Cardiology News

Most children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome related to COVID-19 infection show recovery of cardiac function by 3 months, but longer term follow-up is still needed, suggests a new retrospective longitudinal cohort study.

While 80%-85% of children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome have cardiovascular involvement, “lack of knowledge about the short-term consequences of MIS-C has led to uncertainty among physicians in making recommendations about follow-up,” Daisuke Matsubara, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their paper, which was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Matsubara, of the department of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and colleagues examined cardiac outcomes among 60 patients aged 18 years or under admitted to two Philadelphia hospitals with MIS-C between April 2020 and January 2021. They compared those with outcomes in 60 age-matched healthy children who had undergone echocardiography for a range of non–COVID-related conditions such as chest pain or syncope.

The study used echocardiography, MRI, biochemistry, and functional and clinical parameters to assess the degree of change and damage to the heart at 3 months after admission.

When the patients first presented to a hospital, 42 had biochemical signs of myocardial injury, such as elevated brain-type natriuretic peptide and troponin levels. However, most patients’ symptoms were no longer present by the time they were discharged from hospital.

The researchers found that 81% of patients who presented with myocardial injury had lost the left atrial contraction phase. This dropped to 51% during the subacute phase, then 30% at 1 month. By 3-4 months, all patients achieved normal left atrial contraction phase.

At 1 month after admission, all MIS-C patients had significant signs of cardiac strain, compared with controls, including changes to global longitudinal strain, global circumferential strain, circumferential early diastolic strain rate, and right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain.
 

Parameters of strain normalized by 3 months

All parameters of strain had normalized, compared with controls, by 3 months. In the case of global longitudinal strain and left atrial strain, the median time to normalization was 6 days. For left ventricular ejection fraction the median time to normalization was 8 days and for right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain it was 9 days.

A small difference persisted with global longitudinal strain, but the authors said the difference was within the range of normal published values and not clinically relevant. The dysfunction appeared to be spread evenly across the heart rather than varying between segments, they noted.

“Deformation analysis could detect subtle myocardial changes; therefore, our study suggests the absence of persistent subclinical myocardial dysfunction after 3-4 months,” Dr. Matsubara said in an interview.

Four patients experienced small coronary aneurysms during the acute phase of MIS-C, but all had resolved within 2 months and none experienced any further lesions.

Among the 14 patients who underwent cardiac MRI at presentation, 2 had evidence of myocardial edema and fibrosis during the subacute phase of illness, despite having normal left ventricular systolic function and conventional echocardiography.

At follow-up, only one patient had residual edema; this individual had no evidence of fibrosis and had normal systolic function.
 

Study provides reassurance, but longer follow-up needed

Commenting on the study, pediatric cardiologist Devyani Chowdhury, MD, director of Cardiology Care for Children in Lancaster, Pa., said that overall it provided reassurance that most children do recover from MIS-C – and fits with her own clinical experience of the condition – but cautioned that longer-term follow-up was still needed.

“Three months is really not long term for a child,” Dr. Chowdhury said in an interview. “I’ve had a couple of patients whose MRIs have not normalized even after 1 year.”

Dr. Chowdhury also noted that it was a relatively small sample size, and it was also not yet possible to work out what host factors might play a role in increasing the risk of longer-term effects of MIS-C.

“I think it is a disease in evolution and we have to give it time, but in the very short term at least these kids are not dying, they are recovering, going home, and returning to activity and the heart is getting better,” she said.

The study authors suggested their findings could provide an evidence base for recommendations on when children with MIS-C can return to sports and physical activity, given that current consensus statements on the issue treat MIS-C as being equivalent to myocarditis in adults.

Dr. Matsubara noted that the cardiac outcomes of MIS-C were very different from those in COVID-19–affected adults, where echocardiography and MRI show longer-term evidence of myocardial impairments.

“This finding is also different from that of adult COVID-19, where the high troponin is reported to be the prognostic factor,” he said, suggesting this could explain different mechanisms of myocardial injury between MIS-C and COVID-19 myocarditis.

One author was supported by the National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Most children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome related to COVID-19 infection show recovery of cardiac function by 3 months, but longer term follow-up is still needed, suggests a new retrospective longitudinal cohort study.

While 80%-85% of children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome have cardiovascular involvement, “lack of knowledge about the short-term consequences of MIS-C has led to uncertainty among physicians in making recommendations about follow-up,” Daisuke Matsubara, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their paper, which was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Matsubara, of the department of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and colleagues examined cardiac outcomes among 60 patients aged 18 years or under admitted to two Philadelphia hospitals with MIS-C between April 2020 and January 2021. They compared those with outcomes in 60 age-matched healthy children who had undergone echocardiography for a range of non–COVID-related conditions such as chest pain or syncope.

The study used echocardiography, MRI, biochemistry, and functional and clinical parameters to assess the degree of change and damage to the heart at 3 months after admission.

When the patients first presented to a hospital, 42 had biochemical signs of myocardial injury, such as elevated brain-type natriuretic peptide and troponin levels. However, most patients’ symptoms were no longer present by the time they were discharged from hospital.

The researchers found that 81% of patients who presented with myocardial injury had lost the left atrial contraction phase. This dropped to 51% during the subacute phase, then 30% at 1 month. By 3-4 months, all patients achieved normal left atrial contraction phase.

At 1 month after admission, all MIS-C patients had significant signs of cardiac strain, compared with controls, including changes to global longitudinal strain, global circumferential strain, circumferential early diastolic strain rate, and right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain.
 

Parameters of strain normalized by 3 months

All parameters of strain had normalized, compared with controls, by 3 months. In the case of global longitudinal strain and left atrial strain, the median time to normalization was 6 days. For left ventricular ejection fraction the median time to normalization was 8 days and for right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain it was 9 days.

A small difference persisted with global longitudinal strain, but the authors said the difference was within the range of normal published values and not clinically relevant. The dysfunction appeared to be spread evenly across the heart rather than varying between segments, they noted.

“Deformation analysis could detect subtle myocardial changes; therefore, our study suggests the absence of persistent subclinical myocardial dysfunction after 3-4 months,” Dr. Matsubara said in an interview.

Four patients experienced small coronary aneurysms during the acute phase of MIS-C, but all had resolved within 2 months and none experienced any further lesions.

Among the 14 patients who underwent cardiac MRI at presentation, 2 had evidence of myocardial edema and fibrosis during the subacute phase of illness, despite having normal left ventricular systolic function and conventional echocardiography.

At follow-up, only one patient had residual edema; this individual had no evidence of fibrosis and had normal systolic function.
 

Study provides reassurance, but longer follow-up needed

Commenting on the study, pediatric cardiologist Devyani Chowdhury, MD, director of Cardiology Care for Children in Lancaster, Pa., said that overall it provided reassurance that most children do recover from MIS-C – and fits with her own clinical experience of the condition – but cautioned that longer-term follow-up was still needed.

“Three months is really not long term for a child,” Dr. Chowdhury said in an interview. “I’ve had a couple of patients whose MRIs have not normalized even after 1 year.”

Dr. Chowdhury also noted that it was a relatively small sample size, and it was also not yet possible to work out what host factors might play a role in increasing the risk of longer-term effects of MIS-C.

“I think it is a disease in evolution and we have to give it time, but in the very short term at least these kids are not dying, they are recovering, going home, and returning to activity and the heart is getting better,” she said.

The study authors suggested their findings could provide an evidence base for recommendations on when children with MIS-C can return to sports and physical activity, given that current consensus statements on the issue treat MIS-C as being equivalent to myocarditis in adults.

Dr. Matsubara noted that the cardiac outcomes of MIS-C were very different from those in COVID-19–affected adults, where echocardiography and MRI show longer-term evidence of myocardial impairments.

“This finding is also different from that of adult COVID-19, where the high troponin is reported to be the prognostic factor,” he said, suggesting this could explain different mechanisms of myocardial injury between MIS-C and COVID-19 myocarditis.

One author was supported by the National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Most children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome related to COVID-19 infection show recovery of cardiac function by 3 months, but longer term follow-up is still needed, suggests a new retrospective longitudinal cohort study.

While 80%-85% of children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome have cardiovascular involvement, “lack of knowledge about the short-term consequences of MIS-C has led to uncertainty among physicians in making recommendations about follow-up,” Daisuke Matsubara, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their paper, which was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Matsubara, of the department of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and colleagues examined cardiac outcomes among 60 patients aged 18 years or under admitted to two Philadelphia hospitals with MIS-C between April 2020 and January 2021. They compared those with outcomes in 60 age-matched healthy children who had undergone echocardiography for a range of non–COVID-related conditions such as chest pain or syncope.

The study used echocardiography, MRI, biochemistry, and functional and clinical parameters to assess the degree of change and damage to the heart at 3 months after admission.

When the patients first presented to a hospital, 42 had biochemical signs of myocardial injury, such as elevated brain-type natriuretic peptide and troponin levels. However, most patients’ symptoms were no longer present by the time they were discharged from hospital.

The researchers found that 81% of patients who presented with myocardial injury had lost the left atrial contraction phase. This dropped to 51% during the subacute phase, then 30% at 1 month. By 3-4 months, all patients achieved normal left atrial contraction phase.

At 1 month after admission, all MIS-C patients had significant signs of cardiac strain, compared with controls, including changes to global longitudinal strain, global circumferential strain, circumferential early diastolic strain rate, and right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain.
 

Parameters of strain normalized by 3 months

All parameters of strain had normalized, compared with controls, by 3 months. In the case of global longitudinal strain and left atrial strain, the median time to normalization was 6 days. For left ventricular ejection fraction the median time to normalization was 8 days and for right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain it was 9 days.

A small difference persisted with global longitudinal strain, but the authors said the difference was within the range of normal published values and not clinically relevant. The dysfunction appeared to be spread evenly across the heart rather than varying between segments, they noted.

“Deformation analysis could detect subtle myocardial changes; therefore, our study suggests the absence of persistent subclinical myocardial dysfunction after 3-4 months,” Dr. Matsubara said in an interview.

Four patients experienced small coronary aneurysms during the acute phase of MIS-C, but all had resolved within 2 months and none experienced any further lesions.

Among the 14 patients who underwent cardiac MRI at presentation, 2 had evidence of myocardial edema and fibrosis during the subacute phase of illness, despite having normal left ventricular systolic function and conventional echocardiography.

At follow-up, only one patient had residual edema; this individual had no evidence of fibrosis and had normal systolic function.
 

Study provides reassurance, but longer follow-up needed

Commenting on the study, pediatric cardiologist Devyani Chowdhury, MD, director of Cardiology Care for Children in Lancaster, Pa., said that overall it provided reassurance that most children do recover from MIS-C – and fits with her own clinical experience of the condition – but cautioned that longer-term follow-up was still needed.

“Three months is really not long term for a child,” Dr. Chowdhury said in an interview. “I’ve had a couple of patients whose MRIs have not normalized even after 1 year.”

Dr. Chowdhury also noted that it was a relatively small sample size, and it was also not yet possible to work out what host factors might play a role in increasing the risk of longer-term effects of MIS-C.

“I think it is a disease in evolution and we have to give it time, but in the very short term at least these kids are not dying, they are recovering, going home, and returning to activity and the heart is getting better,” she said.

The study authors suggested their findings could provide an evidence base for recommendations on when children with MIS-C can return to sports and physical activity, given that current consensus statements on the issue treat MIS-C as being equivalent to myocarditis in adults.

Dr. Matsubara noted that the cardiac outcomes of MIS-C were very different from those in COVID-19–affected adults, where echocardiography and MRI show longer-term evidence of myocardial impairments.

“This finding is also different from that of adult COVID-19, where the high troponin is reported to be the prognostic factor,” he said, suggesting this could explain different mechanisms of myocardial injury between MIS-C and COVID-19 myocarditis.

One author was supported by the National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were declared.

A genetic risk factor could explain why some people lose their senses of smell and taste when they get infected with COVID-19, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Genetics

The finding could eventually help the 1.6 million people in the United States who still can’t smell or have had a change in their ability to smell more than 6 months after getting the coronavirus. The exact cause related to COVID-19 is still unknown, but researchers believe it could be because of damage in a part of the nose called the olfactory epithelium.

“How we get from infection to smell loss remains unclear,” Justin Turner, MD, an associate professor of otolaryngology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told NBC News. Dr. Turner was not part of the research team.

“Early data suggest that supporting cells of the olfactory epithelium are the ones mostly being infected by the virus, and presumably this leads to the death of the neurons themselves,” he said. “But we don’t really, really know why and when that happens, and why it seems to preferentially happen in certain individuals.”

Researchers at 23andMe, a genomics and biotechnology company, did the study as part of a larger COVID-19 project, which includes people in the United States and the United Kingdom. They analyzed data from nearly 70,000 people who took online surveys after receiving a positive coronavirus test. Among those, 68% reported a loss of smell or taste as a symptom.

The study team compared the genetic differences between those who lost their sense of smell and taste and those who didn’t. They found that a location near two olfactory genes – UGT2A1 and UGT2A2 – is associated with COVID-19 loss of smell and taste. The genetic risk factor makes it 11% more likely for a person with COVID-19 to lose their sense of smell or taste.

The research team also found that women were 11% more likely than men to report a loss of smell and taste. About 73% of those who reported a loss of smell and taste were ages 26-35.

The researchers aren’t sure how the genes are involved, though they suspect that infected cells could lead to smell loss. Typically, the genes are expressed in tissue inside the nose involved with smell and play a role in processing things that have an odor. To use the findings, researchers need to learn more about the genes, how they are expressed, and what their functions are, NBC News reported.

The findings could help lead to treatments. Other research has shown that the loss of taste and smell is related to a “failure to protect the sensory cells of the nose and tongue from viral infection,” Danielle Reed, PhD, associate director of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, told NBC News. She was not part of the research team but studies person-to-person differences in the loss of these senses because of COVID-19.

“This study suggests a different direction,” she said. “The pathways that break down the chemicals that cause taste and smell in the first place might be over or underactive, reducing or distorting the ability to taste and smell.”

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

A genetic risk factor could explain why some people lose their senses of smell and taste when they get infected with COVID-19, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Genetics

The finding could eventually help the 1.6 million people in the United States who still can’t smell or have had a change in their ability to smell more than 6 months after getting the coronavirus. The exact cause related to COVID-19 is still unknown, but researchers believe it could be because of damage in a part of the nose called the olfactory epithelium.

“How we get from infection to smell loss remains unclear,” Justin Turner, MD, an associate professor of otolaryngology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told NBC News. Dr. Turner was not part of the research team.

“Early data suggest that supporting cells of the olfactory epithelium are the ones mostly being infected by the virus, and presumably this leads to the death of the neurons themselves,” he said. “But we don’t really, really know why and when that happens, and why it seems to preferentially happen in certain individuals.”

Researchers at 23andMe, a genomics and biotechnology company, did the study as part of a larger COVID-19 project, which includes people in the United States and the United Kingdom. They analyzed data from nearly 70,000 people who took online surveys after receiving a positive coronavirus test. Among those, 68% reported a loss of smell or taste as a symptom.

The study team compared the genetic differences between those who lost their sense of smell and taste and those who didn’t. They found that a location near two olfactory genes – UGT2A1 and UGT2A2 – is associated with COVID-19 loss of smell and taste. The genetic risk factor makes it 11% more likely for a person with COVID-19 to lose their sense of smell or taste.

The research team also found that women were 11% more likely than men to report a loss of smell and taste. About 73% of those who reported a loss of smell and taste were ages 26-35.

The researchers aren’t sure how the genes are involved, though they suspect that infected cells could lead to smell loss. Typically, the genes are expressed in tissue inside the nose involved with smell and play a role in processing things that have an odor. To use the findings, researchers need to learn more about the genes, how they are expressed, and what their functions are, NBC News reported.

The findings could help lead to treatments. Other research has shown that the loss of taste and smell is related to a “failure to protect the sensory cells of the nose and tongue from viral infection,” Danielle Reed, PhD, associate director of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, told NBC News. She was not part of the research team but studies person-to-person differences in the loss of these senses because of COVID-19.

“This study suggests a different direction,” she said. “The pathways that break down the chemicals that cause taste and smell in the first place might be over or underactive, reducing or distorting the ability to taste and smell.”

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

A genetic risk factor could explain why some people lose their senses of smell and taste when they get infected with COVID-19, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Genetics

The finding could eventually help the 1.6 million people in the United States who still can’t smell or have had a change in their ability to smell more than 6 months after getting the coronavirus. The exact cause related to COVID-19 is still unknown, but researchers believe it could be because of damage in a part of the nose called the olfactory epithelium.

“How we get from infection to smell loss remains unclear,” Justin Turner, MD, an associate professor of otolaryngology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told NBC News. Dr. Turner was not part of the research team.

“Early data suggest that supporting cells of the olfactory epithelium are the ones mostly being infected by the virus, and presumably this leads to the death of the neurons themselves,” he said. “But we don’t really, really know why and when that happens, and why it seems to preferentially happen in certain individuals.”

Researchers at 23andMe, a genomics and biotechnology company, did the study as part of a larger COVID-19 project, which includes people in the United States and the United Kingdom. They analyzed data from nearly 70,000 people who took online surveys after receiving a positive coronavirus test. Among those, 68% reported a loss of smell or taste as a symptom.

The study team compared the genetic differences between those who lost their sense of smell and taste and those who didn’t. They found that a location near two olfactory genes – UGT2A1 and UGT2A2 – is associated with COVID-19 loss of smell and taste. The genetic risk factor makes it 11% more likely for a person with COVID-19 to lose their sense of smell or taste.

The research team also found that women were 11% more likely than men to report a loss of smell and taste. About 73% of those who reported a loss of smell and taste were ages 26-35.

The researchers aren’t sure how the genes are involved, though they suspect that infected cells could lead to smell loss. Typically, the genes are expressed in tissue inside the nose involved with smell and play a role in processing things that have an odor. To use the findings, researchers need to learn more about the genes, how they are expressed, and what their functions are, NBC News reported.

The findings could help lead to treatments. Other research has shown that the loss of taste and smell is related to a “failure to protect the sensory cells of the nose and tongue from viral infection,” Danielle Reed, PhD, associate director of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, told NBC News. She was not part of the research team but studies person-to-person differences in the loss of these senses because of COVID-19.

“This study suggests a different direction,” she said. “The pathways that break down the chemicals that cause taste and smell in the first place might be over or underactive, reducing or distorting the ability to taste and smell.”

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

A fourth shot of the COVID-19 vaccine boosts antibodies but doesn’t provide enough protection to prevent infections from the Omicron variant, according to new research at an Israeli hospital.

The preliminary results, released on Jan. 17, challenge the idea of giving a second booster dose to slow the spread of the coronavirus, according to USA Today.

“Despite increased antibody levels, the fourth vaccine only offers a partial defense against the virus,” Gili Regev-Yochay, MD, director of the hospital’s infection prevention and control units, told reporters.

“The vaccines, which were more effective against previous variants, offer less protection versus Omicron,” she said.

In a clinical trial, 274 medical workers at Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv received a fourth vaccine dose in December – 154 got the Pfizer vaccine and 120 got the Moderna vaccine – after previously getting three Pfizer shots.

Both groups received a boost in antibodies that was “slightly higher” than after the third shot, Dr. Regev-Yochay said. But when compared with a control group that didn’t receive the fourth dose, the extra boost didn’t prevent the spread of Omicron.

“We see many infected with Omicron who received the fourth dose,” Dr. Regev-Yochay said. “Granted, a bit less than in the control group, but still a lot of infections.”

Some public health officials in Israel say the campaign for fourth doses is still worthwhile, according to The Times of Israel. The vaccine still works well against the Alpha and Delta variants, Dr. Regev-Yochay said, and a fourth shot should go to older adults and those who face higher risks for severe COVID-19.

Hours after releasing the preliminary results, Sheba Medical Center published a statement calling for “continuing the vaccination drive for risk groups at this time, even though the vaccine doesn’t provide optimal protection against getting infected with the variant.” News outlets reported that the hospital was pressured into issuing the statement after Israel’s Health Ministry didn’t like the release of the early study results, The Times of Israel reported.

The second booster “returns the level of antibodies to what it was at the beginning of the third booster,” Nachman Ash, MD, director of Israel’s Health Ministry, told Channel 13 TV in Israel, according to The Associated Press.

“That has great importance, especially among the older population,” he said.

As of Sunday, more than 500,000 people in Israel had received fourth doses since the country began offering them last month to medical workers, immunocompromised patients, and people ages 60 years and older, the AP reported. At the same time, the country has faced a recent coronavirus surge that has led to record-breaking numbers of cases and rising hospitalizations.

On Tuesday, the Israeli government said it would shorten the mandatory quarantine period from 7 days to 5 days, the AP reported.

“This decision will enable us to continue safeguarding public health on the one hand and to keep the economy going at this time on the other, even though it is difficult, so that we can get through this wave safely,” Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said.

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

A fourth shot of the COVID-19 vaccine boosts antibodies but doesn’t provide enough protection to prevent infections from the Omicron variant, according to new research at an Israeli hospital.

The preliminary results, released on Jan. 17, challenge the idea of giving a second booster dose to slow the spread of the coronavirus, according to USA Today.

“Despite increased antibody levels, the fourth vaccine only offers a partial defense against the virus,” Gili Regev-Yochay, MD, director of the hospital’s infection prevention and control units, told reporters.

“The vaccines, which were more effective against previous variants, offer less protection versus Omicron,” she said.

In a clinical trial, 274 medical workers at Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv received a fourth vaccine dose in December – 154 got the Pfizer vaccine and 120 got the Moderna vaccine – after previously getting three Pfizer shots.

Both groups received a boost in antibodies that was “slightly higher” than after the third shot, Dr. Regev-Yochay said. But when compared with a control group that didn’t receive the fourth dose, the extra boost didn’t prevent the spread of Omicron.

“We see many infected with Omicron who received the fourth dose,” Dr. Regev-Yochay said. “Granted, a bit less than in the control group, but still a lot of infections.”

Some public health officials in Israel say the campaign for fourth doses is still worthwhile, according to The Times of Israel. The vaccine still works well against the Alpha and Delta variants, Dr. Regev-Yochay said, and a fourth shot should go to older adults and those who face higher risks for severe COVID-19.

Hours after releasing the preliminary results, Sheba Medical Center published a statement calling for “continuing the vaccination drive for risk groups at this time, even though the vaccine doesn’t provide optimal protection against getting infected with the variant.” News outlets reported that the hospital was pressured into issuing the statement after Israel’s Health Ministry didn’t like the release of the early study results, The Times of Israel reported.

The second booster “returns the level of antibodies to what it was at the beginning of the third booster,” Nachman Ash, MD, director of Israel’s Health Ministry, told Channel 13 TV in Israel, according to The Associated Press.

“That has great importance, especially among the older population,” he said.

As of Sunday, more than 500,000 people in Israel had received fourth doses since the country began offering them last month to medical workers, immunocompromised patients, and people ages 60 years and older, the AP reported. At the same time, the country has faced a recent coronavirus surge that has led to record-breaking numbers of cases and rising hospitalizations.

On Tuesday, the Israeli government said it would shorten the mandatory quarantine period from 7 days to 5 days, the AP reported.

“This decision will enable us to continue safeguarding public health on the one hand and to keep the economy going at this time on the other, even though it is difficult, so that we can get through this wave safely,” Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said.

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

A fourth shot of the COVID-19 vaccine boosts antibodies but doesn’t provide enough protection to prevent infections from the Omicron variant, according to new research at an Israeli hospital.

The preliminary results, released on Jan. 17, challenge the idea of giving a second booster dose to slow the spread of the coronavirus, according to USA Today.

“Despite increased antibody levels, the fourth vaccine only offers a partial defense against the virus,” Gili Regev-Yochay, MD, director of the hospital’s infection prevention and control units, told reporters.

“The vaccines, which were more effective against previous variants, offer less protection versus Omicron,” she said.

In a clinical trial, 274 medical workers at Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv received a fourth vaccine dose in December – 154 got the Pfizer vaccine and 120 got the Moderna vaccine – after previously getting three Pfizer shots.

Both groups received a boost in antibodies that was “slightly higher” than after the third shot, Dr. Regev-Yochay said. But when compared with a control group that didn’t receive the fourth dose, the extra boost didn’t prevent the spread of Omicron.

“We see many infected with Omicron who received the fourth dose,” Dr. Regev-Yochay said. “Granted, a bit less than in the control group, but still a lot of infections.”

Some public health officials in Israel say the campaign for fourth doses is still worthwhile, according to The Times of Israel. The vaccine still works well against the Alpha and Delta variants, Dr. Regev-Yochay said, and a fourth shot should go to older adults and those who face higher risks for severe COVID-19.

Hours after releasing the preliminary results, Sheba Medical Center published a statement calling for “continuing the vaccination drive for risk groups at this time, even though the vaccine doesn’t provide optimal protection against getting infected with the variant.” News outlets reported that the hospital was pressured into issuing the statement after Israel’s Health Ministry didn’t like the release of the early study results, The Times of Israel reported.

The second booster “returns the level of antibodies to what it was at the beginning of the third booster,” Nachman Ash, MD, director of Israel’s Health Ministry, told Channel 13 TV in Israel, according to The Associated Press.

“That has great importance, especially among the older population,” he said.

As of Sunday, more than 500,000 people in Israel had received fourth doses since the country began offering them last month to medical workers, immunocompromised patients, and people ages 60 years and older, the AP reported. At the same time, the country has faced a recent coronavirus surge that has led to record-breaking numbers of cases and rising hospitalizations.

On Tuesday, the Israeli government said it would shorten the mandatory quarantine period from 7 days to 5 days, the AP reported.

“This decision will enable us to continue safeguarding public health on the one hand and to keep the economy going at this time on the other, even though it is difficult, so that we can get through this wave safely,” Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said.

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

Americans can now have free COVID-19 rapid tests delivered directly to their homes.

The Biden administration’s new no-cost, at-home testing program launched Jan. 18, a day ahead of schedule.

The administration said 500 million tests are available to be delivered to homes across the country. This accounts for half of the president’s recent pledge to purchase 1 billion free at-home COVID-19 tests to distribute to the American public.

On a Jan. 14 call with reporters, senior White House officials offered some details about the new program.

Here’s what we know so far.

How do I order my free tests?

Americans can visit COVIDtests.gov to order their rapid at-home tests. You can also order directly from the U.S. Postal Service website. After you order, you’ll receive a confirmation email that promises to send tracking information once your order ships.

What information do I need to order the tests?

You only need your name and home mailing address.

There is also an option to provide your email address to get updates on the status of your order.

What if someone needs help ordering the tests?

There will be a free call-in line for people needing more help, including those having trouble accessing the internet, according to White House officials.

What tests will be available?

There are nine at-home tests available through FDA emergency use authorization. According to the Frequently Asked Questions section of COVIDtests.gov, "You will not be able to choose the  brand  you order as part of this program.”

How long will it take to get the tests once I order them?

Tests are expected to ship 7 to 12 days after you order them.

But White House officials say that the time frame will likely shorten as the program gains steam.

How many can I order?

There’s a limit of four tests per residential mailing address.

For larger families, White House officials suggest trying other free testing options, like visiting COVID-19 testing sites or your local health center.

Is this a one-time opportunity?

The White House doesn’t say, but officials did mention that if you run out of your four free tests, there are many other ways to access free at-home tests, such as COVID-19 testing sites, pharmacies, and community health centers.

The free tests available through COVIDtests.gov are in addition to an estimated 375 million at-home rapid tests on the market in the U.S. this month.

When should people use a rapid at-home test?

The CDC and experts with other public health groups agree that Americans should consider using at-home rapid tests in the following situations:

• If they begin to have symptoms consistent with COVID-19;
• At least 5 days after close contact with someone who has COVID;
• If someone is indoors with a group of people who are at risk of severe disease or are unvaccinated.

Are at-home rapid tests accurate?

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal officials confirmed through studies that all tests distributed through this program can detect the Omicron variant. These agencies also confirmed that their performance is consistent with the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

Is the website designed to handle high demand?

After the original website to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act crashed repeatedly at launch, the government says it has prepared for high demand for ordering at-home rapid tests.

The U.S. Digital Service (USDS), an organization founded after Healthcare.gov, has partnered with the Postal Service to plan for the launch.

The Postal Service has expanded its staffing, similar to what’s done during the holidays.

All orders in the continental United States will be shipped through first-class mail, with shipments to Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. territories, and military and overseas addresses sent through priority mail.

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

Americans can now have free COVID-19 rapid tests delivered directly to their homes.

The Biden administration’s new no-cost, at-home testing program launched Jan. 18, a day ahead of schedule.

The administration said 500 million tests are available to be delivered to homes across the country. This accounts for half of the president’s recent pledge to purchase 1 billion free at-home COVID-19 tests to distribute to the American public.

On a Jan. 14 call with reporters, senior White House officials offered some details about the new program.

Here’s what we know so far.

How do I order my free tests?

Americans can visit COVIDtests.gov to order their rapid at-home tests. You can also order directly from the U.S. Postal Service website. After you order, you’ll receive a confirmation email that promises to send tracking information once your order ships.

What information do I need to order the tests?

You only need your name and home mailing address.

There is also an option to provide your email address to get updates on the status of your order.

What if someone needs help ordering the tests?

There will be a free call-in line for people needing more help, including those having trouble accessing the internet, according to White House officials.

What tests will be available?

There are nine at-home tests available through FDA emergency use authorization. According to the Frequently Asked Questions section of COVIDtests.gov, "You will not be able to choose the  brand  you order as part of this program.”

How long will it take to get the tests once I order them?

Tests are expected to ship 7 to 12 days after you order them.

But White House officials say that the time frame will likely shorten as the program gains steam.

How many can I order?

There’s a limit of four tests per residential mailing address.

For larger families, White House officials suggest trying other free testing options, like visiting COVID-19 testing sites or your local health center.

Is this a one-time opportunity?

The White House doesn’t say, but officials did mention that if you run out of your four free tests, there are many other ways to access free at-home tests, such as COVID-19 testing sites, pharmacies, and community health centers.

The free tests available through COVIDtests.gov are in addition to an estimated 375 million at-home rapid tests on the market in the U.S. this month.

When should people use a rapid at-home test?

The CDC and experts with other public health groups agree that Americans should consider using at-home rapid tests in the following situations:

• If they begin to have symptoms consistent with COVID-19;
• At least 5 days after close contact with someone who has COVID;
• If someone is indoors with a group of people who are at risk of severe disease or are unvaccinated.

Are at-home rapid tests accurate?

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal officials confirmed through studies that all tests distributed through this program can detect the Omicron variant. These agencies also confirmed that their performance is consistent with the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

Is the website designed to handle high demand?

After the original website to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act crashed repeatedly at launch, the government says it has prepared for high demand for ordering at-home rapid tests.

The U.S. Digital Service (USDS), an organization founded after Healthcare.gov, has partnered with the Postal Service to plan for the launch.

The Postal Service has expanded its staffing, similar to what’s done during the holidays.

All orders in the continental United States will be shipped through first-class mail, with shipments to Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. territories, and military and overseas addresses sent through priority mail.

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

Americans can now have free COVID-19 rapid tests delivered directly to their homes.

The Biden administration’s new no-cost, at-home testing program launched Jan. 18, a day ahead of schedule.

The administration said 500 million tests are available to be delivered to homes across the country. This accounts for half of the president’s recent pledge to purchase 1 billion free at-home COVID-19 tests to distribute to the American public.

On a Jan. 14 call with reporters, senior White House officials offered some details about the new program.

Here’s what we know so far.

How do I order my free tests?

Americans can visit COVIDtests.gov to order their rapid at-home tests. You can also order directly from the U.S. Postal Service website. After you order, you’ll receive a confirmation email that promises to send tracking information once your order ships.

What information do I need to order the tests?

You only need your name and home mailing address.

There is also an option to provide your email address to get updates on the status of your order.

What if someone needs help ordering the tests?

There will be a free call-in line for people needing more help, including those having trouble accessing the internet, according to White House officials.

What tests will be available?

There are nine at-home tests available through FDA emergency use authorization. According to the Frequently Asked Questions section of COVIDtests.gov, "You will not be able to choose the  brand  you order as part of this program.”

How long will it take to get the tests once I order them?

Tests are expected to ship 7 to 12 days after you order them.

But White House officials say that the time frame will likely shorten as the program gains steam.

How many can I order?

There’s a limit of four tests per residential mailing address.

For larger families, White House officials suggest trying other free testing options, like visiting COVID-19 testing sites or your local health center.

Is this a one-time opportunity?

The White House doesn’t say, but officials did mention that if you run out of your four free tests, there are many other ways to access free at-home tests, such as COVID-19 testing sites, pharmacies, and community health centers.

The free tests available through COVIDtests.gov are in addition to an estimated 375 million at-home rapid tests on the market in the U.S. this month.

When should people use a rapid at-home test?

The CDC and experts with other public health groups agree that Americans should consider using at-home rapid tests in the following situations:

• If they begin to have symptoms consistent with COVID-19;
• At least 5 days after close contact with someone who has COVID;
• If someone is indoors with a group of people who are at risk of severe disease or are unvaccinated.

Are at-home rapid tests accurate?

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal officials confirmed through studies that all tests distributed through this program can detect the Omicron variant. These agencies also confirmed that their performance is consistent with the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

Is the website designed to handle high demand?

After the original website to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act crashed repeatedly at launch, the government says it has prepared for high demand for ordering at-home rapid tests.

The U.S. Digital Service (USDS), an organization founded after Healthcare.gov, has partnered with the Postal Service to plan for the launch.

The Postal Service has expanded its staffing, similar to what’s done during the holidays.

All orders in the continental United States will be shipped through first-class mail, with shipments to Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. territories, and military and overseas addresses sent through priority mail.

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

Americans will be able to order free, at-home rapid COVID-19 tests online at COVIDTests.gov starting Jan. 19.

The tests will ship within 7 to 12 days after being ordered, senior officials from President Joe Biden’s administration said Jan. 14. The U.S. Postal Service will handle the shipping and delivery through first-class mail.

People will input their name and mailing address on the website and can share an email address to receive updates on the order, according to NPR. People won’t need to pay shipping costs or enter a credit card number to order tests, according to the website’s homepage.

The website will be offered in both English and Spanish. The Biden administration will also set up a phone number so those without internet access can place orders.

Officials didn’t share a specific time that the website will open, according to he New York Times  — simply that it will go live sometime on Jan. 19. Each household will be limited to ordering four tests.

Starting Jan. 15, people with private insurance were able to seek reimbursement for tests they purchase on their own. At the same time, some insurers have said it could take weeks to set up a system for smooth reimbursement, the newspaper reported.

Last week’s announcement is the latest step in the president’s pledge to get coronavirus tests to Americans. In December, Biden said his administration would purchase 500 million tests and distribute them to Americans for free. On Jan. 13, he announced that the administration would buy another 500 million tests, bringing the total to 1 billion.

So far, the administration has signed contracts to produce 420 million tests, the newspaper reported. With the website opening this week and the lag in shipping, the tests will likely arrive by the end of January at the earliest, which could be after the peak of the current coronavirus surge in some parts of the country.

At-home tests have been in high demand, with some pharmacies, retailers, and websites reporting no stock in recent weeks. People have lined up at community testing sites for hours to get tested as the national average of daily cases has climbed above 800,000 last week.

Some consumers have also been confused about how or when to use at-home tests. On Jan. 14, Biden administration officials said that people should use rapid tests for three reasons:

• If they begin to experience COVID-19 symptoms;
• When it has been five or more days after being exposed to someone who tests positive;
• If they are gathering indoors with a high-risk person and want to check if they are negative.

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

Americans will be able to order free, at-home rapid COVID-19 tests online at COVIDTests.gov starting Jan. 19.

The tests will ship within 7 to 12 days after being ordered, senior officials from President Joe Biden’s administration said Jan. 14. The U.S. Postal Service will handle the shipping and delivery through first-class mail.

People will input their name and mailing address on the website and can share an email address to receive updates on the order, according to NPR. People won’t need to pay shipping costs or enter a credit card number to order tests, according to the website’s homepage.

The website will be offered in both English and Spanish. The Biden administration will also set up a phone number so those without internet access can place orders.

Officials didn’t share a specific time that the website will open, according to he New York Times  — simply that it will go live sometime on Jan. 19. Each household will be limited to ordering four tests.

Starting Jan. 15, people with private insurance were able to seek reimbursement for tests they purchase on their own. At the same time, some insurers have said it could take weeks to set up a system for smooth reimbursement, the newspaper reported.

Last week’s announcement is the latest step in the president’s pledge to get coronavirus tests to Americans. In December, Biden said his administration would purchase 500 million tests and distribute them to Americans for free. On Jan. 13, he announced that the administration would buy another 500 million tests, bringing the total to 1 billion.

So far, the administration has signed contracts to produce 420 million tests, the newspaper reported. With the website opening this week and the lag in shipping, the tests will likely arrive by the end of January at the earliest, which could be after the peak of the current coronavirus surge in some parts of the country.

At-home tests have been in high demand, with some pharmacies, retailers, and websites reporting no stock in recent weeks. People have lined up at community testing sites for hours to get tested as the national average of daily cases has climbed above 800,000 last week.

Some consumers have also been confused about how or when to use at-home tests. On Jan. 14, Biden administration officials said that people should use rapid tests for three reasons:

• If they begin to experience COVID-19 symptoms;
• When it has been five or more days after being exposed to someone who tests positive;
• If they are gathering indoors with a high-risk person and want to check if they are negative.

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

Americans will be able to order free, at-home rapid COVID-19 tests online at COVIDTests.gov starting Jan. 19.

The tests will ship within 7 to 12 days after being ordered, senior officials from President Joe Biden’s administration said Jan. 14. The U.S. Postal Service will handle the shipping and delivery through first-class mail.

People will input their name and mailing address on the website and can share an email address to receive updates on the order, according to NPR. People won’t need to pay shipping costs or enter a credit card number to order tests, according to the website’s homepage.

The website will be offered in both English and Spanish. The Biden administration will also set up a phone number so those without internet access can place orders.

Officials didn’t share a specific time that the website will open, according to he New York Times  — simply that it will go live sometime on Jan. 19. Each household will be limited to ordering four tests.

Starting Jan. 15, people with private insurance were able to seek reimbursement for tests they purchase on their own. At the same time, some insurers have said it could take weeks to set up a system for smooth reimbursement, the newspaper reported.

Last week’s announcement is the latest step in the president’s pledge to get coronavirus tests to Americans. In December, Biden said his administration would purchase 500 million tests and distribute them to Americans for free. On Jan. 13, he announced that the administration would buy another 500 million tests, bringing the total to 1 billion.

So far, the administration has signed contracts to produce 420 million tests, the newspaper reported. With the website opening this week and the lag in shipping, the tests will likely arrive by the end of January at the earliest, which could be after the peak of the current coronavirus surge in some parts of the country.

At-home tests have been in high demand, with some pharmacies, retailers, and websites reporting no stock in recent weeks. People have lined up at community testing sites for hours to get tested as the national average of daily cases has climbed above 800,000 last week.

Some consumers have also been confused about how or when to use at-home tests. On Jan. 14, Biden administration officials said that people should use rapid tests for three reasons:

• If they begin to experience COVID-19 symptoms;
• When it has been five or more days after being exposed to someone who tests positive;
• If they are gathering indoors with a high-risk person and want to check if they are negative.

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

After a recent column about the dilemma of dealing with patients who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, several readers raised the question of how to properly dismiss patients from a practice, for that or any other reason. Specifically, most asked: “How do I dismiss a patient without violating any laws?”

Contrary to what seems to be the popular opinion, there are no statutory laws that I am aware of that directly apply to patient dismissal, beyond the obvious ones prohibiting discrimination that I’ve discussed many times. The more realistic concern is leaving yourself vulnerable to civil litigation – usually charges of abandonment.

Criteria will vary by region, jurisdiction, and practice. Since there are no hard and fast rules, your reasons for dismissal should be determined in advance, written out, and included in your practice manual. Once you have laid down your rules, follow them. Exceptions should be rare and made only under extraordinary circumstances.

Most patients are dismissed because of interpersonal conflicts between physician or staff members. Usually, that involves noncompliance with a reasonable treatment plan (including vaccinations), but there are other valid reasons. These include threats of violence, inappropriate sexual advances, providing false or misleading medical history, demands for inappropriate treatments or medications, and repeated failure to keep appointments or pay bills. And most ethics experts agree that you can dismiss someone who insists on treatment outside your area of expertise, or at a location other than your private office.

Even when circumstances warrant, dismissal should be a last resort. As with most interpersonal conflicts, your best option is usually reconciliation. Sit down with the patient, explain your concerns, and discuss what must be done if your doctor-patient relationship is to continue. Often, such patients are not aware (or willing to admit) that they are violating your office policies. Honest communication will often save such relationships. But be sure to make it clear that failure to address the problems you have outlined will result in dismissal from your practice. Document this conversation in detail in the patient’s chart, and follow up with a written communication reconfirming what you discussed.

If, despite your best (documented) efforts, the problems continue and dismissal becomes necessary, following a few generally accepted guidelines will help keep the process smooth and consequence free.

First, try to avoid dismissing a patient in the middle of a course of treatment. If that is unavoidable, you might want to contact your malpractice carrier and review the case with them prior to doing so.

Inform the patient, preferably by certified mail, of your decision. Spell out your reasons, with a reminder that these problems were discussed, and that a warning was issued and not heeded. If the patient belongs to a third-party health plan, be certain that you are acting within the stipulations of your contract with that plan, and inform the payer in writing of your action.

Once again, you must clearly document in the patient’s chart exactly how he or she violated your office policies. This will minimize grounds for charges of discrimination of any sort. Be especially diligent about this step if the patient has any known physical or mental disability.

Give the patient a reasonable amount of time (30 days is common) to find another physician, and mention that you will address any emergent problems within the scope of your specialty within that 30-day period. To minimize any potential allegations of abandonment, include a list of competent physicians in your area (without any guarantees) who might be willing to assume the patient’s care. Alternatively, you can list the phone number or website of a local medical society that they can contact to find a replacement. Offer to transfer medical records to the new physician upon receipt of written permission.

File a copy or scan of the letter, the certified delivery receipt, and the returned signature card in the patient’s chart. While the law states that a first-class letter, properly addressed and stamped, is presumed to have been delivered, you don’t want any question as to whether the patient received written notice of dismissal.

Forcibly ending a physician-patient relationship is a significant event that should not be undertaken lightly. Again, dismissal should be a rare occurrence, a last resort.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

After a recent column about the dilemma of dealing with patients who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, several readers raised the question of how to properly dismiss patients from a practice, for that or any other reason. Specifically, most asked: “How do I dismiss a patient without violating any laws?”

Contrary to what seems to be the popular opinion, there are no statutory laws that I am aware of that directly apply to patient dismissal, beyond the obvious ones prohibiting discrimination that I’ve discussed many times. The more realistic concern is leaving yourself vulnerable to civil litigation – usually charges of abandonment.

Criteria will vary by region, jurisdiction, and practice. Since there are no hard and fast rules, your reasons for dismissal should be determined in advance, written out, and included in your practice manual. Once you have laid down your rules, follow them. Exceptions should be rare and made only under extraordinary circumstances.

Most patients are dismissed because of interpersonal conflicts between physician or staff members. Usually, that involves noncompliance with a reasonable treatment plan (including vaccinations), but there are other valid reasons. These include threats of violence, inappropriate sexual advances, providing false or misleading medical history, demands for inappropriate treatments or medications, and repeated failure to keep appointments or pay bills. And most ethics experts agree that you can dismiss someone who insists on treatment outside your area of expertise, or at a location other than your private office.

Even when circumstances warrant, dismissal should be a last resort. As with most interpersonal conflicts, your best option is usually reconciliation. Sit down with the patient, explain your concerns, and discuss what must be done if your doctor-patient relationship is to continue. Often, such patients are not aware (or willing to admit) that they are violating your office policies. Honest communication will often save such relationships. But be sure to make it clear that failure to address the problems you have outlined will result in dismissal from your practice. Document this conversation in detail in the patient’s chart, and follow up with a written communication reconfirming what you discussed.

If, despite your best (documented) efforts, the problems continue and dismissal becomes necessary, following a few generally accepted guidelines will help keep the process smooth and consequence free.

First, try to avoid dismissing a patient in the middle of a course of treatment. If that is unavoidable, you might want to contact your malpractice carrier and review the case with them prior to doing so.

Inform the patient, preferably by certified mail, of your decision. Spell out your reasons, with a reminder that these problems were discussed, and that a warning was issued and not heeded. If the patient belongs to a third-party health plan, be certain that you are acting within the stipulations of your contract with that plan, and inform the payer in writing of your action.

Once again, you must clearly document in the patient’s chart exactly how he or she violated your office policies. This will minimize grounds for charges of discrimination of any sort. Be especially diligent about this step if the patient has any known physical or mental disability.

Give the patient a reasonable amount of time (30 days is common) to find another physician, and mention that you will address any emergent problems within the scope of your specialty within that 30-day period. To minimize any potential allegations of abandonment, include a list of competent physicians in your area (without any guarantees) who might be willing to assume the patient’s care. Alternatively, you can list the phone number or website of a local medical society that they can contact to find a replacement. Offer to transfer medical records to the new physician upon receipt of written permission.

File a copy or scan of the letter, the certified delivery receipt, and the returned signature card in the patient’s chart. While the law states that a first-class letter, properly addressed and stamped, is presumed to have been delivered, you don’t want any question as to whether the patient received written notice of dismissal.

Forcibly ending a physician-patient relationship is a significant event that should not be undertaken lightly. Again, dismissal should be a rare occurrence, a last resort.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

After a recent column about the dilemma of dealing with patients who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, several readers raised the question of how to properly dismiss patients from a practice, for that or any other reason. Specifically, most asked: “How do I dismiss a patient without violating any laws?”

Contrary to what seems to be the popular opinion, there are no statutory laws that I am aware of that directly apply to patient dismissal, beyond the obvious ones prohibiting discrimination that I’ve discussed many times. The more realistic concern is leaving yourself vulnerable to civil litigation – usually charges of abandonment.

Criteria will vary by region, jurisdiction, and practice. Since there are no hard and fast rules, your reasons for dismissal should be determined in advance, written out, and included in your practice manual. Once you have laid down your rules, follow them. Exceptions should be rare and made only under extraordinary circumstances.

Most patients are dismissed because of interpersonal conflicts between physician or staff members. Usually, that involves noncompliance with a reasonable treatment plan (including vaccinations), but there are other valid reasons. These include threats of violence, inappropriate sexual advances, providing false or misleading medical history, demands for inappropriate treatments or medications, and repeated failure to keep appointments or pay bills. And most ethics experts agree that you can dismiss someone who insists on treatment outside your area of expertise, or at a location other than your private office.

Even when circumstances warrant, dismissal should be a last resort. As with most interpersonal conflicts, your best option is usually reconciliation. Sit down with the patient, explain your concerns, and discuss what must be done if your doctor-patient relationship is to continue. Often, such patients are not aware (or willing to admit) that they are violating your office policies. Honest communication will often save such relationships. But be sure to make it clear that failure to address the problems you have outlined will result in dismissal from your practice. Document this conversation in detail in the patient’s chart, and follow up with a written communication reconfirming what you discussed.

If, despite your best (documented) efforts, the problems continue and dismissal becomes necessary, following a few generally accepted guidelines will help keep the process smooth and consequence free.

First, try to avoid dismissing a patient in the middle of a course of treatment. If that is unavoidable, you might want to contact your malpractice carrier and review the case with them prior to doing so.

Inform the patient, preferably by certified mail, of your decision. Spell out your reasons, with a reminder that these problems were discussed, and that a warning was issued and not heeded. If the patient belongs to a third-party health plan, be certain that you are acting within the stipulations of your contract with that plan, and inform the payer in writing of your action.

Once again, you must clearly document in the patient’s chart exactly how he or she violated your office policies. This will minimize grounds for charges of discrimination of any sort. Be especially diligent about this step if the patient has any known physical or mental disability.

Give the patient a reasonable amount of time (30 days is common) to find another physician, and mention that you will address any emergent problems within the scope of your specialty within that 30-day period. To minimize any potential allegations of abandonment, include a list of competent physicians in your area (without any guarantees) who might be willing to assume the patient’s care. Alternatively, you can list the phone number or website of a local medical society that they can contact to find a replacement. Offer to transfer medical records to the new physician upon receipt of written permission.

File a copy or scan of the letter, the certified delivery receipt, and the returned signature card in the patient’s chart. While the law states that a first-class letter, properly addressed and stamped, is presumed to have been delivered, you don’t want any question as to whether the patient received written notice of dismissal.

Forcibly ending a physician-patient relationship is a significant event that should not be undertaken lightly. Again, dismissal should be a rare occurrence, a last resort.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

Creators of a pilot program that educates preschoolers about good heart health have validated a template for successful early childhood intervention that, they claim, provides a pathway for translating scientific evidence into the community and classroom for educational purposes to encourage long-lasting lifestyle changes.

That validation supports the creators' plans to take the program into more schools.

They reported key lessons in crafting the program, known as the SI! Program (for Salud Integral-Comprehensive Health), online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Mount Sinai Hospital

“This is a research-based program that uses randomized clinical trial evidence with implementation strategies to design educational health promotion programs,” senior author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, founder and trustees chairman of the Foundation for Science, Health, and Education (SHE) based in Barcelona, under whose aegis the SI! Program was implemented, said in an interview. Dr. Fuster is also director of Mount Sinai Heart and physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, and general director of the National Center for Cardiovascular Investigation (CNIC) in Madrid, Spain’s equivalent of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

“There are specific times in a child’s life when improvements can be made to enhance long-term cardiovascular health status,” said Rodrigo Fernández-Jiménez, MD, PhD, group leader of the cardiovascular health and imaging lab at CNIC and study coauthor. “Our review, and previous studies, suggest that 4-5 years of age is the most favorable time to start a school-based intervention focused on healthy habits.”

A key piece of the SI! Program used a Sesame Street character, known as Dr. Ruster, a Muppet based on Dr. Fuster, to introduce and convey most messages and activities to the preschool children. The program also used a heart-shaped mascot named “Cardio” to teach about healthy behaviors. Other components include video segments, a colorful storybook, an interactive board game, flash cards, and a teacher’s guide. The activities and messages were tailored based on the country in which the program was implemented.
 

A decade of experience

The review evaluated 10 years of experience with the preschool-based program, drawing upon cluster-randomized clinical trials of the program in three countries with different socioeconomic conditions: Colombia, Spain, and the United States. The studies randomized schools to receive the SI! Program for 4 months or to a control group and included more than 3,800 children from 50 schools, along with their parents or caregivers and teachers. The studies found significant increases in preschoolers’ knowledge, attitudes, and habits toward healthy eating and living an active lifestyle. Now, the SI! Program is expanding into more than 250 schools in Spain and more than 40 schools in all five boroughs of New York City.

“This is a multidimensional program,” Dr. Fuster said. The review identified five stages for implementing the program: dissemination; adoption; implementation; evaluation; and institutionalization.

Dissemination involves three substages for intervention: components, design, and strategy. With regard to the components, said Dr. Fuster, “We’re targeting children to educate them in four topics: how the body works; nutritional and dietary requirements; physical activity; and the need to control emotions – to say no in the future when they’re confronted with alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.”

Design involved a multidisciplinary team of experts to develop the intervention, Dr. Fuster said. The strategy itself enlists parents and teachers in the implementation, but goes beyond that. “This is a community,” Dr. Fuster said. Hence, the school environment and classroom itself are also engaged to support the message of the four topics.

Dr. Fuster said future research should look at knowledge, attitude, and habits and biological outcomes in children who’ve been in the SI! Program when they reach adolescence. “Our hypothesis is that we can do this in older children, but when they reach age 10 we want to reintervene in them,” Dr. Fuster said. “Humans need reintervention. Our findings don’t get into sustainability.” He added that further research should also identify socioeconomic factors that influence child health.

Expanding the program across the New York City’s five boroughs “offers a unique opportunity to explore which socioeconomic factors, at both the family and borough level, and may eventually affect children’s health, how they are implicated in the intervention’s effectiveness, and how they can be addressed to reduce the gap in health inequalities,” he said. 

Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician affiliated with Yale New Haven (Conn.) Medical Center, noted the program’s multidimensional nature is an important element. “I think what is so important about this intervention is that it is not one single intervention but a curriculum that takes a significant amount of time (up to 50 hours) that allows for repetition of the information, which allows it to become remembered,” she said in an interview. “I also think incorporating families in the intervention is key as that is where change often has to happen.”

While she said the program may provide a template for a mental health curriculum, she added, “My concern is that teachers are already feeling overwhelmed and this may be viewed as another burden.”

The American Heart Association provided funding for the study in the United States. Dr Fernández-Jiménez has received funding from the Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria–Instituto de Salud Carlos III, which is cofunded by the European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund. Dr. Fuster and Dr. Kinsella have no relevant disclosures.

Creators of a pilot program that educates preschoolers about good heart health have validated a template for successful early childhood intervention that, they claim, provides a pathway for translating scientific evidence into the community and classroom for educational purposes to encourage long-lasting lifestyle changes.

That validation supports the creators' plans to take the program into more schools.

They reported key lessons in crafting the program, known as the SI! Program (for Salud Integral-Comprehensive Health), online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Mount Sinai Hospital

“This is a research-based program that uses randomized clinical trial evidence with implementation strategies to design educational health promotion programs,” senior author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, founder and trustees chairman of the Foundation for Science, Health, and Education (SHE) based in Barcelona, under whose aegis the SI! Program was implemented, said in an interview. Dr. Fuster is also director of Mount Sinai Heart and physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, and general director of the National Center for Cardiovascular Investigation (CNIC) in Madrid, Spain’s equivalent of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

“There are specific times in a child’s life when improvements can be made to enhance long-term cardiovascular health status,” said Rodrigo Fernández-Jiménez, MD, PhD, group leader of the cardiovascular health and imaging lab at CNIC and study coauthor. “Our review, and previous studies, suggest that 4-5 years of age is the most favorable time to start a school-based intervention focused on healthy habits.”

A key piece of the SI! Program used a Sesame Street character, known as Dr. Ruster, a Muppet based on Dr. Fuster, to introduce and convey most messages and activities to the preschool children. The program also used a heart-shaped mascot named “Cardio” to teach about healthy behaviors. Other components include video segments, a colorful storybook, an interactive board game, flash cards, and a teacher’s guide. The activities and messages were tailored based on the country in which the program was implemented.
 

A decade of experience

The review evaluated 10 years of experience with the preschool-based program, drawing upon cluster-randomized clinical trials of the program in three countries with different socioeconomic conditions: Colombia, Spain, and the United States. The studies randomized schools to receive the SI! Program for 4 months or to a control group and included more than 3,800 children from 50 schools, along with their parents or caregivers and teachers. The studies found significant increases in preschoolers’ knowledge, attitudes, and habits toward healthy eating and living an active lifestyle. Now, the SI! Program is expanding into more than 250 schools in Spain and more than 40 schools in all five boroughs of New York City.

“This is a multidimensional program,” Dr. Fuster said. The review identified five stages for implementing the program: dissemination; adoption; implementation; evaluation; and institutionalization.

Dissemination involves three substages for intervention: components, design, and strategy. With regard to the components, said Dr. Fuster, “We’re targeting children to educate them in four topics: how the body works; nutritional and dietary requirements; physical activity; and the need to control emotions – to say no in the future when they’re confronted with alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.”

Design involved a multidisciplinary team of experts to develop the intervention, Dr. Fuster said. The strategy itself enlists parents and teachers in the implementation, but goes beyond that. “This is a community,” Dr. Fuster said. Hence, the school environment and classroom itself are also engaged to support the message of the four topics.

Dr. Fuster said future research should look at knowledge, attitude, and habits and biological outcomes in children who’ve been in the SI! Program when they reach adolescence. “Our hypothesis is that we can do this in older children, but when they reach age 10 we want to reintervene in them,” Dr. Fuster said. “Humans need reintervention. Our findings don’t get into sustainability.” He added that further research should also identify socioeconomic factors that influence child health.

Expanding the program across the New York City’s five boroughs “offers a unique opportunity to explore which socioeconomic factors, at both the family and borough level, and may eventually affect children’s health, how they are implicated in the intervention’s effectiveness, and how they can be addressed to reduce the gap in health inequalities,” he said. 

Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician affiliated with Yale New Haven (Conn.) Medical Center, noted the program’s multidimensional nature is an important element. “I think what is so important about this intervention is that it is not one single intervention but a curriculum that takes a significant amount of time (up to 50 hours) that allows for repetition of the information, which allows it to become remembered,” she said in an interview. “I also think incorporating families in the intervention is key as that is where change often has to happen.”

While she said the program may provide a template for a mental health curriculum, she added, “My concern is that teachers are already feeling overwhelmed and this may be viewed as another burden.”

The American Heart Association provided funding for the study in the United States. Dr Fernández-Jiménez has received funding from the Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria–Instituto de Salud Carlos III, which is cofunded by the European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund. Dr. Fuster and Dr. Kinsella have no relevant disclosures.

Creators of a pilot program that educates preschoolers about good heart health have validated a template for successful early childhood intervention that, they claim, provides a pathway for translating scientific evidence into the community and classroom for educational purposes to encourage long-lasting lifestyle changes.

That validation supports the creators' plans to take the program into more schools.

They reported key lessons in crafting the program, known as the SI! Program (for Salud Integral-Comprehensive Health), online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Mount Sinai Hospital

“This is a research-based program that uses randomized clinical trial evidence with implementation strategies to design educational health promotion programs,” senior author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, founder and trustees chairman of the Foundation for Science, Health, and Education (SHE) based in Barcelona, under whose aegis the SI! Program was implemented, said in an interview. Dr. Fuster is also director of Mount Sinai Heart and physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, and general director of the National Center for Cardiovascular Investigation (CNIC) in Madrid, Spain’s equivalent of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

“There are specific times in a child’s life when improvements can be made to enhance long-term cardiovascular health status,” said Rodrigo Fernández-Jiménez, MD, PhD, group leader of the cardiovascular health and imaging lab at CNIC and study coauthor. “Our review, and previous studies, suggest that 4-5 years of age is the most favorable time to start a school-based intervention focused on healthy habits.”

A key piece of the SI! Program used a Sesame Street character, known as Dr. Ruster, a Muppet based on Dr. Fuster, to introduce and convey most messages and activities to the preschool children. The program also used a heart-shaped mascot named “Cardio” to teach about healthy behaviors. Other components include video segments, a colorful storybook, an interactive board game, flash cards, and a teacher’s guide. The activities and messages were tailored based on the country in which the program was implemented.
 

A decade of experience

The review evaluated 10 years of experience with the preschool-based program, drawing upon cluster-randomized clinical trials of the program in three countries with different socioeconomic conditions: Colombia, Spain, and the United States. The studies randomized schools to receive the SI! Program for 4 months or to a control group and included more than 3,800 children from 50 schools, along with their parents or caregivers and teachers. The studies found significant increases in preschoolers’ knowledge, attitudes, and habits toward healthy eating and living an active lifestyle. Now, the SI! Program is expanding into more than 250 schools in Spain and more than 40 schools in all five boroughs of New York City.

“This is a multidimensional program,” Dr. Fuster said. The review identified five stages for implementing the program: dissemination; adoption; implementation; evaluation; and institutionalization.

Dissemination involves three substages for intervention: components, design, and strategy. With regard to the components, said Dr. Fuster, “We’re targeting children to educate them in four topics: how the body works; nutritional and dietary requirements; physical activity; and the need to control emotions – to say no in the future when they’re confronted with alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.”

Design involved a multidisciplinary team of experts to develop the intervention, Dr. Fuster said. The strategy itself enlists parents and teachers in the implementation, but goes beyond that. “This is a community,” Dr. Fuster said. Hence, the school environment and classroom itself are also engaged to support the message of the four topics.

Dr. Fuster said future research should look at knowledge, attitude, and habits and biological outcomes in children who’ve been in the SI! Program when they reach adolescence. “Our hypothesis is that we can do this in older children, but when they reach age 10 we want to reintervene in them,” Dr. Fuster said. “Humans need reintervention. Our findings don’t get into sustainability.” He added that further research should also identify socioeconomic factors that influence child health.

Expanding the program across the New York City’s five boroughs “offers a unique opportunity to explore which socioeconomic factors, at both the family and borough level, and may eventually affect children’s health, how they are implicated in the intervention’s effectiveness, and how they can be addressed to reduce the gap in health inequalities,” he said. 

Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician affiliated with Yale New Haven (Conn.) Medical Center, noted the program’s multidimensional nature is an important element. “I think what is so important about this intervention is that it is not one single intervention but a curriculum that takes a significant amount of time (up to 50 hours) that allows for repetition of the information, which allows it to become remembered,” she said in an interview. “I also think incorporating families in the intervention is key as that is where change often has to happen.”

While she said the program may provide a template for a mental health curriculum, she added, “My concern is that teachers are already feeling overwhelmed and this may be viewed as another burden.”

The American Heart Association provided funding for the study in the United States. Dr Fernández-Jiménez has received funding from the Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria–Instituto de Salud Carlos III, which is cofunded by the European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund. Dr. Fuster and Dr. Kinsella have no relevant disclosures.

Therapeutic inertia regarding intensification of blood pressure treatment has been shown to be more of an issue in Black patients, but this was not the case in the SPRINT trial, which involved a strict standardized approach to blood pressure management, a new analysis shows.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

“Overall, we found that therapeutic inertia was similar in different races in the SPRINT trial. We did not see disparities that have been reported in previous observational studies,” lead author, Alexander Zheutlin, MD, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, told this news organization.

“These results show that a well-resourced approach in which a standardized approach to blood pressure measurement and treatment intensification is followed can overcome the racial disparity that is seen in therapeutic inertia and the treatment of blood pressure,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open on Jan. 10.

The authors explain that hypertension remains a leading modifiable cause of racial disparities in cardiovascular disease. Despite similar treatment rates and increased availability of safe, effective, and affordable antihypertensive medications, blood pressure control rates among Black and Hispanic adults remain significantly lower than among White adults in the United States, and one of the factors contributing to this is thought to be therapeutic inertia – the phenomenon of clinicians not initiating or up-titrating clinically indicated therapy in the setting of unmet treatment goals.

The current analysis of the SPRINT trial was conducted to investigate whether racial and ethnic differences in therapeutic inertia in hypertension were present when blood pressure care was standardized and protocolized.

The landmark SPRINT trial compared intensive (<120 mm Hg) with standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic blood pressure treatment goals in adults 50 years and older at high risk for cardiovascular disease. The present analysis was restricted to participant visits with measured blood pressure above the target goal and included 4,141 patients in the standard group and 4,415 patients in the intensive group.

Results showed that the overall prevalence of therapeutic inertia – defined as no antihypertensive medication intensification at each study visit where the blood pressure was above target goal – was either similar or lower for Black and Hispanic participants than for White participants. This pattern was observed whether participants were randomized to the standard or intensive treatment group.

“These findings support the idea that a standardized approach to blood pressure management, as implemented in SPRINT, may help ensure equitable care is provided to all patients and could reduce the contribution of therapeutic inertia to disparities in uncontrolled blood pressure,” the authors say.

They point out that therapeutic inertia has been identified as a key clinician-level barrier to blood pressure control and is estimated to be present in more than 80% of clinic visits in community practice, whereas in the current analysis of the SPRINT trial, therapeutic inertia was present in 50% to 60% of participant visits with uncontrolled blood pressure.

“In SPRINT, blood pressure had to be measured at defined intervals with a specific method, and there were clear instructions on intensifying treatment if blood pressure was above a certain goal,” Dr. Zheutlin noted. “Our results show that within such strict confines, therapeutic inertia does not seem to be different between different racial groups. This suggests that we could make better gains in blood pressure control and more equitable treatment if we adopted a standardized approach to hypertension management.”

He added: “Many guidelines have been published on when to start treatment and the targets for blood pressure, but there is a lot of variation in how we turn these guidelines into protocols. We need to bring in more consistent protocols on blood pressure measurement and intensification and ensure they are followed. In practice, if the BP is 5 or 10 mm Hg above target, a clinician may defer a decision to intensify treatment and intensification never gets done. But if there was a strict protocol to follow, there would be less chance of this happening.”
 

Therapeutic inertia still high

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Rivara, MD, Nisha Bansal, MD, and Bessie Young, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, say the current SPRINT analysis has broad implications for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in achievement of evidence-based treatment targets in the general population.

“In hypertension management, standardized protocols for medication adjustments may limit clinician practice heterogeneity to ultimately reduce differences in blood pressure control among racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. But they add that such protocols must be implemented thoughtfully to incorporate individualized clinical assessment and clinician-patient shared decision-making.

Dr. Rivara et al. point out that the rates of therapeutic inertia in SPRINT, while lower than community-based estimates, were still very high. They suggest reasons for this could include clinician concerns about medication efficacy, adverse effects, and patient mistrust of medical professionals. Outside the clinical trial environment, additional considerations may include prescription drug and laboratory test costs, pharmacy access, and competing demands during busy clinic visits.

To address these challenges, they say that clinicians need education on current clinical practice guidelines, managing complications of intensified antihypertensive therapies, and shared decisionmaking, including culturally sensitive collaborative care. Similarly, care systems must support patients on how to address concerns about treatments.

Finally, further research is needed to better define the specific factors associated with therapeutic inertia to allow tailored interventions to overcome this inertia.

“In designing and performing such research, it is vital that investigators engage with racial and ethnic minority groups to better explore the intersection of race, ethnicity, therapeutic decision-making, trust, and shared decisionmaking,” they add.

The SPRINT trial was funded with federal funds from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Zheutlin reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study.

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

Therapeutic inertia regarding intensification of blood pressure treatment has been shown to be more of an issue in Black patients, but this was not the case in the SPRINT trial, which involved a strict standardized approach to blood pressure management, a new analysis shows.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

“Overall, we found that therapeutic inertia was similar in different races in the SPRINT trial. We did not see disparities that have been reported in previous observational studies,” lead author, Alexander Zheutlin, MD, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, told this news organization.

“These results show that a well-resourced approach in which a standardized approach to blood pressure measurement and treatment intensification is followed can overcome the racial disparity that is seen in therapeutic inertia and the treatment of blood pressure,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open on Jan. 10.

The authors explain that hypertension remains a leading modifiable cause of racial disparities in cardiovascular disease. Despite similar treatment rates and increased availability of safe, effective, and affordable antihypertensive medications, blood pressure control rates among Black and Hispanic adults remain significantly lower than among White adults in the United States, and one of the factors contributing to this is thought to be therapeutic inertia – the phenomenon of clinicians not initiating or up-titrating clinically indicated therapy in the setting of unmet treatment goals.

The current analysis of the SPRINT trial was conducted to investigate whether racial and ethnic differences in therapeutic inertia in hypertension were present when blood pressure care was standardized and protocolized.

The landmark SPRINT trial compared intensive (<120 mm Hg) with standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic blood pressure treatment goals in adults 50 years and older at high risk for cardiovascular disease. The present analysis was restricted to participant visits with measured blood pressure above the target goal and included 4,141 patients in the standard group and 4,415 patients in the intensive group.

Results showed that the overall prevalence of therapeutic inertia – defined as no antihypertensive medication intensification at each study visit where the blood pressure was above target goal – was either similar or lower for Black and Hispanic participants than for White participants. This pattern was observed whether participants were randomized to the standard or intensive treatment group.

“These findings support the idea that a standardized approach to blood pressure management, as implemented in SPRINT, may help ensure equitable care is provided to all patients and could reduce the contribution of therapeutic inertia to disparities in uncontrolled blood pressure,” the authors say.

They point out that therapeutic inertia has been identified as a key clinician-level barrier to blood pressure control and is estimated to be present in more than 80% of clinic visits in community practice, whereas in the current analysis of the SPRINT trial, therapeutic inertia was present in 50% to 60% of participant visits with uncontrolled blood pressure.

“In SPRINT, blood pressure had to be measured at defined intervals with a specific method, and there were clear instructions on intensifying treatment if blood pressure was above a certain goal,” Dr. Zheutlin noted. “Our results show that within such strict confines, therapeutic inertia does not seem to be different between different racial groups. This suggests that we could make better gains in blood pressure control and more equitable treatment if we adopted a standardized approach to hypertension management.”

He added: “Many guidelines have been published on when to start treatment and the targets for blood pressure, but there is a lot of variation in how we turn these guidelines into protocols. We need to bring in more consistent protocols on blood pressure measurement and intensification and ensure they are followed. In practice, if the BP is 5 or 10 mm Hg above target, a clinician may defer a decision to intensify treatment and intensification never gets done. But if there was a strict protocol to follow, there would be less chance of this happening.”
 

Therapeutic inertia still high

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Rivara, MD, Nisha Bansal, MD, and Bessie Young, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, say the current SPRINT analysis has broad implications for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in achievement of evidence-based treatment targets in the general population.

“In hypertension management, standardized protocols for medication adjustments may limit clinician practice heterogeneity to ultimately reduce differences in blood pressure control among racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. But they add that such protocols must be implemented thoughtfully to incorporate individualized clinical assessment and clinician-patient shared decision-making.

Dr. Rivara et al. point out that the rates of therapeutic inertia in SPRINT, while lower than community-based estimates, were still very high. They suggest reasons for this could include clinician concerns about medication efficacy, adverse effects, and patient mistrust of medical professionals. Outside the clinical trial environment, additional considerations may include prescription drug and laboratory test costs, pharmacy access, and competing demands during busy clinic visits.

To address these challenges, they say that clinicians need education on current clinical practice guidelines, managing complications of intensified antihypertensive therapies, and shared decisionmaking, including culturally sensitive collaborative care. Similarly, care systems must support patients on how to address concerns about treatments.

Finally, further research is needed to better define the specific factors associated with therapeutic inertia to allow tailored interventions to overcome this inertia.

“In designing and performing such research, it is vital that investigators engage with racial and ethnic minority groups to better explore the intersection of race, ethnicity, therapeutic decision-making, trust, and shared decisionmaking,” they add.

The SPRINT trial was funded with federal funds from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Zheutlin reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study.

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

Therapeutic inertia regarding intensification of blood pressure treatment has been shown to be more of an issue in Black patients, but this was not the case in the SPRINT trial, which involved a strict standardized approach to blood pressure management, a new analysis shows.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

“Overall, we found that therapeutic inertia was similar in different races in the SPRINT trial. We did not see disparities that have been reported in previous observational studies,” lead author, Alexander Zheutlin, MD, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, told this news organization.

“These results show that a well-resourced approach in which a standardized approach to blood pressure measurement and treatment intensification is followed can overcome the racial disparity that is seen in therapeutic inertia and the treatment of blood pressure,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open on Jan. 10.

The authors explain that hypertension remains a leading modifiable cause of racial disparities in cardiovascular disease. Despite similar treatment rates and increased availability of safe, effective, and affordable antihypertensive medications, blood pressure control rates among Black and Hispanic adults remain significantly lower than among White adults in the United States, and one of the factors contributing to this is thought to be therapeutic inertia – the phenomenon of clinicians not initiating or up-titrating clinically indicated therapy in the setting of unmet treatment goals.

The current analysis of the SPRINT trial was conducted to investigate whether racial and ethnic differences in therapeutic inertia in hypertension were present when blood pressure care was standardized and protocolized.

The landmark SPRINT trial compared intensive (<120 mm Hg) with standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic blood pressure treatment goals in adults 50 years and older at high risk for cardiovascular disease. The present analysis was restricted to participant visits with measured blood pressure above the target goal and included 4,141 patients in the standard group and 4,415 patients in the intensive group.

Results showed that the overall prevalence of therapeutic inertia – defined as no antihypertensive medication intensification at each study visit where the blood pressure was above target goal – was either similar or lower for Black and Hispanic participants than for White participants. This pattern was observed whether participants were randomized to the standard or intensive treatment group.

“These findings support the idea that a standardized approach to blood pressure management, as implemented in SPRINT, may help ensure equitable care is provided to all patients and could reduce the contribution of therapeutic inertia to disparities in uncontrolled blood pressure,” the authors say.

They point out that therapeutic inertia has been identified as a key clinician-level barrier to blood pressure control and is estimated to be present in more than 80% of clinic visits in community practice, whereas in the current analysis of the SPRINT trial, therapeutic inertia was present in 50% to 60% of participant visits with uncontrolled blood pressure.

“In SPRINT, blood pressure had to be measured at defined intervals with a specific method, and there were clear instructions on intensifying treatment if blood pressure was above a certain goal,” Dr. Zheutlin noted. “Our results show that within such strict confines, therapeutic inertia does not seem to be different between different racial groups. This suggests that we could make better gains in blood pressure control and more equitable treatment if we adopted a standardized approach to hypertension management.”

He added: “Many guidelines have been published on when to start treatment and the targets for blood pressure, but there is a lot of variation in how we turn these guidelines into protocols. We need to bring in more consistent protocols on blood pressure measurement and intensification and ensure they are followed. In practice, if the BP is 5 or 10 mm Hg above target, a clinician may defer a decision to intensify treatment and intensification never gets done. But if there was a strict protocol to follow, there would be less chance of this happening.”
 

Therapeutic inertia still high

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Rivara, MD, Nisha Bansal, MD, and Bessie Young, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, say the current SPRINT analysis has broad implications for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in achievement of evidence-based treatment targets in the general population.

“In hypertension management, standardized protocols for medication adjustments may limit clinician practice heterogeneity to ultimately reduce differences in blood pressure control among racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. But they add that such protocols must be implemented thoughtfully to incorporate individualized clinical assessment and clinician-patient shared decision-making.

Dr. Rivara et al. point out that the rates of therapeutic inertia in SPRINT, while lower than community-based estimates, were still very high. They suggest reasons for this could include clinician concerns about medication efficacy, adverse effects, and patient mistrust of medical professionals. Outside the clinical trial environment, additional considerations may include prescription drug and laboratory test costs, pharmacy access, and competing demands during busy clinic visits.

To address these challenges, they say that clinicians need education on current clinical practice guidelines, managing complications of intensified antihypertensive therapies, and shared decisionmaking, including culturally sensitive collaborative care. Similarly, care systems must support patients on how to address concerns about treatments.

Finally, further research is needed to better define the specific factors associated with therapeutic inertia to allow tailored interventions to overcome this inertia.

“In designing and performing such research, it is vital that investigators engage with racial and ethnic minority groups to better explore the intersection of race, ethnicity, therapeutic decision-making, trust, and shared decisionmaking,” they add.

The SPRINT trial was funded with federal funds from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Zheutlin reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study.

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

Myocardial inflammation is present in a small proportion of patients who have recovered from relatively mild cases of COVID-19 infection, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that even in patients who have had relatively mild cases of COVID-19, some will have inflammatory changes to the heart, and these changes can be present without any cardiac symptoms,” senior author, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, MD, University of Toronto, told this news organization.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

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

Myocardial inflammation is present in a small proportion of patients who have recovered from relatively mild cases of COVID-19 infection, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that even in patients who have had relatively mild cases of COVID-19, some will have inflammatory changes to the heart, and these changes can be present without any cardiac symptoms,” senior author, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, MD, University of Toronto, told this news organization.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

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

Myocardial inflammation is present in a small proportion of patients who have recovered from relatively mild cases of COVID-19 infection, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that even in patients who have had relatively mild cases of COVID-19, some will have inflammatory changes to the heart, and these changes can be present without any cardiac symptoms,” senior author, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, MD, University of Toronto, told this news organization.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

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