CHEST Physician

Untreated PD-L1 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with previously untreated, PD-L1-selected, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial comparing pembrolizumab to the investigational immunotherapies ociperlimab (an anti-TIGIT antibody) and tislelizumab (an anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor). Participants will be treated until death or progression of disease, whichever comes first, up to approximately 39 months. The multinational study started recruiting June 8 and hopes to enroll 605 participants. U.S. trial centers are in Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, and Virginia. Overall survival (OS) is a primary outcome, and quality of life (QoL) will be tracked. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Newly diagnosed, locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC. Adult patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, locally advanced, stage III unresectable NSCL are being recruited for a phase 3 study comparing sequential combinations of concurrent chemoradiotherapy and the immunotherapies ociperlimab, tislelizumab, and durvalumab (Imfinzi). Participants will receive therapy until disease progression or up to 16 months from randomization, whichever occurs first. The trial began recruiting on June 17 at the Central Care Cancer Center, in Bolivar, Mo. OS and QoL over 16 months are secondary outcomes. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Patients with untreated small cell lung cancer and documented limited-stage disease (stages Tx, T1-T4, N0-3, M0; AJCC staging, eighth edition) can join a phase 2 study comparing the immunotherapies ociperlimab and tislelizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy to concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone. The trial will last 30 months from the date of the study’s first recruitment. Investigators are aiming to recruit 120 people globally. U.S. sites are in Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. OS over 30 months is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be tracked. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Stage III unresectable NSCLC. Patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC with positive circulating tumor DNA are being recruited for a phase 3 study testing whether or not circulating cancer cells in the blood can be decreased by combining standard treatment durvalumab with platinum-doublet chemotherapy (carboplatin/pemetrexed or carboplatin/paclitaxel). Patients will receive durvalumab for 1 year, with or without four cycles of chemotherapy. The study opened on August 25 at Stanford University, in California. OS over 2 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated stage IV NSCLC. Patients with nonsquamous stage IV NSCLC not treated for metastatic disease are being recruited for a phase 2 study of the experimental immunotherapy SEA-CD40 in combination with pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin. Participants will be treated for approximately 2 years. Objective response rate is the primary outcome. OS over 4 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The study opened on September 30 in Arkansas, California, Minnesota, Ohio, and Texas. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated metastatic NSCLC. Patients with metastatic squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial that will compare a new subcutaneous formulation of pembrolizumab with standard intravenous pembrolizumab, both given in combination with chemotherapy. Patients will be treated with immunotherapy for up to approximately 2 years until the occurrence of disease progression or intolerable adverse events or the participant/physician decides to stop. Drug pharmacokinetic performance is the primary outcome measure. OS over 5 years will be analyzed as a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The international trial has U.S. sites in Florida, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

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

Untreated PD-L1 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with previously untreated, PD-L1-selected, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial comparing pembrolizumab to the investigational immunotherapies ociperlimab (an anti-TIGIT antibody) and tislelizumab (an anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor). Participants will be treated until death or progression of disease, whichever comes first, up to approximately 39 months. The multinational study started recruiting June 8 and hopes to enroll 605 participants. U.S. trial centers are in Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, and Virginia. Overall survival (OS) is a primary outcome, and quality of life (QoL) will be tracked. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Newly diagnosed, locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC. Adult patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, locally advanced, stage III unresectable NSCL are being recruited for a phase 3 study comparing sequential combinations of concurrent chemoradiotherapy and the immunotherapies ociperlimab, tislelizumab, and durvalumab (Imfinzi). Participants will receive therapy until disease progression or up to 16 months from randomization, whichever occurs first. The trial began recruiting on June 17 at the Central Care Cancer Center, in Bolivar, Mo. OS and QoL over 16 months are secondary outcomes. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Patients with untreated small cell lung cancer and documented limited-stage disease (stages Tx, T1-T4, N0-3, M0; AJCC staging, eighth edition) can join a phase 2 study comparing the immunotherapies ociperlimab and tislelizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy to concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone. The trial will last 30 months from the date of the study’s first recruitment. Investigators are aiming to recruit 120 people globally. U.S. sites are in Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. OS over 30 months is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be tracked. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Stage III unresectable NSCLC. Patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC with positive circulating tumor DNA are being recruited for a phase 3 study testing whether or not circulating cancer cells in the blood can be decreased by combining standard treatment durvalumab with platinum-doublet chemotherapy (carboplatin/pemetrexed or carboplatin/paclitaxel). Patients will receive durvalumab for 1 year, with or without four cycles of chemotherapy. The study opened on August 25 at Stanford University, in California. OS over 2 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated stage IV NSCLC. Patients with nonsquamous stage IV NSCLC not treated for metastatic disease are being recruited for a phase 2 study of the experimental immunotherapy SEA-CD40 in combination with pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin. Participants will be treated for approximately 2 years. Objective response rate is the primary outcome. OS over 4 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The study opened on September 30 in Arkansas, California, Minnesota, Ohio, and Texas. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated metastatic NSCLC. Patients with metastatic squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial that will compare a new subcutaneous formulation of pembrolizumab with standard intravenous pembrolizumab, both given in combination with chemotherapy. Patients will be treated with immunotherapy for up to approximately 2 years until the occurrence of disease progression or intolerable adverse events or the participant/physician decides to stop. Drug pharmacokinetic performance is the primary outcome measure. OS over 5 years will be analyzed as a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The international trial has U.S. sites in Florida, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

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

Untreated PD-L1 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with previously untreated, PD-L1-selected, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial comparing pembrolizumab to the investigational immunotherapies ociperlimab (an anti-TIGIT antibody) and tislelizumab (an anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor). Participants will be treated until death or progression of disease, whichever comes first, up to approximately 39 months. The multinational study started recruiting June 8 and hopes to enroll 605 participants. U.S. trial centers are in Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, and Virginia. Overall survival (OS) is a primary outcome, and quality of life (QoL) will be tracked. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Newly diagnosed, locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC. Adult patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, locally advanced, stage III unresectable NSCL are being recruited for a phase 3 study comparing sequential combinations of concurrent chemoradiotherapy and the immunotherapies ociperlimab, tislelizumab, and durvalumab (Imfinzi). Participants will receive therapy until disease progression or up to 16 months from randomization, whichever occurs first. The trial began recruiting on June 17 at the Central Care Cancer Center, in Bolivar, Mo. OS and QoL over 16 months are secondary outcomes. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Patients with untreated small cell lung cancer and documented limited-stage disease (stages Tx, T1-T4, N0-3, M0; AJCC staging, eighth edition) can join a phase 2 study comparing the immunotherapies ociperlimab and tislelizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy to concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone. The trial will last 30 months from the date of the study’s first recruitment. Investigators are aiming to recruit 120 people globally. U.S. sites are in Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. OS over 30 months is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be tracked. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Stage III unresectable NSCLC. Patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC with positive circulating tumor DNA are being recruited for a phase 3 study testing whether or not circulating cancer cells in the blood can be decreased by combining standard treatment durvalumab with platinum-doublet chemotherapy (carboplatin/pemetrexed or carboplatin/paclitaxel). Patients will receive durvalumab for 1 year, with or without four cycles of chemotherapy. The study opened on August 25 at Stanford University, in California. OS over 2 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated stage IV NSCLC. Patients with nonsquamous stage IV NSCLC not treated for metastatic disease are being recruited for a phase 2 study of the experimental immunotherapy SEA-CD40 in combination with pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin. Participants will be treated for approximately 2 years. Objective response rate is the primary outcome. OS over 4 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The study opened on September 30 in Arkansas, California, Minnesota, Ohio, and Texas. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated metastatic NSCLC. Patients with metastatic squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial that will compare a new subcutaneous formulation of pembrolizumab with standard intravenous pembrolizumab, both given in combination with chemotherapy. Patients will be treated with immunotherapy for up to approximately 2 years until the occurrence of disease progression or intolerable adverse events or the participant/physician decides to stop. Drug pharmacokinetic performance is the primary outcome measure. OS over 5 years will be analyzed as a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The international trial has U.S. sites in Florida, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

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

Nearly 2 years into the pandemic, all things COVID-19 will of course be a major focus at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

“During the pandemic, critical care has been at the forefront of what people are interested in,” said CHEST 2021 program cochair Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford.

“There is so much volume in critical care units that people have interest in anything related to critical care, including infectious diseases and disaster management in critical care,” he said in an interview.

Sessions at this year’s meeting that have a COVID-19 theme will focus on care of both patients and caregivers. Multiple symposiums, oral abstracts, scientific posters, and case reports will focus on clinical aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19, including complications such as ventilator-associated and hospital-acquired pneumonia, a session called “Viruses, Variants, Vaccines, and Virulence: The Present and Future of COVID-19,” and support of patients and families.

Other presentations will focus on how COVID-19 has affected lung cancer screening, outpatient practices, pulmonary care, and sleep medicine.

Importantly, the meeting will include sessions focusing on the mental, physical, and social health of clinicians, especially those on the front lines in critical care and intensive care units. There will be sessions on how to recognize and avoid burnout, practice mental health awareness, and take time for self-care.

Presidential Honor Lecturer Curtis N. Sessler, MD, Master FCCP, FCCM, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, with give a talk titled, “Navigating the Road to Well-Being in the ICU.”
 

Empathy and diversity

Program cochair David Zielinski, MD, FCCP, of Montreal Children’s Hospital, Quebec, told this news organization that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought into even starker contrast inequities in patient care and in the health care system at large.

“This is a subject people are very keen about right now, whether it’s about how providers are treated, opportunities for improvement, or correcting inequities in outcomes for patients,” he said in an interview.

The program doesn’t shy away from the controversy, either, with a session provocatively titled, “Racism in Health Care: The Fuel That Lit the COVID-19 Fire.”

Keynote speaker Demondes Haynes, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine and associate dean of admissions at the University of Mississippi, Jackson, will speak on the importance of empathy in physician-patient communications and on ways to create a more diverse and inclusive workforce in medicine.
 

Beyond COVID-19

CHEST 2021 will include important information for sleep medicine physicians, including the latest news regarding an equipment recall affecting one of the two major manufacturers of continuous positive airway pressure devices.

“This has caused a lot of angst among sleep physicians and patients, and there are not enough devices to replace them,” Dr. Zielinski said.

“People who are on home ventilators are also affected by this recall,” Dr. Carroll added. “The population of patients who have sleep apnea is much greater than the population who are on home ventilators, but patients who are on home ventilators need it to save their lives.”

The meeting will include informative sessions summarizing U.S. and European asthma guidelines published over the past 2 years, as well as pending guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians on venous thromboembolism and lung cancer screening.

Additional topics of importance include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease, asthma management, acute respiratory failure in special populations, new therapies and strategies for treating tuberculosis, and many others.

There will be skill-polishing simulation sessions designed to help clinicians connect with experts in the field, update their knowledge, and sharpen their technique.
 

Fun and games

In addition to the serious subjects, CHEST 2021 attendees will have the chance to network with colleagues and friends and enjoy online games, including the 20th annual CHEST Challenge, which will pit teams of fellows-in-training from the Interfaith Medical Center, in Brooklyn, New York; the State University of New York, in Buffalo; and the Ohio State University Medical Center, in Columbus, in a Jeopardy!-style battle of wits and medical knowledge.

Close to 7,000 registrants from around the world took part in last year’s CHEST annual meeting, and a similar number is expected for this year’s edition, Dr. Carroll and Dr. Zielinski said.
 

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

Nearly 2 years into the pandemic, all things COVID-19 will of course be a major focus at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

“During the pandemic, critical care has been at the forefront of what people are interested in,” said CHEST 2021 program cochair Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford.

“There is so much volume in critical care units that people have interest in anything related to critical care, including infectious diseases and disaster management in critical care,” he said in an interview.

Sessions at this year’s meeting that have a COVID-19 theme will focus on care of both patients and caregivers. Multiple symposiums, oral abstracts, scientific posters, and case reports will focus on clinical aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19, including complications such as ventilator-associated and hospital-acquired pneumonia, a session called “Viruses, Variants, Vaccines, and Virulence: The Present and Future of COVID-19,” and support of patients and families.

Other presentations will focus on how COVID-19 has affected lung cancer screening, outpatient practices, pulmonary care, and sleep medicine.

Importantly, the meeting will include sessions focusing on the mental, physical, and social health of clinicians, especially those on the front lines in critical care and intensive care units. There will be sessions on how to recognize and avoid burnout, practice mental health awareness, and take time for self-care.

Presidential Honor Lecturer Curtis N. Sessler, MD, Master FCCP, FCCM, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, with give a talk titled, “Navigating the Road to Well-Being in the ICU.”
 

Empathy and diversity

Program cochair David Zielinski, MD, FCCP, of Montreal Children’s Hospital, Quebec, told this news organization that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought into even starker contrast inequities in patient care and in the health care system at large.

“This is a subject people are very keen about right now, whether it’s about how providers are treated, opportunities for improvement, or correcting inequities in outcomes for patients,” he said in an interview.

The program doesn’t shy away from the controversy, either, with a session provocatively titled, “Racism in Health Care: The Fuel That Lit the COVID-19 Fire.”

Keynote speaker Demondes Haynes, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine and associate dean of admissions at the University of Mississippi, Jackson, will speak on the importance of empathy in physician-patient communications and on ways to create a more diverse and inclusive workforce in medicine.
 

Beyond COVID-19

CHEST 2021 will include important information for sleep medicine physicians, including the latest news regarding an equipment recall affecting one of the two major manufacturers of continuous positive airway pressure devices.

“This has caused a lot of angst among sleep physicians and patients, and there are not enough devices to replace them,” Dr. Zielinski said.

“People who are on home ventilators are also affected by this recall,” Dr. Carroll added. “The population of patients who have sleep apnea is much greater than the population who are on home ventilators, but patients who are on home ventilators need it to save their lives.”

The meeting will include informative sessions summarizing U.S. and European asthma guidelines published over the past 2 years, as well as pending guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians on venous thromboembolism and lung cancer screening.

Additional topics of importance include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease, asthma management, acute respiratory failure in special populations, new therapies and strategies for treating tuberculosis, and many others.

There will be skill-polishing simulation sessions designed to help clinicians connect with experts in the field, update their knowledge, and sharpen their technique.
 

Fun and games

In addition to the serious subjects, CHEST 2021 attendees will have the chance to network with colleagues and friends and enjoy online games, including the 20th annual CHEST Challenge, which will pit teams of fellows-in-training from the Interfaith Medical Center, in Brooklyn, New York; the State University of New York, in Buffalo; and the Ohio State University Medical Center, in Columbus, in a Jeopardy!-style battle of wits and medical knowledge.

Close to 7,000 registrants from around the world took part in last year’s CHEST annual meeting, and a similar number is expected for this year’s edition, Dr. Carroll and Dr. Zielinski said.
 

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

Nearly 2 years into the pandemic, all things COVID-19 will of course be a major focus at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

“During the pandemic, critical care has been at the forefront of what people are interested in,” said CHEST 2021 program cochair Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford.

“There is so much volume in critical care units that people have interest in anything related to critical care, including infectious diseases and disaster management in critical care,” he said in an interview.

Sessions at this year’s meeting that have a COVID-19 theme will focus on care of both patients and caregivers. Multiple symposiums, oral abstracts, scientific posters, and case reports will focus on clinical aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19, including complications such as ventilator-associated and hospital-acquired pneumonia, a session called “Viruses, Variants, Vaccines, and Virulence: The Present and Future of COVID-19,” and support of patients and families.

Other presentations will focus on how COVID-19 has affected lung cancer screening, outpatient practices, pulmonary care, and sleep medicine.

Importantly, the meeting will include sessions focusing on the mental, physical, and social health of clinicians, especially those on the front lines in critical care and intensive care units. There will be sessions on how to recognize and avoid burnout, practice mental health awareness, and take time for self-care.

Presidential Honor Lecturer Curtis N. Sessler, MD, Master FCCP, FCCM, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, with give a talk titled, “Navigating the Road to Well-Being in the ICU.”
 

Empathy and diversity

Program cochair David Zielinski, MD, FCCP, of Montreal Children’s Hospital, Quebec, told this news organization that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought into even starker contrast inequities in patient care and in the health care system at large.

“This is a subject people are very keen about right now, whether it’s about how providers are treated, opportunities for improvement, or correcting inequities in outcomes for patients,” he said in an interview.

The program doesn’t shy away from the controversy, either, with a session provocatively titled, “Racism in Health Care: The Fuel That Lit the COVID-19 Fire.”

Keynote speaker Demondes Haynes, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine and associate dean of admissions at the University of Mississippi, Jackson, will speak on the importance of empathy in physician-patient communications and on ways to create a more diverse and inclusive workforce in medicine.
 

Beyond COVID-19

CHEST 2021 will include important information for sleep medicine physicians, including the latest news regarding an equipment recall affecting one of the two major manufacturers of continuous positive airway pressure devices.

“This has caused a lot of angst among sleep physicians and patients, and there are not enough devices to replace them,” Dr. Zielinski said.

“People who are on home ventilators are also affected by this recall,” Dr. Carroll added. “The population of patients who have sleep apnea is much greater than the population who are on home ventilators, but patients who are on home ventilators need it to save their lives.”

The meeting will include informative sessions summarizing U.S. and European asthma guidelines published over the past 2 years, as well as pending guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians on venous thromboembolism and lung cancer screening.

Additional topics of importance include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease, asthma management, acute respiratory failure in special populations, new therapies and strategies for treating tuberculosis, and many others.

There will be skill-polishing simulation sessions designed to help clinicians connect with experts in the field, update their knowledge, and sharpen their technique.
 

Fun and games

In addition to the serious subjects, CHEST 2021 attendees will have the chance to network with colleagues and friends and enjoy online games, including the 20th annual CHEST Challenge, which will pit teams of fellows-in-training from the Interfaith Medical Center, in Brooklyn, New York; the State University of New York, in Buffalo; and the Ohio State University Medical Center, in Columbus, in a Jeopardy!-style battle of wits and medical knowledge.

Close to 7,000 registrants from around the world took part in last year’s CHEST annual meeting, and a similar number is expected for this year’s edition, Dr. Carroll and Dr. Zielinski said.
 

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

A case report describes the dramatic shrinkage of a tumor to a quarter of its original size in a patient with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had declined conventional treatment, continued smoking, and who later revealed that she was ingesting cannabidiol (CBD) oil.

The patient was an 80-year-old woman.

At diagnosis, the tumor measured 41 mm, and there was no evidence of local or further spread. Hence, it was suitable for a standard treatment regimen of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, note the authors.

The patient declined conventional treatment. She underwent monitoring with regular CT scans every 3–6 months.

After 2.5 years, the CT scans showed that the tumor had shrunk to 10 mm.

The patient then disclosed that she had been ingesting CBD oil, which had been suggested to her by a family member. It was taken orally about two to three times a day.

Details of the case were published on October 14 in BMJ Case Reports.

“We are aware of the limitations of this case report,” write the authors, led by Kah Ling Liew, MD, of Watford General Hospital, Watford, United Kingdom.

“Although there appears to be a relationship between the intake of ‘CBD oil’ and the observed tumour regression, we are unable to conclusively confirm that the tumour regression is due to the patient taking ‘CBD oil,’ ” they comment.

The team also notes that there are similar case reports in the medical literature.

Both points were emphasized by experts reacting to the publication via the UK Science Media Center.

“This is one of many such promising single case reports of medical cannabis self-treatment for various cancers,” said David Nutt, DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, the Edmond J. Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, United Kingdom. “Such case reports are biologically credible given the adaptogenic nature of the endocannabinoid system.”

He noted that a “case report itself is not sufficient to give any form of proof that one thing caused the other -- we need trials for that. There are some controlled trials already started and more are required to properly explore the potential of medical cannabis in a range of cancers.”

Another expert, Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of complementary medicine, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, pointed out that in animal models, cannabinoids have reduced the size of prostate cancer tumors. “Previous case reports have yielded encouraging findings also in human cancers,” he noted. He too said that further study is needed.

“Case reports cannot be considered to be reliable evidence, and there are currently no data from rigorous clinical trials to suggest that cannabis products will alter the natural history of any cancer,”Dr. Ernst said.

Patient declined recommended treatment

The patient initially presented with a persistent cough that did not resolve with antibiotic therapy. She has a history of mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoarthritis, and hypertension. She is a current smoker with a 68 pack-year history of smoking. She has no history of alcohol consumption and is taking several prescription medications.

After an initial CT scan, she underwent a CT-guided lung biopsy and was diagnosed with NSCLC (TNM stage T2bN0Mx). Further analysis of the tumor tissue showed that it was negative for ALK and EGFR mutations. PDL1 was expressed by <1% of the tumor cells. No distant metastases were detected.

A subsequent CT scan revealed that the main tumor in her right middle lobe had shrunk from 41 mm to 33 mm. There were new bilateral upper lobe nodules, one in the left apex, which measured 4 mm, and one in right apex, which measured 6 mm.

The patient was referred to cardiothoracic surgeons for a possible lobectomy, but the patient declined to have surgery. She was then referred to the oncologists. She underwent repeat CT and positron-emission tomography (PET) scans, which showed that her cancer had continued to shrink. On CT, there was an 11-mm reduction, and on PET, an 18-mm reduction. The left apical nodule had resolved, and the right upper lobe nodule was reduced in size.

The patient was offered stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, but she declined this treatment. Because she had refused all standard therapies, a decision was made to “watch and wait.” The patient underwent regular CT surveillance.

Over the course of 2.5 years, the tumor continued to regress. By February 2021, it had shrunk to 10 mm, which represents an overall reduction of 76% in maximum axial diameter. The average rate of reduction was 2.4% per month throughout the monitoring period.

“This case was brought to the attention of the local lung MDT [multidisciplinary team] in February 2019 when the serial imaging showed a reduction in tumor size despite having received no conventional treatment for her lung cancer,” write the authors.

The patient was contacted to discuss her results. She revealed that she was using CBD oil and that she had started taking it in August 2018. No changes had been made in her prescription medications, diet, and lifestyle, and she continued to smoke a pack of cigarettes every week.

“I was not very interested in traditional cancer treatments,” the patient said, “as I was worried about the risks of surgery, and I saw my late husband suffer through the side effects of radiotherapy. My relative suggested that I should try ‘cannabidiol (CBD) oil’ to treat my cancer, and I have been taking it regularly ever since. I am ‘over the moon’ with my cancer shrinking, which I believe was caused by the ‘CBD oil’. I am tolerating it very well and I intend to take this treatment indefinitely.”

The source of the CBD oil was outside the United Kingdom. The main active ingredients, according to her supplier, were Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), at 19.5%, CBD, at 20.05%, and tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, at 23.8%.

“The product used by this patient reportedly contained high levels of THC (the intoxicating component of cannabis) and was sourced from outside the U.K.,” commented Tom Freeman, PhD, senior lecturer and director of the Addiction and Mental Health Group, University of Bath, United Kingdom. “This type of product is very different to most CBD oils, which predominantly contain CBD. Unlike prescribed medicines, CBD wellness products lack assurance of quality, safety, or efficacy and should not be used for medicinal purposes.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Nutt chairs the scientific committee of the charity Drug Science, which receives unrestricted educational grants from some medical cannabis companies. Dr. Ernst and Dr. Freeman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A case report describes the dramatic shrinkage of a tumor to a quarter of its original size in a patient with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had declined conventional treatment, continued smoking, and who later revealed that she was ingesting cannabidiol (CBD) oil.

The patient was an 80-year-old woman.

At diagnosis, the tumor measured 41 mm, and there was no evidence of local or further spread. Hence, it was suitable for a standard treatment regimen of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, note the authors.

The patient declined conventional treatment. She underwent monitoring with regular CT scans every 3–6 months.

After 2.5 years, the CT scans showed that the tumor had shrunk to 10 mm.

The patient then disclosed that she had been ingesting CBD oil, which had been suggested to her by a family member. It was taken orally about two to three times a day.

Details of the case were published on October 14 in BMJ Case Reports.

“We are aware of the limitations of this case report,” write the authors, led by Kah Ling Liew, MD, of Watford General Hospital, Watford, United Kingdom.

“Although there appears to be a relationship between the intake of ‘CBD oil’ and the observed tumour regression, we are unable to conclusively confirm that the tumour regression is due to the patient taking ‘CBD oil,’ ” they comment.

The team also notes that there are similar case reports in the medical literature.

Both points were emphasized by experts reacting to the publication via the UK Science Media Center.

“This is one of many such promising single case reports of medical cannabis self-treatment for various cancers,” said David Nutt, DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, the Edmond J. Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, United Kingdom. “Such case reports are biologically credible given the adaptogenic nature of the endocannabinoid system.”

He noted that a “case report itself is not sufficient to give any form of proof that one thing caused the other -- we need trials for that. There are some controlled trials already started and more are required to properly explore the potential of medical cannabis in a range of cancers.”

Another expert, Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of complementary medicine, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, pointed out that in animal models, cannabinoids have reduced the size of prostate cancer tumors. “Previous case reports have yielded encouraging findings also in human cancers,” he noted. He too said that further study is needed.

“Case reports cannot be considered to be reliable evidence, and there are currently no data from rigorous clinical trials to suggest that cannabis products will alter the natural history of any cancer,”Dr. Ernst said.

Patient declined recommended treatment

The patient initially presented with a persistent cough that did not resolve with antibiotic therapy. She has a history of mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoarthritis, and hypertension. She is a current smoker with a 68 pack-year history of smoking. She has no history of alcohol consumption and is taking several prescription medications.

After an initial CT scan, she underwent a CT-guided lung biopsy and was diagnosed with NSCLC (TNM stage T2bN0Mx). Further analysis of the tumor tissue showed that it was negative for ALK and EGFR mutations. PDL1 was expressed by <1% of the tumor cells. No distant metastases were detected.

A subsequent CT scan revealed that the main tumor in her right middle lobe had shrunk from 41 mm to 33 mm. There were new bilateral upper lobe nodules, one in the left apex, which measured 4 mm, and one in right apex, which measured 6 mm.

The patient was referred to cardiothoracic surgeons for a possible lobectomy, but the patient declined to have surgery. She was then referred to the oncologists. She underwent repeat CT and positron-emission tomography (PET) scans, which showed that her cancer had continued to shrink. On CT, there was an 11-mm reduction, and on PET, an 18-mm reduction. The left apical nodule had resolved, and the right upper lobe nodule was reduced in size.

The patient was offered stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, but she declined this treatment. Because she had refused all standard therapies, a decision was made to “watch and wait.” The patient underwent regular CT surveillance.

Over the course of 2.5 years, the tumor continued to regress. By February 2021, it had shrunk to 10 mm, which represents an overall reduction of 76% in maximum axial diameter. The average rate of reduction was 2.4% per month throughout the monitoring period.

“This case was brought to the attention of the local lung MDT [multidisciplinary team] in February 2019 when the serial imaging showed a reduction in tumor size despite having received no conventional treatment for her lung cancer,” write the authors.

The patient was contacted to discuss her results. She revealed that she was using CBD oil and that she had started taking it in August 2018. No changes had been made in her prescription medications, diet, and lifestyle, and she continued to smoke a pack of cigarettes every week.

“I was not very interested in traditional cancer treatments,” the patient said, “as I was worried about the risks of surgery, and I saw my late husband suffer through the side effects of radiotherapy. My relative suggested that I should try ‘cannabidiol (CBD) oil’ to treat my cancer, and I have been taking it regularly ever since. I am ‘over the moon’ with my cancer shrinking, which I believe was caused by the ‘CBD oil’. I am tolerating it very well and I intend to take this treatment indefinitely.”

The source of the CBD oil was outside the United Kingdom. The main active ingredients, according to her supplier, were Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), at 19.5%, CBD, at 20.05%, and tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, at 23.8%.

“The product used by this patient reportedly contained high levels of THC (the intoxicating component of cannabis) and was sourced from outside the U.K.,” commented Tom Freeman, PhD, senior lecturer and director of the Addiction and Mental Health Group, University of Bath, United Kingdom. “This type of product is very different to most CBD oils, which predominantly contain CBD. Unlike prescribed medicines, CBD wellness products lack assurance of quality, safety, or efficacy and should not be used for medicinal purposes.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Nutt chairs the scientific committee of the charity Drug Science, which receives unrestricted educational grants from some medical cannabis companies. Dr. Ernst and Dr. Freeman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A case report describes the dramatic shrinkage of a tumor to a quarter of its original size in a patient with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had declined conventional treatment, continued smoking, and who later revealed that she was ingesting cannabidiol (CBD) oil.

The patient was an 80-year-old woman.

At diagnosis, the tumor measured 41 mm, and there was no evidence of local or further spread. Hence, it was suitable for a standard treatment regimen of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, note the authors.

The patient declined conventional treatment. She underwent monitoring with regular CT scans every 3–6 months.

After 2.5 years, the CT scans showed that the tumor had shrunk to 10 mm.

The patient then disclosed that she had been ingesting CBD oil, which had been suggested to her by a family member. It was taken orally about two to three times a day.

Details of the case were published on October 14 in BMJ Case Reports.

“We are aware of the limitations of this case report,” write the authors, led by Kah Ling Liew, MD, of Watford General Hospital, Watford, United Kingdom.

“Although there appears to be a relationship between the intake of ‘CBD oil’ and the observed tumour regression, we are unable to conclusively confirm that the tumour regression is due to the patient taking ‘CBD oil,’ ” they comment.

The team also notes that there are similar case reports in the medical literature.

Both points were emphasized by experts reacting to the publication via the UK Science Media Center.

“This is one of many such promising single case reports of medical cannabis self-treatment for various cancers,” said David Nutt, DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, the Edmond J. Safra Chair in Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, United Kingdom. “Such case reports are biologically credible given the adaptogenic nature of the endocannabinoid system.”

He noted that a “case report itself is not sufficient to give any form of proof that one thing caused the other -- we need trials for that. There are some controlled trials already started and more are required to properly explore the potential of medical cannabis in a range of cancers.”

Another expert, Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of complementary medicine, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, pointed out that in animal models, cannabinoids have reduced the size of prostate cancer tumors. “Previous case reports have yielded encouraging findings also in human cancers,” he noted. He too said that further study is needed.

“Case reports cannot be considered to be reliable evidence, and there are currently no data from rigorous clinical trials to suggest that cannabis products will alter the natural history of any cancer,”Dr. Ernst said.

Patient declined recommended treatment

The patient initially presented with a persistent cough that did not resolve with antibiotic therapy. She has a history of mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoarthritis, and hypertension. She is a current smoker with a 68 pack-year history of smoking. She has no history of alcohol consumption and is taking several prescription medications.

After an initial CT scan, she underwent a CT-guided lung biopsy and was diagnosed with NSCLC (TNM stage T2bN0Mx). Further analysis of the tumor tissue showed that it was negative for ALK and EGFR mutations. PDL1 was expressed by <1% of the tumor cells. No distant metastases were detected.

A subsequent CT scan revealed that the main tumor in her right middle lobe had shrunk from 41 mm to 33 mm. There were new bilateral upper lobe nodules, one in the left apex, which measured 4 mm, and one in right apex, which measured 6 mm.

The patient was referred to cardiothoracic surgeons for a possible lobectomy, but the patient declined to have surgery. She was then referred to the oncologists. She underwent repeat CT and positron-emission tomography (PET) scans, which showed that her cancer had continued to shrink. On CT, there was an 11-mm reduction, and on PET, an 18-mm reduction. The left apical nodule had resolved, and the right upper lobe nodule was reduced in size.

The patient was offered stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, but she declined this treatment. Because she had refused all standard therapies, a decision was made to “watch and wait.” The patient underwent regular CT surveillance.

Over the course of 2.5 years, the tumor continued to regress. By February 2021, it had shrunk to 10 mm, which represents an overall reduction of 76% in maximum axial diameter. The average rate of reduction was 2.4% per month throughout the monitoring period.

“This case was brought to the attention of the local lung MDT [multidisciplinary team] in February 2019 when the serial imaging showed a reduction in tumor size despite having received no conventional treatment for her lung cancer,” write the authors.

The patient was contacted to discuss her results. She revealed that she was using CBD oil and that she had started taking it in August 2018. No changes had been made in her prescription medications, diet, and lifestyle, and she continued to smoke a pack of cigarettes every week.

“I was not very interested in traditional cancer treatments,” the patient said, “as I was worried about the risks of surgery, and I saw my late husband suffer through the side effects of radiotherapy. My relative suggested that I should try ‘cannabidiol (CBD) oil’ to treat my cancer, and I have been taking it regularly ever since. I am ‘over the moon’ with my cancer shrinking, which I believe was caused by the ‘CBD oil’. I am tolerating it very well and I intend to take this treatment indefinitely.”

The source of the CBD oil was outside the United Kingdom. The main active ingredients, according to her supplier, were Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), at 19.5%, CBD, at 20.05%, and tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, at 23.8%.

“The product used by this patient reportedly contained high levels of THC (the intoxicating component of cannabis) and was sourced from outside the U.K.,” commented Tom Freeman, PhD, senior lecturer and director of the Addiction and Mental Health Group, University of Bath, United Kingdom. “This type of product is very different to most CBD oils, which predominantly contain CBD. Unlike prescribed medicines, CBD wellness products lack assurance of quality, safety, or efficacy and should not be used for medicinal purposes.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Nutt chairs the scientific committee of the charity Drug Science, which receives unrestricted educational grants from some medical cannabis companies. Dr. Ernst and Dr. Freeman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Add-on treatment with dupilumab may improve lung function in children aged 6-11 years with uncontrolled moderate to severe type 2 inflammatory asthma, results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study show.

Improvements in lung function parameters were observed as early as 2 weeks and persisted over the 52-week treatment period among children in the LIBERTY ASTHMA VOYAGE study, according to investigator Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, of Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

“Dupilumab led to clinically meaningful rapid and sustained improvements in lung function parameters,” Dr. Bacharier said in an online poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

The improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and other measures reported for children with moderate to severe asthma who have the type 2 phenotype, which is the most common driver of pediatric asthma, according to Dr. Bacharier.

“Many children with moderate to severe asthma have abnormal lung function, and this can be a risk factor for future lung disease in adulthood,” Dr. Bacharier said in his presentation.
 

The VOYAGE continues

The findings presented at the meeting build on another report earlier this year from the LIBERTY ASTHMA VOYAGE study demonstrating that add-on dupilumab treatment led to a significant improvement versus placebo in FEV₁ up to 12 weeks.

“We now have a long term data on this drug as well, showing its efficacy over a period of time,” said Muhammad Adrish, MD, MBA, FCCP, associate professor of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“I think that’s pretty exciting, and that’s another step towards precision medicine in treatment of asthma,” Dr. Adrish, who is Vice-Chair of CHEST’s Airways Disorders NetWork Steering Committee and was not involved in the study.

Dupilumab received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2018 as add-on maintenance therapy for the treatment of patients aged 12 years or older with moderate to severe asthma that has an eosinophilic phenotype or that is dependent on oral corticosteroid treatment.

In March 2021, Sanofi and Regeneron announced that the FDA had accepted for review a supplemental Biologics License Application for dupilumab as an add-on treatment in children aged 6-11 years with uncontrolled moderate to severe asthma.

That sBLA is supported by data from the LIBERTY ASTHMA VOYAGE study, Sanofi and Regeneron said.

In results of the phase 3 study that Dr. Bacharier presented in May at the American Thoracic Society International Conference, add-on dupilumab dosed every 2 weeks significant improved percent predicted prebronchodilator FEV₁ by an additional 5.21 percentage points versus placebo at week 12.
 

Dupilumab and the type 2 phenotype

The new data reported at the CHEST meeting come from a prespecified analysis evaluating the impact of dupilumab on lung function over a 52-week treatment period in patients with a T2 inflammatory asthma phenotype.

“Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and -13, key and central drivers of T2 inflammation in multiple diseases,” Dr. Bacharier and coinvestigators reported in their study abstract.

Of 408 patients in the study, 350 met the T2 phenotype criteria, including 236 in the dupilumab arm and 114 in the placebo arm.

Patients met T2 phenotype criteria if they had blood eosinophils of at least 150 cells/mcL or fractional exhaled nitric oxide FeNO of at least 20 parts per billion at baseline, investigators said.

Dr. Bacharier and coinvestigators reported on several different endpoints, including absolute and percent predicted prebronchodilator FEV₁, percent predicted postbronchodilator FEV₁, prebronchodilator forced expiratory flow at 25%-75% of pulmonary volume (FEF_25%-75%), and forced vital capacity (FVC).

Dupilumab, when compared with placebo, significantly improved prebronchodilator FEV₁ in pediatric patients with uncontrolled moderate to severe type 2 asthma, according to Dr. Bacharier.

“Patients receiving dupilumab experienced rapid improvements by week 2, and this was sustained for up to 52 weeks,” he said.

The prebronchodilator FEV₁ improved from baseline for dupilumab versus placebo, with a least squares mean difference of 0.06 L at week 2, which reached 0.17 L by week 52, according to their data. Similarly, postbronchodilator FEV₁ improved from baseline for dupilumab, with a least square mean difference versus placebo of 0.09 L at week 52.

Dupilumab compared to placebo also significantly improved percent predicted FEF_25%-75%, and percent predicted FVC over the 52-week treatment period, according to Dr. Bacharier.

“Dupilumab led to significant, rapid, and sustained improvements in multiple aspects of lung function in children aged 6-11 years,” Dr. Bacharier added in a CHEST press release that described the findings.

The LIBERTY ASTHMA VOYAGE study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bacharier provided disclosures related to AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, CF Foundation, DBV Technologies, NIH, and Vectura.

Add-on treatment with dupilumab may improve lung function in children aged 6-11 years with uncontrolled moderate to severe type 2 inflammatory asthma, results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study show.

Improvements in lung function parameters were observed as early as 2 weeks and persisted over the 52-week treatment period among children in the LIBERTY ASTHMA VOYAGE study, according to investigator Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, of Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

“Dupilumab led to clinically meaningful rapid and sustained improvements in lung function parameters,” Dr. Bacharier said in an online poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

The improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and other measures reported for children with moderate to severe asthma who have the type 2 phenotype, which is the most common driver of pediatric asthma, according to Dr. Bacharier.

“Many children with moderate to severe asthma have abnormal lung function, and this can be a risk factor for future lung disease in adulthood,” Dr. Bacharier said in his presentation.
 

The VOYAGE continues

The findings presented at the meeting build on another report earlier this year from the LIBERTY ASTHMA VOYAGE study demonstrating that add-on dupilumab treatment led to a significant improvement versus placebo in FEV₁ up to 12 weeks.

“We now have a long term data on this drug as well, showing its efficacy over a period of time,” said Muhammad Adrish, MD, MBA, FCCP, associate professor of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“I think that’s pretty exciting, and that’s another step towards precision medicine in treatment of asthma,” Dr. Adrish, who is Vice-Chair of CHEST’s Airways Disorders NetWork Steering Committee and was not involved in the study.

Dupilumab received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2018 as add-on maintenance therapy for the treatment of patients aged 12 years or older with moderate to severe asthma that has an eosinophilic phenotype or that is dependent on oral corticosteroid treatment.

In March 2021, Sanofi and Regeneron announced that the FDA had accepted for review a supplemental Biologics License Application for dupilumab as an add-on treatment in children aged 6-11 years with uncontrolled moderate to severe asthma.

That sBLA is supported by data from the LIBERTY ASTHMA VOYAGE study, Sanofi and Regeneron said.

In results of the phase 3 study that Dr. Bacharier presented in May at the American Thoracic Society International Conference, add-on dupilumab dosed every 2 weeks significant improved percent predicted prebronchodilator FEV₁ by an additional 5.21 percentage points versus placebo at week 12.
 

Dupilumab and the type 2 phenotype

The new data reported at the CHEST meeting come from a prespecified analysis evaluating the impact of dupilumab on lung function over a 52-week treatment period in patients with a T2 inflammatory asthma phenotype.

“Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and -13, key and central drivers of T2 inflammation in multiple diseases,” Dr. Bacharier and coinvestigators reported in their study abstract.

Of 408 patients in the study, 350 met the T2 phenotype criteria, including 236 in the dupilumab arm and 114 in the placebo arm.

Patients met T2 phenotype criteria if they had blood eosinophils of at least 150 cells/mcL or fractional exhaled nitric oxide FeNO of at least 20 parts per billion at baseline, investigators said.

Dr. Bacharier and coinvestigators reported on several different endpoints, including absolute and percent predicted prebronchodilator FEV₁, percent predicted postbronchodilator FEV₁, prebronchodilator forced expiratory flow at 25%-75% of pulmonary volume (FEF_25%-75%), and forced vital capacity (FVC).

Dupilumab, when compared with placebo, significantly improved prebronchodilator FEV₁ in pediatric patients with uncontrolled moderate to severe type 2 asthma, according to Dr. Bacharier.

“Patients receiving dupilumab experienced rapid improvements by week 2, and this was sustained for up to 52 weeks,” he said.

The prebronchodilator FEV₁ improved from baseline for dupilumab versus placebo, with a least squares mean difference of 0.06 L at week 2, which reached 0.17 L by week 52, according to their data. Similarly, postbronchodilator FEV₁ improved from baseline for dupilumab, with a least square mean difference versus placebo of 0.09 L at week 52.

Dupilumab compared to placebo also significantly improved percent predicted FEF_25%-75%, and percent predicted FVC over the 52-week treatment period, according to Dr. Bacharier.

“Dupilumab led to significant, rapid, and sustained improvements in multiple aspects of lung function in children aged 6-11 years,” Dr. Bacharier added in a CHEST press release that described the findings.

The LIBERTY ASTHMA VOYAGE study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bacharier provided disclosures related to AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, CF Foundation, DBV Technologies, NIH, and Vectura.

Add-on treatment with dupilumab may improve lung function in children aged 6-11 years with uncontrolled moderate to severe type 2 inflammatory asthma, results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study show.

Improvements in lung function parameters were observed as early as 2 weeks and persisted over the 52-week treatment period among children in the LIBERTY ASTHMA VOYAGE study, according to investigator Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, of Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

“Dupilumab led to clinically meaningful rapid and sustained improvements in lung function parameters,” Dr. Bacharier said in an online poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

The improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and other measures reported for children with moderate to severe asthma who have the type 2 phenotype, which is the most common driver of pediatric asthma, according to Dr. Bacharier.

“Many children with moderate to severe asthma have abnormal lung function, and this can be a risk factor for future lung disease in adulthood,” Dr. Bacharier said in his presentation.
 

The VOYAGE continues

The findings presented at the meeting build on another report earlier this year from the LIBERTY ASTHMA VOYAGE study demonstrating that add-on dupilumab treatment led to a significant improvement versus placebo in FEV₁ up to 12 weeks.

“We now have a long term data on this drug as well, showing its efficacy over a period of time,” said Muhammad Adrish, MD, MBA, FCCP, associate professor of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“I think that’s pretty exciting, and that’s another step towards precision medicine in treatment of asthma,” Dr. Adrish, who is Vice-Chair of CHEST’s Airways Disorders NetWork Steering Committee and was not involved in the study.

Dupilumab received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2018 as add-on maintenance therapy for the treatment of patients aged 12 years or older with moderate to severe asthma that has an eosinophilic phenotype or that is dependent on oral corticosteroid treatment.

In March 2021, Sanofi and Regeneron announced that the FDA had accepted for review a supplemental Biologics License Application for dupilumab as an add-on treatment in children aged 6-11 years with uncontrolled moderate to severe asthma.

That sBLA is supported by data from the LIBERTY ASTHMA VOYAGE study, Sanofi and Regeneron said.

In results of the phase 3 study that Dr. Bacharier presented in May at the American Thoracic Society International Conference, add-on dupilumab dosed every 2 weeks significant improved percent predicted prebronchodilator FEV₁ by an additional 5.21 percentage points versus placebo at week 12.
 

Dupilumab and the type 2 phenotype

The new data reported at the CHEST meeting come from a prespecified analysis evaluating the impact of dupilumab on lung function over a 52-week treatment period in patients with a T2 inflammatory asthma phenotype.

“Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and -13, key and central drivers of T2 inflammation in multiple diseases,” Dr. Bacharier and coinvestigators reported in their study abstract.

Of 408 patients in the study, 350 met the T2 phenotype criteria, including 236 in the dupilumab arm and 114 in the placebo arm.

Patients met T2 phenotype criteria if they had blood eosinophils of at least 150 cells/mcL or fractional exhaled nitric oxide FeNO of at least 20 parts per billion at baseline, investigators said.

Dr. Bacharier and coinvestigators reported on several different endpoints, including absolute and percent predicted prebronchodilator FEV₁, percent predicted postbronchodilator FEV₁, prebronchodilator forced expiratory flow at 25%-75% of pulmonary volume (FEF_25%-75%), and forced vital capacity (FVC).

Dupilumab, when compared with placebo, significantly improved prebronchodilator FEV₁ in pediatric patients with uncontrolled moderate to severe type 2 asthma, according to Dr. Bacharier.

“Patients receiving dupilumab experienced rapid improvements by week 2, and this was sustained for up to 52 weeks,” he said.

The prebronchodilator FEV₁ improved from baseline for dupilumab versus placebo, with a least squares mean difference of 0.06 L at week 2, which reached 0.17 L by week 52, according to their data. Similarly, postbronchodilator FEV₁ improved from baseline for dupilumab, with a least square mean difference versus placebo of 0.09 L at week 52.

Dupilumab compared to placebo also significantly improved percent predicted FEF_25%-75%, and percent predicted FVC over the 52-week treatment period, according to Dr. Bacharier.

“Dupilumab led to significant, rapid, and sustained improvements in multiple aspects of lung function in children aged 6-11 years,” Dr. Bacharier added in a CHEST press release that described the findings.

The LIBERTY ASTHMA VOYAGE study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bacharier provided disclosures related to AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, CF Foundation, DBV Technologies, NIH, and Vectura.

Physician employment contracts include some new dangers. This includes physicians taking a new job, but it also includes already-employed doctors who are being asked to resign a new contract that contains new conditions. A number of these new clauses have arisen because of COVID-19. When the pandemic dramatically reduced patient flow, many employers didn’t have enough money to pay doctors and didn’t always have physicians in the right location or practice setting.

Vowing this would never happen again, some employers have rewritten their physician contracts to make it easier to reassign and terminate physicians.

Here are 12 potential land mines in a physician employment contract, some of which were added as a result of the pandemic.
 

You could be immediately terminated without notice

One outcome of the pandemic is the growing use of “force majeure” clauses, which give the employer the right to reduce your compensation or even terminate you due to a natural disaster, which could include COVID.

“COVID made employers aware of the potential impact of disasters on their operations,” said Dan Shay, a health law attorney at Alice Gosfield & Associates in Philadelphia. “Therefore, even as the threat of COVID abates in many places, employers are continuing to put this provision in the contract.”

What can you do? “One way to get some protection is to rule out a termination without cause in the first year,” said Michael A. Cassidy, a physician contract attorney at Tucker Arensberg in Pittsburgh.

The force majeure clause is less likely to affect salary, but could impact bonus and incentive tied to performance. It’s wise to try to specifically limit how much the force majeure could reduce pay tied to performance, and to be prepared to negotiate that aspect of your contract.
 

No protections if you’re let go through no fault of your own

You could lose your job if your employer could not generate enough business and has to let some doctors go. This happened quite often in the early days of the COVID pandemic.

In these situations, the doctor has not done anything wrong to prompt the termination, but the restrictive covenant may still apply, meaning that the doctor would have to leave the area to find work.

What can you do? You’re in a good position to get this changed, said Christopher L. Nuland, a solo physician contract attorney in Jacksonville, Fla. “Many employers recognize that it would be draconian to require a restrictive covenant in this case, and they will agree to modify this provision.”

Similarly, the employer may not cover your tail insurance even if you were let go from your work through no fault of your own. Most malpractice policies for employer physicians require buying an extra policy, called a tail, if you leave. In some cases, the employer won’t provide a tail and will make the departing doctor buy it.

In these cases, “try for a compromise, such as stipulating that the party that caused the termination should pay for the tail,” Mr. Nuland said. “The employer may not agree to anything more than that because they want to set up a disincentive against you leaving.”
 

Employer could unilaterally alter your compensation

Many recent contracts give the employer the option to unilaterally modify compensation, such as changing the base salary or raising the target required for meeting the productivity bonus, said Ericka L. Adler, a physician contract attorney at Roetzel & Andress in Chicago.

Ms. Adler thought this change could have been prompted by employers’ financial problems during the pandemic. In the early months of COVID, many physicians were not making much money for the employer but still had to be paid. So employers added a clause saying they could reduce compensation at any time, she said.

What can you do? Harsh provisions like this often come up in contracts with private equity firms, Mr. Cassidy said. “The contract might say the employer can adjust compensation or even terminate physicians based on productivity or their profitability. And it may say that if they reassign you to a new location and you refuse, they can terminate you.”

“If you can’t get these clauses removed, try to reduce the impact of a termination by providing longer notice periods or by inserting a severance agreement,” Mr. Cassidy said.
 

Accelerating notice for without-cause terminations

Physicians who are convicted of a felony or other moral issue can usually be terminated immediately. But if you are terminated for other reasons – that is, “without cause” – you are given notice at a certain number of days before you have to leave (typically 60-90 days), so that you have time to find a new job.

Some recent contracts, however, allow for very little notice in without-cause terminations, which allows the employer to fire you in as little as 0 days after providing notice, Ms. Adler said.

“This means that, even if 90 days’ notice is provided in the contract, the employer can decide that your last day will be an earlier date,” she said.

Why is this happening? Ms. Adler said employers want to begin reallocating resources and patients as soon as possible. The problem came to employers’ attention during the COVID pandemic, when they were contractually forced to pay doctors for doing little or nothing during the notice period.

What can you do? Possibly not much, other than attempt to negotiate. “Large employers typically don’t want to drop this provision, but at the least, the doctor needs to understand the risk it creates for them,” she said.
 

You could be assigned to far-off locations

As patient care needs changed dramatically during the pandemic, employers needed to reassign doctors to new locations.

Some new contracts allow employers to simply inform the doctor that they are changing the work location. However, “you don’t want to be assigned to a new work location that is 50 miles away,” Mr. Nuland said.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended adding new language saying that, if the new assignment is more than 20 miles away, both parties would have to approve it.

You could end up working too many off-hours

“Most employers won’t issue a specific work schedule,” Mr. Nuland said. “They want the flexibility to assign evening or weekend work, and it would be difficult for a young doctor to change this.”

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended trying to set some limits. “You can try to limit off-hours work to two times a month or something like that,” she said. And if you need to have a special schedule, such as not working on Fridays, Adler advises that this should be put into the contract.

If you can’t get anything changed in the contract, Mr. Nuland said the next-best thing is to ask employers to tell you specifically what they plan to do with you. “Most employers will give you an informal idea of what’s expected – maybe not an exact schedule, but it’s quite likely they will honor it.”
 

You wouldn’t be able to work nearby if you left the job

Most contracts have a noncompete clause, also known as a “restrictive covenant,” which prevents employed physicians from working in the area if they left the job.

“Almost every doctor I represent has told me that they’re not concerned about the noncompete clause because, they believe, it is not enforceable anyway,” Ms. Adler said. “This is incorrect.”

Mr. Nuland said the faster pace of job-changing during the pandemic makes it all the more likely that doctors have to deal with a restrictive covenant. At the same time, some employers have been expanding the restriction – either by enlarging the radius where the restriction applies or by making the restriction apply to each of their sites, so that each one has a restricted radius around it.

For example, one contract Mr. Nuland is currently reviewing has a 20-mile radius that in effect becomes a 120-mile radius because the employer is counting four offices.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland advised trying to reduce the impact of the noncompete – for instance, making it apply only to the offices where you worked, or trading more time for less distance. “If you have a 2-year, 20-mile restriction, ask for a 3-year, 10-mile restriction, where the radius could be easier to deal with,” he said.
 

You might end up with too much call

Contracts rarely detail your call schedule because employers want flexibility to expand call as patient care needs change, but you can try adding some specificity, said Sanja Ord, a physician contract attorney at Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale in St. Louis.

Contracts often use wide-open language to describe call, such as simply making it “subject to the house call policies,” Mr. Cassidy said. Language that is more beneficial to the physician would say that call must be “equal” among “similarly situated” physicians.

But Ms. Ord said even provisions for equal call can turn out to be onerous if there are too few doctors in the call roster, so it’s a good idea to find out just how many doctors will be participating in call.

Still, Adler said even that strategy can’t remove all risk. What happens, she asked, if several physicians participating in call decide to leave? Then you might end up with call every other night.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy recommends specifying a maximum amount of call – for example, no more frequent than one in four nights.
 

Physician must pay for reimbursement claw-backs by payers

When auditors for Medicare or other payers find overpayments after the fact, called a ‘claw-back,’ the provider must pay them back. But which provider has to do that – you or your employer?

In many cases, your employer’s billing office may have introduced the error, but there may be a clause in the contract stating that the physician is solely responsible for all claw-backs. That could be costly.

What can you do? Mr. Shay said the clause should state that you have to pay only when it is the result of your own error or omission, and also not when it was made at the direction of the employer.
 

Some work may be outside of your subspecialty

In some cases, the employer may assign subspecialized doctors to work outside their subspecialty, Mr. Nuland said.

For example, he said he represented an endocrinologist who expected to see only diabetes patients but was assigned to some general internal medicine work as well, and an otolaryngologist client of his who completed a fellowship on facial plastic surgery was expected to do liposuction in a cosmetic surgery group.

What can you do? To prevent this from happening, Mr. Nuland recommends a clause stating that your work will be restricted to your subspecialty.

What the employer promised isn’t in the contract

“Beware of promises that are not in the contract,” Mr. Shay said. “You might feel you can really trust your new boss and what he tells you, but what if that person resigns, or the organization gets a new owner who doesn’t honor unwritten agreements?”

Many contracts have an integration clause, which specifies that the contract constitutes the complete agreement between the two parties, and it nullifies any other oral or written promises made to the physician.

For example, the employer might have promised a relocation bonus and a sign-on bonus, but for some reason it didn’t get into the contract, Ms. Ord said. In those cases, the employer is under no obligation to honor the promise.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy said it is possible to hold the employer to a commitment made outside the contract. The alternative document, such as an offer letter, has to specifically state that the commitment is protected from the integration clause in the contract, he said, adding: “It is still better to have the commitment put into the contract.”
 

Contract is simply accepted as is

“Generally, the bigger the employer, the less likely they will alter an agreement just to make you happy,” Mr. Shay said.

But even in these contracts, he said there is still opportunity to fix errors and ambiguities that could harm you later – or even alter a provision if you can’t remove it outright.

The back-and-forth is important, Ms. Adler said. “Negotiation means trying to have some control over your job and your life.”

Mr. Cassidy said a big part of contract review is facing up to the possibility that you may have to resign or be let go.

“Many physicians don’t like to think about leaving when they’re just starting a job, but they need to,” he said. “You need to begin with the end in mind. Think about what would happen if this job didn’t work out.”

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

Physician employment contracts include some new dangers. This includes physicians taking a new job, but it also includes already-employed doctors who are being asked to resign a new contract that contains new conditions. A number of these new clauses have arisen because of COVID-19. When the pandemic dramatically reduced patient flow, many employers didn’t have enough money to pay doctors and didn’t always have physicians in the right location or practice setting.

Vowing this would never happen again, some employers have rewritten their physician contracts to make it easier to reassign and terminate physicians.

Here are 12 potential land mines in a physician employment contract, some of which were added as a result of the pandemic.
 

You could be immediately terminated without notice

One outcome of the pandemic is the growing use of “force majeure” clauses, which give the employer the right to reduce your compensation or even terminate you due to a natural disaster, which could include COVID.

“COVID made employers aware of the potential impact of disasters on their operations,” said Dan Shay, a health law attorney at Alice Gosfield & Associates in Philadelphia. “Therefore, even as the threat of COVID abates in many places, employers are continuing to put this provision in the contract.”

What can you do? “One way to get some protection is to rule out a termination without cause in the first year,” said Michael A. Cassidy, a physician contract attorney at Tucker Arensberg in Pittsburgh.

The force majeure clause is less likely to affect salary, but could impact bonus and incentive tied to performance. It’s wise to try to specifically limit how much the force majeure could reduce pay tied to performance, and to be prepared to negotiate that aspect of your contract.
 

No protections if you’re let go through no fault of your own

You could lose your job if your employer could not generate enough business and has to let some doctors go. This happened quite often in the early days of the COVID pandemic.

In these situations, the doctor has not done anything wrong to prompt the termination, but the restrictive covenant may still apply, meaning that the doctor would have to leave the area to find work.

What can you do? You’re in a good position to get this changed, said Christopher L. Nuland, a solo physician contract attorney in Jacksonville, Fla. “Many employers recognize that it would be draconian to require a restrictive covenant in this case, and they will agree to modify this provision.”

Similarly, the employer may not cover your tail insurance even if you were let go from your work through no fault of your own. Most malpractice policies for employer physicians require buying an extra policy, called a tail, if you leave. In some cases, the employer won’t provide a tail and will make the departing doctor buy it.

In these cases, “try for a compromise, such as stipulating that the party that caused the termination should pay for the tail,” Mr. Nuland said. “The employer may not agree to anything more than that because they want to set up a disincentive against you leaving.”
 

Employer could unilaterally alter your compensation

Many recent contracts give the employer the option to unilaterally modify compensation, such as changing the base salary or raising the target required for meeting the productivity bonus, said Ericka L. Adler, a physician contract attorney at Roetzel & Andress in Chicago.

Ms. Adler thought this change could have been prompted by employers’ financial problems during the pandemic. In the early months of COVID, many physicians were not making much money for the employer but still had to be paid. So employers added a clause saying they could reduce compensation at any time, she said.

What can you do? Harsh provisions like this often come up in contracts with private equity firms, Mr. Cassidy said. “The contract might say the employer can adjust compensation or even terminate physicians based on productivity or their profitability. And it may say that if they reassign you to a new location and you refuse, they can terminate you.”

“If you can’t get these clauses removed, try to reduce the impact of a termination by providing longer notice periods or by inserting a severance agreement,” Mr. Cassidy said.
 

Accelerating notice for without-cause terminations

Physicians who are convicted of a felony or other moral issue can usually be terminated immediately. But if you are terminated for other reasons – that is, “without cause” – you are given notice at a certain number of days before you have to leave (typically 60-90 days), so that you have time to find a new job.

Some recent contracts, however, allow for very little notice in without-cause terminations, which allows the employer to fire you in as little as 0 days after providing notice, Ms. Adler said.

“This means that, even if 90 days’ notice is provided in the contract, the employer can decide that your last day will be an earlier date,” she said.

Why is this happening? Ms. Adler said employers want to begin reallocating resources and patients as soon as possible. The problem came to employers’ attention during the COVID pandemic, when they were contractually forced to pay doctors for doing little or nothing during the notice period.

What can you do? Possibly not much, other than attempt to negotiate. “Large employers typically don’t want to drop this provision, but at the least, the doctor needs to understand the risk it creates for them,” she said.
 

You could be assigned to far-off locations

As patient care needs changed dramatically during the pandemic, employers needed to reassign doctors to new locations.

Some new contracts allow employers to simply inform the doctor that they are changing the work location. However, “you don’t want to be assigned to a new work location that is 50 miles away,” Mr. Nuland said.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended adding new language saying that, if the new assignment is more than 20 miles away, both parties would have to approve it.

You could end up working too many off-hours

“Most employers won’t issue a specific work schedule,” Mr. Nuland said. “They want the flexibility to assign evening or weekend work, and it would be difficult for a young doctor to change this.”

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended trying to set some limits. “You can try to limit off-hours work to two times a month or something like that,” she said. And if you need to have a special schedule, such as not working on Fridays, Adler advises that this should be put into the contract.

If you can’t get anything changed in the contract, Mr. Nuland said the next-best thing is to ask employers to tell you specifically what they plan to do with you. “Most employers will give you an informal idea of what’s expected – maybe not an exact schedule, but it’s quite likely they will honor it.”
 

You wouldn’t be able to work nearby if you left the job

Most contracts have a noncompete clause, also known as a “restrictive covenant,” which prevents employed physicians from working in the area if they left the job.

“Almost every doctor I represent has told me that they’re not concerned about the noncompete clause because, they believe, it is not enforceable anyway,” Ms. Adler said. “This is incorrect.”

Mr. Nuland said the faster pace of job-changing during the pandemic makes it all the more likely that doctors have to deal with a restrictive covenant. At the same time, some employers have been expanding the restriction – either by enlarging the radius where the restriction applies or by making the restriction apply to each of their sites, so that each one has a restricted radius around it.

For example, one contract Mr. Nuland is currently reviewing has a 20-mile radius that in effect becomes a 120-mile radius because the employer is counting four offices.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland advised trying to reduce the impact of the noncompete – for instance, making it apply only to the offices where you worked, or trading more time for less distance. “If you have a 2-year, 20-mile restriction, ask for a 3-year, 10-mile restriction, where the radius could be easier to deal with,” he said.
 

You might end up with too much call

Contracts rarely detail your call schedule because employers want flexibility to expand call as patient care needs change, but you can try adding some specificity, said Sanja Ord, a physician contract attorney at Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale in St. Louis.

Contracts often use wide-open language to describe call, such as simply making it “subject to the house call policies,” Mr. Cassidy said. Language that is more beneficial to the physician would say that call must be “equal” among “similarly situated” physicians.

But Ms. Ord said even provisions for equal call can turn out to be onerous if there are too few doctors in the call roster, so it’s a good idea to find out just how many doctors will be participating in call.

Still, Adler said even that strategy can’t remove all risk. What happens, she asked, if several physicians participating in call decide to leave? Then you might end up with call every other night.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy recommends specifying a maximum amount of call – for example, no more frequent than one in four nights.
 

Physician must pay for reimbursement claw-backs by payers

When auditors for Medicare or other payers find overpayments after the fact, called a ‘claw-back,’ the provider must pay them back. But which provider has to do that – you or your employer?

In many cases, your employer’s billing office may have introduced the error, but there may be a clause in the contract stating that the physician is solely responsible for all claw-backs. That could be costly.

What can you do? Mr. Shay said the clause should state that you have to pay only when it is the result of your own error or omission, and also not when it was made at the direction of the employer.
 

Some work may be outside of your subspecialty

In some cases, the employer may assign subspecialized doctors to work outside their subspecialty, Mr. Nuland said.

For example, he said he represented an endocrinologist who expected to see only diabetes patients but was assigned to some general internal medicine work as well, and an otolaryngologist client of his who completed a fellowship on facial plastic surgery was expected to do liposuction in a cosmetic surgery group.

What can you do? To prevent this from happening, Mr. Nuland recommends a clause stating that your work will be restricted to your subspecialty.

What the employer promised isn’t in the contract

“Beware of promises that are not in the contract,” Mr. Shay said. “You might feel you can really trust your new boss and what he tells you, but what if that person resigns, or the organization gets a new owner who doesn’t honor unwritten agreements?”

Many contracts have an integration clause, which specifies that the contract constitutes the complete agreement between the two parties, and it nullifies any other oral or written promises made to the physician.

For example, the employer might have promised a relocation bonus and a sign-on bonus, but for some reason it didn’t get into the contract, Ms. Ord said. In those cases, the employer is under no obligation to honor the promise.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy said it is possible to hold the employer to a commitment made outside the contract. The alternative document, such as an offer letter, has to specifically state that the commitment is protected from the integration clause in the contract, he said, adding: “It is still better to have the commitment put into the contract.”
 

Contract is simply accepted as is

“Generally, the bigger the employer, the less likely they will alter an agreement just to make you happy,” Mr. Shay said.

But even in these contracts, he said there is still opportunity to fix errors and ambiguities that could harm you later – or even alter a provision if you can’t remove it outright.

The back-and-forth is important, Ms. Adler said. “Negotiation means trying to have some control over your job and your life.”

Mr. Cassidy said a big part of contract review is facing up to the possibility that you may have to resign or be let go.

“Many physicians don’t like to think about leaving when they’re just starting a job, but they need to,” he said. “You need to begin with the end in mind. Think about what would happen if this job didn’t work out.”

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

Physician employment contracts include some new dangers. This includes physicians taking a new job, but it also includes already-employed doctors who are being asked to resign a new contract that contains new conditions. A number of these new clauses have arisen because of COVID-19. When the pandemic dramatically reduced patient flow, many employers didn’t have enough money to pay doctors and didn’t always have physicians in the right location or practice setting.

Vowing this would never happen again, some employers have rewritten their physician contracts to make it easier to reassign and terminate physicians.

Here are 12 potential land mines in a physician employment contract, some of which were added as a result of the pandemic.
 

You could be immediately terminated without notice

One outcome of the pandemic is the growing use of “force majeure” clauses, which give the employer the right to reduce your compensation or even terminate you due to a natural disaster, which could include COVID.

“COVID made employers aware of the potential impact of disasters on their operations,” said Dan Shay, a health law attorney at Alice Gosfield & Associates in Philadelphia. “Therefore, even as the threat of COVID abates in many places, employers are continuing to put this provision in the contract.”

What can you do? “One way to get some protection is to rule out a termination without cause in the first year,” said Michael A. Cassidy, a physician contract attorney at Tucker Arensberg in Pittsburgh.

The force majeure clause is less likely to affect salary, but could impact bonus and incentive tied to performance. It’s wise to try to specifically limit how much the force majeure could reduce pay tied to performance, and to be prepared to negotiate that aspect of your contract.
 

No protections if you’re let go through no fault of your own

You could lose your job if your employer could not generate enough business and has to let some doctors go. This happened quite often in the early days of the COVID pandemic.

In these situations, the doctor has not done anything wrong to prompt the termination, but the restrictive covenant may still apply, meaning that the doctor would have to leave the area to find work.

What can you do? You’re in a good position to get this changed, said Christopher L. Nuland, a solo physician contract attorney in Jacksonville, Fla. “Many employers recognize that it would be draconian to require a restrictive covenant in this case, and they will agree to modify this provision.”

Similarly, the employer may not cover your tail insurance even if you were let go from your work through no fault of your own. Most malpractice policies for employer physicians require buying an extra policy, called a tail, if you leave. In some cases, the employer won’t provide a tail and will make the departing doctor buy it.

In these cases, “try for a compromise, such as stipulating that the party that caused the termination should pay for the tail,” Mr. Nuland said. “The employer may not agree to anything more than that because they want to set up a disincentive against you leaving.”
 

Employer could unilaterally alter your compensation

Many recent contracts give the employer the option to unilaterally modify compensation, such as changing the base salary or raising the target required for meeting the productivity bonus, said Ericka L. Adler, a physician contract attorney at Roetzel & Andress in Chicago.

Ms. Adler thought this change could have been prompted by employers’ financial problems during the pandemic. In the early months of COVID, many physicians were not making much money for the employer but still had to be paid. So employers added a clause saying they could reduce compensation at any time, she said.

What can you do? Harsh provisions like this often come up in contracts with private equity firms, Mr. Cassidy said. “The contract might say the employer can adjust compensation or even terminate physicians based on productivity or their profitability. And it may say that if they reassign you to a new location and you refuse, they can terminate you.”

“If you can’t get these clauses removed, try to reduce the impact of a termination by providing longer notice periods or by inserting a severance agreement,” Mr. Cassidy said.
 

Accelerating notice for without-cause terminations

Physicians who are convicted of a felony or other moral issue can usually be terminated immediately. But if you are terminated for other reasons – that is, “without cause” – you are given notice at a certain number of days before you have to leave (typically 60-90 days), so that you have time to find a new job.

Some recent contracts, however, allow for very little notice in without-cause terminations, which allows the employer to fire you in as little as 0 days after providing notice, Ms. Adler said.

“This means that, even if 90 days’ notice is provided in the contract, the employer can decide that your last day will be an earlier date,” she said.

Why is this happening? Ms. Adler said employers want to begin reallocating resources and patients as soon as possible. The problem came to employers’ attention during the COVID pandemic, when they were contractually forced to pay doctors for doing little or nothing during the notice period.

What can you do? Possibly not much, other than attempt to negotiate. “Large employers typically don’t want to drop this provision, but at the least, the doctor needs to understand the risk it creates for them,” she said.
 

You could be assigned to far-off locations

As patient care needs changed dramatically during the pandemic, employers needed to reassign doctors to new locations.

Some new contracts allow employers to simply inform the doctor that they are changing the work location. However, “you don’t want to be assigned to a new work location that is 50 miles away,” Mr. Nuland said.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended adding new language saying that, if the new assignment is more than 20 miles away, both parties would have to approve it.

You could end up working too many off-hours

“Most employers won’t issue a specific work schedule,” Mr. Nuland said. “They want the flexibility to assign evening or weekend work, and it would be difficult for a young doctor to change this.”

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended trying to set some limits. “You can try to limit off-hours work to two times a month or something like that,” she said. And if you need to have a special schedule, such as not working on Fridays, Adler advises that this should be put into the contract.

If you can’t get anything changed in the contract, Mr. Nuland said the next-best thing is to ask employers to tell you specifically what they plan to do with you. “Most employers will give you an informal idea of what’s expected – maybe not an exact schedule, but it’s quite likely they will honor it.”
 

You wouldn’t be able to work nearby if you left the job

Most contracts have a noncompete clause, also known as a “restrictive covenant,” which prevents employed physicians from working in the area if they left the job.

“Almost every doctor I represent has told me that they’re not concerned about the noncompete clause because, they believe, it is not enforceable anyway,” Ms. Adler said. “This is incorrect.”

Mr. Nuland said the faster pace of job-changing during the pandemic makes it all the more likely that doctors have to deal with a restrictive covenant. At the same time, some employers have been expanding the restriction – either by enlarging the radius where the restriction applies or by making the restriction apply to each of their sites, so that each one has a restricted radius around it.

For example, one contract Mr. Nuland is currently reviewing has a 20-mile radius that in effect becomes a 120-mile radius because the employer is counting four offices.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland advised trying to reduce the impact of the noncompete – for instance, making it apply only to the offices where you worked, or trading more time for less distance. “If you have a 2-year, 20-mile restriction, ask for a 3-year, 10-mile restriction, where the radius could be easier to deal with,” he said.
 

You might end up with too much call

Contracts rarely detail your call schedule because employers want flexibility to expand call as patient care needs change, but you can try adding some specificity, said Sanja Ord, a physician contract attorney at Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale in St. Louis.

Contracts often use wide-open language to describe call, such as simply making it “subject to the house call policies,” Mr. Cassidy said. Language that is more beneficial to the physician would say that call must be “equal” among “similarly situated” physicians.

But Ms. Ord said even provisions for equal call can turn out to be onerous if there are too few doctors in the call roster, so it’s a good idea to find out just how many doctors will be participating in call.

Still, Adler said even that strategy can’t remove all risk. What happens, she asked, if several physicians participating in call decide to leave? Then you might end up with call every other night.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy recommends specifying a maximum amount of call – for example, no more frequent than one in four nights.
 

Physician must pay for reimbursement claw-backs by payers

When auditors for Medicare or other payers find overpayments after the fact, called a ‘claw-back,’ the provider must pay them back. But which provider has to do that – you or your employer?

In many cases, your employer’s billing office may have introduced the error, but there may be a clause in the contract stating that the physician is solely responsible for all claw-backs. That could be costly.

What can you do? Mr. Shay said the clause should state that you have to pay only when it is the result of your own error or omission, and also not when it was made at the direction of the employer.
 

Some work may be outside of your subspecialty

In some cases, the employer may assign subspecialized doctors to work outside their subspecialty, Mr. Nuland said.

For example, he said he represented an endocrinologist who expected to see only diabetes patients but was assigned to some general internal medicine work as well, and an otolaryngologist client of his who completed a fellowship on facial plastic surgery was expected to do liposuction in a cosmetic surgery group.

What can you do? To prevent this from happening, Mr. Nuland recommends a clause stating that your work will be restricted to your subspecialty.

What the employer promised isn’t in the contract

“Beware of promises that are not in the contract,” Mr. Shay said. “You might feel you can really trust your new boss and what he tells you, but what if that person resigns, or the organization gets a new owner who doesn’t honor unwritten agreements?”

Many contracts have an integration clause, which specifies that the contract constitutes the complete agreement between the two parties, and it nullifies any other oral or written promises made to the physician.

For example, the employer might have promised a relocation bonus and a sign-on bonus, but for some reason it didn’t get into the contract, Ms. Ord said. In those cases, the employer is under no obligation to honor the promise.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy said it is possible to hold the employer to a commitment made outside the contract. The alternative document, such as an offer letter, has to specifically state that the commitment is protected from the integration clause in the contract, he said, adding: “It is still better to have the commitment put into the contract.”
 

Contract is simply accepted as is

“Generally, the bigger the employer, the less likely they will alter an agreement just to make you happy,” Mr. Shay said.

But even in these contracts, he said there is still opportunity to fix errors and ambiguities that could harm you later – or even alter a provision if you can’t remove it outright.

The back-and-forth is important, Ms. Adler said. “Negotiation means trying to have some control over your job and your life.”

Mr. Cassidy said a big part of contract review is facing up to the possibility that you may have to resign or be let go.

“Many physicians don’t like to think about leaving when they’re just starting a job, but they need to,” he said. “You need to begin with the end in mind. Think about what would happen if this job didn’t work out.”

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

Two biomarkers could potentially indicate which children with SARS-CoV-2 infection will develop severe disease, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“Most children with COVID-19 present with common symptoms, such as fever, vomiting, and abdominal pain, which are very similar to other common viruses,” said senior researcher Usha Sethuraman, MD, professor of pediatric emergency medicine at Central Michigan University in Detroit.

“It is impossible, in many instances, to predict which child, even after identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is going to develop severe consequences, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome [MIS-C] or severe pneumonia,” she said in an interview.

“In fact, many of these kids have been sent home the first time around as they appeared clinically well, only to return a couple of days later in cardiogenic shock and requiring invasive interventions,” she added. “It would be invaluable to have the ability to know which child is likely to develop severe infection so appropriate disposition can be made and treatment initiated.”

In their prospective observational cohort study, Dr. Sethuraman and her colleagues collected saliva samples from children and adolescents when they were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. They assessed the saliva for micro (mi)RNAs, which are small noncoding RNAs that help regulate gene expression and are “thought to play a role in the regulation of inflammation following an infection,” the researchers write in their poster.

Of the 129 young people assessed, 32 (25%) developed severe infection and 97 (75%) did not. The researchers defined severe infection as an MIS-C diagnosis, death in the 30 days after diagnosis, or the need for at least 2 L of oxygen, inotropes, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

The expression of 63 miRNAs was significantly different between young people who developed severe infection and those who did not (P < .05). In cases of severe disease, expression was downregulated for 38 of the 63 miRNAs (60%).

“A model of six miRNAs was able to discriminate between severe and nonsevere infections with high sensitivity and accuracy in a preliminary analysis,” Dr. Sethuraman reported. “While salivary miRNA has been shown in other studies to help differentiate persistent concussion in children, we did not expect them to be downregulated in children with severe COVID-19.”

The significant differences in miRNA expression in those with and without severe disease is “striking,” despite this being an interim analysis in a fairly small sample size, said Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

“It will be interesting to see if these findings persist when larger numbers are analyzed,” she told this news organization. “Biomarkers that can predict potential severity can be very useful in making risk and management determinations. A child who has the biomarkers that indicate increased severity can be monitored more closely and complications can be preempted and prevented.”

The largest difference between severe and nonsevere cases was in the expression of miRNA 4495. In addition, miRNA 6125 appears to have prognostic potential, the researchers conclude. And three cytokines from saliva samples were elevated in cases of severe infection, but cytokine levels could not distinguish between severe and nonsevere infections, Dr. Sethuraman said.

If further research confirms these findings and determines that these miRNAs truly can provide insight into the likely course of an infection, it “would be a game changer, clinically,” she added, particularly because saliva samples are less invasive and less painful than blood draws.

The potential applications of these biomarkers could extend beyond children admitted to the hospital, Dr. Mohandas noted.

“For example, it would be a noninvasive and easy method to predict potential severity in a child seen in the emergency room and could help with deciding between observation, admission to the general floor, or admission to the ICU,” she told this news organization. “However, this test is not easily or routinely available at present, and cost and accessibility will be the main factors that will have to be overcome before it can be used for this purpose.”

These findings are preliminary, from a small sample, and require confirmation and validation, Dr. Sethuraman cautioned. And the team only analyzed saliva collected at diagnosis, so they have no data on potential changes in cytokines or miRNAs that occur as the disease progresses.

The next step is to “better characterize what happens with time to these profiles,” she explained. “The role of age, race, and gender differences in saliva biomarker profiles needs additional investigation as well.”

It would also be interesting to see whether varied expression of miRNAs “can help differentiate the various complications after COVID-19, like acute respiratory failure, MIS-C, and long COVID,” said Dr. Mohandas. “That would mean it could be used not only to potentially predict severity, but also to predict longer-term outcomes.”

This study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) program. Coauthor Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, reports being a paid consultant for Quadrant Biosciences.

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

Two biomarkers could potentially indicate which children with SARS-CoV-2 infection will develop severe disease, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“Most children with COVID-19 present with common symptoms, such as fever, vomiting, and abdominal pain, which are very similar to other common viruses,” said senior researcher Usha Sethuraman, MD, professor of pediatric emergency medicine at Central Michigan University in Detroit.

“It is impossible, in many instances, to predict which child, even after identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is going to develop severe consequences, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome [MIS-C] or severe pneumonia,” she said in an interview.

“In fact, many of these kids have been sent home the first time around as they appeared clinically well, only to return a couple of days later in cardiogenic shock and requiring invasive interventions,” she added. “It would be invaluable to have the ability to know which child is likely to develop severe infection so appropriate disposition can be made and treatment initiated.”

In their prospective observational cohort study, Dr. Sethuraman and her colleagues collected saliva samples from children and adolescents when they were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. They assessed the saliva for micro (mi)RNAs, which are small noncoding RNAs that help regulate gene expression and are “thought to play a role in the regulation of inflammation following an infection,” the researchers write in their poster.

Of the 129 young people assessed, 32 (25%) developed severe infection and 97 (75%) did not. The researchers defined severe infection as an MIS-C diagnosis, death in the 30 days after diagnosis, or the need for at least 2 L of oxygen, inotropes, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

The expression of 63 miRNAs was significantly different between young people who developed severe infection and those who did not (P < .05). In cases of severe disease, expression was downregulated for 38 of the 63 miRNAs (60%).

“A model of six miRNAs was able to discriminate between severe and nonsevere infections with high sensitivity and accuracy in a preliminary analysis,” Dr. Sethuraman reported. “While salivary miRNA has been shown in other studies to help differentiate persistent concussion in children, we did not expect them to be downregulated in children with severe COVID-19.”

The significant differences in miRNA expression in those with and without severe disease is “striking,” despite this being an interim analysis in a fairly small sample size, said Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

“It will be interesting to see if these findings persist when larger numbers are analyzed,” she told this news organization. “Biomarkers that can predict potential severity can be very useful in making risk and management determinations. A child who has the biomarkers that indicate increased severity can be monitored more closely and complications can be preempted and prevented.”

The largest difference between severe and nonsevere cases was in the expression of miRNA 4495. In addition, miRNA 6125 appears to have prognostic potential, the researchers conclude. And three cytokines from saliva samples were elevated in cases of severe infection, but cytokine levels could not distinguish between severe and nonsevere infections, Dr. Sethuraman said.

If further research confirms these findings and determines that these miRNAs truly can provide insight into the likely course of an infection, it “would be a game changer, clinically,” she added, particularly because saliva samples are less invasive and less painful than blood draws.

The potential applications of these biomarkers could extend beyond children admitted to the hospital, Dr. Mohandas noted.

“For example, it would be a noninvasive and easy method to predict potential severity in a child seen in the emergency room and could help with deciding between observation, admission to the general floor, or admission to the ICU,” she told this news organization. “However, this test is not easily or routinely available at present, and cost and accessibility will be the main factors that will have to be overcome before it can be used for this purpose.”

These findings are preliminary, from a small sample, and require confirmation and validation, Dr. Sethuraman cautioned. And the team only analyzed saliva collected at diagnosis, so they have no data on potential changes in cytokines or miRNAs that occur as the disease progresses.

The next step is to “better characterize what happens with time to these profiles,” she explained. “The role of age, race, and gender differences in saliva biomarker profiles needs additional investigation as well.”

It would also be interesting to see whether varied expression of miRNAs “can help differentiate the various complications after COVID-19, like acute respiratory failure, MIS-C, and long COVID,” said Dr. Mohandas. “That would mean it could be used not only to potentially predict severity, but also to predict longer-term outcomes.”

This study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) program. Coauthor Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, reports being a paid consultant for Quadrant Biosciences.

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

Two biomarkers could potentially indicate which children with SARS-CoV-2 infection will develop severe disease, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“Most children with COVID-19 present with common symptoms, such as fever, vomiting, and abdominal pain, which are very similar to other common viruses,” said senior researcher Usha Sethuraman, MD, professor of pediatric emergency medicine at Central Michigan University in Detroit.

“It is impossible, in many instances, to predict which child, even after identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is going to develop severe consequences, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome [MIS-C] or severe pneumonia,” she said in an interview.

“In fact, many of these kids have been sent home the first time around as they appeared clinically well, only to return a couple of days later in cardiogenic shock and requiring invasive interventions,” she added. “It would be invaluable to have the ability to know which child is likely to develop severe infection so appropriate disposition can be made and treatment initiated.”

In their prospective observational cohort study, Dr. Sethuraman and her colleagues collected saliva samples from children and adolescents when they were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. They assessed the saliva for micro (mi)RNAs, which are small noncoding RNAs that help regulate gene expression and are “thought to play a role in the regulation of inflammation following an infection,” the researchers write in their poster.

Of the 129 young people assessed, 32 (25%) developed severe infection and 97 (75%) did not. The researchers defined severe infection as an MIS-C diagnosis, death in the 30 days after diagnosis, or the need for at least 2 L of oxygen, inotropes, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

The expression of 63 miRNAs was significantly different between young people who developed severe infection and those who did not (P < .05). In cases of severe disease, expression was downregulated for 38 of the 63 miRNAs (60%).

“A model of six miRNAs was able to discriminate between severe and nonsevere infections with high sensitivity and accuracy in a preliminary analysis,” Dr. Sethuraman reported. “While salivary miRNA has been shown in other studies to help differentiate persistent concussion in children, we did not expect them to be downregulated in children with severe COVID-19.”

The significant differences in miRNA expression in those with and without severe disease is “striking,” despite this being an interim analysis in a fairly small sample size, said Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

“It will be interesting to see if these findings persist when larger numbers are analyzed,” she told this news organization. “Biomarkers that can predict potential severity can be very useful in making risk and management determinations. A child who has the biomarkers that indicate increased severity can be monitored more closely and complications can be preempted and prevented.”

The largest difference between severe and nonsevere cases was in the expression of miRNA 4495. In addition, miRNA 6125 appears to have prognostic potential, the researchers conclude. And three cytokines from saliva samples were elevated in cases of severe infection, but cytokine levels could not distinguish between severe and nonsevere infections, Dr. Sethuraman said.

If further research confirms these findings and determines that these miRNAs truly can provide insight into the likely course of an infection, it “would be a game changer, clinically,” she added, particularly because saliva samples are less invasive and less painful than blood draws.

The potential applications of these biomarkers could extend beyond children admitted to the hospital, Dr. Mohandas noted.

“For example, it would be a noninvasive and easy method to predict potential severity in a child seen in the emergency room and could help with deciding between observation, admission to the general floor, or admission to the ICU,” she told this news organization. “However, this test is not easily or routinely available at present, and cost and accessibility will be the main factors that will have to be overcome before it can be used for this purpose.”

These findings are preliminary, from a small sample, and require confirmation and validation, Dr. Sethuraman cautioned. And the team only analyzed saliva collected at diagnosis, so they have no data on potential changes in cytokines or miRNAs that occur as the disease progresses.

The next step is to “better characterize what happens with time to these profiles,” she explained. “The role of age, race, and gender differences in saliva biomarker profiles needs additional investigation as well.”

It would also be interesting to see whether varied expression of miRNAs “can help differentiate the various complications after COVID-19, like acute respiratory failure, MIS-C, and long COVID,” said Dr. Mohandas. “That would mean it could be used not only to potentially predict severity, but also to predict longer-term outcomes.”

This study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) program. Coauthor Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, reports being a paid consultant for Quadrant Biosciences.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee on Oct. 15 voted 19-0 to authorize second doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost immunity. It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
 

Johnson &amp; Johnson

In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.

It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.

Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.

In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.

This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
 

Limited data

The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.

These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.

But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.

Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.

“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”

“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.

She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.

But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.

“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.

Who needs a second dose?

On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.

COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.

The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.

Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.

The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.

“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
 

Trying to avoid confusion

Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.

“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.

Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.

Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.

“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.

Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.

“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
 

This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee on Oct. 15 voted 19-0 to authorize second doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost immunity. It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
 

Johnson &amp; Johnson

In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.

It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.

Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.

In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.

This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
 

Limited data

The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.

These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.

But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.

Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.

“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”

“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.

She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.

But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.

“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.

Who needs a second dose?

On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.

COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.

The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.

Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.

The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.

“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
 

Trying to avoid confusion

Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.

“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.

Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.

Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.

“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.

Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.

“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
 

This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee on Oct. 15 voted 19-0 to authorize second doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost immunity. It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
 

Johnson &amp; Johnson

In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.

It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.

Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.

In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.

This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
 

Limited data

The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.

These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.

But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.

Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.

“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”

“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.

She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.

But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.

“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.

Who needs a second dose?

On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.

COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.

The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.

Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.

The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.

“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
 

Trying to avoid confusion

Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.

“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.

Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.

Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.

“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.

Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.

“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
 

This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

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

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

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

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

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

A new U.S. government study shows it isn’t risky and may even be a good idea to mix, rather than match, COVID-19 vaccines when getting a booster dose.

The study also shows mixing different kinds of vaccines appears to spur the body to make higher levels of virus-blocking antibodies than they would have gotten by boosting with a dose of the vaccine the person already had.

If regulators endorse the study findings, it should make getting a COVID-19 booster as easy as getting a yearly influenza vaccine.

“Currently when you go to do your flu shot nobody asks you what kind you had last year. Nobody cares what you had last year. And we were hoping that that was the same — that we would be able to boost regardless of what you had [previously],” said the study’s senior author, John Beigel, MD, who is associate director for clinical research in the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

“But we needed to have the data,” he said.

Studies have suggested that higher antibody levels translate into better protection against disease, though the exact level that confers protection is not yet known.

“The antibody responses are so much higher [with mix and match], it’s really impressive,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Shaffner said if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sign off on the approach, he would especially recommend that people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine follow up with a dose of an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna.

“It is a broader stimulation of the immune system, and I think that broader stimulation is advantageous,” he said.

Minimal side effects

The preprint study was published late Oct. 13 in medRxiv ahead of peer review, just before a slate of meetings involving vaccine experts that advise the FDA and CDC. 

These experts are tasked with trying to figure out whether additional shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are safe and effective for boosting immunity against COVID-19.

The FDA’s panel is the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), and the CDC’s panel is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). 

During the pandemic, they have been meeting almost in lock step to tackle important vaccine-related questions.

“We got this data out because we knew VRBPAC was coming and we knew ACIP was going to grapple with these issues,” Dr. Beigel said.

He noted that these are just the first results. The study will continue for a year, and the researchers aim to deeply characterize the breadth and depth of the immune response to all nine of the different vaccine combinations included in the study.

The study included 458 participants at 10 study sites around the country who had been fully vaccinated with one of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer-BioNTech. 

About 150 study participants were recruited from each group. Everyone in the study had finished their primary series at least 12 weeks before starting the study. None had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

About 50 participants from each vaccine group were randomly assigned to get a third (booster) dose of either the same vaccine as the one they had already received, or a different vaccine, creating nine possible combinations of shots.

About half of study participants reported mild side effects — including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle aches.

Two study participants had serious medical problems during the study, but they were judged to be unrelated to vaccination. One study participant experienced kidney failure after their muscles broke down following a fall. The other experienced cholecystitis, or an inflamed gallbladder. 

Up to 1 month after the booster shots, no other serious adverse events were seen.

The study didn’t look at whether people got COVID-19, so it’s not possible to say that they were better protected against disease after their boosters.

Increase in antibodies

But all the groups saw substantial increases in their antibody levels, which is thought to indicate that they were better protected.

Overall, groups that got the same vaccine as their primary series saw 4 to 20-fold increases in their antibody levels. Groups that got different shots than the ones in their primary series got 6 to 76 fold increases in their antibody levels.

People who had originally gotten a Johnson & Johnson vaccine saw far bigger increases in antibodies, and were more likely to see a protective rise in antibodies if they got a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner noted that European countries had already been mixing the vaccine doses this way, giving people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is similar to the Johnson & Johnson shot, another dose of an mRNA vaccine.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel received a Moderna vaccine for her second dose after an initial shot of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, for example.

No safety signals related to mixing vaccines has been seen in countries that routinely use the approach for their initial series.

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

A new U.S. government study shows it isn’t risky and may even be a good idea to mix, rather than match, COVID-19 vaccines when getting a booster dose.

The study also shows mixing different kinds of vaccines appears to spur the body to make higher levels of virus-blocking antibodies than they would have gotten by boosting with a dose of the vaccine the person already had.

If regulators endorse the study findings, it should make getting a COVID-19 booster as easy as getting a yearly influenza vaccine.

“Currently when you go to do your flu shot nobody asks you what kind you had last year. Nobody cares what you had last year. And we were hoping that that was the same — that we would be able to boost regardless of what you had [previously],” said the study’s senior author, John Beigel, MD, who is associate director for clinical research in the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

“But we needed to have the data,” he said.

Studies have suggested that higher antibody levels translate into better protection against disease, though the exact level that confers protection is not yet known.

“The antibody responses are so much higher [with mix and match], it’s really impressive,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Shaffner said if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sign off on the approach, he would especially recommend that people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine follow up with a dose of an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna.

“It is a broader stimulation of the immune system, and I think that broader stimulation is advantageous,” he said.

Minimal side effects

The preprint study was published late Oct. 13 in medRxiv ahead of peer review, just before a slate of meetings involving vaccine experts that advise the FDA and CDC. 

These experts are tasked with trying to figure out whether additional shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are safe and effective for boosting immunity against COVID-19.

The FDA’s panel is the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), and the CDC’s panel is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). 

During the pandemic, they have been meeting almost in lock step to tackle important vaccine-related questions.

“We got this data out because we knew VRBPAC was coming and we knew ACIP was going to grapple with these issues,” Dr. Beigel said.

He noted that these are just the first results. The study will continue for a year, and the researchers aim to deeply characterize the breadth and depth of the immune response to all nine of the different vaccine combinations included in the study.

The study included 458 participants at 10 study sites around the country who had been fully vaccinated with one of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer-BioNTech. 

About 150 study participants were recruited from each group. Everyone in the study had finished their primary series at least 12 weeks before starting the study. None had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

About 50 participants from each vaccine group were randomly assigned to get a third (booster) dose of either the same vaccine as the one they had already received, or a different vaccine, creating nine possible combinations of shots.

About half of study participants reported mild side effects — including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle aches.

Two study participants had serious medical problems during the study, but they were judged to be unrelated to vaccination. One study participant experienced kidney failure after their muscles broke down following a fall. The other experienced cholecystitis, or an inflamed gallbladder. 

Up to 1 month after the booster shots, no other serious adverse events were seen.

The study didn’t look at whether people got COVID-19, so it’s not possible to say that they were better protected against disease after their boosters.

Increase in antibodies

But all the groups saw substantial increases in their antibody levels, which is thought to indicate that they were better protected.

Overall, groups that got the same vaccine as their primary series saw 4 to 20-fold increases in their antibody levels. Groups that got different shots than the ones in their primary series got 6 to 76 fold increases in their antibody levels.

People who had originally gotten a Johnson & Johnson vaccine saw far bigger increases in antibodies, and were more likely to see a protective rise in antibodies if they got a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner noted that European countries had already been mixing the vaccine doses this way, giving people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is similar to the Johnson & Johnson shot, another dose of an mRNA vaccine.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel received a Moderna vaccine for her second dose after an initial shot of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, for example.

No safety signals related to mixing vaccines has been seen in countries that routinely use the approach for their initial series.

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

A new U.S. government study shows it isn’t risky and may even be a good idea to mix, rather than match, COVID-19 vaccines when getting a booster dose.

The study also shows mixing different kinds of vaccines appears to spur the body to make higher levels of virus-blocking antibodies than they would have gotten by boosting with a dose of the vaccine the person already had.

If regulators endorse the study findings, it should make getting a COVID-19 booster as easy as getting a yearly influenza vaccine.

“Currently when you go to do your flu shot nobody asks you what kind you had last year. Nobody cares what you had last year. And we were hoping that that was the same — that we would be able to boost regardless of what you had [previously],” said the study’s senior author, John Beigel, MD, who is associate director for clinical research in the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

“But we needed to have the data,” he said.

Studies have suggested that higher antibody levels translate into better protection against disease, though the exact level that confers protection is not yet known.

“The antibody responses are so much higher [with mix and match], it’s really impressive,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Shaffner said if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sign off on the approach, he would especially recommend that people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine follow up with a dose of an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna.

“It is a broader stimulation of the immune system, and I think that broader stimulation is advantageous,” he said.

Minimal side effects

The preprint study was published late Oct. 13 in medRxiv ahead of peer review, just before a slate of meetings involving vaccine experts that advise the FDA and CDC. 

These experts are tasked with trying to figure out whether additional shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are safe and effective for boosting immunity against COVID-19.

The FDA’s panel is the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), and the CDC’s panel is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). 

During the pandemic, they have been meeting almost in lock step to tackle important vaccine-related questions.

“We got this data out because we knew VRBPAC was coming and we knew ACIP was going to grapple with these issues,” Dr. Beigel said.

He noted that these are just the first results. The study will continue for a year, and the researchers aim to deeply characterize the breadth and depth of the immune response to all nine of the different vaccine combinations included in the study.

The study included 458 participants at 10 study sites around the country who had been fully vaccinated with one of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer-BioNTech. 

About 150 study participants were recruited from each group. Everyone in the study had finished their primary series at least 12 weeks before starting the study. None had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

About 50 participants from each vaccine group were randomly assigned to get a third (booster) dose of either the same vaccine as the one they had already received, or a different vaccine, creating nine possible combinations of shots.

About half of study participants reported mild side effects — including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle aches.

Two study participants had serious medical problems during the study, but they were judged to be unrelated to vaccination. One study participant experienced kidney failure after their muscles broke down following a fall. The other experienced cholecystitis, or an inflamed gallbladder. 

Up to 1 month after the booster shots, no other serious adverse events were seen.

The study didn’t look at whether people got COVID-19, so it’s not possible to say that they were better protected against disease after their boosters.

Increase in antibodies

But all the groups saw substantial increases in their antibody levels, which is thought to indicate that they were better protected.

Overall, groups that got the same vaccine as their primary series saw 4 to 20-fold increases in their antibody levels. Groups that got different shots than the ones in their primary series got 6 to 76 fold increases in their antibody levels.

People who had originally gotten a Johnson & Johnson vaccine saw far bigger increases in antibodies, and were more likely to see a protective rise in antibodies if they got a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner noted that European countries had already been mixing the vaccine doses this way, giving people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is similar to the Johnson & Johnson shot, another dose of an mRNA vaccine.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel received a Moderna vaccine for her second dose after an initial shot of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, for example.

No safety signals related to mixing vaccines has been seen in countries that routinely use the approach for their initial series.

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

American children gained a lot of weight in the last year, setting a dangerous trajectory towards metabolic disease that requires urgent policy change, according to a new report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

“Our nation’s safety net is fragile, outdated, and out of reach for millions of eligible kids and caregivers,” said Jamie Bussel, senior program officer at the RWJF, and senior author of the report. She added that the pandemic further fractured an already broken system that disproportionately overlooks “children of color and those who live farthest from economic opportunity”.
 

It’s time to think ‘bigger and better’

Ms. Bussel said, during a press conference, that congress responded to the pandemic with “an array of policy solutions,” but it’s now time to think ‘bigger and better.’

“There have been huge flexibilities deployed across the safety net program and these have been really important reliefs, but the fact is many of them are temporary emergency relief measures,” she explained.

For the past 3 years, the RWJF’s annual State of Childhood Obesity report has drawn national and state obesity data from large surveys including the National Survey of Children’s Health, the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, the WIC Participant and Program Characteristics Survey, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Similar to in past years, this year’s data show that rates of obesity and overweight have remained relatively steady and have been highest among minority and low-income populations. For example, data from the 2019-2020 National Survey of Children’s Health, along with an analysis conducted by the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau, show that one in six – or 16.2% – of youth aged 10-17 years have obesity.

While non-Hispanic Asian children had the lowest obesity rate (8.1%), followed by non-Hispanic White children (12.1%), rates were significantly higher for Hispanic (21.4%), non-Hispanic Black (23.8%), and non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (28.7%) children, according to the report.

“Additional years of data are needed to assess whether obesity rates changed after the onset of the pandemic,” explained Ms. Bussel.
 

Digging deeper

Other studies included in this year’s report were specifically designed to measure the impact of the pandemic, and show a distinct rise in overweight and obesity, especially in younger children. For example, a retrospective cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente Southern California showed the rate of overweight and obesity in children aged 5-11 years rose to 45.7% between March 2020 and January 2021, up from 36.2% before the pandemic.

Another of these studies, which was based on national electronic health records of more than 430,000 children, showed the obesity rate crept from 19.3% to 22.4% between August 2019 and August 2020.

“The lid we had been trying desperately to put on the obesity epidemic has come off again,” said Sandra G Hassink, MD, MSc, who is medical director of the American Academy of Pediatrics Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight.

“In the absence of COVID we had been seeing slow upticks in the numbers – and in some groups we’d been thinking maybe we were headed toward stabilization – but these numbers blow that out of the water ... COVID has escalated the rates,” she said in an interview.

“Unfortunately, these two crises – the COVID pandemic, the childhood obesity epidemic – in so many ways have exacerbated one another,” said Ms. Bussel. “It’s not a huge surprise that we’re seeing an increase in childhood obesity rates given the complete and utter disruption of every single system that circumscribes our lives.”
 

The systems that feed obesity

Addressing childhood obesity requires targeting far beyond healthy eating and physical activity, Ms. Bussel said.

“As important is whether that child has a safe place to call home. Does mom or dad or their care provider have a stable income? Is there reliable transportation? Is their access to health insurance? Is there access to high-quality health care? ... All of those factors influence the child and the family’s opportunities to live well, be healthy, and be at a healthy weight,” she noted.

The report includes a list of five main policy recommendations.

• Making free, universal school meal programs permanent.
• Extending eligibility for WIC, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, to postpartum mothers and to children through age 6.
• Extending and expanding other programs, such as the Child Tax Credit.
• Closing the Medicaid coverage gap.
• Developing a consistent approach to collecting obesity data organized by race, ethnicity, and income level.

“Collectively, over at least the course of the last generation or two, our policy approach to obesity prevention has not been sufficient. But that doesn’t mean all of our policy approaches have been failures,” Ms. Bussel said during an interview. “Policy change does not always need to be dramatic to have a real impact on families.”

Fighting complacency

For Dr. Hassink, one of the barriers to change is society’s level of acceptance. She said an identifiable explanation for pandemic weight gain doesn’t mean society should simply shrug it off.

“If we regarded childhood obesity as the population level catastrophe that it is for chronic disease maybe people would be activated around these policy changes,” she said.

“We’re accepting a disease process that wreaks havoc on people,” noted Dr. Hassink, who was not involved in the new report. “I think it’s hard for people to realize the magnitude of the disease burden that we’re seeing. If you’re in a weight management clinic or any pediatrician’s office you would see it – you would see kids coming in with liver disease, 9-year-olds on [continuous positive airway pressure] for sleep apnea, kids needing their hips pinned because they had a hip fracture because of obesity.

“So, those of us that see the disease burden see what’s behind those numbers. The sadness of what we’re talking about is we know a lot about what could push the dial and help reduce this epidemic and we’re not doing what we already know,” added Dr. Hassink.

Ms. Bussel and Dr. Hassink reported no conflicts.

American children gained a lot of weight in the last year, setting a dangerous trajectory towards metabolic disease that requires urgent policy change, according to a new report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

“Our nation’s safety net is fragile, outdated, and out of reach for millions of eligible kids and caregivers,” said Jamie Bussel, senior program officer at the RWJF, and senior author of the report. She added that the pandemic further fractured an already broken system that disproportionately overlooks “children of color and those who live farthest from economic opportunity”.
 

It’s time to think ‘bigger and better’

Ms. Bussel said, during a press conference, that congress responded to the pandemic with “an array of policy solutions,” but it’s now time to think ‘bigger and better.’

“There have been huge flexibilities deployed across the safety net program and these have been really important reliefs, but the fact is many of them are temporary emergency relief measures,” she explained.

For the past 3 years, the RWJF’s annual State of Childhood Obesity report has drawn national and state obesity data from large surveys including the National Survey of Children’s Health, the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, the WIC Participant and Program Characteristics Survey, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Similar to in past years, this year’s data show that rates of obesity and overweight have remained relatively steady and have been highest among minority and low-income populations. For example, data from the 2019-2020 National Survey of Children’s Health, along with an analysis conducted by the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau, show that one in six – or 16.2% – of youth aged 10-17 years have obesity.

While non-Hispanic Asian children had the lowest obesity rate (8.1%), followed by non-Hispanic White children (12.1%), rates were significantly higher for Hispanic (21.4%), non-Hispanic Black (23.8%), and non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (28.7%) children, according to the report.

“Additional years of data are needed to assess whether obesity rates changed after the onset of the pandemic,” explained Ms. Bussel.
 

Digging deeper

Other studies included in this year’s report were specifically designed to measure the impact of the pandemic, and show a distinct rise in overweight and obesity, especially in younger children. For example, a retrospective cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente Southern California showed the rate of overweight and obesity in children aged 5-11 years rose to 45.7% between March 2020 and January 2021, up from 36.2% before the pandemic.

Another of these studies, which was based on national electronic health records of more than 430,000 children, showed the obesity rate crept from 19.3% to 22.4% between August 2019 and August 2020.

“The lid we had been trying desperately to put on the obesity epidemic has come off again,” said Sandra G Hassink, MD, MSc, who is medical director of the American Academy of Pediatrics Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight.

“In the absence of COVID we had been seeing slow upticks in the numbers – and in some groups we’d been thinking maybe we were headed toward stabilization – but these numbers blow that out of the water ... COVID has escalated the rates,” she said in an interview.

“Unfortunately, these two crises – the COVID pandemic, the childhood obesity epidemic – in so many ways have exacerbated one another,” said Ms. Bussel. “It’s not a huge surprise that we’re seeing an increase in childhood obesity rates given the complete and utter disruption of every single system that circumscribes our lives.”
 

The systems that feed obesity

Addressing childhood obesity requires targeting far beyond healthy eating and physical activity, Ms. Bussel said.

“As important is whether that child has a safe place to call home. Does mom or dad or their care provider have a stable income? Is there reliable transportation? Is their access to health insurance? Is there access to high-quality health care? ... All of those factors influence the child and the family’s opportunities to live well, be healthy, and be at a healthy weight,” she noted.

The report includes a list of five main policy recommendations.

• Making free, universal school meal programs permanent.
• Extending eligibility for WIC, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, to postpartum mothers and to children through age 6.
• Extending and expanding other programs, such as the Child Tax Credit.
• Closing the Medicaid coverage gap.
• Developing a consistent approach to collecting obesity data organized by race, ethnicity, and income level.

“Collectively, over at least the course of the last generation or two, our policy approach to obesity prevention has not been sufficient. But that doesn’t mean all of our policy approaches have been failures,” Ms. Bussel said during an interview. “Policy change does not always need to be dramatic to have a real impact on families.”

Fighting complacency

For Dr. Hassink, one of the barriers to change is society’s level of acceptance. She said an identifiable explanation for pandemic weight gain doesn’t mean society should simply shrug it off.

“If we regarded childhood obesity as the population level catastrophe that it is for chronic disease maybe people would be activated around these policy changes,” she said.

“We’re accepting a disease process that wreaks havoc on people,” noted Dr. Hassink, who was not involved in the new report. “I think it’s hard for people to realize the magnitude of the disease burden that we’re seeing. If you’re in a weight management clinic or any pediatrician’s office you would see it – you would see kids coming in with liver disease, 9-year-olds on [continuous positive airway pressure] for sleep apnea, kids needing their hips pinned because they had a hip fracture because of obesity.

“So, those of us that see the disease burden see what’s behind those numbers. The sadness of what we’re talking about is we know a lot about what could push the dial and help reduce this epidemic and we’re not doing what we already know,” added Dr. Hassink.

Ms. Bussel and Dr. Hassink reported no conflicts.

American children gained a lot of weight in the last year, setting a dangerous trajectory towards metabolic disease that requires urgent policy change, according to a new report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

“Our nation’s safety net is fragile, outdated, and out of reach for millions of eligible kids and caregivers,” said Jamie Bussel, senior program officer at the RWJF, and senior author of the report. She added that the pandemic further fractured an already broken system that disproportionately overlooks “children of color and those who live farthest from economic opportunity”.
 

It’s time to think ‘bigger and better’

Ms. Bussel said, during a press conference, that congress responded to the pandemic with “an array of policy solutions,” but it’s now time to think ‘bigger and better.’

“There have been huge flexibilities deployed across the safety net program and these have been really important reliefs, but the fact is many of them are temporary emergency relief measures,” she explained.

For the past 3 years, the RWJF’s annual State of Childhood Obesity report has drawn national and state obesity data from large surveys including the National Survey of Children’s Health, the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, the WIC Participant and Program Characteristics Survey, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Similar to in past years, this year’s data show that rates of obesity and overweight have remained relatively steady and have been highest among minority and low-income populations. For example, data from the 2019-2020 National Survey of Children’s Health, along with an analysis conducted by the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau, show that one in six – or 16.2% – of youth aged 10-17 years have obesity.

While non-Hispanic Asian children had the lowest obesity rate (8.1%), followed by non-Hispanic White children (12.1%), rates were significantly higher for Hispanic (21.4%), non-Hispanic Black (23.8%), and non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (28.7%) children, according to the report.

“Additional years of data are needed to assess whether obesity rates changed after the onset of the pandemic,” explained Ms. Bussel.
 

Digging deeper

Other studies included in this year’s report were specifically designed to measure the impact of the pandemic, and show a distinct rise in overweight and obesity, especially in younger children. For example, a retrospective cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente Southern California showed the rate of overweight and obesity in children aged 5-11 years rose to 45.7% between March 2020 and January 2021, up from 36.2% before the pandemic.

Another of these studies, which was based on national electronic health records of more than 430,000 children, showed the obesity rate crept from 19.3% to 22.4% between August 2019 and August 2020.

“The lid we had been trying desperately to put on the obesity epidemic has come off again,” said Sandra G Hassink, MD, MSc, who is medical director of the American Academy of Pediatrics Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight.

“In the absence of COVID we had been seeing slow upticks in the numbers – and in some groups we’d been thinking maybe we were headed toward stabilization – but these numbers blow that out of the water ... COVID has escalated the rates,” she said in an interview.

“Unfortunately, these two crises – the COVID pandemic, the childhood obesity epidemic – in so many ways have exacerbated one another,” said Ms. Bussel. “It’s not a huge surprise that we’re seeing an increase in childhood obesity rates given the complete and utter disruption of every single system that circumscribes our lives.”
 

The systems that feed obesity

Addressing childhood obesity requires targeting far beyond healthy eating and physical activity, Ms. Bussel said.

“As important is whether that child has a safe place to call home. Does mom or dad or their care provider have a stable income? Is there reliable transportation? Is their access to health insurance? Is there access to high-quality health care? ... All of those factors influence the child and the family’s opportunities to live well, be healthy, and be at a healthy weight,” she noted.

The report includes a list of five main policy recommendations.

• Making free, universal school meal programs permanent.
• Extending eligibility for WIC, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, to postpartum mothers and to children through age 6.
• Extending and expanding other programs, such as the Child Tax Credit.
• Closing the Medicaid coverage gap.
• Developing a consistent approach to collecting obesity data organized by race, ethnicity, and income level.

“Collectively, over at least the course of the last generation or two, our policy approach to obesity prevention has not been sufficient. But that doesn’t mean all of our policy approaches have been failures,” Ms. Bussel said during an interview. “Policy change does not always need to be dramatic to have a real impact on families.”

Fighting complacency

For Dr. Hassink, one of the barriers to change is society’s level of acceptance. She said an identifiable explanation for pandemic weight gain doesn’t mean society should simply shrug it off.

“If we regarded childhood obesity as the population level catastrophe that it is for chronic disease maybe people would be activated around these policy changes,” she said.

“We’re accepting a disease process that wreaks havoc on people,” noted Dr. Hassink, who was not involved in the new report. “I think it’s hard for people to realize the magnitude of the disease burden that we’re seeing. If you’re in a weight management clinic or any pediatrician’s office you would see it – you would see kids coming in with liver disease, 9-year-olds on [continuous positive airway pressure] for sleep apnea, kids needing their hips pinned because they had a hip fracture because of obesity.

“So, those of us that see the disease burden see what’s behind those numbers. The sadness of what we’re talking about is we know a lot about what could push the dial and help reduce this epidemic and we’re not doing what we already know,” added Dr. Hassink.

Ms. Bussel and Dr. Hassink reported no conflicts.