User login
-
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
Sweeping new vaccine mandates will impact most U.S. workers
, including sweeping vaccine mandates that will affect 100 million American workers, nearly two-thirds of the country’s workforce.
“As your president, I’m announcing tonight a new plan to get more Americans vaccinated to combat those blocking public health,” he said Sept. 9.
As part of a six-part plan unveiled in a speech from the State Dining Room of the White House, President Biden said he would require vaccinations for nearly 4 million federal workers and the employees of companies that contract with the federal government.
He has also directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop a rule that will require large employers -- those with at least 100 employees -- to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested weekly.
Nearly 17 million health care workers will face new vaccine mandates as part of the conditions of participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
President Biden said the federal government will require staff at federally funded Head Start programs and schools to be vaccinated. He’s also calling on all states to mandate vaccines for teachers.
“A distinct minority of Americans, supported by a distinct minority of elected officials, are keeping us from turning the corner,” PresidentBiden said. “These pandemic politics, as I refer to them, are making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.”
One public health official said he was glad to see the president’s bold action.
“What I saw today was the federal government trying to use its powers to create greater safety in the American population,” said Ashish K. Jha, MD, dean of the school of public health at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a call with reporters after the speech.
National Nurses United, the largest union of registered nurses in the United States, issued a statement in support of President Biden’s new vaccination requirements, but pushed back on his language.
“…as advocates for public health, registered nurses want to be extremely clear: There is no such thing as a pandemic of only the unvaccinated. The science of epidemiology tells us there is just one deadly, global pandemic that has not yet ended, and we are all in it together. To get out of it, we must act together. All of us,” the statement says.
A host of other professional groups, including the American Medical Association and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, also issued statements of support for President Biden’s plan.
But the plan was not well received by all.
“I will pursue every legal option available to the state of Georgia to stop this blatantly unlawful overreach by the Biden Administration,” said Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican, in a Tweet.
The National Council for Occupational Safety and Health called the plan “a missed opportunity” because it failed to include workplace protections for essential workers such as grocery, postal, and transit workers.
“Social distancing, improved ventilation, shift rotation, and protective equipment to reduce exposure are important components of an overall plan to reduce risk and stop the virus. These tools are missing from the new steps President Biden announced today,” said Jessica Martinez, co-executive director of the group.
In addition to the new vaccination requirements, President Biden said extra doses would be on the way for people who have already been fully vaccinated in order to protect against waning immunity, starting on Sept. 20. But he noted that those plans would be contingent on the Food and Drug Administration’s approval for third doses and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation of the shots.
President Biden pledged to use the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of at-home tests, which have been selling out across the nation as the Delta variant spreads.
He also announced plans to expand access to COVID-19 testing, including offering testing for free at thousands of pharmacies nationwide and getting major retailers to sell at-home COVID-19 tests at cost.
The BinaxNow test kit, which currently retails for $23.99, will now cost about $15 for two tests at Kroger, Amazon, and Walmart, according to the White House. Food banks and community health centers will get free tests, too.
He called on states to set up COVID-19 testing programs at all schools.
Jha said that in his view, the big, game-changing news out of the president’s speech was the expansion of testing.
“Our country has failed to deploy tests in a way that can really bring this pandemic under control,” Jha said. “There are plenty of reasons, data, experience to indicate that if these were widely available, it would make a dramatic difference in reducing infection numbers across our country.”.
Dr. Jha said the private market had not worked effectively to make testing more widely available, so it was “absolutely a requirement of the federal government to step in and make testing more widely available,” he said.
President Biden also announced new economic stimulus programs, saying he’s expanding loan programs to small businesses and streamlining the loan forgiveness process.
President Biden said he’s boosting help for overburdened hospitals, doubling the number of federal surge response teams sent to hard-hit areas to reduce the strain on local health care workers. He said he would increase the pace of antibody treatments to states by 50%.
“We made so much progress during the past 7 months of this pandemic. Even so, we remain at a critical moment, a critical time,” he said. “We have the tools. Now, we just have to finish the job with truth, with science, with confidence and together as one nation.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, including sweeping vaccine mandates that will affect 100 million American workers, nearly two-thirds of the country’s workforce.
“As your president, I’m announcing tonight a new plan to get more Americans vaccinated to combat those blocking public health,” he said Sept. 9.
As part of a six-part plan unveiled in a speech from the State Dining Room of the White House, President Biden said he would require vaccinations for nearly 4 million federal workers and the employees of companies that contract with the federal government.
He has also directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop a rule that will require large employers -- those with at least 100 employees -- to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested weekly.
Nearly 17 million health care workers will face new vaccine mandates as part of the conditions of participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
President Biden said the federal government will require staff at federally funded Head Start programs and schools to be vaccinated. He’s also calling on all states to mandate vaccines for teachers.
“A distinct minority of Americans, supported by a distinct minority of elected officials, are keeping us from turning the corner,” PresidentBiden said. “These pandemic politics, as I refer to them, are making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.”
One public health official said he was glad to see the president’s bold action.
“What I saw today was the federal government trying to use its powers to create greater safety in the American population,” said Ashish K. Jha, MD, dean of the school of public health at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a call with reporters after the speech.
National Nurses United, the largest union of registered nurses in the United States, issued a statement in support of President Biden’s new vaccination requirements, but pushed back on his language.
“…as advocates for public health, registered nurses want to be extremely clear: There is no such thing as a pandemic of only the unvaccinated. The science of epidemiology tells us there is just one deadly, global pandemic that has not yet ended, and we are all in it together. To get out of it, we must act together. All of us,” the statement says.
A host of other professional groups, including the American Medical Association and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, also issued statements of support for President Biden’s plan.
But the plan was not well received by all.
“I will pursue every legal option available to the state of Georgia to stop this blatantly unlawful overreach by the Biden Administration,” said Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican, in a Tweet.
The National Council for Occupational Safety and Health called the plan “a missed opportunity” because it failed to include workplace protections for essential workers such as grocery, postal, and transit workers.
“Social distancing, improved ventilation, shift rotation, and protective equipment to reduce exposure are important components of an overall plan to reduce risk and stop the virus. These tools are missing from the new steps President Biden announced today,” said Jessica Martinez, co-executive director of the group.
In addition to the new vaccination requirements, President Biden said extra doses would be on the way for people who have already been fully vaccinated in order to protect against waning immunity, starting on Sept. 20. But he noted that those plans would be contingent on the Food and Drug Administration’s approval for third doses and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation of the shots.
President Biden pledged to use the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of at-home tests, which have been selling out across the nation as the Delta variant spreads.
He also announced plans to expand access to COVID-19 testing, including offering testing for free at thousands of pharmacies nationwide and getting major retailers to sell at-home COVID-19 tests at cost.
The BinaxNow test kit, which currently retails for $23.99, will now cost about $15 for two tests at Kroger, Amazon, and Walmart, according to the White House. Food banks and community health centers will get free tests, too.
He called on states to set up COVID-19 testing programs at all schools.
Jha said that in his view, the big, game-changing news out of the president’s speech was the expansion of testing.
“Our country has failed to deploy tests in a way that can really bring this pandemic under control,” Jha said. “There are plenty of reasons, data, experience to indicate that if these were widely available, it would make a dramatic difference in reducing infection numbers across our country.”.
Dr. Jha said the private market had not worked effectively to make testing more widely available, so it was “absolutely a requirement of the federal government to step in and make testing more widely available,” he said.
President Biden also announced new economic stimulus programs, saying he’s expanding loan programs to small businesses and streamlining the loan forgiveness process.
President Biden said he’s boosting help for overburdened hospitals, doubling the number of federal surge response teams sent to hard-hit areas to reduce the strain on local health care workers. He said he would increase the pace of antibody treatments to states by 50%.
“We made so much progress during the past 7 months of this pandemic. Even so, we remain at a critical moment, a critical time,” he said. “We have the tools. Now, we just have to finish the job with truth, with science, with confidence and together as one nation.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, including sweeping vaccine mandates that will affect 100 million American workers, nearly two-thirds of the country’s workforce.
“As your president, I’m announcing tonight a new plan to get more Americans vaccinated to combat those blocking public health,” he said Sept. 9.
As part of a six-part plan unveiled in a speech from the State Dining Room of the White House, President Biden said he would require vaccinations for nearly 4 million federal workers and the employees of companies that contract with the federal government.
He has also directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop a rule that will require large employers -- those with at least 100 employees -- to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested weekly.
Nearly 17 million health care workers will face new vaccine mandates as part of the conditions of participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
President Biden said the federal government will require staff at federally funded Head Start programs and schools to be vaccinated. He’s also calling on all states to mandate vaccines for teachers.
“A distinct minority of Americans, supported by a distinct minority of elected officials, are keeping us from turning the corner,” PresidentBiden said. “These pandemic politics, as I refer to them, are making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.”
One public health official said he was glad to see the president’s bold action.
“What I saw today was the federal government trying to use its powers to create greater safety in the American population,” said Ashish K. Jha, MD, dean of the school of public health at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a call with reporters after the speech.
National Nurses United, the largest union of registered nurses in the United States, issued a statement in support of President Biden’s new vaccination requirements, but pushed back on his language.
“…as advocates for public health, registered nurses want to be extremely clear: There is no such thing as a pandemic of only the unvaccinated. The science of epidemiology tells us there is just one deadly, global pandemic that has not yet ended, and we are all in it together. To get out of it, we must act together. All of us,” the statement says.
A host of other professional groups, including the American Medical Association and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, also issued statements of support for President Biden’s plan.
But the plan was not well received by all.
“I will pursue every legal option available to the state of Georgia to stop this blatantly unlawful overreach by the Biden Administration,” said Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican, in a Tweet.
The National Council for Occupational Safety and Health called the plan “a missed opportunity” because it failed to include workplace protections for essential workers such as grocery, postal, and transit workers.
“Social distancing, improved ventilation, shift rotation, and protective equipment to reduce exposure are important components of an overall plan to reduce risk and stop the virus. These tools are missing from the new steps President Biden announced today,” said Jessica Martinez, co-executive director of the group.
In addition to the new vaccination requirements, President Biden said extra doses would be on the way for people who have already been fully vaccinated in order to protect against waning immunity, starting on Sept. 20. But he noted that those plans would be contingent on the Food and Drug Administration’s approval for third doses and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation of the shots.
President Biden pledged to use the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of at-home tests, which have been selling out across the nation as the Delta variant spreads.
He also announced plans to expand access to COVID-19 testing, including offering testing for free at thousands of pharmacies nationwide and getting major retailers to sell at-home COVID-19 tests at cost.
The BinaxNow test kit, which currently retails for $23.99, will now cost about $15 for two tests at Kroger, Amazon, and Walmart, according to the White House. Food banks and community health centers will get free tests, too.
He called on states to set up COVID-19 testing programs at all schools.
Jha said that in his view, the big, game-changing news out of the president’s speech was the expansion of testing.
“Our country has failed to deploy tests in a way that can really bring this pandemic under control,” Jha said. “There are plenty of reasons, data, experience to indicate that if these were widely available, it would make a dramatic difference in reducing infection numbers across our country.”.
Dr. Jha said the private market had not worked effectively to make testing more widely available, so it was “absolutely a requirement of the federal government to step in and make testing more widely available,” he said.
President Biden also announced new economic stimulus programs, saying he’s expanding loan programs to small businesses and streamlining the loan forgiveness process.
President Biden said he’s boosting help for overburdened hospitals, doubling the number of federal surge response teams sent to hard-hit areas to reduce the strain on local health care workers. He said he would increase the pace of antibody treatments to states by 50%.
“We made so much progress during the past 7 months of this pandemic. Even so, we remain at a critical moment, a critical time,” he said. “We have the tools. Now, we just have to finish the job with truth, with science, with confidence and together as one nation.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Long COVID could spell kidney troubles down the line
Physicians caring for COVID-19 survivors should routinely check kidney function, which is often damaged by the SARS-CoV-2 virus months after both severe and milder cases, new research indicates.
The largest study to date with the longest follow-up of COVID-19-related kidney outcomes also found that every type of kidney problem, including end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), was far more common in COVID-19 survivors who were admitted to the ICU or experienced acute kidney injury (AKI) while hospitalized.
Researchers analyzed U.S. Veterans Health Administration data from more than 1.7 million patients, including more than 89,000 who tested positive for COVID-19, for the study, which was published online Sept. 1, 2021, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
The risk of kidney problems “is more robust or pronounced in people who have had severe infection, but present in even asymptomatic and mild disease, which shouldn’t be discounted. Those people represent the majority of those with COVID-19,” said senior author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, of the Veteran Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.
“That’s why the results are important, because even in people with mild disease to start with, the risk of kidney problems is not trivial,” he told this news organization. “It’s smaller than in people who were in the ICU, but it’s not ... zero.”
Experts aren’t yet certain how COVID-19 can damage the kidneys, hypothesizing that several factors may be at play. The virus may directly infect kidney cells rich in ACE2 receptors, which are key to infection, said nephrologist F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and a member of Medscape’s advisory board.
Kidneys might also be particularly vulnerable to the inflammatory cascade or blood clotting often seen in COVID-19, Dr. Al-Aly and Wilson both suggested.
COVID-19 survivors more likely to have kidney damage than controls
“A lot of health systems either have or are establishing post-COVID care clinics, which we think should definitely incorporate a kidney component,” Dr. Al-Aly advised. “They should check patients’ blood and urine for kidney problems.”
This is particularly important because “kidney problems, for the most part, are painless and silent,” he added.
“Realizing 2 years down the road that someone has ESKD, where they need dialysis or a kidney transplant, is what we don’t want. We don’t want this to be unrecognized, uncared for, unattended to,” he said.
Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues evaluated VA health system records, including data from 89,216 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 between March 2020 and March 2021, as well as 1.7 million controls who did not have COVID-19. Over a median follow-up of about 5.5 months, participants’ estimated glomerular filtration rate and serum creatinine levels were tracked to assess kidney health and outcomes according to infection severity.
Results were striking, with COVID-19 survivors about one-third more likely than controls to have kidney damage or significant declines in kidney function between 1 and 6 months after infection. More than 4,700 COVID-19 survivors had lost at least 30% of their kidney function within a year, and these patients were 25% more likely to reach that level of decline than controls.
Additionally, COVID-19 survivors were nearly twice as likely to experience AKI and almost three times as likely to be diagnosed with ESKD as controls.
If your patient had COVID-19, ‘it’s reasonable to check kidney function’
“This information tells us that if your patient was sick with COVID-19 and comes for follow-up visits, it’s reasonable to check their kidney function,” Dr. Wilson, who was not involved with the research, told this news organization.
“Even for patients who were not hospitalized, if they were laid low or dehydrated ... it should be part of the post-COVID care package,” he said.
If just a fraction of the millions of COVID-19 survivors in the United States develop long-term kidney problems, the ripple effect on American health care could be substantial, Dr. Wilson and Dr. Al-Aly agreed.
“We’re still living in a pandemic, so it’s hard to tell the total impact,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “But this ultimately will contribute to a rise in burden of kidney disease. This and other long COVID manifestations are going to alter the landscape of clinical care and health care in the United States for a decade or more.”
Because renal problems can limit a patient’s treatment options for other major diseases, including diabetes and cancer, COVID-related kidney damage can ultimately impact survivability.
“There are a lot of medications you can’t use in people with advanced kidney problems,” Dr. Al-Aly said.
The main study limitation was that patients were mostly older White men (median age, 68 years), although more than 9,000 women were included in the VA data, Dr. Al-Aly noted. Additionally, controls were more likely to be younger, Black, living in long-term care, and have higher rates of chronic health conditions and medication use.
The experts agreed that ongoing research tracking kidney outcomes is crucial for years to come.
“We also need to be following a cohort of these patients as part of a research protocol where they come in every 6 months for a standard set of lab tests to really understand what’s going on with their kidneys,” Dr. Wilson said.
“Lastly – and a much tougher sell – is we need biopsies. It’s very hard to infer what’s going on in complex disease with the kidneys without biopsy tissue,” he added.
The study was funded by the American Society of Nephrology and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Al-Aly and Dr. Wilson reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians caring for COVID-19 survivors should routinely check kidney function, which is often damaged by the SARS-CoV-2 virus months after both severe and milder cases, new research indicates.
The largest study to date with the longest follow-up of COVID-19-related kidney outcomes also found that every type of kidney problem, including end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), was far more common in COVID-19 survivors who were admitted to the ICU or experienced acute kidney injury (AKI) while hospitalized.
Researchers analyzed U.S. Veterans Health Administration data from more than 1.7 million patients, including more than 89,000 who tested positive for COVID-19, for the study, which was published online Sept. 1, 2021, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
The risk of kidney problems “is more robust or pronounced in people who have had severe infection, but present in even asymptomatic and mild disease, which shouldn’t be discounted. Those people represent the majority of those with COVID-19,” said senior author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, of the Veteran Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.
“That’s why the results are important, because even in people with mild disease to start with, the risk of kidney problems is not trivial,” he told this news organization. “It’s smaller than in people who were in the ICU, but it’s not ... zero.”
Experts aren’t yet certain how COVID-19 can damage the kidneys, hypothesizing that several factors may be at play. The virus may directly infect kidney cells rich in ACE2 receptors, which are key to infection, said nephrologist F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and a member of Medscape’s advisory board.
Kidneys might also be particularly vulnerable to the inflammatory cascade or blood clotting often seen in COVID-19, Dr. Al-Aly and Wilson both suggested.
COVID-19 survivors more likely to have kidney damage than controls
“A lot of health systems either have or are establishing post-COVID care clinics, which we think should definitely incorporate a kidney component,” Dr. Al-Aly advised. “They should check patients’ blood and urine for kidney problems.”
This is particularly important because “kidney problems, for the most part, are painless and silent,” he added.
“Realizing 2 years down the road that someone has ESKD, where they need dialysis or a kidney transplant, is what we don’t want. We don’t want this to be unrecognized, uncared for, unattended to,” he said.
Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues evaluated VA health system records, including data from 89,216 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 between March 2020 and March 2021, as well as 1.7 million controls who did not have COVID-19. Over a median follow-up of about 5.5 months, participants’ estimated glomerular filtration rate and serum creatinine levels were tracked to assess kidney health and outcomes according to infection severity.
Results were striking, with COVID-19 survivors about one-third more likely than controls to have kidney damage or significant declines in kidney function between 1 and 6 months after infection. More than 4,700 COVID-19 survivors had lost at least 30% of their kidney function within a year, and these patients were 25% more likely to reach that level of decline than controls.
Additionally, COVID-19 survivors were nearly twice as likely to experience AKI and almost three times as likely to be diagnosed with ESKD as controls.
If your patient had COVID-19, ‘it’s reasonable to check kidney function’
“This information tells us that if your patient was sick with COVID-19 and comes for follow-up visits, it’s reasonable to check their kidney function,” Dr. Wilson, who was not involved with the research, told this news organization.
“Even for patients who were not hospitalized, if they were laid low or dehydrated ... it should be part of the post-COVID care package,” he said.
If just a fraction of the millions of COVID-19 survivors in the United States develop long-term kidney problems, the ripple effect on American health care could be substantial, Dr. Wilson and Dr. Al-Aly agreed.
“We’re still living in a pandemic, so it’s hard to tell the total impact,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “But this ultimately will contribute to a rise in burden of kidney disease. This and other long COVID manifestations are going to alter the landscape of clinical care and health care in the United States for a decade or more.”
Because renal problems can limit a patient’s treatment options for other major diseases, including diabetes and cancer, COVID-related kidney damage can ultimately impact survivability.
“There are a lot of medications you can’t use in people with advanced kidney problems,” Dr. Al-Aly said.
The main study limitation was that patients were mostly older White men (median age, 68 years), although more than 9,000 women were included in the VA data, Dr. Al-Aly noted. Additionally, controls were more likely to be younger, Black, living in long-term care, and have higher rates of chronic health conditions and medication use.
The experts agreed that ongoing research tracking kidney outcomes is crucial for years to come.
“We also need to be following a cohort of these patients as part of a research protocol where they come in every 6 months for a standard set of lab tests to really understand what’s going on with their kidneys,” Dr. Wilson said.
“Lastly – and a much tougher sell – is we need biopsies. It’s very hard to infer what’s going on in complex disease with the kidneys without biopsy tissue,” he added.
The study was funded by the American Society of Nephrology and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Al-Aly and Dr. Wilson reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians caring for COVID-19 survivors should routinely check kidney function, which is often damaged by the SARS-CoV-2 virus months after both severe and milder cases, new research indicates.
The largest study to date with the longest follow-up of COVID-19-related kidney outcomes also found that every type of kidney problem, including end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), was far more common in COVID-19 survivors who were admitted to the ICU or experienced acute kidney injury (AKI) while hospitalized.
Researchers analyzed U.S. Veterans Health Administration data from more than 1.7 million patients, including more than 89,000 who tested positive for COVID-19, for the study, which was published online Sept. 1, 2021, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
The risk of kidney problems “is more robust or pronounced in people who have had severe infection, but present in even asymptomatic and mild disease, which shouldn’t be discounted. Those people represent the majority of those with COVID-19,” said senior author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, of the Veteran Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.
“That’s why the results are important, because even in people with mild disease to start with, the risk of kidney problems is not trivial,” he told this news organization. “It’s smaller than in people who were in the ICU, but it’s not ... zero.”
Experts aren’t yet certain how COVID-19 can damage the kidneys, hypothesizing that several factors may be at play. The virus may directly infect kidney cells rich in ACE2 receptors, which are key to infection, said nephrologist F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and a member of Medscape’s advisory board.
Kidneys might also be particularly vulnerable to the inflammatory cascade or blood clotting often seen in COVID-19, Dr. Al-Aly and Wilson both suggested.
COVID-19 survivors more likely to have kidney damage than controls
“A lot of health systems either have or are establishing post-COVID care clinics, which we think should definitely incorporate a kidney component,” Dr. Al-Aly advised. “They should check patients’ blood and urine for kidney problems.”
This is particularly important because “kidney problems, for the most part, are painless and silent,” he added.
“Realizing 2 years down the road that someone has ESKD, where they need dialysis or a kidney transplant, is what we don’t want. We don’t want this to be unrecognized, uncared for, unattended to,” he said.
Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues evaluated VA health system records, including data from 89,216 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 between March 2020 and March 2021, as well as 1.7 million controls who did not have COVID-19. Over a median follow-up of about 5.5 months, participants’ estimated glomerular filtration rate and serum creatinine levels were tracked to assess kidney health and outcomes according to infection severity.
Results were striking, with COVID-19 survivors about one-third more likely than controls to have kidney damage or significant declines in kidney function between 1 and 6 months after infection. More than 4,700 COVID-19 survivors had lost at least 30% of their kidney function within a year, and these patients were 25% more likely to reach that level of decline than controls.
Additionally, COVID-19 survivors were nearly twice as likely to experience AKI and almost three times as likely to be diagnosed with ESKD as controls.
If your patient had COVID-19, ‘it’s reasonable to check kidney function’
“This information tells us that if your patient was sick with COVID-19 and comes for follow-up visits, it’s reasonable to check their kidney function,” Dr. Wilson, who was not involved with the research, told this news organization.
“Even for patients who were not hospitalized, if they were laid low or dehydrated ... it should be part of the post-COVID care package,” he said.
If just a fraction of the millions of COVID-19 survivors in the United States develop long-term kidney problems, the ripple effect on American health care could be substantial, Dr. Wilson and Dr. Al-Aly agreed.
“We’re still living in a pandemic, so it’s hard to tell the total impact,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “But this ultimately will contribute to a rise in burden of kidney disease. This and other long COVID manifestations are going to alter the landscape of clinical care and health care in the United States for a decade or more.”
Because renal problems can limit a patient’s treatment options for other major diseases, including diabetes and cancer, COVID-related kidney damage can ultimately impact survivability.
“There are a lot of medications you can’t use in people with advanced kidney problems,” Dr. Al-Aly said.
The main study limitation was that patients were mostly older White men (median age, 68 years), although more than 9,000 women were included in the VA data, Dr. Al-Aly noted. Additionally, controls were more likely to be younger, Black, living in long-term care, and have higher rates of chronic health conditions and medication use.
The experts agreed that ongoing research tracking kidney outcomes is crucial for years to come.
“We also need to be following a cohort of these patients as part of a research protocol where they come in every 6 months for a standard set of lab tests to really understand what’s going on with their kidneys,” Dr. Wilson said.
“Lastly – and a much tougher sell – is we need biopsies. It’s very hard to infer what’s going on in complex disease with the kidneys without biopsy tissue,” he added.
The study was funded by the American Society of Nephrology and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Al-Aly and Dr. Wilson reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Elderly mice receive the gift of warmth
Steal from the warm, give to the cold
If there’s one constant in life other than taxes, it’s elderly people moving to Florida. The Sunshine State’s reputation as a giant retirement home needs no elaboration, but why do senior citizens gravitate there? Well, many reasons, but a big one is that, the older you get, the more susceptible and sensitive you are to the cold. And now, according to a new study, we may have identified a culprit.
Researchers from Yale University examined a group of mice and found that the older ones lacked ICL2 cells in their fatty tissue. These cells, at least in younger mice, help restore body heat when exposed to cold temperatures. Lacking these cells meant that older mice had a limited ability to burn their fat and raise their temperature in response to cold.
Well, job done, all we need to do now is stimulate production of ICL2 cells in elderly people, and they’ll be able to go outside in 80-degree weather without a sweater again. Except there’s a problem. In a cruel twist of fate, when the elderly mice were given a molecule to boost ICL2 cell production, they actually became less tolerant of the cold than at baseline. Oops.
The scientists didn’t give up though, and gave their elderly mice ICL2 cells from young mice. This finally did the trick, though we have to admit, if that treatment does eventually scale up to humans, the prospect of a bunch of senior citizens taking ICL2 cells from young people to stay warm does sound a bit like a bad vampire movie premise. “I vant to suck your immune cell group 2 innate lymphoid cells!” Not the most pithy catch phrase in the world.
Grocery store tapping your subconscious? It’s a good thing
We all know there’s marketing and functionality elements to grocery stores and how they’re set up for your shopping pleasure. But what if I told you that the good old supermarket subconscious trick works on how healthy food decisions are?
In a recent study, researchers at the University of Southampton in England found that if you placed a wider selection of fruits and vegetables near the entrances and more nonfood items near checkouts, sales decreased on the sweets and increased on the produce. “The findings of our study suggest that a healthier store layout could lead to nearly 10,000 extra portions of fruit and vegetables and approximately 1,500 fewer portions of confectionery being sold on a weekly basis in each store,” lead author Dr. Christina Vogel explained.
You’re probably thinking that food placement studies aren’t new. That’s true, but this one went above and beyond. Instead of just looking at the influence placement has on purchase, this one took it further by trying to reduce the consumers’ “calorie opportunities” and examining the effect on sales. Also, customer loyalty, patterns, and diets were taken into account across multiple household members.
The researchers think shifting the layouts in grocery stores could shift people’s food choices, producing a domino effect on the population’s overall diet. With obesity, diabetes, and cardiology concerns always looming, swaying consumers toward healthier food choices makes for better public health overall.
So if you feel like you’re being subconsciously assaulted by veggies every time you walk into Trader Joe’s, just know it’s for your own good.
TikTokers take on tics
We know TikTok is what makes a lot of teens and young adults tick, but what if TikTokers are actually catching tic disorders from other TikTokers?
TikTok blew up during the pandemic. Many people were stuck at home and had nothing better to do than make and watch TikTok videos. The pandemic brought isolation, uncertainty, and anxiety. The stress that followed may have caused many people, mostly women and young girls, to develop tic disorders.
There’s a TikTok for everything, whether it’s a new dance or a recipe. Many people even use TikTok to speak out about their illnesses. Several TikTokers have Tourette’s syndrome and show their tics on their videos. It appears that some audience members actually “catch” the tics from watching the videos and are then unable to stop certain jerking movements or saying specific words.
Neurologists at the University of Calgary (Alta.), who were hearing from colleagues and getting referrals of such patients, called it “an epidemic within the pandemic.” The behavior is not actually Tourette’s, they told Vice, but the patients “cannot stop, and we have absolutely witnessed that.”
There is, of course, controversy over the issue. One individual with the condition said, “I feel like there’s a lot of really weird, backwards stigma on TikTok about tic disorders. Like, you aren’t allowed to have one unless it’s this one.”
Who would have guessed that people would disagree over stuff on the Internet?
Look on the bright side: Obesity edition
The pandemic may have postponed “Top Gun: Maverick” and “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” until who-knows-when, but we here at LOTME are happy to announce the nearly-as-anticipated return of Bacteria vs. the World.
As you may recall from our last edition of BVTW, bacteria battled the ghost of Charles Darwin, who had taken the earthly form of antibiotics capable of stopping bacterial evolution. Tonight, our prokaryotic protagonists take on an equally relentless and ubiquitous challenger: obesity.
Specifically, we’re putting bacteria up against the obesity survival paradox, that phenomenon in which obesity and overweight seem to protect against – yes, you guessed it – bacterial infections.
A Swedish research team observed a group of 2,196 individual adults who received care for suspected severe bacterial infection at Skaraborg Hospital in Skövde. One year after hospitalization, 26% of normal-weight (body mass index, 18.5-24.99) patients were dead, compared with 17% of overweight (BMI, 25.0-29.99), 16% of obese (BMI, 30.0-34.99), and 9% of very obese (BMI >35) patients.
These results confirm the obesity survival paradox, but “what we don’t know is how being overweight can benefit the patient with a bacterial infection, or whether it’s connected with functions in the immune system and how they’re regulated,” lead author Dr. Åsa Alsiö said in a written statement.
A spokes-cell for the bacteria disputed the results and challenged the legitimacy of the investigators. When asked if there should be some sort of reexamination of the findings, he/she/it replied: “You bet your flagella.” We then pointed out that humans don’t have flagellum, and the representative raised his/her/its flagella in what could only be considered an obscene gesture.
Steal from the warm, give to the cold
If there’s one constant in life other than taxes, it’s elderly people moving to Florida. The Sunshine State’s reputation as a giant retirement home needs no elaboration, but why do senior citizens gravitate there? Well, many reasons, but a big one is that, the older you get, the more susceptible and sensitive you are to the cold. And now, according to a new study, we may have identified a culprit.
Researchers from Yale University examined a group of mice and found that the older ones lacked ICL2 cells in their fatty tissue. These cells, at least in younger mice, help restore body heat when exposed to cold temperatures. Lacking these cells meant that older mice had a limited ability to burn their fat and raise their temperature in response to cold.
Well, job done, all we need to do now is stimulate production of ICL2 cells in elderly people, and they’ll be able to go outside in 80-degree weather without a sweater again. Except there’s a problem. In a cruel twist of fate, when the elderly mice were given a molecule to boost ICL2 cell production, they actually became less tolerant of the cold than at baseline. Oops.
The scientists didn’t give up though, and gave their elderly mice ICL2 cells from young mice. This finally did the trick, though we have to admit, if that treatment does eventually scale up to humans, the prospect of a bunch of senior citizens taking ICL2 cells from young people to stay warm does sound a bit like a bad vampire movie premise. “I vant to suck your immune cell group 2 innate lymphoid cells!” Not the most pithy catch phrase in the world.
Grocery store tapping your subconscious? It’s a good thing
We all know there’s marketing and functionality elements to grocery stores and how they’re set up for your shopping pleasure. But what if I told you that the good old supermarket subconscious trick works on how healthy food decisions are?
In a recent study, researchers at the University of Southampton in England found that if you placed a wider selection of fruits and vegetables near the entrances and more nonfood items near checkouts, sales decreased on the sweets and increased on the produce. “The findings of our study suggest that a healthier store layout could lead to nearly 10,000 extra portions of fruit and vegetables and approximately 1,500 fewer portions of confectionery being sold on a weekly basis in each store,” lead author Dr. Christina Vogel explained.
You’re probably thinking that food placement studies aren’t new. That’s true, but this one went above and beyond. Instead of just looking at the influence placement has on purchase, this one took it further by trying to reduce the consumers’ “calorie opportunities” and examining the effect on sales. Also, customer loyalty, patterns, and diets were taken into account across multiple household members.
The researchers think shifting the layouts in grocery stores could shift people’s food choices, producing a domino effect on the population’s overall diet. With obesity, diabetes, and cardiology concerns always looming, swaying consumers toward healthier food choices makes for better public health overall.
So if you feel like you’re being subconsciously assaulted by veggies every time you walk into Trader Joe’s, just know it’s for your own good.
TikTokers take on tics
We know TikTok is what makes a lot of teens and young adults tick, but what if TikTokers are actually catching tic disorders from other TikTokers?
TikTok blew up during the pandemic. Many people were stuck at home and had nothing better to do than make and watch TikTok videos. The pandemic brought isolation, uncertainty, and anxiety. The stress that followed may have caused many people, mostly women and young girls, to develop tic disorders.
There’s a TikTok for everything, whether it’s a new dance or a recipe. Many people even use TikTok to speak out about their illnesses. Several TikTokers have Tourette’s syndrome and show their tics on their videos. It appears that some audience members actually “catch” the tics from watching the videos and are then unable to stop certain jerking movements or saying specific words.
Neurologists at the University of Calgary (Alta.), who were hearing from colleagues and getting referrals of such patients, called it “an epidemic within the pandemic.” The behavior is not actually Tourette’s, they told Vice, but the patients “cannot stop, and we have absolutely witnessed that.”
There is, of course, controversy over the issue. One individual with the condition said, “I feel like there’s a lot of really weird, backwards stigma on TikTok about tic disorders. Like, you aren’t allowed to have one unless it’s this one.”
Who would have guessed that people would disagree over stuff on the Internet?
Look on the bright side: Obesity edition
The pandemic may have postponed “Top Gun: Maverick” and “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” until who-knows-when, but we here at LOTME are happy to announce the nearly-as-anticipated return of Bacteria vs. the World.
As you may recall from our last edition of BVTW, bacteria battled the ghost of Charles Darwin, who had taken the earthly form of antibiotics capable of stopping bacterial evolution. Tonight, our prokaryotic protagonists take on an equally relentless and ubiquitous challenger: obesity.
Specifically, we’re putting bacteria up against the obesity survival paradox, that phenomenon in which obesity and overweight seem to protect against – yes, you guessed it – bacterial infections.
A Swedish research team observed a group of 2,196 individual adults who received care for suspected severe bacterial infection at Skaraborg Hospital in Skövde. One year after hospitalization, 26% of normal-weight (body mass index, 18.5-24.99) patients were dead, compared with 17% of overweight (BMI, 25.0-29.99), 16% of obese (BMI, 30.0-34.99), and 9% of very obese (BMI >35) patients.
These results confirm the obesity survival paradox, but “what we don’t know is how being overweight can benefit the patient with a bacterial infection, or whether it’s connected with functions in the immune system and how they’re regulated,” lead author Dr. Åsa Alsiö said in a written statement.
A spokes-cell for the bacteria disputed the results and challenged the legitimacy of the investigators. When asked if there should be some sort of reexamination of the findings, he/she/it replied: “You bet your flagella.” We then pointed out that humans don’t have flagellum, and the representative raised his/her/its flagella in what could only be considered an obscene gesture.
Steal from the warm, give to the cold
If there’s one constant in life other than taxes, it’s elderly people moving to Florida. The Sunshine State’s reputation as a giant retirement home needs no elaboration, but why do senior citizens gravitate there? Well, many reasons, but a big one is that, the older you get, the more susceptible and sensitive you are to the cold. And now, according to a new study, we may have identified a culprit.
Researchers from Yale University examined a group of mice and found that the older ones lacked ICL2 cells in their fatty tissue. These cells, at least in younger mice, help restore body heat when exposed to cold temperatures. Lacking these cells meant that older mice had a limited ability to burn their fat and raise their temperature in response to cold.
Well, job done, all we need to do now is stimulate production of ICL2 cells in elderly people, and they’ll be able to go outside in 80-degree weather without a sweater again. Except there’s a problem. In a cruel twist of fate, when the elderly mice were given a molecule to boost ICL2 cell production, they actually became less tolerant of the cold than at baseline. Oops.
The scientists didn’t give up though, and gave their elderly mice ICL2 cells from young mice. This finally did the trick, though we have to admit, if that treatment does eventually scale up to humans, the prospect of a bunch of senior citizens taking ICL2 cells from young people to stay warm does sound a bit like a bad vampire movie premise. “I vant to suck your immune cell group 2 innate lymphoid cells!” Not the most pithy catch phrase in the world.
Grocery store tapping your subconscious? It’s a good thing
We all know there’s marketing and functionality elements to grocery stores and how they’re set up for your shopping pleasure. But what if I told you that the good old supermarket subconscious trick works on how healthy food decisions are?
In a recent study, researchers at the University of Southampton in England found that if you placed a wider selection of fruits and vegetables near the entrances and more nonfood items near checkouts, sales decreased on the sweets and increased on the produce. “The findings of our study suggest that a healthier store layout could lead to nearly 10,000 extra portions of fruit and vegetables and approximately 1,500 fewer portions of confectionery being sold on a weekly basis in each store,” lead author Dr. Christina Vogel explained.
You’re probably thinking that food placement studies aren’t new. That’s true, but this one went above and beyond. Instead of just looking at the influence placement has on purchase, this one took it further by trying to reduce the consumers’ “calorie opportunities” and examining the effect on sales. Also, customer loyalty, patterns, and diets were taken into account across multiple household members.
The researchers think shifting the layouts in grocery stores could shift people’s food choices, producing a domino effect on the population’s overall diet. With obesity, diabetes, and cardiology concerns always looming, swaying consumers toward healthier food choices makes for better public health overall.
So if you feel like you’re being subconsciously assaulted by veggies every time you walk into Trader Joe’s, just know it’s for your own good.
TikTokers take on tics
We know TikTok is what makes a lot of teens and young adults tick, but what if TikTokers are actually catching tic disorders from other TikTokers?
TikTok blew up during the pandemic. Many people were stuck at home and had nothing better to do than make and watch TikTok videos. The pandemic brought isolation, uncertainty, and anxiety. The stress that followed may have caused many people, mostly women and young girls, to develop tic disorders.
There’s a TikTok for everything, whether it’s a new dance or a recipe. Many people even use TikTok to speak out about their illnesses. Several TikTokers have Tourette’s syndrome and show their tics on their videos. It appears that some audience members actually “catch” the tics from watching the videos and are then unable to stop certain jerking movements or saying specific words.
Neurologists at the University of Calgary (Alta.), who were hearing from colleagues and getting referrals of such patients, called it “an epidemic within the pandemic.” The behavior is not actually Tourette’s, they told Vice, but the patients “cannot stop, and we have absolutely witnessed that.”
There is, of course, controversy over the issue. One individual with the condition said, “I feel like there’s a lot of really weird, backwards stigma on TikTok about tic disorders. Like, you aren’t allowed to have one unless it’s this one.”
Who would have guessed that people would disagree over stuff on the Internet?
Look on the bright side: Obesity edition
The pandemic may have postponed “Top Gun: Maverick” and “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” until who-knows-when, but we here at LOTME are happy to announce the nearly-as-anticipated return of Bacteria vs. the World.
As you may recall from our last edition of BVTW, bacteria battled the ghost of Charles Darwin, who had taken the earthly form of antibiotics capable of stopping bacterial evolution. Tonight, our prokaryotic protagonists take on an equally relentless and ubiquitous challenger: obesity.
Specifically, we’re putting bacteria up against the obesity survival paradox, that phenomenon in which obesity and overweight seem to protect against – yes, you guessed it – bacterial infections.
A Swedish research team observed a group of 2,196 individual adults who received care for suspected severe bacterial infection at Skaraborg Hospital in Skövde. One year after hospitalization, 26% of normal-weight (body mass index, 18.5-24.99) patients were dead, compared with 17% of overweight (BMI, 25.0-29.99), 16% of obese (BMI, 30.0-34.99), and 9% of very obese (BMI >35) patients.
These results confirm the obesity survival paradox, but “what we don’t know is how being overweight can benefit the patient with a bacterial infection, or whether it’s connected with functions in the immune system and how they’re regulated,” lead author Dr. Åsa Alsiö said in a written statement.
A spokes-cell for the bacteria disputed the results and challenged the legitimacy of the investigators. When asked if there should be some sort of reexamination of the findings, he/she/it replied: “You bet your flagella.” We then pointed out that humans don’t have flagellum, and the representative raised his/her/its flagella in what could only be considered an obscene gesture.
Walking 7,000 steps per day may be enough to reduce mortality risk
based on prospective data from more than 2,000 people.
Findings were consistent regardless of race or sex, and step intensity had no impact on mortality risk, reported lead author Amanda E. Paluch, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and colleagues.
“In response to the need for empirical data on the associations of step volume and intensity with mortality in younger and diverse populations, we conducted a prospective study in middle-aged Black and White adults followed up for mortality for approximately 11 years,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Network Open. “The objectives of our study were to examine the associations of step volume and intensity with mortality overall and by race and sex.”
Steps per day is easy to communicate
Dr. Paluch noted that steps per day is a “very appealing metric to quantify activity,” for both researchers and laypeople.
“Steps per day is simple and easy to communicate in public health and clinical settings,” Dr. Paluch said in an interview. “Additionally, the dramatic growth of wearable devices measuring steps makes it appealing and broadens the reach of promoting physical activity to many individuals. Walking is an activity that most of the general population can pursue. It can also be accumulated throughout daily living and may seem more achievable to fit into busy lives than a structured exercise session.”
The present investigation was conducted as part of the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study. The dataset included 2,110 participants ranging from 38-50 years of age, with a mean age of 45.2 years. A slightly higher proportion of the subjects were women (57.1%) and White (57.9%).
All participants wore an ActiGraph 7164 accelerometer for 1 week and were then followed for death of any cause, with a mean follow-up of 10.8 years. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models included a range of covariates, such as smoking history, body weight, alcohol intake, blood pressure, total cholesterol, and others. Step counts were grouped into low (less than 7,000 steps per day), moderate (7,000-9,999), and high (at least 10,000 steps per day) categories.
Compared with individuals who took less than 7,000 steps per day, those who took 7,000-9,000 steps per day had a 72% reduced risk of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.54). Going beyond 10,000 steps appeared to add no benefit, based on a 55% lower risk of all-cause mortality in the highly active group, compared with those taking less than 7,000 steps per day (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25-0.81).
Walking faster didn’t appear to help either, as stepping intensity was not associated with mortality risk; however, Dr. Paluch urged a cautious interpretation of this finding, calling it “inconclusive,” and suggesting that more research is needed.
“It is also important to note that this study only looked at premature all-cause mortality, and therefore the results may be different for other health outcomes, such as the risk of cardiovascular disease, or diabetes, cancer, or mental health outcomes,” Dr. Paluch said.
“The results from our study demonstrated that those who are least active have the most to gain,” Dr. Paluch said. “Even small incremental increases in steps per day are associated with a lower mortality risk during middle age. A walking plan that gradually works up toward 7,000-10,000 steps per day in middle-aged adults may have health benefits and lower the risk of premature mortality.”
Causality cannot be confirmed
According to Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Calgary (Alta.), the study size, diverse population, and length of follow-up should increase confidence in the findings, although a causal relationship remains elusive.
“As this study is observational, causality between step count and mortality cannot be confirmed; however, the authors accounted for many factors, and the association was consistent in different analyses and with prior literature,” Dr. Joundi said in an interview. “The authors did not assess the risk of other important events like stroke and heart attack, and these could be addressed in a future study.”
Dr. Joundi, who recently published a study linking exercise with a 50% reduction in mortality after stroke, noted that “physical activity has innumerable benefits, and it’s important that people engage in activity that can be regular and consistent, regardless of the type or intensity.”
To this end, he highlighted the use of “devices capable of monitoring step count, which can be an important motivational tool,” and suggested that these findings may bring a sigh of relief to step counters who come up a little short on a common daily goal.
“A target of 10,000 steps is often used for public health promotion, and this study now provides convincing observational evidence that it may be an optimal step count target for mortality reduction,” Dr. Joundi said. “However, if 10,000 steps per day is not feasible, 7,000 steps seems to be a very reasonable target given its association with markedly lower mortality in this study.”
Not all step counters are equal
Unfortunately, such recommendations are complicated by uncertainty in measurement, as widely used step counting devices, like smart watches, may not yield the same results as research-grade accelerometers, according to Nicole L. Spartano, PhD, of Boston University.
“Many comparison studies have been conducted in laboratory settings among young healthy adults, but these do not necessarily reflect real-life wear experiences that will be generalizable to the population as a whole,” Dr. Spartano wrote in an accompanying editorial.
She called for large-scale comparison studies to compare research-grade and consumer devices.
“The reason for conducting comparison studies is not to develop distinct guidelines for different devices or subgroups of the population, but rather to understand the variability so that we can develop one clear message that is most appropriate to the public,” Dr. Spartano wrote. “Some devices may have bias in terms of step measurement at different activity intensity and may not record steps as accurately in older adults or individuals with obesity or mobility disorders. For example, when adults who were obese wore an ActiGraph monitor in a laboratory setting, the device only recorded 80% of steps walked at a moderate pace, while other devices recorded close to 100% of steps walked. If we in the public health community are to move toward using these devices more for physical activity prescription, these details will need to be explored in more depth.”
CARDIA was conducted and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in collaboration with the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Northwestern University, the University of Minnesota, and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Some study authors received grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr Spartano disclosed relationships with Novo Nordisk, the American Heart Association, the Alzheimer’s Association, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Joundi and Dr. Paluch disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
based on prospective data from more than 2,000 people.
Findings were consistent regardless of race or sex, and step intensity had no impact on mortality risk, reported lead author Amanda E. Paluch, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and colleagues.
“In response to the need for empirical data on the associations of step volume and intensity with mortality in younger and diverse populations, we conducted a prospective study in middle-aged Black and White adults followed up for mortality for approximately 11 years,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Network Open. “The objectives of our study were to examine the associations of step volume and intensity with mortality overall and by race and sex.”
Steps per day is easy to communicate
Dr. Paluch noted that steps per day is a “very appealing metric to quantify activity,” for both researchers and laypeople.
“Steps per day is simple and easy to communicate in public health and clinical settings,” Dr. Paluch said in an interview. “Additionally, the dramatic growth of wearable devices measuring steps makes it appealing and broadens the reach of promoting physical activity to many individuals. Walking is an activity that most of the general population can pursue. It can also be accumulated throughout daily living and may seem more achievable to fit into busy lives than a structured exercise session.”
The present investigation was conducted as part of the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study. The dataset included 2,110 participants ranging from 38-50 years of age, with a mean age of 45.2 years. A slightly higher proportion of the subjects were women (57.1%) and White (57.9%).
All participants wore an ActiGraph 7164 accelerometer for 1 week and were then followed for death of any cause, with a mean follow-up of 10.8 years. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models included a range of covariates, such as smoking history, body weight, alcohol intake, blood pressure, total cholesterol, and others. Step counts were grouped into low (less than 7,000 steps per day), moderate (7,000-9,999), and high (at least 10,000 steps per day) categories.
Compared with individuals who took less than 7,000 steps per day, those who took 7,000-9,000 steps per day had a 72% reduced risk of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.54). Going beyond 10,000 steps appeared to add no benefit, based on a 55% lower risk of all-cause mortality in the highly active group, compared with those taking less than 7,000 steps per day (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25-0.81).
Walking faster didn’t appear to help either, as stepping intensity was not associated with mortality risk; however, Dr. Paluch urged a cautious interpretation of this finding, calling it “inconclusive,” and suggesting that more research is needed.
“It is also important to note that this study only looked at premature all-cause mortality, and therefore the results may be different for other health outcomes, such as the risk of cardiovascular disease, or diabetes, cancer, or mental health outcomes,” Dr. Paluch said.
“The results from our study demonstrated that those who are least active have the most to gain,” Dr. Paluch said. “Even small incremental increases in steps per day are associated with a lower mortality risk during middle age. A walking plan that gradually works up toward 7,000-10,000 steps per day in middle-aged adults may have health benefits and lower the risk of premature mortality.”
Causality cannot be confirmed
According to Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Calgary (Alta.), the study size, diverse population, and length of follow-up should increase confidence in the findings, although a causal relationship remains elusive.
“As this study is observational, causality between step count and mortality cannot be confirmed; however, the authors accounted for many factors, and the association was consistent in different analyses and with prior literature,” Dr. Joundi said in an interview. “The authors did not assess the risk of other important events like stroke and heart attack, and these could be addressed in a future study.”
Dr. Joundi, who recently published a study linking exercise with a 50% reduction in mortality after stroke, noted that “physical activity has innumerable benefits, and it’s important that people engage in activity that can be regular and consistent, regardless of the type or intensity.”
To this end, he highlighted the use of “devices capable of monitoring step count, which can be an important motivational tool,” and suggested that these findings may bring a sigh of relief to step counters who come up a little short on a common daily goal.
“A target of 10,000 steps is often used for public health promotion, and this study now provides convincing observational evidence that it may be an optimal step count target for mortality reduction,” Dr. Joundi said. “However, if 10,000 steps per day is not feasible, 7,000 steps seems to be a very reasonable target given its association with markedly lower mortality in this study.”
Not all step counters are equal
Unfortunately, such recommendations are complicated by uncertainty in measurement, as widely used step counting devices, like smart watches, may not yield the same results as research-grade accelerometers, according to Nicole L. Spartano, PhD, of Boston University.
“Many comparison studies have been conducted in laboratory settings among young healthy adults, but these do not necessarily reflect real-life wear experiences that will be generalizable to the population as a whole,” Dr. Spartano wrote in an accompanying editorial.
She called for large-scale comparison studies to compare research-grade and consumer devices.
“The reason for conducting comparison studies is not to develop distinct guidelines for different devices or subgroups of the population, but rather to understand the variability so that we can develop one clear message that is most appropriate to the public,” Dr. Spartano wrote. “Some devices may have bias in terms of step measurement at different activity intensity and may not record steps as accurately in older adults or individuals with obesity or mobility disorders. For example, when adults who were obese wore an ActiGraph monitor in a laboratory setting, the device only recorded 80% of steps walked at a moderate pace, while other devices recorded close to 100% of steps walked. If we in the public health community are to move toward using these devices more for physical activity prescription, these details will need to be explored in more depth.”
CARDIA was conducted and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in collaboration with the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Northwestern University, the University of Minnesota, and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Some study authors received grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr Spartano disclosed relationships with Novo Nordisk, the American Heart Association, the Alzheimer’s Association, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Joundi and Dr. Paluch disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
based on prospective data from more than 2,000 people.
Findings were consistent regardless of race or sex, and step intensity had no impact on mortality risk, reported lead author Amanda E. Paluch, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and colleagues.
“In response to the need for empirical data on the associations of step volume and intensity with mortality in younger and diverse populations, we conducted a prospective study in middle-aged Black and White adults followed up for mortality for approximately 11 years,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Network Open. “The objectives of our study were to examine the associations of step volume and intensity with mortality overall and by race and sex.”
Steps per day is easy to communicate
Dr. Paluch noted that steps per day is a “very appealing metric to quantify activity,” for both researchers and laypeople.
“Steps per day is simple and easy to communicate in public health and clinical settings,” Dr. Paluch said in an interview. “Additionally, the dramatic growth of wearable devices measuring steps makes it appealing and broadens the reach of promoting physical activity to many individuals. Walking is an activity that most of the general population can pursue. It can also be accumulated throughout daily living and may seem more achievable to fit into busy lives than a structured exercise session.”
The present investigation was conducted as part of the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study. The dataset included 2,110 participants ranging from 38-50 years of age, with a mean age of 45.2 years. A slightly higher proportion of the subjects were women (57.1%) and White (57.9%).
All participants wore an ActiGraph 7164 accelerometer for 1 week and were then followed for death of any cause, with a mean follow-up of 10.8 years. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models included a range of covariates, such as smoking history, body weight, alcohol intake, blood pressure, total cholesterol, and others. Step counts were grouped into low (less than 7,000 steps per day), moderate (7,000-9,999), and high (at least 10,000 steps per day) categories.
Compared with individuals who took less than 7,000 steps per day, those who took 7,000-9,000 steps per day had a 72% reduced risk of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.54). Going beyond 10,000 steps appeared to add no benefit, based on a 55% lower risk of all-cause mortality in the highly active group, compared with those taking less than 7,000 steps per day (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25-0.81).
Walking faster didn’t appear to help either, as stepping intensity was not associated with mortality risk; however, Dr. Paluch urged a cautious interpretation of this finding, calling it “inconclusive,” and suggesting that more research is needed.
“It is also important to note that this study only looked at premature all-cause mortality, and therefore the results may be different for other health outcomes, such as the risk of cardiovascular disease, or diabetes, cancer, or mental health outcomes,” Dr. Paluch said.
“The results from our study demonstrated that those who are least active have the most to gain,” Dr. Paluch said. “Even small incremental increases in steps per day are associated with a lower mortality risk during middle age. A walking plan that gradually works up toward 7,000-10,000 steps per day in middle-aged adults may have health benefits and lower the risk of premature mortality.”
Causality cannot be confirmed
According to Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Calgary (Alta.), the study size, diverse population, and length of follow-up should increase confidence in the findings, although a causal relationship remains elusive.
“As this study is observational, causality between step count and mortality cannot be confirmed; however, the authors accounted for many factors, and the association was consistent in different analyses and with prior literature,” Dr. Joundi said in an interview. “The authors did not assess the risk of other important events like stroke and heart attack, and these could be addressed in a future study.”
Dr. Joundi, who recently published a study linking exercise with a 50% reduction in mortality after stroke, noted that “physical activity has innumerable benefits, and it’s important that people engage in activity that can be regular and consistent, regardless of the type or intensity.”
To this end, he highlighted the use of “devices capable of monitoring step count, which can be an important motivational tool,” and suggested that these findings may bring a sigh of relief to step counters who come up a little short on a common daily goal.
“A target of 10,000 steps is often used for public health promotion, and this study now provides convincing observational evidence that it may be an optimal step count target for mortality reduction,” Dr. Joundi said. “However, if 10,000 steps per day is not feasible, 7,000 steps seems to be a very reasonable target given its association with markedly lower mortality in this study.”
Not all step counters are equal
Unfortunately, such recommendations are complicated by uncertainty in measurement, as widely used step counting devices, like smart watches, may not yield the same results as research-grade accelerometers, according to Nicole L. Spartano, PhD, of Boston University.
“Many comparison studies have been conducted in laboratory settings among young healthy adults, but these do not necessarily reflect real-life wear experiences that will be generalizable to the population as a whole,” Dr. Spartano wrote in an accompanying editorial.
She called for large-scale comparison studies to compare research-grade and consumer devices.
“The reason for conducting comparison studies is not to develop distinct guidelines for different devices or subgroups of the population, but rather to understand the variability so that we can develop one clear message that is most appropriate to the public,” Dr. Spartano wrote. “Some devices may have bias in terms of step measurement at different activity intensity and may not record steps as accurately in older adults or individuals with obesity or mobility disorders. For example, when adults who were obese wore an ActiGraph monitor in a laboratory setting, the device only recorded 80% of steps walked at a moderate pace, while other devices recorded close to 100% of steps walked. If we in the public health community are to move toward using these devices more for physical activity prescription, these details will need to be explored in more depth.”
CARDIA was conducted and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in collaboration with the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Northwestern University, the University of Minnesota, and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Some study authors received grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr Spartano disclosed relationships with Novo Nordisk, the American Heart Association, the Alzheimer’s Association, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Joundi and Dr. Paluch disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
United States reaches 5 million cases of child COVID
Cases of child COVID-19 set a new 1-week record and the total number of children infected during the pandemic passed 5 million, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The nearly 282,000 new cases reported in the United States during the week ending Sept. 2 broke the record of 211,000 set in mid-January and brought the cumulative count to 5,049,465 children with COVID-19 since the pandemic began, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID report.
Hospitalizations in children aged 0-17 years have also reached record levels in recent days. The highest daily admission rate since the pandemic began, 0.51 per 100,000 population, was recorded on Sept. 2, less than 2 months after the nation saw its lowest child COVID admission rate for 1 day: 0.07 per 100,000 on July 4. That’s an increase of 629%, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Vaccinations in children, however, did not follow suit. New vaccinations in children aged 12-17 years dropped by 4.5% for the week ending Sept. 6, compared with the week before. Initiations were actually up almost 12% for children aged 16-17, but that was not enough to overcome the continued decline among 12- to 15-year-olds, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
Despite the decline in new vaccinations, those younger children passed a noteworthy group milestone: 50.9% of all 12- to 15-year-olds now have received at least one dose, with 38.6% having completed the regimen. The 16- to 17-year-olds got an earlier start and have reached 58.9% coverage for one dose and 47.6% for two, the CDC said.
A total of 12.2 million children aged 12-17 years had received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of Sept. 6, of whom almost 9.5 million are fully vaccinated, based on the CDC data.
At the state level, Vermont has the highest rates for vaccine initiation (75%) and full vaccination (65%), with Massachusetts (75%/62%) and Connecticut (73%/59%) just behind. The other end of the scale is occupied by Wyoming (28% initiation/19% full vaccination), Alabama (32%/19%), and North Dakota (32%/23%), the AAP said in a separate report.
In a recent letter to the Food and Drug Administration, AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, said that the “Delta variant is surging at extremely alarming rates in every region of America. This surge is seriously impacting all populations, including children.” Dr. Beers urged the FDA to work “aggressively toward authorizing safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines for children under age 12 as soon as possible.”
Cases of child COVID-19 set a new 1-week record and the total number of children infected during the pandemic passed 5 million, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The nearly 282,000 new cases reported in the United States during the week ending Sept. 2 broke the record of 211,000 set in mid-January and brought the cumulative count to 5,049,465 children with COVID-19 since the pandemic began, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID report.
Hospitalizations in children aged 0-17 years have also reached record levels in recent days. The highest daily admission rate since the pandemic began, 0.51 per 100,000 population, was recorded on Sept. 2, less than 2 months after the nation saw its lowest child COVID admission rate for 1 day: 0.07 per 100,000 on July 4. That’s an increase of 629%, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Vaccinations in children, however, did not follow suit. New vaccinations in children aged 12-17 years dropped by 4.5% for the week ending Sept. 6, compared with the week before. Initiations were actually up almost 12% for children aged 16-17, but that was not enough to overcome the continued decline among 12- to 15-year-olds, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
Despite the decline in new vaccinations, those younger children passed a noteworthy group milestone: 50.9% of all 12- to 15-year-olds now have received at least one dose, with 38.6% having completed the regimen. The 16- to 17-year-olds got an earlier start and have reached 58.9% coverage for one dose and 47.6% for two, the CDC said.
A total of 12.2 million children aged 12-17 years had received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of Sept. 6, of whom almost 9.5 million are fully vaccinated, based on the CDC data.
At the state level, Vermont has the highest rates for vaccine initiation (75%) and full vaccination (65%), with Massachusetts (75%/62%) and Connecticut (73%/59%) just behind. The other end of the scale is occupied by Wyoming (28% initiation/19% full vaccination), Alabama (32%/19%), and North Dakota (32%/23%), the AAP said in a separate report.
In a recent letter to the Food and Drug Administration, AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, said that the “Delta variant is surging at extremely alarming rates in every region of America. This surge is seriously impacting all populations, including children.” Dr. Beers urged the FDA to work “aggressively toward authorizing safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines for children under age 12 as soon as possible.”
Cases of child COVID-19 set a new 1-week record and the total number of children infected during the pandemic passed 5 million, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The nearly 282,000 new cases reported in the United States during the week ending Sept. 2 broke the record of 211,000 set in mid-January and brought the cumulative count to 5,049,465 children with COVID-19 since the pandemic began, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID report.
Hospitalizations in children aged 0-17 years have also reached record levels in recent days. The highest daily admission rate since the pandemic began, 0.51 per 100,000 population, was recorded on Sept. 2, less than 2 months after the nation saw its lowest child COVID admission rate for 1 day: 0.07 per 100,000 on July 4. That’s an increase of 629%, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Vaccinations in children, however, did not follow suit. New vaccinations in children aged 12-17 years dropped by 4.5% for the week ending Sept. 6, compared with the week before. Initiations were actually up almost 12% for children aged 16-17, but that was not enough to overcome the continued decline among 12- to 15-year-olds, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
Despite the decline in new vaccinations, those younger children passed a noteworthy group milestone: 50.9% of all 12- to 15-year-olds now have received at least one dose, with 38.6% having completed the regimen. The 16- to 17-year-olds got an earlier start and have reached 58.9% coverage for one dose and 47.6% for two, the CDC said.
A total of 12.2 million children aged 12-17 years had received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of Sept. 6, of whom almost 9.5 million are fully vaccinated, based on the CDC data.
At the state level, Vermont has the highest rates for vaccine initiation (75%) and full vaccination (65%), with Massachusetts (75%/62%) and Connecticut (73%/59%) just behind. The other end of the scale is occupied by Wyoming (28% initiation/19% full vaccination), Alabama (32%/19%), and North Dakota (32%/23%), the AAP said in a separate report.
In a recent letter to the Food and Drug Administration, AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, said that the “Delta variant is surging at extremely alarming rates in every region of America. This surge is seriously impacting all populations, including children.” Dr. Beers urged the FDA to work “aggressively toward authorizing safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines for children under age 12 as soon as possible.”
Anakinra improved survival in hospitalized COVID-19 patients
Hospitalized COVID-19 patients at increased risk for respiratory failure showed significant improvement after treatment with anakinra, compared with placebo, based on data from a phase 3, randomized trial of nearly 600 patients who also received standard of care treatment.
Anakinra, a recombinant interleukin (IL)-1 receptor antagonist that blocks activity for both IL-1 alpha and beta, showed a 70% decrease in the risk of progression to severe respiratory failure in a prior open-label, phase 2, proof-of-concept study, wrote Evdoxia Kyriazopoulou, MD, PhD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues.
Previous research has shown that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) serum levels can signal increased risk of progression to severe disease and respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, they noted.
Supported by these early findings, “the SAVE-MORE study (suPAR-guided anakinra treatment for validation of the risk and early management of severe respiratory failure by COVID-19) is a pivotal, confirmatory, phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of early initiation of anakinra treatment in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19,” the researchers said.
In the SAVE-MORE study published Sept. 3 in Nature Medicine, the researchers identified 594 adults with COVID-19 who were hospitalized at 37 centers in Greece and Italy and at risk of progressing to respiratory failure based on plasma suPAR levels of at least 6 ng/mL.
The primary objective was to assess the impact of early anakinra treatment on the clinical status of COVID-19 patients at risk for severe disease according to the 11-point, ordinal World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) at 28 days after starting treatment. All patients received standard of care, which consisted of regular monitoring of physical signs, oximetry, and anticoagulation. Patients with severe disease by the WHO definition were also received 6 mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 10 days. A total of 405 were randomized to anakinra and 189 to placebo. Approximately 92% of the study participants had severe pneumonia according to the WHO classification for COVID-19. The average age of the patients was 62 years, 58% were male, and the average body mass index was 29.5 kg/m2.
At 28 days, 204 (50.4%) of the anakinra-treated patients had fully recovered, with no detectable viral RNA, compared with 50 (26.5%) of the placebo-treated patients (P < .0001). In addition, significantly fewer patients in the anakinra group had died by 28 days (13 patients, 3.2%), compared with patients in the placebo group (13 patients, 6.9%).
The median decrease in WHO-CPS scores from baseline to 28 days was 4 points in the anakinra group and 3 points in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference (P < .0001).
“Overall, the unadjusted proportional odds of having a worse score on the 11-point WHO-CPS at day 28 with anakinra was 0.36 versus placebo,” and this number remained the same in adjusted analysis, the researchers wrote.
All five secondary endpoints on the WHO-CPS showed significant benefits of anakinra, compared with placebo. These included an absolute decrease of WHO-CPS at day 28 and day 14 from baseline; an absolute decrease of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores at day 7 from baseline; and a significantly shorter mean time to both hospital and ICU discharge (1 day and 4 days, respectively) with anakinra versus placebo.
Follow-up laboratory data showed a significant increase in absolute lymphocyte count at 7 days, a significant decrease in circulating IL-6 levels at 4 and 7 days, and significantly decreased plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 7 days.
Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 16% with anakinra and in 21.7% with placebo; the most common of these events were infections (8.4% with anakinra and 15.9% with placebo). The next most common serious treatment-emergent adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction, bloodstream infections, and pulmonary embolism. The most common nonserious treatment-emergent adverse events were an increase of liver function tests and hyperglycemia (similar in anakinra and placebo groups) and nonserious anemia (lower in the anakinra group).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of patients with critical COVID-19 disease and the challenge of application of suPAR in all hospital settings, the researchers noted. However, “the results validate the findings of the previous SAVE open-label phase 2 trial,” they said. The results suggest “that suPAR should be measured upon admission of all patients with COVID-19 who do not need oxygen or who need nasal or mask oxygen, and that, if suPAR levels are 6 ng/mL or higher, anakinra treatment might be a suitable therapy,” they concluded.
Cytokine storm syndrome remains a treatment challenge
“Many who die from COVID-19 suffer hyperinflammation with features of cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) and associated acute respiratory distress syndrome,” wrote Randy Q. Cron, MD, and W. Winn Chatham, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Roberto Caricchio, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, in an accompanying editorial. They noted that the SAVE-MORE trial results contrast with another recent randomized trial of canakinumab, which failed to show notable benefits, compared with placebo, in treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.
“There are some key differences between these trials, one being that anakinra blocks signaling of both IL-1 alpha and IL-1 beta, whereas canakinumab binds only IL-1 beta,” the editorialists explained. “SARS-CoV-2–infected endothelium may be a particularly important source of IL-1 alpha that is not targeted by canakinumab,” they noted.
Additional studies have examined IL-6 inhibition to treat COVID-19 patients, but data have been inconsistent, the editorialists said.
“One thing that is clearly emerging from this pandemic is that the CSS associated with COVID-19 is relatively unique, with only modestly elevated levels of IL-6, CRP, and ferritin, for example,” they noted. However, the SAVE-MORE study suggests that more targeted approaches, such as anakinra, “may allow earlier introduction of anticytokine treatment” and support the use of IL-1 blockade with anakinra for cases of severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
Predicting risk for severe disease
“One of the major challenges in the management of patients with COVID-19 is identifying patients at risk of severe disease who would warrant early intervention with anti-inflammatory therapy,” said Salim Hayek, MD, medical director of the University of Michigan’s Frankel Cardiovascular Center Clinics, in an interview. “We and others had found that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels are the strongest predictor of severe disease amongst biomarkers of inflammation,” he said. “In this study, patients with high suPAR levels derived benefit from anakinra, compared to those with placebo. This study is a great example of how suPAR levels could be used to identify high-risk patients that would benefit from therapies targeting inflammation,” Dr. Hayek emphasized.
“The findings are in line with the hypothesis that patients with the highest degrees of inflammation would benefit the best from targeting the hyperinflammatory cascade using anakinra or other interleukin antagonists,” Dr. Hayek said. “Given suPAR levels are the best predictors of high-risk disease, it is not surprising to see that patients with high levels benefit from targeting inflammation,” he noted.
The take-home message for clinicians at this time is that anakinra effectively improves outcomes in COVID-19 patients with high suPAR levels, Dr. Hayek said. “SuPAR can be measured easily at the point of care. Thus, a targeted strategy using suPAR to identify patients who would benefit from anakinra appears to be viable,” he explained.
However, “Whether anakinra is effective in patients with lower suPAR levels (<6 ng/mL) is unclear and was not answered by this study,” he said. “We eagerly await results of other trials to make that determination. Whether suPAR levels can also help guide the use of other therapies for COVID-19 should be explored and would enhance the personalization of treatment for COVID-19 according to the underlying inflammatory state,” he added.
The SAVE-MORE study was funded by the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis and Sobi, which manufactures anakinra. Some of the study authors reported financial relationships with Sobi and other pharmaceutical companies.
Dr. Cron disclosed serving as a consultant to Sobi, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sironax. Dr. Cron and Dr. Chatham disclosed having received grant support from Sobi for investigator-initiated clinical trials, and Dr. Caricchio disclosed serving as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Aurinia, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hayek had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
Hospitalized COVID-19 patients at increased risk for respiratory failure showed significant improvement after treatment with anakinra, compared with placebo, based on data from a phase 3, randomized trial of nearly 600 patients who also received standard of care treatment.
Anakinra, a recombinant interleukin (IL)-1 receptor antagonist that blocks activity for both IL-1 alpha and beta, showed a 70% decrease in the risk of progression to severe respiratory failure in a prior open-label, phase 2, proof-of-concept study, wrote Evdoxia Kyriazopoulou, MD, PhD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues.
Previous research has shown that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) serum levels can signal increased risk of progression to severe disease and respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, they noted.
Supported by these early findings, “the SAVE-MORE study (suPAR-guided anakinra treatment for validation of the risk and early management of severe respiratory failure by COVID-19) is a pivotal, confirmatory, phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of early initiation of anakinra treatment in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19,” the researchers said.
In the SAVE-MORE study published Sept. 3 in Nature Medicine, the researchers identified 594 adults with COVID-19 who were hospitalized at 37 centers in Greece and Italy and at risk of progressing to respiratory failure based on plasma suPAR levels of at least 6 ng/mL.
The primary objective was to assess the impact of early anakinra treatment on the clinical status of COVID-19 patients at risk for severe disease according to the 11-point, ordinal World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) at 28 days after starting treatment. All patients received standard of care, which consisted of regular monitoring of physical signs, oximetry, and anticoagulation. Patients with severe disease by the WHO definition were also received 6 mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 10 days. A total of 405 were randomized to anakinra and 189 to placebo. Approximately 92% of the study participants had severe pneumonia according to the WHO classification for COVID-19. The average age of the patients was 62 years, 58% were male, and the average body mass index was 29.5 kg/m2.
At 28 days, 204 (50.4%) of the anakinra-treated patients had fully recovered, with no detectable viral RNA, compared with 50 (26.5%) of the placebo-treated patients (P < .0001). In addition, significantly fewer patients in the anakinra group had died by 28 days (13 patients, 3.2%), compared with patients in the placebo group (13 patients, 6.9%).
The median decrease in WHO-CPS scores from baseline to 28 days was 4 points in the anakinra group and 3 points in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference (P < .0001).
“Overall, the unadjusted proportional odds of having a worse score on the 11-point WHO-CPS at day 28 with anakinra was 0.36 versus placebo,” and this number remained the same in adjusted analysis, the researchers wrote.
All five secondary endpoints on the WHO-CPS showed significant benefits of anakinra, compared with placebo. These included an absolute decrease of WHO-CPS at day 28 and day 14 from baseline; an absolute decrease of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores at day 7 from baseline; and a significantly shorter mean time to both hospital and ICU discharge (1 day and 4 days, respectively) with anakinra versus placebo.
Follow-up laboratory data showed a significant increase in absolute lymphocyte count at 7 days, a significant decrease in circulating IL-6 levels at 4 and 7 days, and significantly decreased plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 7 days.
Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 16% with anakinra and in 21.7% with placebo; the most common of these events were infections (8.4% with anakinra and 15.9% with placebo). The next most common serious treatment-emergent adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction, bloodstream infections, and pulmonary embolism. The most common nonserious treatment-emergent adverse events were an increase of liver function tests and hyperglycemia (similar in anakinra and placebo groups) and nonserious anemia (lower in the anakinra group).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of patients with critical COVID-19 disease and the challenge of application of suPAR in all hospital settings, the researchers noted. However, “the results validate the findings of the previous SAVE open-label phase 2 trial,” they said. The results suggest “that suPAR should be measured upon admission of all patients with COVID-19 who do not need oxygen or who need nasal or mask oxygen, and that, if suPAR levels are 6 ng/mL or higher, anakinra treatment might be a suitable therapy,” they concluded.
Cytokine storm syndrome remains a treatment challenge
“Many who die from COVID-19 suffer hyperinflammation with features of cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) and associated acute respiratory distress syndrome,” wrote Randy Q. Cron, MD, and W. Winn Chatham, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Roberto Caricchio, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, in an accompanying editorial. They noted that the SAVE-MORE trial results contrast with another recent randomized trial of canakinumab, which failed to show notable benefits, compared with placebo, in treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.
“There are some key differences between these trials, one being that anakinra blocks signaling of both IL-1 alpha and IL-1 beta, whereas canakinumab binds only IL-1 beta,” the editorialists explained. “SARS-CoV-2–infected endothelium may be a particularly important source of IL-1 alpha that is not targeted by canakinumab,” they noted.
Additional studies have examined IL-6 inhibition to treat COVID-19 patients, but data have been inconsistent, the editorialists said.
“One thing that is clearly emerging from this pandemic is that the CSS associated with COVID-19 is relatively unique, with only modestly elevated levels of IL-6, CRP, and ferritin, for example,” they noted. However, the SAVE-MORE study suggests that more targeted approaches, such as anakinra, “may allow earlier introduction of anticytokine treatment” and support the use of IL-1 blockade with anakinra for cases of severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
Predicting risk for severe disease
“One of the major challenges in the management of patients with COVID-19 is identifying patients at risk of severe disease who would warrant early intervention with anti-inflammatory therapy,” said Salim Hayek, MD, medical director of the University of Michigan’s Frankel Cardiovascular Center Clinics, in an interview. “We and others had found that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels are the strongest predictor of severe disease amongst biomarkers of inflammation,” he said. “In this study, patients with high suPAR levels derived benefit from anakinra, compared to those with placebo. This study is a great example of how suPAR levels could be used to identify high-risk patients that would benefit from therapies targeting inflammation,” Dr. Hayek emphasized.
“The findings are in line with the hypothesis that patients with the highest degrees of inflammation would benefit the best from targeting the hyperinflammatory cascade using anakinra or other interleukin antagonists,” Dr. Hayek said. “Given suPAR levels are the best predictors of high-risk disease, it is not surprising to see that patients with high levels benefit from targeting inflammation,” he noted.
The take-home message for clinicians at this time is that anakinra effectively improves outcomes in COVID-19 patients with high suPAR levels, Dr. Hayek said. “SuPAR can be measured easily at the point of care. Thus, a targeted strategy using suPAR to identify patients who would benefit from anakinra appears to be viable,” he explained.
However, “Whether anakinra is effective in patients with lower suPAR levels (<6 ng/mL) is unclear and was not answered by this study,” he said. “We eagerly await results of other trials to make that determination. Whether suPAR levels can also help guide the use of other therapies for COVID-19 should be explored and would enhance the personalization of treatment for COVID-19 according to the underlying inflammatory state,” he added.
The SAVE-MORE study was funded by the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis and Sobi, which manufactures anakinra. Some of the study authors reported financial relationships with Sobi and other pharmaceutical companies.
Dr. Cron disclosed serving as a consultant to Sobi, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sironax. Dr. Cron and Dr. Chatham disclosed having received grant support from Sobi for investigator-initiated clinical trials, and Dr. Caricchio disclosed serving as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Aurinia, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hayek had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
Hospitalized COVID-19 patients at increased risk for respiratory failure showed significant improvement after treatment with anakinra, compared with placebo, based on data from a phase 3, randomized trial of nearly 600 patients who also received standard of care treatment.
Anakinra, a recombinant interleukin (IL)-1 receptor antagonist that blocks activity for both IL-1 alpha and beta, showed a 70% decrease in the risk of progression to severe respiratory failure in a prior open-label, phase 2, proof-of-concept study, wrote Evdoxia Kyriazopoulou, MD, PhD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues.
Previous research has shown that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) serum levels can signal increased risk of progression to severe disease and respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, they noted.
Supported by these early findings, “the SAVE-MORE study (suPAR-guided anakinra treatment for validation of the risk and early management of severe respiratory failure by COVID-19) is a pivotal, confirmatory, phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of early initiation of anakinra treatment in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19,” the researchers said.
In the SAVE-MORE study published Sept. 3 in Nature Medicine, the researchers identified 594 adults with COVID-19 who were hospitalized at 37 centers in Greece and Italy and at risk of progressing to respiratory failure based on plasma suPAR levels of at least 6 ng/mL.
The primary objective was to assess the impact of early anakinra treatment on the clinical status of COVID-19 patients at risk for severe disease according to the 11-point, ordinal World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) at 28 days after starting treatment. All patients received standard of care, which consisted of regular monitoring of physical signs, oximetry, and anticoagulation. Patients with severe disease by the WHO definition were also received 6 mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 10 days. A total of 405 were randomized to anakinra and 189 to placebo. Approximately 92% of the study participants had severe pneumonia according to the WHO classification for COVID-19. The average age of the patients was 62 years, 58% were male, and the average body mass index was 29.5 kg/m2.
At 28 days, 204 (50.4%) of the anakinra-treated patients had fully recovered, with no detectable viral RNA, compared with 50 (26.5%) of the placebo-treated patients (P < .0001). In addition, significantly fewer patients in the anakinra group had died by 28 days (13 patients, 3.2%), compared with patients in the placebo group (13 patients, 6.9%).
The median decrease in WHO-CPS scores from baseline to 28 days was 4 points in the anakinra group and 3 points in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference (P < .0001).
“Overall, the unadjusted proportional odds of having a worse score on the 11-point WHO-CPS at day 28 with anakinra was 0.36 versus placebo,” and this number remained the same in adjusted analysis, the researchers wrote.
All five secondary endpoints on the WHO-CPS showed significant benefits of anakinra, compared with placebo. These included an absolute decrease of WHO-CPS at day 28 and day 14 from baseline; an absolute decrease of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores at day 7 from baseline; and a significantly shorter mean time to both hospital and ICU discharge (1 day and 4 days, respectively) with anakinra versus placebo.
Follow-up laboratory data showed a significant increase in absolute lymphocyte count at 7 days, a significant decrease in circulating IL-6 levels at 4 and 7 days, and significantly decreased plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 7 days.
Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 16% with anakinra and in 21.7% with placebo; the most common of these events were infections (8.4% with anakinra and 15.9% with placebo). The next most common serious treatment-emergent adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction, bloodstream infections, and pulmonary embolism. The most common nonserious treatment-emergent adverse events were an increase of liver function tests and hyperglycemia (similar in anakinra and placebo groups) and nonserious anemia (lower in the anakinra group).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of patients with critical COVID-19 disease and the challenge of application of suPAR in all hospital settings, the researchers noted. However, “the results validate the findings of the previous SAVE open-label phase 2 trial,” they said. The results suggest “that suPAR should be measured upon admission of all patients with COVID-19 who do not need oxygen or who need nasal or mask oxygen, and that, if suPAR levels are 6 ng/mL or higher, anakinra treatment might be a suitable therapy,” they concluded.
Cytokine storm syndrome remains a treatment challenge
“Many who die from COVID-19 suffer hyperinflammation with features of cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) and associated acute respiratory distress syndrome,” wrote Randy Q. Cron, MD, and W. Winn Chatham, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Roberto Caricchio, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, in an accompanying editorial. They noted that the SAVE-MORE trial results contrast with another recent randomized trial of canakinumab, which failed to show notable benefits, compared with placebo, in treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.
“There are some key differences between these trials, one being that anakinra blocks signaling of both IL-1 alpha and IL-1 beta, whereas canakinumab binds only IL-1 beta,” the editorialists explained. “SARS-CoV-2–infected endothelium may be a particularly important source of IL-1 alpha that is not targeted by canakinumab,” they noted.
Additional studies have examined IL-6 inhibition to treat COVID-19 patients, but data have been inconsistent, the editorialists said.
“One thing that is clearly emerging from this pandemic is that the CSS associated with COVID-19 is relatively unique, with only modestly elevated levels of IL-6, CRP, and ferritin, for example,” they noted. However, the SAVE-MORE study suggests that more targeted approaches, such as anakinra, “may allow earlier introduction of anticytokine treatment” and support the use of IL-1 blockade with anakinra for cases of severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
Predicting risk for severe disease
“One of the major challenges in the management of patients with COVID-19 is identifying patients at risk of severe disease who would warrant early intervention with anti-inflammatory therapy,” said Salim Hayek, MD, medical director of the University of Michigan’s Frankel Cardiovascular Center Clinics, in an interview. “We and others had found that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels are the strongest predictor of severe disease amongst biomarkers of inflammation,” he said. “In this study, patients with high suPAR levels derived benefit from anakinra, compared to those with placebo. This study is a great example of how suPAR levels could be used to identify high-risk patients that would benefit from therapies targeting inflammation,” Dr. Hayek emphasized.
“The findings are in line with the hypothesis that patients with the highest degrees of inflammation would benefit the best from targeting the hyperinflammatory cascade using anakinra or other interleukin antagonists,” Dr. Hayek said. “Given suPAR levels are the best predictors of high-risk disease, it is not surprising to see that patients with high levels benefit from targeting inflammation,” he noted.
The take-home message for clinicians at this time is that anakinra effectively improves outcomes in COVID-19 patients with high suPAR levels, Dr. Hayek said. “SuPAR can be measured easily at the point of care. Thus, a targeted strategy using suPAR to identify patients who would benefit from anakinra appears to be viable,” he explained.
However, “Whether anakinra is effective in patients with lower suPAR levels (<6 ng/mL) is unclear and was not answered by this study,” he said. “We eagerly await results of other trials to make that determination. Whether suPAR levels can also help guide the use of other therapies for COVID-19 should be explored and would enhance the personalization of treatment for COVID-19 according to the underlying inflammatory state,” he added.
The SAVE-MORE study was funded by the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis and Sobi, which manufactures anakinra. Some of the study authors reported financial relationships with Sobi and other pharmaceutical companies.
Dr. Cron disclosed serving as a consultant to Sobi, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sironax. Dr. Cron and Dr. Chatham disclosed having received grant support from Sobi for investigator-initiated clinical trials, and Dr. Caricchio disclosed serving as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Aurinia, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hayek had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
Beta-blocker reduces lung inflammation in critical COVID-19
In a small study, intravenous administration of the beta-blocker metoprolol to critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) safely blunted lung inflammation associated with the disease.
Metoprolol administration also resulted in better oxygenation and fewer days on intensive mechanical ventilation and in the ICU, compared with no treatment.
These data suggest that metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS in COVID-19 patients is a safe and inexpensive strategy with the potential to improve outcomes, the researchers said.
“Metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS associated with COVID-19 is a safe and cheap intervention that can help to alleviate the massive personal and health care burden associated with the pandemic,” they concluded.
The results, from the MADRID-COVID pilot trial from Agustin Clemente-Moragon, BSc, Centro National de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares, Madrid, and colleagues, were published online Aug. 30, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
In previous work, the researchers showed that metoprolol, but not other clinically available intravenous beta-blockers, abrogates neutrophil-driven exacerbated inflammation, neutrophil-platelet interaction, and formation of neutrophil extracellular traps in a mouse model of acute lung injury.
These results prompted the current pilot trial in 20 patients, ages 18-80 years, with COVID-19–associated ARDS.
Randomization was stratified by age (59 and younger vs. 60 and older), history of hypertension (yes or no), and circulating neutrophil counts (<6,000 vs. ≥6,000). Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and blood samples were obtained from patients at randomization and 24 hours after the third metoprolol dose in the treatment group, and on day 4 in controls.
Because of the cardiovascular effects of metoprolol, patients were monitored invasively and by echocardiography, the authors noted.
As expected, metoprolol significantly reduced heart rate (P < .01) and systolic blood pressure (P < .05), although both remained within the physiological range. Echocardiography showed no deterioration of cardiac function after metoprolol treatment.
To assess the ability of metoprolol to address neutrophil-mediated exacerbated lung inflammation, the researchers analyzed leukocyte populations in BAL samples by flow cytometry at baseline and on day 4.
At baseline, the metoprolol and control groups showed no differences in BAL neutrophil content. But on day 4, after 3 days of treatment with metoprolol, neutrophil content was significantly lower in the metoprolol group (median, 14.3 neutrophils/mcL) than in the control group (median, 397 neutrophils/mcL).
Metoprolol-treated patients also had lower total inflammatory-cell content and lower monocyte/macrophage content. Lymphocytes did not differ between the groups.
The investigators also explored the impact of metoprolol on the chemokine, monocyte chemoattractant protein–1 (MCP-1), as it has been shown to promote pulmonary fibrosis in late-stage ARDS.
They found that MCP-1 was significantly attenuated after 3 days of metoprolol treatment. At baseline, the median MCP-1 level was 298 pg/mL; on day 4 after metoprolol, it was 203 pg/mL (P = .009).
MCP-1 levels remained unchanged in control patients.
An elegant study
In an accompanying editorial, Mourad H. Senussi, MD, assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote: “Although the study has a small sample size, we commend the authors, who attempt to shed light on the important pathophysiological underpinnings that help establish biological plausibility for this inexpensive, safe, and widely available medication.”
In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Senussi added that metoprolol is not itself something primarily used to treat COVID-19 per se. “Rather, the drug blunts the sympathetic-host response. There is a fine balance between that sympathetic surge that is helpful to the body, and then a sympathetic surge that if left unchecked, can lead to significant damage. And so, I think this study really shows that medications like metoprolol can help blunt that initial sympathetic effect.”
A larger study is “absolutely” warranted, he added, “this is a drug that is readily available, safe, and inexpensive. The study design here was simple and most importantly, showed biological plausibility.”
Dr. Senussi also noted that, although the benefit was noted in COVID-19 patients, the study sets the groundwork for further research in the use of beta-blockade in the critically ill. “Further studies are needed to elucidate and identify where along the inflammatory spectrum these critically ill patients lie, which patients would benefit from beta-blockers, and at what time point during their hospital stay.”
The MADRID-COVID authors and Dr. Senussi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a small study, intravenous administration of the beta-blocker metoprolol to critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) safely blunted lung inflammation associated with the disease.
Metoprolol administration also resulted in better oxygenation and fewer days on intensive mechanical ventilation and in the ICU, compared with no treatment.
These data suggest that metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS in COVID-19 patients is a safe and inexpensive strategy with the potential to improve outcomes, the researchers said.
“Metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS associated with COVID-19 is a safe and cheap intervention that can help to alleviate the massive personal and health care burden associated with the pandemic,” they concluded.
The results, from the MADRID-COVID pilot trial from Agustin Clemente-Moragon, BSc, Centro National de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares, Madrid, and colleagues, were published online Aug. 30, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
In previous work, the researchers showed that metoprolol, but not other clinically available intravenous beta-blockers, abrogates neutrophil-driven exacerbated inflammation, neutrophil-platelet interaction, and formation of neutrophil extracellular traps in a mouse model of acute lung injury.
These results prompted the current pilot trial in 20 patients, ages 18-80 years, with COVID-19–associated ARDS.
Randomization was stratified by age (59 and younger vs. 60 and older), history of hypertension (yes or no), and circulating neutrophil counts (<6,000 vs. ≥6,000). Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and blood samples were obtained from patients at randomization and 24 hours after the third metoprolol dose in the treatment group, and on day 4 in controls.
Because of the cardiovascular effects of metoprolol, patients were monitored invasively and by echocardiography, the authors noted.
As expected, metoprolol significantly reduced heart rate (P < .01) and systolic blood pressure (P < .05), although both remained within the physiological range. Echocardiography showed no deterioration of cardiac function after metoprolol treatment.
To assess the ability of metoprolol to address neutrophil-mediated exacerbated lung inflammation, the researchers analyzed leukocyte populations in BAL samples by flow cytometry at baseline and on day 4.
At baseline, the metoprolol and control groups showed no differences in BAL neutrophil content. But on day 4, after 3 days of treatment with metoprolol, neutrophil content was significantly lower in the metoprolol group (median, 14.3 neutrophils/mcL) than in the control group (median, 397 neutrophils/mcL).
Metoprolol-treated patients also had lower total inflammatory-cell content and lower monocyte/macrophage content. Lymphocytes did not differ between the groups.
The investigators also explored the impact of metoprolol on the chemokine, monocyte chemoattractant protein–1 (MCP-1), as it has been shown to promote pulmonary fibrosis in late-stage ARDS.
They found that MCP-1 was significantly attenuated after 3 days of metoprolol treatment. At baseline, the median MCP-1 level was 298 pg/mL; on day 4 after metoprolol, it was 203 pg/mL (P = .009).
MCP-1 levels remained unchanged in control patients.
An elegant study
In an accompanying editorial, Mourad H. Senussi, MD, assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote: “Although the study has a small sample size, we commend the authors, who attempt to shed light on the important pathophysiological underpinnings that help establish biological plausibility for this inexpensive, safe, and widely available medication.”
In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Senussi added that metoprolol is not itself something primarily used to treat COVID-19 per se. “Rather, the drug blunts the sympathetic-host response. There is a fine balance between that sympathetic surge that is helpful to the body, and then a sympathetic surge that if left unchecked, can lead to significant damage. And so, I think this study really shows that medications like metoprolol can help blunt that initial sympathetic effect.”
A larger study is “absolutely” warranted, he added, “this is a drug that is readily available, safe, and inexpensive. The study design here was simple and most importantly, showed biological plausibility.”
Dr. Senussi also noted that, although the benefit was noted in COVID-19 patients, the study sets the groundwork for further research in the use of beta-blockade in the critically ill. “Further studies are needed to elucidate and identify where along the inflammatory spectrum these critically ill patients lie, which patients would benefit from beta-blockers, and at what time point during their hospital stay.”
The MADRID-COVID authors and Dr. Senussi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a small study, intravenous administration of the beta-blocker metoprolol to critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) safely blunted lung inflammation associated with the disease.
Metoprolol administration also resulted in better oxygenation and fewer days on intensive mechanical ventilation and in the ICU, compared with no treatment.
These data suggest that metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS in COVID-19 patients is a safe and inexpensive strategy with the potential to improve outcomes, the researchers said.
“Metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS associated with COVID-19 is a safe and cheap intervention that can help to alleviate the massive personal and health care burden associated with the pandemic,” they concluded.
The results, from the MADRID-COVID pilot trial from Agustin Clemente-Moragon, BSc, Centro National de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares, Madrid, and colleagues, were published online Aug. 30, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
In previous work, the researchers showed that metoprolol, but not other clinically available intravenous beta-blockers, abrogates neutrophil-driven exacerbated inflammation, neutrophil-platelet interaction, and formation of neutrophil extracellular traps in a mouse model of acute lung injury.
These results prompted the current pilot trial in 20 patients, ages 18-80 years, with COVID-19–associated ARDS.
Randomization was stratified by age (59 and younger vs. 60 and older), history of hypertension (yes or no), and circulating neutrophil counts (<6,000 vs. ≥6,000). Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and blood samples were obtained from patients at randomization and 24 hours after the third metoprolol dose in the treatment group, and on day 4 in controls.
Because of the cardiovascular effects of metoprolol, patients were monitored invasively and by echocardiography, the authors noted.
As expected, metoprolol significantly reduced heart rate (P < .01) and systolic blood pressure (P < .05), although both remained within the physiological range. Echocardiography showed no deterioration of cardiac function after metoprolol treatment.
To assess the ability of metoprolol to address neutrophil-mediated exacerbated lung inflammation, the researchers analyzed leukocyte populations in BAL samples by flow cytometry at baseline and on day 4.
At baseline, the metoprolol and control groups showed no differences in BAL neutrophil content. But on day 4, after 3 days of treatment with metoprolol, neutrophil content was significantly lower in the metoprolol group (median, 14.3 neutrophils/mcL) than in the control group (median, 397 neutrophils/mcL).
Metoprolol-treated patients also had lower total inflammatory-cell content and lower monocyte/macrophage content. Lymphocytes did not differ between the groups.
The investigators also explored the impact of metoprolol on the chemokine, monocyte chemoattractant protein–1 (MCP-1), as it has been shown to promote pulmonary fibrosis in late-stage ARDS.
They found that MCP-1 was significantly attenuated after 3 days of metoprolol treatment. At baseline, the median MCP-1 level was 298 pg/mL; on day 4 after metoprolol, it was 203 pg/mL (P = .009).
MCP-1 levels remained unchanged in control patients.
An elegant study
In an accompanying editorial, Mourad H. Senussi, MD, assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote: “Although the study has a small sample size, we commend the authors, who attempt to shed light on the important pathophysiological underpinnings that help establish biological plausibility for this inexpensive, safe, and widely available medication.”
In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Senussi added that metoprolol is not itself something primarily used to treat COVID-19 per se. “Rather, the drug blunts the sympathetic-host response. There is a fine balance between that sympathetic surge that is helpful to the body, and then a sympathetic surge that if left unchecked, can lead to significant damage. And so, I think this study really shows that medications like metoprolol can help blunt that initial sympathetic effect.”
A larger study is “absolutely” warranted, he added, “this is a drug that is readily available, safe, and inexpensive. The study design here was simple and most importantly, showed biological plausibility.”
Dr. Senussi also noted that, although the benefit was noted in COVID-19 patients, the study sets the groundwork for further research in the use of beta-blockade in the critically ill. “Further studies are needed to elucidate and identify where along the inflammatory spectrum these critically ill patients lie, which patients would benefit from beta-blockers, and at what time point during their hospital stay.”
The MADRID-COVID authors and Dr. Senussi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NCCN recommends third COVID-19 dose for patients with cancer
Experts at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network have now issued an updated recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination in people with cancer. The panel calls for these patients to be among the highest-priority group to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and to receive the newly approved third dose of vaccine.
The NCCN has recommended in February that all patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination. In August, the FDA authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems
The new NCCN recommendations state that the following groups should be considered eligible for a third dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine immediately, based on the latest decisions from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
- Patients with solid tumors (either new or recurring) receiving treatment within 1 year of their initial vaccine dose, regardless of their type of cancer therapy.
- Patients with active hematologic malignancies regardless of whether they are currently receiving cancer therapy.
- Anyone who received a stem cell transplant (SCT) or engineered cellular therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor T cells), especially within the past 2 years.
- Any recipients of allogeneic SCT on immunosuppressive therapy or with a history of graft-versus-host disease regardless of the time of transplant.
- Anyone with an additional immunosuppressive condition (for example, HIV) or being treated with immunosuppressive agents unrelated to their cancer therapy.
Cancer patients at high risk of complications
As previously reported by this news organization, infection with COVID-19 in people with cancer can severely impact survival. One study published in 2020 found that patients with both COVID-19 infection and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.
Another study found that cancer type, stage, and recent treatment could affect outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. Patients with hematologic malignancies and metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying. Conversely, those with nonmetastatic disease had outcomes that were comparable with persons without cancer and a COVID-19 infection. This study also found that having undergone recent surgery or receiving immunotherapy also put patients at a higher risk of poor outcomes, although patients with cancer who were treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.
“COVID-19 can be very dangerous, especially for people living with cancer, which is why we’re so grateful for safe and effective vaccines that are saving lives,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, CEO of NCCN, said in a statement.
Right timing and location
The current NCCN update also recommends that individuals wait at least 4 weeks between the second and third doses, and those who are infected with COVID-19 after being vaccinated should wait until they have documented clearance of the virus before receiving a third dose.
It also recommends that people who live in the same household with immunocompromised individuals should also get a third dose once it becomes available, and that it is best to have a third dose of the same type of vaccine as the first two doses. However, a different mRNA vaccine is also acceptable.
Immunocompromised individuals should try to receive their third dose in a health care delivery setting, as opposed to a pharmacy or public vaccination clinic if possible, as it would limit their risk of exposure to the general population.
Steve Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor, vaccine and infectious disease division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, commented that it is still necessary to take precautions, even after getting the booster dose.
“That means, even after a third dose of vaccine, we still recommend immunocompromised people, such as those undergoing cancer treatment, continue to be cautious, wear masks, and avoid large group gatherings, particularly around those who are unvaccinated,” said Dr. Pergam, who is also coleader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Advisory Committee. “All of us should do our part to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and get vaccinated to protect those around us from preventable suffering.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Experts at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network have now issued an updated recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination in people with cancer. The panel calls for these patients to be among the highest-priority group to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and to receive the newly approved third dose of vaccine.
The NCCN has recommended in February that all patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination. In August, the FDA authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems
The new NCCN recommendations state that the following groups should be considered eligible for a third dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine immediately, based on the latest decisions from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
- Patients with solid tumors (either new or recurring) receiving treatment within 1 year of their initial vaccine dose, regardless of their type of cancer therapy.
- Patients with active hematologic malignancies regardless of whether they are currently receiving cancer therapy.
- Anyone who received a stem cell transplant (SCT) or engineered cellular therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor T cells), especially within the past 2 years.
- Any recipients of allogeneic SCT on immunosuppressive therapy or with a history of graft-versus-host disease regardless of the time of transplant.
- Anyone with an additional immunosuppressive condition (for example, HIV) or being treated with immunosuppressive agents unrelated to their cancer therapy.
Cancer patients at high risk of complications
As previously reported by this news organization, infection with COVID-19 in people with cancer can severely impact survival. One study published in 2020 found that patients with both COVID-19 infection and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.
Another study found that cancer type, stage, and recent treatment could affect outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. Patients with hematologic malignancies and metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying. Conversely, those with nonmetastatic disease had outcomes that were comparable with persons without cancer and a COVID-19 infection. This study also found that having undergone recent surgery or receiving immunotherapy also put patients at a higher risk of poor outcomes, although patients with cancer who were treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.
“COVID-19 can be very dangerous, especially for people living with cancer, which is why we’re so grateful for safe and effective vaccines that are saving lives,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, CEO of NCCN, said in a statement.
Right timing and location
The current NCCN update also recommends that individuals wait at least 4 weeks between the second and third doses, and those who are infected with COVID-19 after being vaccinated should wait until they have documented clearance of the virus before receiving a third dose.
It also recommends that people who live in the same household with immunocompromised individuals should also get a third dose once it becomes available, and that it is best to have a third dose of the same type of vaccine as the first two doses. However, a different mRNA vaccine is also acceptable.
Immunocompromised individuals should try to receive their third dose in a health care delivery setting, as opposed to a pharmacy or public vaccination clinic if possible, as it would limit their risk of exposure to the general population.
Steve Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor, vaccine and infectious disease division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, commented that it is still necessary to take precautions, even after getting the booster dose.
“That means, even after a third dose of vaccine, we still recommend immunocompromised people, such as those undergoing cancer treatment, continue to be cautious, wear masks, and avoid large group gatherings, particularly around those who are unvaccinated,” said Dr. Pergam, who is also coleader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Advisory Committee. “All of us should do our part to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and get vaccinated to protect those around us from preventable suffering.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Experts at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network have now issued an updated recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination in people with cancer. The panel calls for these patients to be among the highest-priority group to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and to receive the newly approved third dose of vaccine.
The NCCN has recommended in February that all patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination. In August, the FDA authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems
The new NCCN recommendations state that the following groups should be considered eligible for a third dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine immediately, based on the latest decisions from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
- Patients with solid tumors (either new or recurring) receiving treatment within 1 year of their initial vaccine dose, regardless of their type of cancer therapy.
- Patients with active hematologic malignancies regardless of whether they are currently receiving cancer therapy.
- Anyone who received a stem cell transplant (SCT) or engineered cellular therapy (for example, chimeric antigen receptor T cells), especially within the past 2 years.
- Any recipients of allogeneic SCT on immunosuppressive therapy or with a history of graft-versus-host disease regardless of the time of transplant.
- Anyone with an additional immunosuppressive condition (for example, HIV) or being treated with immunosuppressive agents unrelated to their cancer therapy.
Cancer patients at high risk of complications
As previously reported by this news organization, infection with COVID-19 in people with cancer can severely impact survival. One study published in 2020 found that patients with both COVID-19 infection and progressing cancer had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality, compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.
Another study found that cancer type, stage, and recent treatment could affect outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. Patients with hematologic malignancies and metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying. Conversely, those with nonmetastatic disease had outcomes that were comparable with persons without cancer and a COVID-19 infection. This study also found that having undergone recent surgery or receiving immunotherapy also put patients at a higher risk of poor outcomes, although patients with cancer who were treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.
“COVID-19 can be very dangerous, especially for people living with cancer, which is why we’re so grateful for safe and effective vaccines that are saving lives,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, CEO of NCCN, said in a statement.
Right timing and location
The current NCCN update also recommends that individuals wait at least 4 weeks between the second and third doses, and those who are infected with COVID-19 after being vaccinated should wait until they have documented clearance of the virus before receiving a third dose.
It also recommends that people who live in the same household with immunocompromised individuals should also get a third dose once it becomes available, and that it is best to have a third dose of the same type of vaccine as the first two doses. However, a different mRNA vaccine is also acceptable.
Immunocompromised individuals should try to receive their third dose in a health care delivery setting, as opposed to a pharmacy or public vaccination clinic if possible, as it would limit their risk of exposure to the general population.
Steve Pergam, MD, MPH, associate professor, vaccine and infectious disease division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, commented that it is still necessary to take precautions, even after getting the booster dose.
“That means, even after a third dose of vaccine, we still recommend immunocompromised people, such as those undergoing cancer treatment, continue to be cautious, wear masks, and avoid large group gatherings, particularly around those who are unvaccinated,” said Dr. Pergam, who is also coleader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Advisory Committee. “All of us should do our part to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and get vaccinated to protect those around us from preventable suffering.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I did peer review: I saw turf wars, ego, and unfairness
After making an insulting comment to a surgery scheduler, a surgeon become the subject of a peer review investigation.
The surgeon had been called in on a Saturday morning for surgery, but when he arrived at the hospital, staff informed him that the operating room had been incorrectly booked and asked him to come back that afternoon. When the surgeon returned, the room still wasn’t ready, recounted David Beran, DO, a peer reviewer and medical director for the emergency department at University Medical Center New Orleans, in Louisiana. After more waiting and staff uncertainty about which operating room was going to open, the surgeon became frustrated and said to the scheduler: “Any idiot could figure this out!”
During his peer review, the surgeon acknowledged that he shouldn’t have made the rude remark to the scheduler, Dr. Beran said. His exasperation stemmed from an ongoing problem – operating rooms at the hospital were being inefficiently managed.
“The surgeon acknowledged that even though there was a systems issue at the root, that’s not justification to speak to people unprofessionally,” Dr. Beran said. “So, there was education for the surgeon, but the surgeon was also able to explain the frustration that led to that point.”
System problems are commonly encountered by peer reviewers, said Dr. Beran.
“There’s a huge gap between administration and clinical professionals when it comes to peer review,” he said. “So many times, bad situations, whether they’re clinical or behavioral, often boil down to systems issues or some inadequacy, whether it’s an EMR [electronic medical record] problem, an inefficacy, or how complicated a process is for an end user. But having a peer review situation that then leads to a system-level change that prevents that problem from happening again is really unlikely. There’s a huge disconnect between those two.”
Peer review is generally a process that goes on behind closed doors. Although structures may differ, peer review is generally described as the process by which physicians assess the quality of their peers’ work to ensure that standards of care are being met. The process is often used to evaluate issues regarding clinical care as well as behavioral complaints against physicians.
Doctors who undergo peer review frequently share their experiences, but reviewers themselves rarely speak out. For this story,
“Peer review processes are in place to build stronger institutions and stronger practices, and they’re supposed to be helpful,” Dr. Beran said. “But because of how opaque they are, it immediately puts physicians on the defensive, and it doesn’t always succeed in what it’s trying to do. I think that’s one of the biggest challenges.”
Biased reviewers taint evaluations
A peer reviewer on and off throughout her career, Indiana family physician Lana Patch, MD, said she always strived to be fair when evaluating fellow physicians. But not every reviewer she encountered operated the same way, she said. Some were biased.
In one case, Dr. Patch peer reviewed a general surgeon who had performed a hysterectomy on a 16-year-old girl. The surgeon believed the teenager likely had an acute appendicitis, but it turned out she had a uterine pathology, Dr. Patch said. The surgeon saved the girl’s life, but the case came under review because of the patient’s age and the fact that her uterus was removed. A local obstetrician-gynecologist weighed in on the case.
“The local ob.gyn. saw it as a turf battle,” recalled Dr. Patch, who is now retired after 30 years of practice in eastern Indiana. “The doctor had nothing but bad to say about the surgeon. He was a competitor.”
Because it was a small hospital, the committee sometimes had trouble finding a specialist who was qualified to give an opinion and who wasn’t in competition with the physician in question, said Dr. Patch. Eventually they found an outside pediatric gynecologist who reviewed the case and concluded that the surgeon had followed the standard of care.
Personal agendas in can come from different directions, said Robert Marder, MD, the author of several books on peer review. Dr. Marder is a consultant who assists with peer review redesign. He has worked with hundreds of medical staff leaders and is a former vice president at the Greeley Company, a consulting firm in Danvers, Mass., that performs peer review redesign. Dr. Marder is president of Robert J. Marder Consulting.
“It goes both ways,” Dr. Marder said. “I’ve seen where somebody with a personal view decides to bring things to the peer review committee specifically because they want the peer review committee to have an adverse view of this person and get them off the medical staff. And I’ve seen hospitals that are uncomfortable with a certain person for whatever reason and want the peer review committee to address it, as opposed to addressing it from a human resource standpoint.”
Dr. Patch recalled a case in which reviewers and hospital leaders were at odds over the credentialing of a physician. Fifteen years earlier, while driving in California, the psychiatrist had been pulled over and was found with an ounce of marijuana, she said.
“We wanted to privilege him,” Dr. Patch said. “As staff physicians, we felt that was 15 years ago, people change over time. Doctors are human beings, too. He seemed to have good credentials and good training. The hospital said, ‘Oh no, we can’t have somebody like this.’ “
The psychiatrist was placed on probation and had to undergo a review every 90 days for about 3 years. Eventually, he was privileged, Dr. Patch said.
Bias among reviewers, including unintentional bias, is also a challenge, Dr. Marder noted. Some initial reviewers score a physician too harshly, he said, whereas others underscore.
“Underscoring is more insidious and more difficult to deal with,” Dr. Marder said. “Underscoring is where the reviewer is too nice. They tend to dismiss things from their colleagues rather than recognize them as an opportunity to help them improve. With underscoring, a lot of committees, if the initial reviewer says the care was appropriate, they don’t even look at the case. They just take that one person’s word for it.”
Reviewers: Looks can be deceiving
When first examining the documented details of a case, it can be easy for peer reviewers to make a quick judgment about what happened, Dr. Beran said.
“You get these complaints, and you read through it, and you think, ‘Oh man, this person really messed up,’ “ he said. “Then you hear the doctor’s side of it, and you realize, ‘No, there’s a much bigger picture at play.’ You realize both sides have valid perspectives on it.”
In one case, for example, Dr. Beran recalled a complaint against a physician who made a snarky remark to a nurse. The doctor had asked the nurse for a piece of equipment, and the nurse said she was busy preparing the room for a patient. The doctor made a comment along the lines of, “Well, would you like me to do that for you and also intubate the patient while you do some charting?!”
At first glance, it appeared that the physician lashed out inappropriately at the nurse. But when reviewers heard from the doctor, they learned that the nurses knew that a trauma patient was coming by ambulance and that he would likely require a ventilator, Dr. Beran said. As the minutes ticked by, however, the nurses were seen in the break room chatting. Nothing had been prepared in the room, including any airway supply.
“The patient had a prolonged course and a very difficult intubation and could have very easily wound up with a much worse outcome for something the nurses had been warned about prior to the patient’s arrival,” he said. “I can see anybody getting upset in that situation if I warned them 5 or 10 minutes beforehand, ‘Get this stuff ready,’ and then nothing was done.”
There was no direct penalty for the physician.
Just as some complaints can be misleading, the clinical record in some peer review cases can also lead reviewers astray.
Physicians frequently include too much irrelevant information in the record, which can cloud a peer review, said Hans Duvefelt, MD, a family physician at Pines Health Services, in Van Buren, Maine. Dr. Duvefelt is a former medical director at Bucksport Regional Health Center, in Ellsworth, Maine. Both facilities are federally qualified health centers where continuous, random peer reviews are required.
In one case, Dr. Duvefelt was peer reviewing a physician’s office note regarding an elderly patient with a low-grade fever. The final diagnosis was urinary tract infection. Dr. Duvefelt said he had trouble following the doctor’s line of thinking because of a plethora of unnecessary data in the 10-page document. The office note included past medical history, prior lab and imaging test results, and an extensive narrative section that included a mixture of active medical problems and ongoing relationships with specialists, he said.
After reading through the printout three times, Dr. Duvefelt said he finally found mention of increased urinary dribbling and details about an enlarged prostate. He also spotted a same-day urinalysis among nearly a dozen other previous lab tests that had no connection to body temperature. Dr. Duvefelt gave the physician a passing grade but also left a scathing note about all the irrelevant information.
“It’s very common,” Dr. Duvefelt said. “It’s a disaster. Other doctors can’t follow your thinking. A reviewer has a hard time determining whether the doctor acted reasonably.”
Slackers make bad reviewers
Although dedicated reviewers work hard to get to the bottom of cases, it’s not uncommon for some committee members to hardly work at all, according to experts.
Dr. Marder said he’s seen many instances in which reviewers were assigned a review but did not complete it for months. Most committees have set time frames in which reviewers must complete their review.
“That delays that review, and by that time, the review is older and it’s harder to remember things,” he said. “It’s not fair to the physician. If there was a problem the physician could fix and you don’t tell him for 3 or 4 months what it is, he may do the same thing again. The case might come before the committee again and it looks like he’s repeated something, but you never gave him the opportunity to improve.”
Other reviewers fail to attend meetings regularly. Peer review committee members are generally volunteers, and meetings are usually held in the early mornings or late evenings.
“There are reasons for not attending occasionally, but some people put on a committee just don’t take it seriously,” Dr. Marder said. “They don’t fulfill their responsibilities as well as they should. If you accept the job, do the job.”
For physicians considering becoming a peer reviewer, Dr. Beran offers these tips: Be transparent, help physicians understand next steps, and make yourself as available as allowed to answer questions.
Know your committee’s policies and procedures, and follow them, added Dr. Marder. It’s also a good idea to work with your hospital’s quality staff, he said.
Reviewers should keep in mind that they may not always be the one assessing someone else, Dr. Beran said.
“Realize very easily you could be on the other side of that table for things that are outside your control,” he said. “How would you want to be treated?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After making an insulting comment to a surgery scheduler, a surgeon become the subject of a peer review investigation.
The surgeon had been called in on a Saturday morning for surgery, but when he arrived at the hospital, staff informed him that the operating room had been incorrectly booked and asked him to come back that afternoon. When the surgeon returned, the room still wasn’t ready, recounted David Beran, DO, a peer reviewer and medical director for the emergency department at University Medical Center New Orleans, in Louisiana. After more waiting and staff uncertainty about which operating room was going to open, the surgeon became frustrated and said to the scheduler: “Any idiot could figure this out!”
During his peer review, the surgeon acknowledged that he shouldn’t have made the rude remark to the scheduler, Dr. Beran said. His exasperation stemmed from an ongoing problem – operating rooms at the hospital were being inefficiently managed.
“The surgeon acknowledged that even though there was a systems issue at the root, that’s not justification to speak to people unprofessionally,” Dr. Beran said. “So, there was education for the surgeon, but the surgeon was also able to explain the frustration that led to that point.”
System problems are commonly encountered by peer reviewers, said Dr. Beran.
“There’s a huge gap between administration and clinical professionals when it comes to peer review,” he said. “So many times, bad situations, whether they’re clinical or behavioral, often boil down to systems issues or some inadequacy, whether it’s an EMR [electronic medical record] problem, an inefficacy, or how complicated a process is for an end user. But having a peer review situation that then leads to a system-level change that prevents that problem from happening again is really unlikely. There’s a huge disconnect between those two.”
Peer review is generally a process that goes on behind closed doors. Although structures may differ, peer review is generally described as the process by which physicians assess the quality of their peers’ work to ensure that standards of care are being met. The process is often used to evaluate issues regarding clinical care as well as behavioral complaints against physicians.
Doctors who undergo peer review frequently share their experiences, but reviewers themselves rarely speak out. For this story,
“Peer review processes are in place to build stronger institutions and stronger practices, and they’re supposed to be helpful,” Dr. Beran said. “But because of how opaque they are, it immediately puts physicians on the defensive, and it doesn’t always succeed in what it’s trying to do. I think that’s one of the biggest challenges.”
Biased reviewers taint evaluations
A peer reviewer on and off throughout her career, Indiana family physician Lana Patch, MD, said she always strived to be fair when evaluating fellow physicians. But not every reviewer she encountered operated the same way, she said. Some were biased.
In one case, Dr. Patch peer reviewed a general surgeon who had performed a hysterectomy on a 16-year-old girl. The surgeon believed the teenager likely had an acute appendicitis, but it turned out she had a uterine pathology, Dr. Patch said. The surgeon saved the girl’s life, but the case came under review because of the patient’s age and the fact that her uterus was removed. A local obstetrician-gynecologist weighed in on the case.
“The local ob.gyn. saw it as a turf battle,” recalled Dr. Patch, who is now retired after 30 years of practice in eastern Indiana. “The doctor had nothing but bad to say about the surgeon. He was a competitor.”
Because it was a small hospital, the committee sometimes had trouble finding a specialist who was qualified to give an opinion and who wasn’t in competition with the physician in question, said Dr. Patch. Eventually they found an outside pediatric gynecologist who reviewed the case and concluded that the surgeon had followed the standard of care.
Personal agendas in can come from different directions, said Robert Marder, MD, the author of several books on peer review. Dr. Marder is a consultant who assists with peer review redesign. He has worked with hundreds of medical staff leaders and is a former vice president at the Greeley Company, a consulting firm in Danvers, Mass., that performs peer review redesign. Dr. Marder is president of Robert J. Marder Consulting.
“It goes both ways,” Dr. Marder said. “I’ve seen where somebody with a personal view decides to bring things to the peer review committee specifically because they want the peer review committee to have an adverse view of this person and get them off the medical staff. And I’ve seen hospitals that are uncomfortable with a certain person for whatever reason and want the peer review committee to address it, as opposed to addressing it from a human resource standpoint.”
Dr. Patch recalled a case in which reviewers and hospital leaders were at odds over the credentialing of a physician. Fifteen years earlier, while driving in California, the psychiatrist had been pulled over and was found with an ounce of marijuana, she said.
“We wanted to privilege him,” Dr. Patch said. “As staff physicians, we felt that was 15 years ago, people change over time. Doctors are human beings, too. He seemed to have good credentials and good training. The hospital said, ‘Oh no, we can’t have somebody like this.’ “
The psychiatrist was placed on probation and had to undergo a review every 90 days for about 3 years. Eventually, he was privileged, Dr. Patch said.
Bias among reviewers, including unintentional bias, is also a challenge, Dr. Marder noted. Some initial reviewers score a physician too harshly, he said, whereas others underscore.
“Underscoring is more insidious and more difficult to deal with,” Dr. Marder said. “Underscoring is where the reviewer is too nice. They tend to dismiss things from their colleagues rather than recognize them as an opportunity to help them improve. With underscoring, a lot of committees, if the initial reviewer says the care was appropriate, they don’t even look at the case. They just take that one person’s word for it.”
Reviewers: Looks can be deceiving
When first examining the documented details of a case, it can be easy for peer reviewers to make a quick judgment about what happened, Dr. Beran said.
“You get these complaints, and you read through it, and you think, ‘Oh man, this person really messed up,’ “ he said. “Then you hear the doctor’s side of it, and you realize, ‘No, there’s a much bigger picture at play.’ You realize both sides have valid perspectives on it.”
In one case, for example, Dr. Beran recalled a complaint against a physician who made a snarky remark to a nurse. The doctor had asked the nurse for a piece of equipment, and the nurse said she was busy preparing the room for a patient. The doctor made a comment along the lines of, “Well, would you like me to do that for you and also intubate the patient while you do some charting?!”
At first glance, it appeared that the physician lashed out inappropriately at the nurse. But when reviewers heard from the doctor, they learned that the nurses knew that a trauma patient was coming by ambulance and that he would likely require a ventilator, Dr. Beran said. As the minutes ticked by, however, the nurses were seen in the break room chatting. Nothing had been prepared in the room, including any airway supply.
“The patient had a prolonged course and a very difficult intubation and could have very easily wound up with a much worse outcome for something the nurses had been warned about prior to the patient’s arrival,” he said. “I can see anybody getting upset in that situation if I warned them 5 or 10 minutes beforehand, ‘Get this stuff ready,’ and then nothing was done.”
There was no direct penalty for the physician.
Just as some complaints can be misleading, the clinical record in some peer review cases can also lead reviewers astray.
Physicians frequently include too much irrelevant information in the record, which can cloud a peer review, said Hans Duvefelt, MD, a family physician at Pines Health Services, in Van Buren, Maine. Dr. Duvefelt is a former medical director at Bucksport Regional Health Center, in Ellsworth, Maine. Both facilities are federally qualified health centers where continuous, random peer reviews are required.
In one case, Dr. Duvefelt was peer reviewing a physician’s office note regarding an elderly patient with a low-grade fever. The final diagnosis was urinary tract infection. Dr. Duvefelt said he had trouble following the doctor’s line of thinking because of a plethora of unnecessary data in the 10-page document. The office note included past medical history, prior lab and imaging test results, and an extensive narrative section that included a mixture of active medical problems and ongoing relationships with specialists, he said.
After reading through the printout three times, Dr. Duvefelt said he finally found mention of increased urinary dribbling and details about an enlarged prostate. He also spotted a same-day urinalysis among nearly a dozen other previous lab tests that had no connection to body temperature. Dr. Duvefelt gave the physician a passing grade but also left a scathing note about all the irrelevant information.
“It’s very common,” Dr. Duvefelt said. “It’s a disaster. Other doctors can’t follow your thinking. A reviewer has a hard time determining whether the doctor acted reasonably.”
Slackers make bad reviewers
Although dedicated reviewers work hard to get to the bottom of cases, it’s not uncommon for some committee members to hardly work at all, according to experts.
Dr. Marder said he’s seen many instances in which reviewers were assigned a review but did not complete it for months. Most committees have set time frames in which reviewers must complete their review.
“That delays that review, and by that time, the review is older and it’s harder to remember things,” he said. “It’s not fair to the physician. If there was a problem the physician could fix and you don’t tell him for 3 or 4 months what it is, he may do the same thing again. The case might come before the committee again and it looks like he’s repeated something, but you never gave him the opportunity to improve.”
Other reviewers fail to attend meetings regularly. Peer review committee members are generally volunteers, and meetings are usually held in the early mornings or late evenings.
“There are reasons for not attending occasionally, but some people put on a committee just don’t take it seriously,” Dr. Marder said. “They don’t fulfill their responsibilities as well as they should. If you accept the job, do the job.”
For physicians considering becoming a peer reviewer, Dr. Beran offers these tips: Be transparent, help physicians understand next steps, and make yourself as available as allowed to answer questions.
Know your committee’s policies and procedures, and follow them, added Dr. Marder. It’s also a good idea to work with your hospital’s quality staff, he said.
Reviewers should keep in mind that they may not always be the one assessing someone else, Dr. Beran said.
“Realize very easily you could be on the other side of that table for things that are outside your control,” he said. “How would you want to be treated?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After making an insulting comment to a surgery scheduler, a surgeon become the subject of a peer review investigation.
The surgeon had been called in on a Saturday morning for surgery, but when he arrived at the hospital, staff informed him that the operating room had been incorrectly booked and asked him to come back that afternoon. When the surgeon returned, the room still wasn’t ready, recounted David Beran, DO, a peer reviewer and medical director for the emergency department at University Medical Center New Orleans, in Louisiana. After more waiting and staff uncertainty about which operating room was going to open, the surgeon became frustrated and said to the scheduler: “Any idiot could figure this out!”
During his peer review, the surgeon acknowledged that he shouldn’t have made the rude remark to the scheduler, Dr. Beran said. His exasperation stemmed from an ongoing problem – operating rooms at the hospital were being inefficiently managed.
“The surgeon acknowledged that even though there was a systems issue at the root, that’s not justification to speak to people unprofessionally,” Dr. Beran said. “So, there was education for the surgeon, but the surgeon was also able to explain the frustration that led to that point.”
System problems are commonly encountered by peer reviewers, said Dr. Beran.
“There’s a huge gap between administration and clinical professionals when it comes to peer review,” he said. “So many times, bad situations, whether they’re clinical or behavioral, often boil down to systems issues or some inadequacy, whether it’s an EMR [electronic medical record] problem, an inefficacy, or how complicated a process is for an end user. But having a peer review situation that then leads to a system-level change that prevents that problem from happening again is really unlikely. There’s a huge disconnect between those two.”
Peer review is generally a process that goes on behind closed doors. Although structures may differ, peer review is generally described as the process by which physicians assess the quality of their peers’ work to ensure that standards of care are being met. The process is often used to evaluate issues regarding clinical care as well as behavioral complaints against physicians.
Doctors who undergo peer review frequently share their experiences, but reviewers themselves rarely speak out. For this story,
“Peer review processes are in place to build stronger institutions and stronger practices, and they’re supposed to be helpful,” Dr. Beran said. “But because of how opaque they are, it immediately puts physicians on the defensive, and it doesn’t always succeed in what it’s trying to do. I think that’s one of the biggest challenges.”
Biased reviewers taint evaluations
A peer reviewer on and off throughout her career, Indiana family physician Lana Patch, MD, said she always strived to be fair when evaluating fellow physicians. But not every reviewer she encountered operated the same way, she said. Some were biased.
In one case, Dr. Patch peer reviewed a general surgeon who had performed a hysterectomy on a 16-year-old girl. The surgeon believed the teenager likely had an acute appendicitis, but it turned out she had a uterine pathology, Dr. Patch said. The surgeon saved the girl’s life, but the case came under review because of the patient’s age and the fact that her uterus was removed. A local obstetrician-gynecologist weighed in on the case.
“The local ob.gyn. saw it as a turf battle,” recalled Dr. Patch, who is now retired after 30 years of practice in eastern Indiana. “The doctor had nothing but bad to say about the surgeon. He was a competitor.”
Because it was a small hospital, the committee sometimes had trouble finding a specialist who was qualified to give an opinion and who wasn’t in competition with the physician in question, said Dr. Patch. Eventually they found an outside pediatric gynecologist who reviewed the case and concluded that the surgeon had followed the standard of care.
Personal agendas in can come from different directions, said Robert Marder, MD, the author of several books on peer review. Dr. Marder is a consultant who assists with peer review redesign. He has worked with hundreds of medical staff leaders and is a former vice president at the Greeley Company, a consulting firm in Danvers, Mass., that performs peer review redesign. Dr. Marder is president of Robert J. Marder Consulting.
“It goes both ways,” Dr. Marder said. “I’ve seen where somebody with a personal view decides to bring things to the peer review committee specifically because they want the peer review committee to have an adverse view of this person and get them off the medical staff. And I’ve seen hospitals that are uncomfortable with a certain person for whatever reason and want the peer review committee to address it, as opposed to addressing it from a human resource standpoint.”
Dr. Patch recalled a case in which reviewers and hospital leaders were at odds over the credentialing of a physician. Fifteen years earlier, while driving in California, the psychiatrist had been pulled over and was found with an ounce of marijuana, she said.
“We wanted to privilege him,” Dr. Patch said. “As staff physicians, we felt that was 15 years ago, people change over time. Doctors are human beings, too. He seemed to have good credentials and good training. The hospital said, ‘Oh no, we can’t have somebody like this.’ “
The psychiatrist was placed on probation and had to undergo a review every 90 days for about 3 years. Eventually, he was privileged, Dr. Patch said.
Bias among reviewers, including unintentional bias, is also a challenge, Dr. Marder noted. Some initial reviewers score a physician too harshly, he said, whereas others underscore.
“Underscoring is more insidious and more difficult to deal with,” Dr. Marder said. “Underscoring is where the reviewer is too nice. They tend to dismiss things from their colleagues rather than recognize them as an opportunity to help them improve. With underscoring, a lot of committees, if the initial reviewer says the care was appropriate, they don’t even look at the case. They just take that one person’s word for it.”
Reviewers: Looks can be deceiving
When first examining the documented details of a case, it can be easy for peer reviewers to make a quick judgment about what happened, Dr. Beran said.
“You get these complaints, and you read through it, and you think, ‘Oh man, this person really messed up,’ “ he said. “Then you hear the doctor’s side of it, and you realize, ‘No, there’s a much bigger picture at play.’ You realize both sides have valid perspectives on it.”
In one case, for example, Dr. Beran recalled a complaint against a physician who made a snarky remark to a nurse. The doctor had asked the nurse for a piece of equipment, and the nurse said she was busy preparing the room for a patient. The doctor made a comment along the lines of, “Well, would you like me to do that for you and also intubate the patient while you do some charting?!”
At first glance, it appeared that the physician lashed out inappropriately at the nurse. But when reviewers heard from the doctor, they learned that the nurses knew that a trauma patient was coming by ambulance and that he would likely require a ventilator, Dr. Beran said. As the minutes ticked by, however, the nurses were seen in the break room chatting. Nothing had been prepared in the room, including any airway supply.
“The patient had a prolonged course and a very difficult intubation and could have very easily wound up with a much worse outcome for something the nurses had been warned about prior to the patient’s arrival,” he said. “I can see anybody getting upset in that situation if I warned them 5 or 10 minutes beforehand, ‘Get this stuff ready,’ and then nothing was done.”
There was no direct penalty for the physician.
Just as some complaints can be misleading, the clinical record in some peer review cases can also lead reviewers astray.
Physicians frequently include too much irrelevant information in the record, which can cloud a peer review, said Hans Duvefelt, MD, a family physician at Pines Health Services, in Van Buren, Maine. Dr. Duvefelt is a former medical director at Bucksport Regional Health Center, in Ellsworth, Maine. Both facilities are federally qualified health centers where continuous, random peer reviews are required.
In one case, Dr. Duvefelt was peer reviewing a physician’s office note regarding an elderly patient with a low-grade fever. The final diagnosis was urinary tract infection. Dr. Duvefelt said he had trouble following the doctor’s line of thinking because of a plethora of unnecessary data in the 10-page document. The office note included past medical history, prior lab and imaging test results, and an extensive narrative section that included a mixture of active medical problems and ongoing relationships with specialists, he said.
After reading through the printout three times, Dr. Duvefelt said he finally found mention of increased urinary dribbling and details about an enlarged prostate. He also spotted a same-day urinalysis among nearly a dozen other previous lab tests that had no connection to body temperature. Dr. Duvefelt gave the physician a passing grade but also left a scathing note about all the irrelevant information.
“It’s very common,” Dr. Duvefelt said. “It’s a disaster. Other doctors can’t follow your thinking. A reviewer has a hard time determining whether the doctor acted reasonably.”
Slackers make bad reviewers
Although dedicated reviewers work hard to get to the bottom of cases, it’s not uncommon for some committee members to hardly work at all, according to experts.
Dr. Marder said he’s seen many instances in which reviewers were assigned a review but did not complete it for months. Most committees have set time frames in which reviewers must complete their review.
“That delays that review, and by that time, the review is older and it’s harder to remember things,” he said. “It’s not fair to the physician. If there was a problem the physician could fix and you don’t tell him for 3 or 4 months what it is, he may do the same thing again. The case might come before the committee again and it looks like he’s repeated something, but you never gave him the opportunity to improve.”
Other reviewers fail to attend meetings regularly. Peer review committee members are generally volunteers, and meetings are usually held in the early mornings or late evenings.
“There are reasons for not attending occasionally, but some people put on a committee just don’t take it seriously,” Dr. Marder said. “They don’t fulfill their responsibilities as well as they should. If you accept the job, do the job.”
For physicians considering becoming a peer reviewer, Dr. Beran offers these tips: Be transparent, help physicians understand next steps, and make yourself as available as allowed to answer questions.
Know your committee’s policies and procedures, and follow them, added Dr. Marder. It’s also a good idea to work with your hospital’s quality staff, he said.
Reviewers should keep in mind that they may not always be the one assessing someone else, Dr. Beran said.
“Realize very easily you could be on the other side of that table for things that are outside your control,” he said. “How would you want to be treated?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Changing minds: What moves the needle for the unvaccinated?
Not so long ago, Heather Simpson of Dallas was known as the anti-vaccine mom who dressed as “the measles” for Halloween. She painted red spots on her face and posted her photo on Facebook, joking: “Was trying to think of the least scary thing I could be for Halloween … so I became the measles.” It went viral with the anti-vaccine crowd.
But between that Halloween and today, a series of “aha” moments transformed Ms. Simpson’s attitudes toward vaccines.
In January 2021, one of those moments involved her daughter, now 4, who was scratched by a feral cat, raising concerns about tetanus. Her daughter had been bitten by a dog when she was just 1, and Ms. Simpson turned down advice then to get a tetanus shot. “I was convinced the tetanus shot would kill her faster than the tetanus.”
After the cat incident, the anxiety was so exhausting, she listened to the nurse practitioner at the clinic, whom she trusted. The nurse gently reassured Ms. Simpson that the shot was less risky than the possibility of tetanus – but did not bombard her with statistics – and that won over Ms. Simpson and triggered an overall rethinking of her vaccine stance.
Fast-forward to February, and that “aha” turned into action when Ms. Simpson launched a “Back to the Vax” effort with a fellow former vaccine opponent. Through their website, Facebook page, and podcasts, they now encourage people to get the COVID-19 vaccine, as well as other immunizations.
Challenge: Reaching the rest
With just over 52% of those eligible in the United States fully vaccinated as of Sept. 1,
Recent data and a poll show some movement in the right direction, as immunizations are increasing and hesitancy is declining among certain groups. According to federal officials, about 14 million people in the United States got their first dose in August, an increase of 4 million, compared to the numbers who got it in July.
And a new poll from the Axios-IPSOS Coronavirus Index found only one in five Americans, or 20%, say they are not likely to get the vaccine, while “hard opposition,” those not at all likely, has dropped to 14% of those adults.
But there is still a lot of work to do. So, how do medical professionals or concerned citizens reach those who haven’t gotten vaccinated yet, whatever their reason?
Many experts in communication and persuasion that this news organization talked to agree that throwing statistics at people hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine is generally useless and often backfires.
So what does work, according to these experts?
- Emphasizing the trends of more people getting vaccinated.
- Focusing on everyone’s freedom of choice.
- Listening to concerns without judgment.
- Offering credible information.
- Correcting myths when necessary.
- Helping them fit vaccination into their “world view.”
Stories over statistics
Talking about the trends of vaccinations can definitely change minds about getting vaccinated, said Robert Cialdini, PhD, regents professor emeritus of psychology and marketing at Arizona State University, Tempe, and author of the recently updated book, “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion,” which has sold over 5 million copies since it was first published in 1984.
Face-to-face with a hesitant patient, a doctor can say: “More and more people are being vaccinated every day,” Dr. Cialdini says. “The reason you say more and more is [that] it conveys a trend. When people see a trend, they project it into the future that it is going to get even larger.”
A focus on choice can also help people change their minds and accept the vaccine, he says. “A lot of conspiracy theorists claim they don’t want to do it because they are being pushed or forced by the government, and they are resisting that.”
If that’s the case, presenting people with new information, such as the increased infectiousness of the Delta variant, and suggesting that a decision be made based on the new information, can work, Dr. Cialdini says, but be sure to end with: “It’s completely up to you.”
“This removes all their sense of being pushed. It says, ‘Here is all the evidence.’ ” At this point, a doctor’s personal recommendation with a patient who trusts him or her may sway them, Dr. Cialdini said. “I think you have to personalize the communication in both directions. That is, to say, ‘For someone in your situation, I would personally recommend that you get the vaccine.’ ” A health care professional’s authority and expertise can carry the day, he says, although “not always.”
This approach worked, Dr. Cialdini says, with a friend of the family hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine. “I told him: ‘We have gotten it. You trust us, right?’ ” He waited for the person to say yes.
Then: “For someone in your position, my personal recommendation is to get vaccinated. There is new information about the vaccine, and more and more people are getting vaccinated. And of course, it is completely up to you.”
The person decided to get the vaccine.
‘Live in that space’
“People develop negative attitudes [about vaccines] by accessing alternative sources of information, anecdotes, and personal stories,” said Matthew Seeger, PhD, dean of the College of Fine, Performing, and Communication Arts and codirector of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at Wayne State University in Detroit.
“If we are going to change their opinion, we need to live in that space.” That means listening first, he says. Ask: “Where did you get that information? How credible do you think the sources are? What do you mean about the vaccine changing DNA?”
Then, you might respond, he said, by addressing that specific information, such as, “We have no cases of DNA being changed.”
Dr. Seeger recalls that his mother would simply talk louder when she couldn’t understand someone who wasn’t a native English speaker. “That’s what we are trying to do with the vaccine-hesitant,” he says. “In some cases, we are yelling at them.” Instead, he says, probe their sources of information.
For some who are vaccine-hesitant, Dr. Seeger said, it is not just about the vaccine. The attitude about vaccines is tied in, often, with a distrust of government and feelings about personal freedom. “That’s one reason it’s so hard to change the attitude.” For some, getting the vaccine in a family against the vaccine might also disrupt their social structure or even get them ostracized.
For these people, a health care provider might give opportunities to get the vaccine without affecting either what they see as their political stance or upsetting family harmony. “There are places you can go, make an appointment, get a vaccine, and nobody knows,” Dr. Seeger said.
One Missouri doctor told CNN that some people calling for a vaccine appointment do request privacy, such as going through a drive-thru or having the shot as they sit in their cars. She said the hospital tries to accommodate them, reasoning that every additional vaccine shot is a win.
Dr. Seeger agrees. “Of course there are still public records,” he says, “but you can still claim you are a vaccine denier. It’s very difficult to persuade people to give up their whole world. Vaccine denial is part of that world. At this point, we need to do whatever we can to get people vaccinated.”
From peer to peer
A theme that runs through many of these persuasion techniques is peer pressure.
One example, while a bit more profane and confrontational than some groups, is COVIDAteMyFace, a subgroup, or “subreddit,” of the popular online site Reddit, which hosts numerous forums inviting users to share news and comments on a variety of topics. The subreddit has over 20,000 members. Its purpose, says the sub’s creator, “was to document the folks who denied COVID, then got bitten in the ass by it.” Reports are of actual cases.
“It’s interesting and powerful that Reddit users are taking this on,” Dr. Seeger said. And this kind of peer pressure, or peer-to-peer information, can be persuasive, he says. “We often seek consensual validation from peers about risk messages and risk behaviors.”
For instance, hurricane evacuation notices are more effective, he said, when people learn their neighbors are leaving.
Peer information – “the number of others who are doing or believing or responding to something – definitely persuades people,” agreed Dr. Cialdini. “When a lot of others are responding in a particular way – for example, getting vaccinated – people follow for three reasons: The action seems more appropriate or correct, it appears more feasible to perform, and it avoids social disapproval from those others.”
Let them talk, give them time
Gladys Jimenez is a contact tracer and “vaccine ambassador” for Tracing Health, a partnership between the Oregon Public Health Institute and the Public Health Institute that has nearly 300 bilingual contract tracers who serve the ethnic communities they’re from. During a typical week, she talks to 50 people or more, and promoting the vaccine is top of mind.
The conversations, Ms. Jimenez said, are like a dance. She presents information, then steps back and lets them talk. “I want to hear the person talk, where they are coming from, where they are at.” Depending on what they say, she gives them more information or corrects their misinformation. “They often will say, ‘Oh, I didn’t know that.’ ”
It’s rarely one conversation that convinces hesitant people, she said. “I’m planting this seed in their brain. ... people want someone to listen to them ... they want to vent.”
Once you let them do that, Ms. Jimenez said, “I can tell the person is in a different state of mind.” She also knows that people “will make the decision in their own time.”
With time, people can change their minds, as a Southern California woman who resisted at first (and asked to remain anonymous) can attest. “When the vaccine first came out, I remember thinking [that] it was a quick fix to a very big problem,” she said. The lack of full FDA approval, which has since been granted, was also an issue. She doesn’t oppose vaccines, she said, but was leery just of the COVID-19 vaccine.
When her longtime partner got his vaccine, he urged her to go right away for hers. She stalled. He got his second dose and grew impatient with her hesitancy. It began to wear on the relationship. Finally, the woman talked to two health care professionals she knew socially. They both follow the science, and “they both could explain vaccination to me in a way that resonated. The information was coming from sources I already trusted.”
Those conversations are what convinced her to get vaccinated this summer.
Simpson’s transformation
Ms. Simpson of Back to the Vax got her first COVID-19 immunization April 16. She had an allergic reaction, including severe itchiness and a bad headache, and needed emergency care, she said. Even so, she scheduled her second shot appointment.
Like many who turned against vaccines as adults, Ms. Simpson had all her childhood vaccines, but she developed a distrust after watching a lengthy documentary series that warned of vaccine dangers as an adult.
Looking back at that documentary, she thought about how it seems to blame everything – childhood cancer, ADHD, autism, allergies – on vaccinations. That suddenly seemed like sketchy science to her.
So did the claim from a family friend who said she knew someone who got the flu shot and began walking backward. She researched on her own, and with time, she decided to be pro-vaccines.
These days, she continues to find that stories, not statistics, are changing the minds of many who decide to get vaccinated. If the nurse practitioner urging the tetanus shot for her daughter had told her that the tetanus shot is linked with problems in one of a specific number of people who get it, no matter how large that second number was, Ms. Simpson said she would have thought: “What if she is that one?”
So she relies on stories that point out how universally vulnerable people are to COVID-19 first, facts next.
“Facts help once you are already moved,” Ms. Simpson said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Not so long ago, Heather Simpson of Dallas was known as the anti-vaccine mom who dressed as “the measles” for Halloween. She painted red spots on her face and posted her photo on Facebook, joking: “Was trying to think of the least scary thing I could be for Halloween … so I became the measles.” It went viral with the anti-vaccine crowd.
But between that Halloween and today, a series of “aha” moments transformed Ms. Simpson’s attitudes toward vaccines.
In January 2021, one of those moments involved her daughter, now 4, who was scratched by a feral cat, raising concerns about tetanus. Her daughter had been bitten by a dog when she was just 1, and Ms. Simpson turned down advice then to get a tetanus shot. “I was convinced the tetanus shot would kill her faster than the tetanus.”
After the cat incident, the anxiety was so exhausting, she listened to the nurse practitioner at the clinic, whom she trusted. The nurse gently reassured Ms. Simpson that the shot was less risky than the possibility of tetanus – but did not bombard her with statistics – and that won over Ms. Simpson and triggered an overall rethinking of her vaccine stance.
Fast-forward to February, and that “aha” turned into action when Ms. Simpson launched a “Back to the Vax” effort with a fellow former vaccine opponent. Through their website, Facebook page, and podcasts, they now encourage people to get the COVID-19 vaccine, as well as other immunizations.
Challenge: Reaching the rest
With just over 52% of those eligible in the United States fully vaccinated as of Sept. 1,
Recent data and a poll show some movement in the right direction, as immunizations are increasing and hesitancy is declining among certain groups. According to federal officials, about 14 million people in the United States got their first dose in August, an increase of 4 million, compared to the numbers who got it in July.
And a new poll from the Axios-IPSOS Coronavirus Index found only one in five Americans, or 20%, say they are not likely to get the vaccine, while “hard opposition,” those not at all likely, has dropped to 14% of those adults.
But there is still a lot of work to do. So, how do medical professionals or concerned citizens reach those who haven’t gotten vaccinated yet, whatever their reason?
Many experts in communication and persuasion that this news organization talked to agree that throwing statistics at people hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine is generally useless and often backfires.
So what does work, according to these experts?
- Emphasizing the trends of more people getting vaccinated.
- Focusing on everyone’s freedom of choice.
- Listening to concerns without judgment.
- Offering credible information.
- Correcting myths when necessary.
- Helping them fit vaccination into their “world view.”
Stories over statistics
Talking about the trends of vaccinations can definitely change minds about getting vaccinated, said Robert Cialdini, PhD, regents professor emeritus of psychology and marketing at Arizona State University, Tempe, and author of the recently updated book, “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion,” which has sold over 5 million copies since it was first published in 1984.
Face-to-face with a hesitant patient, a doctor can say: “More and more people are being vaccinated every day,” Dr. Cialdini says. “The reason you say more and more is [that] it conveys a trend. When people see a trend, they project it into the future that it is going to get even larger.”
A focus on choice can also help people change their minds and accept the vaccine, he says. “A lot of conspiracy theorists claim they don’t want to do it because they are being pushed or forced by the government, and they are resisting that.”
If that’s the case, presenting people with new information, such as the increased infectiousness of the Delta variant, and suggesting that a decision be made based on the new information, can work, Dr. Cialdini says, but be sure to end with: “It’s completely up to you.”
“This removes all their sense of being pushed. It says, ‘Here is all the evidence.’ ” At this point, a doctor’s personal recommendation with a patient who trusts him or her may sway them, Dr. Cialdini said. “I think you have to personalize the communication in both directions. That is, to say, ‘For someone in your situation, I would personally recommend that you get the vaccine.’ ” A health care professional’s authority and expertise can carry the day, he says, although “not always.”
This approach worked, Dr. Cialdini says, with a friend of the family hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine. “I told him: ‘We have gotten it. You trust us, right?’ ” He waited for the person to say yes.
Then: “For someone in your position, my personal recommendation is to get vaccinated. There is new information about the vaccine, and more and more people are getting vaccinated. And of course, it is completely up to you.”
The person decided to get the vaccine.
‘Live in that space’
“People develop negative attitudes [about vaccines] by accessing alternative sources of information, anecdotes, and personal stories,” said Matthew Seeger, PhD, dean of the College of Fine, Performing, and Communication Arts and codirector of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at Wayne State University in Detroit.
“If we are going to change their opinion, we need to live in that space.” That means listening first, he says. Ask: “Where did you get that information? How credible do you think the sources are? What do you mean about the vaccine changing DNA?”
Then, you might respond, he said, by addressing that specific information, such as, “We have no cases of DNA being changed.”
Dr. Seeger recalls that his mother would simply talk louder when she couldn’t understand someone who wasn’t a native English speaker. “That’s what we are trying to do with the vaccine-hesitant,” he says. “In some cases, we are yelling at them.” Instead, he says, probe their sources of information.
For some who are vaccine-hesitant, Dr. Seeger said, it is not just about the vaccine. The attitude about vaccines is tied in, often, with a distrust of government and feelings about personal freedom. “That’s one reason it’s so hard to change the attitude.” For some, getting the vaccine in a family against the vaccine might also disrupt their social structure or even get them ostracized.
For these people, a health care provider might give opportunities to get the vaccine without affecting either what they see as their political stance or upsetting family harmony. “There are places you can go, make an appointment, get a vaccine, and nobody knows,” Dr. Seeger said.
One Missouri doctor told CNN that some people calling for a vaccine appointment do request privacy, such as going through a drive-thru or having the shot as they sit in their cars. She said the hospital tries to accommodate them, reasoning that every additional vaccine shot is a win.
Dr. Seeger agrees. “Of course there are still public records,” he says, “but you can still claim you are a vaccine denier. It’s very difficult to persuade people to give up their whole world. Vaccine denial is part of that world. At this point, we need to do whatever we can to get people vaccinated.”
From peer to peer
A theme that runs through many of these persuasion techniques is peer pressure.
One example, while a bit more profane and confrontational than some groups, is COVIDAteMyFace, a subgroup, or “subreddit,” of the popular online site Reddit, which hosts numerous forums inviting users to share news and comments on a variety of topics. The subreddit has over 20,000 members. Its purpose, says the sub’s creator, “was to document the folks who denied COVID, then got bitten in the ass by it.” Reports are of actual cases.
“It’s interesting and powerful that Reddit users are taking this on,” Dr. Seeger said. And this kind of peer pressure, or peer-to-peer information, can be persuasive, he says. “We often seek consensual validation from peers about risk messages and risk behaviors.”
For instance, hurricane evacuation notices are more effective, he said, when people learn their neighbors are leaving.
Peer information – “the number of others who are doing or believing or responding to something – definitely persuades people,” agreed Dr. Cialdini. “When a lot of others are responding in a particular way – for example, getting vaccinated – people follow for three reasons: The action seems more appropriate or correct, it appears more feasible to perform, and it avoids social disapproval from those others.”
Let them talk, give them time
Gladys Jimenez is a contact tracer and “vaccine ambassador” for Tracing Health, a partnership between the Oregon Public Health Institute and the Public Health Institute that has nearly 300 bilingual contract tracers who serve the ethnic communities they’re from. During a typical week, she talks to 50 people or more, and promoting the vaccine is top of mind.
The conversations, Ms. Jimenez said, are like a dance. She presents information, then steps back and lets them talk. “I want to hear the person talk, where they are coming from, where they are at.” Depending on what they say, she gives them more information or corrects their misinformation. “They often will say, ‘Oh, I didn’t know that.’ ”
It’s rarely one conversation that convinces hesitant people, she said. “I’m planting this seed in their brain. ... people want someone to listen to them ... they want to vent.”
Once you let them do that, Ms. Jimenez said, “I can tell the person is in a different state of mind.” She also knows that people “will make the decision in their own time.”
With time, people can change their minds, as a Southern California woman who resisted at first (and asked to remain anonymous) can attest. “When the vaccine first came out, I remember thinking [that] it was a quick fix to a very big problem,” she said. The lack of full FDA approval, which has since been granted, was also an issue. She doesn’t oppose vaccines, she said, but was leery just of the COVID-19 vaccine.
When her longtime partner got his vaccine, he urged her to go right away for hers. She stalled. He got his second dose and grew impatient with her hesitancy. It began to wear on the relationship. Finally, the woman talked to two health care professionals she knew socially. They both follow the science, and “they both could explain vaccination to me in a way that resonated. The information was coming from sources I already trusted.”
Those conversations are what convinced her to get vaccinated this summer.
Simpson’s transformation
Ms. Simpson of Back to the Vax got her first COVID-19 immunization April 16. She had an allergic reaction, including severe itchiness and a bad headache, and needed emergency care, she said. Even so, she scheduled her second shot appointment.
Like many who turned against vaccines as adults, Ms. Simpson had all her childhood vaccines, but she developed a distrust after watching a lengthy documentary series that warned of vaccine dangers as an adult.
Looking back at that documentary, she thought about how it seems to blame everything – childhood cancer, ADHD, autism, allergies – on vaccinations. That suddenly seemed like sketchy science to her.
So did the claim from a family friend who said she knew someone who got the flu shot and began walking backward. She researched on her own, and with time, she decided to be pro-vaccines.
These days, she continues to find that stories, not statistics, are changing the minds of many who decide to get vaccinated. If the nurse practitioner urging the tetanus shot for her daughter had told her that the tetanus shot is linked with problems in one of a specific number of people who get it, no matter how large that second number was, Ms. Simpson said she would have thought: “What if she is that one?”
So she relies on stories that point out how universally vulnerable people are to COVID-19 first, facts next.
“Facts help once you are already moved,” Ms. Simpson said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Not so long ago, Heather Simpson of Dallas was known as the anti-vaccine mom who dressed as “the measles” for Halloween. She painted red spots on her face and posted her photo on Facebook, joking: “Was trying to think of the least scary thing I could be for Halloween … so I became the measles.” It went viral with the anti-vaccine crowd.
But between that Halloween and today, a series of “aha” moments transformed Ms. Simpson’s attitudes toward vaccines.
In January 2021, one of those moments involved her daughter, now 4, who was scratched by a feral cat, raising concerns about tetanus. Her daughter had been bitten by a dog when she was just 1, and Ms. Simpson turned down advice then to get a tetanus shot. “I was convinced the tetanus shot would kill her faster than the tetanus.”
After the cat incident, the anxiety was so exhausting, she listened to the nurse practitioner at the clinic, whom she trusted. The nurse gently reassured Ms. Simpson that the shot was less risky than the possibility of tetanus – but did not bombard her with statistics – and that won over Ms. Simpson and triggered an overall rethinking of her vaccine stance.
Fast-forward to February, and that “aha” turned into action when Ms. Simpson launched a “Back to the Vax” effort with a fellow former vaccine opponent. Through their website, Facebook page, and podcasts, they now encourage people to get the COVID-19 vaccine, as well as other immunizations.
Challenge: Reaching the rest
With just over 52% of those eligible in the United States fully vaccinated as of Sept. 1,
Recent data and a poll show some movement in the right direction, as immunizations are increasing and hesitancy is declining among certain groups. According to federal officials, about 14 million people in the United States got their first dose in August, an increase of 4 million, compared to the numbers who got it in July.
And a new poll from the Axios-IPSOS Coronavirus Index found only one in five Americans, or 20%, say they are not likely to get the vaccine, while “hard opposition,” those not at all likely, has dropped to 14% of those adults.
But there is still a lot of work to do. So, how do medical professionals or concerned citizens reach those who haven’t gotten vaccinated yet, whatever their reason?
Many experts in communication and persuasion that this news organization talked to agree that throwing statistics at people hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine is generally useless and often backfires.
So what does work, according to these experts?
- Emphasizing the trends of more people getting vaccinated.
- Focusing on everyone’s freedom of choice.
- Listening to concerns without judgment.
- Offering credible information.
- Correcting myths when necessary.
- Helping them fit vaccination into their “world view.”
Stories over statistics
Talking about the trends of vaccinations can definitely change minds about getting vaccinated, said Robert Cialdini, PhD, regents professor emeritus of psychology and marketing at Arizona State University, Tempe, and author of the recently updated book, “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion,” which has sold over 5 million copies since it was first published in 1984.
Face-to-face with a hesitant patient, a doctor can say: “More and more people are being vaccinated every day,” Dr. Cialdini says. “The reason you say more and more is [that] it conveys a trend. When people see a trend, they project it into the future that it is going to get even larger.”
A focus on choice can also help people change their minds and accept the vaccine, he says. “A lot of conspiracy theorists claim they don’t want to do it because they are being pushed or forced by the government, and they are resisting that.”
If that’s the case, presenting people with new information, such as the increased infectiousness of the Delta variant, and suggesting that a decision be made based on the new information, can work, Dr. Cialdini says, but be sure to end with: “It’s completely up to you.”
“This removes all their sense of being pushed. It says, ‘Here is all the evidence.’ ” At this point, a doctor’s personal recommendation with a patient who trusts him or her may sway them, Dr. Cialdini said. “I think you have to personalize the communication in both directions. That is, to say, ‘For someone in your situation, I would personally recommend that you get the vaccine.’ ” A health care professional’s authority and expertise can carry the day, he says, although “not always.”
This approach worked, Dr. Cialdini says, with a friend of the family hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine. “I told him: ‘We have gotten it. You trust us, right?’ ” He waited for the person to say yes.
Then: “For someone in your position, my personal recommendation is to get vaccinated. There is new information about the vaccine, and more and more people are getting vaccinated. And of course, it is completely up to you.”
The person decided to get the vaccine.
‘Live in that space’
“People develop negative attitudes [about vaccines] by accessing alternative sources of information, anecdotes, and personal stories,” said Matthew Seeger, PhD, dean of the College of Fine, Performing, and Communication Arts and codirector of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at Wayne State University in Detroit.
“If we are going to change their opinion, we need to live in that space.” That means listening first, he says. Ask: “Where did you get that information? How credible do you think the sources are? What do you mean about the vaccine changing DNA?”
Then, you might respond, he said, by addressing that specific information, such as, “We have no cases of DNA being changed.”
Dr. Seeger recalls that his mother would simply talk louder when she couldn’t understand someone who wasn’t a native English speaker. “That’s what we are trying to do with the vaccine-hesitant,” he says. “In some cases, we are yelling at them.” Instead, he says, probe their sources of information.
For some who are vaccine-hesitant, Dr. Seeger said, it is not just about the vaccine. The attitude about vaccines is tied in, often, with a distrust of government and feelings about personal freedom. “That’s one reason it’s so hard to change the attitude.” For some, getting the vaccine in a family against the vaccine might also disrupt their social structure or even get them ostracized.
For these people, a health care provider might give opportunities to get the vaccine without affecting either what they see as their political stance or upsetting family harmony. “There are places you can go, make an appointment, get a vaccine, and nobody knows,” Dr. Seeger said.
One Missouri doctor told CNN that some people calling for a vaccine appointment do request privacy, such as going through a drive-thru or having the shot as they sit in their cars. She said the hospital tries to accommodate them, reasoning that every additional vaccine shot is a win.
Dr. Seeger agrees. “Of course there are still public records,” he says, “but you can still claim you are a vaccine denier. It’s very difficult to persuade people to give up their whole world. Vaccine denial is part of that world. At this point, we need to do whatever we can to get people vaccinated.”
From peer to peer
A theme that runs through many of these persuasion techniques is peer pressure.
One example, while a bit more profane and confrontational than some groups, is COVIDAteMyFace, a subgroup, or “subreddit,” of the popular online site Reddit, which hosts numerous forums inviting users to share news and comments on a variety of topics. The subreddit has over 20,000 members. Its purpose, says the sub’s creator, “was to document the folks who denied COVID, then got bitten in the ass by it.” Reports are of actual cases.
“It’s interesting and powerful that Reddit users are taking this on,” Dr. Seeger said. And this kind of peer pressure, or peer-to-peer information, can be persuasive, he says. “We often seek consensual validation from peers about risk messages and risk behaviors.”
For instance, hurricane evacuation notices are more effective, he said, when people learn their neighbors are leaving.
Peer information – “the number of others who are doing or believing or responding to something – definitely persuades people,” agreed Dr. Cialdini. “When a lot of others are responding in a particular way – for example, getting vaccinated – people follow for three reasons: The action seems more appropriate or correct, it appears more feasible to perform, and it avoids social disapproval from those others.”
Let them talk, give them time
Gladys Jimenez is a contact tracer and “vaccine ambassador” for Tracing Health, a partnership between the Oregon Public Health Institute and the Public Health Institute that has nearly 300 bilingual contract tracers who serve the ethnic communities they’re from. During a typical week, she talks to 50 people or more, and promoting the vaccine is top of mind.
The conversations, Ms. Jimenez said, are like a dance. She presents information, then steps back and lets them talk. “I want to hear the person talk, where they are coming from, where they are at.” Depending on what they say, she gives them more information or corrects their misinformation. “They often will say, ‘Oh, I didn’t know that.’ ”
It’s rarely one conversation that convinces hesitant people, she said. “I’m planting this seed in their brain. ... people want someone to listen to them ... they want to vent.”
Once you let them do that, Ms. Jimenez said, “I can tell the person is in a different state of mind.” She also knows that people “will make the decision in their own time.”
With time, people can change their minds, as a Southern California woman who resisted at first (and asked to remain anonymous) can attest. “When the vaccine first came out, I remember thinking [that] it was a quick fix to a very big problem,” she said. The lack of full FDA approval, which has since been granted, was also an issue. She doesn’t oppose vaccines, she said, but was leery just of the COVID-19 vaccine.
When her longtime partner got his vaccine, he urged her to go right away for hers. She stalled. He got his second dose and grew impatient with her hesitancy. It began to wear on the relationship. Finally, the woman talked to two health care professionals she knew socially. They both follow the science, and “they both could explain vaccination to me in a way that resonated. The information was coming from sources I already trusted.”
Those conversations are what convinced her to get vaccinated this summer.
Simpson’s transformation
Ms. Simpson of Back to the Vax got her first COVID-19 immunization April 16. She had an allergic reaction, including severe itchiness and a bad headache, and needed emergency care, she said. Even so, she scheduled her second shot appointment.
Like many who turned against vaccines as adults, Ms. Simpson had all her childhood vaccines, but she developed a distrust after watching a lengthy documentary series that warned of vaccine dangers as an adult.
Looking back at that documentary, she thought about how it seems to blame everything – childhood cancer, ADHD, autism, allergies – on vaccinations. That suddenly seemed like sketchy science to her.
So did the claim from a family friend who said she knew someone who got the flu shot and began walking backward. She researched on her own, and with time, she decided to be pro-vaccines.
These days, she continues to find that stories, not statistics, are changing the minds of many who decide to get vaccinated. If the nurse practitioner urging the tetanus shot for her daughter had told her that the tetanus shot is linked with problems in one of a specific number of people who get it, no matter how large that second number was, Ms. Simpson said she would have thought: “What if she is that one?”
So she relies on stories that point out how universally vulnerable people are to COVID-19 first, facts next.
“Facts help once you are already moved,” Ms. Simpson said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.