Cardiology News

A pair of updated scoring models for estimating a patient’s risk for contrast-associated acute kidney injury during and immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention worked better than a widely used prior version in initial validation testing using data collected at a single U.S. tertiary-care hospital.

Mount Sinai Medical Center

While the two new risk scores looked promising, they need further, external validation with additional, diverse patient cohorts, Roxana Mehran, MD, cautioned at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“Don’t change anything until we externally validate this,” urged Dr. Mehran, professor and director of the Center for Interventional Cardiovascular Research and Clinical Trials at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. External validation of the two new risk scores is in progress with planned reporting of the results in 2022, she said in an interview.

One of the two new algorithms, which both predict a patient’s risk for developing acute kidney injury (AKI) as a result of receiving iodinated contrast media within 48 hours of a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), relies on eight easily available variables taken from a patient’s medical record just prior to undergoing PCI: age, type of coronary disease (ranging from asymptomatic or stable angina to ST-segment elevation MI), estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, diabetes, hemoglobin, basal glucose, and heart failure.

This risk score accounted for 72% (a C-statistic of 0.72) of the observed AKI episodes during the derivation phase, which used data from 14,616 consecutive Mount Sinai patients who underwent PCI during January 2012–December 2017.

Internal validation using data from 5,606 consecutive Mount Sinai patients who underwent PCI during January 2018–December 2020 showed that the eight-item formula accounted for 84% of all incident AKI events occurring during or within 48 hours of a PCI procedure.
 

Accounting for periprocedural variables

A second risk score included the eight preprocedural variables plus four additional periprocedural variables: complex PCI anatomy, contrast volume during the procedure, development of a periprocedural bleed, and having slow or no reflow into affected coronaries (less than TIMI grade 3 flow) immediately after the procedure. The second model produced a C-statistic of 0.74 during derivation and accounted for 86% of incident AKI events in the validation analysis.

The data Dr. Mehran reported appeared in The Lancet .

She and her coauthors designed these two new algorithms to replace a “widely used” and externally validated risk score that Dr. Mehran and associates introduced in 2004. Despite its merits, the 17-year-old scoring formula has limitations including “low discrimination” with a C-statistic of 0.67, derivation from data that’s now 20 years old, and exclusion of patients with ST-elevation MIs, the authors said in the new report.

Dr. Mehran encouraged interventional cardiologists to use both new risk scores (once externally validated) when possible.

The eight-item preprocedural model “gives clinicians an idea about a patient’s risk [for incident AKI] before they go into the catheterization laboratory,” and then they can further refine the risk assessment during the procedure based on the four periprocedural risk factors, she explained. The goal is to target “tailored preventive strategies” to patients identified by the scoring algorithms as being at high risk for AKI.
 

A role for preventive measures

Preventive strategies to consider for higher-risk patients include limiting the administered volume of iodinated contrast media, increasing hydration, and avoiding nephrotoxic agents, Dr. Mehran said. The two new risk-assessment tools will “allow for better evaluation of PCI patients” when testing “innovative strategies and treatments” designed to help avoid contrast-associated AKI.

“The focus to date has been on measures to protect renal function from contrast media, based on indirect data,” Estelle C. Nijssen, MSc, and Joachim E. Wildberger, MD, wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published report. “The effect of prophylactic measures on longer-term averse outcomes is still unclear,” they noted. “Perhaps our focus should shift from contrast and renal function to the heart, the role of which has probably been undervalued in this setting,” wrote Ms. Nijssen, a researcher at Maastricht (The Netherlands) University, and Dr. Wildberger, professor and chairman of the department of radiology at Maastricht University.

The editorial’s authors noted that the two new risk scores have the advantage of relying on variables that are “readily available in clinical practice.” But they also noted several limitations, such as the model’s development from largely low-risk patients who had a low, roughly 30% prevalence of chronic kidney disease. During 9 full years studied, 2012-2020, the annual incidence of AKI showed a downward trend, with an incidence of just over 3% in 2020.

Dr. Mehran attributed this decline in AKI to “great work identifying high-risk patients” and using the prophylactic measures she cited. But even when occurring at relatively low incidence, “AKI is still an important complication that is associated with mortality post PCI,” she stressed.

Establishing a safe contrast dose

“The study is great, and helps reinforce the risk factors that are most important to consider when risk stratifying patients prior to PCI,” said Neal Yuan, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who has studied contrast-associated AKI in patients who undergo PCI. The report from Dr. Mehran also “confirms in a large cohort the association between contrast-associated AKI and death,” and describes “an easy method for calculating risk,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Yuan agreed on the need for external validation, and once adequately validated he called for incorporation of the risk score into EHRs. Another important issue for future study is “how much [AKI] risk is too much risk,” he said.

The risk factors identified in Dr. Mehran’s report “are some of the same ones identified in previous studies. Even though this was a more contemporary dataset, there is not a ton of new [findings]; it mainly strengthens findings from prior studies.”

Results published by Dr. Yuan and his associates in 2020 used data from more than 20,000 U.S. patients who underwent PCI to try to identify a generally safe upper limit for the dose of iodinated contrast.

The main purpose for performing AKI risk stratification on PCI patients is to “identify high-risk patients and use preventive strategies when treating these patients.” Current AKI preventive strategies “mainly fall into intravascular volume expansion, and reduced contrast.” What’s less clear is “how to operationalize reduced contrast,” he said.

The report by Dr. Yuan showed that “about 10% of PCI patients were at very high risk” for contrast-associated AKI “no matter what is done.” In contrast, about two-thirds of PCI patients “could receive lots of contrast and still be very unlikely to develop AKI,” Dr. Yuan said.

He voiced some skepticism about the willingness of many clinicians to routinely use a formal risk score to assess their patients scheduled for PCI.

Most operators “approximate AKI risk based on variables such as age and creatinine level, but few take time to put the variables into a calculator to get an exact risk number.” In a “small survey” he ran, he found that these rough approximations often ignore important risk factors like hemoglobin level. This inertia by clinicians against routinely using a risk score could be addressed, at least in part, by integrating the risk score into an EHR for automatic calculation, Dr. Yuan suggested.

Dr. Mehran noted that the risk score that she introduced in 2004 is used “in many EHRs to identify high-risk patients.”

The current study received no commercial or external funding. Dr. Mehran has been a consultant to Boston Scientific, Cine-Med Research, CIRM, and Janssen, and she holds equity in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, and STEL. Dr. Wildberger had no relevant disclosures. Ms. Nijssen and Dr. Yuan had no disclosures.

[email protected]

A pair of updated scoring models for estimating a patient’s risk for contrast-associated acute kidney injury during and immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention worked better than a widely used prior version in initial validation testing using data collected at a single U.S. tertiary-care hospital.

Mount Sinai Medical Center

While the two new risk scores looked promising, they need further, external validation with additional, diverse patient cohorts, Roxana Mehran, MD, cautioned at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“Don’t change anything until we externally validate this,” urged Dr. Mehran, professor and director of the Center for Interventional Cardiovascular Research and Clinical Trials at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. External validation of the two new risk scores is in progress with planned reporting of the results in 2022, she said in an interview.

One of the two new algorithms, which both predict a patient’s risk for developing acute kidney injury (AKI) as a result of receiving iodinated contrast media within 48 hours of a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), relies on eight easily available variables taken from a patient’s medical record just prior to undergoing PCI: age, type of coronary disease (ranging from asymptomatic or stable angina to ST-segment elevation MI), estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, diabetes, hemoglobin, basal glucose, and heart failure.

This risk score accounted for 72% (a C-statistic of 0.72) of the observed AKI episodes during the derivation phase, which used data from 14,616 consecutive Mount Sinai patients who underwent PCI during January 2012–December 2017.

Internal validation using data from 5,606 consecutive Mount Sinai patients who underwent PCI during January 2018–December 2020 showed that the eight-item formula accounted for 84% of all incident AKI events occurring during or within 48 hours of a PCI procedure.
 

Accounting for periprocedural variables

A second risk score included the eight preprocedural variables plus four additional periprocedural variables: complex PCI anatomy, contrast volume during the procedure, development of a periprocedural bleed, and having slow or no reflow into affected coronaries (less than TIMI grade 3 flow) immediately after the procedure. The second model produced a C-statistic of 0.74 during derivation and accounted for 86% of incident AKI events in the validation analysis.

The data Dr. Mehran reported appeared in The Lancet .

She and her coauthors designed these two new algorithms to replace a “widely used” and externally validated risk score that Dr. Mehran and associates introduced in 2004. Despite its merits, the 17-year-old scoring formula has limitations including “low discrimination” with a C-statistic of 0.67, derivation from data that’s now 20 years old, and exclusion of patients with ST-elevation MIs, the authors said in the new report.

Dr. Mehran encouraged interventional cardiologists to use both new risk scores (once externally validated) when possible.

The eight-item preprocedural model “gives clinicians an idea about a patient’s risk [for incident AKI] before they go into the catheterization laboratory,” and then they can further refine the risk assessment during the procedure based on the four periprocedural risk factors, she explained. The goal is to target “tailored preventive strategies” to patients identified by the scoring algorithms as being at high risk for AKI.
 

A role for preventive measures

Preventive strategies to consider for higher-risk patients include limiting the administered volume of iodinated contrast media, increasing hydration, and avoiding nephrotoxic agents, Dr. Mehran said. The two new risk-assessment tools will “allow for better evaluation of PCI patients” when testing “innovative strategies and treatments” designed to help avoid contrast-associated AKI.

“The focus to date has been on measures to protect renal function from contrast media, based on indirect data,” Estelle C. Nijssen, MSc, and Joachim E. Wildberger, MD, wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published report. “The effect of prophylactic measures on longer-term averse outcomes is still unclear,” they noted. “Perhaps our focus should shift from contrast and renal function to the heart, the role of which has probably been undervalued in this setting,” wrote Ms. Nijssen, a researcher at Maastricht (The Netherlands) University, and Dr. Wildberger, professor and chairman of the department of radiology at Maastricht University.

The editorial’s authors noted that the two new risk scores have the advantage of relying on variables that are “readily available in clinical practice.” But they also noted several limitations, such as the model’s development from largely low-risk patients who had a low, roughly 30% prevalence of chronic kidney disease. During 9 full years studied, 2012-2020, the annual incidence of AKI showed a downward trend, with an incidence of just over 3% in 2020.

Dr. Mehran attributed this decline in AKI to “great work identifying high-risk patients” and using the prophylactic measures she cited. But even when occurring at relatively low incidence, “AKI is still an important complication that is associated with mortality post PCI,” she stressed.

Establishing a safe contrast dose

“The study is great, and helps reinforce the risk factors that are most important to consider when risk stratifying patients prior to PCI,” said Neal Yuan, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who has studied contrast-associated AKI in patients who undergo PCI. The report from Dr. Mehran also “confirms in a large cohort the association between contrast-associated AKI and death,” and describes “an easy method for calculating risk,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Yuan agreed on the need for external validation, and once adequately validated he called for incorporation of the risk score into EHRs. Another important issue for future study is “how much [AKI] risk is too much risk,” he said.

The risk factors identified in Dr. Mehran’s report “are some of the same ones identified in previous studies. Even though this was a more contemporary dataset, there is not a ton of new [findings]; it mainly strengthens findings from prior studies.”

Results published by Dr. Yuan and his associates in 2020 used data from more than 20,000 U.S. patients who underwent PCI to try to identify a generally safe upper limit for the dose of iodinated contrast.

The main purpose for performing AKI risk stratification on PCI patients is to “identify high-risk patients and use preventive strategies when treating these patients.” Current AKI preventive strategies “mainly fall into intravascular volume expansion, and reduced contrast.” What’s less clear is “how to operationalize reduced contrast,” he said.

The report by Dr. Yuan showed that “about 10% of PCI patients were at very high risk” for contrast-associated AKI “no matter what is done.” In contrast, about two-thirds of PCI patients “could receive lots of contrast and still be very unlikely to develop AKI,” Dr. Yuan said.

He voiced some skepticism about the willingness of many clinicians to routinely use a formal risk score to assess their patients scheduled for PCI.

Most operators “approximate AKI risk based on variables such as age and creatinine level, but few take time to put the variables into a calculator to get an exact risk number.” In a “small survey” he ran, he found that these rough approximations often ignore important risk factors like hemoglobin level. This inertia by clinicians against routinely using a risk score could be addressed, at least in part, by integrating the risk score into an EHR for automatic calculation, Dr. Yuan suggested.

Dr. Mehran noted that the risk score that she introduced in 2004 is used “in many EHRs to identify high-risk patients.”

The current study received no commercial or external funding. Dr. Mehran has been a consultant to Boston Scientific, Cine-Med Research, CIRM, and Janssen, and she holds equity in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, and STEL. Dr. Wildberger had no relevant disclosures. Ms. Nijssen and Dr. Yuan had no disclosures.

[email protected]

A pair of updated scoring models for estimating a patient’s risk for contrast-associated acute kidney injury during and immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention worked better than a widely used prior version in initial validation testing using data collected at a single U.S. tertiary-care hospital.

Mount Sinai Medical Center

While the two new risk scores looked promising, they need further, external validation with additional, diverse patient cohorts, Roxana Mehran, MD, cautioned at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“Don’t change anything until we externally validate this,” urged Dr. Mehran, professor and director of the Center for Interventional Cardiovascular Research and Clinical Trials at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. External validation of the two new risk scores is in progress with planned reporting of the results in 2022, she said in an interview.

One of the two new algorithms, which both predict a patient’s risk for developing acute kidney injury (AKI) as a result of receiving iodinated contrast media within 48 hours of a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), relies on eight easily available variables taken from a patient’s medical record just prior to undergoing PCI: age, type of coronary disease (ranging from asymptomatic or stable angina to ST-segment elevation MI), estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, diabetes, hemoglobin, basal glucose, and heart failure.

This risk score accounted for 72% (a C-statistic of 0.72) of the observed AKI episodes during the derivation phase, which used data from 14,616 consecutive Mount Sinai patients who underwent PCI during January 2012–December 2017.

Internal validation using data from 5,606 consecutive Mount Sinai patients who underwent PCI during January 2018–December 2020 showed that the eight-item formula accounted for 84% of all incident AKI events occurring during or within 48 hours of a PCI procedure.
 

Accounting for periprocedural variables

A second risk score included the eight preprocedural variables plus four additional periprocedural variables: complex PCI anatomy, contrast volume during the procedure, development of a periprocedural bleed, and having slow or no reflow into affected coronaries (less than TIMI grade 3 flow) immediately after the procedure. The second model produced a C-statistic of 0.74 during derivation and accounted for 86% of incident AKI events in the validation analysis.

The data Dr. Mehran reported appeared in The Lancet .

She and her coauthors designed these two new algorithms to replace a “widely used” and externally validated risk score that Dr. Mehran and associates introduced in 2004. Despite its merits, the 17-year-old scoring formula has limitations including “low discrimination” with a C-statistic of 0.67, derivation from data that’s now 20 years old, and exclusion of patients with ST-elevation MIs, the authors said in the new report.

Dr. Mehran encouraged interventional cardiologists to use both new risk scores (once externally validated) when possible.

The eight-item preprocedural model “gives clinicians an idea about a patient’s risk [for incident AKI] before they go into the catheterization laboratory,” and then they can further refine the risk assessment during the procedure based on the four periprocedural risk factors, she explained. The goal is to target “tailored preventive strategies” to patients identified by the scoring algorithms as being at high risk for AKI.
 

A role for preventive measures

Preventive strategies to consider for higher-risk patients include limiting the administered volume of iodinated contrast media, increasing hydration, and avoiding nephrotoxic agents, Dr. Mehran said. The two new risk-assessment tools will “allow for better evaluation of PCI patients” when testing “innovative strategies and treatments” designed to help avoid contrast-associated AKI.

“The focus to date has been on measures to protect renal function from contrast media, based on indirect data,” Estelle C. Nijssen, MSc, and Joachim E. Wildberger, MD, wrote in an editorial that accompanied the published report. “The effect of prophylactic measures on longer-term averse outcomes is still unclear,” they noted. “Perhaps our focus should shift from contrast and renal function to the heart, the role of which has probably been undervalued in this setting,” wrote Ms. Nijssen, a researcher at Maastricht (The Netherlands) University, and Dr. Wildberger, professor and chairman of the department of radiology at Maastricht University.

The editorial’s authors noted that the two new risk scores have the advantage of relying on variables that are “readily available in clinical practice.” But they also noted several limitations, such as the model’s development from largely low-risk patients who had a low, roughly 30% prevalence of chronic kidney disease. During 9 full years studied, 2012-2020, the annual incidence of AKI showed a downward trend, with an incidence of just over 3% in 2020.

Dr. Mehran attributed this decline in AKI to “great work identifying high-risk patients” and using the prophylactic measures she cited. But even when occurring at relatively low incidence, “AKI is still an important complication that is associated with mortality post PCI,” she stressed.

Establishing a safe contrast dose

“The study is great, and helps reinforce the risk factors that are most important to consider when risk stratifying patients prior to PCI,” said Neal Yuan, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who has studied contrast-associated AKI in patients who undergo PCI. The report from Dr. Mehran also “confirms in a large cohort the association between contrast-associated AKI and death,” and describes “an easy method for calculating risk,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Yuan agreed on the need for external validation, and once adequately validated he called for incorporation of the risk score into EHRs. Another important issue for future study is “how much [AKI] risk is too much risk,” he said.

The risk factors identified in Dr. Mehran’s report “are some of the same ones identified in previous studies. Even though this was a more contemporary dataset, there is not a ton of new [findings]; it mainly strengthens findings from prior studies.”

Results published by Dr. Yuan and his associates in 2020 used data from more than 20,000 U.S. patients who underwent PCI to try to identify a generally safe upper limit for the dose of iodinated contrast.

The main purpose for performing AKI risk stratification on PCI patients is to “identify high-risk patients and use preventive strategies when treating these patients.” Current AKI preventive strategies “mainly fall into intravascular volume expansion, and reduced contrast.” What’s less clear is “how to operationalize reduced contrast,” he said.

The report by Dr. Yuan showed that “about 10% of PCI patients were at very high risk” for contrast-associated AKI “no matter what is done.” In contrast, about two-thirds of PCI patients “could receive lots of contrast and still be very unlikely to develop AKI,” Dr. Yuan said.

He voiced some skepticism about the willingness of many clinicians to routinely use a formal risk score to assess their patients scheduled for PCI.

Most operators “approximate AKI risk based on variables such as age and creatinine level, but few take time to put the variables into a calculator to get an exact risk number.” In a “small survey” he ran, he found that these rough approximations often ignore important risk factors like hemoglobin level. This inertia by clinicians against routinely using a risk score could be addressed, at least in part, by integrating the risk score into an EHR for automatic calculation, Dr. Yuan suggested.

Dr. Mehran noted that the risk score that she introduced in 2004 is used “in many EHRs to identify high-risk patients.”

The current study received no commercial or external funding. Dr. Mehran has been a consultant to Boston Scientific, Cine-Med Research, CIRM, and Janssen, and she holds equity in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, and STEL. Dr. Wildberger had no relevant disclosures. Ms. Nijssen and Dr. Yuan had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Apixaban appears to be safer and more effective than rivaroxaban for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding, based on new research.

Recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) – a composite of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis – was the primary effectiveness outcome in the retrospective analysis of new-user data from almost 40,000 patients, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Safety was evaluated through a composite of intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding.

After a median follow-up of 102 days in the apixaban group and 105 days in the rivaroxaban group, apixaban demonstrated superiority for both primary outcomes.

These real-world findings may guide selection of initial anticoagulant therapy, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, MSc, MBA, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“Randomized clinical trials comparing apixaban with rivaroxaban in patients with VTE are under way (for example, COBRRA (NCT03266783),” the investigators wrote. “Until the results from these trials become available (The estimated completion date for COBRRA is December 2023.), observational studies that use existing data can provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of these alternatives to inform clinical practice.”

In the new research, apixaban was associated with a 23% lower rate of recurrent VTE (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.87), including a 15% lower rate of deep vein thrombosis and a 41% lower rate of pulmonary embolism. Apixaban was associated with 40% fewer bleeding events (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.69]), including a 40% lower rate of GI bleeding and a 46% lower rate of intracranial bleeding.

The study involved 37,236 patients with VTE, all of whom were diagnosed in at least one inpatient encounter and initiated direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy within 30 days, according to Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. Patients were evenly split into apixaban and rivaroxaban groups, with 18,618 individuals in each. Propensity score matching was used to minimize differences in baseline characteristics.

Apixaban was associated with an absolute reduction in recurrent VTE of 0.6% and 1.1% over 2 and 6 months, respectively, as well as reductions in bleeding of 1.1% and 1.5% over the same respective time periods.

The investigators noted that these findings were maintained in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including a model in which patients with VTE who had transient risk factors were compared with VTE patients exhibiting chronic risk factors.

“These findings suggest that apixaban has superior effectiveness and safety, compared with rivaroxaban and may provide guidance to clinicians and patients regarding selection of an anticoagulant for treatment of VTE,” Dr. Dawwas and colleagues concluded.

Study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes, according to vascular surgeon

Thomas Wakefield, MD, a vascular surgeon and a professor of surgery at the University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, generally agreed with the investigators’ conclusion, although he noted that DOAC selection may also be influenced by other considerations.

“The results of this study suggest that, when choosing an agent for an individual patient, apixaban does appear to have an advantage over rivaroxaban related to recurrent VTE and bleeding,” Dr. Wakefield said in an interview. “One must keep in mind that these are not the only factors that are considered when choosing an agent and these are not the only two DOACs available. For example, rivaroxaban is given once per day while apixaban is given twice per day, and rivaroxaban has been shown to be successful in the treatment of other thrombotic disorders.”

Dr. Wakefield also pointed out that the study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes.

“The current study looked at severe outcomes that resulted in inpatient hospitalization, so the generalization to strictly outpatient treatment and less severe outcomes cannot be inferred,” he said.

Damon E. Houghton, MD, of the department of medicine and a consultant in the department of vascular medicine and hematology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., called the study a “very nice analysis,” highlighting the large sample size.

“The results are not a reason to abandon rivaroxaban altogether, but do suggest that, when otherwise appropriate for a patient, apixaban should be the first choice,” Dr. Houghton said in a written comment. “Hopefully this analysis will encourage more payers to create financial incentives that facilitate the use of apixaban in more patients.”

Randomized trial needed, says hematologist

Colleen Edwards, MD, of the departments of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, had a more guarded view of the findings than Dr. Wakefield and Dr. Houghton.

“[The investigators] certainly seem to be doing a lot of statistical gymnastics in this paper,” Dr. Edwards said in an interview. “They used all kinds of surrogates in place of real data that you would get from a randomized trial.”

For example, Dr. Edwards noted the use of prescription refills as a surrogate for medication adherence, and emphasized that inpatient observational data may not reflect outpatient therapy.

“Inpatients are constantly missing their medicines all the time,” she said. “They’re holding it for procedures, they’re NPO, they’re off the floor, so they missed their medicine. So it’s just a very different patient population than the outpatient population, which is where venous thromboembolism is treated now, by and large.”

Although Dr. Edwards suggested that the findings might guide treatment selection “a little bit,” she noted that insurance constraints and costs play a greater role, and ultimately concluded that a randomized trial is needed to materially alter clinical decision-making.

“I think we really have to wait for randomized trial before we abandon our other choices,” she said.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Celgene, UCB, and others. Dr. Wakefield reported awaiting disclosures. Dr. Houghton and Dr. Edwards reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Apixaban appears to be safer and more effective than rivaroxaban for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding, based on new research.

Recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) – a composite of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis – was the primary effectiveness outcome in the retrospective analysis of new-user data from almost 40,000 patients, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Safety was evaluated through a composite of intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding.

After a median follow-up of 102 days in the apixaban group and 105 days in the rivaroxaban group, apixaban demonstrated superiority for both primary outcomes.

These real-world findings may guide selection of initial anticoagulant therapy, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, MSc, MBA, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“Randomized clinical trials comparing apixaban with rivaroxaban in patients with VTE are under way (for example, COBRRA (NCT03266783),” the investigators wrote. “Until the results from these trials become available (The estimated completion date for COBRRA is December 2023.), observational studies that use existing data can provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of these alternatives to inform clinical practice.”

In the new research, apixaban was associated with a 23% lower rate of recurrent VTE (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.87), including a 15% lower rate of deep vein thrombosis and a 41% lower rate of pulmonary embolism. Apixaban was associated with 40% fewer bleeding events (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.69]), including a 40% lower rate of GI bleeding and a 46% lower rate of intracranial bleeding.

The study involved 37,236 patients with VTE, all of whom were diagnosed in at least one inpatient encounter and initiated direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy within 30 days, according to Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. Patients were evenly split into apixaban and rivaroxaban groups, with 18,618 individuals in each. Propensity score matching was used to minimize differences in baseline characteristics.

Apixaban was associated with an absolute reduction in recurrent VTE of 0.6% and 1.1% over 2 and 6 months, respectively, as well as reductions in bleeding of 1.1% and 1.5% over the same respective time periods.

The investigators noted that these findings were maintained in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including a model in which patients with VTE who had transient risk factors were compared with VTE patients exhibiting chronic risk factors.

“These findings suggest that apixaban has superior effectiveness and safety, compared with rivaroxaban and may provide guidance to clinicians and patients regarding selection of an anticoagulant for treatment of VTE,” Dr. Dawwas and colleagues concluded.

Study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes, according to vascular surgeon

Thomas Wakefield, MD, a vascular surgeon and a professor of surgery at the University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, generally agreed with the investigators’ conclusion, although he noted that DOAC selection may also be influenced by other considerations.

“The results of this study suggest that, when choosing an agent for an individual patient, apixaban does appear to have an advantage over rivaroxaban related to recurrent VTE and bleeding,” Dr. Wakefield said in an interview. “One must keep in mind that these are not the only factors that are considered when choosing an agent and these are not the only two DOACs available. For example, rivaroxaban is given once per day while apixaban is given twice per day, and rivaroxaban has been shown to be successful in the treatment of other thrombotic disorders.”

Dr. Wakefield also pointed out that the study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes.

“The current study looked at severe outcomes that resulted in inpatient hospitalization, so the generalization to strictly outpatient treatment and less severe outcomes cannot be inferred,” he said.

Damon E. Houghton, MD, of the department of medicine and a consultant in the department of vascular medicine and hematology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., called the study a “very nice analysis,” highlighting the large sample size.

“The results are not a reason to abandon rivaroxaban altogether, but do suggest that, when otherwise appropriate for a patient, apixaban should be the first choice,” Dr. Houghton said in a written comment. “Hopefully this analysis will encourage more payers to create financial incentives that facilitate the use of apixaban in more patients.”

Randomized trial needed, says hematologist

Colleen Edwards, MD, of the departments of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, had a more guarded view of the findings than Dr. Wakefield and Dr. Houghton.

“[The investigators] certainly seem to be doing a lot of statistical gymnastics in this paper,” Dr. Edwards said in an interview. “They used all kinds of surrogates in place of real data that you would get from a randomized trial.”

For example, Dr. Edwards noted the use of prescription refills as a surrogate for medication adherence, and emphasized that inpatient observational data may not reflect outpatient therapy.

“Inpatients are constantly missing their medicines all the time,” she said. “They’re holding it for procedures, they’re NPO, they’re off the floor, so they missed their medicine. So it’s just a very different patient population than the outpatient population, which is where venous thromboembolism is treated now, by and large.”

Although Dr. Edwards suggested that the findings might guide treatment selection “a little bit,” she noted that insurance constraints and costs play a greater role, and ultimately concluded that a randomized trial is needed to materially alter clinical decision-making.

“I think we really have to wait for randomized trial before we abandon our other choices,” she said.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Celgene, UCB, and others. Dr. Wakefield reported awaiting disclosures. Dr. Houghton and Dr. Edwards reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Apixaban appears to be safer and more effective than rivaroxaban for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding, based on new research.

Recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) – a composite of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis – was the primary effectiveness outcome in the retrospective analysis of new-user data from almost 40,000 patients, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Safety was evaluated through a composite of intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding.

After a median follow-up of 102 days in the apixaban group and 105 days in the rivaroxaban group, apixaban demonstrated superiority for both primary outcomes.

These real-world findings may guide selection of initial anticoagulant therapy, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, MSc, MBA, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“Randomized clinical trials comparing apixaban with rivaroxaban in patients with VTE are under way (for example, COBRRA (NCT03266783),” the investigators wrote. “Until the results from these trials become available (The estimated completion date for COBRRA is December 2023.), observational studies that use existing data can provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of these alternatives to inform clinical practice.”

In the new research, apixaban was associated with a 23% lower rate of recurrent VTE (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.87), including a 15% lower rate of deep vein thrombosis and a 41% lower rate of pulmonary embolism. Apixaban was associated with 40% fewer bleeding events (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.69]), including a 40% lower rate of GI bleeding and a 46% lower rate of intracranial bleeding.

The study involved 37,236 patients with VTE, all of whom were diagnosed in at least one inpatient encounter and initiated direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy within 30 days, according to Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. Patients were evenly split into apixaban and rivaroxaban groups, with 18,618 individuals in each. Propensity score matching was used to minimize differences in baseline characteristics.

Apixaban was associated with an absolute reduction in recurrent VTE of 0.6% and 1.1% over 2 and 6 months, respectively, as well as reductions in bleeding of 1.1% and 1.5% over the same respective time periods.

The investigators noted that these findings were maintained in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including a model in which patients with VTE who had transient risk factors were compared with VTE patients exhibiting chronic risk factors.

“These findings suggest that apixaban has superior effectiveness and safety, compared with rivaroxaban and may provide guidance to clinicians and patients regarding selection of an anticoagulant for treatment of VTE,” Dr. Dawwas and colleagues concluded.

Study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes, according to vascular surgeon

Thomas Wakefield, MD, a vascular surgeon and a professor of surgery at the University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, generally agreed with the investigators’ conclusion, although he noted that DOAC selection may also be influenced by other considerations.

“The results of this study suggest that, when choosing an agent for an individual patient, apixaban does appear to have an advantage over rivaroxaban related to recurrent VTE and bleeding,” Dr. Wakefield said in an interview. “One must keep in mind that these are not the only factors that are considered when choosing an agent and these are not the only two DOACs available. For example, rivaroxaban is given once per day while apixaban is given twice per day, and rivaroxaban has been shown to be successful in the treatment of other thrombotic disorders.”

Dr. Wakefield also pointed out that the study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes.

“The current study looked at severe outcomes that resulted in inpatient hospitalization, so the generalization to strictly outpatient treatment and less severe outcomes cannot be inferred,” he said.

Damon E. Houghton, MD, of the department of medicine and a consultant in the department of vascular medicine and hematology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., called the study a “very nice analysis,” highlighting the large sample size.

“The results are not a reason to abandon rivaroxaban altogether, but do suggest that, when otherwise appropriate for a patient, apixaban should be the first choice,” Dr. Houghton said in a written comment. “Hopefully this analysis will encourage more payers to create financial incentives that facilitate the use of apixaban in more patients.”

Randomized trial needed, says hematologist

Colleen Edwards, MD, of the departments of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, had a more guarded view of the findings than Dr. Wakefield and Dr. Houghton.

“[The investigators] certainly seem to be doing a lot of statistical gymnastics in this paper,” Dr. Edwards said in an interview. “They used all kinds of surrogates in place of real data that you would get from a randomized trial.”

For example, Dr. Edwards noted the use of prescription refills as a surrogate for medication adherence, and emphasized that inpatient observational data may not reflect outpatient therapy.

“Inpatients are constantly missing their medicines all the time,” she said. “They’re holding it for procedures, they’re NPO, they’re off the floor, so they missed their medicine. So it’s just a very different patient population than the outpatient population, which is where venous thromboembolism is treated now, by and large.”

Although Dr. Edwards suggested that the findings might guide treatment selection “a little bit,” she noted that insurance constraints and costs play a greater role, and ultimately concluded that a randomized trial is needed to materially alter clinical decision-making.

“I think we really have to wait for randomized trial before we abandon our other choices,” she said.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Celgene, UCB, and others. Dr. Wakefield reported awaiting disclosures. Dr. Houghton and Dr. Edwards reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

As the pandemic shows no signs of ending, primary care doctors may be reassured that delivering care via video teleconferencing can be as effective as usual in-person consultation for several common health conditions.

This was a finding of a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine involving a review of literature on video teleconferencing (VTC) visits, which was authored by Jordan Albritton, PhD, MPH and his colleagues.

The authors found generally comparable patient outcomes as well as no differences in health care use, patient satisfaction, and quality of life when visits conducted using VTC were compared with usual care.

While VTC may work best for monitoring patients with chronic conditions, it can also be effective for acute care, said Dr. Albritton, who is a research public health analyst at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., in an interview.

The investigators analyzed 20 randomized controlled trials of at least 50 patients and acceptable risk of bias in which VTC was used either for main or adjunct care delivery. Published from 2013 to 2019, these studies looked at care for diabetes and pain management, as well as some respiratory, neurologic, and cardiovascular conditions. Studies comparing VTC with usual care that did not involve any added in-person care were more likely to favor the VTC group, the investigators found.

“We excluded conditions such as substance use disorders, maternal care, and weight management for which there was sufficient prior evidence of the benefit of VTC,” Dr. Albritton said in an interview. “But I don’t think our results would have been substantially different if we had included these other diseases. We found general evidence in the literature that VTC is effective for a broader range of conditions.”

In some cases, such as if changes in a patient’s condition triggered an automatic virtual visit, the author said he thinks VTC may lead to even greater effectiveness.

“The doctor and patient could figure out on the spot what’s going on and perhaps change the medication,” Dr. Albritton explained.

In general agreement is Julia L. Frydman, MD, assistant professor in the Brookdale Department of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who was not involved in the RTI research.

“Telemedicine has promise across many medical subspecialties, and what we need now are more studies to understand the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and clinicians as well as the impact of telemedicine on health outcomes and healthcare utilization.”

In acknowledgment of their utility, video visits are on the rise in the United States. A 2020 survey found that 22% of patients and 80% of physicians reported having participated in a video visit, three times the rate of the previous year. The authors noted that policy changes enacted to support telehealth strategies during the pandemic are expected to remain in place, and although patients are returning to in-person care, the virtual visit market will likely continue growing.
 

Increased telemedicine use by older adults

“We’ve seen an exciting expansion of telemedicine use among older adults, and we need to focus on continuing to meet their needs,” Dr. Frydman said.

In a recent study of televisits during the pandemic, Dr. Frydman’s group found a fivefold greater uptake of remote consultations by seniors – from 5% to 25%. Although in-person visits were far more common among older adults.

A specific advantage of video-based over audio-only telehealth, noted Dr. Albritton, is that physicians can directly observe patients in their home environment. Sharing that view is Deepa Iyengar, MBBS/MD,MPH, professor of family medicine at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, where, she said, “the pandemic has put VTC use into overdrive.”

According to Dr. Iyengar, who was not involved in the RTI research, the video component definitely represents value-added over phone calls. “You can pick up visual cues on video that you might not see if the patient came in and you can see what the home environment is like – whether there are a lot of loose rugs on the floor or broken or missing light bulbs,” she said in an interview.
 

‘VTC is here to stay’

In other parts of the country, doctors are finding virtual care useful – and more common. “VTC is here to stay, for sure – the horse is out of the barn,” said Cheryl L. Wilkes, MD, an internist at Northwestern Medicine and assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “The RTI study shows no harm from VTC and also shows it may even improve clinical outcomes.”

Video visits can also save patients high parking fees at clinics and spare the sick or elderly from having to hire caregivers to bring them into the office or from having to walk blocks in dangerous weather conditions, she added. “And I can do a virtual visit on the fly or at night when a relative or caregiver is home from work to be there with the patient.”

In addition to being beneficial for following up with patients with chronic diseases such as hypertension or diabetes, VTC may be able to replace some visits that have traditionally required hands-on care, said Dr. Wilkes.

She said she knows a cardiologist who has refined a process whereby a patient – say, one who may have edema – is asked to perform a maneuver via VTC and then display the result to the doctor: The doctor says, “put your leg up and press on it hard for 10 seconds and then show me what it looks like,” according to Dr. Wilkes.

The key now is to identify the best persons across specialties from neurology to rheumatology to videotape ways they’ve created to help their patients participate virtually in consults traditionally done at the office, Dr. Wilkes noted.

But some conditions will always require palpation and the use of a stethoscope, according Dr. Iyengar.

“If someone has an ulcer, I have to be able to feel it,” she said.

And while some maternity care can be given virtually – for instance, if a mother-to be develops a bad cold – hands-on obstetrical care to check the position and health of the baby obviously has to be done in person. “So VTC is definitely going to be a welcome addition but not a replacement,” Dr. Iyengar said.

Gaps in research on VTC visits

Many questions remain regarding the overall usefulness of VTC visits for certain patient groups, according to the authors.

They highlighted, for example, the dearth of data on subgroups or on underserved and vulnerable populations, with no head-to-head studies identified in their review. In addition, they found no studies examining VTC versus usual care for patients with concurrent conditions or on its effect on health equity and disparities.

“It’s now our job to understand the ongoing barriers to telemedicine access, including the digital divide and the usability of telemedicine platforms, and design interventions that overcome them,” Dr. Frydman said. “At the same time, we need to make sure we’re understanding and respecting the preferences of older adults in terms of how they access health care.”

This study was supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Dr. Albritton is employed by RTI International, the contractor responsible for conducting the research and developing the manuscript. Several coauthors disclosed support from or contracts with PCORI. One coauthor’s spouse holds stock in private health companies. Dr. Frydman, Dr. Iyengar, and Dr. Wilkes disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

As the pandemic shows no signs of ending, primary care doctors may be reassured that delivering care via video teleconferencing can be as effective as usual in-person consultation for several common health conditions.

This was a finding of a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine involving a review of literature on video teleconferencing (VTC) visits, which was authored by Jordan Albritton, PhD, MPH and his colleagues.

The authors found generally comparable patient outcomes as well as no differences in health care use, patient satisfaction, and quality of life when visits conducted using VTC were compared with usual care.

While VTC may work best for monitoring patients with chronic conditions, it can also be effective for acute care, said Dr. Albritton, who is a research public health analyst at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., in an interview.

The investigators analyzed 20 randomized controlled trials of at least 50 patients and acceptable risk of bias in which VTC was used either for main or adjunct care delivery. Published from 2013 to 2019, these studies looked at care for diabetes and pain management, as well as some respiratory, neurologic, and cardiovascular conditions. Studies comparing VTC with usual care that did not involve any added in-person care were more likely to favor the VTC group, the investigators found.

“We excluded conditions such as substance use disorders, maternal care, and weight management for which there was sufficient prior evidence of the benefit of VTC,” Dr. Albritton said in an interview. “But I don’t think our results would have been substantially different if we had included these other diseases. We found general evidence in the literature that VTC is effective for a broader range of conditions.”

In some cases, such as if changes in a patient’s condition triggered an automatic virtual visit, the author said he thinks VTC may lead to even greater effectiveness.

“The doctor and patient could figure out on the spot what’s going on and perhaps change the medication,” Dr. Albritton explained.

In general agreement is Julia L. Frydman, MD, assistant professor in the Brookdale Department of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who was not involved in the RTI research.

“Telemedicine has promise across many medical subspecialties, and what we need now are more studies to understand the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and clinicians as well as the impact of telemedicine on health outcomes and healthcare utilization.”

In acknowledgment of their utility, video visits are on the rise in the United States. A 2020 survey found that 22% of patients and 80% of physicians reported having participated in a video visit, three times the rate of the previous year. The authors noted that policy changes enacted to support telehealth strategies during the pandemic are expected to remain in place, and although patients are returning to in-person care, the virtual visit market will likely continue growing.
 

Increased telemedicine use by older adults

“We’ve seen an exciting expansion of telemedicine use among older adults, and we need to focus on continuing to meet their needs,” Dr. Frydman said.

In a recent study of televisits during the pandemic, Dr. Frydman’s group found a fivefold greater uptake of remote consultations by seniors – from 5% to 25%. Although in-person visits were far more common among older adults.

A specific advantage of video-based over audio-only telehealth, noted Dr. Albritton, is that physicians can directly observe patients in their home environment. Sharing that view is Deepa Iyengar, MBBS/MD,MPH, professor of family medicine at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, where, she said, “the pandemic has put VTC use into overdrive.”

According to Dr. Iyengar, who was not involved in the RTI research, the video component definitely represents value-added over phone calls. “You can pick up visual cues on video that you might not see if the patient came in and you can see what the home environment is like – whether there are a lot of loose rugs on the floor or broken or missing light bulbs,” she said in an interview.
 

‘VTC is here to stay’

In other parts of the country, doctors are finding virtual care useful – and more common. “VTC is here to stay, for sure – the horse is out of the barn,” said Cheryl L. Wilkes, MD, an internist at Northwestern Medicine and assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “The RTI study shows no harm from VTC and also shows it may even improve clinical outcomes.”

Video visits can also save patients high parking fees at clinics and spare the sick or elderly from having to hire caregivers to bring them into the office or from having to walk blocks in dangerous weather conditions, she added. “And I can do a virtual visit on the fly or at night when a relative or caregiver is home from work to be there with the patient.”

In addition to being beneficial for following up with patients with chronic diseases such as hypertension or diabetes, VTC may be able to replace some visits that have traditionally required hands-on care, said Dr. Wilkes.

She said she knows a cardiologist who has refined a process whereby a patient – say, one who may have edema – is asked to perform a maneuver via VTC and then display the result to the doctor: The doctor says, “put your leg up and press on it hard for 10 seconds and then show me what it looks like,” according to Dr. Wilkes.

The key now is to identify the best persons across specialties from neurology to rheumatology to videotape ways they’ve created to help their patients participate virtually in consults traditionally done at the office, Dr. Wilkes noted.

But some conditions will always require palpation and the use of a stethoscope, according Dr. Iyengar.

“If someone has an ulcer, I have to be able to feel it,” she said.

And while some maternity care can be given virtually – for instance, if a mother-to be develops a bad cold – hands-on obstetrical care to check the position and health of the baby obviously has to be done in person. “So VTC is definitely going to be a welcome addition but not a replacement,” Dr. Iyengar said.

Gaps in research on VTC visits

Many questions remain regarding the overall usefulness of VTC visits for certain patient groups, according to the authors.

They highlighted, for example, the dearth of data on subgroups or on underserved and vulnerable populations, with no head-to-head studies identified in their review. In addition, they found no studies examining VTC versus usual care for patients with concurrent conditions or on its effect on health equity and disparities.

“It’s now our job to understand the ongoing barriers to telemedicine access, including the digital divide and the usability of telemedicine platforms, and design interventions that overcome them,” Dr. Frydman said. “At the same time, we need to make sure we’re understanding and respecting the preferences of older adults in terms of how they access health care.”

This study was supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Dr. Albritton is employed by RTI International, the contractor responsible for conducting the research and developing the manuscript. Several coauthors disclosed support from or contracts with PCORI. One coauthor’s spouse holds stock in private health companies. Dr. Frydman, Dr. Iyengar, and Dr. Wilkes disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

As the pandemic shows no signs of ending, primary care doctors may be reassured that delivering care via video teleconferencing can be as effective as usual in-person consultation for several common health conditions.

This was a finding of a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine involving a review of literature on video teleconferencing (VTC) visits, which was authored by Jordan Albritton, PhD, MPH and his colleagues.

The authors found generally comparable patient outcomes as well as no differences in health care use, patient satisfaction, and quality of life when visits conducted using VTC were compared with usual care.

While VTC may work best for monitoring patients with chronic conditions, it can also be effective for acute care, said Dr. Albritton, who is a research public health analyst at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., in an interview.

The investigators analyzed 20 randomized controlled trials of at least 50 patients and acceptable risk of bias in which VTC was used either for main or adjunct care delivery. Published from 2013 to 2019, these studies looked at care for diabetes and pain management, as well as some respiratory, neurologic, and cardiovascular conditions. Studies comparing VTC with usual care that did not involve any added in-person care were more likely to favor the VTC group, the investigators found.

“We excluded conditions such as substance use disorders, maternal care, and weight management for which there was sufficient prior evidence of the benefit of VTC,” Dr. Albritton said in an interview. “But I don’t think our results would have been substantially different if we had included these other diseases. We found general evidence in the literature that VTC is effective for a broader range of conditions.”

In some cases, such as if changes in a patient’s condition triggered an automatic virtual visit, the author said he thinks VTC may lead to even greater effectiveness.

“The doctor and patient could figure out on the spot what’s going on and perhaps change the medication,” Dr. Albritton explained.

In general agreement is Julia L. Frydman, MD, assistant professor in the Brookdale Department of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who was not involved in the RTI research.

“Telemedicine has promise across many medical subspecialties, and what we need now are more studies to understand the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and clinicians as well as the impact of telemedicine on health outcomes and healthcare utilization.”

In acknowledgment of their utility, video visits are on the rise in the United States. A 2020 survey found that 22% of patients and 80% of physicians reported having participated in a video visit, three times the rate of the previous year. The authors noted that policy changes enacted to support telehealth strategies during the pandemic are expected to remain in place, and although patients are returning to in-person care, the virtual visit market will likely continue growing.
 

Increased telemedicine use by older adults

“We’ve seen an exciting expansion of telemedicine use among older adults, and we need to focus on continuing to meet their needs,” Dr. Frydman said.

In a recent study of televisits during the pandemic, Dr. Frydman’s group found a fivefold greater uptake of remote consultations by seniors – from 5% to 25%. Although in-person visits were far more common among older adults.

A specific advantage of video-based over audio-only telehealth, noted Dr. Albritton, is that physicians can directly observe patients in their home environment. Sharing that view is Deepa Iyengar, MBBS/MD,MPH, professor of family medicine at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, where, she said, “the pandemic has put VTC use into overdrive.”

According to Dr. Iyengar, who was not involved in the RTI research, the video component definitely represents value-added over phone calls. “You can pick up visual cues on video that you might not see if the patient came in and you can see what the home environment is like – whether there are a lot of loose rugs on the floor or broken or missing light bulbs,” she said in an interview.
 

‘VTC is here to stay’

In other parts of the country, doctors are finding virtual care useful – and more common. “VTC is here to stay, for sure – the horse is out of the barn,” said Cheryl L. Wilkes, MD, an internist at Northwestern Medicine and assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “The RTI study shows no harm from VTC and also shows it may even improve clinical outcomes.”

Video visits can also save patients high parking fees at clinics and spare the sick or elderly from having to hire caregivers to bring them into the office or from having to walk blocks in dangerous weather conditions, she added. “And I can do a virtual visit on the fly or at night when a relative or caregiver is home from work to be there with the patient.”

In addition to being beneficial for following up with patients with chronic diseases such as hypertension or diabetes, VTC may be able to replace some visits that have traditionally required hands-on care, said Dr. Wilkes.

She said she knows a cardiologist who has refined a process whereby a patient – say, one who may have edema – is asked to perform a maneuver via VTC and then display the result to the doctor: The doctor says, “put your leg up and press on it hard for 10 seconds and then show me what it looks like,” according to Dr. Wilkes.

The key now is to identify the best persons across specialties from neurology to rheumatology to videotape ways they’ve created to help their patients participate virtually in consults traditionally done at the office, Dr. Wilkes noted.

But some conditions will always require palpation and the use of a stethoscope, according Dr. Iyengar.

“If someone has an ulcer, I have to be able to feel it,” she said.

And while some maternity care can be given virtually – for instance, if a mother-to be develops a bad cold – hands-on obstetrical care to check the position and health of the baby obviously has to be done in person. “So VTC is definitely going to be a welcome addition but not a replacement,” Dr. Iyengar said.

Gaps in research on VTC visits

Many questions remain regarding the overall usefulness of VTC visits for certain patient groups, according to the authors.

They highlighted, for example, the dearth of data on subgroups or on underserved and vulnerable populations, with no head-to-head studies identified in their review. In addition, they found no studies examining VTC versus usual care for patients with concurrent conditions or on its effect on health equity and disparities.

“It’s now our job to understand the ongoing barriers to telemedicine access, including the digital divide and the usability of telemedicine platforms, and design interventions that overcome them,” Dr. Frydman said. “At the same time, we need to make sure we’re understanding and respecting the preferences of older adults in terms of how they access health care.”

This study was supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Dr. Albritton is employed by RTI International, the contractor responsible for conducting the research and developing the manuscript. Several coauthors disclosed support from or contracts with PCORI. One coauthor’s spouse holds stock in private health companies. Dr. Frydman, Dr. Iyengar, and Dr. Wilkes disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

As more indoor venues require proof of vaccination for entrance and with winter — as well as omicron, a new COVID variant — looming, scientists and public health officials are debating when it will be time to change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include a booster shot.

It’s been more than six months since many Americans finished their vaccination course against COVID; statistically, their immunity is waning.

At the same time, cases of infections with the Omicron variant have been reported in at least 17 states, as of Dec. 6. Omicron is distinguished by at least 50 mutations, some of which appear to be associated with increased transmissibility. The World Health Organization dubbed it a variant of concern on Nov. 26.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone 18 and older get a COVID booster shot, revising its narrower guidance that only people 50 and up “should” get a shot while younger adults could choose whether or not to do so. Scientists assume the additional shots will offer significant protection from the new variant, though they do not know for certain how much.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, during a White House press briefing was unequivocal in advising the public. “Get boosted now,” Dr. Fauci said, adding urgency to the current federal guidance. About a quarter of U.S. adults have received additional vaccine doses.

“The definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ has not changed. That’s, you know, after your second dose of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, after your single dose of a Johnson & Johnson vaccine,” said the CDC’s director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, during a Nov. 30 White House briefing on COVID. “We are absolutely encouraging those who are eligible for a boost six months after those mRNA doses to get your boost. But we are not changing the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ right now.” A booster is recommended two months after receiving the J&J shot.

But that, she noted, could change: “As that science evolves, we will look at whether we need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated.’”

Still, the Democratic governors of Connecticut and New Mexico are sending a different signal in their states, as are some countries — such as Israel, which arguably has been the most aggressive nation in its approach. Some scientists point out that many vaccines involve three doses over six months for robust long-term protection, such as the shot against hepatitis. So “fully vaccinated” may need to include shot No. 3 to be considered a full course.

“In my view, if you were vaccinated more than six months ago, you’re not fully vaccinated,” Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont said Nov. 18 during a press briefing. He was encouraging everyone to get boosted at that time, even before the federal government authorized extra shots for everyone.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham had a similar response in mid-November, saying she defined “fully vaccinated” as receiving three shots of the mRNA type. She also opened up booster eligibility to all of her state residents before the CDC and Food and Drug Administration did.

What do the varying views on the evolving science mean for vaccine requirements imposed on travelers, or by schools or workplaces? And what about businesses that have required patrons to provide proof of vaccination?

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania, said the CDC’s stronger recommendation for everyone to get boosted signals to him that a booster is now part of the vaccine regimen. Yet Dr. Offit, who is also a member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, wrote a joint op-ed this week in which he and two other scientists argued that boosters were not yet needed for everyone and that healthy young people should wait to see whether an Omicron-specific booster might be needed.

“I think when the CDC said they are recommending a third dose, they just made the statement that this is a three-dose vaccine series,” Dr. Offit told KHN. “And, frankly, I think it’s going to throw a wrench into mandates.”

Yet to be determined is whether restaurants or other places of business will look more closely at vaccine cards for the booster.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said it’s too early to say. “For now, businesses should stay focused on current guidelines,” he said.

Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, in Washington, said the question of whether you are fully vaccinated with just two doses or need a booster is a question of semantics. COVID immunity level is the more important issue.

Dr. Siegel said he thinks more suitable terminology would be to call someone “appropriately” or “adequately” vaccinated against COVID rather than “fully” vaccinated, since it’s possible that more boosters could be needed in the future — making “full vaccination” a moving target.

But, as with so many aspects of the pandemic, ambiguity prevails — both in federal guidance on the definition of “fully vaccinated” and in entrance policies, which vary by state, school and business.

Right now, businesses don’t appear to be checking for boosters, but that could change. So, it may be wise to first check the requirements — lest patrons present a two-shot vaccine passport, only to be turned away as inadequately protected.

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

As more indoor venues require proof of vaccination for entrance and with winter — as well as omicron, a new COVID variant — looming, scientists and public health officials are debating when it will be time to change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include a booster shot.

It’s been more than six months since many Americans finished their vaccination course against COVID; statistically, their immunity is waning.

At the same time, cases of infections with the Omicron variant have been reported in at least 17 states, as of Dec. 6. Omicron is distinguished by at least 50 mutations, some of which appear to be associated with increased transmissibility. The World Health Organization dubbed it a variant of concern on Nov. 26.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone 18 and older get a COVID booster shot, revising its narrower guidance that only people 50 and up “should” get a shot while younger adults could choose whether or not to do so. Scientists assume the additional shots will offer significant protection from the new variant, though they do not know for certain how much.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, during a White House press briefing was unequivocal in advising the public. “Get boosted now,” Dr. Fauci said, adding urgency to the current federal guidance. About a quarter of U.S. adults have received additional vaccine doses.

“The definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ has not changed. That’s, you know, after your second dose of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, after your single dose of a Johnson & Johnson vaccine,” said the CDC’s director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, during a Nov. 30 White House briefing on COVID. “We are absolutely encouraging those who are eligible for a boost six months after those mRNA doses to get your boost. But we are not changing the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ right now.” A booster is recommended two months after receiving the J&J shot.

But that, she noted, could change: “As that science evolves, we will look at whether we need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated.’”

Still, the Democratic governors of Connecticut and New Mexico are sending a different signal in their states, as are some countries — such as Israel, which arguably has been the most aggressive nation in its approach. Some scientists point out that many vaccines involve three doses over six months for robust long-term protection, such as the shot against hepatitis. So “fully vaccinated” may need to include shot No. 3 to be considered a full course.

“In my view, if you were vaccinated more than six months ago, you’re not fully vaccinated,” Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont said Nov. 18 during a press briefing. He was encouraging everyone to get boosted at that time, even before the federal government authorized extra shots for everyone.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham had a similar response in mid-November, saying she defined “fully vaccinated” as receiving three shots of the mRNA type. She also opened up booster eligibility to all of her state residents before the CDC and Food and Drug Administration did.

What do the varying views on the evolving science mean for vaccine requirements imposed on travelers, or by schools or workplaces? And what about businesses that have required patrons to provide proof of vaccination?

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania, said the CDC’s stronger recommendation for everyone to get boosted signals to him that a booster is now part of the vaccine regimen. Yet Dr. Offit, who is also a member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, wrote a joint op-ed this week in which he and two other scientists argued that boosters were not yet needed for everyone and that healthy young people should wait to see whether an Omicron-specific booster might be needed.

“I think when the CDC said they are recommending a third dose, they just made the statement that this is a three-dose vaccine series,” Dr. Offit told KHN. “And, frankly, I think it’s going to throw a wrench into mandates.”

Yet to be determined is whether restaurants or other places of business will look more closely at vaccine cards for the booster.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said it’s too early to say. “For now, businesses should stay focused on current guidelines,” he said.

Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, in Washington, said the question of whether you are fully vaccinated with just two doses or need a booster is a question of semantics. COVID immunity level is the more important issue.

Dr. Siegel said he thinks more suitable terminology would be to call someone “appropriately” or “adequately” vaccinated against COVID rather than “fully” vaccinated, since it’s possible that more boosters could be needed in the future — making “full vaccination” a moving target.

But, as with so many aspects of the pandemic, ambiguity prevails — both in federal guidance on the definition of “fully vaccinated” and in entrance policies, which vary by state, school and business.

Right now, businesses don’t appear to be checking for boosters, but that could change. So, it may be wise to first check the requirements — lest patrons present a two-shot vaccine passport, only to be turned away as inadequately protected.

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

As more indoor venues require proof of vaccination for entrance and with winter — as well as omicron, a new COVID variant — looming, scientists and public health officials are debating when it will be time to change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include a booster shot.

It’s been more than six months since many Americans finished their vaccination course against COVID; statistically, their immunity is waning.

At the same time, cases of infections with the Omicron variant have been reported in at least 17 states, as of Dec. 6. Omicron is distinguished by at least 50 mutations, some of which appear to be associated with increased transmissibility. The World Health Organization dubbed it a variant of concern on Nov. 26.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone 18 and older get a COVID booster shot, revising its narrower guidance that only people 50 and up “should” get a shot while younger adults could choose whether or not to do so. Scientists assume the additional shots will offer significant protection from the new variant, though they do not know for certain how much.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, during a White House press briefing was unequivocal in advising the public. “Get boosted now,” Dr. Fauci said, adding urgency to the current federal guidance. About a quarter of U.S. adults have received additional vaccine doses.

“The definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ has not changed. That’s, you know, after your second dose of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, after your single dose of a Johnson & Johnson vaccine,” said the CDC’s director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, during a Nov. 30 White House briefing on COVID. “We are absolutely encouraging those who are eligible for a boost six months after those mRNA doses to get your boost. But we are not changing the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ right now.” A booster is recommended two months after receiving the J&J shot.

But that, she noted, could change: “As that science evolves, we will look at whether we need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated.’”

Still, the Democratic governors of Connecticut and New Mexico are sending a different signal in their states, as are some countries — such as Israel, which arguably has been the most aggressive nation in its approach. Some scientists point out that many vaccines involve three doses over six months for robust long-term protection, such as the shot against hepatitis. So “fully vaccinated” may need to include shot No. 3 to be considered a full course.

“In my view, if you were vaccinated more than six months ago, you’re not fully vaccinated,” Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont said Nov. 18 during a press briefing. He was encouraging everyone to get boosted at that time, even before the federal government authorized extra shots for everyone.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham had a similar response in mid-November, saying she defined “fully vaccinated” as receiving three shots of the mRNA type. She also opened up booster eligibility to all of her state residents before the CDC and Food and Drug Administration did.

What do the varying views on the evolving science mean for vaccine requirements imposed on travelers, or by schools or workplaces? And what about businesses that have required patrons to provide proof of vaccination?

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania, said the CDC’s stronger recommendation for everyone to get boosted signals to him that a booster is now part of the vaccine regimen. Yet Dr. Offit, who is also a member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, wrote a joint op-ed this week in which he and two other scientists argued that boosters were not yet needed for everyone and that healthy young people should wait to see whether an Omicron-specific booster might be needed.

“I think when the CDC said they are recommending a third dose, they just made the statement that this is a three-dose vaccine series,” Dr. Offit told KHN. “And, frankly, I think it’s going to throw a wrench into mandates.”

Yet to be determined is whether restaurants or other places of business will look more closely at vaccine cards for the booster.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said it’s too early to say. “For now, businesses should stay focused on current guidelines,” he said.

Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, in Washington, said the question of whether you are fully vaccinated with just two doses or need a booster is a question of semantics. COVID immunity level is the more important issue.

Dr. Siegel said he thinks more suitable terminology would be to call someone “appropriately” or “adequately” vaccinated against COVID rather than “fully” vaccinated, since it’s possible that more boosters could be needed in the future — making “full vaccination” a moving target.

But, as with so many aspects of the pandemic, ambiguity prevails — both in federal guidance on the definition of “fully vaccinated” and in entrance policies, which vary by state, school and business.

Right now, businesses don’t appear to be checking for boosters, but that could change. So, it may be wise to first check the requirements — lest patrons present a two-shot vaccine passport, only to be turned away as inadequately protected.

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

The emergence of COVID-19 has given the medical world a bewildering array of prevention and treatment protocols. Some physicians are advocating treatments that have not been validated by sound scientific studies. This has already led to licensing issues and other disciplinary actions being taken against physicians, pharmacies, and other health care providers across the country.

Kuzma/istockphoto

Medical professionals try their very best to give sound advice to patients. A medical license does not, however, confer immunity from being misled.

The supporting “science” for alternative prevention and treatments may look legitimate, but these claims are often based on anecdotal evidence. Some studies involve small populations, some are meta-analyses of several small or single-case studies, and others are not properly designed, interpreted, or executed in line with U.S. research and requirements. Yet others have been conducted only in nonhuman analogues, such as frogs or mice.

Many people are refusing a vaccine that has been proven to be relatively safe and effective in numerous repeated and validated studies in the best medical centers across the globe – all in favor of less validated alternatives. Well-intentioned medical professionals may be tempted to promote the information and products featured on websites that advocate for unproven products and protocols. This can have serious legal consequences.
 

The crux of the issue

This is not a question of a physician’s first amendment rights. Nor is it a question of advocating for a scientifically valid minority medical opinion. The point of this article is that promoting unproven products, preventives, treatments, and cures can have dire consequences for licensed medical professionals.

On July 29, 2021, the Federation of State Medical Boards’ Board of Directors released a statement in response to a dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other health care professionals on social media platforms, online, and in the media. The statement reads as follows:

“Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession, and puts all patients at risk.”

 

What are the legal consequences?

Medical malpractice

The first consequence to consider is professional liability or medical malpractice. This applies if a patient claims harm as a result of the health care practitioner’s recommendation of an unproven treatment, product, or protocol. For example, strongly discouraging vaccination can result in a wrongful death claim if the patient follows the doctor’s advice, chooses not to vaccinate, contracts COVID-19, and does not recover. Recommending or providing unproven approaches and unapproved treatments is arguably a violation of the standard of care.

The standard of care is grounded in evidence-based medicine: It is commonly defined as the degree of care and skill that would be used by the average physician, who is practicing in his or her relevant specialty, under the same or similar circumstances, given the generally accepted medical knowledge at the time in question.

By way of example, one can see why inhaling peroxide, drinking bleach, or even taking Food and Drug Administration–approved medications that have little or no proven efficacy in treating or preventing COVID-19 is not what the average physician would advocate for under the same or similar circumstances, considering available and commonly accepted medical knowledge. Recommending or providing such treatments can be a breach of the standard of care and can form the basis of a medical malpractice action if, in fact, compensable harm has occurred.

In addition, recommending unproven and unapproved COVID-19 preventives and treatments without appropriate informed consent from patients is arguably also a breach of the standard of care. The claim would be that the patient has not been appropriately informed of the all the known benefits, risks, costs, and other legally required information such as proven efficacy and reasonably available alternatives.

In any event, physicians can rest assured that if a patient is harmed as a result of any of these situations, they’ll probably be answering to someone in the legal system.
 

Professional licensing action

Regardless of whether there is a medical malpractice action, there is still the potential for a patient complaint to be filed with the state licensing authority on the basis of the same facts and grounds. This can result in an investigation or an administrative complaint against the license of the health care provider.

This is not a mere potential risk. Licensing investigations are underway across the country. Disciplinary licensing actions have already taken place. For example, a Washington Medical Commission panel suspended the license of a physician assistant (PA) on Oct. 12, 2021, after an allegation that his treatment of COVID-19 patients fell below the standard of care. The PA allegedly began a public campaign promoting ivermectin as a curative agent for COVID-19 and prescribed it without adequate examination to at least one person, with no evidence from reliable clinical studies that establish its efficacy in preventing or treating COVID-19.

In licensing claims, alleged violations of failing to comply with the standard of care are usually asserted. These claims may also cite violations of other state statutes that encompass such concepts as negligence; breach of the duty of due care; incompetence; lack of good moral character; and lack of ability to serve the public in a fair, honest, and open manner. A licensing complaint may include alleged violations of statutes that address prescribing protocols, reckless endangerment, failure to supervise, and other issues.

The filing of an administrative complaint is a different animal from a medical malpractice action – they are not even in the same system or branch of government. The focus is not just about what happened to the one patient who complained; it is about protection of the public.

The states’ power to put a clinician on probation, condition, limit, suspend, or revoke the clinician’s license, as well as issue other sanctions such as physician monitoring and fines), is profound. The discipline imposed can upend a clinician’s career and potentially end it entirely.

Administrative discipline determinations are usually available to the public and are required to be reported to all employers (current and future). These discipline determinations are also sent to the National Practitioner Data Bank, other professional clearinghouse organizations (such as the Federation of State Medical Boards), state offices, professional liability insurers, payers with whom the clinician contracts, accreditation and certification organizations, and the clinician’s patients.

Discipline determinations must be promptly reported to licensing agencies in other states where the clinician holds a license, and often results in “sister state” actions because discipline was issued against the clinician in another state. It must be disclosed every time a clinician applies for hospital privileges or new employment. It can result in de-participation from health care insurance programs and can affect board certification, recertification, or accreditation for care programs in which the clinician participates.

In sum, licensing actions can be much worse than medical malpractice judgments and can have longer-term consequences.
 

Peer review and affected privileges

Recommending, promoting, and providing unapproved or unproven treatments, cures, or preventives to patients may violate hospital/health system, practice group, or surgical center bylaws. This can trigger the peer review process, which serves to improve patient safety and the quality of care.

The peer review process may be commenced because of a concern about the clinician’s compliance with the standard of care; potential patient safety issues; ethical issues; and the clinician’s stability, credibility, or professional competence. Any hospital disciplinary penalty is generally reported to state licensing authorities, which can trigger a licensing investigation. If clinical privileges are affected for a period of more than 30 days, the organization must report the situation to the National Practitioner Data Bank.
 

Criminal charges

Depending on the facts, a physician or other health care professional could be charged with reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, or manslaughter. If the clinician was assisting someone else who profited from that clinician’s actions, then we can look to a variety of potential federal and state fraud charges as well.

Conviction of a fraud-related felony may also lead to federal health care program and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) exclusion for several years, and then CMS preclusion that can be imposed for years beyond the conclusion of the statutorily required exclusion.
 

Breach of contract

Some practice groups or other organizational employers have provisions in employment contracts that treat discipline for this type of conduct as a breach of contract. Because of this, the clinician committing breach may be subject to liquidated damages clauses, forfeiture of monies (such as bonuses or other incentives or rewards), termination of employment, forced withdrawal from ownership status, and being sued for breach of contract to recover damages.

Reputation/credibility damage and the attendant consequences

In regard to hospitals and health care system practice groups, another risk is the loss of referrals and revenue. Local media may air or publish exposés. Such stories may widely publicize the media’s version of the facts – true or not. This can cause immediate reputation and credibility damage within the community and may adversely affect a clinician’s patient base. Any information that is publicly broadcast might attract the attention of licensing and law enforcement authorities and taint potential jurors.

Hospitals and health care systems may pull privileges; post on websites; make official statements about the termination of affiliation; or denounce the clinician’s behavior, conduct, and beliefs as being inconsistent with quality care and patient safety. This causes further damage to a physician’s reputation and credibility.

In a group practice, accusations of this sort, licensing discipline, medical malpractice liability, investigations, loss of privileges, and the other sequelae of this conduct can force the withdrawal of the clinician as a member or shareholder in multiprovider groups. Adverse effects on the financial bottom line, patient referrals, and patient volume and bad press are often the basis for voting a clinician out.
 

Violation of the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act of 2020

For the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FTC COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act makes it unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation (as those terms are defined broadly in the act) to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID-19 or a government benefit related to COVID-19.

The first enforcement action authorized by this act took place in April 2021 against a chiropractor who promised vitamin treatments and cures for COVID-19. The act provides that such a violation shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under the FTC Act.

Under the act, the FTC is authorized to prescribe “rules that define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Deceptive practices are defined as involving a material representation, omission, or practice that is “likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.” An act or practice is unfair if it “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”

After an investigation, the FTC may initiate an enforcement action using either an administrative or judicial process if it has “reason to believe” that the law has been violated. Violations of some laws may result in injunctive relief or civil monetary penalties, which are adjusted annually for inflation.

In addition, many states have deceptive and unfair trade laws that can be enforced in regard to the recommendation, sale, or provision of unproven or unapproved COVID-19 treatments, cures, and preventives as well.
 

Conclusion

It is difficult even for intelligent, well-intentioned physicians to know precisely what to believe and what to advocate for in the middle of a pandemic. It seems as though new reports and recommendations for preventing and treating COVID-19 are surfacing on a weekly basis. By far, the safest approach for any medical clinician to take is to advocate for positions that are generally accepted in the medical and scientific community at the time advice is given.

Mr. Whitelaw disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Janeway disclosed various associations with the Michigan Association for Healthcare Quality and the Greater Houston Society for Healthcare Risk Management. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The emergence of COVID-19 has given the medical world a bewildering array of prevention and treatment protocols. Some physicians are advocating treatments that have not been validated by sound scientific studies. This has already led to licensing issues and other disciplinary actions being taken against physicians, pharmacies, and other health care providers across the country.

Kuzma/istockphoto

Medical professionals try their very best to give sound advice to patients. A medical license does not, however, confer immunity from being misled.

The supporting “science” for alternative prevention and treatments may look legitimate, but these claims are often based on anecdotal evidence. Some studies involve small populations, some are meta-analyses of several small or single-case studies, and others are not properly designed, interpreted, or executed in line with U.S. research and requirements. Yet others have been conducted only in nonhuman analogues, such as frogs or mice.

Many people are refusing a vaccine that has been proven to be relatively safe and effective in numerous repeated and validated studies in the best medical centers across the globe – all in favor of less validated alternatives. Well-intentioned medical professionals may be tempted to promote the information and products featured on websites that advocate for unproven products and protocols. This can have serious legal consequences.
 

The crux of the issue

This is not a question of a physician’s first amendment rights. Nor is it a question of advocating for a scientifically valid minority medical opinion. The point of this article is that promoting unproven products, preventives, treatments, and cures can have dire consequences for licensed medical professionals.

On July 29, 2021, the Federation of State Medical Boards’ Board of Directors released a statement in response to a dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other health care professionals on social media platforms, online, and in the media. The statement reads as follows:

“Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession, and puts all patients at risk.”

 

What are the legal consequences?

Medical malpractice

The first consequence to consider is professional liability or medical malpractice. This applies if a patient claims harm as a result of the health care practitioner’s recommendation of an unproven treatment, product, or protocol. For example, strongly discouraging vaccination can result in a wrongful death claim if the patient follows the doctor’s advice, chooses not to vaccinate, contracts COVID-19, and does not recover. Recommending or providing unproven approaches and unapproved treatments is arguably a violation of the standard of care.

The standard of care is grounded in evidence-based medicine: It is commonly defined as the degree of care and skill that would be used by the average physician, who is practicing in his or her relevant specialty, under the same or similar circumstances, given the generally accepted medical knowledge at the time in question.

By way of example, one can see why inhaling peroxide, drinking bleach, or even taking Food and Drug Administration–approved medications that have little or no proven efficacy in treating or preventing COVID-19 is not what the average physician would advocate for under the same or similar circumstances, considering available and commonly accepted medical knowledge. Recommending or providing such treatments can be a breach of the standard of care and can form the basis of a medical malpractice action if, in fact, compensable harm has occurred.

In addition, recommending unproven and unapproved COVID-19 preventives and treatments without appropriate informed consent from patients is arguably also a breach of the standard of care. The claim would be that the patient has not been appropriately informed of the all the known benefits, risks, costs, and other legally required information such as proven efficacy and reasonably available alternatives.

In any event, physicians can rest assured that if a patient is harmed as a result of any of these situations, they’ll probably be answering to someone in the legal system.
 

Professional licensing action

Regardless of whether there is a medical malpractice action, there is still the potential for a patient complaint to be filed with the state licensing authority on the basis of the same facts and grounds. This can result in an investigation or an administrative complaint against the license of the health care provider.

This is not a mere potential risk. Licensing investigations are underway across the country. Disciplinary licensing actions have already taken place. For example, a Washington Medical Commission panel suspended the license of a physician assistant (PA) on Oct. 12, 2021, after an allegation that his treatment of COVID-19 patients fell below the standard of care. The PA allegedly began a public campaign promoting ivermectin as a curative agent for COVID-19 and prescribed it without adequate examination to at least one person, with no evidence from reliable clinical studies that establish its efficacy in preventing or treating COVID-19.

In licensing claims, alleged violations of failing to comply with the standard of care are usually asserted. These claims may also cite violations of other state statutes that encompass such concepts as negligence; breach of the duty of due care; incompetence; lack of good moral character; and lack of ability to serve the public in a fair, honest, and open manner. A licensing complaint may include alleged violations of statutes that address prescribing protocols, reckless endangerment, failure to supervise, and other issues.

The filing of an administrative complaint is a different animal from a medical malpractice action – they are not even in the same system or branch of government. The focus is not just about what happened to the one patient who complained; it is about protection of the public.

The states’ power to put a clinician on probation, condition, limit, suspend, or revoke the clinician’s license, as well as issue other sanctions such as physician monitoring and fines), is profound. The discipline imposed can upend a clinician’s career and potentially end it entirely.

Administrative discipline determinations are usually available to the public and are required to be reported to all employers (current and future). These discipline determinations are also sent to the National Practitioner Data Bank, other professional clearinghouse organizations (such as the Federation of State Medical Boards), state offices, professional liability insurers, payers with whom the clinician contracts, accreditation and certification organizations, and the clinician’s patients.

Discipline determinations must be promptly reported to licensing agencies in other states where the clinician holds a license, and often results in “sister state” actions because discipline was issued against the clinician in another state. It must be disclosed every time a clinician applies for hospital privileges or new employment. It can result in de-participation from health care insurance programs and can affect board certification, recertification, or accreditation for care programs in which the clinician participates.

In sum, licensing actions can be much worse than medical malpractice judgments and can have longer-term consequences.
 

Peer review and affected privileges

Recommending, promoting, and providing unapproved or unproven treatments, cures, or preventives to patients may violate hospital/health system, practice group, or surgical center bylaws. This can trigger the peer review process, which serves to improve patient safety and the quality of care.

The peer review process may be commenced because of a concern about the clinician’s compliance with the standard of care; potential patient safety issues; ethical issues; and the clinician’s stability, credibility, or professional competence. Any hospital disciplinary penalty is generally reported to state licensing authorities, which can trigger a licensing investigation. If clinical privileges are affected for a period of more than 30 days, the organization must report the situation to the National Practitioner Data Bank.
 

Criminal charges

Depending on the facts, a physician or other health care professional could be charged with reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, or manslaughter. If the clinician was assisting someone else who profited from that clinician’s actions, then we can look to a variety of potential federal and state fraud charges as well.

Conviction of a fraud-related felony may also lead to federal health care program and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) exclusion for several years, and then CMS preclusion that can be imposed for years beyond the conclusion of the statutorily required exclusion.
 

Breach of contract

Some practice groups or other organizational employers have provisions in employment contracts that treat discipline for this type of conduct as a breach of contract. Because of this, the clinician committing breach may be subject to liquidated damages clauses, forfeiture of monies (such as bonuses or other incentives or rewards), termination of employment, forced withdrawal from ownership status, and being sued for breach of contract to recover damages.

Reputation/credibility damage and the attendant consequences

In regard to hospitals and health care system practice groups, another risk is the loss of referrals and revenue. Local media may air or publish exposés. Such stories may widely publicize the media’s version of the facts – true or not. This can cause immediate reputation and credibility damage within the community and may adversely affect a clinician’s patient base. Any information that is publicly broadcast might attract the attention of licensing and law enforcement authorities and taint potential jurors.

Hospitals and health care systems may pull privileges; post on websites; make official statements about the termination of affiliation; or denounce the clinician’s behavior, conduct, and beliefs as being inconsistent with quality care and patient safety. This causes further damage to a physician’s reputation and credibility.

In a group practice, accusations of this sort, licensing discipline, medical malpractice liability, investigations, loss of privileges, and the other sequelae of this conduct can force the withdrawal of the clinician as a member or shareholder in multiprovider groups. Adverse effects on the financial bottom line, patient referrals, and patient volume and bad press are often the basis for voting a clinician out.
 

Violation of the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act of 2020

For the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FTC COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act makes it unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation (as those terms are defined broadly in the act) to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID-19 or a government benefit related to COVID-19.

The first enforcement action authorized by this act took place in April 2021 against a chiropractor who promised vitamin treatments and cures for COVID-19. The act provides that such a violation shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under the FTC Act.

Under the act, the FTC is authorized to prescribe “rules that define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Deceptive practices are defined as involving a material representation, omission, or practice that is “likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.” An act or practice is unfair if it “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”

After an investigation, the FTC may initiate an enforcement action using either an administrative or judicial process if it has “reason to believe” that the law has been violated. Violations of some laws may result in injunctive relief or civil monetary penalties, which are adjusted annually for inflation.

In addition, many states have deceptive and unfair trade laws that can be enforced in regard to the recommendation, sale, or provision of unproven or unapproved COVID-19 treatments, cures, and preventives as well.
 

Conclusion

It is difficult even for intelligent, well-intentioned physicians to know precisely what to believe and what to advocate for in the middle of a pandemic. It seems as though new reports and recommendations for preventing and treating COVID-19 are surfacing on a weekly basis. By far, the safest approach for any medical clinician to take is to advocate for positions that are generally accepted in the medical and scientific community at the time advice is given.

Mr. Whitelaw disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Janeway disclosed various associations with the Michigan Association for Healthcare Quality and the Greater Houston Society for Healthcare Risk Management. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The emergence of COVID-19 has given the medical world a bewildering array of prevention and treatment protocols. Some physicians are advocating treatments that have not been validated by sound scientific studies. This has already led to licensing issues and other disciplinary actions being taken against physicians, pharmacies, and other health care providers across the country.

Kuzma/istockphoto

Medical professionals try their very best to give sound advice to patients. A medical license does not, however, confer immunity from being misled.

The supporting “science” for alternative prevention and treatments may look legitimate, but these claims are often based on anecdotal evidence. Some studies involve small populations, some are meta-analyses of several small or single-case studies, and others are not properly designed, interpreted, or executed in line with U.S. research and requirements. Yet others have been conducted only in nonhuman analogues, such as frogs or mice.

Many people are refusing a vaccine that has been proven to be relatively safe and effective in numerous repeated and validated studies in the best medical centers across the globe – all in favor of less validated alternatives. Well-intentioned medical professionals may be tempted to promote the information and products featured on websites that advocate for unproven products and protocols. This can have serious legal consequences.
 

The crux of the issue

This is not a question of a physician’s first amendment rights. Nor is it a question of advocating for a scientifically valid minority medical opinion. The point of this article is that promoting unproven products, preventives, treatments, and cures can have dire consequences for licensed medical professionals.

On July 29, 2021, the Federation of State Medical Boards’ Board of Directors released a statement in response to a dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other health care professionals on social media platforms, online, and in the media. The statement reads as follows:

“Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession, and puts all patients at risk.”

 

What are the legal consequences?

Medical malpractice

The first consequence to consider is professional liability or medical malpractice. This applies if a patient claims harm as a result of the health care practitioner’s recommendation of an unproven treatment, product, or protocol. For example, strongly discouraging vaccination can result in a wrongful death claim if the patient follows the doctor’s advice, chooses not to vaccinate, contracts COVID-19, and does not recover. Recommending or providing unproven approaches and unapproved treatments is arguably a violation of the standard of care.

The standard of care is grounded in evidence-based medicine: It is commonly defined as the degree of care and skill that would be used by the average physician, who is practicing in his or her relevant specialty, under the same or similar circumstances, given the generally accepted medical knowledge at the time in question.

By way of example, one can see why inhaling peroxide, drinking bleach, or even taking Food and Drug Administration–approved medications that have little or no proven efficacy in treating or preventing COVID-19 is not what the average physician would advocate for under the same or similar circumstances, considering available and commonly accepted medical knowledge. Recommending or providing such treatments can be a breach of the standard of care and can form the basis of a medical malpractice action if, in fact, compensable harm has occurred.

In addition, recommending unproven and unapproved COVID-19 preventives and treatments without appropriate informed consent from patients is arguably also a breach of the standard of care. The claim would be that the patient has not been appropriately informed of the all the known benefits, risks, costs, and other legally required information such as proven efficacy and reasonably available alternatives.

In any event, physicians can rest assured that if a patient is harmed as a result of any of these situations, they’ll probably be answering to someone in the legal system.
 

Professional licensing action

Regardless of whether there is a medical malpractice action, there is still the potential for a patient complaint to be filed with the state licensing authority on the basis of the same facts and grounds. This can result in an investigation or an administrative complaint against the license of the health care provider.

This is not a mere potential risk. Licensing investigations are underway across the country. Disciplinary licensing actions have already taken place. For example, a Washington Medical Commission panel suspended the license of a physician assistant (PA) on Oct. 12, 2021, after an allegation that his treatment of COVID-19 patients fell below the standard of care. The PA allegedly began a public campaign promoting ivermectin as a curative agent for COVID-19 and prescribed it without adequate examination to at least one person, with no evidence from reliable clinical studies that establish its efficacy in preventing or treating COVID-19.

In licensing claims, alleged violations of failing to comply with the standard of care are usually asserted. These claims may also cite violations of other state statutes that encompass such concepts as negligence; breach of the duty of due care; incompetence; lack of good moral character; and lack of ability to serve the public in a fair, honest, and open manner. A licensing complaint may include alleged violations of statutes that address prescribing protocols, reckless endangerment, failure to supervise, and other issues.

The filing of an administrative complaint is a different animal from a medical malpractice action – they are not even in the same system or branch of government. The focus is not just about what happened to the one patient who complained; it is about protection of the public.

The states’ power to put a clinician on probation, condition, limit, suspend, or revoke the clinician’s license, as well as issue other sanctions such as physician monitoring and fines), is profound. The discipline imposed can upend a clinician’s career and potentially end it entirely.

Administrative discipline determinations are usually available to the public and are required to be reported to all employers (current and future). These discipline determinations are also sent to the National Practitioner Data Bank, other professional clearinghouse organizations (such as the Federation of State Medical Boards), state offices, professional liability insurers, payers with whom the clinician contracts, accreditation and certification organizations, and the clinician’s patients.

Discipline determinations must be promptly reported to licensing agencies in other states where the clinician holds a license, and often results in “sister state” actions because discipline was issued against the clinician in another state. It must be disclosed every time a clinician applies for hospital privileges or new employment. It can result in de-participation from health care insurance programs and can affect board certification, recertification, or accreditation for care programs in which the clinician participates.

In sum, licensing actions can be much worse than medical malpractice judgments and can have longer-term consequences.
 

Peer review and affected privileges

Recommending, promoting, and providing unapproved or unproven treatments, cures, or preventives to patients may violate hospital/health system, practice group, or surgical center bylaws. This can trigger the peer review process, which serves to improve patient safety and the quality of care.

The peer review process may be commenced because of a concern about the clinician’s compliance with the standard of care; potential patient safety issues; ethical issues; and the clinician’s stability, credibility, or professional competence. Any hospital disciplinary penalty is generally reported to state licensing authorities, which can trigger a licensing investigation. If clinical privileges are affected for a period of more than 30 days, the organization must report the situation to the National Practitioner Data Bank.
 

Criminal charges

Depending on the facts, a physician or other health care professional could be charged with reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, or manslaughter. If the clinician was assisting someone else who profited from that clinician’s actions, then we can look to a variety of potential federal and state fraud charges as well.

Conviction of a fraud-related felony may also lead to federal health care program and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) exclusion for several years, and then CMS preclusion that can be imposed for years beyond the conclusion of the statutorily required exclusion.
 

Breach of contract

Some practice groups or other organizational employers have provisions in employment contracts that treat discipline for this type of conduct as a breach of contract. Because of this, the clinician committing breach may be subject to liquidated damages clauses, forfeiture of monies (such as bonuses or other incentives or rewards), termination of employment, forced withdrawal from ownership status, and being sued for breach of contract to recover damages.

Reputation/credibility damage and the attendant consequences

In regard to hospitals and health care system practice groups, another risk is the loss of referrals and revenue. Local media may air or publish exposés. Such stories may widely publicize the media’s version of the facts – true or not. This can cause immediate reputation and credibility damage within the community and may adversely affect a clinician’s patient base. Any information that is publicly broadcast might attract the attention of licensing and law enforcement authorities and taint potential jurors.

Hospitals and health care systems may pull privileges; post on websites; make official statements about the termination of affiliation; or denounce the clinician’s behavior, conduct, and beliefs as being inconsistent with quality care and patient safety. This causes further damage to a physician’s reputation and credibility.

In a group practice, accusations of this sort, licensing discipline, medical malpractice liability, investigations, loss of privileges, and the other sequelae of this conduct can force the withdrawal of the clinician as a member or shareholder in multiprovider groups. Adverse effects on the financial bottom line, patient referrals, and patient volume and bad press are often the basis for voting a clinician out.
 

Violation of the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act of 2020

For the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FTC COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act makes it unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation (as those terms are defined broadly in the act) to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID-19 or a government benefit related to COVID-19.

The first enforcement action authorized by this act took place in April 2021 against a chiropractor who promised vitamin treatments and cures for COVID-19. The act provides that such a violation shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under the FTC Act.

Under the act, the FTC is authorized to prescribe “rules that define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Deceptive practices are defined as involving a material representation, omission, or practice that is “likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.” An act or practice is unfair if it “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”

After an investigation, the FTC may initiate an enforcement action using either an administrative or judicial process if it has “reason to believe” that the law has been violated. Violations of some laws may result in injunctive relief or civil monetary penalties, which are adjusted annually for inflation.

In addition, many states have deceptive and unfair trade laws that can be enforced in regard to the recommendation, sale, or provision of unproven or unapproved COVID-19 treatments, cures, and preventives as well.
 

Conclusion

It is difficult even for intelligent, well-intentioned physicians to know precisely what to believe and what to advocate for in the middle of a pandemic. It seems as though new reports and recommendations for preventing and treating COVID-19 are surfacing on a weekly basis. By far, the safest approach for any medical clinician to take is to advocate for positions that are generally accepted in the medical and scientific community at the time advice is given.

Mr. Whitelaw disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Janeway disclosed various associations with the Michigan Association for Healthcare Quality and the Greater Houston Society for Healthcare Risk Management. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A cardiologist from Israel has tested positive for the Omicron variant of COVID-19 after attending a medical conference in London.

Elad Maor, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Sheba Medical Centre near Tel Aviv, posted on Twitter on Nov. 30: “What a mess! Came back from a conference in London. With a mask and 3 Pfizer vaccines I managed to get Omicron.”

Dr. Maor traveled to London on November 19 to attend the PCR London Valves 2021 conference held at the ExCeL Centre Nov. 21-23. He stayed four nights at a hotel in north London and took public transport to and from the ExCeL Centre in East London each day of the meeting. He returned to Israel on the evening of Nov. 23.

Dr. Maor, 45, who has received three doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, had two PCR tests in the United Kingdom – on November 20 and 21 in line with travel requirements – and another PCR test upon arriving back in Israel in the early hours of Nov. 24. All three tests were negative.

He began experiencing symptoms within days and tested positive on Nov. 27. His symptoms have been mild so far, and he said he was feeling “better” at the time of his tweet on Nov. 30.

Dr. Maor believes he was infected during his trip to London. “The only reasonable explanation is that I got infected on the last day of the meeting – maybe at the airport, maybe at the meeting,” he told The Guardian newspaper.

Although his wife accompanied him to London, neither she nor any of his 3 children have experienced symptoms or tested positive for COVID-19. But Dr. Maor believes he has passed the infection to a 69-year-old colleague in Israel who has since tested positive for the Omicron variant. The colleague, who has also received three vaccine doses, is understood to have mild symptoms at present.

The case suggests that the Omicron variant of COVID-19 may have been circulating in the United Kingdom earlier than previously thought.
 

Implications for in-person conferences

It will also inevitably lead to questions about the safety of face-to-face conferences, which are only just starting to get underway again.

The PCR Valves 2021 meeting had more than 1,250 on-site attendees as well as 2,400 or more joining online, according to figures on its website. Dr. Maor said he did not have any issues with the conference organizers, who required proof of vaccination before entry. But he posted a photograph on his Twitter account of a crowded auditorium with many delegates not wearing masks.

The conference subsequently posted an announcement on its website alerting delegates that one of the attendees had tested positive for COVID-19 after returning to their home country. It reads: “Since the reported case comes less than a week after the end of PCR London Valves, we want to inform you so that you may decide the best course of action, for yourself, if any.” It does not mention that the case was the Omicron variant. 

Patrick Jolly, strategic and market development director of the conference, commented: “As you may imagine, the health, safety and well-being of everyone who visited PCR London Valves was our number-one priority. All protocols mandated by the U.K. government were put in place. Anyone entering the congress center had to present a valid health pass and were requested to wear a mask. Hydro-alcoholic gel and masks were made readily available for all participants and disposal bins for used protective equipment were provided.”

Mr. Jolly also noted: “To date – more than 9 days after the end of PCR London Valves – we have had no report of any other case of participants testing positive who attended PCR London Valves.”

He said the EuroPCR organization believes that medical conferences are safe to be held in person.

“With the above sanitary requirements and protocols, and no complacency in their enforcement, we believe strongly that medical conferences can take place, as the benefits of in-person medical conferences are obvious for the concerned medical communities,” Mr. Jolly added.  

But what about other meetings happening imminently and planning in-person attendance?

Eileen Murray, executive director of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), whose annual 5-day meeting starts today at Chicago’s McCormick Place Convention Center, said in an interview that the health, safety, and well-being of everyone attending is a priority.

“Vaccinations are required, with no exceptions, to anyone attending the in-person event,” Ms. Murray said. “AES is using the CLEAR HealthPass to verify identity and vaccination status for our attendees. No one who cannot verify identity and vaccination requirement will be permitted to attend the in-person event.”

She noted that masks will also be required except in limited circumstances when actively eating or drinking, or for a faculty member when actively presenting at a lecture or panel. “Anyone not adhering to the mask policy will be asked to leave the meeting and will be denied readmission to the meeting with no refund,” she said.

“These guidelines were developed in accordance with the latest public health guidance and AES will continue to follow that guidance as any updates are made with the emergence of the Omicron variant,” Ms. Murray added.

Also commenting on this issue, a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, which has its large annual international stroke meeting planned for in-person attendance in New Orleans in February, said: “As we have throughout the pandemic, the American Heart Association is closely monitoring conditions and following the guidance of the CDC as well as state and local health departments related to all in-person meetings.”

“Our upcoming International Stroke Conference, February 9-11, is planned as an in-person and digital experience which allows us the ultimate flexibility to address changing pandemic conditions. The health, safety, and well-being of our volunteers, members, and attendees from around the world remains our number-one priority,” the AHA spokesperson added.

But some COVID-19 experts are taking a more cautious view.  

Rowland Kao, PhD, an expert in infectious disease dynamics at the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, expressed concern about such large in-person conferences.  

“We know that the Omicron variant appears to be spreading rapidly, with a recent preprint also telling us that the reinfection rate appears to be higher in South Africa. Should this be borne out, then the evidence would support that our reliance on a combination of vaccine-induced and natural immunity may be compromised by the Omicron variant,” he commented.

“We already know that extended contact indoors provides an additional risk, and so large meetings of this type have the potential to create extended risks. Until we know the extent to which Omicron causes severe illness, we should be extra cautious about these high-risk settings,” Dr. Kao commented.

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

A cardiologist from Israel has tested positive for the Omicron variant of COVID-19 after attending a medical conference in London.

Elad Maor, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Sheba Medical Centre near Tel Aviv, posted on Twitter on Nov. 30: “What a mess! Came back from a conference in London. With a mask and 3 Pfizer vaccines I managed to get Omicron.”

Dr. Maor traveled to London on November 19 to attend the PCR London Valves 2021 conference held at the ExCeL Centre Nov. 21-23. He stayed four nights at a hotel in north London and took public transport to and from the ExCeL Centre in East London each day of the meeting. He returned to Israel on the evening of Nov. 23.

Dr. Maor, 45, who has received three doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, had two PCR tests in the United Kingdom – on November 20 and 21 in line with travel requirements – and another PCR test upon arriving back in Israel in the early hours of Nov. 24. All three tests were negative.

He began experiencing symptoms within days and tested positive on Nov. 27. His symptoms have been mild so far, and he said he was feeling “better” at the time of his tweet on Nov. 30.

Dr. Maor believes he was infected during his trip to London. “The only reasonable explanation is that I got infected on the last day of the meeting – maybe at the airport, maybe at the meeting,” he told The Guardian newspaper.

Although his wife accompanied him to London, neither she nor any of his 3 children have experienced symptoms or tested positive for COVID-19. But Dr. Maor believes he has passed the infection to a 69-year-old colleague in Israel who has since tested positive for the Omicron variant. The colleague, who has also received three vaccine doses, is understood to have mild symptoms at present.

The case suggests that the Omicron variant of COVID-19 may have been circulating in the United Kingdom earlier than previously thought.
 

Implications for in-person conferences

It will also inevitably lead to questions about the safety of face-to-face conferences, which are only just starting to get underway again.

The PCR Valves 2021 meeting had more than 1,250 on-site attendees as well as 2,400 or more joining online, according to figures on its website. Dr. Maor said he did not have any issues with the conference organizers, who required proof of vaccination before entry. But he posted a photograph on his Twitter account of a crowded auditorium with many delegates not wearing masks.

The conference subsequently posted an announcement on its website alerting delegates that one of the attendees had tested positive for COVID-19 after returning to their home country. It reads: “Since the reported case comes less than a week after the end of PCR London Valves, we want to inform you so that you may decide the best course of action, for yourself, if any.” It does not mention that the case was the Omicron variant. 

Patrick Jolly, strategic and market development director of the conference, commented: “As you may imagine, the health, safety and well-being of everyone who visited PCR London Valves was our number-one priority. All protocols mandated by the U.K. government were put in place. Anyone entering the congress center had to present a valid health pass and were requested to wear a mask. Hydro-alcoholic gel and masks were made readily available for all participants and disposal bins for used protective equipment were provided.”

Mr. Jolly also noted: “To date – more than 9 days after the end of PCR London Valves – we have had no report of any other case of participants testing positive who attended PCR London Valves.”

He said the EuroPCR organization believes that medical conferences are safe to be held in person.

“With the above sanitary requirements and protocols, and no complacency in their enforcement, we believe strongly that medical conferences can take place, as the benefits of in-person medical conferences are obvious for the concerned medical communities,” Mr. Jolly added.  

But what about other meetings happening imminently and planning in-person attendance?

Eileen Murray, executive director of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), whose annual 5-day meeting starts today at Chicago’s McCormick Place Convention Center, said in an interview that the health, safety, and well-being of everyone attending is a priority.

“Vaccinations are required, with no exceptions, to anyone attending the in-person event,” Ms. Murray said. “AES is using the CLEAR HealthPass to verify identity and vaccination status for our attendees. No one who cannot verify identity and vaccination requirement will be permitted to attend the in-person event.”

She noted that masks will also be required except in limited circumstances when actively eating or drinking, or for a faculty member when actively presenting at a lecture or panel. “Anyone not adhering to the mask policy will be asked to leave the meeting and will be denied readmission to the meeting with no refund,” she said.

“These guidelines were developed in accordance with the latest public health guidance and AES will continue to follow that guidance as any updates are made with the emergence of the Omicron variant,” Ms. Murray added.

Also commenting on this issue, a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, which has its large annual international stroke meeting planned for in-person attendance in New Orleans in February, said: “As we have throughout the pandemic, the American Heart Association is closely monitoring conditions and following the guidance of the CDC as well as state and local health departments related to all in-person meetings.”

“Our upcoming International Stroke Conference, February 9-11, is planned as an in-person and digital experience which allows us the ultimate flexibility to address changing pandemic conditions. The health, safety, and well-being of our volunteers, members, and attendees from around the world remains our number-one priority,” the AHA spokesperson added.

But some COVID-19 experts are taking a more cautious view.  

Rowland Kao, PhD, an expert in infectious disease dynamics at the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, expressed concern about such large in-person conferences.  

“We know that the Omicron variant appears to be spreading rapidly, with a recent preprint also telling us that the reinfection rate appears to be higher in South Africa. Should this be borne out, then the evidence would support that our reliance on a combination of vaccine-induced and natural immunity may be compromised by the Omicron variant,” he commented.

“We already know that extended contact indoors provides an additional risk, and so large meetings of this type have the potential to create extended risks. Until we know the extent to which Omicron causes severe illness, we should be extra cautious about these high-risk settings,” Dr. Kao commented.

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

A cardiologist from Israel has tested positive for the Omicron variant of COVID-19 after attending a medical conference in London.

Elad Maor, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Sheba Medical Centre near Tel Aviv, posted on Twitter on Nov. 30: “What a mess! Came back from a conference in London. With a mask and 3 Pfizer vaccines I managed to get Omicron.”

Dr. Maor traveled to London on November 19 to attend the PCR London Valves 2021 conference held at the ExCeL Centre Nov. 21-23. He stayed four nights at a hotel in north London and took public transport to and from the ExCeL Centre in East London each day of the meeting. He returned to Israel on the evening of Nov. 23.

Dr. Maor, 45, who has received three doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, had two PCR tests in the United Kingdom – on November 20 and 21 in line with travel requirements – and another PCR test upon arriving back in Israel in the early hours of Nov. 24. All three tests were negative.

He began experiencing symptoms within days and tested positive on Nov. 27. His symptoms have been mild so far, and he said he was feeling “better” at the time of his tweet on Nov. 30.

Dr. Maor believes he was infected during his trip to London. “The only reasonable explanation is that I got infected on the last day of the meeting – maybe at the airport, maybe at the meeting,” he told The Guardian newspaper.

Although his wife accompanied him to London, neither she nor any of his 3 children have experienced symptoms or tested positive for COVID-19. But Dr. Maor believes he has passed the infection to a 69-year-old colleague in Israel who has since tested positive for the Omicron variant. The colleague, who has also received three vaccine doses, is understood to have mild symptoms at present.

The case suggests that the Omicron variant of COVID-19 may have been circulating in the United Kingdom earlier than previously thought.
 

Implications for in-person conferences

It will also inevitably lead to questions about the safety of face-to-face conferences, which are only just starting to get underway again.

The PCR Valves 2021 meeting had more than 1,250 on-site attendees as well as 2,400 or more joining online, according to figures on its website. Dr. Maor said he did not have any issues with the conference organizers, who required proof of vaccination before entry. But he posted a photograph on his Twitter account of a crowded auditorium with many delegates not wearing masks.

The conference subsequently posted an announcement on its website alerting delegates that one of the attendees had tested positive for COVID-19 after returning to their home country. It reads: “Since the reported case comes less than a week after the end of PCR London Valves, we want to inform you so that you may decide the best course of action, for yourself, if any.” It does not mention that the case was the Omicron variant. 

Patrick Jolly, strategic and market development director of the conference, commented: “As you may imagine, the health, safety and well-being of everyone who visited PCR London Valves was our number-one priority. All protocols mandated by the U.K. government were put in place. Anyone entering the congress center had to present a valid health pass and were requested to wear a mask. Hydro-alcoholic gel and masks were made readily available for all participants and disposal bins for used protective equipment were provided.”

Mr. Jolly also noted: “To date – more than 9 days after the end of PCR London Valves – we have had no report of any other case of participants testing positive who attended PCR London Valves.”

He said the EuroPCR organization believes that medical conferences are safe to be held in person.

“With the above sanitary requirements and protocols, and no complacency in their enforcement, we believe strongly that medical conferences can take place, as the benefits of in-person medical conferences are obvious for the concerned medical communities,” Mr. Jolly added.  

But what about other meetings happening imminently and planning in-person attendance?

Eileen Murray, executive director of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), whose annual 5-day meeting starts today at Chicago’s McCormick Place Convention Center, said in an interview that the health, safety, and well-being of everyone attending is a priority.

“Vaccinations are required, with no exceptions, to anyone attending the in-person event,” Ms. Murray said. “AES is using the CLEAR HealthPass to verify identity and vaccination status for our attendees. No one who cannot verify identity and vaccination requirement will be permitted to attend the in-person event.”

She noted that masks will also be required except in limited circumstances when actively eating or drinking, or for a faculty member when actively presenting at a lecture or panel. “Anyone not adhering to the mask policy will be asked to leave the meeting and will be denied readmission to the meeting with no refund,” she said.

“These guidelines were developed in accordance with the latest public health guidance and AES will continue to follow that guidance as any updates are made with the emergence of the Omicron variant,” Ms. Murray added.

Also commenting on this issue, a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, which has its large annual international stroke meeting planned for in-person attendance in New Orleans in February, said: “As we have throughout the pandemic, the American Heart Association is closely monitoring conditions and following the guidance of the CDC as well as state and local health departments related to all in-person meetings.”

“Our upcoming International Stroke Conference, February 9-11, is planned as an in-person and digital experience which allows us the ultimate flexibility to address changing pandemic conditions. The health, safety, and well-being of our volunteers, members, and attendees from around the world remains our number-one priority,” the AHA spokesperson added.

But some COVID-19 experts are taking a more cautious view.  

Rowland Kao, PhD, an expert in infectious disease dynamics at the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, expressed concern about such large in-person conferences.  

“We know that the Omicron variant appears to be spreading rapidly, with a recent preprint also telling us that the reinfection rate appears to be higher in South Africa. Should this be borne out, then the evidence would support that our reliance on a combination of vaccine-induced and natural immunity may be compromised by the Omicron variant,” he commented.

“We already know that extended contact indoors provides an additional risk, and so large meetings of this type have the potential to create extended risks. Until we know the extent to which Omicron causes severe illness, we should be extra cautious about these high-risk settings,” Dr. Kao commented.

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

In March 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed a 1% pay rise for National Health Service (NHS) workers in the United Kingdom — a move many deemed inadequate after a full year of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. The next day, James Cowe, a 23-year-old healthcare assistant who had been working in dementia care for 6 years, decided to create a profile on the content subscription site OnlyFans.

The London-based site allows subscribers, or “fans,” to request content, making its name distributing nude pictures, videos, and other sexually explicit content. It garnered mainstream attention in 2020 when housebound individuals and even celebrities began using it to generate income. Back in August, OnlyFans released a statement stating that it would ban “sexually explicit” content beginning in October. Days later, the company recanted the statement after uproar from creators.

“Because of the one-percent pay rise, I’ve started OnlyFans and I’m making more money in three days than I make in a month at work,” Mr. Cowe said in a now-deleted TikTok post. “Sorry Boris, but I’m done with healthcare and now I’m an online whore.”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans.

Mr. Cowe is one of many healthcare workers in the United Kingdom who have supplemented or replaced their health work with sex work. Stories like his have multiplied during the pandemic, at a time when healthcare professionals have been particularly overworked and particularly essential. Meanwhile, the pandemic has exacerbated challenges for many sex workers across the globe.

“[There have been] many, many reports over history that transactional sex is used as a sort of emergency livelihood strategy in all kinds of emergencies,” says Joanne Csete, PhD, associate professor of population and family health at Columbia University, New York, “and I suppose this is an emergency in that sense, like any other.”
 

The relationship between sex work and healthcare

A 2015 study by Leeds University found that 70% of sex workers in the United Kingdom previously worked in healthcare, charities, or education and that more than a third held university degrees.

The relationship between sex workers and healthcare workers has historically been disconnected. Sex workers are at higher risk of experiencing violence, sexually transmitted infections, and substance abuse and mental health problems than the general population, as noted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. But according to the UN Population Fund, 63% of sex workers will not seek health services alone because they are distrustful and fearful of healthcare workers. A 2014 study by UNAIDS found that stigmatization also makes sex workers less likely to seek assistance from social services.

“I think it’s almost universally hard for sex workers to get respectful healthcare without judgment, and in some cases actual hostility, because of the stigma of their work,” Dr. Csete says. “Health workers are not always trained to see sex work as anything but either a criminal act or an immoral act.”

In August 2021, U.K. medical students called for the British Medical Association to protect students from being penalized by or expelled from their universities for engaging in sex work. BMA Medical Students Committee chair Becky Bates cited high medical school fees and a lack of financial support as motivations for student sex workers. She told this news organization that sex work often allows for flexible hours that might make it easier for students to balance the demands of medical school than other part-time jobs would.

At the annual BMA conference in September, two thirds of the association’s doctors voted in favor of the motion, while others criticized it as potential encouragement for students to get involved in sex work. “The motion isn’t about the morality of sex work,” Ms. Bates said. “[It’s] about the fact that it’s happening and what we can do to support students.”
 

Healthcare workers on OnlyFans

The rising pressures placed on individuals in the health field have coincided with the rise of online platforms that host pornographic content. During the pandemic, professionals worn down by their healthcare work have embraced sites like OnlyFans as lower-risk, lower-stress, and potentially higher-paying additions or alternatives.

“It’s quite exploitative to work for such low pay in harsh conditions,” Mr. Cowe told this news organizaation of his experience as a dementia care assistant. “It’s soul-destroying. You feel like, ‘It doesn’t matter how many hours I work, it doesn’t matter what I do, I’m still going to be in this same financial position.’ ”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans. Within 8 months, he had earned £150,000, or approximately $205,000.

As an emergency medical services (EMS) worker in New York City, 23-year-old Lauren Kwei lifted obese bariatric patients, administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation to unresponsive recipients, and transported elderly patients and children with terminal illnesses to hospice. She earned $25 an hour, which she says was insufficient for life in one of the world’s most expensive cities. So, in addition to her paramedic work, Ms. Kwei posted photos and videos on OnlyFans to help pay for rent and groceries during the pandemic.

Ms. Kwei started her OnlyFans as a means of paying for necessities like rent and groceries, which her wage as an emergency medical services worker couldn’t cover entirely.

In December 2020, Ms. Kwei got a call from a New York Post reporter who informed her he was writing an article outing her OnlyFans side gig. Ms. Kwei immediately deleted her account on the site for fear of being penalized by her employer, SeniorCare.

“Leave her alone,” U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter in response to the New York Post article. “The actual scandalous headline here is ‘Medics in the United States need two jobs to survive.’ ”

The article quoted an anonymous male paramedic who said Ms. Kwei should have been “pulling extra shifts, instead of pulling off [her] clothes” to earn more money. Ms. Kwei says such advice fails to acknowledge the intensity of the job. “Why would I pick up overtime shifts doing manual labor,” she says, “when I could be doing [OnlyFans] from the comfort of my own home?”
 

The future of the healthcare/sex work relationship

Ms. Kwei is young enough to receive health insurance through her parents, and Mr. Cowe has access to free healthcare through the NHS. But many sex workers — particularly full-service sex workers, who carry out their work in person — have limited access to services such as healthcare and unemployment benefits. Pandemic restrictions have concurrently driven full-service sex work further underground and therefore deepened the health and safety risks associated with its criminalization.

As health workers become increasingly involved in sex work, advocates in both fields are pushing for healthcare systems to involve sex workers.

“Just as we would do with supporting any group, it’s about understanding any specific barriers or specific problems that they’re encountering, and understanding what they think would help, and working together on that solution,” Ms. Bates says of supporting medical students who engage in sex work.

Tlaleng Mofokeng, MD, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, says it is crucial for healthcare organizations to partner with sex worker organizations when it comes to planning the resourcing and budgeting of the public health system in order to meet sex workers’ needs. “While we wait for national policy to change and while we wait for decriminalization,” she says, “tangible things can be done to ensure the provision of equitable services that are aligned with the respect of [sex workers’] rights and the restoration of their dignity.”

Today, healthcare professionals can expect to work with classmates, colleagues, and patients who are involved in sex work and who do not fit the socioeconomic stereotypes associated with sex workers. The number of medical students and healthcare workers engaging in sex work is likely to continue to rise as these individuals struggle to find financial and emotional support within the health sector. Ultimately, many health workers and sex workers share a common goal: to be involved in healthcare systems that respect their work and meet their basic needs.

Mr. Cowe doubts he will ever return to the healthcare industry, owing in part to the stigma against sex workers. “I would feel quite unwelcome,” he says. “[The publicity I received] probably made it not possible for me to go back, but even so, I wouldn’t have a desire to because I was just so burnt out in the end.”

Ms. Kwei is taking a break from her EMS work because of the emotional and financial toll it took, but she plans to return in the future. In the meantime, she is back on OnlyFans and advocating for higher wages for EMS workers as a member of the Emergency Medical Services Public Advocacy Council (EMSPAC). “In order to be a good paramedic, my mental health needs to be on point,” she says. “Hopefully down the line, when I decide to pick up EMS [work] again, I can find a job that pays me enough.”

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

In March 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed a 1% pay rise for National Health Service (NHS) workers in the United Kingdom — a move many deemed inadequate after a full year of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. The next day, James Cowe, a 23-year-old healthcare assistant who had been working in dementia care for 6 years, decided to create a profile on the content subscription site OnlyFans.

The London-based site allows subscribers, or “fans,” to request content, making its name distributing nude pictures, videos, and other sexually explicit content. It garnered mainstream attention in 2020 when housebound individuals and even celebrities began using it to generate income. Back in August, OnlyFans released a statement stating that it would ban “sexually explicit” content beginning in October. Days later, the company recanted the statement after uproar from creators.

“Because of the one-percent pay rise, I’ve started OnlyFans and I’m making more money in three days than I make in a month at work,” Mr. Cowe said in a now-deleted TikTok post. “Sorry Boris, but I’m done with healthcare and now I’m an online whore.”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans.

Mr. Cowe is one of many healthcare workers in the United Kingdom who have supplemented or replaced their health work with sex work. Stories like his have multiplied during the pandemic, at a time when healthcare professionals have been particularly overworked and particularly essential. Meanwhile, the pandemic has exacerbated challenges for many sex workers across the globe.

“[There have been] many, many reports over history that transactional sex is used as a sort of emergency livelihood strategy in all kinds of emergencies,” says Joanne Csete, PhD, associate professor of population and family health at Columbia University, New York, “and I suppose this is an emergency in that sense, like any other.”
 

The relationship between sex work and healthcare

A 2015 study by Leeds University found that 70% of sex workers in the United Kingdom previously worked in healthcare, charities, or education and that more than a third held university degrees.

The relationship between sex workers and healthcare workers has historically been disconnected. Sex workers are at higher risk of experiencing violence, sexually transmitted infections, and substance abuse and mental health problems than the general population, as noted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. But according to the UN Population Fund, 63% of sex workers will not seek health services alone because they are distrustful and fearful of healthcare workers. A 2014 study by UNAIDS found that stigmatization also makes sex workers less likely to seek assistance from social services.

“I think it’s almost universally hard for sex workers to get respectful healthcare without judgment, and in some cases actual hostility, because of the stigma of their work,” Dr. Csete says. “Health workers are not always trained to see sex work as anything but either a criminal act or an immoral act.”

In August 2021, U.K. medical students called for the British Medical Association to protect students from being penalized by or expelled from their universities for engaging in sex work. BMA Medical Students Committee chair Becky Bates cited high medical school fees and a lack of financial support as motivations for student sex workers. She told this news organization that sex work often allows for flexible hours that might make it easier for students to balance the demands of medical school than other part-time jobs would.

At the annual BMA conference in September, two thirds of the association’s doctors voted in favor of the motion, while others criticized it as potential encouragement for students to get involved in sex work. “The motion isn’t about the morality of sex work,” Ms. Bates said. “[It’s] about the fact that it’s happening and what we can do to support students.”
 

Healthcare workers on OnlyFans

The rising pressures placed on individuals in the health field have coincided with the rise of online platforms that host pornographic content. During the pandemic, professionals worn down by their healthcare work have embraced sites like OnlyFans as lower-risk, lower-stress, and potentially higher-paying additions or alternatives.

“It’s quite exploitative to work for such low pay in harsh conditions,” Mr. Cowe told this news organizaation of his experience as a dementia care assistant. “It’s soul-destroying. You feel like, ‘It doesn’t matter how many hours I work, it doesn’t matter what I do, I’m still going to be in this same financial position.’ ”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans. Within 8 months, he had earned £150,000, or approximately $205,000.

As an emergency medical services (EMS) worker in New York City, 23-year-old Lauren Kwei lifted obese bariatric patients, administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation to unresponsive recipients, and transported elderly patients and children with terminal illnesses to hospice. She earned $25 an hour, which she says was insufficient for life in one of the world’s most expensive cities. So, in addition to her paramedic work, Ms. Kwei posted photos and videos on OnlyFans to help pay for rent and groceries during the pandemic.

Ms. Kwei started her OnlyFans as a means of paying for necessities like rent and groceries, which her wage as an emergency medical services worker couldn’t cover entirely.

In December 2020, Ms. Kwei got a call from a New York Post reporter who informed her he was writing an article outing her OnlyFans side gig. Ms. Kwei immediately deleted her account on the site for fear of being penalized by her employer, SeniorCare.

“Leave her alone,” U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter in response to the New York Post article. “The actual scandalous headline here is ‘Medics in the United States need two jobs to survive.’ ”

The article quoted an anonymous male paramedic who said Ms. Kwei should have been “pulling extra shifts, instead of pulling off [her] clothes” to earn more money. Ms. Kwei says such advice fails to acknowledge the intensity of the job. “Why would I pick up overtime shifts doing manual labor,” she says, “when I could be doing [OnlyFans] from the comfort of my own home?”
 

The future of the healthcare/sex work relationship

Ms. Kwei is young enough to receive health insurance through her parents, and Mr. Cowe has access to free healthcare through the NHS. But many sex workers — particularly full-service sex workers, who carry out their work in person — have limited access to services such as healthcare and unemployment benefits. Pandemic restrictions have concurrently driven full-service sex work further underground and therefore deepened the health and safety risks associated with its criminalization.

As health workers become increasingly involved in sex work, advocates in both fields are pushing for healthcare systems to involve sex workers.

“Just as we would do with supporting any group, it’s about understanding any specific barriers or specific problems that they’re encountering, and understanding what they think would help, and working together on that solution,” Ms. Bates says of supporting medical students who engage in sex work.

Tlaleng Mofokeng, MD, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, says it is crucial for healthcare organizations to partner with sex worker organizations when it comes to planning the resourcing and budgeting of the public health system in order to meet sex workers’ needs. “While we wait for national policy to change and while we wait for decriminalization,” she says, “tangible things can be done to ensure the provision of equitable services that are aligned with the respect of [sex workers’] rights and the restoration of their dignity.”

Today, healthcare professionals can expect to work with classmates, colleagues, and patients who are involved in sex work and who do not fit the socioeconomic stereotypes associated with sex workers. The number of medical students and healthcare workers engaging in sex work is likely to continue to rise as these individuals struggle to find financial and emotional support within the health sector. Ultimately, many health workers and sex workers share a common goal: to be involved in healthcare systems that respect their work and meet their basic needs.

Mr. Cowe doubts he will ever return to the healthcare industry, owing in part to the stigma against sex workers. “I would feel quite unwelcome,” he says. “[The publicity I received] probably made it not possible for me to go back, but even so, I wouldn’t have a desire to because I was just so burnt out in the end.”

Ms. Kwei is taking a break from her EMS work because of the emotional and financial toll it took, but she plans to return in the future. In the meantime, she is back on OnlyFans and advocating for higher wages for EMS workers as a member of the Emergency Medical Services Public Advocacy Council (EMSPAC). “In order to be a good paramedic, my mental health needs to be on point,” she says. “Hopefully down the line, when I decide to pick up EMS [work] again, I can find a job that pays me enough.”

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

In March 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed a 1% pay rise for National Health Service (NHS) workers in the United Kingdom — a move many deemed inadequate after a full year of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. The next day, James Cowe, a 23-year-old healthcare assistant who had been working in dementia care for 6 years, decided to create a profile on the content subscription site OnlyFans.

The London-based site allows subscribers, or “fans,” to request content, making its name distributing nude pictures, videos, and other sexually explicit content. It garnered mainstream attention in 2020 when housebound individuals and even celebrities began using it to generate income. Back in August, OnlyFans released a statement stating that it would ban “sexually explicit” content beginning in October. Days later, the company recanted the statement after uproar from creators.

“Because of the one-percent pay rise, I’ve started OnlyFans and I’m making more money in three days than I make in a month at work,” Mr. Cowe said in a now-deleted TikTok post. “Sorry Boris, but I’m done with healthcare and now I’m an online whore.”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans.

Mr. Cowe is one of many healthcare workers in the United Kingdom who have supplemented or replaced their health work with sex work. Stories like his have multiplied during the pandemic, at a time when healthcare professionals have been particularly overworked and particularly essential. Meanwhile, the pandemic has exacerbated challenges for many sex workers across the globe.

“[There have been] many, many reports over history that transactional sex is used as a sort of emergency livelihood strategy in all kinds of emergencies,” says Joanne Csete, PhD, associate professor of population and family health at Columbia University, New York, “and I suppose this is an emergency in that sense, like any other.”
 

The relationship between sex work and healthcare

A 2015 study by Leeds University found that 70% of sex workers in the United Kingdom previously worked in healthcare, charities, or education and that more than a third held university degrees.

The relationship between sex workers and healthcare workers has historically been disconnected. Sex workers are at higher risk of experiencing violence, sexually transmitted infections, and substance abuse and mental health problems than the general population, as noted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. But according to the UN Population Fund, 63% of sex workers will not seek health services alone because they are distrustful and fearful of healthcare workers. A 2014 study by UNAIDS found that stigmatization also makes sex workers less likely to seek assistance from social services.

“I think it’s almost universally hard for sex workers to get respectful healthcare without judgment, and in some cases actual hostility, because of the stigma of their work,” Dr. Csete says. “Health workers are not always trained to see sex work as anything but either a criminal act or an immoral act.”

In August 2021, U.K. medical students called for the British Medical Association to protect students from being penalized by or expelled from their universities for engaging in sex work. BMA Medical Students Committee chair Becky Bates cited high medical school fees and a lack of financial support as motivations for student sex workers. She told this news organization that sex work often allows for flexible hours that might make it easier for students to balance the demands of medical school than other part-time jobs would.

At the annual BMA conference in September, two thirds of the association’s doctors voted in favor of the motion, while others criticized it as potential encouragement for students to get involved in sex work. “The motion isn’t about the morality of sex work,” Ms. Bates said. “[It’s] about the fact that it’s happening and what we can do to support students.”
 

Healthcare workers on OnlyFans

The rising pressures placed on individuals in the health field have coincided with the rise of online platforms that host pornographic content. During the pandemic, professionals worn down by their healthcare work have embraced sites like OnlyFans as lower-risk, lower-stress, and potentially higher-paying additions or alternatives.

“It’s quite exploitative to work for such low pay in harsh conditions,” Mr. Cowe told this news organizaation of his experience as a dementia care assistant. “It’s soul-destroying. You feel like, ‘It doesn’t matter how many hours I work, it doesn’t matter what I do, I’m still going to be in this same financial position.’ ”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans. Within 8 months, he had earned £150,000, or approximately $205,000.

As an emergency medical services (EMS) worker in New York City, 23-year-old Lauren Kwei lifted obese bariatric patients, administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation to unresponsive recipients, and transported elderly patients and children with terminal illnesses to hospice. She earned $25 an hour, which she says was insufficient for life in one of the world’s most expensive cities. So, in addition to her paramedic work, Ms. Kwei posted photos and videos on OnlyFans to help pay for rent and groceries during the pandemic.

Ms. Kwei started her OnlyFans as a means of paying for necessities like rent and groceries, which her wage as an emergency medical services worker couldn’t cover entirely.

In December 2020, Ms. Kwei got a call from a New York Post reporter who informed her he was writing an article outing her OnlyFans side gig. Ms. Kwei immediately deleted her account on the site for fear of being penalized by her employer, SeniorCare.

“Leave her alone,” U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter in response to the New York Post article. “The actual scandalous headline here is ‘Medics in the United States need two jobs to survive.’ ”

The article quoted an anonymous male paramedic who said Ms. Kwei should have been “pulling extra shifts, instead of pulling off [her] clothes” to earn more money. Ms. Kwei says such advice fails to acknowledge the intensity of the job. “Why would I pick up overtime shifts doing manual labor,” she says, “when I could be doing [OnlyFans] from the comfort of my own home?”
 

The future of the healthcare/sex work relationship

Ms. Kwei is young enough to receive health insurance through her parents, and Mr. Cowe has access to free healthcare through the NHS. But many sex workers — particularly full-service sex workers, who carry out their work in person — have limited access to services such as healthcare and unemployment benefits. Pandemic restrictions have concurrently driven full-service sex work further underground and therefore deepened the health and safety risks associated with its criminalization.

As health workers become increasingly involved in sex work, advocates in both fields are pushing for healthcare systems to involve sex workers.

“Just as we would do with supporting any group, it’s about understanding any specific barriers or specific problems that they’re encountering, and understanding what they think would help, and working together on that solution,” Ms. Bates says of supporting medical students who engage in sex work.

Tlaleng Mofokeng, MD, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, says it is crucial for healthcare organizations to partner with sex worker organizations when it comes to planning the resourcing and budgeting of the public health system in order to meet sex workers’ needs. “While we wait for national policy to change and while we wait for decriminalization,” she says, “tangible things can be done to ensure the provision of equitable services that are aligned with the respect of [sex workers’] rights and the restoration of their dignity.”

Today, healthcare professionals can expect to work with classmates, colleagues, and patients who are involved in sex work and who do not fit the socioeconomic stereotypes associated with sex workers. The number of medical students and healthcare workers engaging in sex work is likely to continue to rise as these individuals struggle to find financial and emotional support within the health sector. Ultimately, many health workers and sex workers share a common goal: to be involved in healthcare systems that respect their work and meet their basic needs.

Mr. Cowe doubts he will ever return to the healthcare industry, owing in part to the stigma against sex workers. “I would feel quite unwelcome,” he says. “[The publicity I received] probably made it not possible for me to go back, but even so, I wouldn’t have a desire to because I was just so burnt out in the end.”

Ms. Kwei is taking a break from her EMS work because of the emotional and financial toll it took, but she plans to return in the future. In the meantime, she is back on OnlyFans and advocating for higher wages for EMS workers as a member of the Emergency Medical Services Public Advocacy Council (EMSPAC). “In order to be a good paramedic, my mental health needs to be on point,” she says. “Hopefully down the line, when I decide to pick up EMS [work] again, I can find a job that pays me enough.”

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

A French population-based study provides further evidence that the BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine does not increase the short-term risk for serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people.

The study showed no increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or pulmonary embolism (PE) following vaccination in adults aged 75 years or older in the 14 days following vaccination.

“These findings regarding the BNT162b2 vaccine’s short-term cardiovascular safety profile in older people are reassuring. They should be taken into account by doctors when considering implementing a third dose of the vaccine in older people,” Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, with the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, Saint-Denis, France, said in an interview.

Ridofranz/Getty Images

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

A French population-based study provides further evidence that the BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine does not increase the short-term risk for serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people.

The study showed no increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or pulmonary embolism (PE) following vaccination in adults aged 75 years or older in the 14 days following vaccination.

“These findings regarding the BNT162b2 vaccine’s short-term cardiovascular safety profile in older people are reassuring. They should be taken into account by doctors when considering implementing a third dose of the vaccine in older people,” Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, with the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, Saint-Denis, France, said in an interview.

Ridofranz/Getty Images

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

A French population-based study provides further evidence that the BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine does not increase the short-term risk for serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people.

The study showed no increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or pulmonary embolism (PE) following vaccination in adults aged 75 years or older in the 14 days following vaccination.

“These findings regarding the BNT162b2 vaccine’s short-term cardiovascular safety profile in older people are reassuring. They should be taken into account by doctors when considering implementing a third dose of the vaccine in older people,” Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, with the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, Saint-Denis, France, said in an interview.

Ridofranz/Getty Images

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

A new lipid-lowering agent in a class that had been written off by many is being developed by a group of academic experts, with new data showing large LDL reductions on top of high-intensity statins.

Obicetrapib is a member of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor class, which had fallen out of favor after several disappointments with previous drugs in this class.

These agents were initially developed for their ability to raise HDL cholesterol, which was thought to be beneficial. But that approach has now been virtually abandoned after several studies failed to show a link between raising HDL and a reduction in subsequent cardiovascular events.

However, obicetrapib, which is said to be the most potent CETP inhibitor to date, has been shown to produce impressive LDL reductions, and it’s this important data that has caused several lipid experts to want to continue its development.

New data, presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions, show that obicetrapib reduces LDL by 50% when given in addition to high-intensity statins, which could place it as competition for PCSK9 inhibitors or the new agent, inclisiran, but with the advantage of oral dosing.

The drug was in development by Amgen, but the company decided to discontinue its development in 2017 after disappointing results had been seen with several other CETP inhibitors and interest in this class of agent was waning.

But academic experts in the lipid field, led by John Kastelein, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, and Michael Davidson, MD, clinical professor of medicine at University of Chicago, believed the drug had potential and have acquired obicetrapib from Amgen.

Dr. Kastelein and Dr. Davidson have set up a new company – New Amsterdam Pharma – to further develop obicetrapib, and have raised $200 million from venture capital funding to complete phase 2 and phase 3 studies.

The company has a heavyweight academic advisory board including Stephen Nicholls, MD, Monash University, Clayton, Australia; Kausik Ray, MD, Imperial College London; and Christie Ballantyne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“We wanted to develop obicetrapib further because of its amazing LDL-lowering properties,” Dr. Kastelein said in an interview.

“No one has paid much attention to CETP inhibitors after the HDL hypothesis was disregarded, as everyone thought these drugs were just about raising HDL. But actually, they can also lower LDL, and this particular agent reduces LDL very effectively,” Dr. Kastelein said.
 

ROSE study

Dr. Nicholls presented the latest data on obicetrapib at the AHA meeting.

“Despite the use of high-intensity statins, two-thirds of patients do not reach their target LDL level, so we have a need for new therapies that lower LDL and can be used in combination with high-intensity statins,” he explained.

He noted that earlier studies with obicetrapib showed a 45% lowering of LDL with monotherapy.

Dr. Nicholls reported that recent evidence has emerged that increases interest in inhibiting CETP to be potentially cardioprotective.

To begin, genetic studies have shown that genetic polymorphisms associated with lower levels of CETP appear to be cardioprotective, and this is associated with lower levels of LDL rather than higher levels of HDL. 

Furthermore, the REVEAL cardiovascular outcomes trial with anacetrapib (also a CETP inhibitor) in 2017 showed a significant 9% reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after 4 years of follow-up. “This was exactly predicted by the 11 mg/dL drop in absolute LDL cholesterol level. It was not predicted or associated with the increase in HDL level observed with that agent,” Dr. Nicholls said.

The objective of the current ROSE study was to evaluate the lipid-lowering ability, safety, and tolerability of obicetrapib in patients on high-intensity statins.

The study included 120 patients who had been treated on a stable dose of high-intensity statins (atorvastatin at a dose of at least 40 mg daily or rosuvastatin at a dose of 20 mg daily) for at least 8 weeks. All patients were required to have a fasting LDL of at least 70 mg/dL and the median baseline LDL was 90 mg/dL. They were randomly assigned to obicetrapib (5 mg or 10 mg daily) or placebo.

The primary endpoint was the difference between groups in percentage change in LDL from baseline to week 8, with LDL levels measured by two different techniques.

Results showed a “robust” 51% reduction in LDL with the 10-mg dose of obicetrapib, and a 42% reduction with the 5-mg dose, Dr. Nicholls reported.

These effects were comparable regardless of baseline LDL and were similar with both methods of LDL measurement. 

Almost all patients demonstrated some degree of LDL cholesterol lowering, with only three patients on the 5-mg dose and one patient on the 10-mg dose not showing any reduction in LDL.

Other results showed a dose-dependent lowering of Apo B of up to 30%, and a reduction of non-HDL cholesterol of up to 44%.

“Predictably, there were also increases of HDL cholesterol,” Dr. Nicholls said. “At the 10-mg dose, we see a 165% increase in HDL levels. That is associated with a 48% increase in Apo A1 levels. This is very consistent with findings from the previous monotherapy study.”  

There was a 56% reduction in Lp(a) levels, and a modest 11% reduction in triglycerides.

Both doses of obicetrapib were well tolerated, with no increase in the rate of adverse events. Only one patient discontinued the study drug because of an adverse event and that patient was in the placebo group, Dr. Nicholls noted.  

“Blood pressure is an important adverse event to look at in the CETP class given the challenges seen with the first CETP evaluated – torcetrapib,” Dr. Nicholls said. “But in the three clinical trials with obicetrapib conducted to date, reassuringly, we see no increase in either systolic or diastolic blood pressure with either the 5-mg or 10-mg dose.”

He concluded that obicetrapib “could be a valuable addition to high-risk patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who do not achieve their target LDL level despite use of high-intensity statin therapy.”
 

Differences from other CETP inhibitors

Asked how obicetrapib differs from other agents in the CETP inhibitor class, Dr. Nicholls replied that obicetrapib is much more potent, as shown by the large lipid changes seen with very small quantities of this drug, 5 mg or 10 mg, whereas prior CETP inhibitors showed smaller changes with much higher doses.

“We are giving very small amounts of obicetrapib and seeing very robust effects on both atherogenic and lipid parameters,” he said.  

“The other major point with this class of agent is that the first drug, torcetrapib, had toxicity, which resulted in increased cardiovascular events. But it has now been established that torcetrapib had a number of off-target effects that have not been seen with subsequent agents in this class,” he said.

Studies so far show that obicetrapib does not have torcetrapib-like effects. “That is encouraging. This, and the impressive LDL lowering effects, certainly lay the foundation for larger studies moving forward,” he added.

“This has been an intriguing field to many of us involved from the start. We started with a very disappointing result with torcetrapib. Then a couple of studies looked to be clinically futile, but we were encouraged by the REVEAL study which suggested that there might be benefit,” Dr. Nicholls said.

“If we combined the REVEAL results with the genetic data, it has actually flipped the whole CETP story upside down. We started thinking that inhibiting CETP was all about raising HDL, but it turns out that it is about LDL lowering,” he said. “And that is not only important in terms of the lipid effects but also the trials and the way they are designed.

“I think you’ll find that the future trials in this class and with this agent will have LDL very much in mind and that will very much influence the study design,” he said, adding that a larger cardiovascular outcome trial is now being planned. 

“The regulatory perspective is that LDL is a pretty trusted surrogate ... but I think an outcomes trial will be important to reinforce and reassure on safety and outline cost-effectiveness, which will help us understand where the sweet spot for using this agent in the clinic will be,” Dr. Nicholls noted.  

Dr. Kastelein explained that it has taken some time to realize that CETP inhibitors may be valuable for reducing LDL.   

“The first agent, torcetrapib, had an off-target toxicity that led to increased blood pressure but a specific part of the torcetrapib molecule was subsequently identified that was responsible for that, and subsequent agents in the CETP inhibitor class did not have such adverse effects,” he said.  

“The next agent, dalcetrapib (Roche), raised HDL but didn’t move LDL, and an outcomes trial with evacetrapib (Lilly) was stopped after 2 years because of futility, but we now believe that lipid lowering trials need longer term follow-up – up to 5 years – to see a benefit,” he noted.  

Dr. Kastelein reports that anacetrapib (Merck) has been the most powerful CETP inhibitor until now, giving an LDL reduction of about 20%, which was associated with a 10% reduction in cardiovascular events in first 4 years of follow-up. 

“Oxford academic researchers decided to continue follow-up in this trial without Merck and showed a 20% reduction in cardiovascular events by 6 years. This has been the strongest rationale for our investors,” Dr. Kastelein said.   

He pointed out that obicetrapib is much more potent than anacetrapib. “Obicetrapib reduces LDL by 50% at just a 10-mg dose, whereas anacetrapib was used at a dose of 100 mg to give a 17%-20% LDL reduction.”
 

Could HDL increase be beneficial after all?

Although increasing HDL is currently not thought to bring about a direct reduction in cardiovascular events, there is new evidence emerging that increasing HDL may confer some benefit in protecting against the development of type 2 diabetes, Dr. Kastelein noted.

“We know that statins can increase risk of developing type 2 diabetes, and post hoc analyses of previous trials with CETP inhibitors suggest that these drugs have the opposite effect,” he said. “We will investigate this protectively in our phase 3 outcomes trial. If this is a true effect, it should eventually translate into a reduction in cardiovascular outcomes, but this could take a longer time to see than the benefits of lowering LDL.”

Commenting on the current data, Steven Nissen, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, said: “The results are truly impressive – a nearly 50% LDL reduction on a background of statins with a once-daily oral agent. While PCSK9 inhibitors can achieve similar results, they are injectable and costly.

“Since anacetrapib, a much weaker CETP inhibitor, was successful at reducing major adverse cardiac events, the likelihood that obicetrapib would reduce MACE even more substantially is very high,” he added.

Dr. Nissen said he has been aware of this drug for some time and has advised the company about development options and regulatory strategy. “I have encouraged this company to develop this very promising drug,” he said.

The current study was funded by New Amsterdam Pharma. Dr. Nicholls reports grants from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Anthera, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, Cerenis, The Medicines Company, Resverlogix, Infraredx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron and LipoScience, and honoraria from New Amsterdam Pharma, AstraZeneca, Akcea, Eli Lilly, Anthera, Omthera, Merck, Takeda, Resverlogix, Sanofi-Regeneron, CSL Behring, Esperion, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Kastelein is chief scientific officer of New Amsterdam Pharma.  

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

A new lipid-lowering agent in a class that had been written off by many is being developed by a group of academic experts, with new data showing large LDL reductions on top of high-intensity statins.

Obicetrapib is a member of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor class, which had fallen out of favor after several disappointments with previous drugs in this class.

These agents were initially developed for their ability to raise HDL cholesterol, which was thought to be beneficial. But that approach has now been virtually abandoned after several studies failed to show a link between raising HDL and a reduction in subsequent cardiovascular events.

However, obicetrapib, which is said to be the most potent CETP inhibitor to date, has been shown to produce impressive LDL reductions, and it’s this important data that has caused several lipid experts to want to continue its development.

New data, presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions, show that obicetrapib reduces LDL by 50% when given in addition to high-intensity statins, which could place it as competition for PCSK9 inhibitors or the new agent, inclisiran, but with the advantage of oral dosing.

The drug was in development by Amgen, but the company decided to discontinue its development in 2017 after disappointing results had been seen with several other CETP inhibitors and interest in this class of agent was waning.

But academic experts in the lipid field, led by John Kastelein, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, and Michael Davidson, MD, clinical professor of medicine at University of Chicago, believed the drug had potential and have acquired obicetrapib from Amgen.

Dr. Kastelein and Dr. Davidson have set up a new company – New Amsterdam Pharma – to further develop obicetrapib, and have raised $200 million from venture capital funding to complete phase 2 and phase 3 studies.

The company has a heavyweight academic advisory board including Stephen Nicholls, MD, Monash University, Clayton, Australia; Kausik Ray, MD, Imperial College London; and Christie Ballantyne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“We wanted to develop obicetrapib further because of its amazing LDL-lowering properties,” Dr. Kastelein said in an interview.

“No one has paid much attention to CETP inhibitors after the HDL hypothesis was disregarded, as everyone thought these drugs were just about raising HDL. But actually, they can also lower LDL, and this particular agent reduces LDL very effectively,” Dr. Kastelein said.
 

ROSE study

Dr. Nicholls presented the latest data on obicetrapib at the AHA meeting.

“Despite the use of high-intensity statins, two-thirds of patients do not reach their target LDL level, so we have a need for new therapies that lower LDL and can be used in combination with high-intensity statins,” he explained.

He noted that earlier studies with obicetrapib showed a 45% lowering of LDL with monotherapy.

Dr. Nicholls reported that recent evidence has emerged that increases interest in inhibiting CETP to be potentially cardioprotective.

To begin, genetic studies have shown that genetic polymorphisms associated with lower levels of CETP appear to be cardioprotective, and this is associated with lower levels of LDL rather than higher levels of HDL. 

Furthermore, the REVEAL cardiovascular outcomes trial with anacetrapib (also a CETP inhibitor) in 2017 showed a significant 9% reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after 4 years of follow-up. “This was exactly predicted by the 11 mg/dL drop in absolute LDL cholesterol level. It was not predicted or associated with the increase in HDL level observed with that agent,” Dr. Nicholls said.

The objective of the current ROSE study was to evaluate the lipid-lowering ability, safety, and tolerability of obicetrapib in patients on high-intensity statins.

The study included 120 patients who had been treated on a stable dose of high-intensity statins (atorvastatin at a dose of at least 40 mg daily or rosuvastatin at a dose of 20 mg daily) for at least 8 weeks. All patients were required to have a fasting LDL of at least 70 mg/dL and the median baseline LDL was 90 mg/dL. They were randomly assigned to obicetrapib (5 mg or 10 mg daily) or placebo.

The primary endpoint was the difference between groups in percentage change in LDL from baseline to week 8, with LDL levels measured by two different techniques.

Results showed a “robust” 51% reduction in LDL with the 10-mg dose of obicetrapib, and a 42% reduction with the 5-mg dose, Dr. Nicholls reported.

These effects were comparable regardless of baseline LDL and were similar with both methods of LDL measurement. 

Almost all patients demonstrated some degree of LDL cholesterol lowering, with only three patients on the 5-mg dose and one patient on the 10-mg dose not showing any reduction in LDL.

Other results showed a dose-dependent lowering of Apo B of up to 30%, and a reduction of non-HDL cholesterol of up to 44%.

“Predictably, there were also increases of HDL cholesterol,” Dr. Nicholls said. “At the 10-mg dose, we see a 165% increase in HDL levels. That is associated with a 48% increase in Apo A1 levels. This is very consistent with findings from the previous monotherapy study.”  

There was a 56% reduction in Lp(a) levels, and a modest 11% reduction in triglycerides.

Both doses of obicetrapib were well tolerated, with no increase in the rate of adverse events. Only one patient discontinued the study drug because of an adverse event and that patient was in the placebo group, Dr. Nicholls noted.  

“Blood pressure is an important adverse event to look at in the CETP class given the challenges seen with the first CETP evaluated – torcetrapib,” Dr. Nicholls said. “But in the three clinical trials with obicetrapib conducted to date, reassuringly, we see no increase in either systolic or diastolic blood pressure with either the 5-mg or 10-mg dose.”

He concluded that obicetrapib “could be a valuable addition to high-risk patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who do not achieve their target LDL level despite use of high-intensity statin therapy.”
 

Differences from other CETP inhibitors

Asked how obicetrapib differs from other agents in the CETP inhibitor class, Dr. Nicholls replied that obicetrapib is much more potent, as shown by the large lipid changes seen with very small quantities of this drug, 5 mg or 10 mg, whereas prior CETP inhibitors showed smaller changes with much higher doses.

“We are giving very small amounts of obicetrapib and seeing very robust effects on both atherogenic and lipid parameters,” he said.  

“The other major point with this class of agent is that the first drug, torcetrapib, had toxicity, which resulted in increased cardiovascular events. But it has now been established that torcetrapib had a number of off-target effects that have not been seen with subsequent agents in this class,” he said.

Studies so far show that obicetrapib does not have torcetrapib-like effects. “That is encouraging. This, and the impressive LDL lowering effects, certainly lay the foundation for larger studies moving forward,” he added.

“This has been an intriguing field to many of us involved from the start. We started with a very disappointing result with torcetrapib. Then a couple of studies looked to be clinically futile, but we were encouraged by the REVEAL study which suggested that there might be benefit,” Dr. Nicholls said.

“If we combined the REVEAL results with the genetic data, it has actually flipped the whole CETP story upside down. We started thinking that inhibiting CETP was all about raising HDL, but it turns out that it is about LDL lowering,” he said. “And that is not only important in terms of the lipid effects but also the trials and the way they are designed.

“I think you’ll find that the future trials in this class and with this agent will have LDL very much in mind and that will very much influence the study design,” he said, adding that a larger cardiovascular outcome trial is now being planned. 

“The regulatory perspective is that LDL is a pretty trusted surrogate ... but I think an outcomes trial will be important to reinforce and reassure on safety and outline cost-effectiveness, which will help us understand where the sweet spot for using this agent in the clinic will be,” Dr. Nicholls noted.  

Dr. Kastelein explained that it has taken some time to realize that CETP inhibitors may be valuable for reducing LDL.   

“The first agent, torcetrapib, had an off-target toxicity that led to increased blood pressure but a specific part of the torcetrapib molecule was subsequently identified that was responsible for that, and subsequent agents in the CETP inhibitor class did not have such adverse effects,” he said.  

“The next agent, dalcetrapib (Roche), raised HDL but didn’t move LDL, and an outcomes trial with evacetrapib (Lilly) was stopped after 2 years because of futility, but we now believe that lipid lowering trials need longer term follow-up – up to 5 years – to see a benefit,” he noted.  

Dr. Kastelein reports that anacetrapib (Merck) has been the most powerful CETP inhibitor until now, giving an LDL reduction of about 20%, which was associated with a 10% reduction in cardiovascular events in first 4 years of follow-up. 

“Oxford academic researchers decided to continue follow-up in this trial without Merck and showed a 20% reduction in cardiovascular events by 6 years. This has been the strongest rationale for our investors,” Dr. Kastelein said.   

He pointed out that obicetrapib is much more potent than anacetrapib. “Obicetrapib reduces LDL by 50% at just a 10-mg dose, whereas anacetrapib was used at a dose of 100 mg to give a 17%-20% LDL reduction.”
 

Could HDL increase be beneficial after all?

Although increasing HDL is currently not thought to bring about a direct reduction in cardiovascular events, there is new evidence emerging that increasing HDL may confer some benefit in protecting against the development of type 2 diabetes, Dr. Kastelein noted.

“We know that statins can increase risk of developing type 2 diabetes, and post hoc analyses of previous trials with CETP inhibitors suggest that these drugs have the opposite effect,” he said. “We will investigate this protectively in our phase 3 outcomes trial. If this is a true effect, it should eventually translate into a reduction in cardiovascular outcomes, but this could take a longer time to see than the benefits of lowering LDL.”

Commenting on the current data, Steven Nissen, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, said: “The results are truly impressive – a nearly 50% LDL reduction on a background of statins with a once-daily oral agent. While PCSK9 inhibitors can achieve similar results, they are injectable and costly.

“Since anacetrapib, a much weaker CETP inhibitor, was successful at reducing major adverse cardiac events, the likelihood that obicetrapib would reduce MACE even more substantially is very high,” he added.

Dr. Nissen said he has been aware of this drug for some time and has advised the company about development options and regulatory strategy. “I have encouraged this company to develop this very promising drug,” he said.

The current study was funded by New Amsterdam Pharma. Dr. Nicholls reports grants from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Anthera, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, Cerenis, The Medicines Company, Resverlogix, Infraredx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron and LipoScience, and honoraria from New Amsterdam Pharma, AstraZeneca, Akcea, Eli Lilly, Anthera, Omthera, Merck, Takeda, Resverlogix, Sanofi-Regeneron, CSL Behring, Esperion, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Kastelein is chief scientific officer of New Amsterdam Pharma.  

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

A new lipid-lowering agent in a class that had been written off by many is being developed by a group of academic experts, with new data showing large LDL reductions on top of high-intensity statins.

Obicetrapib is a member of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor class, which had fallen out of favor after several disappointments with previous drugs in this class.

These agents were initially developed for their ability to raise HDL cholesterol, which was thought to be beneficial. But that approach has now been virtually abandoned after several studies failed to show a link between raising HDL and a reduction in subsequent cardiovascular events.

However, obicetrapib, which is said to be the most potent CETP inhibitor to date, has been shown to produce impressive LDL reductions, and it’s this important data that has caused several lipid experts to want to continue its development.

New data, presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions, show that obicetrapib reduces LDL by 50% when given in addition to high-intensity statins, which could place it as competition for PCSK9 inhibitors or the new agent, inclisiran, but with the advantage of oral dosing.

The drug was in development by Amgen, but the company decided to discontinue its development in 2017 after disappointing results had been seen with several other CETP inhibitors and interest in this class of agent was waning.

But academic experts in the lipid field, led by John Kastelein, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, and Michael Davidson, MD, clinical professor of medicine at University of Chicago, believed the drug had potential and have acquired obicetrapib from Amgen.

Dr. Kastelein and Dr. Davidson have set up a new company – New Amsterdam Pharma – to further develop obicetrapib, and have raised $200 million from venture capital funding to complete phase 2 and phase 3 studies.

The company has a heavyweight academic advisory board including Stephen Nicholls, MD, Monash University, Clayton, Australia; Kausik Ray, MD, Imperial College London; and Christie Ballantyne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“We wanted to develop obicetrapib further because of its amazing LDL-lowering properties,” Dr. Kastelein said in an interview.

“No one has paid much attention to CETP inhibitors after the HDL hypothesis was disregarded, as everyone thought these drugs were just about raising HDL. But actually, they can also lower LDL, and this particular agent reduces LDL very effectively,” Dr. Kastelein said.
 

ROSE study

Dr. Nicholls presented the latest data on obicetrapib at the AHA meeting.

“Despite the use of high-intensity statins, two-thirds of patients do not reach their target LDL level, so we have a need for new therapies that lower LDL and can be used in combination with high-intensity statins,” he explained.

He noted that earlier studies with obicetrapib showed a 45% lowering of LDL with monotherapy.

Dr. Nicholls reported that recent evidence has emerged that increases interest in inhibiting CETP to be potentially cardioprotective.

To begin, genetic studies have shown that genetic polymorphisms associated with lower levels of CETP appear to be cardioprotective, and this is associated with lower levels of LDL rather than higher levels of HDL. 

Furthermore, the REVEAL cardiovascular outcomes trial with anacetrapib (also a CETP inhibitor) in 2017 showed a significant 9% reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after 4 years of follow-up. “This was exactly predicted by the 11 mg/dL drop in absolute LDL cholesterol level. It was not predicted or associated with the increase in HDL level observed with that agent,” Dr. Nicholls said.

The objective of the current ROSE study was to evaluate the lipid-lowering ability, safety, and tolerability of obicetrapib in patients on high-intensity statins.

The study included 120 patients who had been treated on a stable dose of high-intensity statins (atorvastatin at a dose of at least 40 mg daily or rosuvastatin at a dose of 20 mg daily) for at least 8 weeks. All patients were required to have a fasting LDL of at least 70 mg/dL and the median baseline LDL was 90 mg/dL. They were randomly assigned to obicetrapib (5 mg or 10 mg daily) or placebo.

The primary endpoint was the difference between groups in percentage change in LDL from baseline to week 8, with LDL levels measured by two different techniques.

Results showed a “robust” 51% reduction in LDL with the 10-mg dose of obicetrapib, and a 42% reduction with the 5-mg dose, Dr. Nicholls reported.

These effects were comparable regardless of baseline LDL and were similar with both methods of LDL measurement. 

Almost all patients demonstrated some degree of LDL cholesterol lowering, with only three patients on the 5-mg dose and one patient on the 10-mg dose not showing any reduction in LDL.

Other results showed a dose-dependent lowering of Apo B of up to 30%, and a reduction of non-HDL cholesterol of up to 44%.

“Predictably, there were also increases of HDL cholesterol,” Dr. Nicholls said. “At the 10-mg dose, we see a 165% increase in HDL levels. That is associated with a 48% increase in Apo A1 levels. This is very consistent with findings from the previous monotherapy study.”  

There was a 56% reduction in Lp(a) levels, and a modest 11% reduction in triglycerides.

Both doses of obicetrapib were well tolerated, with no increase in the rate of adverse events. Only one patient discontinued the study drug because of an adverse event and that patient was in the placebo group, Dr. Nicholls noted.  

“Blood pressure is an important adverse event to look at in the CETP class given the challenges seen with the first CETP evaluated – torcetrapib,” Dr. Nicholls said. “But in the three clinical trials with obicetrapib conducted to date, reassuringly, we see no increase in either systolic or diastolic blood pressure with either the 5-mg or 10-mg dose.”

He concluded that obicetrapib “could be a valuable addition to high-risk patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who do not achieve their target LDL level despite use of high-intensity statin therapy.”
 

Differences from other CETP inhibitors

Asked how obicetrapib differs from other agents in the CETP inhibitor class, Dr. Nicholls replied that obicetrapib is much more potent, as shown by the large lipid changes seen with very small quantities of this drug, 5 mg or 10 mg, whereas prior CETP inhibitors showed smaller changes with much higher doses.

“We are giving very small amounts of obicetrapib and seeing very robust effects on both atherogenic and lipid parameters,” he said.  

“The other major point with this class of agent is that the first drug, torcetrapib, had toxicity, which resulted in increased cardiovascular events. But it has now been established that torcetrapib had a number of off-target effects that have not been seen with subsequent agents in this class,” he said.

Studies so far show that obicetrapib does not have torcetrapib-like effects. “That is encouraging. This, and the impressive LDL lowering effects, certainly lay the foundation for larger studies moving forward,” he added.

“This has been an intriguing field to many of us involved from the start. We started with a very disappointing result with torcetrapib. Then a couple of studies looked to be clinically futile, but we were encouraged by the REVEAL study which suggested that there might be benefit,” Dr. Nicholls said.

“If we combined the REVEAL results with the genetic data, it has actually flipped the whole CETP story upside down. We started thinking that inhibiting CETP was all about raising HDL, but it turns out that it is about LDL lowering,” he said. “And that is not only important in terms of the lipid effects but also the trials and the way they are designed.

“I think you’ll find that the future trials in this class and with this agent will have LDL very much in mind and that will very much influence the study design,” he said, adding that a larger cardiovascular outcome trial is now being planned. 

“The regulatory perspective is that LDL is a pretty trusted surrogate ... but I think an outcomes trial will be important to reinforce and reassure on safety and outline cost-effectiveness, which will help us understand where the sweet spot for using this agent in the clinic will be,” Dr. Nicholls noted.  

Dr. Kastelein explained that it has taken some time to realize that CETP inhibitors may be valuable for reducing LDL.   

“The first agent, torcetrapib, had an off-target toxicity that led to increased blood pressure but a specific part of the torcetrapib molecule was subsequently identified that was responsible for that, and subsequent agents in the CETP inhibitor class did not have such adverse effects,” he said.  

“The next agent, dalcetrapib (Roche), raised HDL but didn’t move LDL, and an outcomes trial with evacetrapib (Lilly) was stopped after 2 years because of futility, but we now believe that lipid lowering trials need longer term follow-up – up to 5 years – to see a benefit,” he noted.  

Dr. Kastelein reports that anacetrapib (Merck) has been the most powerful CETP inhibitor until now, giving an LDL reduction of about 20%, which was associated with a 10% reduction in cardiovascular events in first 4 years of follow-up. 

“Oxford academic researchers decided to continue follow-up in this trial without Merck and showed a 20% reduction in cardiovascular events by 6 years. This has been the strongest rationale for our investors,” Dr. Kastelein said.   

He pointed out that obicetrapib is much more potent than anacetrapib. “Obicetrapib reduces LDL by 50% at just a 10-mg dose, whereas anacetrapib was used at a dose of 100 mg to give a 17%-20% LDL reduction.”
 

Could HDL increase be beneficial after all?

Although increasing HDL is currently not thought to bring about a direct reduction in cardiovascular events, there is new evidence emerging that increasing HDL may confer some benefit in protecting against the development of type 2 diabetes, Dr. Kastelein noted.

“We know that statins can increase risk of developing type 2 diabetes, and post hoc analyses of previous trials with CETP inhibitors suggest that these drugs have the opposite effect,” he said. “We will investigate this protectively in our phase 3 outcomes trial. If this is a true effect, it should eventually translate into a reduction in cardiovascular outcomes, but this could take a longer time to see than the benefits of lowering LDL.”

Commenting on the current data, Steven Nissen, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, said: “The results are truly impressive – a nearly 50% LDL reduction on a background of statins with a once-daily oral agent. While PCSK9 inhibitors can achieve similar results, they are injectable and costly.

“Since anacetrapib, a much weaker CETP inhibitor, was successful at reducing major adverse cardiac events, the likelihood that obicetrapib would reduce MACE even more substantially is very high,” he added.

Dr. Nissen said he has been aware of this drug for some time and has advised the company about development options and regulatory strategy. “I have encouraged this company to develop this very promising drug,” he said.

The current study was funded by New Amsterdam Pharma. Dr. Nicholls reports grants from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Anthera, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, Cerenis, The Medicines Company, Resverlogix, Infraredx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron and LipoScience, and honoraria from New Amsterdam Pharma, AstraZeneca, Akcea, Eli Lilly, Anthera, Omthera, Merck, Takeda, Resverlogix, Sanofi-Regeneron, CSL Behring, Esperion, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Kastelein is chief scientific officer of New Amsterdam Pharma.  

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

Going to bed later than usual and/or getting a poor night’s sleep are both associated with impaired glycemic response to breakfast the following morning in healthy adults, according to a multiple test-meal challenge study conducted over 14 days.

“Our data suggest that sleep duration, efficiency, and midpoint are important determinants of postprandial glycemic control at a population level,” Neil Tsereteli, MD, Lund University Diabetes Centre, Malmo, Sweden, and colleagues wrote in their article, published online Nov. 30, 2021, in Diabetologia.

“And [the results] suggest that one-size-fits-all sleep recommendations are suboptimal, particularly in the context of postprandial glycemic control, a key component of diabetes prevention,” they added.
 

Prior research on sleep quality and control of glucose lacking

Diet, exercise, and sleep are fundamental components of a healthy lifestyle; however, the role that sleep plays in affecting blood glucose control in generally healthy people has been studied little so far, the researchers wrote.

Sleep disorders can act as a measure of general health as they often occur alongside other health problems. Sleep quality also has a direct causal effect on many conditions such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes. And disturbed sleep caused by conditions such as obstructive sleep apnea is associated with the prevalence of type 2 diabetes and risk of associated complications.

This and other evidence suggest a strong link between glucose regulation and the quality and duration of sleep.

Dr. Tsereteli and colleagues set out to examine this further in the Personalized Responses to Dietary Composition Trial 1, which involved 953 healthy adults who consumed standardized meals over 2 weeks in a clinic setting and at home.

“The meals were consumed either for breakfast or lunch in a randomized meal order and consisted of eight different standardized meals,”  the researchers wrote.

Activity and sleep were monitored using a wearable device with an accelerometer. Postprandial blood glucose levels were measured using a continuous glucose monitor.

Sleep variables including quality, duration, and timing and their impact on glycemic response to breakfast the following morning, and were compared between participants and within each individual.
 

Better sleep efficiency, better glucose control

The study found that, although there was no significant association between length of sleep period and postmeal glycemic response, there was a significant interaction when the nutritional content of the breakfast meal was also considered.

Longer sleep periods were associated with lower blood glucose following high-carbohydrate and high-fat breakfasts, indicating better blood glucose control.

Additionally, the researchers observed a within-person effect in which a study participant who slept for longer than they typically would was likely to have reduced postprandial blood glucose following a high-carbohydrate or high-fat breakfast the next day.

The authors also found a significant link between sleep efficiency (ratio of time asleep to total length of sleep period) and glycemic control. When a participant slept more efficiently than usual, their postprandial blood glucose also tended to be lower than usual.

“This effect was largely driven by sleep onset (going to bed later) rather than sleep offset (waking up later),” Dr. Tsereteli and colleagues noted.
 

Sleep a key pillar of health

Asked whether these particular sleep effects might be exacerbated in patients with diabetes, senior author Paul Franks, MD, also from the Lund University Diabetes Centre, felt they could not meaningfully extrapolate results to people with diabetes, given that many take glucose-lowering medications.

“However, it is likely that these results would be similar or exacerbated in people with prediabetes, as glucose fluctuations in this subgroup of patients are generally greater than in people with normoglycemia,” he noted in an interview.

“Sleep is a key pillar of health, and focusing on both sleep and diet is key for healthy blood glucose control,” he added.

“Compensating for a bad night’s sleep by consuming a very sugary breakfast or energy drinks is likely to be especially detrimental for blood glucose control,” Dr. Franks said.

The study was funded by Lund University. Dr. Tsereteli and Dr. Franks reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Going to bed later than usual and/or getting a poor night’s sleep are both associated with impaired glycemic response to breakfast the following morning in healthy adults, according to a multiple test-meal challenge study conducted over 14 days.

“Our data suggest that sleep duration, efficiency, and midpoint are important determinants of postprandial glycemic control at a population level,” Neil Tsereteli, MD, Lund University Diabetes Centre, Malmo, Sweden, and colleagues wrote in their article, published online Nov. 30, 2021, in Diabetologia.

“And [the results] suggest that one-size-fits-all sleep recommendations are suboptimal, particularly in the context of postprandial glycemic control, a key component of diabetes prevention,” they added.
 

Prior research on sleep quality and control of glucose lacking

Diet, exercise, and sleep are fundamental components of a healthy lifestyle; however, the role that sleep plays in affecting blood glucose control in generally healthy people has been studied little so far, the researchers wrote.

Sleep disorders can act as a measure of general health as they often occur alongside other health problems. Sleep quality also has a direct causal effect on many conditions such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes. And disturbed sleep caused by conditions such as obstructive sleep apnea is associated with the prevalence of type 2 diabetes and risk of associated complications.

This and other evidence suggest a strong link between glucose regulation and the quality and duration of sleep.

Dr. Tsereteli and colleagues set out to examine this further in the Personalized Responses to Dietary Composition Trial 1, which involved 953 healthy adults who consumed standardized meals over 2 weeks in a clinic setting and at home.

“The meals were consumed either for breakfast or lunch in a randomized meal order and consisted of eight different standardized meals,”  the researchers wrote.

Activity and sleep were monitored using a wearable device with an accelerometer. Postprandial blood glucose levels were measured using a continuous glucose monitor.

Sleep variables including quality, duration, and timing and their impact on glycemic response to breakfast the following morning, and were compared between participants and within each individual.
 

Better sleep efficiency, better glucose control

The study found that, although there was no significant association between length of sleep period and postmeal glycemic response, there was a significant interaction when the nutritional content of the breakfast meal was also considered.

Longer sleep periods were associated with lower blood glucose following high-carbohydrate and high-fat breakfasts, indicating better blood glucose control.

Additionally, the researchers observed a within-person effect in which a study participant who slept for longer than they typically would was likely to have reduced postprandial blood glucose following a high-carbohydrate or high-fat breakfast the next day.

The authors also found a significant link between sleep efficiency (ratio of time asleep to total length of sleep period) and glycemic control. When a participant slept more efficiently than usual, their postprandial blood glucose also tended to be lower than usual.

“This effect was largely driven by sleep onset (going to bed later) rather than sleep offset (waking up later),” Dr. Tsereteli and colleagues noted.
 

Sleep a key pillar of health

Asked whether these particular sleep effects might be exacerbated in patients with diabetes, senior author Paul Franks, MD, also from the Lund University Diabetes Centre, felt they could not meaningfully extrapolate results to people with diabetes, given that many take glucose-lowering medications.

“However, it is likely that these results would be similar or exacerbated in people with prediabetes, as glucose fluctuations in this subgroup of patients are generally greater than in people with normoglycemia,” he noted in an interview.

“Sleep is a key pillar of health, and focusing on both sleep and diet is key for healthy blood glucose control,” he added.

“Compensating for a bad night’s sleep by consuming a very sugary breakfast or energy drinks is likely to be especially detrimental for blood glucose control,” Dr. Franks said.

The study was funded by Lund University. Dr. Tsereteli and Dr. Franks reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Going to bed later than usual and/or getting a poor night’s sleep are both associated with impaired glycemic response to breakfast the following morning in healthy adults, according to a multiple test-meal challenge study conducted over 14 days.

“Our data suggest that sleep duration, efficiency, and midpoint are important determinants of postprandial glycemic control at a population level,” Neil Tsereteli, MD, Lund University Diabetes Centre, Malmo, Sweden, and colleagues wrote in their article, published online Nov. 30, 2021, in Diabetologia.

“And [the results] suggest that one-size-fits-all sleep recommendations are suboptimal, particularly in the context of postprandial glycemic control, a key component of diabetes prevention,” they added.
 

Prior research on sleep quality and control of glucose lacking

Diet, exercise, and sleep are fundamental components of a healthy lifestyle; however, the role that sleep plays in affecting blood glucose control in generally healthy people has been studied little so far, the researchers wrote.

Sleep disorders can act as a measure of general health as they often occur alongside other health problems. Sleep quality also has a direct causal effect on many conditions such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes. And disturbed sleep caused by conditions such as obstructive sleep apnea is associated with the prevalence of type 2 diabetes and risk of associated complications.

This and other evidence suggest a strong link between glucose regulation and the quality and duration of sleep.

Dr. Tsereteli and colleagues set out to examine this further in the Personalized Responses to Dietary Composition Trial 1, which involved 953 healthy adults who consumed standardized meals over 2 weeks in a clinic setting and at home.

“The meals were consumed either for breakfast or lunch in a randomized meal order and consisted of eight different standardized meals,”  the researchers wrote.

Activity and sleep were monitored using a wearable device with an accelerometer. Postprandial blood glucose levels were measured using a continuous glucose monitor.

Sleep variables including quality, duration, and timing and their impact on glycemic response to breakfast the following morning, and were compared between participants and within each individual.
 

Better sleep efficiency, better glucose control

The study found that, although there was no significant association between length of sleep period and postmeal glycemic response, there was a significant interaction when the nutritional content of the breakfast meal was also considered.

Longer sleep periods were associated with lower blood glucose following high-carbohydrate and high-fat breakfasts, indicating better blood glucose control.

Additionally, the researchers observed a within-person effect in which a study participant who slept for longer than they typically would was likely to have reduced postprandial blood glucose following a high-carbohydrate or high-fat breakfast the next day.

The authors also found a significant link between sleep efficiency (ratio of time asleep to total length of sleep period) and glycemic control. When a participant slept more efficiently than usual, their postprandial blood glucose also tended to be lower than usual.

“This effect was largely driven by sleep onset (going to bed later) rather than sleep offset (waking up later),” Dr. Tsereteli and colleagues noted.
 

Sleep a key pillar of health

Asked whether these particular sleep effects might be exacerbated in patients with diabetes, senior author Paul Franks, MD, also from the Lund University Diabetes Centre, felt they could not meaningfully extrapolate results to people with diabetes, given that many take glucose-lowering medications.

“However, it is likely that these results would be similar or exacerbated in people with prediabetes, as glucose fluctuations in this subgroup of patients are generally greater than in people with normoglycemia,” he noted in an interview.

“Sleep is a key pillar of health, and focusing on both sleep and diet is key for healthy blood glucose control,” he added.

“Compensating for a bad night’s sleep by consuming a very sugary breakfast or energy drinks is likely to be especially detrimental for blood glucose control,” Dr. Franks said.

The study was funded by Lund University. Dr. Tsereteli and Dr. Franks reported no relevant financial relationships.

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