported.

The J&J vaccine was granted emergency authorization in February 2021. Health authorities hoped it would help spread vaccines across the nation because it only required one initial dose and didn’t need to be stored at extremely cold temperatures, unlike the two-dose Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

But 2 months after authorization, the government paused its use for 10 days because of reports of TTS. In December 2021, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were preferred over J&J because J&J carried the rare risk of blood clots and bleeding in the brain.

The FDA said the cause of the blood clotting is not known. But the “known and potential benefits of the vaccine” outweigh the risks for those people now allowed to receive it, the FDA said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is limiting who can receive the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine because of concerns about the risk of a rare blood clotting condition.

In a statement issued May 5, the FDA said the J&J vaccine should only be given to people 18 and older who don’t have access to other vaccines or for whom other vaccines are not clinically appropriate. People 18 and older can also get the J&J vaccine if they choose to because they wouldn’t otherwise receive any vaccine, the FDA said.

The FDA statement was similar to the recommendation made in December by a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committee of experts.

The FDA said the decision was made after more information was shared about the occurrence of a rare blood clotting condition, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), 1 or 2 weeks after people received the J&J vaccine. The finding “warrants limiting the authorized use of the vaccine,” the FDA said.

“We recognize that the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine still has a role in the current pandemic response in the United States and across the global community,” Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in the statement.

“Our action reflects our updated analysis of the risk of TTS following administration of this vaccine and limits the use of the vaccine to certain individuals.”

The CDC says 16.9 million people are fully vaccinated with the J&J vaccine, compared with 76.5 million with Moderna and 126.3 million with Pfizer.

Through March 18, the CDC and FDA have detected 60 confirmed cases of TTS, including 9 fatal cases, ABC News reported.

The J&J vaccine was granted emergency authorization in February 2021. Health authorities hoped it would help spread vaccines across the nation because it only required one initial dose and didn’t need to be stored at extremely cold temperatures, unlike the two-dose Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

But 2 months after authorization, the government paused its use for 10 days because of reports of TTS. In December 2021, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were preferred over J&J because J&J carried the rare risk of blood clots and bleeding in the brain.

The FDA said the cause of the blood clotting is not known. But the “known and potential benefits of the vaccine” outweigh the risks for those people now allowed to receive it, the FDA said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is limiting who can receive the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine because of concerns about the risk of a rare blood clotting condition.

In a statement issued May 5, the FDA said the J&J vaccine should only be given to people 18 and older who don’t have access to other vaccines or for whom other vaccines are not clinically appropriate. People 18 and older can also get the J&J vaccine if they choose to because they wouldn’t otherwise receive any vaccine, the FDA said.

The FDA statement was similar to the recommendation made in December by a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committee of experts.

The FDA said the decision was made after more information was shared about the occurrence of a rare blood clotting condition, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), 1 or 2 weeks after people received the J&J vaccine. The finding “warrants limiting the authorized use of the vaccine,” the FDA said.

“We recognize that the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine still has a role in the current pandemic response in the United States and across the global community,” Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in the statement.

“Our action reflects our updated analysis of the risk of TTS following administration of this vaccine and limits the use of the vaccine to certain individuals.”

The CDC says 16.9 million people are fully vaccinated with the J&J vaccine, compared with 76.5 million with Moderna and 126.3 million with Pfizer.

Through March 18, the CDC and FDA have detected 60 confirmed cases of TTS, including 9 fatal cases, ABC News reported.

The J&J vaccine was granted emergency authorization in February 2021. Health authorities hoped it would help spread vaccines across the nation because it only required one initial dose and didn’t need to be stored at extremely cold temperatures, unlike the two-dose Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

But 2 months after authorization, the government paused its use for 10 days because of reports of TTS. In December 2021, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were preferred over J&J because J&J carried the rare risk of blood clots and bleeding in the brain.

The FDA said the cause of the blood clotting is not known. But the “known and potential benefits of the vaccine” outweigh the risks for those people now allowed to receive it, the FDA said.

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

Researchers in Scotland have developed a risk calculator using a large electronic health records database that has shown a high reliability in predicting the risk of death for patients hospitalized for chronic occlusive pulmonary disease (COPD), providing another potential tool for improving postdischarge survival in these patients.

In a study published online in the journal Pharmacological Research, Pierpalo Pellicori, MD, and colleagues reported that a few variables, including prescriptions and laboratory data in routine EHRs, could help predict a patient’s risk of dying within 90 days after a hospital stay for COPD. Dr. Pellicori is a clinical cardiologist and research fellow at the Robertson Center for Biostatistics at the University of Glasgow.

“Identification of patients at high risk is valuable information for multidisciplinary teams,” Dr. Pellicori said in a written comment. “It allows the most vulnerable patients to be highlighted and prioritized for consideration of optimized value-based care, and for anticipatory care plan discussions.”

The retrospective cohort study analyzed EHR records of 17,973 patients who had an unplanned hospitalization for COPD in the Glasgow area from 2011 to 2017. The risk calculator model achieved a potential accuracy of 80%.

The study noted that, while a number of models have been developed to calculate the risk of exacerbations, inpatient death and prognosis in patients hospitalized for COPD, most of those models were based on cohorts of 1000 patients or less.

“Older age, male sex, and a longer hospital stay were important predictors of mortality in patients with COPD,” Dr. Pellicori said. “We also found that use of commonly prescribed medications such as digoxin identify patients with COPD more likely to die, perhaps because many have underlying heart failure, a highly prevalent but frequently missed diagnosis.”

He noted that heart failure and COPD share many risk factors, signs, and symptoms, such as smoking history, peripheral edema, and breathlessness. “Distinguishing between COPD and heart failure can be difficult, but is very important, as appropriate treatment for heart failure can improve a patient’s quality of life and survival substantially in many cases.”

The study also found that routinely collected and inexpensive blood markers – such as hemoglobin, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, serum chloride, urea, creatinine, and albumin – can also improve predictability of outcomes.

For example, the study found a linear increase in mortality of blood hemoglobin concentration less than 14 g/dL, but higher levels posed no greater risk. Higher white blood cell and neutrophil counts and lower lymphocyte and eosinophil counts were associated with a worse prognosis.

The study also found a linear increase in mortality with serum sodium less than 140 mmol/L or serum chloride less than 105 mmol/L –  but that higher concentrations of each were associated with a worse outcome.

“Interestingly,” Pellicori added, “social deprivation was not associated with mortality in this cohort.”

The final predictive model included age, sex, length of stay, and just nine other variables. “The model can be applied easily in clinical practice, even if electronic records are not available, because there are only 12 variables,” Dr. Pellicori said. “These could easily be entered manually into the risk calculator that we provide.”

“What is notable about this risk calculator is that it uses some of the techniques of machine learning, although it’s not specifically machine learning,” Angel Coz, MD, a pulmonologist at the Cleveland Clinic Respiratory Institute, said in an interview. “But it’s a retrospective data analysis, and actually by doing that it may catch some factors that we may not have necessarily paid attention to on a regular basis.”

While he called it a “well-done study,” Dr. Coz cautioned that “we have to be conservative in how to interpret and apply this because it is retrospective,” adding that future research should also use a prospective cohort.

For future consideration, Dr. Pellicori said that, while EHRs provide a “rich source” of data for such risk calculators, systems differ greatly across hospitals and health care systems and don’t link easily.

Future research would focus on validating the model in other large national datasets and seeing if machine learning can improve its predictability, Dr. Pellicori said. “Whether such models can provide a real-time, refined risk assessment for all patients in both primary or secondary care settings and improve the efficacy, efficiency, and quality of health care is our long-term goal.”

Dr. Pellicori and Dr. Coz disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers in Scotland have developed a risk calculator using a large electronic health records database that has shown a high reliability in predicting the risk of death for patients hospitalized for chronic occlusive pulmonary disease (COPD), providing another potential tool for improving postdischarge survival in these patients.

In a study published online in the journal Pharmacological Research, Pierpalo Pellicori, MD, and colleagues reported that a few variables, including prescriptions and laboratory data in routine EHRs, could help predict a patient’s risk of dying within 90 days after a hospital stay for COPD. Dr. Pellicori is a clinical cardiologist and research fellow at the Robertson Center for Biostatistics at the University of Glasgow.

“Identification of patients at high risk is valuable information for multidisciplinary teams,” Dr. Pellicori said in a written comment. “It allows the most vulnerable patients to be highlighted and prioritized for consideration of optimized value-based care, and for anticipatory care plan discussions.”

The retrospective cohort study analyzed EHR records of 17,973 patients who had an unplanned hospitalization for COPD in the Glasgow area from 2011 to 2017. The risk calculator model achieved a potential accuracy of 80%.

The study noted that, while a number of models have been developed to calculate the risk of exacerbations, inpatient death and prognosis in patients hospitalized for COPD, most of those models were based on cohorts of 1000 patients or less.

“Older age, male sex, and a longer hospital stay were important predictors of mortality in patients with COPD,” Dr. Pellicori said. “We also found that use of commonly prescribed medications such as digoxin identify patients with COPD more likely to die, perhaps because many have underlying heart failure, a highly prevalent but frequently missed diagnosis.”

He noted that heart failure and COPD share many risk factors, signs, and symptoms, such as smoking history, peripheral edema, and breathlessness. “Distinguishing between COPD and heart failure can be difficult, but is very important, as appropriate treatment for heart failure can improve a patient’s quality of life and survival substantially in many cases.”

The study also found that routinely collected and inexpensive blood markers – such as hemoglobin, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, serum chloride, urea, creatinine, and albumin – can also improve predictability of outcomes.

For example, the study found a linear increase in mortality of blood hemoglobin concentration less than 14 g/dL, but higher levels posed no greater risk. Higher white blood cell and neutrophil counts and lower lymphocyte and eosinophil counts were associated with a worse prognosis.

The study also found a linear increase in mortality with serum sodium less than 140 mmol/L or serum chloride less than 105 mmol/L –  but that higher concentrations of each were associated with a worse outcome.

“Interestingly,” Pellicori added, “social deprivation was not associated with mortality in this cohort.”

The final predictive model included age, sex, length of stay, and just nine other variables. “The model can be applied easily in clinical practice, even if electronic records are not available, because there are only 12 variables,” Dr. Pellicori said. “These could easily be entered manually into the risk calculator that we provide.”

“What is notable about this risk calculator is that it uses some of the techniques of machine learning, although it’s not specifically machine learning,” Angel Coz, MD, a pulmonologist at the Cleveland Clinic Respiratory Institute, said in an interview. “But it’s a retrospective data analysis, and actually by doing that it may catch some factors that we may not have necessarily paid attention to on a regular basis.”

While he called it a “well-done study,” Dr. Coz cautioned that “we have to be conservative in how to interpret and apply this because it is retrospective,” adding that future research should also use a prospective cohort.

For future consideration, Dr. Pellicori said that, while EHRs provide a “rich source” of data for such risk calculators, systems differ greatly across hospitals and health care systems and don’t link easily.

Future research would focus on validating the model in other large national datasets and seeing if machine learning can improve its predictability, Dr. Pellicori said. “Whether such models can provide a real-time, refined risk assessment for all patients in both primary or secondary care settings and improve the efficacy, efficiency, and quality of health care is our long-term goal.”

Dr. Pellicori and Dr. Coz disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers in Scotland have developed a risk calculator using a large electronic health records database that has shown a high reliability in predicting the risk of death for patients hospitalized for chronic occlusive pulmonary disease (COPD), providing another potential tool for improving postdischarge survival in these patients.

In a study published online in the journal Pharmacological Research, Pierpalo Pellicori, MD, and colleagues reported that a few variables, including prescriptions and laboratory data in routine EHRs, could help predict a patient’s risk of dying within 90 days after a hospital stay for COPD. Dr. Pellicori is a clinical cardiologist and research fellow at the Robertson Center for Biostatistics at the University of Glasgow.

“Identification of patients at high risk is valuable information for multidisciplinary teams,” Dr. Pellicori said in a written comment. “It allows the most vulnerable patients to be highlighted and prioritized for consideration of optimized value-based care, and for anticipatory care plan discussions.”

The retrospective cohort study analyzed EHR records of 17,973 patients who had an unplanned hospitalization for COPD in the Glasgow area from 2011 to 2017. The risk calculator model achieved a potential accuracy of 80%.

The study noted that, while a number of models have been developed to calculate the risk of exacerbations, inpatient death and prognosis in patients hospitalized for COPD, most of those models were based on cohorts of 1000 patients or less.

“Older age, male sex, and a longer hospital stay were important predictors of mortality in patients with COPD,” Dr. Pellicori said. “We also found that use of commonly prescribed medications such as digoxin identify patients with COPD more likely to die, perhaps because many have underlying heart failure, a highly prevalent but frequently missed diagnosis.”

He noted that heart failure and COPD share many risk factors, signs, and symptoms, such as smoking history, peripheral edema, and breathlessness. “Distinguishing between COPD and heart failure can be difficult, but is very important, as appropriate treatment for heart failure can improve a patient’s quality of life and survival substantially in many cases.”

The study also found that routinely collected and inexpensive blood markers – such as hemoglobin, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, serum chloride, urea, creatinine, and albumin – can also improve predictability of outcomes.

For example, the study found a linear increase in mortality of blood hemoglobin concentration less than 14 g/dL, but higher levels posed no greater risk. Higher white blood cell and neutrophil counts and lower lymphocyte and eosinophil counts were associated with a worse prognosis.

The study also found a linear increase in mortality with serum sodium less than 140 mmol/L or serum chloride less than 105 mmol/L –  but that higher concentrations of each were associated with a worse outcome.

“Interestingly,” Pellicori added, “social deprivation was not associated with mortality in this cohort.”

The final predictive model included age, sex, length of stay, and just nine other variables. “The model can be applied easily in clinical practice, even if electronic records are not available, because there are only 12 variables,” Dr. Pellicori said. “These could easily be entered manually into the risk calculator that we provide.”

“What is notable about this risk calculator is that it uses some of the techniques of machine learning, although it’s not specifically machine learning,” Angel Coz, MD, a pulmonologist at the Cleveland Clinic Respiratory Institute, said in an interview. “But it’s a retrospective data analysis, and actually by doing that it may catch some factors that we may not have necessarily paid attention to on a regular basis.”

While he called it a “well-done study,” Dr. Coz cautioned that “we have to be conservative in how to interpret and apply this because it is retrospective,” adding that future research should also use a prospective cohort.

For future consideration, Dr. Pellicori said that, while EHRs provide a “rich source” of data for such risk calculators, systems differ greatly across hospitals and health care systems and don’t link easily.

Future research would focus on validating the model in other large national datasets and seeing if machine learning can improve its predictability, Dr. Pellicori said. “Whether such models can provide a real-time, refined risk assessment for all patients in both primary or secondary care settings and improve the efficacy, efficiency, and quality of health care is our long-term goal.”

Dr. Pellicori and Dr. Coz disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Both physicians and patients like the idea of having health care delivered virtually, and telehealth will likely continue to be prominent in the U.S. medical landscape, according to the medical director for digital health and telemedicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

This physician, Brian Hasselfeld, MD, said his university’s health system did 50-80 telemedicine visits a month before COVID, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. This soared to close to 100,000 a month in the pandemic, and now the health system does close to 40,000 a month, he continued.

“Life is definitely different in how we engage with our patients on a day-to-day basis,” said Dr. Hasselfeld, who oversees the telehealth for six hospitals and 50 ambulatory-care locations in Maryland and three other states.

Attitudes gauged in Johns Hopkins surveys suggest that a lot of medical care will continue to be provided by telemedicine. Nine out of 10 patients said they would likely recommend telemedicine to friends and family, and 88% said it would be either moderately, very, or extremely important to have video visit options in the future, he said.

A survey of the Hopkins system’s 3,600 physicians, which generated about 1,300 responses, found that physicians would like to have a considerable chunk of time set aside for telemedicine visits – the median response was 30%.
 

Virtual care is in ‘early-adopter phase’

But Dr. Hasselfeld said virtual care is still in the “early-adopter phase.” While many physicians said they would like more than half of their time devoted to telehealth, a larger proportion was more likely to say they wanted very little time devoted to it, Dr. Hasselfeld said. Among those wanting to do it are some who want to do all of their visits virtually, he said.

Those who are eager to do it will be those guiding the change, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

“As we move forward – and thinking about how to optimize virtual-care options for your patients – it’s not going to be a forced issue,” he said.

Providing better access to certain patient groups continues to be a challenge. A dashboard developed at Hopkins to identify groups who are at a technological disadvantage and don’t have ready access to telemedicine found that those living in low-income zip codes, African-Americans, and those on Medicaid and Medicare tend to have higher percentages of “audio-only” visits, mainly because of lack of connectivity allowing video visits, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

The lower share of video visits in the inner city suggests that access to telemedicine isn’t just a problem in remote rural areas, as the conventional wisdom has gone, he said.

“It doesn’t matter how many towers we have in downtown Baltimore, or how much fiber we have in the ground,” he said. “If you can’t have a data plan to access that high-speed Internet, or have a home with high-speed Internet, it doesn’t matter.”

Hopkins has developed a tool to assess how likely it is that someone will have trouble connecting for a telemedicine visit – if they’ve previously had an audio-only visit, for instance – and try to get in touch with those patients shortly before a visit so that it runs smoothly, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

The explosion of telemedicine has led to the rise of companies providing care through apps on phones and tablets, he said.

“This is real care being provided to our patients through nontraditional routes, and this is a new force, one our patients see out in the marketplace,” he said. “We have to acknowledge and wrestle with the fact that convenience is a new part of what it means to [provide] access [to] care for patients.”

Heather Hirsch, MD, an internist with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview after the session that telemedicine is poised to improve care.

“I think the good is definitely going to outweigh the bad so long as the infrastructure and the legislation will allow it,” said Dr. Hirsch, who does about half of her visits in person and half through telemedicine, which she performs while at the office. “It does allow for a lot of flexibility for both patients and providers.”

But health care at academic medical centers, she said, needs to adjust to the times.

“We need [academic medicine] for so many reasons,” she said, “but the reality is that it moves very slowly, and the old infrastructure and the slowness to catch up with technology is the worry.”

Dr. Hasselfeld reported financial relationships with Humana and TRUE-See Systems.

CHICAGO – Both physicians and patients like the idea of having health care delivered virtually, and telehealth will likely continue to be prominent in the U.S. medical landscape, according to the medical director for digital health and telemedicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

This physician, Brian Hasselfeld, MD, said his university’s health system did 50-80 telemedicine visits a month before COVID, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. This soared to close to 100,000 a month in the pandemic, and now the health system does close to 40,000 a month, he continued.

“Life is definitely different in how we engage with our patients on a day-to-day basis,” said Dr. Hasselfeld, who oversees the telehealth for six hospitals and 50 ambulatory-care locations in Maryland and three other states.

Attitudes gauged in Johns Hopkins surveys suggest that a lot of medical care will continue to be provided by telemedicine. Nine out of 10 patients said they would likely recommend telemedicine to friends and family, and 88% said it would be either moderately, very, or extremely important to have video visit options in the future, he said.

A survey of the Hopkins system’s 3,600 physicians, which generated about 1,300 responses, found that physicians would like to have a considerable chunk of time set aside for telemedicine visits – the median response was 30%.
 

Virtual care is in ‘early-adopter phase’

But Dr. Hasselfeld said virtual care is still in the “early-adopter phase.” While many physicians said they would like more than half of their time devoted to telehealth, a larger proportion was more likely to say they wanted very little time devoted to it, Dr. Hasselfeld said. Among those wanting to do it are some who want to do all of their visits virtually, he said.

Those who are eager to do it will be those guiding the change, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

“As we move forward – and thinking about how to optimize virtual-care options for your patients – it’s not going to be a forced issue,” he said.

Providing better access to certain patient groups continues to be a challenge. A dashboard developed at Hopkins to identify groups who are at a technological disadvantage and don’t have ready access to telemedicine found that those living in low-income zip codes, African-Americans, and those on Medicaid and Medicare tend to have higher percentages of “audio-only” visits, mainly because of lack of connectivity allowing video visits, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

The lower share of video visits in the inner city suggests that access to telemedicine isn’t just a problem in remote rural areas, as the conventional wisdom has gone, he said.

“It doesn’t matter how many towers we have in downtown Baltimore, or how much fiber we have in the ground,” he said. “If you can’t have a data plan to access that high-speed Internet, or have a home with high-speed Internet, it doesn’t matter.”

Hopkins has developed a tool to assess how likely it is that someone will have trouble connecting for a telemedicine visit – if they’ve previously had an audio-only visit, for instance – and try to get in touch with those patients shortly before a visit so that it runs smoothly, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

The explosion of telemedicine has led to the rise of companies providing care through apps on phones and tablets, he said.

“This is real care being provided to our patients through nontraditional routes, and this is a new force, one our patients see out in the marketplace,” he said. “We have to acknowledge and wrestle with the fact that convenience is a new part of what it means to [provide] access [to] care for patients.”

Heather Hirsch, MD, an internist with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview after the session that telemedicine is poised to improve care.

“I think the good is definitely going to outweigh the bad so long as the infrastructure and the legislation will allow it,” said Dr. Hirsch, who does about half of her visits in person and half through telemedicine, which she performs while at the office. “It does allow for a lot of flexibility for both patients and providers.”

But health care at academic medical centers, she said, needs to adjust to the times.

“We need [academic medicine] for so many reasons,” she said, “but the reality is that it moves very slowly, and the old infrastructure and the slowness to catch up with technology is the worry.”

Dr. Hasselfeld reported financial relationships with Humana and TRUE-See Systems.

CHICAGO – Both physicians and patients like the idea of having health care delivered virtually, and telehealth will likely continue to be prominent in the U.S. medical landscape, according to the medical director for digital health and telemedicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

This physician, Brian Hasselfeld, MD, said his university’s health system did 50-80 telemedicine visits a month before COVID, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. This soared to close to 100,000 a month in the pandemic, and now the health system does close to 40,000 a month, he continued.

“Life is definitely different in how we engage with our patients on a day-to-day basis,” said Dr. Hasselfeld, who oversees the telehealth for six hospitals and 50 ambulatory-care locations in Maryland and three other states.

Attitudes gauged in Johns Hopkins surveys suggest that a lot of medical care will continue to be provided by telemedicine. Nine out of 10 patients said they would likely recommend telemedicine to friends and family, and 88% said it would be either moderately, very, or extremely important to have video visit options in the future, he said.

A survey of the Hopkins system’s 3,600 physicians, which generated about 1,300 responses, found that physicians would like to have a considerable chunk of time set aside for telemedicine visits – the median response was 30%.
 

Virtual care is in ‘early-adopter phase’

But Dr. Hasselfeld said virtual care is still in the “early-adopter phase.” While many physicians said they would like more than half of their time devoted to telehealth, a larger proportion was more likely to say they wanted very little time devoted to it, Dr. Hasselfeld said. Among those wanting to do it are some who want to do all of their visits virtually, he said.

Those who are eager to do it will be those guiding the change, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

“As we move forward – and thinking about how to optimize virtual-care options for your patients – it’s not going to be a forced issue,” he said.

Providing better access to certain patient groups continues to be a challenge. A dashboard developed at Hopkins to identify groups who are at a technological disadvantage and don’t have ready access to telemedicine found that those living in low-income zip codes, African-Americans, and those on Medicaid and Medicare tend to have higher percentages of “audio-only” visits, mainly because of lack of connectivity allowing video visits, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

The lower share of video visits in the inner city suggests that access to telemedicine isn’t just a problem in remote rural areas, as the conventional wisdom has gone, he said.

“It doesn’t matter how many towers we have in downtown Baltimore, or how much fiber we have in the ground,” he said. “If you can’t have a data plan to access that high-speed Internet, or have a home with high-speed Internet, it doesn’t matter.”

Hopkins has developed a tool to assess how likely it is that someone will have trouble connecting for a telemedicine visit – if they’ve previously had an audio-only visit, for instance – and try to get in touch with those patients shortly before a visit so that it runs smoothly, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

The explosion of telemedicine has led to the rise of companies providing care through apps on phones and tablets, he said.

“This is real care being provided to our patients through nontraditional routes, and this is a new force, one our patients see out in the marketplace,” he said. “We have to acknowledge and wrestle with the fact that convenience is a new part of what it means to [provide] access [to] care for patients.”

Heather Hirsch, MD, an internist with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview after the session that telemedicine is poised to improve care.

“I think the good is definitely going to outweigh the bad so long as the infrastructure and the legislation will allow it,” said Dr. Hirsch, who does about half of her visits in person and half through telemedicine, which she performs while at the office. “It does allow for a lot of flexibility for both patients and providers.”

But health care at academic medical centers, she said, needs to adjust to the times.

“We need [academic medicine] for so many reasons,” she said, “but the reality is that it moves very slowly, and the old infrastructure and the slowness to catch up with technology is the worry.”

Dr. Hasselfeld reported financial relationships with Humana and TRUE-See Systems.

Tuberculosis cases are increasing in Washington, which has put public health officials on “heightened alert,” according to a recent announcement from the Washington State Department of Health.

Widespread disruptions in health care and missed tuberculosis diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic have likely added to the increase – both locally and globally.

“It’s been 20 years since we saw a cluster of TB cases like this,” Tao Sheng Kwan-Gett, MD, the state’s chief science officer, said in the announcement.

“The pandemic has likely contributed to the rise in cases and the outbreak in at least one correctional facility,” he said. “Increased access to TB testing and treatment in the community is going to be key to getting TB under control.”

Case numbers appeared to fall in Washington during the first year of the pandemic, possibly because of less reporting and missed diagnoses. But in 2021, cases rose quickly. The state reported 199 cases, marking a 22% increase from 2020.

So far this year, 70 cases have been reported, including 17 new cases that all have connections with each other and several state prisons.

The state’s Department of Corrections, Department of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are working together on testing and decreasing spread, MaryAnn Curl, MD, the chief medical officer for the Department of Corrections, said in the statement.

Tuberculosis cases are increasing worldwide. For the first time in more than a decade, TB deaths increased to about 1.5 million, according to the World Health Organization’s 2021 Global Tuberculosis Report.

Across the U.S., the number of reported TB cases significantly declined at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 but increased again in 2021, according to a recent CDC study.

The Kansas Department of Health also reported an outbreak of TB cases in March, according to USA Today.

At the beginning of the pandemic, some people with TB may have been diagnosed with COVID-19 because both are infectious diseases that attack the lungs and have similar symptoms, the Washington Health Department said.

Like COVID-19, tuberculosis can spread through the air when an infected person coughs or sneezes. But unlike COVID-19, TB typically requires that you have prolonged exposure to become infected.

Symptoms of tuberculosis can include chest pain and coughing, with or without blood, as well as fever, night sweats, weight loss, and fatigue.

Tuberculosis is preventable, treatable, and curable, the Washington Health Department said. Those who travel to countries where TB is more common face higher risks for exposure, as well as those who live or work in settings where TB may spread, such as homeless shelters, prisons, jails, and nursing homes.

People can develop inactive TB, also called latent TB, which doesn’t have any symptoms and isn’t contagious. If people with inactive TB don’t get quick diagnosis or treatment, the infection can become active TB and cause symptoms. State health officials estimated that about 200,000 people in Washington have inactive TB.

Tuberculosis treatment can take a minimum of 6 months, and if it’s not followed carefully, symptoms can become more severe, the Health Department said. Incomplete treatment can also contribute to the spread of antibiotic-resistant strains of tuberculosis.

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

Tuberculosis cases are increasing in Washington, which has put public health officials on “heightened alert,” according to a recent announcement from the Washington State Department of Health.

Widespread disruptions in health care and missed tuberculosis diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic have likely added to the increase – both locally and globally.

“It’s been 20 years since we saw a cluster of TB cases like this,” Tao Sheng Kwan-Gett, MD, the state’s chief science officer, said in the announcement.

“The pandemic has likely contributed to the rise in cases and the outbreak in at least one correctional facility,” he said. “Increased access to TB testing and treatment in the community is going to be key to getting TB under control.”

Case numbers appeared to fall in Washington during the first year of the pandemic, possibly because of less reporting and missed diagnoses. But in 2021, cases rose quickly. The state reported 199 cases, marking a 22% increase from 2020.

So far this year, 70 cases have been reported, including 17 new cases that all have connections with each other and several state prisons.

The state’s Department of Corrections, Department of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are working together on testing and decreasing spread, MaryAnn Curl, MD, the chief medical officer for the Department of Corrections, said in the statement.

Tuberculosis cases are increasing worldwide. For the first time in more than a decade, TB deaths increased to about 1.5 million, according to the World Health Organization’s 2021 Global Tuberculosis Report.

Across the U.S., the number of reported TB cases significantly declined at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 but increased again in 2021, according to a recent CDC study.

The Kansas Department of Health also reported an outbreak of TB cases in March, according to USA Today.

At the beginning of the pandemic, some people with TB may have been diagnosed with COVID-19 because both are infectious diseases that attack the lungs and have similar symptoms, the Washington Health Department said.

Like COVID-19, tuberculosis can spread through the air when an infected person coughs or sneezes. But unlike COVID-19, TB typically requires that you have prolonged exposure to become infected.

Symptoms of tuberculosis can include chest pain and coughing, with or without blood, as well as fever, night sweats, weight loss, and fatigue.

Tuberculosis is preventable, treatable, and curable, the Washington Health Department said. Those who travel to countries where TB is more common face higher risks for exposure, as well as those who live or work in settings where TB may spread, such as homeless shelters, prisons, jails, and nursing homes.

People can develop inactive TB, also called latent TB, which doesn’t have any symptoms and isn’t contagious. If people with inactive TB don’t get quick diagnosis or treatment, the infection can become active TB and cause symptoms. State health officials estimated that about 200,000 people in Washington have inactive TB.

Tuberculosis treatment can take a minimum of 6 months, and if it’s not followed carefully, symptoms can become more severe, the Health Department said. Incomplete treatment can also contribute to the spread of antibiotic-resistant strains of tuberculosis.

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

Tuberculosis cases are increasing in Washington, which has put public health officials on “heightened alert,” according to a recent announcement from the Washington State Department of Health.

Widespread disruptions in health care and missed tuberculosis diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic have likely added to the increase – both locally and globally.

“It’s been 20 years since we saw a cluster of TB cases like this,” Tao Sheng Kwan-Gett, MD, the state’s chief science officer, said in the announcement.

“The pandemic has likely contributed to the rise in cases and the outbreak in at least one correctional facility,” he said. “Increased access to TB testing and treatment in the community is going to be key to getting TB under control.”

Case numbers appeared to fall in Washington during the first year of the pandemic, possibly because of less reporting and missed diagnoses. But in 2021, cases rose quickly. The state reported 199 cases, marking a 22% increase from 2020.

So far this year, 70 cases have been reported, including 17 new cases that all have connections with each other and several state prisons.

The state’s Department of Corrections, Department of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are working together on testing and decreasing spread, MaryAnn Curl, MD, the chief medical officer for the Department of Corrections, said in the statement.

Tuberculosis cases are increasing worldwide. For the first time in more than a decade, TB deaths increased to about 1.5 million, according to the World Health Organization’s 2021 Global Tuberculosis Report.

Across the U.S., the number of reported TB cases significantly declined at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 but increased again in 2021, according to a recent CDC study.

The Kansas Department of Health also reported an outbreak of TB cases in March, according to USA Today.

At the beginning of the pandemic, some people with TB may have been diagnosed with COVID-19 because both are infectious diseases that attack the lungs and have similar symptoms, the Washington Health Department said.

Like COVID-19, tuberculosis can spread through the air when an infected person coughs or sneezes. But unlike COVID-19, TB typically requires that you have prolonged exposure to become infected.

Symptoms of tuberculosis can include chest pain and coughing, with or without blood, as well as fever, night sweats, weight loss, and fatigue.

Tuberculosis is preventable, treatable, and curable, the Washington Health Department said. Those who travel to countries where TB is more common face higher risks for exposure, as well as those who live or work in settings where TB may spread, such as homeless shelters, prisons, jails, and nursing homes.

People can develop inactive TB, also called latent TB, which doesn’t have any symptoms and isn’t contagious. If people with inactive TB don’t get quick diagnosis or treatment, the infection can become active TB and cause symptoms. State health officials estimated that about 200,000 people in Washington have inactive TB.

Tuberculosis treatment can take a minimum of 6 months, and if it’s not followed carefully, symptoms can become more severe, the Health Department said. Incomplete treatment can also contribute to the spread of antibiotic-resistant strains of tuberculosis.

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

The more boosters the better? Data from Israel show that immune protection in elderly people is strengthened even further after a fourth dose. Karl Lauterbach, MD, German minister of health, recently pleaded for a second booster for those aged 18 years and older, and he pushed for a European Union–wide recommendation. He has not been able to implement this yet.

Just as before, Germany’s Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) is only recommending the second booster for people aged 70 years and older, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is recommending the fourth vaccination for everyone aged 80 years and older, and the United States has set the general age limit at 50 years.

Specialists remain skeptical about expanding the availability of the second booster. “From an immunologic perspective, people under the age of 70 with a healthy immune system do not need this fourth vaccination,” said Christiane Falk, PhD, head of the Institute for Transplantation Immunology of the Hannover Medical School (Germany) and member of the German Federal Government COVID Expert Panel, at a Science Media Center press briefing.

After the second vaccination, young healthy people are sufficiently protected against a severe course of the disease. Dr. Falk sees the STIKO recommendation as feasible, since it can be worked with. People in nursing facilities or those with additional underlying conditions would be considered for a fourth vaccination, explained Dr. Falk.
 

Complete protection unrealistic

Achieving complete protection against infection through multiple boosters is not realistic, said Christoph Neumann-Haefelin, MD, head of the Working Group for Translational Virus Immunology at the Clinic for Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Freiburg, Germany. Therefore, this should not be pursued when discussing boosters. “The aim of the booster vaccination should be to protect different groups of people against severe courses of the disease,” said Dr. Neumann-Haefelin.

Neutralizing antibodies that are only present in high concentrations for a few weeks after infection or vaccination are sometimes able to prevent the infection on their own. The immunologic memory of B cells and T cells, which ensures long-lasting protection against severe courses of the disease, is at a high level after two doses, and a third dose increases the protection more.

While people with a weak immune system need significantly more vaccinations in a shorter period to receive the same protection, too many booster vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 are not sensible for young healthy people.
 

Immune saturation effect

A recent study in macaques showed that an adjusted Omicron booster did not lead to higher antibody titers, compared with a usual booster. In January 2022, the EMA warned against frequent consecutive boosters that may no longer produce the desired immune response.

If someone receives a booster too early, a saturation effect can occur, warned Andreas Radbruch, PhD, scientific director of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin. “We know this from lots of experimental studies but also from lots of other vaccinations. For example, you cannot be vaccinated against tetanus twice at 3- or 4-week intervals. Nothing at all will happen the second time,” explained Dr. Radbruch.

If the same antigen is applied again and again at the same dose, the immune system is made so active that the antigen is directly intercepted and cannot have any new effect on the immune system. This mechanism has been known for a long time, said Dr. Radbruch.
 

‘Original antigenic sin’

Premature boosting could even be a handicap in the competition between immune response and virus, said Dr. Radbruch. This is due to the principle of “original antigenic sin.” If the immune system has already come into contact with a virus, contact with a new virus variant will cause it to form antibodies predominantly against those epitopes that were already present in the original virus. As a result of this, too many boosters can weaken protection against different variants.

“We have not actually observed this with SARS-CoV-2, however,” said Dr. Radbruch. “Immunity is always extremely broad. With a double or triple vaccination, all previously existing variants are covered by an affinity-matured immune system.”

Dr. Neumann-Haefelin confirmed this and added that all virus mutations, including Omicron, have different epitopes that affect the antibody response, but the T-cell response does not differ.

Dr. Radbruch said that the vaccine protection probably lasts for decades. Following an infection or vaccination, the antibody concentration in the bone marrow is similar to that achieved after a measles or tetanus vaccination. “The vaccination is already extremely efficient. You have protection at the same magnitude as for other infectious diseases or vaccinations, which is expected to last decades,” said Dr. Radbruch.

He clarified that the decrease in antibodies after vaccination and infection is normal and does not indicate a drop in protection. “Quantity and quality must not be confused here. There is simply less mass, but the grade of remaining antibody increases.”

In the competition around the virus antigens (referred to as affinity maturation), antibodies develop that bind 10 to 100 times better and are particularly protective against the virus. The immune system is thereby sustainably effective.
 

For whom and when?

Since the immune response is age dependent, it makes more sense to administer an additional booster to elderly people than to young people. Also included in this group, however, are people whose immune system still does not provide the same level of protection after the second or even third vaccination as that of younger, healthy people.

Dr. Radbruch noted that 4% of people older than 70 years exhibited autoantibodies against interferons. The effects are huge. “That is 20% of patients in an intensive care unit – and they all have a very poor prognosis,” said Dr. Radbruch. These people are extremely threatened by the virus. Multiple vaccinations are sensible for them.

Even people with a weak immune response benefit from multiple vaccinations, confirmed Dr. Neumann-Haefelin. “We are not seeing the antibody responses here that we see in young people with healthy immune systems until the third or fourth vaccination sometimes.”

Although for young healthy people, it is particularly important to ensure a sufficient period between vaccinations so that the affinity maturation is not impaired, those with a weak immune response can be vaccinated again as soon as after 3 months.

The “optimum minimum period of time” for people with healthy immune systems is 6 months, according to Dr. Neumann-Haefelin. “This is true for everyone in whom a proper response is expected.” The vaccine protection probably lasts significantly longer, and therefore, frequent boosting may not be necessary in the future, he said. The time separation also applies for medical personnel, for whom the Robert Koch Institute also recommends a second booster.

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

The more boosters the better? Data from Israel show that immune protection in elderly people is strengthened even further after a fourth dose. Karl Lauterbach, MD, German minister of health, recently pleaded for a second booster for those aged 18 years and older, and he pushed for a European Union–wide recommendation. He has not been able to implement this yet.

Just as before, Germany’s Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) is only recommending the second booster for people aged 70 years and older, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is recommending the fourth vaccination for everyone aged 80 years and older, and the United States has set the general age limit at 50 years.

Specialists remain skeptical about expanding the availability of the second booster. “From an immunologic perspective, people under the age of 70 with a healthy immune system do not need this fourth vaccination,” said Christiane Falk, PhD, head of the Institute for Transplantation Immunology of the Hannover Medical School (Germany) and member of the German Federal Government COVID Expert Panel, at a Science Media Center press briefing.

After the second vaccination, young healthy people are sufficiently protected against a severe course of the disease. Dr. Falk sees the STIKO recommendation as feasible, since it can be worked with. People in nursing facilities or those with additional underlying conditions would be considered for a fourth vaccination, explained Dr. Falk.
 

Complete protection unrealistic

Achieving complete protection against infection through multiple boosters is not realistic, said Christoph Neumann-Haefelin, MD, head of the Working Group for Translational Virus Immunology at the Clinic for Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Freiburg, Germany. Therefore, this should not be pursued when discussing boosters. “The aim of the booster vaccination should be to protect different groups of people against severe courses of the disease,” said Dr. Neumann-Haefelin.

Neutralizing antibodies that are only present in high concentrations for a few weeks after infection or vaccination are sometimes able to prevent the infection on their own. The immunologic memory of B cells and T cells, which ensures long-lasting protection against severe courses of the disease, is at a high level after two doses, and a third dose increases the protection more.

While people with a weak immune system need significantly more vaccinations in a shorter period to receive the same protection, too many booster vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 are not sensible for young healthy people.
 

Immune saturation effect

A recent study in macaques showed that an adjusted Omicron booster did not lead to higher antibody titers, compared with a usual booster. In January 2022, the EMA warned against frequent consecutive boosters that may no longer produce the desired immune response.

If someone receives a booster too early, a saturation effect can occur, warned Andreas Radbruch, PhD, scientific director of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin. “We know this from lots of experimental studies but also from lots of other vaccinations. For example, you cannot be vaccinated against tetanus twice at 3- or 4-week intervals. Nothing at all will happen the second time,” explained Dr. Radbruch.

If the same antigen is applied again and again at the same dose, the immune system is made so active that the antigen is directly intercepted and cannot have any new effect on the immune system. This mechanism has been known for a long time, said Dr. Radbruch.
 

‘Original antigenic sin’

Premature boosting could even be a handicap in the competition between immune response and virus, said Dr. Radbruch. This is due to the principle of “original antigenic sin.” If the immune system has already come into contact with a virus, contact with a new virus variant will cause it to form antibodies predominantly against those epitopes that were already present in the original virus. As a result of this, too many boosters can weaken protection against different variants.

“We have not actually observed this with SARS-CoV-2, however,” said Dr. Radbruch. “Immunity is always extremely broad. With a double or triple vaccination, all previously existing variants are covered by an affinity-matured immune system.”

Dr. Neumann-Haefelin confirmed this and added that all virus mutations, including Omicron, have different epitopes that affect the antibody response, but the T-cell response does not differ.

Dr. Radbruch said that the vaccine protection probably lasts for decades. Following an infection or vaccination, the antibody concentration in the bone marrow is similar to that achieved after a measles or tetanus vaccination. “The vaccination is already extremely efficient. You have protection at the same magnitude as for other infectious diseases or vaccinations, which is expected to last decades,” said Dr. Radbruch.

He clarified that the decrease in antibodies after vaccination and infection is normal and does not indicate a drop in protection. “Quantity and quality must not be confused here. There is simply less mass, but the grade of remaining antibody increases.”

In the competition around the virus antigens (referred to as affinity maturation), antibodies develop that bind 10 to 100 times better and are particularly protective against the virus. The immune system is thereby sustainably effective.
 

For whom and when?

Since the immune response is age dependent, it makes more sense to administer an additional booster to elderly people than to young people. Also included in this group, however, are people whose immune system still does not provide the same level of protection after the second or even third vaccination as that of younger, healthy people.

Dr. Radbruch noted that 4% of people older than 70 years exhibited autoantibodies against interferons. The effects are huge. “That is 20% of patients in an intensive care unit – and they all have a very poor prognosis,” said Dr. Radbruch. These people are extremely threatened by the virus. Multiple vaccinations are sensible for them.

Even people with a weak immune response benefit from multiple vaccinations, confirmed Dr. Neumann-Haefelin. “We are not seeing the antibody responses here that we see in young people with healthy immune systems until the third or fourth vaccination sometimes.”

Although for young healthy people, it is particularly important to ensure a sufficient period between vaccinations so that the affinity maturation is not impaired, those with a weak immune response can be vaccinated again as soon as after 3 months.

The “optimum minimum period of time” for people with healthy immune systems is 6 months, according to Dr. Neumann-Haefelin. “This is true for everyone in whom a proper response is expected.” The vaccine protection probably lasts significantly longer, and therefore, frequent boosting may not be necessary in the future, he said. The time separation also applies for medical personnel, for whom the Robert Koch Institute also recommends a second booster.

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

The more boosters the better? Data from Israel show that immune protection in elderly people is strengthened even further after a fourth dose. Karl Lauterbach, MD, German minister of health, recently pleaded for a second booster for those aged 18 years and older, and he pushed for a European Union–wide recommendation. He has not been able to implement this yet.

Just as before, Germany’s Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) is only recommending the second booster for people aged 70 years and older, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is recommending the fourth vaccination for everyone aged 80 years and older, and the United States has set the general age limit at 50 years.

Specialists remain skeptical about expanding the availability of the second booster. “From an immunologic perspective, people under the age of 70 with a healthy immune system do not need this fourth vaccination,” said Christiane Falk, PhD, head of the Institute for Transplantation Immunology of the Hannover Medical School (Germany) and member of the German Federal Government COVID Expert Panel, at a Science Media Center press briefing.

After the second vaccination, young healthy people are sufficiently protected against a severe course of the disease. Dr. Falk sees the STIKO recommendation as feasible, since it can be worked with. People in nursing facilities or those with additional underlying conditions would be considered for a fourth vaccination, explained Dr. Falk.
 

Complete protection unrealistic

Achieving complete protection against infection through multiple boosters is not realistic, said Christoph Neumann-Haefelin, MD, head of the Working Group for Translational Virus Immunology at the Clinic for Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Freiburg, Germany. Therefore, this should not be pursued when discussing boosters. “The aim of the booster vaccination should be to protect different groups of people against severe courses of the disease,” said Dr. Neumann-Haefelin.

Neutralizing antibodies that are only present in high concentrations for a few weeks after infection or vaccination are sometimes able to prevent the infection on their own. The immunologic memory of B cells and T cells, which ensures long-lasting protection against severe courses of the disease, is at a high level after two doses, and a third dose increases the protection more.

While people with a weak immune system need significantly more vaccinations in a shorter period to receive the same protection, too many booster vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 are not sensible for young healthy people.
 

Immune saturation effect

A recent study in macaques showed that an adjusted Omicron booster did not lead to higher antibody titers, compared with a usual booster. In January 2022, the EMA warned against frequent consecutive boosters that may no longer produce the desired immune response.

If someone receives a booster too early, a saturation effect can occur, warned Andreas Radbruch, PhD, scientific director of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin. “We know this from lots of experimental studies but also from lots of other vaccinations. For example, you cannot be vaccinated against tetanus twice at 3- or 4-week intervals. Nothing at all will happen the second time,” explained Dr. Radbruch.

If the same antigen is applied again and again at the same dose, the immune system is made so active that the antigen is directly intercepted and cannot have any new effect on the immune system. This mechanism has been known for a long time, said Dr. Radbruch.
 

‘Original antigenic sin’

Premature boosting could even be a handicap in the competition between immune response and virus, said Dr. Radbruch. This is due to the principle of “original antigenic sin.” If the immune system has already come into contact with a virus, contact with a new virus variant will cause it to form antibodies predominantly against those epitopes that were already present in the original virus. As a result of this, too many boosters can weaken protection against different variants.

“We have not actually observed this with SARS-CoV-2, however,” said Dr. Radbruch. “Immunity is always extremely broad. With a double or triple vaccination, all previously existing variants are covered by an affinity-matured immune system.”

Dr. Neumann-Haefelin confirmed this and added that all virus mutations, including Omicron, have different epitopes that affect the antibody response, but the T-cell response does not differ.

Dr. Radbruch said that the vaccine protection probably lasts for decades. Following an infection or vaccination, the antibody concentration in the bone marrow is similar to that achieved after a measles or tetanus vaccination. “The vaccination is already extremely efficient. You have protection at the same magnitude as for other infectious diseases or vaccinations, which is expected to last decades,” said Dr. Radbruch.

He clarified that the decrease in antibodies after vaccination and infection is normal and does not indicate a drop in protection. “Quantity and quality must not be confused here. There is simply less mass, but the grade of remaining antibody increases.”

In the competition around the virus antigens (referred to as affinity maturation), antibodies develop that bind 10 to 100 times better and are particularly protective against the virus. The immune system is thereby sustainably effective.
 

For whom and when?

Since the immune response is age dependent, it makes more sense to administer an additional booster to elderly people than to young people. Also included in this group, however, are people whose immune system still does not provide the same level of protection after the second or even third vaccination as that of younger, healthy people.

Dr. Radbruch noted that 4% of people older than 70 years exhibited autoantibodies against interferons. The effects are huge. “That is 20% of patients in an intensive care unit – and they all have a very poor prognosis,” said Dr. Radbruch. These people are extremely threatened by the virus. Multiple vaccinations are sensible for them.

Even people with a weak immune response benefit from multiple vaccinations, confirmed Dr. Neumann-Haefelin. “We are not seeing the antibody responses here that we see in young people with healthy immune systems until the third or fourth vaccination sometimes.”

Although for young healthy people, it is particularly important to ensure a sufficient period between vaccinations so that the affinity maturation is not impaired, those with a weak immune response can be vaccinated again as soon as after 3 months.

The “optimum minimum period of time” for people with healthy immune systems is 6 months, according to Dr. Neumann-Haefelin. “This is true for everyone in whom a proper response is expected.” The vaccine protection probably lasts significantly longer, and therefore, frequent boosting may not be necessary in the future, he said. The time separation also applies for medical personnel, for whom the Robert Koch Institute also recommends a second booster.

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

About 60% of physicians cite documenting information in the electronic health record and other paperwork as major contributors to burnout. Physicians have been working with a variety of ways to reduce their documentation burdens; could one of them be right for you?

Two methods involve human scribes – working either on-site or off-site. Two other methods involve digital solutions: The first is widely used speech-to-text software, which requires the doctors to manually enter the text into the EHR; the second uses artificial intelligence (AI) to not only turn speech into text but to also automatically organize it and enter it into the EHR.

These AI solutions, which are only a few years old, are widely considered to be a work in progress – but many doctors who have used these products are impressed.
 

Other people do the documenting: On-site scribes

“It’s estimated that now one in five to one in eight doctors use scribes,” said Jeffrey A. Gold, MD, an internist who has studied the phenomenon. Utilization is already very high in emergency medicine and has been surging in specialties such as orthopedic surgery; it is also growing in primary care.

Scribes work with the doctor and enter information into the EHR. Their numbers have reportedly been rising in recent years, as more doctors look for ways to cut back on their documentation, according to Dr. Gold, vice chair for quality and safety at the department of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

The price tag of $33,000 a year or more for an on-site scribe is a major barrier. And because the typical scribe only works for 1-1.5 years, they must be constantly hired and trained, which is done by scribing services such as Scrivas in Miami.

However, Scrivas CEO Fernando G. Mendoza, MD, said scribes typically pay for themselves because they allow physicians to see more patients. Scribes can save doctors 2-3 hours of work per day, increase reimbursement by around 20% by producing more detailed notes, and improve satisfaction for both patients and doctors, according to several studies. In one study, physician documentation time significantly decreased, averaging 3 minutes per patient and 36 minutes per session.

Despite these possible savings, many health systems resisted hiring scribes for their employed physicians until the past few years, according to Kevin Brady, president of Physicians Angels, a scribing service based in Toledo, Ohio. “They figured they’d just spent millions on EHRs and didn’t want to spend any more,” he said. “They were also waiting for the EHR vendors to simplify documentation, but that never happened.”

Mr. Brady said what finally convinced many systems to invest in scribes was the need to reduce physician turnover and improve recruitment. Newly minted physicians often look for jobs that don’t interfere with their leisure time.
 

On-site scribes

On-site scribes accompany the doctor into the exam room and type the note during the encounter. Typically, the note is completed when the encounter is over, allowing for orders to be carried out immediately.

The traditional scribe is a premed student who wants to get acquainted with medicine and is thus willing to make a fairly low income. This career trajectory is the reason scribes have a high turnover. As demand surged, the scribe pool was supplemented with students aspiring to other health care professions like nursing, and even with people who want to make a career of scribing.

Since scribes have to set aside time for studying, scribe companies provide each physician-customer with one or two backup scribes. Dr. Mendoza bills his scribes as “personal assistants” who can do some nonclinical tasks beyond filling in the EHR, such as reminding doctors about the need to order a test or check in on another patient briefly before moving on to the next exam room.

Dr. Gold, however, warned against allowing “functional creep,” where scribes are asked to carry out tasks beyond their abilities, such as interpreting medical data. He added that doctors are expected to read through and sign all scribe-generated orders.

Some practices grow their own scribes, cross-training their medical assistants (MAs) to do the work. This addresses the turnover problem and could reduce costs. MAs already know clinical terms and how the doctor works, and they may be able to get special training at a local community college. However, some MAs do not want this extra work, and in any case, the work would take them away from other duties.

How often do physicians use their scribes? “Our doctors generally use them for all of their visits, but surgeons tend to limit use to their clinic days when they’re not in surgery,” said Tony Andrulonis, MD, president of ScribeAmerica in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
 

Virtual scribes work off-site

Virtual scribes, who operate remotely from the doctor and can cost up to $10 less per hour than on-site scribes, got a boost during the COVID-19 pandemic because they fit well with telemedicine visits. Furthermore, the growing availability of virtual scribes from abroad has made scribes even more affordable.

“When doctors could no longer work on-site due to the pandemic, they replaced their on-site scribes with virtual scribes, and to some extent this trend is still going on,” Dr. Gold said.

One downside with virtual scribes is that they cannot do many of the extra tasks that on-site scribes can do. However, they are often a necessity in rural areas where on-site scribes are not available. In addition to having an audio-video connection, they may also just be on audio in areas where internet reception is poor or the patient wants privacy, Dr. Andrulonis said.

Mr. Brady said Physicians Angels uses offshore scribes from India. The company charges $16-$18 per hour, compared with $26-$28 per hour for U.S.-based virtual scribes. He said well over half of his clients are family physicians, who appreciate the lower cost.

Another advantage of offshore scribes is slower turnover and full-time availability. Mr. Brady said his scribes usually stay with the company for 5-6 years and are always available. “This is their full-time job,” Brady said.

Mr. Brady said when large organizations arrange with his company for scribes, often the goal is that the scribes pay for themselves. “They’ll tell their doctors: ‘We’ll let you have scribes as long as you see one or two more patients a day,’ ” he said. Mr. Brady then helps the organization reach that goal, which he said is easily achievable, except when doctors have no clear incentive to see more patients. He also works with clients on other goals, such as higher quality of life or time saved.
 

Speech-to-text software

For years, doctors have been using speech-to-text software to transform their speech into notes. They speak into the microphone, calling out punctuation and referring to prep-made templates for routine tasks. As they speak, the text appears on a screen. They can correct the text if necessary, and then they must put that information into the EHR.

Speech-to-text systems are used by more physicians than those using human scribes. Nuance’s Dragon Medical One system is the most popular, with more than 1000 large healthcare organizations signed up. Competitors include Dolbey, Entrada, and nVoq.

Prices are just a fraction of the cost of a human scribe. Dolbey’s Fusion Narrate system, for example, costs about $800-$850 a year per user. Doctors should shop around for these systems, because prices can vary by 30%-50%, said Wayne Kaniewski, MD, a retired family and urgent care physician and now owner and CEO of Twin Cities EMR Consulting in Minneapolis.

As a contracted reseller of the nVoq and Dolbey systems, Dr. Kaniewski provides training and support. During 13 years in business, he said machine dictation systems have become faster, more accurate, and, thanks to cloud-based technology, easier to set up.
 

Digital assistants

AI software, also known as digital assistants, takes speech-to-text software to the next logical step – organizing and automatically entering the information into the EHR. Using ambient technology, a smartphone captures the physician-patient conversation in the exam room, extracts the needed information, and distributes it in the EHR.

The cost is about one-sixth that of a human scribe, but higher than the cost for speech-to-text software because the technology still makes errors and requires a human at the software company to guide the process.

Currently about 10 companies sell digital scribes, including Nuance’s Dragon Medical One, NoteSwift, DeepScribe, and ScribeAmerica. These systems can be connected to the major EHR systems, and in some cases EHR systems have agreements with digital scribe vendors so that their systems can be seamlessly connected.

“DAX software can understand nonlinear conversations – the way normal conversations bounce from topic to topic,” said Kenneth Harper, general manager of Nuance’s Ambient Clinical Intelligence Division. “This level of technology was not possible 5 years ago.”

Mr. Harper said DAX saves doctors 6 minutes per patient on average, and 70% of doctors using it reported less burnout and fatigue. Kansas University Medical Center has been testing DAX with physicians there. Many of them no longer need to write up their notes after hours, said Denton Shanks, DO, the medical center’s digital health medical director.

One of the things Dr. Shanks likes about DAX is that it remembers all the details of a visit. As a family physician, “there are something like 15 different problems that come up in one typical visit. Before, I had to carry those problems in my head, and when I wrote up my notes at the end of the day, I might have forgotten a few of them. Not so with DAX.”

Dr. Shanks knows he has to speak clearly and unambiguously when using DAX. “DAX can only document what it hears, so I describe what I am looking at in a physical exam or I might further explain the patient’s account so DAX can pick up on it.”
 

Are digital assistants ready for doctors?

Since a human at the software company is needed to guide the system, it takes a few hours for the digital assistant to complete entries into the EHR, but vendors are looking for ways to eliminate human guidance.

“We’re definitely moving toward digital scribes, but we’re not there yet,” Dr. Gold said, pointing to a 2018 study that found a significantly higher error rate for speech recognition software than for human scribes.

Dr. Kaniewski added that digital scribes pick up a great deal of irrelevant information, making for a bloated note. “Clinicians must then edit the note down, which is more work than just dictating a concise note,” he said.

Many doctors, however, are happy with these new systems. Steven Y. Lin, MD, a family physician who has been testing a digital scribe system with 40 fellow clinicians at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care, said 95% of clinicians who stayed with the trial are continuing to use the system, but he concedes that there was a relatively high dropout rate. “These people felt that they had lost control of the process when using the software.”

Furthermore, Dr. Lin is concerned that using a digital scribe may eliminate doctors’ crucial step of sitting down and writing the clinical note. Here “doctors bring together everything they have heard and then come up with the diagnosis and treatment.” He recognized that doctors could still take this step when reviewing the digital note, but it would be easy to skip.
 

What is the future for documentation aids?

Increasingly more doctors are finding ways to expedite documentation tasks. Speech-to-text software is still the most popular solution, but more physicians are now using human scribes, driven by the decisions of some large organizations to start paying for them.

However, these physicians are often expected to work harder in order for the scribes to pay for themselves, which is a solution that could, ironically, add to burnout rather than alleviate it.

Digital assistants answer these concerns because they are more affordable and are supposed to do all the work of human scribes. This software parses the physician-patient conversation into a clinical note and other data and deposits them directly into the EHR.

Most experts think digital assistants will eventually meet their promise, but it is widely thought that they’re not ready yet. It will be up to vendors like Nuance to convince skeptics that their products are ready for doctors.

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

About 60% of physicians cite documenting information in the electronic health record and other paperwork as major contributors to burnout. Physicians have been working with a variety of ways to reduce their documentation burdens; could one of them be right for you?

Two methods involve human scribes – working either on-site or off-site. Two other methods involve digital solutions: The first is widely used speech-to-text software, which requires the doctors to manually enter the text into the EHR; the second uses artificial intelligence (AI) to not only turn speech into text but to also automatically organize it and enter it into the EHR.

These AI solutions, which are only a few years old, are widely considered to be a work in progress – but many doctors who have used these products are impressed.
 

Other people do the documenting: On-site scribes

“It’s estimated that now one in five to one in eight doctors use scribes,” said Jeffrey A. Gold, MD, an internist who has studied the phenomenon. Utilization is already very high in emergency medicine and has been surging in specialties such as orthopedic surgery; it is also growing in primary care.

Scribes work with the doctor and enter information into the EHR. Their numbers have reportedly been rising in recent years, as more doctors look for ways to cut back on their documentation, according to Dr. Gold, vice chair for quality and safety at the department of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

The price tag of $33,000 a year or more for an on-site scribe is a major barrier. And because the typical scribe only works for 1-1.5 years, they must be constantly hired and trained, which is done by scribing services such as Scrivas in Miami.

However, Scrivas CEO Fernando G. Mendoza, MD, said scribes typically pay for themselves because they allow physicians to see more patients. Scribes can save doctors 2-3 hours of work per day, increase reimbursement by around 20% by producing more detailed notes, and improve satisfaction for both patients and doctors, according to several studies. In one study, physician documentation time significantly decreased, averaging 3 minutes per patient and 36 minutes per session.

Despite these possible savings, many health systems resisted hiring scribes for their employed physicians until the past few years, according to Kevin Brady, president of Physicians Angels, a scribing service based in Toledo, Ohio. “They figured they’d just spent millions on EHRs and didn’t want to spend any more,” he said. “They were also waiting for the EHR vendors to simplify documentation, but that never happened.”

Mr. Brady said what finally convinced many systems to invest in scribes was the need to reduce physician turnover and improve recruitment. Newly minted physicians often look for jobs that don’t interfere with their leisure time.
 

On-site scribes

On-site scribes accompany the doctor into the exam room and type the note during the encounter. Typically, the note is completed when the encounter is over, allowing for orders to be carried out immediately.

The traditional scribe is a premed student who wants to get acquainted with medicine and is thus willing to make a fairly low income. This career trajectory is the reason scribes have a high turnover. As demand surged, the scribe pool was supplemented with students aspiring to other health care professions like nursing, and even with people who want to make a career of scribing.

Since scribes have to set aside time for studying, scribe companies provide each physician-customer with one or two backup scribes. Dr. Mendoza bills his scribes as “personal assistants” who can do some nonclinical tasks beyond filling in the EHR, such as reminding doctors about the need to order a test or check in on another patient briefly before moving on to the next exam room.

Dr. Gold, however, warned against allowing “functional creep,” where scribes are asked to carry out tasks beyond their abilities, such as interpreting medical data. He added that doctors are expected to read through and sign all scribe-generated orders.

Some practices grow their own scribes, cross-training their medical assistants (MAs) to do the work. This addresses the turnover problem and could reduce costs. MAs already know clinical terms and how the doctor works, and they may be able to get special training at a local community college. However, some MAs do not want this extra work, and in any case, the work would take them away from other duties.

How often do physicians use their scribes? “Our doctors generally use them for all of their visits, but surgeons tend to limit use to their clinic days when they’re not in surgery,” said Tony Andrulonis, MD, president of ScribeAmerica in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
 

Virtual scribes work off-site

Virtual scribes, who operate remotely from the doctor and can cost up to $10 less per hour than on-site scribes, got a boost during the COVID-19 pandemic because they fit well with telemedicine visits. Furthermore, the growing availability of virtual scribes from abroad has made scribes even more affordable.

“When doctors could no longer work on-site due to the pandemic, they replaced their on-site scribes with virtual scribes, and to some extent this trend is still going on,” Dr. Gold said.

One downside with virtual scribes is that they cannot do many of the extra tasks that on-site scribes can do. However, they are often a necessity in rural areas where on-site scribes are not available. In addition to having an audio-video connection, they may also just be on audio in areas where internet reception is poor or the patient wants privacy, Dr. Andrulonis said.

Mr. Brady said Physicians Angels uses offshore scribes from India. The company charges $16-$18 per hour, compared with $26-$28 per hour for U.S.-based virtual scribes. He said well over half of his clients are family physicians, who appreciate the lower cost.

Another advantage of offshore scribes is slower turnover and full-time availability. Mr. Brady said his scribes usually stay with the company for 5-6 years and are always available. “This is their full-time job,” Brady said.

Mr. Brady said when large organizations arrange with his company for scribes, often the goal is that the scribes pay for themselves. “They’ll tell their doctors: ‘We’ll let you have scribes as long as you see one or two more patients a day,’ ” he said. Mr. Brady then helps the organization reach that goal, which he said is easily achievable, except when doctors have no clear incentive to see more patients. He also works with clients on other goals, such as higher quality of life or time saved.
 

Speech-to-text software

For years, doctors have been using speech-to-text software to transform their speech into notes. They speak into the microphone, calling out punctuation and referring to prep-made templates for routine tasks. As they speak, the text appears on a screen. They can correct the text if necessary, and then they must put that information into the EHR.

Speech-to-text systems are used by more physicians than those using human scribes. Nuance’s Dragon Medical One system is the most popular, with more than 1000 large healthcare organizations signed up. Competitors include Dolbey, Entrada, and nVoq.

Prices are just a fraction of the cost of a human scribe. Dolbey’s Fusion Narrate system, for example, costs about $800-$850 a year per user. Doctors should shop around for these systems, because prices can vary by 30%-50%, said Wayne Kaniewski, MD, a retired family and urgent care physician and now owner and CEO of Twin Cities EMR Consulting in Minneapolis.

As a contracted reseller of the nVoq and Dolbey systems, Dr. Kaniewski provides training and support. During 13 years in business, he said machine dictation systems have become faster, more accurate, and, thanks to cloud-based technology, easier to set up.
 

Digital assistants

AI software, also known as digital assistants, takes speech-to-text software to the next logical step – organizing and automatically entering the information into the EHR. Using ambient technology, a smartphone captures the physician-patient conversation in the exam room, extracts the needed information, and distributes it in the EHR.

The cost is about one-sixth that of a human scribe, but higher than the cost for speech-to-text software because the technology still makes errors and requires a human at the software company to guide the process.

Currently about 10 companies sell digital scribes, including Nuance’s Dragon Medical One, NoteSwift, DeepScribe, and ScribeAmerica. These systems can be connected to the major EHR systems, and in some cases EHR systems have agreements with digital scribe vendors so that their systems can be seamlessly connected.

“DAX software can understand nonlinear conversations – the way normal conversations bounce from topic to topic,” said Kenneth Harper, general manager of Nuance’s Ambient Clinical Intelligence Division. “This level of technology was not possible 5 years ago.”

Mr. Harper said DAX saves doctors 6 minutes per patient on average, and 70% of doctors using it reported less burnout and fatigue. Kansas University Medical Center has been testing DAX with physicians there. Many of them no longer need to write up their notes after hours, said Denton Shanks, DO, the medical center’s digital health medical director.

One of the things Dr. Shanks likes about DAX is that it remembers all the details of a visit. As a family physician, “there are something like 15 different problems that come up in one typical visit. Before, I had to carry those problems in my head, and when I wrote up my notes at the end of the day, I might have forgotten a few of them. Not so with DAX.”

Dr. Shanks knows he has to speak clearly and unambiguously when using DAX. “DAX can only document what it hears, so I describe what I am looking at in a physical exam or I might further explain the patient’s account so DAX can pick up on it.”
 

Are digital assistants ready for doctors?

Since a human at the software company is needed to guide the system, it takes a few hours for the digital assistant to complete entries into the EHR, but vendors are looking for ways to eliminate human guidance.

“We’re definitely moving toward digital scribes, but we’re not there yet,” Dr. Gold said, pointing to a 2018 study that found a significantly higher error rate for speech recognition software than for human scribes.

Dr. Kaniewski added that digital scribes pick up a great deal of irrelevant information, making for a bloated note. “Clinicians must then edit the note down, which is more work than just dictating a concise note,” he said.

Many doctors, however, are happy with these new systems. Steven Y. Lin, MD, a family physician who has been testing a digital scribe system with 40 fellow clinicians at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care, said 95% of clinicians who stayed with the trial are continuing to use the system, but he concedes that there was a relatively high dropout rate. “These people felt that they had lost control of the process when using the software.”

Furthermore, Dr. Lin is concerned that using a digital scribe may eliminate doctors’ crucial step of sitting down and writing the clinical note. Here “doctors bring together everything they have heard and then come up with the diagnosis and treatment.” He recognized that doctors could still take this step when reviewing the digital note, but it would be easy to skip.
 

What is the future for documentation aids?

Increasingly more doctors are finding ways to expedite documentation tasks. Speech-to-text software is still the most popular solution, but more physicians are now using human scribes, driven by the decisions of some large organizations to start paying for them.

However, these physicians are often expected to work harder in order for the scribes to pay for themselves, which is a solution that could, ironically, add to burnout rather than alleviate it.

Digital assistants answer these concerns because they are more affordable and are supposed to do all the work of human scribes. This software parses the physician-patient conversation into a clinical note and other data and deposits them directly into the EHR.

Most experts think digital assistants will eventually meet their promise, but it is widely thought that they’re not ready yet. It will be up to vendors like Nuance to convince skeptics that their products are ready for doctors.

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

About 60% of physicians cite documenting information in the electronic health record and other paperwork as major contributors to burnout. Physicians have been working with a variety of ways to reduce their documentation burdens; could one of them be right for you?

Two methods involve human scribes – working either on-site or off-site. Two other methods involve digital solutions: The first is widely used speech-to-text software, which requires the doctors to manually enter the text into the EHR; the second uses artificial intelligence (AI) to not only turn speech into text but to also automatically organize it and enter it into the EHR.

These AI solutions, which are only a few years old, are widely considered to be a work in progress – but many doctors who have used these products are impressed.
 

Other people do the documenting: On-site scribes

“It’s estimated that now one in five to one in eight doctors use scribes,” said Jeffrey A. Gold, MD, an internist who has studied the phenomenon. Utilization is already very high in emergency medicine and has been surging in specialties such as orthopedic surgery; it is also growing in primary care.

Scribes work with the doctor and enter information into the EHR. Their numbers have reportedly been rising in recent years, as more doctors look for ways to cut back on their documentation, according to Dr. Gold, vice chair for quality and safety at the department of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

The price tag of $33,000 a year or more for an on-site scribe is a major barrier. And because the typical scribe only works for 1-1.5 years, they must be constantly hired and trained, which is done by scribing services such as Scrivas in Miami.

However, Scrivas CEO Fernando G. Mendoza, MD, said scribes typically pay for themselves because they allow physicians to see more patients. Scribes can save doctors 2-3 hours of work per day, increase reimbursement by around 20% by producing more detailed notes, and improve satisfaction for both patients and doctors, according to several studies. In one study, physician documentation time significantly decreased, averaging 3 minutes per patient and 36 minutes per session.

Despite these possible savings, many health systems resisted hiring scribes for their employed physicians until the past few years, according to Kevin Brady, president of Physicians Angels, a scribing service based in Toledo, Ohio. “They figured they’d just spent millions on EHRs and didn’t want to spend any more,” he said. “They were also waiting for the EHR vendors to simplify documentation, but that never happened.”

Mr. Brady said what finally convinced many systems to invest in scribes was the need to reduce physician turnover and improve recruitment. Newly minted physicians often look for jobs that don’t interfere with their leisure time.
 

On-site scribes

On-site scribes accompany the doctor into the exam room and type the note during the encounter. Typically, the note is completed when the encounter is over, allowing for orders to be carried out immediately.

The traditional scribe is a premed student who wants to get acquainted with medicine and is thus willing to make a fairly low income. This career trajectory is the reason scribes have a high turnover. As demand surged, the scribe pool was supplemented with students aspiring to other health care professions like nursing, and even with people who want to make a career of scribing.

Since scribes have to set aside time for studying, scribe companies provide each physician-customer with one or two backup scribes. Dr. Mendoza bills his scribes as “personal assistants” who can do some nonclinical tasks beyond filling in the EHR, such as reminding doctors about the need to order a test or check in on another patient briefly before moving on to the next exam room.

Dr. Gold, however, warned against allowing “functional creep,” where scribes are asked to carry out tasks beyond their abilities, such as interpreting medical data. He added that doctors are expected to read through and sign all scribe-generated orders.

Some practices grow their own scribes, cross-training their medical assistants (MAs) to do the work. This addresses the turnover problem and could reduce costs. MAs already know clinical terms and how the doctor works, and they may be able to get special training at a local community college. However, some MAs do not want this extra work, and in any case, the work would take them away from other duties.

How often do physicians use their scribes? “Our doctors generally use them for all of their visits, but surgeons tend to limit use to their clinic days when they’re not in surgery,” said Tony Andrulonis, MD, president of ScribeAmerica in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
 

Virtual scribes work off-site

Virtual scribes, who operate remotely from the doctor and can cost up to $10 less per hour than on-site scribes, got a boost during the COVID-19 pandemic because they fit well with telemedicine visits. Furthermore, the growing availability of virtual scribes from abroad has made scribes even more affordable.

“When doctors could no longer work on-site due to the pandemic, they replaced their on-site scribes with virtual scribes, and to some extent this trend is still going on,” Dr. Gold said.

One downside with virtual scribes is that they cannot do many of the extra tasks that on-site scribes can do. However, they are often a necessity in rural areas where on-site scribes are not available. In addition to having an audio-video connection, they may also just be on audio in areas where internet reception is poor or the patient wants privacy, Dr. Andrulonis said.

Mr. Brady said Physicians Angels uses offshore scribes from India. The company charges $16-$18 per hour, compared with $26-$28 per hour for U.S.-based virtual scribes. He said well over half of his clients are family physicians, who appreciate the lower cost.

Another advantage of offshore scribes is slower turnover and full-time availability. Mr. Brady said his scribes usually stay with the company for 5-6 years and are always available. “This is their full-time job,” Brady said.

Mr. Brady said when large organizations arrange with his company for scribes, often the goal is that the scribes pay for themselves. “They’ll tell their doctors: ‘We’ll let you have scribes as long as you see one or two more patients a day,’ ” he said. Mr. Brady then helps the organization reach that goal, which he said is easily achievable, except when doctors have no clear incentive to see more patients. He also works with clients on other goals, such as higher quality of life or time saved.
 

Speech-to-text software

For years, doctors have been using speech-to-text software to transform their speech into notes. They speak into the microphone, calling out punctuation and referring to prep-made templates for routine tasks. As they speak, the text appears on a screen. They can correct the text if necessary, and then they must put that information into the EHR.

Speech-to-text systems are used by more physicians than those using human scribes. Nuance’s Dragon Medical One system is the most popular, with more than 1000 large healthcare organizations signed up. Competitors include Dolbey, Entrada, and nVoq.

Prices are just a fraction of the cost of a human scribe. Dolbey’s Fusion Narrate system, for example, costs about $800-$850 a year per user. Doctors should shop around for these systems, because prices can vary by 30%-50%, said Wayne Kaniewski, MD, a retired family and urgent care physician and now owner and CEO of Twin Cities EMR Consulting in Minneapolis.

As a contracted reseller of the nVoq and Dolbey systems, Dr. Kaniewski provides training and support. During 13 years in business, he said machine dictation systems have become faster, more accurate, and, thanks to cloud-based technology, easier to set up.
 

Digital assistants

AI software, also known as digital assistants, takes speech-to-text software to the next logical step – organizing and automatically entering the information into the EHR. Using ambient technology, a smartphone captures the physician-patient conversation in the exam room, extracts the needed information, and distributes it in the EHR.

The cost is about one-sixth that of a human scribe, but higher than the cost for speech-to-text software because the technology still makes errors and requires a human at the software company to guide the process.

Currently about 10 companies sell digital scribes, including Nuance’s Dragon Medical One, NoteSwift, DeepScribe, and ScribeAmerica. These systems can be connected to the major EHR systems, and in some cases EHR systems have agreements with digital scribe vendors so that their systems can be seamlessly connected.

“DAX software can understand nonlinear conversations – the way normal conversations bounce from topic to topic,” said Kenneth Harper, general manager of Nuance’s Ambient Clinical Intelligence Division. “This level of technology was not possible 5 years ago.”

Mr. Harper said DAX saves doctors 6 minutes per patient on average, and 70% of doctors using it reported less burnout and fatigue. Kansas University Medical Center has been testing DAX with physicians there. Many of them no longer need to write up their notes after hours, said Denton Shanks, DO, the medical center’s digital health medical director.

One of the things Dr. Shanks likes about DAX is that it remembers all the details of a visit. As a family physician, “there are something like 15 different problems that come up in one typical visit. Before, I had to carry those problems in my head, and when I wrote up my notes at the end of the day, I might have forgotten a few of them. Not so with DAX.”

Dr. Shanks knows he has to speak clearly and unambiguously when using DAX. “DAX can only document what it hears, so I describe what I am looking at in a physical exam or I might further explain the patient’s account so DAX can pick up on it.”
 

Are digital assistants ready for doctors?

Since a human at the software company is needed to guide the system, it takes a few hours for the digital assistant to complete entries into the EHR, but vendors are looking for ways to eliminate human guidance.

“We’re definitely moving toward digital scribes, but we’re not there yet,” Dr. Gold said, pointing to a 2018 study that found a significantly higher error rate for speech recognition software than for human scribes.

Dr. Kaniewski added that digital scribes pick up a great deal of irrelevant information, making for a bloated note. “Clinicians must then edit the note down, which is more work than just dictating a concise note,” he said.

Many doctors, however, are happy with these new systems. Steven Y. Lin, MD, a family physician who has been testing a digital scribe system with 40 fellow clinicians at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care, said 95% of clinicians who stayed with the trial are continuing to use the system, but he concedes that there was a relatively high dropout rate. “These people felt that they had lost control of the process when using the software.”

Furthermore, Dr. Lin is concerned that using a digital scribe may eliminate doctors’ crucial step of sitting down and writing the clinical note. Here “doctors bring together everything they have heard and then come up with the diagnosis and treatment.” He recognized that doctors could still take this step when reviewing the digital note, but it would be easy to skip.
 

What is the future for documentation aids?

Increasingly more doctors are finding ways to expedite documentation tasks. Speech-to-text software is still the most popular solution, but more physicians are now using human scribes, driven by the decisions of some large organizations to start paying for them.

However, these physicians are often expected to work harder in order for the scribes to pay for themselves, which is a solution that could, ironically, add to burnout rather than alleviate it.

Digital assistants answer these concerns because they are more affordable and are supposed to do all the work of human scribes. This software parses the physician-patient conversation into a clinical note and other data and deposits them directly into the EHR.

Most experts think digital assistants will eventually meet their promise, but it is widely thought that they’re not ready yet. It will be up to vendors like Nuance to convince skeptics that their products are ready for doctors.

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

The heart from a genetically modified pig transplanted to a Maryland patient in January in a pioneering, acclaimed, and widely critiqued surgery appears to have carried an unwanted passenger.

A porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV) in the heart had gone undetected before the operation and may or may not have been instrumental in David Bennett’s death 2 months later, according to a report published in MIT Technology Review.  

University of Maryland Medical Center

“The issue is now a subject of wide discussion among specialists, who think the infection was a potential contributor to Mr. Bennett’s death and a possible reason why the heart did not last longer,” states the article, written by staff journalist Antonio Regalado.

As described in the story, the xenotransplant saga’s new twist comes from the surgeon who performed the operation, Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland, Baltimore, who related the PCMV finding in an April 20 online presentation hosted by the American Society of Transplantation.

Mr. Bennett’s initially promising but later turbulent clinical course, described by his surgeons and widely reported upon his death, included repeated skirmishes with infection and retaliatory adjustments to his immunosuppressant regimen. Those episodes were thought to have contributed to his death, the actual cause of which is undetermined or at least not yet reported.

“We are beginning to learn why he passed on,” Dr. Griffith said in Mr. Regalado’s article, acknowledging further that the porcine virus “maybe was the actor, or could be the actor,” that set off the events leading to Bennett’s death.

Xenotransplant specialists know that PCMV is a potential problem with pig organs and know to test for it before attempting the procedure in animal models, notes the article. It refers to a published series of pig-heart transplants to baboons in Germany. The hearts “lasted only a couple of weeks if the virus was present, while organs free from the infection could survive more than half a year.”

The heart Mr. Bennett received had been extensively screened for bacteria, viruses, and other issues that could have threatened the organ and Mr. Bennett, but the effort apparently fell short. In the MIT Technology Review story, the first author of the German baboon series speculates on how the University of Maryland team might have missed PCMV.

“The U.S. team appears to have tested the pig’s snout for the virus, but often it is lurking deeper in the tissues,” Joachim Denner, PhD, Institute of Virology, Free University of Berlin, said in the article. The virus, he contended, “can be detected and easily removed from pig populations, but unfortunately they didn’t use a good assay and didn’t detect the virus.”

That PCMV escaped detection before the operation “could now factor into some people’s questions over whether the experiment should have taken place at all,” the MIT Technology Review article proposes. “It’s a big red flag,” bioethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, New York University, said in a quote, adding: “If doctors can’t prevent or control infection, ‘then such experiments are tough to justify.’ ”

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

The heart from a genetically modified pig transplanted to a Maryland patient in January in a pioneering, acclaimed, and widely critiqued surgery appears to have carried an unwanted passenger.

A porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV) in the heart had gone undetected before the operation and may or may not have been instrumental in David Bennett’s death 2 months later, according to a report published in MIT Technology Review.  

University of Maryland Medical Center

“The issue is now a subject of wide discussion among specialists, who think the infection was a potential contributor to Mr. Bennett’s death and a possible reason why the heart did not last longer,” states the article, written by staff journalist Antonio Regalado.

As described in the story, the xenotransplant saga’s new twist comes from the surgeon who performed the operation, Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland, Baltimore, who related the PCMV finding in an April 20 online presentation hosted by the American Society of Transplantation.

Mr. Bennett’s initially promising but later turbulent clinical course, described by his surgeons and widely reported upon his death, included repeated skirmishes with infection and retaliatory adjustments to his immunosuppressant regimen. Those episodes were thought to have contributed to his death, the actual cause of which is undetermined or at least not yet reported.

“We are beginning to learn why he passed on,” Dr. Griffith said in Mr. Regalado’s article, acknowledging further that the porcine virus “maybe was the actor, or could be the actor,” that set off the events leading to Bennett’s death.

Xenotransplant specialists know that PCMV is a potential problem with pig organs and know to test for it before attempting the procedure in animal models, notes the article. It refers to a published series of pig-heart transplants to baboons in Germany. The hearts “lasted only a couple of weeks if the virus was present, while organs free from the infection could survive more than half a year.”

The heart Mr. Bennett received had been extensively screened for bacteria, viruses, and other issues that could have threatened the organ and Mr. Bennett, but the effort apparently fell short. In the MIT Technology Review story, the first author of the German baboon series speculates on how the University of Maryland team might have missed PCMV.

“The U.S. team appears to have tested the pig’s snout for the virus, but often it is lurking deeper in the tissues,” Joachim Denner, PhD, Institute of Virology, Free University of Berlin, said in the article. The virus, he contended, “can be detected and easily removed from pig populations, but unfortunately they didn’t use a good assay and didn’t detect the virus.”

That PCMV escaped detection before the operation “could now factor into some people’s questions over whether the experiment should have taken place at all,” the MIT Technology Review article proposes. “It’s a big red flag,” bioethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, New York University, said in a quote, adding: “If doctors can’t prevent or control infection, ‘then such experiments are tough to justify.’ ”

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

The heart from a genetically modified pig transplanted to a Maryland patient in January in a pioneering, acclaimed, and widely critiqued surgery appears to have carried an unwanted passenger.

A porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV) in the heart had gone undetected before the operation and may or may not have been instrumental in David Bennett’s death 2 months later, according to a report published in MIT Technology Review.  

University of Maryland Medical Center

“The issue is now a subject of wide discussion among specialists, who think the infection was a potential contributor to Mr. Bennett’s death and a possible reason why the heart did not last longer,” states the article, written by staff journalist Antonio Regalado.

As described in the story, the xenotransplant saga’s new twist comes from the surgeon who performed the operation, Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland, Baltimore, who related the PCMV finding in an April 20 online presentation hosted by the American Society of Transplantation.

Mr. Bennett’s initially promising but later turbulent clinical course, described by his surgeons and widely reported upon his death, included repeated skirmishes with infection and retaliatory adjustments to his immunosuppressant regimen. Those episodes were thought to have contributed to his death, the actual cause of which is undetermined or at least not yet reported.

“We are beginning to learn why he passed on,” Dr. Griffith said in Mr. Regalado’s article, acknowledging further that the porcine virus “maybe was the actor, or could be the actor,” that set off the events leading to Bennett’s death.

Xenotransplant specialists know that PCMV is a potential problem with pig organs and know to test for it before attempting the procedure in animal models, notes the article. It refers to a published series of pig-heart transplants to baboons in Germany. The hearts “lasted only a couple of weeks if the virus was present, while organs free from the infection could survive more than half a year.”

The heart Mr. Bennett received had been extensively screened for bacteria, viruses, and other issues that could have threatened the organ and Mr. Bennett, but the effort apparently fell short. In the MIT Technology Review story, the first author of the German baboon series speculates on how the University of Maryland team might have missed PCMV.

“The U.S. team appears to have tested the pig’s snout for the virus, but often it is lurking deeper in the tissues,” Joachim Denner, PhD, Institute of Virology, Free University of Berlin, said in the article. The virus, he contended, “can be detected and easily removed from pig populations, but unfortunately they didn’t use a good assay and didn’t detect the virus.”

That PCMV escaped detection before the operation “could now factor into some people’s questions over whether the experiment should have taken place at all,” the MIT Technology Review article proposes. “It’s a big red flag,” bioethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, New York University, said in a quote, adding: “If doctors can’t prevent or control infection, ‘then such experiments are tough to justify.’ ”

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