CHEST Physician

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson dropped dramatically as the Delta variant swept the United States, a study of almost 800,000 veterans found.

The study, published in the journal Science ., says the three vaccines offered about the same protection against the virus in March, when the Delta variant was first detected in the United States, but that changed 6 months later.

The Moderna two-dose vaccine went from being 89% effective in March to 58% effective in September, according to a story about the study in theLos Angeles Times.

Meanwhile, the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine went from being 87% effective to 45% effective over the same time period.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine showed the biggest drop -- from 86% effectiveness to 13% over those 6 months.

“In summary, although vaccination remains protective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, protection waned as the Delta variant emerged in the U.S., and this decline did not differ by age,” the study said.

The three vaccines also lost effectiveness in the ability to protect against death in veterans 65 and over after only 3 months, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Compared to unvaccinated veterans in that age group, veterans who got the Moderna vaccine and had a breakthrough case were 76% less likely to die of COVID-19 by July.

The protection was 70% for Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine recipients and 52% for J&J vaccine recipients for the same age group, compared to unvaccinated veterans, according to the newspaper.

For veterans under 65, the protectiveness against a fatal case of COVID was 84% for Pfizer/BioNTech recipients, 82% for Moderna recipients, and 73% for J&J recipients, compared to unvaccinated veterans in that age group.

The study confirms the need for booster vaccines and protective measures such as vaccine passports, vaccine mandates, masking, hand-washing, and social distancing, the researchers said.

Of the veterans studied, about 500,000 were vaccinated and 300,000 were not. Researchers noted that the study population had 6 times as many men as women. About 48% of the study group was 65 or older, 29% was 50-64, while 24% was under 50.

Researchers from the Public Health Institute in Oakland, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Francisco, and the University of Texas Health Science Center conducted the study.

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

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson dropped dramatically as the Delta variant swept the United States, a study of almost 800,000 veterans found.

The study, published in the journal Science ., says the three vaccines offered about the same protection against the virus in March, when the Delta variant was first detected in the United States, but that changed 6 months later.

The Moderna two-dose vaccine went from being 89% effective in March to 58% effective in September, according to a story about the study in theLos Angeles Times.

Meanwhile, the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine went from being 87% effective to 45% effective over the same time period.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine showed the biggest drop -- from 86% effectiveness to 13% over those 6 months.

“In summary, although vaccination remains protective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, protection waned as the Delta variant emerged in the U.S., and this decline did not differ by age,” the study said.

The three vaccines also lost effectiveness in the ability to protect against death in veterans 65 and over after only 3 months, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Compared to unvaccinated veterans in that age group, veterans who got the Moderna vaccine and had a breakthrough case were 76% less likely to die of COVID-19 by July.

The protection was 70% for Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine recipients and 52% for J&J vaccine recipients for the same age group, compared to unvaccinated veterans, according to the newspaper.

For veterans under 65, the protectiveness against a fatal case of COVID was 84% for Pfizer/BioNTech recipients, 82% for Moderna recipients, and 73% for J&J recipients, compared to unvaccinated veterans in that age group.

The study confirms the need for booster vaccines and protective measures such as vaccine passports, vaccine mandates, masking, hand-washing, and social distancing, the researchers said.

Of the veterans studied, about 500,000 were vaccinated and 300,000 were not. Researchers noted that the study population had 6 times as many men as women. About 48% of the study group was 65 or older, 29% was 50-64, while 24% was under 50.

Researchers from the Public Health Institute in Oakland, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Francisco, and the University of Texas Health Science Center conducted the study.

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

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson dropped dramatically as the Delta variant swept the United States, a study of almost 800,000 veterans found.

The study, published in the journal Science ., says the three vaccines offered about the same protection against the virus in March, when the Delta variant was first detected in the United States, but that changed 6 months later.

The Moderna two-dose vaccine went from being 89% effective in March to 58% effective in September, according to a story about the study in theLos Angeles Times.

Meanwhile, the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine went from being 87% effective to 45% effective over the same time period.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine showed the biggest drop -- from 86% effectiveness to 13% over those 6 months.

“In summary, although vaccination remains protective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, protection waned as the Delta variant emerged in the U.S., and this decline did not differ by age,” the study said.

The three vaccines also lost effectiveness in the ability to protect against death in veterans 65 and over after only 3 months, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Compared to unvaccinated veterans in that age group, veterans who got the Moderna vaccine and had a breakthrough case were 76% less likely to die of COVID-19 by July.

The protection was 70% for Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine recipients and 52% for J&J vaccine recipients for the same age group, compared to unvaccinated veterans, according to the newspaper.

For veterans under 65, the protectiveness against a fatal case of COVID was 84% for Pfizer/BioNTech recipients, 82% for Moderna recipients, and 73% for J&J recipients, compared to unvaccinated veterans in that age group.

The study confirms the need for booster vaccines and protective measures such as vaccine passports, vaccine mandates, masking, hand-washing, and social distancing, the researchers said.

Of the veterans studied, about 500,000 were vaccinated and 300,000 were not. Researchers noted that the study population had 6 times as many men as women. About 48% of the study group was 65 or older, 29% was 50-64, while 24% was under 50.

Researchers from the Public Health Institute in Oakland, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Francisco, and the University of Texas Health Science Center conducted the study.

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

Two studies published in Thorax have found that the use of continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) or high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) to treat moderate to severe COVID-19 is not linked to a heightened risk of infection, as currently thought. Researchers say hospitals should use this information to re-examine aerosol procedures in regard to risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

CPAP and HFNO have been thought to generate virus particles capable of contaminating the air and surfaces, necessitating additional infection control precautions such as segregating patients. However, this research demonstrates that both methods produced little measurable air or surface viral contamination. The amount of contamination was no more than with the use of supplemental oxygen and less than that produced when breathing, speaking, or coughing.

In one study, led by a team from the North Bristol NHS Trust, 25 healthy volunteers and eight hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were recruited and asked to breathe, speak, and cough in ultra-clean, laminar flow theaters followed by use of CPAP and HFNO. Aerosol emission was measured via two methodologies, simultaneously. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had cough recorded via the same methodology on the infectious diseases ward.

CPAP (with exhalation port filter) was found to produce less aerosol than breathing, speaking, and coughing, even with large > 50 L/min face mask leaks. Coughing was associated with the highest aerosol emissions of any recorded activity.

HFNO was associated with aerosol emission from the machine. Generated particles were small (< 1 mcm), passing from the machine through the patient and to the detector without coalescence with respiratory aerosol, and, consequently, would be unlikely to carry viral particles.

More aerosol was generated in cough from patients with COVID-19 (n = 8) than from volunteers.

In the second study, 30 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen were prospectively enrolled. In this observational environmental sampling study, participants received either supplemental oxygen, CPAP, or HFNO (n = 10 in each group). A nasopharyngeal swab, three air, and three surface samples were collected from each participant and the clinical environment.

Overall, 21 of the 30 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the nasopharynx. In contrast, 4 out of 90 air samples and 6 of 90 surface samples tested positive for viral RNA, although there were an additional 10 suspected-positive samples in both air and surfaces samples.

Neither the use of CPAP nor HFNO nor coughing were associated with significantly more environmental contamination than supplemental oxygen use. Of the total positive or suspected-positive samples by viral PCR detection, only one nasopharynx sample from an HFNO patient was biologically viable in cell culture assay.

“Our findings show that the noninvasive breathing support methods do not pose a higher risk of transmitting infection, which has significant implications for the management of the patients,” said coauthor Danny McAuley, MD.

“If there isn’t a higher risk of infection transmission, current practices may be overcautious measures for certain settings, for example preventing relatives visiting the sickest patients, whilst underestimating the risk in other settings, such as coughing patients with early infection on general wards.”

Although both studies are small, the results do suggest that there is a need for an evidence-based reassessment of infection prevention and control measures for noninvasive respiratory support treatments that are currently considered aerosol generating procedures.
 

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

Two studies published in Thorax have found that the use of continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) or high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) to treat moderate to severe COVID-19 is not linked to a heightened risk of infection, as currently thought. Researchers say hospitals should use this information to re-examine aerosol procedures in regard to risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

CPAP and HFNO have been thought to generate virus particles capable of contaminating the air and surfaces, necessitating additional infection control precautions such as segregating patients. However, this research demonstrates that both methods produced little measurable air or surface viral contamination. The amount of contamination was no more than with the use of supplemental oxygen and less than that produced when breathing, speaking, or coughing.

In one study, led by a team from the North Bristol NHS Trust, 25 healthy volunteers and eight hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were recruited and asked to breathe, speak, and cough in ultra-clean, laminar flow theaters followed by use of CPAP and HFNO. Aerosol emission was measured via two methodologies, simultaneously. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had cough recorded via the same methodology on the infectious diseases ward.

CPAP (with exhalation port filter) was found to produce less aerosol than breathing, speaking, and coughing, even with large > 50 L/min face mask leaks. Coughing was associated with the highest aerosol emissions of any recorded activity.

HFNO was associated with aerosol emission from the machine. Generated particles were small (< 1 mcm), passing from the machine through the patient and to the detector without coalescence with respiratory aerosol, and, consequently, would be unlikely to carry viral particles.

More aerosol was generated in cough from patients with COVID-19 (n = 8) than from volunteers.

In the second study, 30 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen were prospectively enrolled. In this observational environmental sampling study, participants received either supplemental oxygen, CPAP, or HFNO (n = 10 in each group). A nasopharyngeal swab, three air, and three surface samples were collected from each participant and the clinical environment.

Overall, 21 of the 30 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the nasopharynx. In contrast, 4 out of 90 air samples and 6 of 90 surface samples tested positive for viral RNA, although there were an additional 10 suspected-positive samples in both air and surfaces samples.

Neither the use of CPAP nor HFNO nor coughing were associated with significantly more environmental contamination than supplemental oxygen use. Of the total positive or suspected-positive samples by viral PCR detection, only one nasopharynx sample from an HFNO patient was biologically viable in cell culture assay.

“Our findings show that the noninvasive breathing support methods do not pose a higher risk of transmitting infection, which has significant implications for the management of the patients,” said coauthor Danny McAuley, MD.

“If there isn’t a higher risk of infection transmission, current practices may be overcautious measures for certain settings, for example preventing relatives visiting the sickest patients, whilst underestimating the risk in other settings, such as coughing patients with early infection on general wards.”

Although both studies are small, the results do suggest that there is a need for an evidence-based reassessment of infection prevention and control measures for noninvasive respiratory support treatments that are currently considered aerosol generating procedures.
 

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

Two studies published in Thorax have found that the use of continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) or high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) to treat moderate to severe COVID-19 is not linked to a heightened risk of infection, as currently thought. Researchers say hospitals should use this information to re-examine aerosol procedures in regard to risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

CPAP and HFNO have been thought to generate virus particles capable of contaminating the air and surfaces, necessitating additional infection control precautions such as segregating patients. However, this research demonstrates that both methods produced little measurable air or surface viral contamination. The amount of contamination was no more than with the use of supplemental oxygen and less than that produced when breathing, speaking, or coughing.

In one study, led by a team from the North Bristol NHS Trust, 25 healthy volunteers and eight hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were recruited and asked to breathe, speak, and cough in ultra-clean, laminar flow theaters followed by use of CPAP and HFNO. Aerosol emission was measured via two methodologies, simultaneously. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had cough recorded via the same methodology on the infectious diseases ward.

CPAP (with exhalation port filter) was found to produce less aerosol than breathing, speaking, and coughing, even with large > 50 L/min face mask leaks. Coughing was associated with the highest aerosol emissions of any recorded activity.

HFNO was associated with aerosol emission from the machine. Generated particles were small (< 1 mcm), passing from the machine through the patient and to the detector without coalescence with respiratory aerosol, and, consequently, would be unlikely to carry viral particles.

More aerosol was generated in cough from patients with COVID-19 (n = 8) than from volunteers.

In the second study, 30 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen were prospectively enrolled. In this observational environmental sampling study, participants received either supplemental oxygen, CPAP, or HFNO (n = 10 in each group). A nasopharyngeal swab, three air, and three surface samples were collected from each participant and the clinical environment.

Overall, 21 of the 30 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the nasopharynx. In contrast, 4 out of 90 air samples and 6 of 90 surface samples tested positive for viral RNA, although there were an additional 10 suspected-positive samples in both air and surfaces samples.

Neither the use of CPAP nor HFNO nor coughing were associated with significantly more environmental contamination than supplemental oxygen use. Of the total positive or suspected-positive samples by viral PCR detection, only one nasopharynx sample from an HFNO patient was biologically viable in cell culture assay.

“Our findings show that the noninvasive breathing support methods do not pose a higher risk of transmitting infection, which has significant implications for the management of the patients,” said coauthor Danny McAuley, MD.

“If there isn’t a higher risk of infection transmission, current practices may be overcautious measures for certain settings, for example preventing relatives visiting the sickest patients, whilst underestimating the risk in other settings, such as coughing patients with early infection on general wards.”

Although both studies are small, the results do suggest that there is a need for an evidence-based reassessment of infection prevention and control measures for noninvasive respiratory support treatments that are currently considered aerosol generating procedures.
 

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

An experimental antiviral pill appears to work very well at keeping people who are at high risk of severe COVID-19 from being admitted to the hospital and dying, according to the drug’s maker, Pfizer.

The drug -- called Paxlovid -- was 89% effective, compared to a placebo, at preventing hospitalization or death in patients with COVID-19 who were at high risk of severe complications. The company says it plans to ask the FDA to authorize the drug for emergency use.

The medication appears to work so well that Pfizer has stopped enrollment in the trial of the drug, which works by blocking an enzyme called a protease that the new coronavirus needs to make more copies of itself.

Stopping a clinical trial is a rare action that’s typically taken when a therapy appears to be very effective or clearly dangerous. In both those cases, it’s considered unethical to continue a clinical trial where people are randomly assigned either an active drug or a placebo, when safer or more effective options are available to them.

In this case, the company said in a news release that the move was recommended by an independent panel of advisers who are overseeing the trial, called a data safety monitoring committee, and done in consultation with the FDA.

“Today’s news is a real game-changer in the global efforts to halt the devastation of this pandemic,” said Albert Bourla, PhD, Pfizer chairman and chief executive officer. “These data suggest that our oral antiviral candidate, if approved or authorized by regulatory authorities, has the potential to save patients’ lives, reduce the severity of COVID-19 infections, and eliminate up to nine out of ten hospitalizations.”

In a randomized clinical trial that included more than 1,900 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were at risk for having severe complications for their infections, those who received Paxlovid within 3 days of the start of their symptoms were 89% less likely to be hospitalized than those who got a placebo pill -- three patients out of 389 who got the drug were hospitalized, compared with 27 out of 385 who got the placebo. Among patients who got the drug within 5 days of the start of their symptoms, six out of 607 were hospitalized within 28 days, compared to 41 out of 612 who got the placebo.

There were no deaths over the course of a month in patients who took Paxlovid, but 10 deaths in the group that got the placebo.

The news comes on the heels of an announcement in October by the drug company Merck that its experimental antiviral pill, molnupiravir, reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients with mild to moderate COVID, compared to a placebo.

The United Kingdom became the first country to authorize the use of molnupiravir, which is brand-named Lagevrio.

Stephen Griffin, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Leeds, hailed the success of both new antiviral pills.

“They both demonstrate that, with appropriate investment, the development of bespoke direct-acting antiviral drugs targeting SARS-CoV2 was eminently feasible and has ultimately proven far more successful than repurposing other drugs with questionable antiviral effects,” said Dr. Griffin, who was not involved in the development of either drug.

“The success of these antivirals potentially marks a new era in our ability to prevent the severe consequences of SARS-CoV2 infection, and is also a vital element for the care of clinically vulnerable people who may be unable to either receive or respond to vaccines,” he said.

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

An experimental antiviral pill appears to work very well at keeping people who are at high risk of severe COVID-19 from being admitted to the hospital and dying, according to the drug’s maker, Pfizer.

The drug -- called Paxlovid -- was 89% effective, compared to a placebo, at preventing hospitalization or death in patients with COVID-19 who were at high risk of severe complications. The company says it plans to ask the FDA to authorize the drug for emergency use.

The medication appears to work so well that Pfizer has stopped enrollment in the trial of the drug, which works by blocking an enzyme called a protease that the new coronavirus needs to make more copies of itself.

Stopping a clinical trial is a rare action that’s typically taken when a therapy appears to be very effective or clearly dangerous. In both those cases, it’s considered unethical to continue a clinical trial where people are randomly assigned either an active drug or a placebo, when safer or more effective options are available to them.

In this case, the company said in a news release that the move was recommended by an independent panel of advisers who are overseeing the trial, called a data safety monitoring committee, and done in consultation with the FDA.

“Today’s news is a real game-changer in the global efforts to halt the devastation of this pandemic,” said Albert Bourla, PhD, Pfizer chairman and chief executive officer. “These data suggest that our oral antiviral candidate, if approved or authorized by regulatory authorities, has the potential to save patients’ lives, reduce the severity of COVID-19 infections, and eliminate up to nine out of ten hospitalizations.”

In a randomized clinical trial that included more than 1,900 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were at risk for having severe complications for their infections, those who received Paxlovid within 3 days of the start of their symptoms were 89% less likely to be hospitalized than those who got a placebo pill -- three patients out of 389 who got the drug were hospitalized, compared with 27 out of 385 who got the placebo. Among patients who got the drug within 5 days of the start of their symptoms, six out of 607 were hospitalized within 28 days, compared to 41 out of 612 who got the placebo.

There were no deaths over the course of a month in patients who took Paxlovid, but 10 deaths in the group that got the placebo.

The news comes on the heels of an announcement in October by the drug company Merck that its experimental antiviral pill, molnupiravir, reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients with mild to moderate COVID, compared to a placebo.

The United Kingdom became the first country to authorize the use of molnupiravir, which is brand-named Lagevrio.

Stephen Griffin, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Leeds, hailed the success of both new antiviral pills.

“They both demonstrate that, with appropriate investment, the development of bespoke direct-acting antiviral drugs targeting SARS-CoV2 was eminently feasible and has ultimately proven far more successful than repurposing other drugs with questionable antiviral effects,” said Dr. Griffin, who was not involved in the development of either drug.

“The success of these antivirals potentially marks a new era in our ability to prevent the severe consequences of SARS-CoV2 infection, and is also a vital element for the care of clinically vulnerable people who may be unable to either receive or respond to vaccines,” he said.

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

An experimental antiviral pill appears to work very well at keeping people who are at high risk of severe COVID-19 from being admitted to the hospital and dying, according to the drug’s maker, Pfizer.

The drug -- called Paxlovid -- was 89% effective, compared to a placebo, at preventing hospitalization or death in patients with COVID-19 who were at high risk of severe complications. The company says it plans to ask the FDA to authorize the drug for emergency use.

The medication appears to work so well that Pfizer has stopped enrollment in the trial of the drug, which works by blocking an enzyme called a protease that the new coronavirus needs to make more copies of itself.

Stopping a clinical trial is a rare action that’s typically taken when a therapy appears to be very effective or clearly dangerous. In both those cases, it’s considered unethical to continue a clinical trial where people are randomly assigned either an active drug or a placebo, when safer or more effective options are available to them.

In this case, the company said in a news release that the move was recommended by an independent panel of advisers who are overseeing the trial, called a data safety monitoring committee, and done in consultation with the FDA.

“Today’s news is a real game-changer in the global efforts to halt the devastation of this pandemic,” said Albert Bourla, PhD, Pfizer chairman and chief executive officer. “These data suggest that our oral antiviral candidate, if approved or authorized by regulatory authorities, has the potential to save patients’ lives, reduce the severity of COVID-19 infections, and eliminate up to nine out of ten hospitalizations.”

In a randomized clinical trial that included more than 1,900 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were at risk for having severe complications for their infections, those who received Paxlovid within 3 days of the start of their symptoms were 89% less likely to be hospitalized than those who got a placebo pill -- three patients out of 389 who got the drug were hospitalized, compared with 27 out of 385 who got the placebo. Among patients who got the drug within 5 days of the start of their symptoms, six out of 607 were hospitalized within 28 days, compared to 41 out of 612 who got the placebo.

There were no deaths over the course of a month in patients who took Paxlovid, but 10 deaths in the group that got the placebo.

The news comes on the heels of an announcement in October by the drug company Merck that its experimental antiviral pill, molnupiravir, reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients with mild to moderate COVID, compared to a placebo.

The United Kingdom became the first country to authorize the use of molnupiravir, which is brand-named Lagevrio.

Stephen Griffin, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Leeds, hailed the success of both new antiviral pills.

“They both demonstrate that, with appropriate investment, the development of bespoke direct-acting antiviral drugs targeting SARS-CoV2 was eminently feasible and has ultimately proven far more successful than repurposing other drugs with questionable antiviral effects,” said Dr. Griffin, who was not involved in the development of either drug.

“The success of these antivirals potentially marks a new era in our ability to prevent the severe consequences of SARS-CoV2 infection, and is also a vital element for the care of clinically vulnerable people who may be unable to either receive or respond to vaccines,” he said.

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

They went into hospitals with heart attacks, kidney failure or in a psychiatric crisis.

They left with COVID-19 — if they left at all.

More than 10,000 patients were diagnosed with COVID in a U.S. hospital last year after they were admitted for something else, according to federal and state records analyzed exclusively for KHN. The number is certainly an undercount, since it includes mostly patients 65 and older, plus California and Florida patients of all ages.

Yet in the scheme of things that can go wrong in a hospital, it is catastrophic: About 21% of the patients who contracted COVID in the hospital from April to September last year died, the data shows. In contrast, nearly 8% of other Medicare patients died in the hospital at the time.

Steven Johnson, 66, was expecting to get an infection cut out of his hip flesh and bone at Blake Medical Center in Bradenton, Fla., last November. The retired pharmacist had survived colon cancer and was meticulous to avoid contracting COVID. He could not have known that, from April through September, 8% of that hospital’s Medicare COVID patients were diagnosed with the virus after they were admitted for another concern.

Mr. Johnson had tested negative for COVID two days before he was admitted. After 13 days in the hospital, he tested positive, said his wife, Cindy Johnson, also a retired pharmacist.

Soon he was struggling to clear a glue-like phlegm from his lungs. A medical team could hardly control his pain. They prompted Cindy to share his final wishes. She asked: “Honey, do you want to be intubated?” He responded with an emphatic “no.” He died three days later.

After her husband tested positive, Cindy Johnson, trained in contact tracing, quickly got a COVID test. She tested negative. Then she thought about the large number of hospital staffers flowing into and out of his room — where he was often unmasked — and suspected a staff member had infected him. That the hospital, part of the HCA Healthcare chain, still has not mandated staff vaccinations is “appalling,” she said.

“I’m furious,” she said.

“How can they say on their website,” she asked, “that the safety precautions ‘we’ve put into place make our facilities among the safest possible places to receive healthcare at this time’?”

Blake Medical Center spokesperson Lisa Kirkland said the hospital is “strongly encouraging vaccination” and noted that it follows Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and federal and state guidelines to protect patients. President Joe Biden has called for all hospital employees to be vaccinated, but the requirement could face resistance in a dozen states, including Florida, that have banned vaccine mandates.

Overall, the rate of in-hospital spread among Medicare and other patients was lower than in other countries, including the United Kingdom, which makes such data public and openly discusses it. On average, about 1.7% of U.S. hospitalized COVID patients were diagnosed with the virus in U.S. hospitals, according to an analysis of Medicare records from April 1 to Sept. 30, 2020, provided by Dr. James Kennedy, founder of CDIMD, a Nashville-based consulting and data analytics company.

Yet the rate of infection was far higher in 38 hospitals where 5% or more of the Medicare COVID cases were documented as hospital-acquired. The data is from a challenging stretch last year when protective gear was in short supply and tests were scarce or slow to produce results. The Medicare data for the fourth quarter of 2020 and this year isn’t available yet, and the state data reflects April 1 through Dec. 31, 2020.

A KHN review of work-safety records, medical literature and interviews with staff at high-spread hospitals points to why the virus took hold: Hospital leaders were slow to appreciate its airborne nature, which made coughing patients hazardous to roommates and staff members, who often wore less-protective surgical masks instead of N95s. Hospitals failed to test every admitted patient, enabled by CDC guidance that leaves such testing to the “discretion of the facility.” Management often failed to inform workers when they’d been exposed to COVID and so were at risk of spreading it themselves.

Spread among patients and staffers seemed to go hand in hand. At Beaumont Hospital, Taylor, in Michigan, 139 employee COVID infections were logged between April 6 to Oct. 20 last year, a hospital inspection report shows. Nearly 7% of the Medicare patients with COVID tested positive after they were admitted to that hospital for something else, the federal data shows. A hospital spokesperson said tests were not available to screen all patients last year, resulting in some late diagnoses. He said all incoming patients are tested now.

Tracking COVID inside health facilities is no new task to federal officials, who publicly report new staff and resident cases weekly for each U.S. nursing home. Yet the Department of Health and Human Services reports data on COVID’s spread in hospitals only on a statewide basis, so patients are in the dark about which facilities have cases.

KHN commissioned analyses of hospital billing records, which are also used more broadly to spot various hospital-acquired infections. For COVID, the data has limitations. It can pick up some community-acquired cases that were slow to show up, as it can take two to 14 days from exposure to the virus for symptoms to appear, with the average being four to five days. The records do not account for cases picked up in an emergency room or diagnosed after a hospital patient was discharged.

Linda Moore, 71, tested positive at least 15 days into a hospital stay for spinal surgery, according to her daughter Trisha Tavolazzi. Her mother was at Havasu Regional Medical Center in Lake Havasu City, Ariz., which did not have a higher-than-average rate of internal spread last summer.

The hospital implemented “rigorous health and safety protocols to protect all of our patients” during the pandemic, said hospital spokesperson Corey Santoriello, who would not comment on Ms. Moore’s case, citing privacy laws.

Ms. Moore was airlifted to another hospital, where her condition only declined further, her daughter said. After the ventilator was removed, she clung to life fitfully for 5½ hours, as her daughter prayed for her mother to find her way to heaven.

“I asked her mom and her dad and her family and prayed to God, ‘Please just come show her the way,’” Ms. Tavolazzi said. “I relive it every day.”

When Ms. Tavolazzi sought answers from the hospital about where her mom got the virus, she said, she got none: “No one ever called me back.”
 

Two negative COVID tests, then ‘patient zero’

As the second surge of COVID subsided last September, doctors from the prestigious Brigham and Women’s Hospital published a reassuringstudy: With careful infection control, only two of 697 COVID patients acquired the virus within the Boston hospital. That is about 0.3% of patients --about six times lower than the overall Medicare rate. Brigham tested every patient it admitted, exceeding CDC recommendations. It was transparent and open about safety concerns.

But the study, published in the high-profile JAMA Network Open journal, conveyed the wrong message, according to Dr. Manoj Jain, an infectious-disease physician and adjunct professor at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University. COVID was spreading in hospitals, he said, and the study buried “the problem under the rug.”

Before the virtual ink on the study was dry, the virus began a stealthy streak through the elite hospital. It slipped in with a patient who tested negative twice -- but turned out to be positive. She was “patient zero” in an outbreak affecting 38 staffers and 14 patients, according to a study in Annals of Internal Medicine initially published Feb. 9.

That study’s authors sequenced the genome of the virus to confirm which cases were related and precisely how it traveled through the hospital.

As patients were moved from room to room in the early days of the outbreak, COVID spread among roommates 8 out of 9 times, likely through aerosol transmission, the study says. A survey of staff members revealed that those caring for coughing patients were more likely to get sick.

The virus also appeared to have breached the CDC-OK’d protective gear. Two staff members who had close patient contact while wearing a surgical mask and face shield still wound up infected. The findings suggested that more-protective N95 respirators could help safeguard staff.

Brigham and Women’s now tests every patient upon admission and again soon after. Nurses are encouraged to test again if they see a subtle sign of COVID, said Dr. Erica Shenoy, associate chief of the Infection Control Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, who helped craft policy at Brigham.

She said nurses and environmental services workers are at the table for policymaking: “I personally make it a point to say, ‘Tell me what you’re thinking,’” Dr. Shenoy said. “‘There’s no retribution because we need to know.’”

CDC guidelines, though, left wide latitude on protective gear and testing. To this day, Dr. Shenoy said, hospitals employ a wide range of policies.

The CDC said in a statement that its guidelines “provide a comprehensive and layered approach to preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare settings,” and include testing patients with “even mild symptoms” or recent exposure to someone with COVID.

Infection control policies are rarely apparent to patients or visitors, beyond whether they’re asked to wear a mask. But reviews of public records and interviews with more than a dozen people show that at hospitals with high rates of COVID spread, staff members were often alarmed by the lack of safety practices.
 

Nurses sound the alarm on COVID spread

As COVID crept into Florida in spring 2020, nurse Victoria Holland clashed with managers at Blake Medical Center in Bradenton, where Steven Johnson died.

She said managers suspended her early in the pandemic after taking part in a protest and “having a hissy fit” when she was denied a new N95 respirator before an “aerosol-generating” procedure. The CDC warns that such procedures can spread the virus through the air. Before the pandemic, nurses were trained to dispose of an N95 after each patient encounter.

When the suspension was over, Ms. Holland said, she felt unsafe. “They told us nothing,” she said. “It was all a little whisper between the doctors. You had potential COVIDs and you’d get a little surgical mask because [they didn’t] want to waste” an N95 unless they knew the patient was positive.

Ms. Holland said she quit in mid-April. Her nursing colleagues lodged a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in late June alleging that staff “working around possible COVID-19 positive cases” had been denied PPE. Staff members protested outside the hospital in July and filed another OSHA complaint that said the hospital was allowing COVID-exposed employees to keep working.

Ms. Kirkland, the Blake spokesperson, said the hospital responded to OSHA and “no deficiencies were identified.”

The Medicare analysis shows that 22 of 273 patients with COVID, or 8%, were diagnosed with the virus after they were admitted to Blake. That’s about five times as high as the national average.

Ms. Kirkland said “there is no standard way for measuring COVID-19 hospital-associated transmissions” and “there is no evidence to suggest the risk of transmission at Blake Medical Center is different than what you would find at other hospitals.”

In Washington, D.C., 34 Medicare COVID patients contracted the virus at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, or nearly 6% of its total, the analysis shows.

Unhappy with the safety practices — which included gas sterilization and reuse of N95s — National Nurses United members protested on the hospital lawn in July 2020. At the protest, nurse Zoe Bendixen said one nurse had died of the virus and 50 had gotten sick: “[Nurses] can become a source for spreading the disease to other patients, co-workers and family members.”

Nurse Yuhana Gidey said she caught COVID after treating a patient who turned out to be infected. Another nurse, not managers doing contact tracing, told her she’d been exposed, she said.

Nurse Kimberly Walsh said in an interview there was an outbreak in a geriatric unit where she worked in September 2020. She said management blamed nurses for bringing the virus into the unit. But Ms. Walsh pointed to another problem: The hospital wasn’t COVID-testing patients coming in from nursing homes, where spread was rampant last year.

MedStar declined a request for an interview about its infection control practices and did not respond to specific questions.

While hospitals must track and publicly report rates of persistent infections like C. diff, antibiotic-resistant staph and surgical site infections, similar hospital-acquired COVID rates are not reported.

KHN examined a different source of data that Congress required hospitals to document about “hospital-acquired conditions.” The Medicare data, which notes whether each COVID case was “present on admission” or not, becomes available months after a hospitalization in obscure files that require a data-use agreement typically granted to researchers. KHN counted cases, as federal officials do, in some instances in which the documentation is deemed insufficient to categorize a case (see data methodology on the KHN website).

For this data, whether to deem a COVID case hospital-acquired lies with medical coders who review doctors’ notes and discharge summaries and ask doctors questions if the status is unclear, said Sue Bowman, senior director of coding policy and compliance at American Health Information Management Association.

She said medical coders are aware that the data is used for hospital quality measures and would be careful to review the contract tracing or other information in the medical record.

If a case was in the data KHN used, “that would mean it was acquired during the hospital stay either from a health care worker or another patient or maybe if a hospital allowed visitors, from a visitor,” Ms. Bowman said. “That would be a fair interpretation of the data.”

The high death rate for those diagnosed with COVID during a hospital stay — about 21% — mirrors the death rate for other Medicare COVID patients last year, when doctors had few proven methods to help patients. It also highlights the hazard unvaccinated staffers pose to patients, said Dr. Jain, the infectious-disease doctor. The American Hospital Association estimates that about 42% of U.S. hospitals have mandated that all staff members be vaccinated.

“We don’t need [unvaccinated staff] to be a threat to patients,” Dr. Jain said. “[Hospital] administration is too afraid to push the nursing staff, and the general public is clueless at what a threat a non-vaccinated person poses to a vulnerable population.”

Cindy Johnson said the hospital where she believes her husband contracted COVID faced minimal scrutiny in a state inspection, even after she said she reported that he caught COVID there. She explored suing, but an attorney told her it would be nearly impossible to win such a case. A 2021 state law requires proof of “at least gross negligence” to prevail in court. 

Ms. Johnson did ask a doctor who sees patients at the hospital for this: Please take down the big “OPEN & SAFE” sign outside. 

Within days, the sign was gone.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

They went into hospitals with heart attacks, kidney failure or in a psychiatric crisis.

They left with COVID-19 — if they left at all.

More than 10,000 patients were diagnosed with COVID in a U.S. hospital last year after they were admitted for something else, according to federal and state records analyzed exclusively for KHN. The number is certainly an undercount, since it includes mostly patients 65 and older, plus California and Florida patients of all ages.

Yet in the scheme of things that can go wrong in a hospital, it is catastrophic: About 21% of the patients who contracted COVID in the hospital from April to September last year died, the data shows. In contrast, nearly 8% of other Medicare patients died in the hospital at the time.

Steven Johnson, 66, was expecting to get an infection cut out of his hip flesh and bone at Blake Medical Center in Bradenton, Fla., last November. The retired pharmacist had survived colon cancer and was meticulous to avoid contracting COVID. He could not have known that, from April through September, 8% of that hospital’s Medicare COVID patients were diagnosed with the virus after they were admitted for another concern.

Mr. Johnson had tested negative for COVID two days before he was admitted. After 13 days in the hospital, he tested positive, said his wife, Cindy Johnson, also a retired pharmacist.

Soon he was struggling to clear a glue-like phlegm from his lungs. A medical team could hardly control his pain. They prompted Cindy to share his final wishes. She asked: “Honey, do you want to be intubated?” He responded with an emphatic “no.” He died three days later.

After her husband tested positive, Cindy Johnson, trained in contact tracing, quickly got a COVID test. She tested negative. Then she thought about the large number of hospital staffers flowing into and out of his room — where he was often unmasked — and suspected a staff member had infected him. That the hospital, part of the HCA Healthcare chain, still has not mandated staff vaccinations is “appalling,” she said.

“I’m furious,” she said.

“How can they say on their website,” she asked, “that the safety precautions ‘we’ve put into place make our facilities among the safest possible places to receive healthcare at this time’?”

Blake Medical Center spokesperson Lisa Kirkland said the hospital is “strongly encouraging vaccination” and noted that it follows Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and federal and state guidelines to protect patients. President Joe Biden has called for all hospital employees to be vaccinated, but the requirement could face resistance in a dozen states, including Florida, that have banned vaccine mandates.

Overall, the rate of in-hospital spread among Medicare and other patients was lower than in other countries, including the United Kingdom, which makes such data public and openly discusses it. On average, about 1.7% of U.S. hospitalized COVID patients were diagnosed with the virus in U.S. hospitals, according to an analysis of Medicare records from April 1 to Sept. 30, 2020, provided by Dr. James Kennedy, founder of CDIMD, a Nashville-based consulting and data analytics company.

Yet the rate of infection was far higher in 38 hospitals where 5% or more of the Medicare COVID cases were documented as hospital-acquired. The data is from a challenging stretch last year when protective gear was in short supply and tests were scarce or slow to produce results. The Medicare data for the fourth quarter of 2020 and this year isn’t available yet, and the state data reflects April 1 through Dec. 31, 2020.

A KHN review of work-safety records, medical literature and interviews with staff at high-spread hospitals points to why the virus took hold: Hospital leaders were slow to appreciate its airborne nature, which made coughing patients hazardous to roommates and staff members, who often wore less-protective surgical masks instead of N95s. Hospitals failed to test every admitted patient, enabled by CDC guidance that leaves such testing to the “discretion of the facility.” Management often failed to inform workers when they’d been exposed to COVID and so were at risk of spreading it themselves.

Spread among patients and staffers seemed to go hand in hand. At Beaumont Hospital, Taylor, in Michigan, 139 employee COVID infections were logged between April 6 to Oct. 20 last year, a hospital inspection report shows. Nearly 7% of the Medicare patients with COVID tested positive after they were admitted to that hospital for something else, the federal data shows. A hospital spokesperson said tests were not available to screen all patients last year, resulting in some late diagnoses. He said all incoming patients are tested now.

Tracking COVID inside health facilities is no new task to federal officials, who publicly report new staff and resident cases weekly for each U.S. nursing home. Yet the Department of Health and Human Services reports data on COVID’s spread in hospitals only on a statewide basis, so patients are in the dark about which facilities have cases.

KHN commissioned analyses of hospital billing records, which are also used more broadly to spot various hospital-acquired infections. For COVID, the data has limitations. It can pick up some community-acquired cases that were slow to show up, as it can take two to 14 days from exposure to the virus for symptoms to appear, with the average being four to five days. The records do not account for cases picked up in an emergency room or diagnosed after a hospital patient was discharged.

Linda Moore, 71, tested positive at least 15 days into a hospital stay for spinal surgery, according to her daughter Trisha Tavolazzi. Her mother was at Havasu Regional Medical Center in Lake Havasu City, Ariz., which did not have a higher-than-average rate of internal spread last summer.

The hospital implemented “rigorous health and safety protocols to protect all of our patients” during the pandemic, said hospital spokesperson Corey Santoriello, who would not comment on Ms. Moore’s case, citing privacy laws.

Ms. Moore was airlifted to another hospital, where her condition only declined further, her daughter said. After the ventilator was removed, she clung to life fitfully for 5½ hours, as her daughter prayed for her mother to find her way to heaven.

“I asked her mom and her dad and her family and prayed to God, ‘Please just come show her the way,’” Ms. Tavolazzi said. “I relive it every day.”

When Ms. Tavolazzi sought answers from the hospital about where her mom got the virus, she said, she got none: “No one ever called me back.”
 

Two negative COVID tests, then ‘patient zero’

As the second surge of COVID subsided last September, doctors from the prestigious Brigham and Women’s Hospital published a reassuringstudy: With careful infection control, only two of 697 COVID patients acquired the virus within the Boston hospital. That is about 0.3% of patients --about six times lower than the overall Medicare rate. Brigham tested every patient it admitted, exceeding CDC recommendations. It was transparent and open about safety concerns.

But the study, published in the high-profile JAMA Network Open journal, conveyed the wrong message, according to Dr. Manoj Jain, an infectious-disease physician and adjunct professor at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University. COVID was spreading in hospitals, he said, and the study buried “the problem under the rug.”

Before the virtual ink on the study was dry, the virus began a stealthy streak through the elite hospital. It slipped in with a patient who tested negative twice -- but turned out to be positive. She was “patient zero” in an outbreak affecting 38 staffers and 14 patients, according to a study in Annals of Internal Medicine initially published Feb. 9.

That study’s authors sequenced the genome of the virus to confirm which cases were related and precisely how it traveled through the hospital.

As patients were moved from room to room in the early days of the outbreak, COVID spread among roommates 8 out of 9 times, likely through aerosol transmission, the study says. A survey of staff members revealed that those caring for coughing patients were more likely to get sick.

The virus also appeared to have breached the CDC-OK’d protective gear. Two staff members who had close patient contact while wearing a surgical mask and face shield still wound up infected. The findings suggested that more-protective N95 respirators could help safeguard staff.

Brigham and Women’s now tests every patient upon admission and again soon after. Nurses are encouraged to test again if they see a subtle sign of COVID, said Dr. Erica Shenoy, associate chief of the Infection Control Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, who helped craft policy at Brigham.

She said nurses and environmental services workers are at the table for policymaking: “I personally make it a point to say, ‘Tell me what you’re thinking,’” Dr. Shenoy said. “‘There’s no retribution because we need to know.’”

CDC guidelines, though, left wide latitude on protective gear and testing. To this day, Dr. Shenoy said, hospitals employ a wide range of policies.

The CDC said in a statement that its guidelines “provide a comprehensive and layered approach to preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare settings,” and include testing patients with “even mild symptoms” or recent exposure to someone with COVID.

Infection control policies are rarely apparent to patients or visitors, beyond whether they’re asked to wear a mask. But reviews of public records and interviews with more than a dozen people show that at hospitals with high rates of COVID spread, staff members were often alarmed by the lack of safety practices.
 

Nurses sound the alarm on COVID spread

As COVID crept into Florida in spring 2020, nurse Victoria Holland clashed with managers at Blake Medical Center in Bradenton, where Steven Johnson died.

She said managers suspended her early in the pandemic after taking part in a protest and “having a hissy fit” when she was denied a new N95 respirator before an “aerosol-generating” procedure. The CDC warns that such procedures can spread the virus through the air. Before the pandemic, nurses were trained to dispose of an N95 after each patient encounter.

When the suspension was over, Ms. Holland said, she felt unsafe. “They told us nothing,” she said. “It was all a little whisper between the doctors. You had potential COVIDs and you’d get a little surgical mask because [they didn’t] want to waste” an N95 unless they knew the patient was positive.

Ms. Holland said she quit in mid-April. Her nursing colleagues lodged a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in late June alleging that staff “working around possible COVID-19 positive cases” had been denied PPE. Staff members protested outside the hospital in July and filed another OSHA complaint that said the hospital was allowing COVID-exposed employees to keep working.

Ms. Kirkland, the Blake spokesperson, said the hospital responded to OSHA and “no deficiencies were identified.”

The Medicare analysis shows that 22 of 273 patients with COVID, or 8%, were diagnosed with the virus after they were admitted to Blake. That’s about five times as high as the national average.

Ms. Kirkland said “there is no standard way for measuring COVID-19 hospital-associated transmissions” and “there is no evidence to suggest the risk of transmission at Blake Medical Center is different than what you would find at other hospitals.”

In Washington, D.C., 34 Medicare COVID patients contracted the virus at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, or nearly 6% of its total, the analysis shows.

Unhappy with the safety practices — which included gas sterilization and reuse of N95s — National Nurses United members protested on the hospital lawn in July 2020. At the protest, nurse Zoe Bendixen said one nurse had died of the virus and 50 had gotten sick: “[Nurses] can become a source for spreading the disease to other patients, co-workers and family members.”

Nurse Yuhana Gidey said she caught COVID after treating a patient who turned out to be infected. Another nurse, not managers doing contact tracing, told her she’d been exposed, she said.

Nurse Kimberly Walsh said in an interview there was an outbreak in a geriatric unit where she worked in September 2020. She said management blamed nurses for bringing the virus into the unit. But Ms. Walsh pointed to another problem: The hospital wasn’t COVID-testing patients coming in from nursing homes, where spread was rampant last year.

MedStar declined a request for an interview about its infection control practices and did not respond to specific questions.

While hospitals must track and publicly report rates of persistent infections like C. diff, antibiotic-resistant staph and surgical site infections, similar hospital-acquired COVID rates are not reported.

KHN examined a different source of data that Congress required hospitals to document about “hospital-acquired conditions.” The Medicare data, which notes whether each COVID case was “present on admission” or not, becomes available months after a hospitalization in obscure files that require a data-use agreement typically granted to researchers. KHN counted cases, as federal officials do, in some instances in which the documentation is deemed insufficient to categorize a case (see data methodology on the KHN website).

For this data, whether to deem a COVID case hospital-acquired lies with medical coders who review doctors’ notes and discharge summaries and ask doctors questions if the status is unclear, said Sue Bowman, senior director of coding policy and compliance at American Health Information Management Association.

She said medical coders are aware that the data is used for hospital quality measures and would be careful to review the contract tracing or other information in the medical record.

If a case was in the data KHN used, “that would mean it was acquired during the hospital stay either from a health care worker or another patient or maybe if a hospital allowed visitors, from a visitor,” Ms. Bowman said. “That would be a fair interpretation of the data.”

The high death rate for those diagnosed with COVID during a hospital stay — about 21% — mirrors the death rate for other Medicare COVID patients last year, when doctors had few proven methods to help patients. It also highlights the hazard unvaccinated staffers pose to patients, said Dr. Jain, the infectious-disease doctor. The American Hospital Association estimates that about 42% of U.S. hospitals have mandated that all staff members be vaccinated.

“We don’t need [unvaccinated staff] to be a threat to patients,” Dr. Jain said. “[Hospital] administration is too afraid to push the nursing staff, and the general public is clueless at what a threat a non-vaccinated person poses to a vulnerable population.”

Cindy Johnson said the hospital where she believes her husband contracted COVID faced minimal scrutiny in a state inspection, even after she said she reported that he caught COVID there. She explored suing, but an attorney told her it would be nearly impossible to win such a case. A 2021 state law requires proof of “at least gross negligence” to prevail in court. 

Ms. Johnson did ask a doctor who sees patients at the hospital for this: Please take down the big “OPEN & SAFE” sign outside. 

Within days, the sign was gone.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

They went into hospitals with heart attacks, kidney failure or in a psychiatric crisis.

They left with COVID-19 — if they left at all.

More than 10,000 patients were diagnosed with COVID in a U.S. hospital last year after they were admitted for something else, according to federal and state records analyzed exclusively for KHN. The number is certainly an undercount, since it includes mostly patients 65 and older, plus California and Florida patients of all ages.

Yet in the scheme of things that can go wrong in a hospital, it is catastrophic: About 21% of the patients who contracted COVID in the hospital from April to September last year died, the data shows. In contrast, nearly 8% of other Medicare patients died in the hospital at the time.

Steven Johnson, 66, was expecting to get an infection cut out of his hip flesh and bone at Blake Medical Center in Bradenton, Fla., last November. The retired pharmacist had survived colon cancer and was meticulous to avoid contracting COVID. He could not have known that, from April through September, 8% of that hospital’s Medicare COVID patients were diagnosed with the virus after they were admitted for another concern.

Mr. Johnson had tested negative for COVID two days before he was admitted. After 13 days in the hospital, he tested positive, said his wife, Cindy Johnson, also a retired pharmacist.

Soon he was struggling to clear a glue-like phlegm from his lungs. A medical team could hardly control his pain. They prompted Cindy to share his final wishes. She asked: “Honey, do you want to be intubated?” He responded with an emphatic “no.” He died three days later.

After her husband tested positive, Cindy Johnson, trained in contact tracing, quickly got a COVID test. She tested negative. Then she thought about the large number of hospital staffers flowing into and out of his room — where he was often unmasked — and suspected a staff member had infected him. That the hospital, part of the HCA Healthcare chain, still has not mandated staff vaccinations is “appalling,” she said.

“I’m furious,” she said.

“How can they say on their website,” she asked, “that the safety precautions ‘we’ve put into place make our facilities among the safest possible places to receive healthcare at this time’?”

Blake Medical Center spokesperson Lisa Kirkland said the hospital is “strongly encouraging vaccination” and noted that it follows Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and federal and state guidelines to protect patients. President Joe Biden has called for all hospital employees to be vaccinated, but the requirement could face resistance in a dozen states, including Florida, that have banned vaccine mandates.

Overall, the rate of in-hospital spread among Medicare and other patients was lower than in other countries, including the United Kingdom, which makes such data public and openly discusses it. On average, about 1.7% of U.S. hospitalized COVID patients were diagnosed with the virus in U.S. hospitals, according to an analysis of Medicare records from April 1 to Sept. 30, 2020, provided by Dr. James Kennedy, founder of CDIMD, a Nashville-based consulting and data analytics company.

Yet the rate of infection was far higher in 38 hospitals where 5% or more of the Medicare COVID cases were documented as hospital-acquired. The data is from a challenging stretch last year when protective gear was in short supply and tests were scarce or slow to produce results. The Medicare data for the fourth quarter of 2020 and this year isn’t available yet, and the state data reflects April 1 through Dec. 31, 2020.

A KHN review of work-safety records, medical literature and interviews with staff at high-spread hospitals points to why the virus took hold: Hospital leaders were slow to appreciate its airborne nature, which made coughing patients hazardous to roommates and staff members, who often wore less-protective surgical masks instead of N95s. Hospitals failed to test every admitted patient, enabled by CDC guidance that leaves such testing to the “discretion of the facility.” Management often failed to inform workers when they’d been exposed to COVID and so were at risk of spreading it themselves.

Spread among patients and staffers seemed to go hand in hand. At Beaumont Hospital, Taylor, in Michigan, 139 employee COVID infections were logged between April 6 to Oct. 20 last year, a hospital inspection report shows. Nearly 7% of the Medicare patients with COVID tested positive after they were admitted to that hospital for something else, the federal data shows. A hospital spokesperson said tests were not available to screen all patients last year, resulting in some late diagnoses. He said all incoming patients are tested now.

Tracking COVID inside health facilities is no new task to federal officials, who publicly report new staff and resident cases weekly for each U.S. nursing home. Yet the Department of Health and Human Services reports data on COVID’s spread in hospitals only on a statewide basis, so patients are in the dark about which facilities have cases.

KHN commissioned analyses of hospital billing records, which are also used more broadly to spot various hospital-acquired infections. For COVID, the data has limitations. It can pick up some community-acquired cases that were slow to show up, as it can take two to 14 days from exposure to the virus for symptoms to appear, with the average being four to five days. The records do not account for cases picked up in an emergency room or diagnosed after a hospital patient was discharged.

Linda Moore, 71, tested positive at least 15 days into a hospital stay for spinal surgery, according to her daughter Trisha Tavolazzi. Her mother was at Havasu Regional Medical Center in Lake Havasu City, Ariz., which did not have a higher-than-average rate of internal spread last summer.

The hospital implemented “rigorous health and safety protocols to protect all of our patients” during the pandemic, said hospital spokesperson Corey Santoriello, who would not comment on Ms. Moore’s case, citing privacy laws.

Ms. Moore was airlifted to another hospital, where her condition only declined further, her daughter said. After the ventilator was removed, she clung to life fitfully for 5½ hours, as her daughter prayed for her mother to find her way to heaven.

“I asked her mom and her dad and her family and prayed to God, ‘Please just come show her the way,’” Ms. Tavolazzi said. “I relive it every day.”

When Ms. Tavolazzi sought answers from the hospital about where her mom got the virus, she said, she got none: “No one ever called me back.”
 

Two negative COVID tests, then ‘patient zero’

As the second surge of COVID subsided last September, doctors from the prestigious Brigham and Women’s Hospital published a reassuringstudy: With careful infection control, only two of 697 COVID patients acquired the virus within the Boston hospital. That is about 0.3% of patients --about six times lower than the overall Medicare rate. Brigham tested every patient it admitted, exceeding CDC recommendations. It was transparent and open about safety concerns.

But the study, published in the high-profile JAMA Network Open journal, conveyed the wrong message, according to Dr. Manoj Jain, an infectious-disease physician and adjunct professor at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University. COVID was spreading in hospitals, he said, and the study buried “the problem under the rug.”

Before the virtual ink on the study was dry, the virus began a stealthy streak through the elite hospital. It slipped in with a patient who tested negative twice -- but turned out to be positive. She was “patient zero” in an outbreak affecting 38 staffers and 14 patients, according to a study in Annals of Internal Medicine initially published Feb. 9.

That study’s authors sequenced the genome of the virus to confirm which cases were related and precisely how it traveled through the hospital.

As patients were moved from room to room in the early days of the outbreak, COVID spread among roommates 8 out of 9 times, likely through aerosol transmission, the study says. A survey of staff members revealed that those caring for coughing patients were more likely to get sick.

The virus also appeared to have breached the CDC-OK’d protective gear. Two staff members who had close patient contact while wearing a surgical mask and face shield still wound up infected. The findings suggested that more-protective N95 respirators could help safeguard staff.

Brigham and Women’s now tests every patient upon admission and again soon after. Nurses are encouraged to test again if they see a subtle sign of COVID, said Dr. Erica Shenoy, associate chief of the Infection Control Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, who helped craft policy at Brigham.

She said nurses and environmental services workers are at the table for policymaking: “I personally make it a point to say, ‘Tell me what you’re thinking,’” Dr. Shenoy said. “‘There’s no retribution because we need to know.’”

CDC guidelines, though, left wide latitude on protective gear and testing. To this day, Dr. Shenoy said, hospitals employ a wide range of policies.

The CDC said in a statement that its guidelines “provide a comprehensive and layered approach to preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare settings,” and include testing patients with “even mild symptoms” or recent exposure to someone with COVID.

Infection control policies are rarely apparent to patients or visitors, beyond whether they’re asked to wear a mask. But reviews of public records and interviews with more than a dozen people show that at hospitals with high rates of COVID spread, staff members were often alarmed by the lack of safety practices.
 

Nurses sound the alarm on COVID spread

As COVID crept into Florida in spring 2020, nurse Victoria Holland clashed with managers at Blake Medical Center in Bradenton, where Steven Johnson died.

She said managers suspended her early in the pandemic after taking part in a protest and “having a hissy fit” when she was denied a new N95 respirator before an “aerosol-generating” procedure. The CDC warns that such procedures can spread the virus through the air. Before the pandemic, nurses were trained to dispose of an N95 after each patient encounter.

When the suspension was over, Ms. Holland said, she felt unsafe. “They told us nothing,” she said. “It was all a little whisper between the doctors. You had potential COVIDs and you’d get a little surgical mask because [they didn’t] want to waste” an N95 unless they knew the patient was positive.

Ms. Holland said she quit in mid-April. Her nursing colleagues lodged a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in late June alleging that staff “working around possible COVID-19 positive cases” had been denied PPE. Staff members protested outside the hospital in July and filed another OSHA complaint that said the hospital was allowing COVID-exposed employees to keep working.

Ms. Kirkland, the Blake spokesperson, said the hospital responded to OSHA and “no deficiencies were identified.”

The Medicare analysis shows that 22 of 273 patients with COVID, or 8%, were diagnosed with the virus after they were admitted to Blake. That’s about five times as high as the national average.

Ms. Kirkland said “there is no standard way for measuring COVID-19 hospital-associated transmissions” and “there is no evidence to suggest the risk of transmission at Blake Medical Center is different than what you would find at other hospitals.”

In Washington, D.C., 34 Medicare COVID patients contracted the virus at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, or nearly 6% of its total, the analysis shows.

Unhappy with the safety practices — which included gas sterilization and reuse of N95s — National Nurses United members protested on the hospital lawn in July 2020. At the protest, nurse Zoe Bendixen said one nurse had died of the virus and 50 had gotten sick: “[Nurses] can become a source for spreading the disease to other patients, co-workers and family members.”

Nurse Yuhana Gidey said she caught COVID after treating a patient who turned out to be infected. Another nurse, not managers doing contact tracing, told her she’d been exposed, she said.

Nurse Kimberly Walsh said in an interview there was an outbreak in a geriatric unit where she worked in September 2020. She said management blamed nurses for bringing the virus into the unit. But Ms. Walsh pointed to another problem: The hospital wasn’t COVID-testing patients coming in from nursing homes, where spread was rampant last year.

MedStar declined a request for an interview about its infection control practices and did not respond to specific questions.

While hospitals must track and publicly report rates of persistent infections like C. diff, antibiotic-resistant staph and surgical site infections, similar hospital-acquired COVID rates are not reported.

KHN examined a different source of data that Congress required hospitals to document about “hospital-acquired conditions.” The Medicare data, which notes whether each COVID case was “present on admission” or not, becomes available months after a hospitalization in obscure files that require a data-use agreement typically granted to researchers. KHN counted cases, as federal officials do, in some instances in which the documentation is deemed insufficient to categorize a case (see data methodology on the KHN website).

For this data, whether to deem a COVID case hospital-acquired lies with medical coders who review doctors’ notes and discharge summaries and ask doctors questions if the status is unclear, said Sue Bowman, senior director of coding policy and compliance at American Health Information Management Association.

She said medical coders are aware that the data is used for hospital quality measures and would be careful to review the contract tracing or other information in the medical record.

If a case was in the data KHN used, “that would mean it was acquired during the hospital stay either from a health care worker or another patient or maybe if a hospital allowed visitors, from a visitor,” Ms. Bowman said. “That would be a fair interpretation of the data.”

The high death rate for those diagnosed with COVID during a hospital stay — about 21% — mirrors the death rate for other Medicare COVID patients last year, when doctors had few proven methods to help patients. It also highlights the hazard unvaccinated staffers pose to patients, said Dr. Jain, the infectious-disease doctor. The American Hospital Association estimates that about 42% of U.S. hospitals have mandated that all staff members be vaccinated.

“We don’t need [unvaccinated staff] to be a threat to patients,” Dr. Jain said. “[Hospital] administration is too afraid to push the nursing staff, and the general public is clueless at what a threat a non-vaccinated person poses to a vulnerable population.”

Cindy Johnson said the hospital where she believes her husband contracted COVID faced minimal scrutiny in a state inspection, even after she said she reported that he caught COVID there. She explored suing, but an attorney told her it would be nearly impossible to win such a case. A 2021 state law requires proof of “at least gross negligence” to prevail in court. 

Ms. Johnson did ask a doctor who sees patients at the hospital for this: Please take down the big “OPEN & SAFE” sign outside. 

Within days, the sign was gone.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Increased mental health needs, higher acuity from delayed appointments, and added questions and conversations surrounding COVID-19 are forcing primary care offices to rethink priorities in office visits.

Evidence of this came from the latest Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) survey, which found that primary care clinicians are seeing more complex patients requiring longer appointments in the wake of COVID-19.

The PCC with the Larry A. Green Center regularly surveys primary care clinicians. This round of questions came August 14-17 and included 1,263 respondents from 49 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories.

More than 7 in 10 (71%) respondents said their patients are more complex and nearly the same percentage said appointments are taking more time.

Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the PCC, said in an interview that 55% of respondents reported that clinicians are struggling to keep up with pent-up demand after patients have delayed or canceled care. Sixty-five percent in the survey said they had seen a rise in children’s mental health issues, and 58% said they were unsure how to help their patients with long COVID.

In addition, primary care clinicians are having repeated conversations with patients on why they should get a vaccine and which one.

“I think that’s adding to the complexity. There is a lot going on here with patient trust,” Ms. Greiner said.
 

‘We’re going to be playing catch-up’

Jacqueline Fincher, MD, an internist in Thompson, Ga., said in an interview that appointments have gotten longer and more complex in the wake of the pandemic – “no question.”

The immediate past president of the American College of Physicians is seeing patients with chronic disease that has gone untreated for sometimes a year or more, she said.

“Their blood pressure was not under good control, they were under more stress, their sugars were up and weren’t being followed as closely for conditions such as congestive heart failure,” she said.

Dr. Fincher, who works in a rural practice 40 miles from Augusta, Ga., with her physician husband and two other physicians, said patients are ready to come back in, “but I don’t have enough slots for them.”

She said she prioritizes what to help patients with first and schedules the next tier for the next appointment, but added, “honestly, over the next 2 years we’re going to be playing catch-up.”

At the same time, the CDC has estimated that 45% of U.S. adults are at increased risk for complications from COVID-19 because of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease, hypertension, or cancer. Rates ranged from 19.8% for people 18-29 years old to 80.7% for people over 80 years of age.
 

Long COVID could overwhelm existing health care capacity

Primary care physicians are also having to diagnose sometimes “invisible” symptoms after people have recovered from acute COVID-19 infection. Diagnosing takes intent listening to patients who describe symptoms that tests can’t confirm.

As this news organization has previously reported, half of COVID-19 survivors report postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) lasting longer than 6 months.

“These long-term PASC effects occur on a scale that could overwhelm existing health care capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries,” the authors wrote.
 

Anxiety, depression ‘have gone off the charts’

Danielle Loeb, MD, MPH, associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, who studies complexity in primary care, said in the wake of COVID-19, more patients have developed “new, serious anxiety.”

Courtesy Dr. Danielle Loeb

“That got extremely exacerbated during the pandemic. Anxiety and depression have gone off the charts,” said Dr. Loeb, who prefers the pronoun “they.”

Dr. Loeb cares for a large number of transgender patients. As offices reopen, some patients are having trouble reintegrating into the workplace and resuming social contacts. The primary care doctor says appointments can get longer because of the need to complete tasks, such as filling out forms for Family Medical Leave Act for those not yet ready to return to work.

COVID-19–related fears are keeping many patients from coming into the office, Dr. Loeb said, either from fear of exposure or because they have mental health issues that keep them from feeling safe leaving the house.

“That really affects my ability to care for them,” they said.

Loss of employment in the pandemic or fear of job loss and subsequent changing of insurance has complicated primary care in terms of treatment and administrative tasks, according to Dr. Loeb.

To help treat patients with acute mental health issues and manage other patients, Dr. Loeb’s practice has brought in a social worker and a therapist.

Team-based care is key in the survival of primary care practices, though providing that is difficult in the smaller clinics because of the critical mass of patients needed to make it viable, they said.

“It’s the only answer. It’s the only way you don’t drown,” Dr. Loeb added. “I’m not drowning, and I credit that to my clinic having the help to support the mental health piece of things.”
 

Rethinking workflow

Tricia McGinnis, MPP, MPH, executive vice president of the nonprofit Center for Health Care Strategies (CHCS) says complexity has forced rethinking workflow.

“A lot of the trends we’re seeing in primary care were there pre-COVID, but COVID has exacerbated those trends,” she said in an interview.

“The good news ... is that it was already becoming clear that primary care needed to provide basic mental health services and integrate with behavioral health. It had also become clear that effective primary care needed to address social issues that keep patients from accessing health care,” she said.

Expanding care teams, as Dr. Loeb mentioned, is a key strategy, according to Ms. McGinnis. Potential teams would include the clinical staff, but also social workers and community health workers – people who come from the community primary care is serving who can help build trust with patients and connect the patient to the primary care team.

“There’s a lot that needs to happen that the clinician doesn’t need to do,” she said.

Telehealth can be a big factor in coordinating the team, Ms. McGinnis added.

“It’s thinking less about who’s doing the work, but more about the work that needs to be done to keep people healthy. Then let’s think about the type of workers best suited to perform those tasks,” she said.

As for reimbursing more complex care, population-based, up-front capitated payments linked to high-quality care and better outcomes will need to replace fee-for-service models, according to Ms. McGinnis.

That will provide reliable incomes for primary care offices, but also flexibility in how each patient with different levels of complexity is managed, she said.

Ms. Greiner, Dr. Fincher, Dr. Loeb, and Ms. McGinnis have no relevant financial relationships.

Increased mental health needs, higher acuity from delayed appointments, and added questions and conversations surrounding COVID-19 are forcing primary care offices to rethink priorities in office visits.

Evidence of this came from the latest Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) survey, which found that primary care clinicians are seeing more complex patients requiring longer appointments in the wake of COVID-19.

The PCC with the Larry A. Green Center regularly surveys primary care clinicians. This round of questions came August 14-17 and included 1,263 respondents from 49 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories.

More than 7 in 10 (71%) respondents said their patients are more complex and nearly the same percentage said appointments are taking more time.

Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the PCC, said in an interview that 55% of respondents reported that clinicians are struggling to keep up with pent-up demand after patients have delayed or canceled care. Sixty-five percent in the survey said they had seen a rise in children’s mental health issues, and 58% said they were unsure how to help their patients with long COVID.

In addition, primary care clinicians are having repeated conversations with patients on why they should get a vaccine and which one.

“I think that’s adding to the complexity. There is a lot going on here with patient trust,” Ms. Greiner said.
 

‘We’re going to be playing catch-up’

Jacqueline Fincher, MD, an internist in Thompson, Ga., said in an interview that appointments have gotten longer and more complex in the wake of the pandemic – “no question.”

The immediate past president of the American College of Physicians is seeing patients with chronic disease that has gone untreated for sometimes a year or more, she said.

“Their blood pressure was not under good control, they were under more stress, their sugars were up and weren’t being followed as closely for conditions such as congestive heart failure,” she said.

Dr. Fincher, who works in a rural practice 40 miles from Augusta, Ga., with her physician husband and two other physicians, said patients are ready to come back in, “but I don’t have enough slots for them.”

She said she prioritizes what to help patients with first and schedules the next tier for the next appointment, but added, “honestly, over the next 2 years we’re going to be playing catch-up.”

At the same time, the CDC has estimated that 45% of U.S. adults are at increased risk for complications from COVID-19 because of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease, hypertension, or cancer. Rates ranged from 19.8% for people 18-29 years old to 80.7% for people over 80 years of age.
 

Long COVID could overwhelm existing health care capacity

Primary care physicians are also having to diagnose sometimes “invisible” symptoms after people have recovered from acute COVID-19 infection. Diagnosing takes intent listening to patients who describe symptoms that tests can’t confirm.

As this news organization has previously reported, half of COVID-19 survivors report postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) lasting longer than 6 months.

“These long-term PASC effects occur on a scale that could overwhelm existing health care capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries,” the authors wrote.
 

Anxiety, depression ‘have gone off the charts’

Danielle Loeb, MD, MPH, associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, who studies complexity in primary care, said in the wake of COVID-19, more patients have developed “new, serious anxiety.”

Courtesy Dr. Danielle Loeb

“That got extremely exacerbated during the pandemic. Anxiety and depression have gone off the charts,” said Dr. Loeb, who prefers the pronoun “they.”

Dr. Loeb cares for a large number of transgender patients. As offices reopen, some patients are having trouble reintegrating into the workplace and resuming social contacts. The primary care doctor says appointments can get longer because of the need to complete tasks, such as filling out forms for Family Medical Leave Act for those not yet ready to return to work.

COVID-19–related fears are keeping many patients from coming into the office, Dr. Loeb said, either from fear of exposure or because they have mental health issues that keep them from feeling safe leaving the house.

“That really affects my ability to care for them,” they said.

Loss of employment in the pandemic or fear of job loss and subsequent changing of insurance has complicated primary care in terms of treatment and administrative tasks, according to Dr. Loeb.

To help treat patients with acute mental health issues and manage other patients, Dr. Loeb’s practice has brought in a social worker and a therapist.

Team-based care is key in the survival of primary care practices, though providing that is difficult in the smaller clinics because of the critical mass of patients needed to make it viable, they said.

“It’s the only answer. It’s the only way you don’t drown,” Dr. Loeb added. “I’m not drowning, and I credit that to my clinic having the help to support the mental health piece of things.”
 

Rethinking workflow

Tricia McGinnis, MPP, MPH, executive vice president of the nonprofit Center for Health Care Strategies (CHCS) says complexity has forced rethinking workflow.

“A lot of the trends we’re seeing in primary care were there pre-COVID, but COVID has exacerbated those trends,” she said in an interview.

“The good news ... is that it was already becoming clear that primary care needed to provide basic mental health services and integrate with behavioral health. It had also become clear that effective primary care needed to address social issues that keep patients from accessing health care,” she said.

Expanding care teams, as Dr. Loeb mentioned, is a key strategy, according to Ms. McGinnis. Potential teams would include the clinical staff, but also social workers and community health workers – people who come from the community primary care is serving who can help build trust with patients and connect the patient to the primary care team.

“There’s a lot that needs to happen that the clinician doesn’t need to do,” she said.

Telehealth can be a big factor in coordinating the team, Ms. McGinnis added.

“It’s thinking less about who’s doing the work, but more about the work that needs to be done to keep people healthy. Then let’s think about the type of workers best suited to perform those tasks,” she said.

As for reimbursing more complex care, population-based, up-front capitated payments linked to high-quality care and better outcomes will need to replace fee-for-service models, according to Ms. McGinnis.

That will provide reliable incomes for primary care offices, but also flexibility in how each patient with different levels of complexity is managed, she said.

Ms. Greiner, Dr. Fincher, Dr. Loeb, and Ms. McGinnis have no relevant financial relationships.

Increased mental health needs, higher acuity from delayed appointments, and added questions and conversations surrounding COVID-19 are forcing primary care offices to rethink priorities in office visits.

Evidence of this came from the latest Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) survey, which found that primary care clinicians are seeing more complex patients requiring longer appointments in the wake of COVID-19.

The PCC with the Larry A. Green Center regularly surveys primary care clinicians. This round of questions came August 14-17 and included 1,263 respondents from 49 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories.

More than 7 in 10 (71%) respondents said their patients are more complex and nearly the same percentage said appointments are taking more time.

Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the PCC, said in an interview that 55% of respondents reported that clinicians are struggling to keep up with pent-up demand after patients have delayed or canceled care. Sixty-five percent in the survey said they had seen a rise in children’s mental health issues, and 58% said they were unsure how to help their patients with long COVID.

In addition, primary care clinicians are having repeated conversations with patients on why they should get a vaccine and which one.

“I think that’s adding to the complexity. There is a lot going on here with patient trust,” Ms. Greiner said.
 

‘We’re going to be playing catch-up’

Jacqueline Fincher, MD, an internist in Thompson, Ga., said in an interview that appointments have gotten longer and more complex in the wake of the pandemic – “no question.”

The immediate past president of the American College of Physicians is seeing patients with chronic disease that has gone untreated for sometimes a year or more, she said.

“Their blood pressure was not under good control, they were under more stress, their sugars were up and weren’t being followed as closely for conditions such as congestive heart failure,” she said.

Dr. Fincher, who works in a rural practice 40 miles from Augusta, Ga., with her physician husband and two other physicians, said patients are ready to come back in, “but I don’t have enough slots for them.”

She said she prioritizes what to help patients with first and schedules the next tier for the next appointment, but added, “honestly, over the next 2 years we’re going to be playing catch-up.”

At the same time, the CDC has estimated that 45% of U.S. adults are at increased risk for complications from COVID-19 because of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease, hypertension, or cancer. Rates ranged from 19.8% for people 18-29 years old to 80.7% for people over 80 years of age.
 

Long COVID could overwhelm existing health care capacity

Primary care physicians are also having to diagnose sometimes “invisible” symptoms after people have recovered from acute COVID-19 infection. Diagnosing takes intent listening to patients who describe symptoms that tests can’t confirm.

As this news organization has previously reported, half of COVID-19 survivors report postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) lasting longer than 6 months.

“These long-term PASC effects occur on a scale that could overwhelm existing health care capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries,” the authors wrote.
 

Anxiety, depression ‘have gone off the charts’

Danielle Loeb, MD, MPH, associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, who studies complexity in primary care, said in the wake of COVID-19, more patients have developed “new, serious anxiety.”

Courtesy Dr. Danielle Loeb

“That got extremely exacerbated during the pandemic. Anxiety and depression have gone off the charts,” said Dr. Loeb, who prefers the pronoun “they.”

Dr. Loeb cares for a large number of transgender patients. As offices reopen, some patients are having trouble reintegrating into the workplace and resuming social contacts. The primary care doctor says appointments can get longer because of the need to complete tasks, such as filling out forms for Family Medical Leave Act for those not yet ready to return to work.

COVID-19–related fears are keeping many patients from coming into the office, Dr. Loeb said, either from fear of exposure or because they have mental health issues that keep them from feeling safe leaving the house.

“That really affects my ability to care for them,” they said.

Loss of employment in the pandemic or fear of job loss and subsequent changing of insurance has complicated primary care in terms of treatment and administrative tasks, according to Dr. Loeb.

To help treat patients with acute mental health issues and manage other patients, Dr. Loeb’s practice has brought in a social worker and a therapist.

Team-based care is key in the survival of primary care practices, though providing that is difficult in the smaller clinics because of the critical mass of patients needed to make it viable, they said.

“It’s the only answer. It’s the only way you don’t drown,” Dr. Loeb added. “I’m not drowning, and I credit that to my clinic having the help to support the mental health piece of things.”
 

Rethinking workflow

Tricia McGinnis, MPP, MPH, executive vice president of the nonprofit Center for Health Care Strategies (CHCS) says complexity has forced rethinking workflow.

“A lot of the trends we’re seeing in primary care were there pre-COVID, but COVID has exacerbated those trends,” she said in an interview.

“The good news ... is that it was already becoming clear that primary care needed to provide basic mental health services and integrate with behavioral health. It had also become clear that effective primary care needed to address social issues that keep patients from accessing health care,” she said.

Expanding care teams, as Dr. Loeb mentioned, is a key strategy, according to Ms. McGinnis. Potential teams would include the clinical staff, but also social workers and community health workers – people who come from the community primary care is serving who can help build trust with patients and connect the patient to the primary care team.

“There’s a lot that needs to happen that the clinician doesn’t need to do,” she said.

Telehealth can be a big factor in coordinating the team, Ms. McGinnis added.

“It’s thinking less about who’s doing the work, but more about the work that needs to be done to keep people healthy. Then let’s think about the type of workers best suited to perform those tasks,” she said.

As for reimbursing more complex care, population-based, up-front capitated payments linked to high-quality care and better outcomes will need to replace fee-for-service models, according to Ms. McGinnis.

That will provide reliable incomes for primary care offices, but also flexibility in how each patient with different levels of complexity is managed, she said.

Ms. Greiner, Dr. Fincher, Dr. Loeb, and Ms. McGinnis have no relevant financial relationships.

The use of race/ethnicity in medicine to explain and interpret pulmonary function test (PFT) differences between individuals may contribute to biased medical care and research. Furthermore, it may perpetuate health disparities and structural racism, according to a study published in the journal CHEST®.

Current practices of PFT measurement and interpretation, are imperfect in their ability to accurately describe the relationship between function and health outcomes, according to Nirav R. Bhakta, MD, University of California,San Francisco, and colleagues.

The authors summarized arguments against using race-specific equations, while voicing genuine concerns about removing race from PFT interpretations, and described knowledge gaps and critical questions needing to be addressed for remediation of health disparities.

“Leaving out the perspectives of practicing pulmonologists and physiologists has global relevance for increasingly multicultural communities in which the range of values that represent normal lung function is uncertain,” Dr. Bhakta said in an interview.
 

A lesson in history

Tracing the history of spirometry, the authors stated that observations about vital lung capacity showing differences attributable to height, age, sex, and occupation (e.g., typesetter vs. firefighter) were then extended to include social classes and ultimately race. Whites showed greater average vital capacity for the same sex, height, and age than non-Whites.

While some investigators pointed to environmental sources (such as early life nutrition, respiratory illness, air pollution, exercise, and altitude), research into their mechanisms and magnitudes of effect was not pursued, but rather “a narrative of innate differences took hold,” Dr. Bhakta and colleagues reported.

That sort of narrative risks comparison with those used to uphold slavery and structural racism in the past. More recently, such a narrative was used to deny disability claims of Welsh versus English White miners, and was expanded to interpret algorithms designed to predict expected lung function.
 

Use of standing height questioned

The current practice of using normalized standard height for lung function comparisons misses racial and ethnic differences in the proportion of sitting height to standing height shown in multiple studies, the authors stated. These comparisons may ignore effects on standing height of early-life nutrition, genetics, lung-specific factors such as respiratory infections and exposures to indoor and outdoor pollution, physical activity, and high altitude. Using sitting height instead of standing height reduces lung volume differences up to 50% between White and Black populations, they noted, and socioeconomic variables, such as poverty and immigration status, accounted further for the differences seen. Population differences disappeared by as much as 90% when chest measurements used to estimate surface area or volume were more finely detailed.

The researchers warned, however, that, “because current clinical and policy algorithms rely so heavily on the comparison of an individual’s observed lung function to that which is expected for similar people without typical respiratory disease, an abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity, if not paired with education and a reform of existing algorithms and policies, is also expected to have risks on average to groups of non-White individuals.”

That could lead to potential challenges for some groups ranging from the ability to obtain employment in certain occupations, to being considered for potentially curative lung resections, or having access to home assisted ventilation and rehabilitation programs. “An abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity and taking a society’s overall average as the reference range also has the potential to lead to delayed care, denial of disability benefits, and higher life insurance premiums to White individuals.”
 

Evidence base is limited

“Although evidence demonstrates differences in lung function between racial/ethnic groups, the premise that dividing lung function interpretation up by racial/ethnic background is helpful in the clinical setting is not a proven one.” The authors cited some evidence that lung function interpretation without consideration of race/ethnicity has superior prognostic ability. In addition, research has shown only a weak relationship between lung function and work ability, according to the authors. More appropriate ways of assessing expected lung function for an individual in the absence of a diagnoses are under study.

Offering an alternative

As an alternative to race, Dr. Bhakta and colleagues proposed using a range of values that include individuals across many global populations while still adjusting for sex, age, and height. The resultant value would represent a diverse population average and widen the limits of normal that can be expected in otherwise-healthy people.

The approach would include PFTs with other factors for clinical decision-making, but would allow clinicians and patients to appreciate the limitations of interpretation based on comparison to reference values. However, such an approach may miss pathophysiologically reduced lung function in some individuals, in which case lifesaving therapies, such as chemotherapy, lung cancer resection, and bone marrow transplantation could be withheld. In other instances the consequence would be overtesting and diagnosis, they acknowledged.

The authors further discussed general concerns about the use of race in interpretation of PFTs, addressing limits/considerations as well as knowledge and practice gaps.

For example, one particular concern involves the fact that race does not capture acculturation and mixed ancestry. The limit/consideration is the need to discover mechanisms for differences and to suggest societal interventions, and the knowledge gap pertains to ignorance regarding mechanisms leading to differences in lung function.

For the concern that race is not a proxy for an individual’s genetics, the limit/consideration is that race captures only some genetics and the gap is the need for better genetic information. As an antidote to over reliance on lung function thresholds (without supporting data), they urged outcomes-based standards rather than comparisons with reference populations.
 

New thinking needed

Dr. Bhakta and colleagues pointed out that the forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratios important for diagnosis of obstructive lung disease are similar between racial/ethnic categories, underscoring the need for education about limitations of thresholds and reference values with regard to race, particularly as they are used to detect mild disease.

Ignoring race, on the other hand, can lead to unnecessary testing and treatment (with concomitant side effects), and anxiety.

“Reporting through race-based algorithms in the PFT laboratory risks portraying racial disparities as innate and immutable. By anchoring on the improved prediction of lung function from racial/ethnic-specific reference equations, we miss how the significant residual variation still leaves much uncertainty about the expected value for an individual,” the authors concluded. “Given their origin and historical and current use in society, these racial/ethnic labels are better used to identify the effects of structural racism on respiratory health in research and ensure adequate representation in research, rather than in clinical algorithms.”

One of the authors is a speaker for MGC Diagnostics. The others indicated that they had no relevant disclosures.

The use of race/ethnicity in medicine to explain and interpret pulmonary function test (PFT) differences between individuals may contribute to biased medical care and research. Furthermore, it may perpetuate health disparities and structural racism, according to a study published in the journal CHEST®.

Current practices of PFT measurement and interpretation, are imperfect in their ability to accurately describe the relationship between function and health outcomes, according to Nirav R. Bhakta, MD, University of California,San Francisco, and colleagues.

The authors summarized arguments against using race-specific equations, while voicing genuine concerns about removing race from PFT interpretations, and described knowledge gaps and critical questions needing to be addressed for remediation of health disparities.

“Leaving out the perspectives of practicing pulmonologists and physiologists has global relevance for increasingly multicultural communities in which the range of values that represent normal lung function is uncertain,” Dr. Bhakta said in an interview.
 

A lesson in history

Tracing the history of spirometry, the authors stated that observations about vital lung capacity showing differences attributable to height, age, sex, and occupation (e.g., typesetter vs. firefighter) were then extended to include social classes and ultimately race. Whites showed greater average vital capacity for the same sex, height, and age than non-Whites.

While some investigators pointed to environmental sources (such as early life nutrition, respiratory illness, air pollution, exercise, and altitude), research into their mechanisms and magnitudes of effect was not pursued, but rather “a narrative of innate differences took hold,” Dr. Bhakta and colleagues reported.

That sort of narrative risks comparison with those used to uphold slavery and structural racism in the past. More recently, such a narrative was used to deny disability claims of Welsh versus English White miners, and was expanded to interpret algorithms designed to predict expected lung function.
 

Use of standing height questioned

The current practice of using normalized standard height for lung function comparisons misses racial and ethnic differences in the proportion of sitting height to standing height shown in multiple studies, the authors stated. These comparisons may ignore effects on standing height of early-life nutrition, genetics, lung-specific factors such as respiratory infections and exposures to indoor and outdoor pollution, physical activity, and high altitude. Using sitting height instead of standing height reduces lung volume differences up to 50% between White and Black populations, they noted, and socioeconomic variables, such as poverty and immigration status, accounted further for the differences seen. Population differences disappeared by as much as 90% when chest measurements used to estimate surface area or volume were more finely detailed.

The researchers warned, however, that, “because current clinical and policy algorithms rely so heavily on the comparison of an individual’s observed lung function to that which is expected for similar people without typical respiratory disease, an abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity, if not paired with education and a reform of existing algorithms and policies, is also expected to have risks on average to groups of non-White individuals.”

That could lead to potential challenges for some groups ranging from the ability to obtain employment in certain occupations, to being considered for potentially curative lung resections, or having access to home assisted ventilation and rehabilitation programs. “An abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity and taking a society’s overall average as the reference range also has the potential to lead to delayed care, denial of disability benefits, and higher life insurance premiums to White individuals.”
 

Evidence base is limited

“Although evidence demonstrates differences in lung function between racial/ethnic groups, the premise that dividing lung function interpretation up by racial/ethnic background is helpful in the clinical setting is not a proven one.” The authors cited some evidence that lung function interpretation without consideration of race/ethnicity has superior prognostic ability. In addition, research has shown only a weak relationship between lung function and work ability, according to the authors. More appropriate ways of assessing expected lung function for an individual in the absence of a diagnoses are under study.

Offering an alternative

As an alternative to race, Dr. Bhakta and colleagues proposed using a range of values that include individuals across many global populations while still adjusting for sex, age, and height. The resultant value would represent a diverse population average and widen the limits of normal that can be expected in otherwise-healthy people.

The approach would include PFTs with other factors for clinical decision-making, but would allow clinicians and patients to appreciate the limitations of interpretation based on comparison to reference values. However, such an approach may miss pathophysiologically reduced lung function in some individuals, in which case lifesaving therapies, such as chemotherapy, lung cancer resection, and bone marrow transplantation could be withheld. In other instances the consequence would be overtesting and diagnosis, they acknowledged.

The authors further discussed general concerns about the use of race in interpretation of PFTs, addressing limits/considerations as well as knowledge and practice gaps.

For example, one particular concern involves the fact that race does not capture acculturation and mixed ancestry. The limit/consideration is the need to discover mechanisms for differences and to suggest societal interventions, and the knowledge gap pertains to ignorance regarding mechanisms leading to differences in lung function.

For the concern that race is not a proxy for an individual’s genetics, the limit/consideration is that race captures only some genetics and the gap is the need for better genetic information. As an antidote to over reliance on lung function thresholds (without supporting data), they urged outcomes-based standards rather than comparisons with reference populations.
 

New thinking needed

Dr. Bhakta and colleagues pointed out that the forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratios important for diagnosis of obstructive lung disease are similar between racial/ethnic categories, underscoring the need for education about limitations of thresholds and reference values with regard to race, particularly as they are used to detect mild disease.

Ignoring race, on the other hand, can lead to unnecessary testing and treatment (with concomitant side effects), and anxiety.

“Reporting through race-based algorithms in the PFT laboratory risks portraying racial disparities as innate and immutable. By anchoring on the improved prediction of lung function from racial/ethnic-specific reference equations, we miss how the significant residual variation still leaves much uncertainty about the expected value for an individual,” the authors concluded. “Given their origin and historical and current use in society, these racial/ethnic labels are better used to identify the effects of structural racism on respiratory health in research and ensure adequate representation in research, rather than in clinical algorithms.”

One of the authors is a speaker for MGC Diagnostics. The others indicated that they had no relevant disclosures.

The use of race/ethnicity in medicine to explain and interpret pulmonary function test (PFT) differences between individuals may contribute to biased medical care and research. Furthermore, it may perpetuate health disparities and structural racism, according to a study published in the journal CHEST®.

Current practices of PFT measurement and interpretation, are imperfect in their ability to accurately describe the relationship between function and health outcomes, according to Nirav R. Bhakta, MD, University of California,San Francisco, and colleagues.

The authors summarized arguments against using race-specific equations, while voicing genuine concerns about removing race from PFT interpretations, and described knowledge gaps and critical questions needing to be addressed for remediation of health disparities.

“Leaving out the perspectives of practicing pulmonologists and physiologists has global relevance for increasingly multicultural communities in which the range of values that represent normal lung function is uncertain,” Dr. Bhakta said in an interview.
 

A lesson in history

Tracing the history of spirometry, the authors stated that observations about vital lung capacity showing differences attributable to height, age, sex, and occupation (e.g., typesetter vs. firefighter) were then extended to include social classes and ultimately race. Whites showed greater average vital capacity for the same sex, height, and age than non-Whites.

While some investigators pointed to environmental sources (such as early life nutrition, respiratory illness, air pollution, exercise, and altitude), research into their mechanisms and magnitudes of effect was not pursued, but rather “a narrative of innate differences took hold,” Dr. Bhakta and colleagues reported.

That sort of narrative risks comparison with those used to uphold slavery and structural racism in the past. More recently, such a narrative was used to deny disability claims of Welsh versus English White miners, and was expanded to interpret algorithms designed to predict expected lung function.
 

Use of standing height questioned

The current practice of using normalized standard height for lung function comparisons misses racial and ethnic differences in the proportion of sitting height to standing height shown in multiple studies, the authors stated. These comparisons may ignore effects on standing height of early-life nutrition, genetics, lung-specific factors such as respiratory infections and exposures to indoor and outdoor pollution, physical activity, and high altitude. Using sitting height instead of standing height reduces lung volume differences up to 50% between White and Black populations, they noted, and socioeconomic variables, such as poverty and immigration status, accounted further for the differences seen. Population differences disappeared by as much as 90% when chest measurements used to estimate surface area or volume were more finely detailed.

The researchers warned, however, that, “because current clinical and policy algorithms rely so heavily on the comparison of an individual’s observed lung function to that which is expected for similar people without typical respiratory disease, an abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity, if not paired with education and a reform of existing algorithms and policies, is also expected to have risks on average to groups of non-White individuals.”

That could lead to potential challenges for some groups ranging from the ability to obtain employment in certain occupations, to being considered for potentially curative lung resections, or having access to home assisted ventilation and rehabilitation programs. “An abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity and taking a society’s overall average as the reference range also has the potential to lead to delayed care, denial of disability benefits, and higher life insurance premiums to White individuals.”
 

Evidence base is limited

“Although evidence demonstrates differences in lung function between racial/ethnic groups, the premise that dividing lung function interpretation up by racial/ethnic background is helpful in the clinical setting is not a proven one.” The authors cited some evidence that lung function interpretation without consideration of race/ethnicity has superior prognostic ability. In addition, research has shown only a weak relationship between lung function and work ability, according to the authors. More appropriate ways of assessing expected lung function for an individual in the absence of a diagnoses are under study.

Offering an alternative

As an alternative to race, Dr. Bhakta and colleagues proposed using a range of values that include individuals across many global populations while still adjusting for sex, age, and height. The resultant value would represent a diverse population average and widen the limits of normal that can be expected in otherwise-healthy people.

The approach would include PFTs with other factors for clinical decision-making, but would allow clinicians and patients to appreciate the limitations of interpretation based on comparison to reference values. However, such an approach may miss pathophysiologically reduced lung function in some individuals, in which case lifesaving therapies, such as chemotherapy, lung cancer resection, and bone marrow transplantation could be withheld. In other instances the consequence would be overtesting and diagnosis, they acknowledged.

The authors further discussed general concerns about the use of race in interpretation of PFTs, addressing limits/considerations as well as knowledge and practice gaps.

For example, one particular concern involves the fact that race does not capture acculturation and mixed ancestry. The limit/consideration is the need to discover mechanisms for differences and to suggest societal interventions, and the knowledge gap pertains to ignorance regarding mechanisms leading to differences in lung function.

For the concern that race is not a proxy for an individual’s genetics, the limit/consideration is that race captures only some genetics and the gap is the need for better genetic information. As an antidote to over reliance on lung function thresholds (without supporting data), they urged outcomes-based standards rather than comparisons with reference populations.
 

New thinking needed

Dr. Bhakta and colleagues pointed out that the forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratios important for diagnosis of obstructive lung disease are similar between racial/ethnic categories, underscoring the need for education about limitations of thresholds and reference values with regard to race, particularly as they are used to detect mild disease.

Ignoring race, on the other hand, can lead to unnecessary testing and treatment (with concomitant side effects), and anxiety.

“Reporting through race-based algorithms in the PFT laboratory risks portraying racial disparities as innate and immutable. By anchoring on the improved prediction of lung function from racial/ethnic-specific reference equations, we miss how the significant residual variation still leaves much uncertainty about the expected value for an individual,” the authors concluded. “Given their origin and historical and current use in society, these racial/ethnic labels are better used to identify the effects of structural racism on respiratory health in research and ensure adequate representation in research, rather than in clinical algorithms.”

One of the authors is a speaker for MGC Diagnostics. The others indicated that they had no relevant disclosures.

The authors of a study purportedly showing that ivermectin could treat patients with SARS-CoV-2 have retracted their paper after acknowledging that their data were garbled.

The paper, “Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon,” appeared in the journal Viruses in May. According to the abstract: “A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received.”

Results results results … and: “Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented.”

However, in early October, the BBC reported — in a larger piece about the concerns about ivermectin-Covid-19 research — that the study “was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly – suggesting many of the trial’s apparent patients didn’t really exist.”

The study’s authors told the BBC that the ‘original set of data was rigged, sabotaged or mistakenly entered in the final file’ and that they have submitted a retraction to the scientific journal which published it.

That’s not quite what the retraction notice states: “The journal retracts the article, Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon [ 1 ], cited above. Following publication, the authors contacted the editorial office regarding an error between files used for the statistical analysis. Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the error reported by the authors.

This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal. The authors agreed to this retraction.”

Ali Samaha, of Lebanese University in Beirut, and the lead author of the study, told us: “It was brought to our attention that we have used wrong file for our paper. We informed immediately the journal and we have run investigations. After revising the raw data we realised that a file that was used to train a research assistant was sent by mistake for analysis. Re-analysing the original data , the conclusions of the paper remained valid. For our transparency we asked for retraction.”

About that BBC report? Samaha said: “The BBC article was generated before the report of independent reviewers who confirmed an innocent mistake by using wrong file.”

Samaha added that he and his colleagues are now considering whether to resubmit the paper.

The article has been cited four times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including in this meta-analysis published in June in the American Journal of Therapeutics , which concluded that: “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”

That article was a social media darling, receiving more than 45,000 tweets and pickups in 90 news outlets, according to Altmetrics, which ranks it No. 7 among all papers published at that time.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

The authors of a study purportedly showing that ivermectin could treat patients with SARS-CoV-2 have retracted their paper after acknowledging that their data were garbled.

The paper, “Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon,” appeared in the journal Viruses in May. According to the abstract: “A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received.”

Results results results … and: “Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented.”

However, in early October, the BBC reported — in a larger piece about the concerns about ivermectin-Covid-19 research — that the study “was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly – suggesting many of the trial’s apparent patients didn’t really exist.”

The study’s authors told the BBC that the ‘original set of data was rigged, sabotaged or mistakenly entered in the final file’ and that they have submitted a retraction to the scientific journal which published it.

That’s not quite what the retraction notice states: “The journal retracts the article, Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon [ 1 ], cited above. Following publication, the authors contacted the editorial office regarding an error between files used for the statistical analysis. Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the error reported by the authors.

This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal. The authors agreed to this retraction.”

Ali Samaha, of Lebanese University in Beirut, and the lead author of the study, told us: “It was brought to our attention that we have used wrong file for our paper. We informed immediately the journal and we have run investigations. After revising the raw data we realised that a file that was used to train a research assistant was sent by mistake for analysis. Re-analysing the original data , the conclusions of the paper remained valid. For our transparency we asked for retraction.”

About that BBC report? Samaha said: “The BBC article was generated before the report of independent reviewers who confirmed an innocent mistake by using wrong file.”

Samaha added that he and his colleagues are now considering whether to resubmit the paper.

The article has been cited four times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including in this meta-analysis published in June in the American Journal of Therapeutics , which concluded that: “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”

That article was a social media darling, receiving more than 45,000 tweets and pickups in 90 news outlets, according to Altmetrics, which ranks it No. 7 among all papers published at that time.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

The authors of a study purportedly showing that ivermectin could treat patients with SARS-CoV-2 have retracted their paper after acknowledging that their data were garbled.

The paper, “Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon,” appeared in the journal Viruses in May. According to the abstract: “A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received.”

Results results results … and: “Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented.”

However, in early October, the BBC reported — in a larger piece about the concerns about ivermectin-Covid-19 research — that the study “was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly – suggesting many of the trial’s apparent patients didn’t really exist.”

The study’s authors told the BBC that the ‘original set of data was rigged, sabotaged or mistakenly entered in the final file’ and that they have submitted a retraction to the scientific journal which published it.

That’s not quite what the retraction notice states: “The journal retracts the article, Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon [ 1 ], cited above. Following publication, the authors contacted the editorial office regarding an error between files used for the statistical analysis. Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the error reported by the authors.

This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal. The authors agreed to this retraction.”

Ali Samaha, of Lebanese University in Beirut, and the lead author of the study, told us: “It was brought to our attention that we have used wrong file for our paper. We informed immediately the journal and we have run investigations. After revising the raw data we realised that a file that was used to train a research assistant was sent by mistake for analysis. Re-analysing the original data , the conclusions of the paper remained valid. For our transparency we asked for retraction.”

About that BBC report? Samaha said: “The BBC article was generated before the report of independent reviewers who confirmed an innocent mistake by using wrong file.”

Samaha added that he and his colleagues are now considering whether to resubmit the paper.

The article has been cited four times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including in this meta-analysis published in June in the American Journal of Therapeutics , which concluded that: “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”

That article was a social media darling, receiving more than 45,000 tweets and pickups in 90 news outlets, according to Altmetrics, which ranks it No. 7 among all papers published at that time.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

The Biden administration on Nov. 4 unveiled its rule to require most of the country’s larger employers to mandate workers be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, but set a Jan. 4 deadline, avoiding the busy holiday season.

The White House also shifted the time lines for earlier mandates applying to federal workers and contractors to Jan. 4. And the same deadline applies to a new separate rule for health care workers.

The new rules are meant to preempt “any inconsistent state or local laws,” including bans and limits on employers’ authority to require vaccination, masks, or testing, the White House said in a statement.

The rule on employers from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will apply to organizations with 100 or more employees. These employers will need to make sure each worker is fully vaccinated or tests for COVID-19 on at least a weekly basis. The OSHA rule will also require that employers provide paid time for employees to get vaccinated and ensure that all unvaccinated workers wear a face mask in the workplace. This rule will cover 84 million employees. The OSHA rule will not apply to workplaces covered by either the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule or the federal contractor vaccination requirement

“The virus will not go away by itself, or because we wish it away: We have to act,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “Vaccination is the single best pathway out of this pandemic.”

Mandates were not the preferred route to managing the pandemic, he said.

“Too many people remain unvaccinated for us to get out of this pandemic for good,” he said. “So I instituted requirements – and they are working.”

The White House said 70% percent of U.S. adults are now fully vaccinated – up from less than 1% when Mr. Biden took office in January.

The CMS vaccine rule is meant to cover more than 17 million workers and about 76,000 medical care sites, including hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, nursing homes, dialysis facilities, home health agencies, and long-term care facilities. The rule will apply to employees whether their positions involve patient care or not.

Unlike the OSHA mandate, the one for health care workers will not offer the option of frequent COVID-19 testing instead of vaccination. There is a “higher bar” for health care workers, given their role in treating patients, so the mandate allows only for vaccination or limited exemptions, a senior administration official said on Nov. 3 during a call with reporters.

The CMS rule includes a “range of remedies,” including penalties and denial of payment for health care facilities that fail to meet the vaccine mandate. CMS could theoretically cut off hospitals and other medical organizations for failure to comply, but that would be a “last resort,” a senior administration official said. CMS will instead work with health care facilities to help them comply with the federal rule on vaccination of medical workers.

The new CMS rules apply only to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified centers and organizations. The rule does not directly apply to other health care entities, such as doctor’s offices, that are not regulated by CMS.

“Most states have separate licensing requirements for health care staff and health care providers that would be applicable to physician office staff and other staff in small health care entities that are not subject to vaccination requirements under this IFC,” CMS said in the rule.

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

The Biden administration on Nov. 4 unveiled its rule to require most of the country’s larger employers to mandate workers be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, but set a Jan. 4 deadline, avoiding the busy holiday season.

The White House also shifted the time lines for earlier mandates applying to federal workers and contractors to Jan. 4. And the same deadline applies to a new separate rule for health care workers.

The new rules are meant to preempt “any inconsistent state or local laws,” including bans and limits on employers’ authority to require vaccination, masks, or testing, the White House said in a statement.

The rule on employers from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will apply to organizations with 100 or more employees. These employers will need to make sure each worker is fully vaccinated or tests for COVID-19 on at least a weekly basis. The OSHA rule will also require that employers provide paid time for employees to get vaccinated and ensure that all unvaccinated workers wear a face mask in the workplace. This rule will cover 84 million employees. The OSHA rule will not apply to workplaces covered by either the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule or the federal contractor vaccination requirement

“The virus will not go away by itself, or because we wish it away: We have to act,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “Vaccination is the single best pathway out of this pandemic.”

Mandates were not the preferred route to managing the pandemic, he said.

“Too many people remain unvaccinated for us to get out of this pandemic for good,” he said. “So I instituted requirements – and they are working.”

The White House said 70% percent of U.S. adults are now fully vaccinated – up from less than 1% when Mr. Biden took office in January.

The CMS vaccine rule is meant to cover more than 17 million workers and about 76,000 medical care sites, including hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, nursing homes, dialysis facilities, home health agencies, and long-term care facilities. The rule will apply to employees whether their positions involve patient care or not.

Unlike the OSHA mandate, the one for health care workers will not offer the option of frequent COVID-19 testing instead of vaccination. There is a “higher bar” for health care workers, given their role in treating patients, so the mandate allows only for vaccination or limited exemptions, a senior administration official said on Nov. 3 during a call with reporters.

The CMS rule includes a “range of remedies,” including penalties and denial of payment for health care facilities that fail to meet the vaccine mandate. CMS could theoretically cut off hospitals and other medical organizations for failure to comply, but that would be a “last resort,” a senior administration official said. CMS will instead work with health care facilities to help them comply with the federal rule on vaccination of medical workers.

The new CMS rules apply only to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified centers and organizations. The rule does not directly apply to other health care entities, such as doctor’s offices, that are not regulated by CMS.

“Most states have separate licensing requirements for health care staff and health care providers that would be applicable to physician office staff and other staff in small health care entities that are not subject to vaccination requirements under this IFC,” CMS said in the rule.

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

The Biden administration on Nov. 4 unveiled its rule to require most of the country’s larger employers to mandate workers be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, but set a Jan. 4 deadline, avoiding the busy holiday season.

The White House also shifted the time lines for earlier mandates applying to federal workers and contractors to Jan. 4. And the same deadline applies to a new separate rule for health care workers.

The new rules are meant to preempt “any inconsistent state or local laws,” including bans and limits on employers’ authority to require vaccination, masks, or testing, the White House said in a statement.

The rule on employers from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will apply to organizations with 100 or more employees. These employers will need to make sure each worker is fully vaccinated or tests for COVID-19 on at least a weekly basis. The OSHA rule will also require that employers provide paid time for employees to get vaccinated and ensure that all unvaccinated workers wear a face mask in the workplace. This rule will cover 84 million employees. The OSHA rule will not apply to workplaces covered by either the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule or the federal contractor vaccination requirement

“The virus will not go away by itself, or because we wish it away: We have to act,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “Vaccination is the single best pathway out of this pandemic.”

Mandates were not the preferred route to managing the pandemic, he said.

“Too many people remain unvaccinated for us to get out of this pandemic for good,” he said. “So I instituted requirements – and they are working.”

The White House said 70% percent of U.S. adults are now fully vaccinated – up from less than 1% when Mr. Biden took office in January.

The CMS vaccine rule is meant to cover more than 17 million workers and about 76,000 medical care sites, including hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, nursing homes, dialysis facilities, home health agencies, and long-term care facilities. The rule will apply to employees whether their positions involve patient care or not.

Unlike the OSHA mandate, the one for health care workers will not offer the option of frequent COVID-19 testing instead of vaccination. There is a “higher bar” for health care workers, given their role in treating patients, so the mandate allows only for vaccination or limited exemptions, a senior administration official said on Nov. 3 during a call with reporters.

The CMS rule includes a “range of remedies,” including penalties and denial of payment for health care facilities that fail to meet the vaccine mandate. CMS could theoretically cut off hospitals and other medical organizations for failure to comply, but that would be a “last resort,” a senior administration official said. CMS will instead work with health care facilities to help them comply with the federal rule on vaccination of medical workers.

The new CMS rules apply only to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified centers and organizations. The rule does not directly apply to other health care entities, such as doctor’s offices, that are not regulated by CMS.

“Most states have separate licensing requirements for health care staff and health care providers that would be applicable to physician office staff and other staff in small health care entities that are not subject to vaccination requirements under this IFC,” CMS said in the rule.

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

On Nov. 2, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 5-11 years. What are some best practices for meeting the challenges of immunizing this younger age group?

This news organization spoke to several pediatric experts to get answers.

More than 6 million children and adolescents (up to age 18 years) in the United States have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Children represent about 17% of all cases, and an estimated 0.1%-2% of infected children end up hospitalized, according to Oct. 28 data from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Physicians and other health care practitioners are gearing up for what could be an influx of patients. “Pediatricians are standing by to talk with families about the vaccine and to administer the vaccine to children as soon as possible,” Lee Savio Beers, MD, FAAP, president of the AAP, said in a statement.

In this Q&A, this news organization asked for additional advice from Sara “Sally” Goza, MD, a pediatrician in Fayetteville, Georgia, and immediate past president of the AAP; Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and codirector of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, both in Houston; and Danielle M. Zerr, MD, professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Washington, Seattle, and medical director of infection prevention at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
 

Q: How are smaller pediatric practices and solo practitioners going to handle the additional vaccinations?

Dr. Goza: It’s a scheduling challenge with this rollout and all the people who want it and want it right now. They’re going to want it this week.

I’ve actually had some children asking their moms: “When can I get it? When can I get it?” It’s been very interesting – they are chomping at the bit.

If I give the vaccine to a patient this week, in 3 weeks the second dose will be right around Thanksgiving. No one in my office is going to want to be here to give the shot on Thanksgiving, and no patient is going to want to come in on Thanksgiving weekend. So I’m trying to delay those parents – saying, let’s do it next week. That way we’re not messing up a holiday.

Children are going to need two doses, and they won’t be fully protected until 2 weeks after their second dose. So they won’t get full protection for Thanksgiving, but they will have full protection for Christmas.

I know there are a lot of pediatricians who have preordered the vaccine. I know in our office they sent us an email ... to let us know our vaccines are being shipped. So I think a lot of pediatricians are going to have the vaccine.
 

Q: How should pediatricians counsel parents who are fearful or hesitant?

Dr. Hotez: It’s important to emphasize the severity of the 2021 summer Delta epidemic in children. We need to get beyond this false narrative that COVID only produces a mild disease in children. It’s caused thousands of pediatric hospitalizations, not to mention long COVID.

Dr. Zerr: It is key to find out what concerns parents have and then focus on answering their specific questions. It is helpful to emphasize the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and to explain the rigorous processes that the vaccine went through to receive Food and Drug Administration approval.
 

Q: How should pediatricians counter any misinformation/disinformation out there about the COVID-19 vaccines?

Dr. Goza: The most important thing is not to discount what they are saying. Don’t say: “That’s crazy” or “That’s not true.” Don’t roll your eyes and say: “Really, you’re going to believe all that?”

Instead, have a conversation with them about why we think that is not true, or why we know that’s not true. We really have to have that relationship and ask: “Well, what are your concerns?” And then really counter (any misinformation) with facts, with science, and based on your experience.
 

Q: Do the data presented to the FDA and the CDC about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds seem robust to you?

Dr. Zerr: Yes, and data collection will be ongoing.

Dr. Hotez: I’ve only seen what’s publicly available so far, and it seems to support moving forward with emergency use authorization. The only shortfall is the size, roughly 2,200 children, which would not be of sufficient size to detect a rare safety signal.
 

Q: Do previous controversies around pediatric vaccines (for example, the MMR vaccine and autism) give pediatricians some background and experience so they can address any pushback on the COVID-19 vaccines?

Dr. Goza: Pediatricians have been dealing with vaccine hesitancy for a while now, ever since the MMR and autism controversy started. Even before then, there were certain groups of people who didn’t want vaccines.

We’ve really worked hard at helping teach pediatricians how to deal with the misinformation, how to counter it, and how to help parents understand the vaccines are safe and effective – and that they save lives.

That (experience) will help us in some ways. Unfortunately, there is more misinformation out there – there is almost a concerted effort on misinformation. It’s big.

Pediatricians will do everything we can, but we need help countering it. We need the misinformation to quit getting spread on social media. We can talk one on one with patients and families, but if all they are hearing on social media is the misinformation, it’s really hard.
 

Q: Are pediatricians, especially solo practitioners or pediatricians at smaller practices, going to face challenges with multidose vials and not wasting vaccine product?

Dr. Goza: I’m at a small practice. We have 3.5 FTEs (full-time equivalents) of MDs and three FTEs of nurse practitioners. So we’re not that big – about six providers.

You know, it is a challenge. We’re not going to buy the super-duper freezer, and we’re not going to be able to store these vaccines for a long period of time.

So when we order, we need smaller amounts. For the 12- to 18-year-olds, [maximum storage] was 45 days. Now for the 5- to 11-year-olds, we’re going to be able to store the vaccine in the refrigerator for 10 weeks, which gives us more leeway there.

We try to do all of vaccinations on 1 day, so we know how many people are coming in, and we are not going to waste too many doses.

Our Department of Public Health in Georgia has said: “We want these vaccines in the arms of kids, and if you have to waste some doses, don’t worry about it.” But it’s a 10-dose vial. It’s going to be hard for me to open it up for one child. I just don’t like wasting anything like this.

Our main goal is to get this vaccine in to the arms of children whose parents want it.
 

Q: What are some additional sources of information for pediatricians?

Dr. Zerr: There are a lot of great resources on vaccine hesitancy from reputable sources, including these from the CDC and from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine:

• Building Confidence With OVID-19 Vaccines
• How to Talk With Parents About COVID-19 Vaccination
• Strategies for Building Confidence in the COVID-19 Vaccines
• Communication Strategies for Building Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines: Addressing Variants and Childhood Vaccinations

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

On Nov. 2, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 5-11 years. What are some best practices for meeting the challenges of immunizing this younger age group?

This news organization spoke to several pediatric experts to get answers.

More than 6 million children and adolescents (up to age 18 years) in the United States have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Children represent about 17% of all cases, and an estimated 0.1%-2% of infected children end up hospitalized, according to Oct. 28 data from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Physicians and other health care practitioners are gearing up for what could be an influx of patients. “Pediatricians are standing by to talk with families about the vaccine and to administer the vaccine to children as soon as possible,” Lee Savio Beers, MD, FAAP, president of the AAP, said in a statement.

In this Q&A, this news organization asked for additional advice from Sara “Sally” Goza, MD, a pediatrician in Fayetteville, Georgia, and immediate past president of the AAP; Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and codirector of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, both in Houston; and Danielle M. Zerr, MD, professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Washington, Seattle, and medical director of infection prevention at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
 

Q: How are smaller pediatric practices and solo practitioners going to handle the additional vaccinations?

Dr. Goza: It’s a scheduling challenge with this rollout and all the people who want it and want it right now. They’re going to want it this week.

I’ve actually had some children asking their moms: “When can I get it? When can I get it?” It’s been very interesting – they are chomping at the bit.

If I give the vaccine to a patient this week, in 3 weeks the second dose will be right around Thanksgiving. No one in my office is going to want to be here to give the shot on Thanksgiving, and no patient is going to want to come in on Thanksgiving weekend. So I’m trying to delay those parents – saying, let’s do it next week. That way we’re not messing up a holiday.

Children are going to need two doses, and they won’t be fully protected until 2 weeks after their second dose. So they won’t get full protection for Thanksgiving, but they will have full protection for Christmas.

I know there are a lot of pediatricians who have preordered the vaccine. I know in our office they sent us an email ... to let us know our vaccines are being shipped. So I think a lot of pediatricians are going to have the vaccine.
 

Q: How should pediatricians counsel parents who are fearful or hesitant?

Dr. Hotez: It’s important to emphasize the severity of the 2021 summer Delta epidemic in children. We need to get beyond this false narrative that COVID only produces a mild disease in children. It’s caused thousands of pediatric hospitalizations, not to mention long COVID.

Dr. Zerr: It is key to find out what concerns parents have and then focus on answering their specific questions. It is helpful to emphasize the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and to explain the rigorous processes that the vaccine went through to receive Food and Drug Administration approval.
 

Q: How should pediatricians counter any misinformation/disinformation out there about the COVID-19 vaccines?

Dr. Goza: The most important thing is not to discount what they are saying. Don’t say: “That’s crazy” or “That’s not true.” Don’t roll your eyes and say: “Really, you’re going to believe all that?”

Instead, have a conversation with them about why we think that is not true, or why we know that’s not true. We really have to have that relationship and ask: “Well, what are your concerns?” And then really counter (any misinformation) with facts, with science, and based on your experience.
 

Q: Do the data presented to the FDA and the CDC about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds seem robust to you?

Dr. Zerr: Yes, and data collection will be ongoing.

Dr. Hotez: I’ve only seen what’s publicly available so far, and it seems to support moving forward with emergency use authorization. The only shortfall is the size, roughly 2,200 children, which would not be of sufficient size to detect a rare safety signal.
 

Q: Do previous controversies around pediatric vaccines (for example, the MMR vaccine and autism) give pediatricians some background and experience so they can address any pushback on the COVID-19 vaccines?

Dr. Goza: Pediatricians have been dealing with vaccine hesitancy for a while now, ever since the MMR and autism controversy started. Even before then, there were certain groups of people who didn’t want vaccines.

We’ve really worked hard at helping teach pediatricians how to deal with the misinformation, how to counter it, and how to help parents understand the vaccines are safe and effective – and that they save lives.

That (experience) will help us in some ways. Unfortunately, there is more misinformation out there – there is almost a concerted effort on misinformation. It’s big.

Pediatricians will do everything we can, but we need help countering it. We need the misinformation to quit getting spread on social media. We can talk one on one with patients and families, but if all they are hearing on social media is the misinformation, it’s really hard.
 

Q: Are pediatricians, especially solo practitioners or pediatricians at smaller practices, going to face challenges with multidose vials and not wasting vaccine product?

Dr. Goza: I’m at a small practice. We have 3.5 FTEs (full-time equivalents) of MDs and three FTEs of nurse practitioners. So we’re not that big – about six providers.

You know, it is a challenge. We’re not going to buy the super-duper freezer, and we’re not going to be able to store these vaccines for a long period of time.

So when we order, we need smaller amounts. For the 12- to 18-year-olds, [maximum storage] was 45 days. Now for the 5- to 11-year-olds, we’re going to be able to store the vaccine in the refrigerator for 10 weeks, which gives us more leeway there.

We try to do all of vaccinations on 1 day, so we know how many people are coming in, and we are not going to waste too many doses.

Our Department of Public Health in Georgia has said: “We want these vaccines in the arms of kids, and if you have to waste some doses, don’t worry about it.” But it’s a 10-dose vial. It’s going to be hard for me to open it up for one child. I just don’t like wasting anything like this.

Our main goal is to get this vaccine in to the arms of children whose parents want it.
 

Q: What are some additional sources of information for pediatricians?

Dr. Zerr: There are a lot of great resources on vaccine hesitancy from reputable sources, including these from the CDC and from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine:

• Building Confidence With OVID-19 Vaccines
• How to Talk With Parents About COVID-19 Vaccination
• Strategies for Building Confidence in the COVID-19 Vaccines
• Communication Strategies for Building Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines: Addressing Variants and Childhood Vaccinations

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

On Nov. 2, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children aged 5-11 years. What are some best practices for meeting the challenges of immunizing this younger age group?

This news organization spoke to several pediatric experts to get answers.

More than 6 million children and adolescents (up to age 18 years) in the United States have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Children represent about 17% of all cases, and an estimated 0.1%-2% of infected children end up hospitalized, according to Oct. 28 data from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Physicians and other health care practitioners are gearing up for what could be an influx of patients. “Pediatricians are standing by to talk with families about the vaccine and to administer the vaccine to children as soon as possible,” Lee Savio Beers, MD, FAAP, president of the AAP, said in a statement.

In this Q&A, this news organization asked for additional advice from Sara “Sally” Goza, MD, a pediatrician in Fayetteville, Georgia, and immediate past president of the AAP; Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and codirector of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, both in Houston; and Danielle M. Zerr, MD, professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Washington, Seattle, and medical director of infection prevention at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
 

Q: How are smaller pediatric practices and solo practitioners going to handle the additional vaccinations?

Dr. Goza: It’s a scheduling challenge with this rollout and all the people who want it and want it right now. They’re going to want it this week.

I’ve actually had some children asking their moms: “When can I get it? When can I get it?” It’s been very interesting – they are chomping at the bit.

If I give the vaccine to a patient this week, in 3 weeks the second dose will be right around Thanksgiving. No one in my office is going to want to be here to give the shot on Thanksgiving, and no patient is going to want to come in on Thanksgiving weekend. So I’m trying to delay those parents – saying, let’s do it next week. That way we’re not messing up a holiday.

Children are going to need two doses, and they won’t be fully protected until 2 weeks after their second dose. So they won’t get full protection for Thanksgiving, but they will have full protection for Christmas.

I know there are a lot of pediatricians who have preordered the vaccine. I know in our office they sent us an email ... to let us know our vaccines are being shipped. So I think a lot of pediatricians are going to have the vaccine.
 

Q: How should pediatricians counsel parents who are fearful or hesitant?

Dr. Hotez: It’s important to emphasize the severity of the 2021 summer Delta epidemic in children. We need to get beyond this false narrative that COVID only produces a mild disease in children. It’s caused thousands of pediatric hospitalizations, not to mention long COVID.

Dr. Zerr: It is key to find out what concerns parents have and then focus on answering their specific questions. It is helpful to emphasize the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and to explain the rigorous processes that the vaccine went through to receive Food and Drug Administration approval.
 

Q: How should pediatricians counter any misinformation/disinformation out there about the COVID-19 vaccines?

Dr. Goza: The most important thing is not to discount what they are saying. Don’t say: “That’s crazy” or “That’s not true.” Don’t roll your eyes and say: “Really, you’re going to believe all that?”

Instead, have a conversation with them about why we think that is not true, or why we know that’s not true. We really have to have that relationship and ask: “Well, what are your concerns?” And then really counter (any misinformation) with facts, with science, and based on your experience.
 

Q: Do the data presented to the FDA and the CDC about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds seem robust to you?

Dr. Zerr: Yes, and data collection will be ongoing.

Dr. Hotez: I’ve only seen what’s publicly available so far, and it seems to support moving forward with emergency use authorization. The only shortfall is the size, roughly 2,200 children, which would not be of sufficient size to detect a rare safety signal.
 

Q: Do previous controversies around pediatric vaccines (for example, the MMR vaccine and autism) give pediatricians some background and experience so they can address any pushback on the COVID-19 vaccines?

Dr. Goza: Pediatricians have been dealing with vaccine hesitancy for a while now, ever since the MMR and autism controversy started. Even before then, there were certain groups of people who didn’t want vaccines.

We’ve really worked hard at helping teach pediatricians how to deal with the misinformation, how to counter it, and how to help parents understand the vaccines are safe and effective – and that they save lives.

That (experience) will help us in some ways. Unfortunately, there is more misinformation out there – there is almost a concerted effort on misinformation. It’s big.

Pediatricians will do everything we can, but we need help countering it. We need the misinformation to quit getting spread on social media. We can talk one on one with patients and families, but if all they are hearing on social media is the misinformation, it’s really hard.
 

Q: Are pediatricians, especially solo practitioners or pediatricians at smaller practices, going to face challenges with multidose vials and not wasting vaccine product?

Dr. Goza: I’m at a small practice. We have 3.5 FTEs (full-time equivalents) of MDs and three FTEs of nurse practitioners. So we’re not that big – about six providers.

You know, it is a challenge. We’re not going to buy the super-duper freezer, and we’re not going to be able to store these vaccines for a long period of time.

So when we order, we need smaller amounts. For the 12- to 18-year-olds, [maximum storage] was 45 days. Now for the 5- to 11-year-olds, we’re going to be able to store the vaccine in the refrigerator for 10 weeks, which gives us more leeway there.

We try to do all of vaccinations on 1 day, so we know how many people are coming in, and we are not going to waste too many doses.

Our Department of Public Health in Georgia has said: “We want these vaccines in the arms of kids, and if you have to waste some doses, don’t worry about it.” But it’s a 10-dose vial. It’s going to be hard for me to open it up for one child. I just don’t like wasting anything like this.

Our main goal is to get this vaccine in to the arms of children whose parents want it.
 

Q: What are some additional sources of information for pediatricians?

Dr. Zerr: There are a lot of great resources on vaccine hesitancy from reputable sources, including these from the CDC and from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine:

• Building Confidence With OVID-19 Vaccines
• How to Talk With Parents About COVID-19 Vaccination
• Strategies for Building Confidence in the COVID-19 Vaccines
• Communication Strategies for Building Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines: Addressing Variants and Childhood Vaccinations

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

Several emerging bronchoscopic treatments have the potential to improve the quality of life for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, an investigator reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Courtesy of Dr. Ghattas

Targeted lung denervation is one promising novel therapeutic option that is safe and may improve clinical outcomes according to investigator Christian Ghattas, MD.

Data from an ongoing phase 3 randomized controlled trial may provide new information on the efficacy of targeted lung denervation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), said Dr. Ghattas, assistant professor of medicine and associate program director for the interventional pulmonary fellowship at The Ohio State University Medical Center in Columbus.

“Outcome data of longer follow-up on previously treated patients will provide us with more information on the durability and the effect of this treatment,” Dr. Ghattas said in an online presentation at the CHEST meeting, which was held virtually this year.

Meanwhile, a few compelling bronchoscopic treatment modalities for patients with chronic bronchitis are in earlier stages of clinical development. “Larger randomized, controlled trials are ongoing to confirm the available data and to evaluate treatment durability,” said Dr. Ghattas.
 

Targeted lung denervation

The targeted lung denervation system under study (dNerva^®, Nuvaira Inc.) involves the use of a radiofrequency catheter to ablate the peribronchial branches of the vagus nerve, Dr. Ghattas said.

The goal of disrupting pulmonary nerve input is to achieve sustained bronchodilation and reduce mucous secretion, thereby simulating the effect of anticholinergic drugs, he added.

In pilot studies, the targeted lung denervation system demonstrated its feasibility and safety, while modifications to the system reduced the rate of serious adverse events, according to Dr. Ghattas.

In the AIRFLOW-1 study, which evaluated the safety of the latest generation version of the system, 30 patients with COPD were randomized to targeted lung denervation at one of two doses, 29 or 32 watts.

Of those 30 patients, 29 (96.7%) had procedural success, meaning the catheter was inserted, guided to its intended location, and removed intact with no reported in-hospital serious adverse events, according to results published in Respiration.

There was no difference between arms in the primary endpoint, which was the rate of adverse airway effects requiring intervention that were associated with targeted lung denervation, investigators reported. Four such events occurred, in 3 of 15 patients treated with 32 watts and 1 of 15 patients treated with 29 watts.

Procedural success, defined as device success without an in-hospital serious adverse event, was 96.7% (29/30). The rate of TLD-associated adverse airway effects requiring intervention was 3/15 in the 32 W versus 1/15 in the 29 W group (P = .6). However, serious gastric events were noted in five patients, prompting safety improvements and procedural enhancements that reduced both gastrointestinal and airway events, according to the study report.

Further data are available from AIRFLOW-2, a randomized, sham-controlled trial enrolling patients with symptomatic COPD.

In that study, targeted lung denervation plus optimal drug treatment led to fewer respiratory adverse events of interest, including hospitalizations for COPD exacerbation, according to a report on the study that appears in The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

Respiratory adverse events occurred in 32% of treated patients versus 71% of sham-treated patients in a predefined 3- to 6.5-month postprocedure window, the report says.

Currently underway is AIRFLOW-3, a randomized study of targeted lung denervation versus sham procedure in patients with COPD. The study has a primary outcome measure of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations over 12 months and is slated to enroll 480 patients.

To be eligible for AIRFLOW-3, patients must have had at least two moderate or one severe COPD exacerbation in the previous year, Dr. Ghattas said.
 

Metered cryospray

One novel intervention with the potential to benefit patients with chronic bronchitis is metered cryospray (RejuvenAir), which works by delivering liquid nitrogen to the tracheobronchial airways, according to Dr. Ghattas.

This targeted delivery ablates abnormal epithelium, facilitating the regeneration of healthy mucosa, according to investigators in a recently published single-arm prospective trial.

Metered cryospray was safe, feasible, and linked to clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients with COPD, according to authors of the study, which appears in the European Respiratory Journal.

In the study, 34 of 35 participants received three treatments 4-6 weeks apart.

Investigators reported that at 3 months there were significant reductions in the COPD Assessment Test that were durable to 6 months, and changes in the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and the Leicester Cough Questionnaire that were durable to 9 months.

There were 14 serious adverse events, none of which were device- or procedure related, according to investigators.

An ongoing randomized study called SPRAY-CB is comparing metered cryospray to sham procedure in an anticipated 210 patients with COPD with chronic bronchitis.
 

Bronchial rheoplasty

Bronchial rheoplasty (RheOx, Gala Therapeutics), is another promising intervention under investigation for the treatment of chronic bronchitis, according to Dr. Ghattas.

This system delivers nonthermal pulsed electrical energy, Dr. Ghattas said, with the intention of ablating goblet cells in the airways.

“The preclinical studies have demonstrated epithelial ablation, followed by regeneration of normalized epithelium,” he said in his presentation.

In 12-month results of multicenter clinical trial, bronchial rheoplasty was technically feasible and safe, with reductions in goblet cell hyperplasia and changes in patient-reported quality of life seen following the procedure, investigators reported in The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

The mean goblet cell hyperplasia score was reduced by 39% from baseline to treatment, according to study results. Four procedure-related serious adverse events were observed through 6 months, and there were no procedure- or device-related serious adverse events over the next 6 months. Mild hemoptysis occurred in 47% of patients, investigators reported.

A larger randomized, double-blind prospective trial with a sham control arm is underway and will include 270 patients, according to Dr. Ghattas. “We’re going to have to wait for the results,” he said.

Dr. Ghattas reported serving as a site principal investigator for clinical trials involving the bronchoscopic interventions he discussed, including AIRFLOW-3 (evaluating the targeted lung denervation system), SPRAY-CB (metered cryospray), and RheSolve (bronchial rheoplasty).

Several emerging bronchoscopic treatments have the potential to improve the quality of life for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, an investigator reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Courtesy of Dr. Ghattas

Targeted lung denervation is one promising novel therapeutic option that is safe and may improve clinical outcomes according to investigator Christian Ghattas, MD.

Data from an ongoing phase 3 randomized controlled trial may provide new information on the efficacy of targeted lung denervation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), said Dr. Ghattas, assistant professor of medicine and associate program director for the interventional pulmonary fellowship at The Ohio State University Medical Center in Columbus.

“Outcome data of longer follow-up on previously treated patients will provide us with more information on the durability and the effect of this treatment,” Dr. Ghattas said in an online presentation at the CHEST meeting, which was held virtually this year.

Meanwhile, a few compelling bronchoscopic treatment modalities for patients with chronic bronchitis are in earlier stages of clinical development. “Larger randomized, controlled trials are ongoing to confirm the available data and to evaluate treatment durability,” said Dr. Ghattas.
 

Targeted lung denervation

The targeted lung denervation system under study (dNerva^®, Nuvaira Inc.) involves the use of a radiofrequency catheter to ablate the peribronchial branches of the vagus nerve, Dr. Ghattas said.

The goal of disrupting pulmonary nerve input is to achieve sustained bronchodilation and reduce mucous secretion, thereby simulating the effect of anticholinergic drugs, he added.

In pilot studies, the targeted lung denervation system demonstrated its feasibility and safety, while modifications to the system reduced the rate of serious adverse events, according to Dr. Ghattas.

In the AIRFLOW-1 study, which evaluated the safety of the latest generation version of the system, 30 patients with COPD were randomized to targeted lung denervation at one of two doses, 29 or 32 watts.

Of those 30 patients, 29 (96.7%) had procedural success, meaning the catheter was inserted, guided to its intended location, and removed intact with no reported in-hospital serious adverse events, according to results published in Respiration.

There was no difference between arms in the primary endpoint, which was the rate of adverse airway effects requiring intervention that were associated with targeted lung denervation, investigators reported. Four such events occurred, in 3 of 15 patients treated with 32 watts and 1 of 15 patients treated with 29 watts.

Procedural success, defined as device success without an in-hospital serious adverse event, was 96.7% (29/30). The rate of TLD-associated adverse airway effects requiring intervention was 3/15 in the 32 W versus 1/15 in the 29 W group (P = .6). However, serious gastric events were noted in five patients, prompting safety improvements and procedural enhancements that reduced both gastrointestinal and airway events, according to the study report.

Further data are available from AIRFLOW-2, a randomized, sham-controlled trial enrolling patients with symptomatic COPD.

In that study, targeted lung denervation plus optimal drug treatment led to fewer respiratory adverse events of interest, including hospitalizations for COPD exacerbation, according to a report on the study that appears in The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

Respiratory adverse events occurred in 32% of treated patients versus 71% of sham-treated patients in a predefined 3- to 6.5-month postprocedure window, the report says.

Currently underway is AIRFLOW-3, a randomized study of targeted lung denervation versus sham procedure in patients with COPD. The study has a primary outcome measure of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations over 12 months and is slated to enroll 480 patients.

To be eligible for AIRFLOW-3, patients must have had at least two moderate or one severe COPD exacerbation in the previous year, Dr. Ghattas said.
 

Metered cryospray

One novel intervention with the potential to benefit patients with chronic bronchitis is metered cryospray (RejuvenAir), which works by delivering liquid nitrogen to the tracheobronchial airways, according to Dr. Ghattas.

This targeted delivery ablates abnormal epithelium, facilitating the regeneration of healthy mucosa, according to investigators in a recently published single-arm prospective trial.

Metered cryospray was safe, feasible, and linked to clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients with COPD, according to authors of the study, which appears in the European Respiratory Journal.

In the study, 34 of 35 participants received three treatments 4-6 weeks apart.

Investigators reported that at 3 months there were significant reductions in the COPD Assessment Test that were durable to 6 months, and changes in the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and the Leicester Cough Questionnaire that were durable to 9 months.

There were 14 serious adverse events, none of which were device- or procedure related, according to investigators.

An ongoing randomized study called SPRAY-CB is comparing metered cryospray to sham procedure in an anticipated 210 patients with COPD with chronic bronchitis.
 

Bronchial rheoplasty

Bronchial rheoplasty (RheOx, Gala Therapeutics), is another promising intervention under investigation for the treatment of chronic bronchitis, according to Dr. Ghattas.

This system delivers nonthermal pulsed electrical energy, Dr. Ghattas said, with the intention of ablating goblet cells in the airways.

“The preclinical studies have demonstrated epithelial ablation, followed by regeneration of normalized epithelium,” he said in his presentation.

In 12-month results of multicenter clinical trial, bronchial rheoplasty was technically feasible and safe, with reductions in goblet cell hyperplasia and changes in patient-reported quality of life seen following the procedure, investigators reported in The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

The mean goblet cell hyperplasia score was reduced by 39% from baseline to treatment, according to study results. Four procedure-related serious adverse events were observed through 6 months, and there were no procedure- or device-related serious adverse events over the next 6 months. Mild hemoptysis occurred in 47% of patients, investigators reported.

A larger randomized, double-blind prospective trial with a sham control arm is underway and will include 270 patients, according to Dr. Ghattas. “We’re going to have to wait for the results,” he said.

Dr. Ghattas reported serving as a site principal investigator for clinical trials involving the bronchoscopic interventions he discussed, including AIRFLOW-3 (evaluating the targeted lung denervation system), SPRAY-CB (metered cryospray), and RheSolve (bronchial rheoplasty).

Several emerging bronchoscopic treatments have the potential to improve the quality of life for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, an investigator reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Courtesy of Dr. Ghattas

Targeted lung denervation is one promising novel therapeutic option that is safe and may improve clinical outcomes according to investigator Christian Ghattas, MD.

Data from an ongoing phase 3 randomized controlled trial may provide new information on the efficacy of targeted lung denervation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), said Dr. Ghattas, assistant professor of medicine and associate program director for the interventional pulmonary fellowship at The Ohio State University Medical Center in Columbus.

“Outcome data of longer follow-up on previously treated patients will provide us with more information on the durability and the effect of this treatment,” Dr. Ghattas said in an online presentation at the CHEST meeting, which was held virtually this year.

Meanwhile, a few compelling bronchoscopic treatment modalities for patients with chronic bronchitis are in earlier stages of clinical development. “Larger randomized, controlled trials are ongoing to confirm the available data and to evaluate treatment durability,” said Dr. Ghattas.
 

Targeted lung denervation

The targeted lung denervation system under study (dNerva^®, Nuvaira Inc.) involves the use of a radiofrequency catheter to ablate the peribronchial branches of the vagus nerve, Dr. Ghattas said.

The goal of disrupting pulmonary nerve input is to achieve sustained bronchodilation and reduce mucous secretion, thereby simulating the effect of anticholinergic drugs, he added.

In pilot studies, the targeted lung denervation system demonstrated its feasibility and safety, while modifications to the system reduced the rate of serious adverse events, according to Dr. Ghattas.

In the AIRFLOW-1 study, which evaluated the safety of the latest generation version of the system, 30 patients with COPD were randomized to targeted lung denervation at one of two doses, 29 or 32 watts.

Of those 30 patients, 29 (96.7%) had procedural success, meaning the catheter was inserted, guided to its intended location, and removed intact with no reported in-hospital serious adverse events, according to results published in Respiration.

There was no difference between arms in the primary endpoint, which was the rate of adverse airway effects requiring intervention that were associated with targeted lung denervation, investigators reported. Four such events occurred, in 3 of 15 patients treated with 32 watts and 1 of 15 patients treated with 29 watts.

Procedural success, defined as device success without an in-hospital serious adverse event, was 96.7% (29/30). The rate of TLD-associated adverse airway effects requiring intervention was 3/15 in the 32 W versus 1/15 in the 29 W group (P = .6). However, serious gastric events were noted in five patients, prompting safety improvements and procedural enhancements that reduced both gastrointestinal and airway events, according to the study report.

Further data are available from AIRFLOW-2, a randomized, sham-controlled trial enrolling patients with symptomatic COPD.

In that study, targeted lung denervation plus optimal drug treatment led to fewer respiratory adverse events of interest, including hospitalizations for COPD exacerbation, according to a report on the study that appears in The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

Respiratory adverse events occurred in 32% of treated patients versus 71% of sham-treated patients in a predefined 3- to 6.5-month postprocedure window, the report says.

Currently underway is AIRFLOW-3, a randomized study of targeted lung denervation versus sham procedure in patients with COPD. The study has a primary outcome measure of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations over 12 months and is slated to enroll 480 patients.

To be eligible for AIRFLOW-3, patients must have had at least two moderate or one severe COPD exacerbation in the previous year, Dr. Ghattas said.
 

Metered cryospray

One novel intervention with the potential to benefit patients with chronic bronchitis is metered cryospray (RejuvenAir), which works by delivering liquid nitrogen to the tracheobronchial airways, according to Dr. Ghattas.

This targeted delivery ablates abnormal epithelium, facilitating the regeneration of healthy mucosa, according to investigators in a recently published single-arm prospective trial.

Metered cryospray was safe, feasible, and linked to clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients with COPD, according to authors of the study, which appears in the European Respiratory Journal.

In the study, 34 of 35 participants received three treatments 4-6 weeks apart.

Investigators reported that at 3 months there were significant reductions in the COPD Assessment Test that were durable to 6 months, and changes in the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and the Leicester Cough Questionnaire that were durable to 9 months.

There were 14 serious adverse events, none of which were device- or procedure related, according to investigators.

An ongoing randomized study called SPRAY-CB is comparing metered cryospray to sham procedure in an anticipated 210 patients with COPD with chronic bronchitis.
 

Bronchial rheoplasty

Bronchial rheoplasty (RheOx, Gala Therapeutics), is another promising intervention under investigation for the treatment of chronic bronchitis, according to Dr. Ghattas.

This system delivers nonthermal pulsed electrical energy, Dr. Ghattas said, with the intention of ablating goblet cells in the airways.

“The preclinical studies have demonstrated epithelial ablation, followed by regeneration of normalized epithelium,” he said in his presentation.

In 12-month results of multicenter clinical trial, bronchial rheoplasty was technically feasible and safe, with reductions in goblet cell hyperplasia and changes in patient-reported quality of life seen following the procedure, investigators reported in The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

The mean goblet cell hyperplasia score was reduced by 39% from baseline to treatment, according to study results. Four procedure-related serious adverse events were observed through 6 months, and there were no procedure- or device-related serious adverse events over the next 6 months. Mild hemoptysis occurred in 47% of patients, investigators reported.

A larger randomized, double-blind prospective trial with a sham control arm is underway and will include 270 patients, according to Dr. Ghattas. “We’re going to have to wait for the results,” he said.

Dr. Ghattas reported serving as a site principal investigator for clinical trials involving the bronchoscopic interventions he discussed, including AIRFLOW-3 (evaluating the targeted lung denervation system), SPRAY-CB (metered cryospray), and RheSolve (bronchial rheoplasty).