Cardiology News

In a small study, intravenous administration of the beta-blocker metoprolol to critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) safely blunted lung inflammation associated with the disease.

Metoprolol administration also resulted in better oxygenation and fewer days on intensive mechanical ventilation and in the ICU, compared with no treatment.

These data suggest that metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS in COVID-19 patients is a safe and inexpensive strategy with the potential to improve outcomes, the researchers said.

“Metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS associated with COVID-19 is a safe and cheap intervention that can help to alleviate the massive personal and health care burden associated with the pandemic,” they concluded.

The results, from the MADRID-COVID pilot trial from Agustin Clemente-Moragon, BSc, Centro National de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares, Madrid, and colleagues, were published online Aug. 30, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In previous work, the researchers showed that metoprolol, but not other clinically available intravenous beta-blockers, abrogates neutrophil-driven exacerbated inflammation, neutrophil-platelet interaction, and formation of neutrophil extracellular traps in a mouse model of acute lung injury.

These results prompted the current pilot trial in 20 patients, ages 18-80 years, with COVID-19–associated ARDS.

Randomization was stratified by age (59 and younger vs. 60 and older), history of hypertension (yes or no), and circulating neutrophil counts (<6,000 vs. ≥6,000). Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and blood samples were obtained from patients at randomization and 24 hours after the third metoprolol dose in the treatment group, and on day 4 in controls.

Because of the cardiovascular effects of metoprolol, patients were monitored invasively and by echocardiography, the authors noted.

As expected, metoprolol significantly reduced heart rate (P < .01) and systolic blood pressure (P < .05), although both remained within the physiological range. Echocardiography showed no deterioration of cardiac function after metoprolol treatment.

To assess the ability of metoprolol to address neutrophil-mediated exacerbated lung inflammation, the researchers analyzed leukocyte populations in BAL samples by flow cytometry at baseline and on day 4.

At baseline, the metoprolol and control groups showed no differences in BAL neutrophil content. But on day 4, after 3 days of treatment with metoprolol, neutrophil content was significantly lower in the metoprolol group (median, 14.3 neutrophils/mcL) than in the control group (median, 397 neutrophils/mcL).

Metoprolol-treated patients also had lower total inflammatory-cell content and lower monocyte/macrophage content. Lymphocytes did not differ between the groups.

The investigators also explored the impact of metoprolol on the chemokine, monocyte chemoattractant protein–1 (MCP-1), as it has been shown to promote pulmonary fibrosis in late-stage ARDS.

They found that MCP-1 was significantly attenuated after 3 days of metoprolol treatment. At baseline, the median MCP-1 level was 298 pg/mL; on day 4 after metoprolol, it was 203 pg/mL (P = .009).

MCP-1 levels remained unchanged in control patients.
 

An elegant study

In an accompanying editorial, Mourad H. Senussi, MD, assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote: “Although the study has a small sample size, we commend the authors, who attempt to shed light on the important pathophysiological underpinnings that help establish biological plausibility for this inexpensive, safe, and widely available medication.”

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Senussi added that metoprolol is not itself something primarily used to treat COVID-19 per se. “Rather, the drug blunts the sympathetic-host response. There is a fine balance between that sympathetic surge that is helpful to the body, and then a sympathetic surge that if left unchecked, can lead to significant damage. And so, I think this study really shows that medications like metoprolol can help blunt that initial sympathetic effect.”

A larger study is “absolutely” warranted, he added, “this is a drug that is readily available, safe, and inexpensive. The study design here was simple and most importantly, showed biological plausibility.”

Dr. Senussi also noted that, although the benefit was noted in COVID-19 patients, the study sets the groundwork for further research in the use of beta-blockade in the critically ill. “Further studies are needed to elucidate and identify where along the inflammatory spectrum these critically ill patients lie, which patients would benefit from beta-blockers, and at what time point during their hospital stay.”

The MADRID-COVID authors and Dr. Senussi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a small study, intravenous administration of the beta-blocker metoprolol to critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) safely blunted lung inflammation associated with the disease.

Metoprolol administration also resulted in better oxygenation and fewer days on intensive mechanical ventilation and in the ICU, compared with no treatment.

These data suggest that metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS in COVID-19 patients is a safe and inexpensive strategy with the potential to improve outcomes, the researchers said.

“Metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS associated with COVID-19 is a safe and cheap intervention that can help to alleviate the massive personal and health care burden associated with the pandemic,” they concluded.

The results, from the MADRID-COVID pilot trial from Agustin Clemente-Moragon, BSc, Centro National de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares, Madrid, and colleagues, were published online Aug. 30, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In previous work, the researchers showed that metoprolol, but not other clinically available intravenous beta-blockers, abrogates neutrophil-driven exacerbated inflammation, neutrophil-platelet interaction, and formation of neutrophil extracellular traps in a mouse model of acute lung injury.

These results prompted the current pilot trial in 20 patients, ages 18-80 years, with COVID-19–associated ARDS.

Randomization was stratified by age (59 and younger vs. 60 and older), history of hypertension (yes or no), and circulating neutrophil counts (<6,000 vs. ≥6,000). Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and blood samples were obtained from patients at randomization and 24 hours after the third metoprolol dose in the treatment group, and on day 4 in controls.

Because of the cardiovascular effects of metoprolol, patients were monitored invasively and by echocardiography, the authors noted.

As expected, metoprolol significantly reduced heart rate (P < .01) and systolic blood pressure (P < .05), although both remained within the physiological range. Echocardiography showed no deterioration of cardiac function after metoprolol treatment.

To assess the ability of metoprolol to address neutrophil-mediated exacerbated lung inflammation, the researchers analyzed leukocyte populations in BAL samples by flow cytometry at baseline and on day 4.

At baseline, the metoprolol and control groups showed no differences in BAL neutrophil content. But on day 4, after 3 days of treatment with metoprolol, neutrophil content was significantly lower in the metoprolol group (median, 14.3 neutrophils/mcL) than in the control group (median, 397 neutrophils/mcL).

Metoprolol-treated patients also had lower total inflammatory-cell content and lower monocyte/macrophage content. Lymphocytes did not differ between the groups.

The investigators also explored the impact of metoprolol on the chemokine, monocyte chemoattractant protein–1 (MCP-1), as it has been shown to promote pulmonary fibrosis in late-stage ARDS.

They found that MCP-1 was significantly attenuated after 3 days of metoprolol treatment. At baseline, the median MCP-1 level was 298 pg/mL; on day 4 after metoprolol, it was 203 pg/mL (P = .009).

MCP-1 levels remained unchanged in control patients.
 

An elegant study

In an accompanying editorial, Mourad H. Senussi, MD, assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote: “Although the study has a small sample size, we commend the authors, who attempt to shed light on the important pathophysiological underpinnings that help establish biological plausibility for this inexpensive, safe, and widely available medication.”

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Senussi added that metoprolol is not itself something primarily used to treat COVID-19 per se. “Rather, the drug blunts the sympathetic-host response. There is a fine balance between that sympathetic surge that is helpful to the body, and then a sympathetic surge that if left unchecked, can lead to significant damage. And so, I think this study really shows that medications like metoprolol can help blunt that initial sympathetic effect.”

A larger study is “absolutely” warranted, he added, “this is a drug that is readily available, safe, and inexpensive. The study design here was simple and most importantly, showed biological plausibility.”

Dr. Senussi also noted that, although the benefit was noted in COVID-19 patients, the study sets the groundwork for further research in the use of beta-blockade in the critically ill. “Further studies are needed to elucidate and identify where along the inflammatory spectrum these critically ill patients lie, which patients would benefit from beta-blockers, and at what time point during their hospital stay.”

The MADRID-COVID authors and Dr. Senussi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a small study, intravenous administration of the beta-blocker metoprolol to critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) safely blunted lung inflammation associated with the disease.

Metoprolol administration also resulted in better oxygenation and fewer days on intensive mechanical ventilation and in the ICU, compared with no treatment.

These data suggest that metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS in COVID-19 patients is a safe and inexpensive strategy with the potential to improve outcomes, the researchers said.

“Metoprolol repurposing for the treatment of ARDS associated with COVID-19 is a safe and cheap intervention that can help to alleviate the massive personal and health care burden associated with the pandemic,” they concluded.

The results, from the MADRID-COVID pilot trial from Agustin Clemente-Moragon, BSc, Centro National de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares, Madrid, and colleagues, were published online Aug. 30, 2021, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In previous work, the researchers showed that metoprolol, but not other clinically available intravenous beta-blockers, abrogates neutrophil-driven exacerbated inflammation, neutrophil-platelet interaction, and formation of neutrophil extracellular traps in a mouse model of acute lung injury.

These results prompted the current pilot trial in 20 patients, ages 18-80 years, with COVID-19–associated ARDS.

Randomization was stratified by age (59 and younger vs. 60 and older), history of hypertension (yes or no), and circulating neutrophil counts (<6,000 vs. ≥6,000). Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and blood samples were obtained from patients at randomization and 24 hours after the third metoprolol dose in the treatment group, and on day 4 in controls.

Because of the cardiovascular effects of metoprolol, patients were monitored invasively and by echocardiography, the authors noted.

As expected, metoprolol significantly reduced heart rate (P < .01) and systolic blood pressure (P < .05), although both remained within the physiological range. Echocardiography showed no deterioration of cardiac function after metoprolol treatment.

To assess the ability of metoprolol to address neutrophil-mediated exacerbated lung inflammation, the researchers analyzed leukocyte populations in BAL samples by flow cytometry at baseline and on day 4.

At baseline, the metoprolol and control groups showed no differences in BAL neutrophil content. But on day 4, after 3 days of treatment with metoprolol, neutrophil content was significantly lower in the metoprolol group (median, 14.3 neutrophils/mcL) than in the control group (median, 397 neutrophils/mcL).

Metoprolol-treated patients also had lower total inflammatory-cell content and lower monocyte/macrophage content. Lymphocytes did not differ between the groups.

The investigators also explored the impact of metoprolol on the chemokine, monocyte chemoattractant protein–1 (MCP-1), as it has been shown to promote pulmonary fibrosis in late-stage ARDS.

They found that MCP-1 was significantly attenuated after 3 days of metoprolol treatment. At baseline, the median MCP-1 level was 298 pg/mL; on day 4 after metoprolol, it was 203 pg/mL (P = .009).

MCP-1 levels remained unchanged in control patients.
 

An elegant study

In an accompanying editorial, Mourad H. Senussi, MD, assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, wrote: “Although the study has a small sample size, we commend the authors, who attempt to shed light on the important pathophysiological underpinnings that help establish biological plausibility for this inexpensive, safe, and widely available medication.”

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Senussi added that metoprolol is not itself something primarily used to treat COVID-19 per se. “Rather, the drug blunts the sympathetic-host response. There is a fine balance between that sympathetic surge that is helpful to the body, and then a sympathetic surge that if left unchecked, can lead to significant damage. And so, I think this study really shows that medications like metoprolol can help blunt that initial sympathetic effect.”

A larger study is “absolutely” warranted, he added, “this is a drug that is readily available, safe, and inexpensive. The study design here was simple and most importantly, showed biological plausibility.”

Dr. Senussi also noted that, although the benefit was noted in COVID-19 patients, the study sets the groundwork for further research in the use of beta-blockade in the critically ill. “Further studies are needed to elucidate and identify where along the inflammatory spectrum these critically ill patients lie, which patients would benefit from beta-blockers, and at what time point during their hospital stay.”

The MADRID-COVID authors and Dr. Senussi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

After making an insulting comment to a surgery scheduler, a surgeon become the subject of a peer review investigation.

The surgeon had been called in on a Saturday morning for surgery, but when he arrived at the hospital, staff informed him that the operating room had been incorrectly booked and asked him to come back that afternoon. When the surgeon returned, the room still wasn’t ready, recounted David Beran, DO, a peer reviewer and medical director for the emergency department at University Medical Center New Orleans, in Louisiana. After more waiting and staff uncertainty about which operating room was going to open, the surgeon became frustrated and said to the scheduler: “Any idiot could figure this out!”

During his peer review, the surgeon acknowledged that he shouldn’t have made the rude remark to the scheduler, Dr. Beran said. His exasperation stemmed from an ongoing problem – operating rooms at the hospital were being inefficiently managed.

“The surgeon acknowledged that even though there was a systems issue at the root, that’s not justification to speak to people unprofessionally,” Dr. Beran said. “So, there was education for the surgeon, but the surgeon was also able to explain the frustration that led to that point.”

System problems are commonly encountered by peer reviewers, said Dr. Beran.

“There’s a huge gap between administration and clinical professionals when it comes to peer review,” he said. “So many times, bad situations, whether they’re clinical or behavioral, often boil down to systems issues or some inadequacy, whether it’s an EMR [electronic medical record] problem, an inefficacy, or how complicated a process is for an end user. But having a peer review situation that then leads to a system-level change that prevents that problem from happening again is really unlikely. There’s a huge disconnect between those two.”

Peer review is generally a process that goes on behind closed doors. Although structures may differ, peer review is generally described as the process by which physicians assess the quality of their peers’ work to ensure that standards of care are being met. The process is often used to evaluate issues regarding clinical care as well as behavioral complaints against physicians.

Doctors who undergo peer review frequently share their experiences, but reviewers themselves rarely speak out. For this story, this news organization spoke with several current and former peer reviewers about what really goes on during peer reviews, what frustrates them, and what they’ve learned along the way.

“Peer review processes are in place to build stronger institutions and stronger practices, and they’re supposed to be helpful,” Dr. Beran said. “But because of how opaque they are, it immediately puts physicians on the defensive, and it doesn’t always succeed in what it’s trying to do. I think that’s one of the biggest challenges.”
 

Biased reviewers taint evaluations

A peer reviewer on and off throughout her career, Indiana family physician Lana Patch, MD, said she always strived to be fair when evaluating fellow physicians. But not every reviewer she encountered operated the same way, she said. Some were biased.

In one case, Dr. Patch peer reviewed a general surgeon who had performed a hysterectomy on a 16-year-old girl. The surgeon believed the teenager likely had an acute appendicitis, but it turned out she had a uterine pathology, Dr. Patch said. The surgeon saved the girl’s life, but the case came under review because of the patient’s age and the fact that her uterus was removed. A local obstetrician-gynecologist weighed in on the case.

“The local ob.gyn. saw it as a turf battle,” recalled Dr. Patch, who is now retired after 30 years of practice in eastern Indiana. “The doctor had nothing but bad to say about the surgeon. He was a competitor.”

Because it was a small hospital, the committee sometimes had trouble finding a specialist who was qualified to give an opinion and who wasn’t in competition with the physician in question, said Dr. Patch. Eventually they found an outside pediatric gynecologist who reviewed the case and concluded that the surgeon had followed the standard of care.

Personal agendas in can come from different directions, said Robert Marder, MD, the author of several books on peer review. Dr. Marder is a consultant who assists with peer review redesign. He has worked with hundreds of medical staff leaders and is a former vice president at the Greeley Company, a consulting firm in Danvers, Mass., that performs peer review redesign. Dr. Marder is president of Robert J. Marder Consulting.

“It goes both ways,” Dr. Marder said. “I’ve seen where somebody with a personal view decides to bring things to the peer review committee specifically because they want the peer review committee to have an adverse view of this person and get them off the medical staff. And I’ve seen hospitals that are uncomfortable with a certain person for whatever reason and want the peer review committee to address it, as opposed to addressing it from a human resource standpoint.”

Dr. Patch recalled a case in which reviewers and hospital leaders were at odds over the credentialing of a physician. Fifteen years earlier, while driving in California, the psychiatrist had been pulled over and was found with an ounce of marijuana, she said.

“We wanted to privilege him,” Dr. Patch said. “As staff physicians, we felt that was 15 years ago, people change over time. Doctors are human beings, too. He seemed to have good credentials and good training. The hospital said, ‘Oh no, we can’t have somebody like this.’ “

The psychiatrist was placed on probation and had to undergo a review every 90 days for about 3 years. Eventually, he was privileged, Dr. Patch said.

Bias among reviewers, including unintentional bias, is also a challenge, Dr. Marder noted. Some initial reviewers score a physician too harshly, he said, whereas others underscore.

“Underscoring is more insidious and more difficult to deal with,” Dr. Marder said. “Underscoring is where the reviewer is too nice. They tend to dismiss things from their colleagues rather than recognize them as an opportunity to help them improve. With underscoring, a lot of committees, if the initial reviewer says the care was appropriate, they don’t even look at the case. They just take that one person’s word for it.”
 

Reviewers: Looks can be deceiving

When first examining the documented details of a case, it can be easy for peer reviewers to make a quick judgment about what happened, Dr. Beran said.

“You get these complaints, and you read through it, and you think, ‘Oh man, this person really messed up,’ “ he said. “Then you hear the doctor’s side of it, and you realize, ‘No, there’s a much bigger picture at play.’ You realize both sides have valid perspectives on it.”

In one case, for example, Dr. Beran recalled a complaint against a physician who made a snarky remark to a nurse. The doctor had asked the nurse for a piece of equipment, and the nurse said she was busy preparing the room for a patient. The doctor made a comment along the lines of, “Well, would you like me to do that for you and also intubate the patient while you do some charting?!”

At first glance, it appeared that the physician lashed out inappropriately at the nurse. But when reviewers heard from the doctor, they learned that the nurses knew that a trauma patient was coming by ambulance and that he would likely require a ventilator, Dr. Beran said. As the minutes ticked by, however, the nurses were seen in the break room chatting. Nothing had been prepared in the room, including any airway supply.

“The patient had a prolonged course and a very difficult intubation and could have very easily wound up with a much worse outcome for something the nurses had been warned about prior to the patient’s arrival,” he said. “I can see anybody getting upset in that situation if I warned them 5 or 10 minutes beforehand, ‘Get this stuff ready,’ and then nothing was done.”

There was no direct penalty for the physician.

Just as some complaints can be misleading, the clinical record in some peer review cases can also lead reviewers astray.

Physicians frequently include too much irrelevant information in the record, which can cloud a peer review, said Hans Duvefelt, MD, a family physician at Pines Health Services, in Van Buren, Maine. Dr. Duvefelt is a former medical director at Bucksport Regional Health Center, in Ellsworth, Maine. Both facilities are federally qualified health centers where continuous, random peer reviews are required.

In one case, Dr. Duvefelt was peer reviewing a physician’s office note regarding an elderly patient with a low-grade fever. The final diagnosis was urinary tract infection. Dr. Duvefelt said he had trouble following the doctor’s line of thinking because of a plethora of unnecessary data in the 10-page document. The office note included past medical history, prior lab and imaging test results, and an extensive narrative section that included a mixture of active medical problems and ongoing relationships with specialists, he said.

After reading through the printout three times, Dr. Duvefelt said he finally found mention of increased urinary dribbling and details about an enlarged prostate. He also spotted a same-day urinalysis among nearly a dozen other previous lab tests that had no connection to body temperature. Dr. Duvefelt gave the physician a passing grade but also left a scathing note about all the irrelevant information.

“It’s very common,” Dr. Duvefelt said. “It’s a disaster. Other doctors can’t follow your thinking. A reviewer has a hard time determining whether the doctor acted reasonably.”
 

Slackers make bad reviewers

Although dedicated reviewers work hard to get to the bottom of cases, it’s not uncommon for some committee members to hardly work at all, according to experts.

Dr. Marder said he’s seen many instances in which reviewers were assigned a review but did not complete it for months. Most committees have set time frames in which reviewers must complete their review.

“That delays that review, and by that time, the review is older and it’s harder to remember things,” he said. “It’s not fair to the physician. If there was a problem the physician could fix and you don’t tell him for 3 or 4 months what it is, he may do the same thing again. The case might come before the committee again and it looks like he’s repeated something, but you never gave him the opportunity to improve.”

Other reviewers fail to attend meetings regularly. Peer review committee members are generally volunteers, and meetings are usually held in the early mornings or late evenings.

“There are reasons for not attending occasionally, but some people put on a committee just don’t take it seriously,” Dr. Marder said. “They don’t fulfill their responsibilities as well as they should. If you accept the job, do the job.”

For physicians considering becoming a peer reviewer, Dr. Beran offers these tips: Be transparent, help physicians understand next steps, and make yourself as available as allowed to answer questions.

Know your committee’s policies and procedures, and follow them, added Dr. Marder. It’s also a good idea to work with your hospital’s quality staff, he said.

Reviewers should keep in mind that they may not always be the one assessing someone else, Dr. Beran said.

“Realize very easily you could be on the other side of that table for things that are outside your control,” he said. “How would you want to be treated?”

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

After making an insulting comment to a surgery scheduler, a surgeon become the subject of a peer review investigation.

The surgeon had been called in on a Saturday morning for surgery, but when he arrived at the hospital, staff informed him that the operating room had been incorrectly booked and asked him to come back that afternoon. When the surgeon returned, the room still wasn’t ready, recounted David Beran, DO, a peer reviewer and medical director for the emergency department at University Medical Center New Orleans, in Louisiana. After more waiting and staff uncertainty about which operating room was going to open, the surgeon became frustrated and said to the scheduler: “Any idiot could figure this out!”

During his peer review, the surgeon acknowledged that he shouldn’t have made the rude remark to the scheduler, Dr. Beran said. His exasperation stemmed from an ongoing problem – operating rooms at the hospital were being inefficiently managed.

“The surgeon acknowledged that even though there was a systems issue at the root, that’s not justification to speak to people unprofessionally,” Dr. Beran said. “So, there was education for the surgeon, but the surgeon was also able to explain the frustration that led to that point.”

System problems are commonly encountered by peer reviewers, said Dr. Beran.

“There’s a huge gap between administration and clinical professionals when it comes to peer review,” he said. “So many times, bad situations, whether they’re clinical or behavioral, often boil down to systems issues or some inadequacy, whether it’s an EMR [electronic medical record] problem, an inefficacy, or how complicated a process is for an end user. But having a peer review situation that then leads to a system-level change that prevents that problem from happening again is really unlikely. There’s a huge disconnect between those two.”

Peer review is generally a process that goes on behind closed doors. Although structures may differ, peer review is generally described as the process by which physicians assess the quality of their peers’ work to ensure that standards of care are being met. The process is often used to evaluate issues regarding clinical care as well as behavioral complaints against physicians.

Doctors who undergo peer review frequently share their experiences, but reviewers themselves rarely speak out. For this story, this news organization spoke with several current and former peer reviewers about what really goes on during peer reviews, what frustrates them, and what they’ve learned along the way.

“Peer review processes are in place to build stronger institutions and stronger practices, and they’re supposed to be helpful,” Dr. Beran said. “But because of how opaque they are, it immediately puts physicians on the defensive, and it doesn’t always succeed in what it’s trying to do. I think that’s one of the biggest challenges.”
 

Biased reviewers taint evaluations

A peer reviewer on and off throughout her career, Indiana family physician Lana Patch, MD, said she always strived to be fair when evaluating fellow physicians. But not every reviewer she encountered operated the same way, she said. Some were biased.

In one case, Dr. Patch peer reviewed a general surgeon who had performed a hysterectomy on a 16-year-old girl. The surgeon believed the teenager likely had an acute appendicitis, but it turned out she had a uterine pathology, Dr. Patch said. The surgeon saved the girl’s life, but the case came under review because of the patient’s age and the fact that her uterus was removed. A local obstetrician-gynecologist weighed in on the case.

“The local ob.gyn. saw it as a turf battle,” recalled Dr. Patch, who is now retired after 30 years of practice in eastern Indiana. “The doctor had nothing but bad to say about the surgeon. He was a competitor.”

Because it was a small hospital, the committee sometimes had trouble finding a specialist who was qualified to give an opinion and who wasn’t in competition with the physician in question, said Dr. Patch. Eventually they found an outside pediatric gynecologist who reviewed the case and concluded that the surgeon had followed the standard of care.

Personal agendas in can come from different directions, said Robert Marder, MD, the author of several books on peer review. Dr. Marder is a consultant who assists with peer review redesign. He has worked with hundreds of medical staff leaders and is a former vice president at the Greeley Company, a consulting firm in Danvers, Mass., that performs peer review redesign. Dr. Marder is president of Robert J. Marder Consulting.

“It goes both ways,” Dr. Marder said. “I’ve seen where somebody with a personal view decides to bring things to the peer review committee specifically because they want the peer review committee to have an adverse view of this person and get them off the medical staff. And I’ve seen hospitals that are uncomfortable with a certain person for whatever reason and want the peer review committee to address it, as opposed to addressing it from a human resource standpoint.”

Dr. Patch recalled a case in which reviewers and hospital leaders were at odds over the credentialing of a physician. Fifteen years earlier, while driving in California, the psychiatrist had been pulled over and was found with an ounce of marijuana, she said.

“We wanted to privilege him,” Dr. Patch said. “As staff physicians, we felt that was 15 years ago, people change over time. Doctors are human beings, too. He seemed to have good credentials and good training. The hospital said, ‘Oh no, we can’t have somebody like this.’ “

The psychiatrist was placed on probation and had to undergo a review every 90 days for about 3 years. Eventually, he was privileged, Dr. Patch said.

Bias among reviewers, including unintentional bias, is also a challenge, Dr. Marder noted. Some initial reviewers score a physician too harshly, he said, whereas others underscore.

“Underscoring is more insidious and more difficult to deal with,” Dr. Marder said. “Underscoring is where the reviewer is too nice. They tend to dismiss things from their colleagues rather than recognize them as an opportunity to help them improve. With underscoring, a lot of committees, if the initial reviewer says the care was appropriate, they don’t even look at the case. They just take that one person’s word for it.”
 

Reviewers: Looks can be deceiving

When first examining the documented details of a case, it can be easy for peer reviewers to make a quick judgment about what happened, Dr. Beran said.

“You get these complaints, and you read through it, and you think, ‘Oh man, this person really messed up,’ “ he said. “Then you hear the doctor’s side of it, and you realize, ‘No, there’s a much bigger picture at play.’ You realize both sides have valid perspectives on it.”

In one case, for example, Dr. Beran recalled a complaint against a physician who made a snarky remark to a nurse. The doctor had asked the nurse for a piece of equipment, and the nurse said she was busy preparing the room for a patient. The doctor made a comment along the lines of, “Well, would you like me to do that for you and also intubate the patient while you do some charting?!”

At first glance, it appeared that the physician lashed out inappropriately at the nurse. But when reviewers heard from the doctor, they learned that the nurses knew that a trauma patient was coming by ambulance and that he would likely require a ventilator, Dr. Beran said. As the minutes ticked by, however, the nurses were seen in the break room chatting. Nothing had been prepared in the room, including any airway supply.

“The patient had a prolonged course and a very difficult intubation and could have very easily wound up with a much worse outcome for something the nurses had been warned about prior to the patient’s arrival,” he said. “I can see anybody getting upset in that situation if I warned them 5 or 10 minutes beforehand, ‘Get this stuff ready,’ and then nothing was done.”

There was no direct penalty for the physician.

Just as some complaints can be misleading, the clinical record in some peer review cases can also lead reviewers astray.

Physicians frequently include too much irrelevant information in the record, which can cloud a peer review, said Hans Duvefelt, MD, a family physician at Pines Health Services, in Van Buren, Maine. Dr. Duvefelt is a former medical director at Bucksport Regional Health Center, in Ellsworth, Maine. Both facilities are federally qualified health centers where continuous, random peer reviews are required.

In one case, Dr. Duvefelt was peer reviewing a physician’s office note regarding an elderly patient with a low-grade fever. The final diagnosis was urinary tract infection. Dr. Duvefelt said he had trouble following the doctor’s line of thinking because of a plethora of unnecessary data in the 10-page document. The office note included past medical history, prior lab and imaging test results, and an extensive narrative section that included a mixture of active medical problems and ongoing relationships with specialists, he said.

After reading through the printout three times, Dr. Duvefelt said he finally found mention of increased urinary dribbling and details about an enlarged prostate. He also spotted a same-day urinalysis among nearly a dozen other previous lab tests that had no connection to body temperature. Dr. Duvefelt gave the physician a passing grade but also left a scathing note about all the irrelevant information.

“It’s very common,” Dr. Duvefelt said. “It’s a disaster. Other doctors can’t follow your thinking. A reviewer has a hard time determining whether the doctor acted reasonably.”
 

Slackers make bad reviewers

Although dedicated reviewers work hard to get to the bottom of cases, it’s not uncommon for some committee members to hardly work at all, according to experts.

Dr. Marder said he’s seen many instances in which reviewers were assigned a review but did not complete it for months. Most committees have set time frames in which reviewers must complete their review.

“That delays that review, and by that time, the review is older and it’s harder to remember things,” he said. “It’s not fair to the physician. If there was a problem the physician could fix and you don’t tell him for 3 or 4 months what it is, he may do the same thing again. The case might come before the committee again and it looks like he’s repeated something, but you never gave him the opportunity to improve.”

Other reviewers fail to attend meetings regularly. Peer review committee members are generally volunteers, and meetings are usually held in the early mornings or late evenings.

“There are reasons for not attending occasionally, but some people put on a committee just don’t take it seriously,” Dr. Marder said. “They don’t fulfill their responsibilities as well as they should. If you accept the job, do the job.”

For physicians considering becoming a peer reviewer, Dr. Beran offers these tips: Be transparent, help physicians understand next steps, and make yourself as available as allowed to answer questions.

Know your committee’s policies and procedures, and follow them, added Dr. Marder. It’s also a good idea to work with your hospital’s quality staff, he said.

Reviewers should keep in mind that they may not always be the one assessing someone else, Dr. Beran said.

“Realize very easily you could be on the other side of that table for things that are outside your control,” he said. “How would you want to be treated?”

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

After making an insulting comment to a surgery scheduler, a surgeon become the subject of a peer review investigation.

The surgeon had been called in on a Saturday morning for surgery, but when he arrived at the hospital, staff informed him that the operating room had been incorrectly booked and asked him to come back that afternoon. When the surgeon returned, the room still wasn’t ready, recounted David Beran, DO, a peer reviewer and medical director for the emergency department at University Medical Center New Orleans, in Louisiana. After more waiting and staff uncertainty about which operating room was going to open, the surgeon became frustrated and said to the scheduler: “Any idiot could figure this out!”

During his peer review, the surgeon acknowledged that he shouldn’t have made the rude remark to the scheduler, Dr. Beran said. His exasperation stemmed from an ongoing problem – operating rooms at the hospital were being inefficiently managed.

“The surgeon acknowledged that even though there was a systems issue at the root, that’s not justification to speak to people unprofessionally,” Dr. Beran said. “So, there was education for the surgeon, but the surgeon was also able to explain the frustration that led to that point.”

System problems are commonly encountered by peer reviewers, said Dr. Beran.

“There’s a huge gap between administration and clinical professionals when it comes to peer review,” he said. “So many times, bad situations, whether they’re clinical or behavioral, often boil down to systems issues or some inadequacy, whether it’s an EMR [electronic medical record] problem, an inefficacy, or how complicated a process is for an end user. But having a peer review situation that then leads to a system-level change that prevents that problem from happening again is really unlikely. There’s a huge disconnect between those two.”

Peer review is generally a process that goes on behind closed doors. Although structures may differ, peer review is generally described as the process by which physicians assess the quality of their peers’ work to ensure that standards of care are being met. The process is often used to evaluate issues regarding clinical care as well as behavioral complaints against physicians.

Doctors who undergo peer review frequently share their experiences, but reviewers themselves rarely speak out. For this story, this news organization spoke with several current and former peer reviewers about what really goes on during peer reviews, what frustrates them, and what they’ve learned along the way.

“Peer review processes are in place to build stronger institutions and stronger practices, and they’re supposed to be helpful,” Dr. Beran said. “But because of how opaque they are, it immediately puts physicians on the defensive, and it doesn’t always succeed in what it’s trying to do. I think that’s one of the biggest challenges.”
 

Biased reviewers taint evaluations

A peer reviewer on and off throughout her career, Indiana family physician Lana Patch, MD, said she always strived to be fair when evaluating fellow physicians. But not every reviewer she encountered operated the same way, she said. Some were biased.

In one case, Dr. Patch peer reviewed a general surgeon who had performed a hysterectomy on a 16-year-old girl. The surgeon believed the teenager likely had an acute appendicitis, but it turned out she had a uterine pathology, Dr. Patch said. The surgeon saved the girl’s life, but the case came under review because of the patient’s age and the fact that her uterus was removed. A local obstetrician-gynecologist weighed in on the case.

“The local ob.gyn. saw it as a turf battle,” recalled Dr. Patch, who is now retired after 30 years of practice in eastern Indiana. “The doctor had nothing but bad to say about the surgeon. He was a competitor.”

Because it was a small hospital, the committee sometimes had trouble finding a specialist who was qualified to give an opinion and who wasn’t in competition with the physician in question, said Dr. Patch. Eventually they found an outside pediatric gynecologist who reviewed the case and concluded that the surgeon had followed the standard of care.

Personal agendas in can come from different directions, said Robert Marder, MD, the author of several books on peer review. Dr. Marder is a consultant who assists with peer review redesign. He has worked with hundreds of medical staff leaders and is a former vice president at the Greeley Company, a consulting firm in Danvers, Mass., that performs peer review redesign. Dr. Marder is president of Robert J. Marder Consulting.

“It goes both ways,” Dr. Marder said. “I’ve seen where somebody with a personal view decides to bring things to the peer review committee specifically because they want the peer review committee to have an adverse view of this person and get them off the medical staff. And I’ve seen hospitals that are uncomfortable with a certain person for whatever reason and want the peer review committee to address it, as opposed to addressing it from a human resource standpoint.”

Dr. Patch recalled a case in which reviewers and hospital leaders were at odds over the credentialing of a physician. Fifteen years earlier, while driving in California, the psychiatrist had been pulled over and was found with an ounce of marijuana, she said.

“We wanted to privilege him,” Dr. Patch said. “As staff physicians, we felt that was 15 years ago, people change over time. Doctors are human beings, too. He seemed to have good credentials and good training. The hospital said, ‘Oh no, we can’t have somebody like this.’ “

The psychiatrist was placed on probation and had to undergo a review every 90 days for about 3 years. Eventually, he was privileged, Dr. Patch said.

Bias among reviewers, including unintentional bias, is also a challenge, Dr. Marder noted. Some initial reviewers score a physician too harshly, he said, whereas others underscore.

“Underscoring is more insidious and more difficult to deal with,” Dr. Marder said. “Underscoring is where the reviewer is too nice. They tend to dismiss things from their colleagues rather than recognize them as an opportunity to help them improve. With underscoring, a lot of committees, if the initial reviewer says the care was appropriate, they don’t even look at the case. They just take that one person’s word for it.”
 

Reviewers: Looks can be deceiving

When first examining the documented details of a case, it can be easy for peer reviewers to make a quick judgment about what happened, Dr. Beran said.

“You get these complaints, and you read through it, and you think, ‘Oh man, this person really messed up,’ “ he said. “Then you hear the doctor’s side of it, and you realize, ‘No, there’s a much bigger picture at play.’ You realize both sides have valid perspectives on it.”

In one case, for example, Dr. Beran recalled a complaint against a physician who made a snarky remark to a nurse. The doctor had asked the nurse for a piece of equipment, and the nurse said she was busy preparing the room for a patient. The doctor made a comment along the lines of, “Well, would you like me to do that for you and also intubate the patient while you do some charting?!”

At first glance, it appeared that the physician lashed out inappropriately at the nurse. But when reviewers heard from the doctor, they learned that the nurses knew that a trauma patient was coming by ambulance and that he would likely require a ventilator, Dr. Beran said. As the minutes ticked by, however, the nurses were seen in the break room chatting. Nothing had been prepared in the room, including any airway supply.

“The patient had a prolonged course and a very difficult intubation and could have very easily wound up with a much worse outcome for something the nurses had been warned about prior to the patient’s arrival,” he said. “I can see anybody getting upset in that situation if I warned them 5 or 10 minutes beforehand, ‘Get this stuff ready,’ and then nothing was done.”

There was no direct penalty for the physician.

Just as some complaints can be misleading, the clinical record in some peer review cases can also lead reviewers astray.

Physicians frequently include too much irrelevant information in the record, which can cloud a peer review, said Hans Duvefelt, MD, a family physician at Pines Health Services, in Van Buren, Maine. Dr. Duvefelt is a former medical director at Bucksport Regional Health Center, in Ellsworth, Maine. Both facilities are federally qualified health centers where continuous, random peer reviews are required.

In one case, Dr. Duvefelt was peer reviewing a physician’s office note regarding an elderly patient with a low-grade fever. The final diagnosis was urinary tract infection. Dr. Duvefelt said he had trouble following the doctor’s line of thinking because of a plethora of unnecessary data in the 10-page document. The office note included past medical history, prior lab and imaging test results, and an extensive narrative section that included a mixture of active medical problems and ongoing relationships with specialists, he said.

After reading through the printout three times, Dr. Duvefelt said he finally found mention of increased urinary dribbling and details about an enlarged prostate. He also spotted a same-day urinalysis among nearly a dozen other previous lab tests that had no connection to body temperature. Dr. Duvefelt gave the physician a passing grade but also left a scathing note about all the irrelevant information.

“It’s very common,” Dr. Duvefelt said. “It’s a disaster. Other doctors can’t follow your thinking. A reviewer has a hard time determining whether the doctor acted reasonably.”
 

Slackers make bad reviewers

Although dedicated reviewers work hard to get to the bottom of cases, it’s not uncommon for some committee members to hardly work at all, according to experts.

Dr. Marder said he’s seen many instances in which reviewers were assigned a review but did not complete it for months. Most committees have set time frames in which reviewers must complete their review.

“That delays that review, and by that time, the review is older and it’s harder to remember things,” he said. “It’s not fair to the physician. If there was a problem the physician could fix and you don’t tell him for 3 or 4 months what it is, he may do the same thing again. The case might come before the committee again and it looks like he’s repeated something, but you never gave him the opportunity to improve.”

Other reviewers fail to attend meetings regularly. Peer review committee members are generally volunteers, and meetings are usually held in the early mornings or late evenings.

“There are reasons for not attending occasionally, but some people put on a committee just don’t take it seriously,” Dr. Marder said. “They don’t fulfill their responsibilities as well as they should. If you accept the job, do the job.”

For physicians considering becoming a peer reviewer, Dr. Beran offers these tips: Be transparent, help physicians understand next steps, and make yourself as available as allowed to answer questions.

Know your committee’s policies and procedures, and follow them, added Dr. Marder. It’s also a good idea to work with your hospital’s quality staff, he said.

Reviewers should keep in mind that they may not always be the one assessing someone else, Dr. Beran said.

“Realize very easily you could be on the other side of that table for things that are outside your control,” he said. “How would you want to be treated?”

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

Not so long ago, Heather Simpson of Dallas was known as the anti-vaccine mom who dressed as “the measles” for Halloween. She painted red spots on her face and posted her photo on Facebook, joking: “Was trying to think of the least scary thing I could be for Halloween … so I became the measles.” It went viral with the anti-vaccine crowd.

But between that Halloween and today, a series of “aha” moments transformed Ms. Simpson’s attitudes toward vaccines.

In January 2021, one of those moments involved her daughter, now 4, who was scratched by a feral cat, raising concerns about tetanus. Her daughter had been bitten by a dog when she was just 1, and Ms. Simpson turned down advice then to get a tetanus shot. “I was convinced the tetanus shot would kill her faster than the tetanus.”

After the cat incident, the anxiety was so exhausting, she listened to the nurse practitioner at the clinic, whom she trusted. The nurse gently reassured Ms. Simpson that the shot was less risky than the possibility of tetanus – but did not bombard her with statistics – and that won over Ms. Simpson and triggered an overall rethinking of her vaccine stance.

Fast-forward to February, and that “aha” turned into action when Ms. Simpson launched a “Back to the Vax” effort with a fellow former vaccine opponent. Through their website, Facebook page, and podcasts, they now encourage people to get the COVID-19 vaccine, as well as other immunizations.
 

Challenge: Reaching the rest

With just over 52% of those eligible in the United States fully vaccinated as of Sept. 1, health care providers and others have a continuing challenge ahead: Trying to convince those who are eligible but still holding out to get vaccinated.

Recent data and a poll show some movement in the right direction, as immunizations are increasing and hesitancy is declining among certain groups. According to federal officials, about 14 million people in the United States got their first dose in August, an increase of 4 million, compared to the numbers who got it in July.

And a new poll from the Axios-IPSOS Coronavirus Index found only one in five Americans, or 20%, say they are not likely to get the vaccine, while “hard opposition,” those not at all likely, has dropped to 14% of those adults.

But there is still a lot of work to do. So, how do medical professionals or concerned citizens reach those who haven’t gotten vaccinated yet, whatever their reason?

Many experts in communication and persuasion that this news organization talked to agree that throwing statistics at people hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine is generally useless and often backfires.

So what does work, according to these experts?

• Emphasizing the trends of more people getting vaccinated.
• Focusing on everyone’s freedom of choice.
• Listening to concerns without judgment.
• Offering credible information.
• Correcting myths when necessary.
• Helping them fit vaccination into their “world view.”

Stories over statistics

Talking about the trends of vaccinations can definitely change minds about getting vaccinated, said Robert Cialdini, PhD, regents professor emeritus of psychology and marketing at Arizona State University, Tempe, and author of the recently updated book, “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion,” which has sold over 5 million copies since it was first published in 1984.

Face-to-face with a hesitant patient, a doctor can say: “More and more people are being vaccinated every day,” Dr. Cialdini says. “The reason you say more and more is [that] it conveys a trend. When people see a trend, they project it into the future that it is going to get even larger.”

A focus on choice can also help people change their minds and accept the vaccine, he says. “A lot of conspiracy theorists claim they don’t want to do it because they are being pushed or forced by the government, and they are resisting that.”

If that’s the case, presenting people with new information, such as the increased infectiousness of the Delta variant, and suggesting that a decision be made based on the new information, can work, Dr. Cialdini says, but be sure to end with: “It’s completely up to you.”

“This removes all their sense of being pushed. It says, ‘Here is all the evidence.’ ” At this point, a doctor’s personal recommendation with a patient who trusts him or her may sway them, Dr. Cialdini said. “I think you have to personalize the communication in both directions. That is, to say, ‘For someone in your situation, I would personally recommend that you get the vaccine.’ ” A health care professional’s authority and expertise can carry the day, he says, although “not always.”

This approach worked, Dr. Cialdini says, with a friend of the family hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine. “I told him: ‘We have gotten it. You trust us, right?’ ” He waited for the person to say yes.

Then: “For someone in your position, my personal recommendation is to get vaccinated. There is new information about the vaccine, and more and more people are getting vaccinated. And of course, it is completely up to you.”

The person decided to get the vaccine.
 

‘Live in that space’

“People develop negative attitudes [about vaccines] by accessing alternative sources of information, anecdotes, and personal stories,” said Matthew Seeger, PhD, dean of the College of Fine, Performing, and Communication Arts and codirector of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at Wayne State University in Detroit.

“If we are going to change their opinion, we need to live in that space.” That means listening first, he says. Ask: “Where did you get that information? How credible do you think the sources are? What do you mean about the vaccine changing DNA?”

Then, you might respond, he said, by addressing that specific information, such as, “We have no cases of DNA being changed.”

Dr. Seeger recalls that his mother would simply talk louder when she couldn’t understand someone who wasn’t a native English speaker. “That’s what we are trying to do with the vaccine-hesitant,” he says. “In some cases, we are yelling at them.” Instead, he says, probe their sources of information.

For some who are vaccine-hesitant, Dr. Seeger said, it is not just about the vaccine. The attitude about vaccines is tied in, often, with a distrust of government and feelings about personal freedom. “That’s one reason it’s so hard to change the attitude.” For some, getting the vaccine in a family against the vaccine might also disrupt their social structure or even get them ostracized.

For these people, a health care provider might give opportunities to get the vaccine without affecting either what they see as their political stance or upsetting family harmony. “There are places you can go, make an appointment, get a vaccine, and nobody knows,” Dr. Seeger said.

One Missouri doctor told CNN that some people calling for a vaccine appointment do request privacy, such as going through a drive-thru or having the shot as they sit in their cars. She said the hospital tries to accommodate them, reasoning that every additional vaccine shot is a win.

Dr. Seeger agrees. “Of course there are still public records,” he says, “but you can still claim you are a vaccine denier. It’s very difficult to persuade people to give up their whole world. Vaccine denial is part of that world. At this point, we need to do whatever we can to get people vaccinated.”
 

From peer to peer

A theme that runs through many of these persuasion techniques is peer pressure.

One example, while a bit more profane and confrontational than some groups, is COVIDAteMyFace, a subgroup, or “subreddit,” of the popular online site Reddit, which hosts numerous forums inviting users to share news and comments on a variety of topics. The subreddit has over 20,000 members. Its purpose, says the sub’s creator, “was to document the folks who denied COVID, then got bitten in the ass by it.” Reports are of actual cases.

“It’s interesting and powerful that Reddit users are taking this on,” Dr. Seeger said. And this kind of peer pressure, or peer-to-peer information, can be persuasive, he says. “We often seek consensual validation from peers about risk messages and risk behaviors.”

For instance, hurricane evacuation notices are more effective, he said, when people learn their neighbors are leaving.

Peer information – “the number of others who are doing or believing or responding to something – definitely persuades people,” agreed Dr. Cialdini. “When a lot of others are responding in a particular way – for example, getting vaccinated – people follow for three reasons: The action seems more appropriate or correct, it appears more feasible to perform, and it avoids social disapproval from those others.”
 

Let them talk, give them time

Gladys Jimenez is a contact tracer and “vaccine ambassador” for Tracing Health, a partnership between the Oregon Public Health Institute and the Public Health Institute that has nearly 300 bilingual contract tracers who serve the ethnic communities they’re from. During a typical week, she talks to 50 people or more, and promoting the vaccine is top of mind.

The conversations, Ms. Jimenez said, are like a dance. She presents information, then steps back and lets them talk. “I want to hear the person talk, where they are coming from, where they are at.” Depending on what they say, she gives them more information or corrects their misinformation. “They often will say, ‘Oh, I didn’t know that.’ ”

It’s rarely one conversation that convinces hesitant people, she said. “I’m planting this seed in their brain. ... people want someone to listen to them ... they want to vent.”

Once you let them do that, Ms. Jimenez said, “I can tell the person is in a different state of mind.” She also knows that people “will make the decision in their own time.”

With time, people can change their minds, as a Southern California woman who resisted at first (and asked to remain anonymous) can attest. “When the vaccine first came out, I remember thinking [that] it was a quick fix to a very big problem,” she said. The lack of full FDA approval, which has since been granted, was also an issue. She doesn’t oppose vaccines, she said, but was leery just of the COVID-19 vaccine.

When her longtime partner got his vaccine, he urged her to go right away for hers. She stalled. He got his second dose and grew impatient with her hesitancy. It began to wear on the relationship. Finally, the woman talked to two health care professionals she knew socially. They both follow the science, and “they both could explain vaccination to me in a way that resonated. The information was coming from sources I already trusted.”

Those conversations are what convinced her to get vaccinated this summer.
 

Simpson’s transformation

Ms. Simpson of Back to the Vax got her first COVID-19 immunization April 16. She had an allergic reaction, including severe itchiness and a bad headache, and needed emergency care, she said. Even so, she scheduled her second shot appointment.

Like many who turned against vaccines as adults, Ms. Simpson had all her childhood vaccines, but she developed a distrust after watching a lengthy documentary series that warned of vaccine dangers as an adult.

Looking back at that documentary, she thought about how it seems to blame everything – childhood cancer, ADHD, autism, allergies – on vaccinations. That suddenly seemed like sketchy science to her.

So did the claim from a family friend who said she knew someone who got the flu shot and began walking backward. She researched on her own, and with time, she decided to be pro-vaccines.

These days, she continues to find that stories, not statistics, are changing the minds of many who decide to get vaccinated. If the nurse practitioner urging the tetanus shot for her daughter had told her that the tetanus shot is linked with problems in one of a specific number of people who get it, no matter how large that second number was, Ms. Simpson said she would have thought: “What if she is that one?”

So she relies on stories that point out how universally vulnerable people are to COVID-19 first, facts next.

“Facts help once you are already moved,” Ms. Simpson said.

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

Not so long ago, Heather Simpson of Dallas was known as the anti-vaccine mom who dressed as “the measles” for Halloween. She painted red spots on her face and posted her photo on Facebook, joking: “Was trying to think of the least scary thing I could be for Halloween … so I became the measles.” It went viral with the anti-vaccine crowd.

But between that Halloween and today, a series of “aha” moments transformed Ms. Simpson’s attitudes toward vaccines.

In January 2021, one of those moments involved her daughter, now 4, who was scratched by a feral cat, raising concerns about tetanus. Her daughter had been bitten by a dog when she was just 1, and Ms. Simpson turned down advice then to get a tetanus shot. “I was convinced the tetanus shot would kill her faster than the tetanus.”

After the cat incident, the anxiety was so exhausting, she listened to the nurse practitioner at the clinic, whom she trusted. The nurse gently reassured Ms. Simpson that the shot was less risky than the possibility of tetanus – but did not bombard her with statistics – and that won over Ms. Simpson and triggered an overall rethinking of her vaccine stance.

Fast-forward to February, and that “aha” turned into action when Ms. Simpson launched a “Back to the Vax” effort with a fellow former vaccine opponent. Through their website, Facebook page, and podcasts, they now encourage people to get the COVID-19 vaccine, as well as other immunizations.
 

Challenge: Reaching the rest

With just over 52% of those eligible in the United States fully vaccinated as of Sept. 1, health care providers and others have a continuing challenge ahead: Trying to convince those who are eligible but still holding out to get vaccinated.

Recent data and a poll show some movement in the right direction, as immunizations are increasing and hesitancy is declining among certain groups. According to federal officials, about 14 million people in the United States got their first dose in August, an increase of 4 million, compared to the numbers who got it in July.

And a new poll from the Axios-IPSOS Coronavirus Index found only one in five Americans, or 20%, say they are not likely to get the vaccine, while “hard opposition,” those not at all likely, has dropped to 14% of those adults.

But there is still a lot of work to do. So, how do medical professionals or concerned citizens reach those who haven’t gotten vaccinated yet, whatever their reason?

Many experts in communication and persuasion that this news organization talked to agree that throwing statistics at people hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine is generally useless and often backfires.

So what does work, according to these experts?

• Emphasizing the trends of more people getting vaccinated.
• Focusing on everyone’s freedom of choice.
• Listening to concerns without judgment.
• Offering credible information.
• Correcting myths when necessary.
• Helping them fit vaccination into their “world view.”

Stories over statistics

Talking about the trends of vaccinations can definitely change minds about getting vaccinated, said Robert Cialdini, PhD, regents professor emeritus of psychology and marketing at Arizona State University, Tempe, and author of the recently updated book, “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion,” which has sold over 5 million copies since it was first published in 1984.

Face-to-face with a hesitant patient, a doctor can say: “More and more people are being vaccinated every day,” Dr. Cialdini says. “The reason you say more and more is [that] it conveys a trend. When people see a trend, they project it into the future that it is going to get even larger.”

A focus on choice can also help people change their minds and accept the vaccine, he says. “A lot of conspiracy theorists claim they don’t want to do it because they are being pushed or forced by the government, and they are resisting that.”

If that’s the case, presenting people with new information, such as the increased infectiousness of the Delta variant, and suggesting that a decision be made based on the new information, can work, Dr. Cialdini says, but be sure to end with: “It’s completely up to you.”

“This removes all their sense of being pushed. It says, ‘Here is all the evidence.’ ” At this point, a doctor’s personal recommendation with a patient who trusts him or her may sway them, Dr. Cialdini said. “I think you have to personalize the communication in both directions. That is, to say, ‘For someone in your situation, I would personally recommend that you get the vaccine.’ ” A health care professional’s authority and expertise can carry the day, he says, although “not always.”

This approach worked, Dr. Cialdini says, with a friend of the family hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine. “I told him: ‘We have gotten it. You trust us, right?’ ” He waited for the person to say yes.

Then: “For someone in your position, my personal recommendation is to get vaccinated. There is new information about the vaccine, and more and more people are getting vaccinated. And of course, it is completely up to you.”

The person decided to get the vaccine.
 

‘Live in that space’

“People develop negative attitudes [about vaccines] by accessing alternative sources of information, anecdotes, and personal stories,” said Matthew Seeger, PhD, dean of the College of Fine, Performing, and Communication Arts and codirector of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at Wayne State University in Detroit.

“If we are going to change their opinion, we need to live in that space.” That means listening first, he says. Ask: “Where did you get that information? How credible do you think the sources are? What do you mean about the vaccine changing DNA?”

Then, you might respond, he said, by addressing that specific information, such as, “We have no cases of DNA being changed.”

Dr. Seeger recalls that his mother would simply talk louder when she couldn’t understand someone who wasn’t a native English speaker. “That’s what we are trying to do with the vaccine-hesitant,” he says. “In some cases, we are yelling at them.” Instead, he says, probe their sources of information.

For some who are vaccine-hesitant, Dr. Seeger said, it is not just about the vaccine. The attitude about vaccines is tied in, often, with a distrust of government and feelings about personal freedom. “That’s one reason it’s so hard to change the attitude.” For some, getting the vaccine in a family against the vaccine might also disrupt their social structure or even get them ostracized.

For these people, a health care provider might give opportunities to get the vaccine without affecting either what they see as their political stance or upsetting family harmony. “There are places you can go, make an appointment, get a vaccine, and nobody knows,” Dr. Seeger said.

One Missouri doctor told CNN that some people calling for a vaccine appointment do request privacy, such as going through a drive-thru or having the shot as they sit in their cars. She said the hospital tries to accommodate them, reasoning that every additional vaccine shot is a win.

Dr. Seeger agrees. “Of course there are still public records,” he says, “but you can still claim you are a vaccine denier. It’s very difficult to persuade people to give up their whole world. Vaccine denial is part of that world. At this point, we need to do whatever we can to get people vaccinated.”
 

From peer to peer

A theme that runs through many of these persuasion techniques is peer pressure.

One example, while a bit more profane and confrontational than some groups, is COVIDAteMyFace, a subgroup, or “subreddit,” of the popular online site Reddit, which hosts numerous forums inviting users to share news and comments on a variety of topics. The subreddit has over 20,000 members. Its purpose, says the sub’s creator, “was to document the folks who denied COVID, then got bitten in the ass by it.” Reports are of actual cases.

“It’s interesting and powerful that Reddit users are taking this on,” Dr. Seeger said. And this kind of peer pressure, or peer-to-peer information, can be persuasive, he says. “We often seek consensual validation from peers about risk messages and risk behaviors.”

For instance, hurricane evacuation notices are more effective, he said, when people learn their neighbors are leaving.

Peer information – “the number of others who are doing or believing or responding to something – definitely persuades people,” agreed Dr. Cialdini. “When a lot of others are responding in a particular way – for example, getting vaccinated – people follow for three reasons: The action seems more appropriate or correct, it appears more feasible to perform, and it avoids social disapproval from those others.”
 

Let them talk, give them time

Gladys Jimenez is a contact tracer and “vaccine ambassador” for Tracing Health, a partnership between the Oregon Public Health Institute and the Public Health Institute that has nearly 300 bilingual contract tracers who serve the ethnic communities they’re from. During a typical week, she talks to 50 people or more, and promoting the vaccine is top of mind.

The conversations, Ms. Jimenez said, are like a dance. She presents information, then steps back and lets them talk. “I want to hear the person talk, where they are coming from, where they are at.” Depending on what they say, she gives them more information or corrects their misinformation. “They often will say, ‘Oh, I didn’t know that.’ ”

It’s rarely one conversation that convinces hesitant people, she said. “I’m planting this seed in their brain. ... people want someone to listen to them ... they want to vent.”

Once you let them do that, Ms. Jimenez said, “I can tell the person is in a different state of mind.” She also knows that people “will make the decision in their own time.”

With time, people can change their minds, as a Southern California woman who resisted at first (and asked to remain anonymous) can attest. “When the vaccine first came out, I remember thinking [that] it was a quick fix to a very big problem,” she said. The lack of full FDA approval, which has since been granted, was also an issue. She doesn’t oppose vaccines, she said, but was leery just of the COVID-19 vaccine.

When her longtime partner got his vaccine, he urged her to go right away for hers. She stalled. He got his second dose and grew impatient with her hesitancy. It began to wear on the relationship. Finally, the woman talked to two health care professionals she knew socially. They both follow the science, and “they both could explain vaccination to me in a way that resonated. The information was coming from sources I already trusted.”

Those conversations are what convinced her to get vaccinated this summer.
 

Simpson’s transformation

Ms. Simpson of Back to the Vax got her first COVID-19 immunization April 16. She had an allergic reaction, including severe itchiness and a bad headache, and needed emergency care, she said. Even so, she scheduled her second shot appointment.

Like many who turned against vaccines as adults, Ms. Simpson had all her childhood vaccines, but she developed a distrust after watching a lengthy documentary series that warned of vaccine dangers as an adult.

Looking back at that documentary, she thought about how it seems to blame everything – childhood cancer, ADHD, autism, allergies – on vaccinations. That suddenly seemed like sketchy science to her.

So did the claim from a family friend who said she knew someone who got the flu shot and began walking backward. She researched on her own, and with time, she decided to be pro-vaccines.

These days, she continues to find that stories, not statistics, are changing the minds of many who decide to get vaccinated. If the nurse practitioner urging the tetanus shot for her daughter had told her that the tetanus shot is linked with problems in one of a specific number of people who get it, no matter how large that second number was, Ms. Simpson said she would have thought: “What if she is that one?”

So she relies on stories that point out how universally vulnerable people are to COVID-19 first, facts next.

“Facts help once you are already moved,” Ms. Simpson said.

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

Not so long ago, Heather Simpson of Dallas was known as the anti-vaccine mom who dressed as “the measles” for Halloween. She painted red spots on her face and posted her photo on Facebook, joking: “Was trying to think of the least scary thing I could be for Halloween … so I became the measles.” It went viral with the anti-vaccine crowd.

But between that Halloween and today, a series of “aha” moments transformed Ms. Simpson’s attitudes toward vaccines.

In January 2021, one of those moments involved her daughter, now 4, who was scratched by a feral cat, raising concerns about tetanus. Her daughter had been bitten by a dog when she was just 1, and Ms. Simpson turned down advice then to get a tetanus shot. “I was convinced the tetanus shot would kill her faster than the tetanus.”

After the cat incident, the anxiety was so exhausting, she listened to the nurse practitioner at the clinic, whom she trusted. The nurse gently reassured Ms. Simpson that the shot was less risky than the possibility of tetanus – but did not bombard her with statistics – and that won over Ms. Simpson and triggered an overall rethinking of her vaccine stance.

Fast-forward to February, and that “aha” turned into action when Ms. Simpson launched a “Back to the Vax” effort with a fellow former vaccine opponent. Through their website, Facebook page, and podcasts, they now encourage people to get the COVID-19 vaccine, as well as other immunizations.
 

Challenge: Reaching the rest

With just over 52% of those eligible in the United States fully vaccinated as of Sept. 1, health care providers and others have a continuing challenge ahead: Trying to convince those who are eligible but still holding out to get vaccinated.

Recent data and a poll show some movement in the right direction, as immunizations are increasing and hesitancy is declining among certain groups. According to federal officials, about 14 million people in the United States got their first dose in August, an increase of 4 million, compared to the numbers who got it in July.

And a new poll from the Axios-IPSOS Coronavirus Index found only one in five Americans, or 20%, say they are not likely to get the vaccine, while “hard opposition,” those not at all likely, has dropped to 14% of those adults.

But there is still a lot of work to do. So, how do medical professionals or concerned citizens reach those who haven’t gotten vaccinated yet, whatever their reason?

Many experts in communication and persuasion that this news organization talked to agree that throwing statistics at people hesitant to get the COVID-19 vaccine is generally useless and often backfires.

So what does work, according to these experts?

• Emphasizing the trends of more people getting vaccinated.
• Focusing on everyone’s freedom of choice.
• Listening to concerns without judgment.
• Offering credible information.
• Correcting myths when necessary.
• Helping them fit vaccination into their “world view.”

Stories over statistics

Talking about the trends of vaccinations can definitely change minds about getting vaccinated, said Robert Cialdini, PhD, regents professor emeritus of psychology and marketing at Arizona State University, Tempe, and author of the recently updated book, “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion,” which has sold over 5 million copies since it was first published in 1984.

Face-to-face with a hesitant patient, a doctor can say: “More and more people are being vaccinated every day,” Dr. Cialdini says. “The reason you say more and more is [that] it conveys a trend. When people see a trend, they project it into the future that it is going to get even larger.”

A focus on choice can also help people change their minds and accept the vaccine, he says. “A lot of conspiracy theorists claim they don’t want to do it because they are being pushed or forced by the government, and they are resisting that.”

If that’s the case, presenting people with new information, such as the increased infectiousness of the Delta variant, and suggesting that a decision be made based on the new information, can work, Dr. Cialdini says, but be sure to end with: “It’s completely up to you.”

“This removes all their sense of being pushed. It says, ‘Here is all the evidence.’ ” At this point, a doctor’s personal recommendation with a patient who trusts him or her may sway them, Dr. Cialdini said. “I think you have to personalize the communication in both directions. That is, to say, ‘For someone in your situation, I would personally recommend that you get the vaccine.’ ” A health care professional’s authority and expertise can carry the day, he says, although “not always.”

This approach worked, Dr. Cialdini says, with a friend of the family hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine. “I told him: ‘We have gotten it. You trust us, right?’ ” He waited for the person to say yes.

Then: “For someone in your position, my personal recommendation is to get vaccinated. There is new information about the vaccine, and more and more people are getting vaccinated. And of course, it is completely up to you.”

The person decided to get the vaccine.
 

‘Live in that space’

“People develop negative attitudes [about vaccines] by accessing alternative sources of information, anecdotes, and personal stories,” said Matthew Seeger, PhD, dean of the College of Fine, Performing, and Communication Arts and codirector of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at Wayne State University in Detroit.

“If we are going to change their opinion, we need to live in that space.” That means listening first, he says. Ask: “Where did you get that information? How credible do you think the sources are? What do you mean about the vaccine changing DNA?”

Then, you might respond, he said, by addressing that specific information, such as, “We have no cases of DNA being changed.”

Dr. Seeger recalls that his mother would simply talk louder when she couldn’t understand someone who wasn’t a native English speaker. “That’s what we are trying to do with the vaccine-hesitant,” he says. “In some cases, we are yelling at them.” Instead, he says, probe their sources of information.

For some who are vaccine-hesitant, Dr. Seeger said, it is not just about the vaccine. The attitude about vaccines is tied in, often, with a distrust of government and feelings about personal freedom. “That’s one reason it’s so hard to change the attitude.” For some, getting the vaccine in a family against the vaccine might also disrupt their social structure or even get them ostracized.

For these people, a health care provider might give opportunities to get the vaccine without affecting either what they see as their political stance or upsetting family harmony. “There are places you can go, make an appointment, get a vaccine, and nobody knows,” Dr. Seeger said.

One Missouri doctor told CNN that some people calling for a vaccine appointment do request privacy, such as going through a drive-thru or having the shot as they sit in their cars. She said the hospital tries to accommodate them, reasoning that every additional vaccine shot is a win.

Dr. Seeger agrees. “Of course there are still public records,” he says, “but you can still claim you are a vaccine denier. It’s very difficult to persuade people to give up their whole world. Vaccine denial is part of that world. At this point, we need to do whatever we can to get people vaccinated.”
 

From peer to peer

A theme that runs through many of these persuasion techniques is peer pressure.

One example, while a bit more profane and confrontational than some groups, is COVIDAteMyFace, a subgroup, or “subreddit,” of the popular online site Reddit, which hosts numerous forums inviting users to share news and comments on a variety of topics. The subreddit has over 20,000 members. Its purpose, says the sub’s creator, “was to document the folks who denied COVID, then got bitten in the ass by it.” Reports are of actual cases.

“It’s interesting and powerful that Reddit users are taking this on,” Dr. Seeger said. And this kind of peer pressure, or peer-to-peer information, can be persuasive, he says. “We often seek consensual validation from peers about risk messages and risk behaviors.”

For instance, hurricane evacuation notices are more effective, he said, when people learn their neighbors are leaving.

Peer information – “the number of others who are doing or believing or responding to something – definitely persuades people,” agreed Dr. Cialdini. “When a lot of others are responding in a particular way – for example, getting vaccinated – people follow for three reasons: The action seems more appropriate or correct, it appears more feasible to perform, and it avoids social disapproval from those others.”
 

Let them talk, give them time

Gladys Jimenez is a contact tracer and “vaccine ambassador” for Tracing Health, a partnership between the Oregon Public Health Institute and the Public Health Institute that has nearly 300 bilingual contract tracers who serve the ethnic communities they’re from. During a typical week, she talks to 50 people or more, and promoting the vaccine is top of mind.

The conversations, Ms. Jimenez said, are like a dance. She presents information, then steps back and lets them talk. “I want to hear the person talk, where they are coming from, where they are at.” Depending on what they say, she gives them more information or corrects their misinformation. “They often will say, ‘Oh, I didn’t know that.’ ”

It’s rarely one conversation that convinces hesitant people, she said. “I’m planting this seed in their brain. ... people want someone to listen to them ... they want to vent.”

Once you let them do that, Ms. Jimenez said, “I can tell the person is in a different state of mind.” She also knows that people “will make the decision in their own time.”

With time, people can change their minds, as a Southern California woman who resisted at first (and asked to remain anonymous) can attest. “When the vaccine first came out, I remember thinking [that] it was a quick fix to a very big problem,” she said. The lack of full FDA approval, which has since been granted, was also an issue. She doesn’t oppose vaccines, she said, but was leery just of the COVID-19 vaccine.

When her longtime partner got his vaccine, he urged her to go right away for hers. She stalled. He got his second dose and grew impatient with her hesitancy. It began to wear on the relationship. Finally, the woman talked to two health care professionals she knew socially. They both follow the science, and “they both could explain vaccination to me in a way that resonated. The information was coming from sources I already trusted.”

Those conversations are what convinced her to get vaccinated this summer.
 

Simpson’s transformation

Ms. Simpson of Back to the Vax got her first COVID-19 immunization April 16. She had an allergic reaction, including severe itchiness and a bad headache, and needed emergency care, she said. Even so, she scheduled her second shot appointment.

Like many who turned against vaccines as adults, Ms. Simpson had all her childhood vaccines, but she developed a distrust after watching a lengthy documentary series that warned of vaccine dangers as an adult.

Looking back at that documentary, she thought about how it seems to blame everything – childhood cancer, ADHD, autism, allergies – on vaccinations. That suddenly seemed like sketchy science to her.

So did the claim from a family friend who said she knew someone who got the flu shot and began walking backward. She researched on her own, and with time, she decided to be pro-vaccines.

These days, she continues to find that stories, not statistics, are changing the minds of many who decide to get vaccinated. If the nurse practitioner urging the tetanus shot for her daughter had told her that the tetanus shot is linked with problems in one of a specific number of people who get it, no matter how large that second number was, Ms. Simpson said she would have thought: “What if she is that one?”

So she relies on stories that point out how universally vulnerable people are to COVID-19 first, facts next.

“Facts help once you are already moved,” Ms. Simpson said.

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

Compared with placebo, tranexamic acid did not reduce hematoma growth in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), a new study shows.

In the randomized controlled trial, the rate of hematoma expansion was 40.4% among patients who received tranexamic acid and 41.5% among those who received placebo. The degree of disability at 90 days also did not differ between treatment arms.

“Our work has once again shown that tranexamic acid is safe in spontaneous ICH,” said Jingyi Liu, MD, a physician in the neurocritical care unit at Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing. “Larger studies with more specified population are needed to further assess safety and efficacy of tranexamic acid in patients with ICH.”

The findings of the TRAIGE study were presented at the virtual European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2021. They were also published online June 28 in Stroke and Vascular Neurology.
 

Imaging-based patient selection

ICH is often fatal and entails a high risk for disability, the researchers wrote. Approximately 40% of patients with ICH die within a month of onset, and about two-thirds of patients do not achieve long-term functional independence.

Intracerebral hematoma expansion is predictive of poor clinical outcome in ICH. Data indicate that tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic agent, reduces hematoma expansion. But evidence of a clinical benefit of tranexamic acid has been elusive, they noted.

This lack of observed benefit may result from the inappropriate selection of research participants. The emergence of imaging biomarkers may help address this potential problem. In recent years, the blend sign and the black hole sign on noncontrast CT, as well as the spot sign on CT angiography, have been associated with higher risk for hematoma expansion and worse clinical outcome, the researchers wrote.

Between January 2015 and March 2020, the investigators enrolled consecutive patients with acute primary spontaneous ICH into their prospective study. Eligible patients presented at any of 10 stroke centers in China. They had the spot sign, blend sign, or black hole sign at admission and were able to receive treatment within 8 hours of onset.

The investigators randomly assigned patients in equal groups to receive placebo (0.9% NaCl) or tranexamic acid. Patients and study investigators were blinded to treatment assignment. Treatment was administered as an intravenous infusion over 8 hours.

The study’s primary endpoint was intracerebral hematoma expansion by 24 hours after start of treatment. Expansion was defined as an increase of > 6 mL or a growth of > 33% from baseline. Secondary endpoints included poor clinical outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 4-6, and all-cause mortality, both at 90 days.
 

No differences in disability

The investigators enrolled 171 patients in their study; 24-hour CT images were available for 169 of them. Follow-up data at 90 days were available for 164 patients. The mean age of the patients was 55.9 years, and 72.5% of participants were men. At baseline, the mean ICH volume was 23.7 mL, and the median hematoma volume was 19.8 mL.

All patients received treatment within 8 hours. Hematoma expansion occurred in 40.9% of patients overall; 34.9% had a poor clinical outcome.

The investigators found no significant difference between treatment arms in the rate of hematoma expansion. This outcome occurred in 40.4% of the tranexamic acid group and 41.5% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.96; P = .89).

In addition, the researchers found no significant difference in the distribution of mRS scores at day 90 (P = .70). The rate of all-cause mortality at 90 days was lower in the tranexamic acid group (8.1%) than in the control group (10.0%), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .71).
 

Potential clotting risk

One reason for the lack of observed benefit with tranexamic acid may be an inappropriate sample size, said Dr. Liu. Patient recruitment was difficult, especially in centers that used the spot sign as an inclusion criterion.

“We think a positive result could be seen in a substantially larger sample size,” said Dr. Liu. “Furthermore, we infer from our subgroup analysis that a more specified patient selection and shorter treatment window may be required for better effect.”

In some of their subgroup analyses, the researchers found a trend toward an increased effect in patients with moderate-size hematoma who received treatment in an earlier window. “That could be the targeted population for future studies,” said Dr. Liu. “We are working on further analysis of the population and possibly international collaboration.”

But tranexamic acid also entails risks, said Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who provided independent commentary on the findings. “Tranexamic acid works on the thrombolytic system, so it increases clotting, and it does have a risk in people who are older and have risk factors for coronary disease and pulmonary embolism.”

As in ischemic stroke, time to treatment is a crucial consideration. Patients with ICH may receive treatment within 5 or 6 hours of onset, but most hemorrhages have reached their maximum size at that point. “The number of people that you can actually help by reducing the size is small,” said Dr. Caplan. “And then reducing the size in most hemorrhages doesn’t make any clinical difference.”

Stereotactic drainage, in which fluid is physically removed, is more likely to lead to long-term improvement for some patients with hemorrhage than limiting expansion, said Dr. Caplan. “That seems to be a more promising therapy,” he added.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D program of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Beijing Science and Technology Commission. Dr. Liu and Dr. Caplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationshps.

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

Compared with placebo, tranexamic acid did not reduce hematoma growth in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), a new study shows.

In the randomized controlled trial, the rate of hematoma expansion was 40.4% among patients who received tranexamic acid and 41.5% among those who received placebo. The degree of disability at 90 days also did not differ between treatment arms.

“Our work has once again shown that tranexamic acid is safe in spontaneous ICH,” said Jingyi Liu, MD, a physician in the neurocritical care unit at Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing. “Larger studies with more specified population are needed to further assess safety and efficacy of tranexamic acid in patients with ICH.”

The findings of the TRAIGE study were presented at the virtual European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2021. They were also published online June 28 in Stroke and Vascular Neurology.
 

Imaging-based patient selection

ICH is often fatal and entails a high risk for disability, the researchers wrote. Approximately 40% of patients with ICH die within a month of onset, and about two-thirds of patients do not achieve long-term functional independence.

Intracerebral hematoma expansion is predictive of poor clinical outcome in ICH. Data indicate that tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic agent, reduces hematoma expansion. But evidence of a clinical benefit of tranexamic acid has been elusive, they noted.

This lack of observed benefit may result from the inappropriate selection of research participants. The emergence of imaging biomarkers may help address this potential problem. In recent years, the blend sign and the black hole sign on noncontrast CT, as well as the spot sign on CT angiography, have been associated with higher risk for hematoma expansion and worse clinical outcome, the researchers wrote.

Between January 2015 and March 2020, the investigators enrolled consecutive patients with acute primary spontaneous ICH into their prospective study. Eligible patients presented at any of 10 stroke centers in China. They had the spot sign, blend sign, or black hole sign at admission and were able to receive treatment within 8 hours of onset.

The investigators randomly assigned patients in equal groups to receive placebo (0.9% NaCl) or tranexamic acid. Patients and study investigators were blinded to treatment assignment. Treatment was administered as an intravenous infusion over 8 hours.

The study’s primary endpoint was intracerebral hematoma expansion by 24 hours after start of treatment. Expansion was defined as an increase of > 6 mL or a growth of > 33% from baseline. Secondary endpoints included poor clinical outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 4-6, and all-cause mortality, both at 90 days.
 

No differences in disability

The investigators enrolled 171 patients in their study; 24-hour CT images were available for 169 of them. Follow-up data at 90 days were available for 164 patients. The mean age of the patients was 55.9 years, and 72.5% of participants were men. At baseline, the mean ICH volume was 23.7 mL, and the median hematoma volume was 19.8 mL.

All patients received treatment within 8 hours. Hematoma expansion occurred in 40.9% of patients overall; 34.9% had a poor clinical outcome.

The investigators found no significant difference between treatment arms in the rate of hematoma expansion. This outcome occurred in 40.4% of the tranexamic acid group and 41.5% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.96; P = .89).

In addition, the researchers found no significant difference in the distribution of mRS scores at day 90 (P = .70). The rate of all-cause mortality at 90 days was lower in the tranexamic acid group (8.1%) than in the control group (10.0%), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .71).
 

Potential clotting risk

One reason for the lack of observed benefit with tranexamic acid may be an inappropriate sample size, said Dr. Liu. Patient recruitment was difficult, especially in centers that used the spot sign as an inclusion criterion.

“We think a positive result could be seen in a substantially larger sample size,” said Dr. Liu. “Furthermore, we infer from our subgroup analysis that a more specified patient selection and shorter treatment window may be required for better effect.”

In some of their subgroup analyses, the researchers found a trend toward an increased effect in patients with moderate-size hematoma who received treatment in an earlier window. “That could be the targeted population for future studies,” said Dr. Liu. “We are working on further analysis of the population and possibly international collaboration.”

But tranexamic acid also entails risks, said Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who provided independent commentary on the findings. “Tranexamic acid works on the thrombolytic system, so it increases clotting, and it does have a risk in people who are older and have risk factors for coronary disease and pulmonary embolism.”

As in ischemic stroke, time to treatment is a crucial consideration. Patients with ICH may receive treatment within 5 or 6 hours of onset, but most hemorrhages have reached their maximum size at that point. “The number of people that you can actually help by reducing the size is small,” said Dr. Caplan. “And then reducing the size in most hemorrhages doesn’t make any clinical difference.”

Stereotactic drainage, in which fluid is physically removed, is more likely to lead to long-term improvement for some patients with hemorrhage than limiting expansion, said Dr. Caplan. “That seems to be a more promising therapy,” he added.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D program of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Beijing Science and Technology Commission. Dr. Liu and Dr. Caplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationshps.

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

Compared with placebo, tranexamic acid did not reduce hematoma growth in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), a new study shows.

In the randomized controlled trial, the rate of hematoma expansion was 40.4% among patients who received tranexamic acid and 41.5% among those who received placebo. The degree of disability at 90 days also did not differ between treatment arms.

“Our work has once again shown that tranexamic acid is safe in spontaneous ICH,” said Jingyi Liu, MD, a physician in the neurocritical care unit at Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing. “Larger studies with more specified population are needed to further assess safety and efficacy of tranexamic acid in patients with ICH.”

The findings of the TRAIGE study were presented at the virtual European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2021. They were also published online June 28 in Stroke and Vascular Neurology.
 

Imaging-based patient selection

ICH is often fatal and entails a high risk for disability, the researchers wrote. Approximately 40% of patients with ICH die within a month of onset, and about two-thirds of patients do not achieve long-term functional independence.

Intracerebral hematoma expansion is predictive of poor clinical outcome in ICH. Data indicate that tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic agent, reduces hematoma expansion. But evidence of a clinical benefit of tranexamic acid has been elusive, they noted.

This lack of observed benefit may result from the inappropriate selection of research participants. The emergence of imaging biomarkers may help address this potential problem. In recent years, the blend sign and the black hole sign on noncontrast CT, as well as the spot sign on CT angiography, have been associated with higher risk for hematoma expansion and worse clinical outcome, the researchers wrote.

Between January 2015 and March 2020, the investigators enrolled consecutive patients with acute primary spontaneous ICH into their prospective study. Eligible patients presented at any of 10 stroke centers in China. They had the spot sign, blend sign, or black hole sign at admission and were able to receive treatment within 8 hours of onset.

The investigators randomly assigned patients in equal groups to receive placebo (0.9% NaCl) or tranexamic acid. Patients and study investigators were blinded to treatment assignment. Treatment was administered as an intravenous infusion over 8 hours.

The study’s primary endpoint was intracerebral hematoma expansion by 24 hours after start of treatment. Expansion was defined as an increase of > 6 mL or a growth of > 33% from baseline. Secondary endpoints included poor clinical outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 4-6, and all-cause mortality, both at 90 days.
 

No differences in disability

The investigators enrolled 171 patients in their study; 24-hour CT images were available for 169 of them. Follow-up data at 90 days were available for 164 patients. The mean age of the patients was 55.9 years, and 72.5% of participants were men. At baseline, the mean ICH volume was 23.7 mL, and the median hematoma volume was 19.8 mL.

All patients received treatment within 8 hours. Hematoma expansion occurred in 40.9% of patients overall; 34.9% had a poor clinical outcome.

The investigators found no significant difference between treatment arms in the rate of hematoma expansion. This outcome occurred in 40.4% of the tranexamic acid group and 41.5% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.96; P = .89).

In addition, the researchers found no significant difference in the distribution of mRS scores at day 90 (P = .70). The rate of all-cause mortality at 90 days was lower in the tranexamic acid group (8.1%) than in the control group (10.0%), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .71).
 

Potential clotting risk

One reason for the lack of observed benefit with tranexamic acid may be an inappropriate sample size, said Dr. Liu. Patient recruitment was difficult, especially in centers that used the spot sign as an inclusion criterion.

“We think a positive result could be seen in a substantially larger sample size,” said Dr. Liu. “Furthermore, we infer from our subgroup analysis that a more specified patient selection and shorter treatment window may be required for better effect.”

In some of their subgroup analyses, the researchers found a trend toward an increased effect in patients with moderate-size hematoma who received treatment in an earlier window. “That could be the targeted population for future studies,” said Dr. Liu. “We are working on further analysis of the population and possibly international collaboration.”

But tranexamic acid also entails risks, said Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who provided independent commentary on the findings. “Tranexamic acid works on the thrombolytic system, so it increases clotting, and it does have a risk in people who are older and have risk factors for coronary disease and pulmonary embolism.”

As in ischemic stroke, time to treatment is a crucial consideration. Patients with ICH may receive treatment within 5 or 6 hours of onset, but most hemorrhages have reached their maximum size at that point. “The number of people that you can actually help by reducing the size is small,” said Dr. Caplan. “And then reducing the size in most hemorrhages doesn’t make any clinical difference.”

Stereotactic drainage, in which fluid is physically removed, is more likely to lead to long-term improvement for some patients with hemorrhage than limiting expansion, said Dr. Caplan. “That seems to be a more promising therapy,” he added.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D program of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Beijing Science and Technology Commission. Dr. Liu and Dr. Caplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationshps.

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

Estimating an individual’s risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the cornerstone of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice. The new guidelines were published online Aug. 30 in the European Heart Journal to coincide with presentation at the European Stroke Congress (ESOC) 2021.   

They were developed by an ESOC task force in collaboration with 12 medical societies and with special contribution of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

“A chief goal of the task force was to create a single CVD prevention guideline for everyone – for primary care, for hospital care, for guiding clinical practice – so one guideline for all,” said cochair of the guideline committee Frank Visseren, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands. “We also wanted to make a more personalized CVD prevention guideline, instead of a one-size-fits-all. In clinical practice, people are very, very different, and we really want to have a more individualized prevention guideline,” said Dr. Visseren, as well as provide “more room for shared decision-making.”
 

Prevention at the individual and population levels

The new guidelines also give more attention to CVD prevention in older persons. “Many of our patients are over 70 years old and we really want to have more detail, more guidance on older persons,” said Dr. Visseren.

The guideline is divided into two sections. One section covers CVD prevention at the individual level in apparently healthy people, in patients with established CVD, and in those with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, or chronic kidney disease.

The other section covers CVD prevention at the population level, including public health policy, interventions, and the environment, including putting in place measures to reduce air pollution, use of fossil fuels, and limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

Targets for blood lipids, blood pressure, and glycemic control in diabetes remain in line with recent ESC guidelines on dyslipidemias, hypertension, or diabetes.

However, the guidelines introduce a new stepwise treatment-intensification approach to achieve these targets, with consideration of CVD risk, treatment benefit of risk factors, risk modifiers, comorbidities, and patient preferences.

The 2021 CVD prevention guidelines also embrace the recently published Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation 2 (SCORE2) and Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation 2-Older Persons (SCORE2-OP) algorithms. “The algorithms we are using are a bit old and we want to have more updated risk prediction, because that’s the starting point of CVD prevention,” Dr. Visseren said.

The guidelines also introduce age-specific risk thresholds for risk factor treatments in apparently healthy people and provide estimation of lifetime CVD risk and treatment benefit. This will allow clinicians to have “an informed discussion with patients on lifetime risk and potential treatment benefits,” Dr. Visseren said.

For the first time, the guidelines recommend smoking cessation regardless of whether it leads to weight gain, as weight gain does not lessen the benefits of cessation.

Regarding exercise, adults of all ages should aim for at least 150-300 minutes a week of moderate, or 75-150 minutes a week of vigorous, aerobic physical activity. The guidelines recommend reducing sedentary time and engaging in at least light activity throughout the day.

Regarding nutrition, the guidelines advise adopting a Mediterranean or similar diet; restricting alcohol intake to a maximum of 100 g per week (a standard drink is 8-14 g); eating fish, preferably fatty fish, at least once a week; and restricting consumption of meat, particularly processed meat.

Also for the first time, the guidelines state that bariatric surgery should be considered for obese individuals at elevated risk of CVD when a healthy diet and exercise fail to lead to weight loss that is maintained.

They note that individuals with mental disorders need additional attention and support to improve adherence to lifestyle changes and drug treatment.

They advise consideration of referring patients with heart disease and significant stress and anxiety to psychotherapeutic stress management to reduce stress symptoms and improve CV outcomes.

Potential cost issues that could be considered when implementing the guidelines are also reviewed.

Dr. Visseren acknowledged and thanked the task force members for continuing their work on the guidelines over the 2 “challenging” years.
 

Setting the bar lower?

Discussant for the guideline presentation, Diederick Grobbee, MD, University Medical Center Utrecht, who was not involved in drafting the guidelines, said he does have one conflict of interest, which is a “passion for prevention.” From that perspective, he said the guideline panel “should be applauded; the once-every-5-year issuing of the prevention guidelines is a major event.”

Dr. Grobbee noted that the working group “really tried to follow their ambitions and goals, in a way making the guidelines simpler, or perhaps setting the bar not initially as high as we used to do, which may, in fact, sometimes scare off physicians and patients alike.”

“We’ve had prevention guidelines for quite some time now, yet looking at what is accomplished in practice is sobering,” said Dr. Grobbee. Introducing a stepwise approach is “really appealing,” he added.

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

Estimating an individual’s risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the cornerstone of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice. The new guidelines were published online Aug. 30 in the European Heart Journal to coincide with presentation at the European Stroke Congress (ESOC) 2021.   

They were developed by an ESOC task force in collaboration with 12 medical societies and with special contribution of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

“A chief goal of the task force was to create a single CVD prevention guideline for everyone – for primary care, for hospital care, for guiding clinical practice – so one guideline for all,” said cochair of the guideline committee Frank Visseren, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands. “We also wanted to make a more personalized CVD prevention guideline, instead of a one-size-fits-all. In clinical practice, people are very, very different, and we really want to have a more individualized prevention guideline,” said Dr. Visseren, as well as provide “more room for shared decision-making.”
 

Prevention at the individual and population levels

The new guidelines also give more attention to CVD prevention in older persons. “Many of our patients are over 70 years old and we really want to have more detail, more guidance on older persons,” said Dr. Visseren.

The guideline is divided into two sections. One section covers CVD prevention at the individual level in apparently healthy people, in patients with established CVD, and in those with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, or chronic kidney disease.

The other section covers CVD prevention at the population level, including public health policy, interventions, and the environment, including putting in place measures to reduce air pollution, use of fossil fuels, and limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

Targets for blood lipids, blood pressure, and glycemic control in diabetes remain in line with recent ESC guidelines on dyslipidemias, hypertension, or diabetes.

However, the guidelines introduce a new stepwise treatment-intensification approach to achieve these targets, with consideration of CVD risk, treatment benefit of risk factors, risk modifiers, comorbidities, and patient preferences.

The 2021 CVD prevention guidelines also embrace the recently published Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation 2 (SCORE2) and Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation 2-Older Persons (SCORE2-OP) algorithms. “The algorithms we are using are a bit old and we want to have more updated risk prediction, because that’s the starting point of CVD prevention,” Dr. Visseren said.

The guidelines also introduce age-specific risk thresholds for risk factor treatments in apparently healthy people and provide estimation of lifetime CVD risk and treatment benefit. This will allow clinicians to have “an informed discussion with patients on lifetime risk and potential treatment benefits,” Dr. Visseren said.

For the first time, the guidelines recommend smoking cessation regardless of whether it leads to weight gain, as weight gain does not lessen the benefits of cessation.

Regarding exercise, adults of all ages should aim for at least 150-300 minutes a week of moderate, or 75-150 minutes a week of vigorous, aerobic physical activity. The guidelines recommend reducing sedentary time and engaging in at least light activity throughout the day.

Regarding nutrition, the guidelines advise adopting a Mediterranean or similar diet; restricting alcohol intake to a maximum of 100 g per week (a standard drink is 8-14 g); eating fish, preferably fatty fish, at least once a week; and restricting consumption of meat, particularly processed meat.

Also for the first time, the guidelines state that bariatric surgery should be considered for obese individuals at elevated risk of CVD when a healthy diet and exercise fail to lead to weight loss that is maintained.

They note that individuals with mental disorders need additional attention and support to improve adherence to lifestyle changes and drug treatment.

They advise consideration of referring patients with heart disease and significant stress and anxiety to psychotherapeutic stress management to reduce stress symptoms and improve CV outcomes.

Potential cost issues that could be considered when implementing the guidelines are also reviewed.

Dr. Visseren acknowledged and thanked the task force members for continuing their work on the guidelines over the 2 “challenging” years.
 

Setting the bar lower?

Discussant for the guideline presentation, Diederick Grobbee, MD, University Medical Center Utrecht, who was not involved in drafting the guidelines, said he does have one conflict of interest, which is a “passion for prevention.” From that perspective, he said the guideline panel “should be applauded; the once-every-5-year issuing of the prevention guidelines is a major event.”

Dr. Grobbee noted that the working group “really tried to follow their ambitions and goals, in a way making the guidelines simpler, or perhaps setting the bar not initially as high as we used to do, which may, in fact, sometimes scare off physicians and patients alike.”

“We’ve had prevention guidelines for quite some time now, yet looking at what is accomplished in practice is sobering,” said Dr. Grobbee. Introducing a stepwise approach is “really appealing,” he added.

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

Estimating an individual’s risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the cornerstone of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice. The new guidelines were published online Aug. 30 in the European Heart Journal to coincide with presentation at the European Stroke Congress (ESOC) 2021.   

They were developed by an ESOC task force in collaboration with 12 medical societies and with special contribution of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

“A chief goal of the task force was to create a single CVD prevention guideline for everyone – for primary care, for hospital care, for guiding clinical practice – so one guideline for all,” said cochair of the guideline committee Frank Visseren, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands. “We also wanted to make a more personalized CVD prevention guideline, instead of a one-size-fits-all. In clinical practice, people are very, very different, and we really want to have a more individualized prevention guideline,” said Dr. Visseren, as well as provide “more room for shared decision-making.”
 

Prevention at the individual and population levels

The new guidelines also give more attention to CVD prevention in older persons. “Many of our patients are over 70 years old and we really want to have more detail, more guidance on older persons,” said Dr. Visseren.

The guideline is divided into two sections. One section covers CVD prevention at the individual level in apparently healthy people, in patients with established CVD, and in those with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, or chronic kidney disease.

The other section covers CVD prevention at the population level, including public health policy, interventions, and the environment, including putting in place measures to reduce air pollution, use of fossil fuels, and limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

Targets for blood lipids, blood pressure, and glycemic control in diabetes remain in line with recent ESC guidelines on dyslipidemias, hypertension, or diabetes.

However, the guidelines introduce a new stepwise treatment-intensification approach to achieve these targets, with consideration of CVD risk, treatment benefit of risk factors, risk modifiers, comorbidities, and patient preferences.

The 2021 CVD prevention guidelines also embrace the recently published Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation 2 (SCORE2) and Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation 2-Older Persons (SCORE2-OP) algorithms. “The algorithms we are using are a bit old and we want to have more updated risk prediction, because that’s the starting point of CVD prevention,” Dr. Visseren said.

The guidelines also introduce age-specific risk thresholds for risk factor treatments in apparently healthy people and provide estimation of lifetime CVD risk and treatment benefit. This will allow clinicians to have “an informed discussion with patients on lifetime risk and potential treatment benefits,” Dr. Visseren said.

For the first time, the guidelines recommend smoking cessation regardless of whether it leads to weight gain, as weight gain does not lessen the benefits of cessation.

Regarding exercise, adults of all ages should aim for at least 150-300 minutes a week of moderate, or 75-150 minutes a week of vigorous, aerobic physical activity. The guidelines recommend reducing sedentary time and engaging in at least light activity throughout the day.

Regarding nutrition, the guidelines advise adopting a Mediterranean or similar diet; restricting alcohol intake to a maximum of 100 g per week (a standard drink is 8-14 g); eating fish, preferably fatty fish, at least once a week; and restricting consumption of meat, particularly processed meat.

Also for the first time, the guidelines state that bariatric surgery should be considered for obese individuals at elevated risk of CVD when a healthy diet and exercise fail to lead to weight loss that is maintained.

They note that individuals with mental disorders need additional attention and support to improve adherence to lifestyle changes and drug treatment.

They advise consideration of referring patients with heart disease and significant stress and anxiety to psychotherapeutic stress management to reduce stress symptoms and improve CV outcomes.

Potential cost issues that could be considered when implementing the guidelines are also reviewed.

Dr. Visseren acknowledged and thanked the task force members for continuing their work on the guidelines over the 2 “challenging” years.
 

Setting the bar lower?

Discussant for the guideline presentation, Diederick Grobbee, MD, University Medical Center Utrecht, who was not involved in drafting the guidelines, said he does have one conflict of interest, which is a “passion for prevention.” From that perspective, he said the guideline panel “should be applauded; the once-every-5-year issuing of the prevention guidelines is a major event.”

Dr. Grobbee noted that the working group “really tried to follow their ambitions and goals, in a way making the guidelines simpler, or perhaps setting the bar not initially as high as we used to do, which may, in fact, sometimes scare off physicians and patients alike.”

“We’ve had prevention guidelines for quite some time now, yet looking at what is accomplished in practice is sobering,” said Dr. Grobbee. Introducing a stepwise approach is “really appealing,” he added.

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

Many Americans are clamoring for a booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine after reports of rising numbers of breakthrough infections, and demand increased after the Biden administration said those shots would be offered starting on Sept. 20.

That plan, which was first announced on Aug. 18, has raised eyebrows because it comes in advance of regulatory reviews by the Food and Drug Administration and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those reviews are needed to determine whether third doses of these vaccines are effective or even safe. The move could have important legal ramifications for doctors and patients, too.

On Aug. 31, two high-level officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review abruptly resigned amid reports that they were angry that the Biden administration was making decisions that should be left up to that agency.

So far, data show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing the most severe consequences of COVID-19 – hospitalization and death – even regarding the Delta variant. The World Health Organization has urged wealthy nations such as the United States not to offer boosters so that the limited supply of vaccines can be directed to countries with fewer resources.
 

White House supports boosters

In a recent press briefing, Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, defended the move.

“You know, the booster decision, which you referenced ... was made by and announced by the nation’s leading public health officials, including Dr. Walensky; Dr. Fauci; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock; the FDA acting commissioner, Dr. Francis Collins; Dr. Kessler; and others,” Mr. Zients said.

“And as our medical experts laid out, having reviewed all of the available data, it is in their clinical judgment that it is time to prepare Americans for a booster shot.”

He said a target date of Sept. 20 was announced so as to give states and practitioners time to prepare. He also said the move to give boosters was meant to help the United States stay ahead of a rapidly changing virus. Mr. Zients added that whether boosters will be administered starting on Sept. 20 depends on the FDA’s and CDC’s giving the go-ahead.

“Booster doses are going to be handled the same way all vaccines are handled,” said Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson. “Companies will have to provide data to FDA. FDA will have to make a decision and authorize the use of those, and ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] will have to look at the evidence as well and make recommendations on top of FDA’s regulatory action,” she said.

Ms. Nordlund agreed that the planned Sept. 20 start date for boosters was something to which they aspired and was not necessarily set.

Historically, the FDA has needed at least 4 months to review a change to a vaccine’s approval, even on an accelerated schedule. Reviewers use that time to assess data regarding individual patients in a study, to review raw data, and essentially to check a drug company’s math and conclusions. The Biden administration’s timeline would shorten that review period from months to just a few weeks.
 

‘FDA in a very difficult position’

After the FDA approves, the ACIP of the CDC must meet to review the evidence and make recommendations on the use of the boosters in the United States.

Pfizer says it completed its submission for a supplemental biologics license application to the FDA on Aug. 27. To meet a Sept. 20 timeline, the entire process would have to be completed within 3 weeks.

“I don’t think that was handled, you know, ideally,” said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former associate commissioner of public health strategy and analysis at the FDA.

“It puts FDA in a very difficult position,” Dr. Lurie said. “It’s almost as if the decision has been made and they’re just checking a box, and that is, you know, contrary to the what FDA – at least the internal people at FDA – have been trying to do for ages.”

He said the agency took great pains with the emergency use authorizations and the full approvals of the vaccines to work as rapidly but thoroughly as possible. They did not skip steps.

“I think all of that reflected very well on the agency,” Dr. Lurie said. “And I think it worked out well in terms of trust in the vaccines.”

Although additional doses of vaccine are expected to be safe, little is known about side effects or adverse events after a third dose.

“It’s critical to wait for additional data and regulatory allowance for booster doses,” Sara Oliver, MD, a member of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service, said in an Aug. 30 presentation to the ACIP, which is charged with making recommendations for use of all vaccines in the United States.
 

Boosters already being given

But after the White House announced that boosters were on the way, many people are not waiting.

Many health care practitioners and pharmacies have already been giving people third doses of vaccines, even if they are not among the immunocompromised – the group for which the shots are currently approved.

“You can walk into a pharmacy and ask for a third dose. Depending on which pharmacy you go to, you may get it,” said Helen Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and a member of the ACIP.

She says she has a friend who recently went for a checkup and was offered a third dose. His physician is already giving extra doses to everyone who is older than 65.

Dr. Talbot said that in fairness, pharmacies in the United States are throwing away doses of vaccine because they are expiring before they get used.

“Many of us may or may not be ready to give a third dose but would rather give someone a third dose than throw a vaccine away,” she said.
 

Consequences of a third shot

But giving or getting a third dose before approval by the FDA may have legal consequences.

In the ACIP meeting on Aug. 30, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, who leads vaccine equity efforts at the CDC, cautioned that physicians who give extra doses of the vaccine before the FDA and CDC have signed off may be in violation of practitioner agreements with the federal government and might not be covered by the federal PREP Act. The PREP Act provides immunity from lawsuits for people who administer COVID-19 vaccines and compensates patients in the event of injury. Patients who get a vaccine and suffer a rare but serious side effect may lose the ability to claim compensation offered by the act.

“Many of us gasped when he said that,” Dr. Talbot said, “because that’s a big deal.”

The ACIP signaled that it is considering recommending boosters for a much narrower slice of the American population than the Biden administration has suggested.

They said that so far, the data point only to the need for boosters for seniors, who are the patients most likely to experience breakthrough infections that require hospitalization, and health care workers, who are needed now more than ever and cannot work if they’re sick.

In a White House news briefing Aug. 31, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, was asked about the ACIP’s conclusions and whether she believed there were enough data to recommend booster shots for most Americans 8 months after their last dose.

“The ACIP did not review international data that actually has led us to be even more concerned about increased risk of vaccine effectiveness waning against hospitalization, severe disease, and death. They will be reviewing that as well,” she said.

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

Many Americans are clamoring for a booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine after reports of rising numbers of breakthrough infections, and demand increased after the Biden administration said those shots would be offered starting on Sept. 20.

That plan, which was first announced on Aug. 18, has raised eyebrows because it comes in advance of regulatory reviews by the Food and Drug Administration and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those reviews are needed to determine whether third doses of these vaccines are effective or even safe. The move could have important legal ramifications for doctors and patients, too.

On Aug. 31, two high-level officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review abruptly resigned amid reports that they were angry that the Biden administration was making decisions that should be left up to that agency.

So far, data show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing the most severe consequences of COVID-19 – hospitalization and death – even regarding the Delta variant. The World Health Organization has urged wealthy nations such as the United States not to offer boosters so that the limited supply of vaccines can be directed to countries with fewer resources.
 

White House supports boosters

In a recent press briefing, Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, defended the move.

“You know, the booster decision, which you referenced ... was made by and announced by the nation’s leading public health officials, including Dr. Walensky; Dr. Fauci; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock; the FDA acting commissioner, Dr. Francis Collins; Dr. Kessler; and others,” Mr. Zients said.

“And as our medical experts laid out, having reviewed all of the available data, it is in their clinical judgment that it is time to prepare Americans for a booster shot.”

He said a target date of Sept. 20 was announced so as to give states and practitioners time to prepare. He also said the move to give boosters was meant to help the United States stay ahead of a rapidly changing virus. Mr. Zients added that whether boosters will be administered starting on Sept. 20 depends on the FDA’s and CDC’s giving the go-ahead.

“Booster doses are going to be handled the same way all vaccines are handled,” said Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson. “Companies will have to provide data to FDA. FDA will have to make a decision and authorize the use of those, and ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] will have to look at the evidence as well and make recommendations on top of FDA’s regulatory action,” she said.

Ms. Nordlund agreed that the planned Sept. 20 start date for boosters was something to which they aspired and was not necessarily set.

Historically, the FDA has needed at least 4 months to review a change to a vaccine’s approval, even on an accelerated schedule. Reviewers use that time to assess data regarding individual patients in a study, to review raw data, and essentially to check a drug company’s math and conclusions. The Biden administration’s timeline would shorten that review period from months to just a few weeks.
 

‘FDA in a very difficult position’

After the FDA approves, the ACIP of the CDC must meet to review the evidence and make recommendations on the use of the boosters in the United States.

Pfizer says it completed its submission for a supplemental biologics license application to the FDA on Aug. 27. To meet a Sept. 20 timeline, the entire process would have to be completed within 3 weeks.

“I don’t think that was handled, you know, ideally,” said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former associate commissioner of public health strategy and analysis at the FDA.

“It puts FDA in a very difficult position,” Dr. Lurie said. “It’s almost as if the decision has been made and they’re just checking a box, and that is, you know, contrary to the what FDA – at least the internal people at FDA – have been trying to do for ages.”

He said the agency took great pains with the emergency use authorizations and the full approvals of the vaccines to work as rapidly but thoroughly as possible. They did not skip steps.

“I think all of that reflected very well on the agency,” Dr. Lurie said. “And I think it worked out well in terms of trust in the vaccines.”

Although additional doses of vaccine are expected to be safe, little is known about side effects or adverse events after a third dose.

“It’s critical to wait for additional data and regulatory allowance for booster doses,” Sara Oliver, MD, a member of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service, said in an Aug. 30 presentation to the ACIP, which is charged with making recommendations for use of all vaccines in the United States.
 

Boosters already being given

But after the White House announced that boosters were on the way, many people are not waiting.

Many health care practitioners and pharmacies have already been giving people third doses of vaccines, even if they are not among the immunocompromised – the group for which the shots are currently approved.

“You can walk into a pharmacy and ask for a third dose. Depending on which pharmacy you go to, you may get it,” said Helen Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and a member of the ACIP.

She says she has a friend who recently went for a checkup and was offered a third dose. His physician is already giving extra doses to everyone who is older than 65.

Dr. Talbot said that in fairness, pharmacies in the United States are throwing away doses of vaccine because they are expiring before they get used.

“Many of us may or may not be ready to give a third dose but would rather give someone a third dose than throw a vaccine away,” she said.
 

Consequences of a third shot

But giving or getting a third dose before approval by the FDA may have legal consequences.

In the ACIP meeting on Aug. 30, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, who leads vaccine equity efforts at the CDC, cautioned that physicians who give extra doses of the vaccine before the FDA and CDC have signed off may be in violation of practitioner agreements with the federal government and might not be covered by the federal PREP Act. The PREP Act provides immunity from lawsuits for people who administer COVID-19 vaccines and compensates patients in the event of injury. Patients who get a vaccine and suffer a rare but serious side effect may lose the ability to claim compensation offered by the act.

“Many of us gasped when he said that,” Dr. Talbot said, “because that’s a big deal.”

The ACIP signaled that it is considering recommending boosters for a much narrower slice of the American population than the Biden administration has suggested.

They said that so far, the data point only to the need for boosters for seniors, who are the patients most likely to experience breakthrough infections that require hospitalization, and health care workers, who are needed now more than ever and cannot work if they’re sick.

In a White House news briefing Aug. 31, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, was asked about the ACIP’s conclusions and whether she believed there were enough data to recommend booster shots for most Americans 8 months after their last dose.

“The ACIP did not review international data that actually has led us to be even more concerned about increased risk of vaccine effectiveness waning against hospitalization, severe disease, and death. They will be reviewing that as well,” she said.

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

Many Americans are clamoring for a booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine after reports of rising numbers of breakthrough infections, and demand increased after the Biden administration said those shots would be offered starting on Sept. 20.

That plan, which was first announced on Aug. 18, has raised eyebrows because it comes in advance of regulatory reviews by the Food and Drug Administration and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those reviews are needed to determine whether third doses of these vaccines are effective or even safe. The move could have important legal ramifications for doctors and patients, too.

On Aug. 31, two high-level officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review abruptly resigned amid reports that they were angry that the Biden administration was making decisions that should be left up to that agency.

So far, data show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing the most severe consequences of COVID-19 – hospitalization and death – even regarding the Delta variant. The World Health Organization has urged wealthy nations such as the United States not to offer boosters so that the limited supply of vaccines can be directed to countries with fewer resources.
 

White House supports boosters

In a recent press briefing, Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, defended the move.

“You know, the booster decision, which you referenced ... was made by and announced by the nation’s leading public health officials, including Dr. Walensky; Dr. Fauci; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock; the FDA acting commissioner, Dr. Francis Collins; Dr. Kessler; and others,” Mr. Zients said.

“And as our medical experts laid out, having reviewed all of the available data, it is in their clinical judgment that it is time to prepare Americans for a booster shot.”

He said a target date of Sept. 20 was announced so as to give states and practitioners time to prepare. He also said the move to give boosters was meant to help the United States stay ahead of a rapidly changing virus. Mr. Zients added that whether boosters will be administered starting on Sept. 20 depends on the FDA’s and CDC’s giving the go-ahead.

“Booster doses are going to be handled the same way all vaccines are handled,” said Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson. “Companies will have to provide data to FDA. FDA will have to make a decision and authorize the use of those, and ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] will have to look at the evidence as well and make recommendations on top of FDA’s regulatory action,” she said.

Ms. Nordlund agreed that the planned Sept. 20 start date for boosters was something to which they aspired and was not necessarily set.

Historically, the FDA has needed at least 4 months to review a change to a vaccine’s approval, even on an accelerated schedule. Reviewers use that time to assess data regarding individual patients in a study, to review raw data, and essentially to check a drug company’s math and conclusions. The Biden administration’s timeline would shorten that review period from months to just a few weeks.
 

‘FDA in a very difficult position’

After the FDA approves, the ACIP of the CDC must meet to review the evidence and make recommendations on the use of the boosters in the United States.

Pfizer says it completed its submission for a supplemental biologics license application to the FDA on Aug. 27. To meet a Sept. 20 timeline, the entire process would have to be completed within 3 weeks.

“I don’t think that was handled, you know, ideally,” said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former associate commissioner of public health strategy and analysis at the FDA.

“It puts FDA in a very difficult position,” Dr. Lurie said. “It’s almost as if the decision has been made and they’re just checking a box, and that is, you know, contrary to the what FDA – at least the internal people at FDA – have been trying to do for ages.”

He said the agency took great pains with the emergency use authorizations and the full approvals of the vaccines to work as rapidly but thoroughly as possible. They did not skip steps.

“I think all of that reflected very well on the agency,” Dr. Lurie said. “And I think it worked out well in terms of trust in the vaccines.”

Although additional doses of vaccine are expected to be safe, little is known about side effects or adverse events after a third dose.

“It’s critical to wait for additional data and regulatory allowance for booster doses,” Sara Oliver, MD, a member of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service, said in an Aug. 30 presentation to the ACIP, which is charged with making recommendations for use of all vaccines in the United States.
 

Boosters already being given

But after the White House announced that boosters were on the way, many people are not waiting.

Many health care practitioners and pharmacies have already been giving people third doses of vaccines, even if they are not among the immunocompromised – the group for which the shots are currently approved.

“You can walk into a pharmacy and ask for a third dose. Depending on which pharmacy you go to, you may get it,” said Helen Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and a member of the ACIP.

She says she has a friend who recently went for a checkup and was offered a third dose. His physician is already giving extra doses to everyone who is older than 65.

Dr. Talbot said that in fairness, pharmacies in the United States are throwing away doses of vaccine because they are expiring before they get used.

“Many of us may or may not be ready to give a third dose but would rather give someone a third dose than throw a vaccine away,” she said.
 

Consequences of a third shot

But giving or getting a third dose before approval by the FDA may have legal consequences.

In the ACIP meeting on Aug. 30, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, who leads vaccine equity efforts at the CDC, cautioned that physicians who give extra doses of the vaccine before the FDA and CDC have signed off may be in violation of practitioner agreements with the federal government and might not be covered by the federal PREP Act. The PREP Act provides immunity from lawsuits for people who administer COVID-19 vaccines and compensates patients in the event of injury. Patients who get a vaccine and suffer a rare but serious side effect may lose the ability to claim compensation offered by the act.

“Many of us gasped when he said that,” Dr. Talbot said, “because that’s a big deal.”

The ACIP signaled that it is considering recommending boosters for a much narrower slice of the American population than the Biden administration has suggested.

They said that so far, the data point only to the need for boosters for seniors, who are the patients most likely to experience breakthrough infections that require hospitalization, and health care workers, who are needed now more than ever and cannot work if they’re sick.

In a White House news briefing Aug. 31, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, was asked about the ACIP’s conclusions and whether she believed there were enough data to recommend booster shots for most Americans 8 months after their last dose.

“The ACIP did not review international data that actually has led us to be even more concerned about increased risk of vaccine effectiveness waning against hospitalization, severe disease, and death. They will be reviewing that as well,” she said.

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

If COVID-19 has caused millions of deaths, it may also have prevented or at least led to a postponement of many births.

In an assessment of the pandemic’s early effects, Arnstein Aassve, PhD, and colleagues found a significant COVID-19–related decline in crude birth rates (CBRs) in 7 of 22 high-income countries, particularly in Southwestern Europe.

Dr. Aassve, an economist at the Carlo F. Dondena Center for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy at the Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, and colleagues report the results in an article published online August 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Defining the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as February 2020, the study identifies strong declines in Italy (-9.1%), Hungary (-8.5%), Spain (-8.4%), and Portugal (-6.6%) beyond those predicted by past trends. In the United States, CBRs fell by 7.1% relative to 2019 for births occurring in Nov. and Dec. 2020 following conceptions in February and March of that year.

Significant declines in CBR also occurred in Belgium, Austria, and Singapore.

A year-to-year comparison of the mean for monthly CBRs per 1,000 population before and during the pandemic suggests a negative difference for all countries studied except for Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, Dr. Aassve and colleagues write. These findings may have policy implications for childcare, housing, and the labor market.

The Milan researchers compared monthly vital statistics data on live births from the international Human Fertility Database for the period of Jan. 2016 to March 2021. These figures reflect conceptions carried to term between April 2015 and June 2020. The 22 countries in the analysis represent 37% of the total reported COVID-19 cases and 34% of deaths worldwide.

The study findings align with surveys on “fertility intentions” collected early in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These surveys indicated that 73% of people who were planning pregnancies in 2020 either decided to delay the pregnancy or they abandoned their plans.

“The popular media speculated that the lockdown would lead to a baby boom, as couples spent more time together,” Dr. Aassve told this news organization. “There’s very little evidence of this when you look to previous disasters and shocks, and the first data suggest more of an immediate collapse than a boom. But as you also see from the paper, the collapse is not seen everywhere.” Other current studies suggest the fertility drop is immediate but temporary, says Dr. Aassve, who is also a professor of demography.

Interestingly, Dr. Aassve and colleagues found that CBRs were relatively stable in Northern Europe. The authors point to supportive social and family policies in that region that might have reduced the effect of the pandemic on births. “These factors are likely to affect CBRs in the subsequent pandemic waves,” they write. They call for future studies to assess the full population implications of the pandemic, the moderating impact of policy interventions, and the nexus between short- and long-run effects in relation to the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Rebounds

Some regions have already reported a rebound from the COVID-19 fertility trough. Molly J. Stout, MD, director of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues used electronic medical records to predict a surge in births after the initial decline.

“The surge we’ve seen at the end of this summer is exceeding the usual annual birth rate, as predicted,” she said in an interview. “But I think there’ll be a return to normal after this transient escalation. I don’t think birth rates will stay elevated above the normal because the birth surge is a temporary response to an event, although there will likely be regional differences.”

Looking ahead, Dr. Stout, who was not involved in Dr. Aassve’s analysis, is not certain how a fourth pandemic wave might ultimately modify a couple’s overall family size. But the toll the health crisis has taken on working women who have been forced to withdraw from the economy because of a lack of childcare points to a societal need that should be addressed.

According to Philip N. Cohen, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, who’s been tracking fertility trends since the onset of the COVID-19 emergency, the pandemic has combined a health crisis with an economic crisis, along with “the additional factor of social distancing and isolation, which all contributed to the decline in birth rates. Some people changed their plans to hold off on having children, while others didn’t get pregnant because they weren’t socializing and meeting people as much.”

Dr. Cohen, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Aassve and associates, said his provisional data show that although in many places, birth rates have rebounded more or less to prepandemic levels after a nadir around Jan. 2021, some areas of the United States still show substantially lower rates, including California, Hawaii, and Oregon.

As to the duration of the pandemic effect, Dr. Aassve cautions that his group’s estimates refer to the first wave only. “We then have the second, third, and currently the fourth wave. We can’t be sure about the impact of these waves on fertility since the data are not there yet, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t continue to have an impact on fertility rates,” he said.

Dr. Cohen agreed: “Some people who delayed childbearing will make up the delay. However, whenever there’s a delay, there’s inevitably some portion of the decline that’s not recouped.”

As for the wider effect across the world, Dr. Aassve said his team’s figures derive from high-income countries where data are readily available. For middle- and low-income countries, fewer data exist, and the quality of those data is not as good.

The lessons from this and other upheavals teach us that unforeseen shocks almost always have a negative impact on fertility, says Dr. Aassve. “[B]ut these effects may be separate from existing declining trends. The issue here is that those overall declining trends may be driven by other factors. In contrast, the shock of the pandemic is short-lived, and we may return to normal rather quickly. But if the pandemic also impacts other societal structures, such as the occupational and industrial sectors, then the pandemic might exacerbate the negative trend.”

The study was supported by funding from the European Research Council for funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The study authors, Dr. Stout, and Dr. Cohen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

If COVID-19 has caused millions of deaths, it may also have prevented or at least led to a postponement of many births.

In an assessment of the pandemic’s early effects, Arnstein Aassve, PhD, and colleagues found a significant COVID-19–related decline in crude birth rates (CBRs) in 7 of 22 high-income countries, particularly in Southwestern Europe.

Dr. Aassve, an economist at the Carlo F. Dondena Center for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy at the Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, and colleagues report the results in an article published online August 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Defining the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as February 2020, the study identifies strong declines in Italy (-9.1%), Hungary (-8.5%), Spain (-8.4%), and Portugal (-6.6%) beyond those predicted by past trends. In the United States, CBRs fell by 7.1% relative to 2019 for births occurring in Nov. and Dec. 2020 following conceptions in February and March of that year.

Significant declines in CBR also occurred in Belgium, Austria, and Singapore.

A year-to-year comparison of the mean for monthly CBRs per 1,000 population before and during the pandemic suggests a negative difference for all countries studied except for Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, Dr. Aassve and colleagues write. These findings may have policy implications for childcare, housing, and the labor market.

The Milan researchers compared monthly vital statistics data on live births from the international Human Fertility Database for the period of Jan. 2016 to March 2021. These figures reflect conceptions carried to term between April 2015 and June 2020. The 22 countries in the analysis represent 37% of the total reported COVID-19 cases and 34% of deaths worldwide.

The study findings align with surveys on “fertility intentions” collected early in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These surveys indicated that 73% of people who were planning pregnancies in 2020 either decided to delay the pregnancy or they abandoned their plans.

“The popular media speculated that the lockdown would lead to a baby boom, as couples spent more time together,” Dr. Aassve told this news organization. “There’s very little evidence of this when you look to previous disasters and shocks, and the first data suggest more of an immediate collapse than a boom. But as you also see from the paper, the collapse is not seen everywhere.” Other current studies suggest the fertility drop is immediate but temporary, says Dr. Aassve, who is also a professor of demography.

Interestingly, Dr. Aassve and colleagues found that CBRs were relatively stable in Northern Europe. The authors point to supportive social and family policies in that region that might have reduced the effect of the pandemic on births. “These factors are likely to affect CBRs in the subsequent pandemic waves,” they write. They call for future studies to assess the full population implications of the pandemic, the moderating impact of policy interventions, and the nexus between short- and long-run effects in relation to the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Rebounds

Some regions have already reported a rebound from the COVID-19 fertility trough. Molly J. Stout, MD, director of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues used electronic medical records to predict a surge in births after the initial decline.

“The surge we’ve seen at the end of this summer is exceeding the usual annual birth rate, as predicted,” she said in an interview. “But I think there’ll be a return to normal after this transient escalation. I don’t think birth rates will stay elevated above the normal because the birth surge is a temporary response to an event, although there will likely be regional differences.”

Looking ahead, Dr. Stout, who was not involved in Dr. Aassve’s analysis, is not certain how a fourth pandemic wave might ultimately modify a couple’s overall family size. But the toll the health crisis has taken on working women who have been forced to withdraw from the economy because of a lack of childcare points to a societal need that should be addressed.

According to Philip N. Cohen, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, who’s been tracking fertility trends since the onset of the COVID-19 emergency, the pandemic has combined a health crisis with an economic crisis, along with “the additional factor of social distancing and isolation, which all contributed to the decline in birth rates. Some people changed their plans to hold off on having children, while others didn’t get pregnant because they weren’t socializing and meeting people as much.”

Dr. Cohen, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Aassve and associates, said his provisional data show that although in many places, birth rates have rebounded more or less to prepandemic levels after a nadir around Jan. 2021, some areas of the United States still show substantially lower rates, including California, Hawaii, and Oregon.

As to the duration of the pandemic effect, Dr. Aassve cautions that his group’s estimates refer to the first wave only. “We then have the second, third, and currently the fourth wave. We can’t be sure about the impact of these waves on fertility since the data are not there yet, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t continue to have an impact on fertility rates,” he said.

Dr. Cohen agreed: “Some people who delayed childbearing will make up the delay. However, whenever there’s a delay, there’s inevitably some portion of the decline that’s not recouped.”

As for the wider effect across the world, Dr. Aassve said his team’s figures derive from high-income countries where data are readily available. For middle- and low-income countries, fewer data exist, and the quality of those data is not as good.

The lessons from this and other upheavals teach us that unforeseen shocks almost always have a negative impact on fertility, says Dr. Aassve. “[B]ut these effects may be separate from existing declining trends. The issue here is that those overall declining trends may be driven by other factors. In contrast, the shock of the pandemic is short-lived, and we may return to normal rather quickly. But if the pandemic also impacts other societal structures, such as the occupational and industrial sectors, then the pandemic might exacerbate the negative trend.”

The study was supported by funding from the European Research Council for funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The study authors, Dr. Stout, and Dr. Cohen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

If COVID-19 has caused millions of deaths, it may also have prevented or at least led to a postponement of many births.

In an assessment of the pandemic’s early effects, Arnstein Aassve, PhD, and colleagues found a significant COVID-19–related decline in crude birth rates (CBRs) in 7 of 22 high-income countries, particularly in Southwestern Europe.

Dr. Aassve, an economist at the Carlo F. Dondena Center for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy at the Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, and colleagues report the results in an article published online August 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Defining the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as February 2020, the study identifies strong declines in Italy (-9.1%), Hungary (-8.5%), Spain (-8.4%), and Portugal (-6.6%) beyond those predicted by past trends. In the United States, CBRs fell by 7.1% relative to 2019 for births occurring in Nov. and Dec. 2020 following conceptions in February and March of that year.

Significant declines in CBR also occurred in Belgium, Austria, and Singapore.

A year-to-year comparison of the mean for monthly CBRs per 1,000 population before and during the pandemic suggests a negative difference for all countries studied except for Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, Dr. Aassve and colleagues write. These findings may have policy implications for childcare, housing, and the labor market.

The Milan researchers compared monthly vital statistics data on live births from the international Human Fertility Database for the period of Jan. 2016 to March 2021. These figures reflect conceptions carried to term between April 2015 and June 2020. The 22 countries in the analysis represent 37% of the total reported COVID-19 cases and 34% of deaths worldwide.

The study findings align with surveys on “fertility intentions” collected early in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These surveys indicated that 73% of people who were planning pregnancies in 2020 either decided to delay the pregnancy or they abandoned their plans.

“The popular media speculated that the lockdown would lead to a baby boom, as couples spent more time together,” Dr. Aassve told this news organization. “There’s very little evidence of this when you look to previous disasters and shocks, and the first data suggest more of an immediate collapse than a boom. But as you also see from the paper, the collapse is not seen everywhere.” Other current studies suggest the fertility drop is immediate but temporary, says Dr. Aassve, who is also a professor of demography.

Interestingly, Dr. Aassve and colleagues found that CBRs were relatively stable in Northern Europe. The authors point to supportive social and family policies in that region that might have reduced the effect of the pandemic on births. “These factors are likely to affect CBRs in the subsequent pandemic waves,” they write. They call for future studies to assess the full population implications of the pandemic, the moderating impact of policy interventions, and the nexus between short- and long-run effects in relation to the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Rebounds

Some regions have already reported a rebound from the COVID-19 fertility trough. Molly J. Stout, MD, director of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues used electronic medical records to predict a surge in births after the initial decline.

“The surge we’ve seen at the end of this summer is exceeding the usual annual birth rate, as predicted,” she said in an interview. “But I think there’ll be a return to normal after this transient escalation. I don’t think birth rates will stay elevated above the normal because the birth surge is a temporary response to an event, although there will likely be regional differences.”

Looking ahead, Dr. Stout, who was not involved in Dr. Aassve’s analysis, is not certain how a fourth pandemic wave might ultimately modify a couple’s overall family size. But the toll the health crisis has taken on working women who have been forced to withdraw from the economy because of a lack of childcare points to a societal need that should be addressed.

According to Philip N. Cohen, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, who’s been tracking fertility trends since the onset of the COVID-19 emergency, the pandemic has combined a health crisis with an economic crisis, along with “the additional factor of social distancing and isolation, which all contributed to the decline in birth rates. Some people changed their plans to hold off on having children, while others didn’t get pregnant because they weren’t socializing and meeting people as much.”

Dr. Cohen, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Aassve and associates, said his provisional data show that although in many places, birth rates have rebounded more or less to prepandemic levels after a nadir around Jan. 2021, some areas of the United States still show substantially lower rates, including California, Hawaii, and Oregon.

As to the duration of the pandemic effect, Dr. Aassve cautions that his group’s estimates refer to the first wave only. “We then have the second, third, and currently the fourth wave. We can’t be sure about the impact of these waves on fertility since the data are not there yet, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t continue to have an impact on fertility rates,” he said.

Dr. Cohen agreed: “Some people who delayed childbearing will make up the delay. However, whenever there’s a delay, there’s inevitably some portion of the decline that’s not recouped.”

As for the wider effect across the world, Dr. Aassve said his team’s figures derive from high-income countries where data are readily available. For middle- and low-income countries, fewer data exist, and the quality of those data is not as good.

The lessons from this and other upheavals teach us that unforeseen shocks almost always have a negative impact on fertility, says Dr. Aassve. “[B]ut these effects may be separate from existing declining trends. The issue here is that those overall declining trends may be driven by other factors. In contrast, the shock of the pandemic is short-lived, and we may return to normal rather quickly. But if the pandemic also impacts other societal structures, such as the occupational and industrial sectors, then the pandemic might exacerbate the negative trend.”

The study was supported by funding from the European Research Council for funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The study authors, Dr. Stout, and Dr. Cohen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exercising to lose weight is not for every ‘body’

This first item comes from the “You’ve got to be kidding” section of LOTME’s supersecret topics-of-interest file.

Maya23K/Thinkstock

Investigators at the Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the University of Roehampton noticed that some people who enrolled in exercise programs to lose weight did just the opposite: they gained weight.

Being scientists, they decided to look at the effects of energy expenditure and how those effects varied among individuals. The likely culprit in this case, they determined, is something called compensatory mechanisms. One such mechanism involves eating more food because exercise stimulates appetite, and another might reduce energy expenditure on other components like resting metabolism so that the exercise is, in effect, less costly.

A look at the numbers shows how compensatory mechanisms worked in the study population of 1,750 adults. Among individuals with the highest BMI, 51% of the calories burned during activity translated into calories burned at the end of the day. For those with normal BMI, however, 72% of calories burned during activity were reflected in total expenditure.

“People living with obesity cut back their resting metabolism when they are more active. The result is that for every calorie they spend on exercise they save about half a calorie on resting,” the investigators explained.

In other words, some bodies will, unconsciously, work against the conscious effort of exercising to lose weight. Thank you very much, compensatory mechanisms, for the boundarylessness exhibited in exceeding your job description.
 

When it comes to the mix, walnuts go nuts

When it comes to mixed nuts, walnuts get no love. But we may be able to give you a reason to not pick them out: Your arteries.

PxHere

Participants in a recent study who ate about a half-cup of walnuts every day for 2 years saw a drop in their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. The number and quality of LDL particles in healthy older adults also improved. How? Good ol’ omega-3 fatty acids.

Omega-3 is found in many foods linked to lower risks of heart disease, lower cholesterol levels, and lower blood sugar levels, but the one thing that makes the walnut a front runner for Miss Super Food 2021 is their ability to improve the quality of LDL particles.

“LDL particles come in various sizes [and] research has shown that small, dense LDL particles are more often associated with atherosclerosis, the plaque or fatty deposits that build up in the arteries,” Emilio Ros, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona and the study’s senior investigator, said in a written statement.

The 708 participants, aged 63-79 years and mostly women, were divided into two groups: One received the walnut diet and the other did not. After 2 years, the walnut group had lower LDL levels by an average of 4.3 mg/dL. Total cholesterol was reduced by an average of 8.5 mg/dL. Also, their total LDL particle count was 4.3% lower and small LDL particles were down by 6.1%.

So instead of picking the walnuts out of the mix, try to find it in your heart to appreciate them. Your body already does.
 

Begun, the clone war has

Well, not quite yet, Master Yoda, but perhaps one day soon, if a study from Japan into the uncanny valley of the usage of cloned humanlike faces in robotics and artificial intelligence, published in PLOS One, is to be believed.

Patrick Bursa/Pixabay

The study consisted of a number of six smaller experiments in which participants judged a series of images based on subjective eeriness, emotional valence, and realism. The images included people with the same cloned face; people with different faces; dogs; identical twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc.; and cloned animated characters. In the sixth experiment, the photos were the same as in the second (six cloned faces, six different faces, and a single face) but participants also answered the Disgust Scale–Revised to accurately analyze disgust sensitivity.

The results of all these experiments were quite clear: People found the cloned faces far creepier than the varied or single face, an effect the researchers called clone devaluation. Notably, this effect only applied to realistic human faces; most people didn’t find the cloned dogs or cloned animated characters creepy. However, those who did were more likely to find the human clones eerie on the Disgust Scale.

The authors noted that future robotics technology needs to be carefully considered to avoid the uncanny valley and this clone devaluation effect, which is a very good point. The last thing we need is a few million robots with identical faces getting angry at us and pulling a Terminator/Order 66 combo. We’re already in a viral apocalypse; we don’t need a robot one on top of that.
 

Congratulations to our new favorite reader

The winner of last week’s inaugural Pandemic Pandemonium comes to us from Tiffanie Roe. By getting her entry in first, just ahead of the flood of responses we received – and by flood we mean a very slow and very quickly repaired drip – Ms. Roe puts the gold medal for COVID-related insanity around the necks of Australian magpies, who may start attacking people wearing face masks during “swooping season” because the birds don’t recognize them.

Exercising to lose weight is not for every ‘body’

This first item comes from the “You’ve got to be kidding” section of LOTME’s supersecret topics-of-interest file.

Maya23K/Thinkstock

Investigators at the Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the University of Roehampton noticed that some people who enrolled in exercise programs to lose weight did just the opposite: they gained weight.

Being scientists, they decided to look at the effects of energy expenditure and how those effects varied among individuals. The likely culprit in this case, they determined, is something called compensatory mechanisms. One such mechanism involves eating more food because exercise stimulates appetite, and another might reduce energy expenditure on other components like resting metabolism so that the exercise is, in effect, less costly.

A look at the numbers shows how compensatory mechanisms worked in the study population of 1,750 adults. Among individuals with the highest BMI, 51% of the calories burned during activity translated into calories burned at the end of the day. For those with normal BMI, however, 72% of calories burned during activity were reflected in total expenditure.

“People living with obesity cut back their resting metabolism when they are more active. The result is that for every calorie they spend on exercise they save about half a calorie on resting,” the investigators explained.

In other words, some bodies will, unconsciously, work against the conscious effort of exercising to lose weight. Thank you very much, compensatory mechanisms, for the boundarylessness exhibited in exceeding your job description.
 

When it comes to the mix, walnuts go nuts

When it comes to mixed nuts, walnuts get no love. But we may be able to give you a reason to not pick them out: Your arteries.

PxHere

Participants in a recent study who ate about a half-cup of walnuts every day for 2 years saw a drop in their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. The number and quality of LDL particles in healthy older adults also improved. How? Good ol’ omega-3 fatty acids.

Omega-3 is found in many foods linked to lower risks of heart disease, lower cholesterol levels, and lower blood sugar levels, but the one thing that makes the walnut a front runner for Miss Super Food 2021 is their ability to improve the quality of LDL particles.

“LDL particles come in various sizes [and] research has shown that small, dense LDL particles are more often associated with atherosclerosis, the plaque or fatty deposits that build up in the arteries,” Emilio Ros, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona and the study’s senior investigator, said in a written statement.

The 708 participants, aged 63-79 years and mostly women, were divided into two groups: One received the walnut diet and the other did not. After 2 years, the walnut group had lower LDL levels by an average of 4.3 mg/dL. Total cholesterol was reduced by an average of 8.5 mg/dL. Also, their total LDL particle count was 4.3% lower and small LDL particles were down by 6.1%.

So instead of picking the walnuts out of the mix, try to find it in your heart to appreciate them. Your body already does.
 

Begun, the clone war has

Well, not quite yet, Master Yoda, but perhaps one day soon, if a study from Japan into the uncanny valley of the usage of cloned humanlike faces in robotics and artificial intelligence, published in PLOS One, is to be believed.

Patrick Bursa/Pixabay

The study consisted of a number of six smaller experiments in which participants judged a series of images based on subjective eeriness, emotional valence, and realism. The images included people with the same cloned face; people with different faces; dogs; identical twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc.; and cloned animated characters. In the sixth experiment, the photos were the same as in the second (six cloned faces, six different faces, and a single face) but participants also answered the Disgust Scale–Revised to accurately analyze disgust sensitivity.

The results of all these experiments were quite clear: People found the cloned faces far creepier than the varied or single face, an effect the researchers called clone devaluation. Notably, this effect only applied to realistic human faces; most people didn’t find the cloned dogs or cloned animated characters creepy. However, those who did were more likely to find the human clones eerie on the Disgust Scale.

The authors noted that future robotics technology needs to be carefully considered to avoid the uncanny valley and this clone devaluation effect, which is a very good point. The last thing we need is a few million robots with identical faces getting angry at us and pulling a Terminator/Order 66 combo. We’re already in a viral apocalypse; we don’t need a robot one on top of that.
 

Congratulations to our new favorite reader

The winner of last week’s inaugural Pandemic Pandemonium comes to us from Tiffanie Roe. By getting her entry in first, just ahead of the flood of responses we received – and by flood we mean a very slow and very quickly repaired drip – Ms. Roe puts the gold medal for COVID-related insanity around the necks of Australian magpies, who may start attacking people wearing face masks during “swooping season” because the birds don’t recognize them.

Exercising to lose weight is not for every ‘body’

This first item comes from the “You’ve got to be kidding” section of LOTME’s supersecret topics-of-interest file.

Maya23K/Thinkstock

Investigators at the Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the University of Roehampton noticed that some people who enrolled in exercise programs to lose weight did just the opposite: they gained weight.

Being scientists, they decided to look at the effects of energy expenditure and how those effects varied among individuals. The likely culprit in this case, they determined, is something called compensatory mechanisms. One such mechanism involves eating more food because exercise stimulates appetite, and another might reduce energy expenditure on other components like resting metabolism so that the exercise is, in effect, less costly.

A look at the numbers shows how compensatory mechanisms worked in the study population of 1,750 adults. Among individuals with the highest BMI, 51% of the calories burned during activity translated into calories burned at the end of the day. For those with normal BMI, however, 72% of calories burned during activity were reflected in total expenditure.

“People living with obesity cut back their resting metabolism when they are more active. The result is that for every calorie they spend on exercise they save about half a calorie on resting,” the investigators explained.

In other words, some bodies will, unconsciously, work against the conscious effort of exercising to lose weight. Thank you very much, compensatory mechanisms, for the boundarylessness exhibited in exceeding your job description.
 

When it comes to the mix, walnuts go nuts

When it comes to mixed nuts, walnuts get no love. But we may be able to give you a reason to not pick them out: Your arteries.

PxHere

Participants in a recent study who ate about a half-cup of walnuts every day for 2 years saw a drop in their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. The number and quality of LDL particles in healthy older adults also improved. How? Good ol’ omega-3 fatty acids.

Omega-3 is found in many foods linked to lower risks of heart disease, lower cholesterol levels, and lower blood sugar levels, but the one thing that makes the walnut a front runner for Miss Super Food 2021 is their ability to improve the quality of LDL particles.

“LDL particles come in various sizes [and] research has shown that small, dense LDL particles are more often associated with atherosclerosis, the plaque or fatty deposits that build up in the arteries,” Emilio Ros, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona and the study’s senior investigator, said in a written statement.

The 708 participants, aged 63-79 years and mostly women, were divided into two groups: One received the walnut diet and the other did not. After 2 years, the walnut group had lower LDL levels by an average of 4.3 mg/dL. Total cholesterol was reduced by an average of 8.5 mg/dL. Also, their total LDL particle count was 4.3% lower and small LDL particles were down by 6.1%.

So instead of picking the walnuts out of the mix, try to find it in your heart to appreciate them. Your body already does.
 

Begun, the clone war has

Well, not quite yet, Master Yoda, but perhaps one day soon, if a study from Japan into the uncanny valley of the usage of cloned humanlike faces in robotics and artificial intelligence, published in PLOS One, is to be believed.

Patrick Bursa/Pixabay

The study consisted of a number of six smaller experiments in which participants judged a series of images based on subjective eeriness, emotional valence, and realism. The images included people with the same cloned face; people with different faces; dogs; identical twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc.; and cloned animated characters. In the sixth experiment, the photos were the same as in the second (six cloned faces, six different faces, and a single face) but participants also answered the Disgust Scale–Revised to accurately analyze disgust sensitivity.

The results of all these experiments were quite clear: People found the cloned faces far creepier than the varied or single face, an effect the researchers called clone devaluation. Notably, this effect only applied to realistic human faces; most people didn’t find the cloned dogs or cloned animated characters creepy. However, those who did were more likely to find the human clones eerie on the Disgust Scale.

The authors noted that future robotics technology needs to be carefully considered to avoid the uncanny valley and this clone devaluation effect, which is a very good point. The last thing we need is a few million robots with identical faces getting angry at us and pulling a Terminator/Order 66 combo. We’re already in a viral apocalypse; we don’t need a robot one on top of that.
 

Congratulations to our new favorite reader

The winner of last week’s inaugural Pandemic Pandemonium comes to us from Tiffanie Roe. By getting her entry in first, just ahead of the flood of responses we received – and by flood we mean a very slow and very quickly repaired drip – Ms. Roe puts the gold medal for COVID-related insanity around the necks of Australian magpies, who may start attacking people wearing face masks during “swooping season” because the birds don’t recognize them.

People with breakthrough COVID-19 infections are two times more likely to be completely asymptomatic and are about two-thirds less likely to be hospitalized, compared with those who are unvaccinated, according to a new observational study.

Individuals infected with COVID-19 after receiving their first or second dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine experienced a lower number of symptoms in the first week of infection, compared with those who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine, reported the authors of the report in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. These patients also had a reduced need for hospitalization, compared with their unvaccinated peers. Those who received both doses of a vaccine were less likely to experience prolonged COVID - defined as at least 28 days of symptoms in this paper - compared with unvaccinated individuals.

“We are at a critical point in the pandemic as we see cases rising worldwide due to the delta variant,” study co–lead author Dr. Claire Steves, said in a statement. “Breakthrough infections are expected and don’t diminish the fact that these vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do – save lives and prevent serious illness.”

For the community-based, case-control study, Dr. Steves, who is a clinical senior lecturer at King’s College London, and her colleagues analyzed and presented self-reported data on demographics, geographical location, health risk factors, COVID-19 test results, symptoms, and vaccinations from more than 1.2 million UK-based adults through the COVID Symptom Study mobile phone app.

They found that, of the 1.2 million adults who received at least one dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine, fewer than 0.5% tested positive for COVID-19 14 days after their first dose. Of those who received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 0.2% acquired the infection more than 7 days post vaccination.

Likelihood of severe symptoms dropped after one dose

After just one COVID-19 vaccine dose, the likelihood of experiencing severe symptoms from a COVID-19 infection dropped by a quarter. The odds of their infection being asymptomatic increased by 94% after the second dose. Researchers also found that vaccinated participants in the study were more likely to be completely asymptomatic, especially if they were 60 years or older.

Furthermore, the odds of those with breakthrough infections experiencing severe disease – which is characterized by having five or more symptoms within the first week of becoming ill – dropped by approximately one-third.

When evaluating risk factors, the researchers found that those most vulnerable to a breakthrough infection after receiving a first dose of Pfizer, Moderna, or Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccine were older adults (ages 60 years or older) who are either frail or live with underlying conditions such as asthma, lung disease, and obesity.

The findings provide substantial evidence that there are benefits after just one dose of the vaccine, said Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis. However, the report also supports caution around becoming lax on protective COVID-19 measures such as physical distancing and wearing masks, especially around vulnerable groups, he said.

Findings may have implications for health policies

“It’s also important for people who are fully vaccinated to understand that these infections are expected and are happening, especially now with the Delta variant” Dr. Hijano said. “While the outcomes are favorable, you need to still protect yourself to also protect your loved ones. You want to be very mindful that, if you are vaccinated and you get infected, you can pass it on to somebody that actually has not been vaccinated or has some of these risk factors.”

The authors of the new research paper believe their findings may have implications for health policies regarding the timing between vaccine doses, COVID-19 booster shots, and for continuing personal protective measures.

The authors of the paper and Dr. Hijano disclosed no conflicts.

People with breakthrough COVID-19 infections are two times more likely to be completely asymptomatic and are about two-thirds less likely to be hospitalized, compared with those who are unvaccinated, according to a new observational study.

Individuals infected with COVID-19 after receiving their first or second dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine experienced a lower number of symptoms in the first week of infection, compared with those who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine, reported the authors of the report in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. These patients also had a reduced need for hospitalization, compared with their unvaccinated peers. Those who received both doses of a vaccine were less likely to experience prolonged COVID - defined as at least 28 days of symptoms in this paper - compared with unvaccinated individuals.

“We are at a critical point in the pandemic as we see cases rising worldwide due to the delta variant,” study co–lead author Dr. Claire Steves, said in a statement. “Breakthrough infections are expected and don’t diminish the fact that these vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do – save lives and prevent serious illness.”

For the community-based, case-control study, Dr. Steves, who is a clinical senior lecturer at King’s College London, and her colleagues analyzed and presented self-reported data on demographics, geographical location, health risk factors, COVID-19 test results, symptoms, and vaccinations from more than 1.2 million UK-based adults through the COVID Symptom Study mobile phone app.

They found that, of the 1.2 million adults who received at least one dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine, fewer than 0.5% tested positive for COVID-19 14 days after their first dose. Of those who received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 0.2% acquired the infection more than 7 days post vaccination.

Likelihood of severe symptoms dropped after one dose

After just one COVID-19 vaccine dose, the likelihood of experiencing severe symptoms from a COVID-19 infection dropped by a quarter. The odds of their infection being asymptomatic increased by 94% after the second dose. Researchers also found that vaccinated participants in the study were more likely to be completely asymptomatic, especially if they were 60 years or older.

Furthermore, the odds of those with breakthrough infections experiencing severe disease – which is characterized by having five or more symptoms within the first week of becoming ill – dropped by approximately one-third.

When evaluating risk factors, the researchers found that those most vulnerable to a breakthrough infection after receiving a first dose of Pfizer, Moderna, or Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccine were older adults (ages 60 years or older) who are either frail or live with underlying conditions such as asthma, lung disease, and obesity.

The findings provide substantial evidence that there are benefits after just one dose of the vaccine, said Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis. However, the report also supports caution around becoming lax on protective COVID-19 measures such as physical distancing and wearing masks, especially around vulnerable groups, he said.

Findings may have implications for health policies

“It’s also important for people who are fully vaccinated to understand that these infections are expected and are happening, especially now with the Delta variant” Dr. Hijano said. “While the outcomes are favorable, you need to still protect yourself to also protect your loved ones. You want to be very mindful that, if you are vaccinated and you get infected, you can pass it on to somebody that actually has not been vaccinated or has some of these risk factors.”

The authors of the new research paper believe their findings may have implications for health policies regarding the timing between vaccine doses, COVID-19 booster shots, and for continuing personal protective measures.

The authors of the paper and Dr. Hijano disclosed no conflicts.

People with breakthrough COVID-19 infections are two times more likely to be completely asymptomatic and are about two-thirds less likely to be hospitalized, compared with those who are unvaccinated, according to a new observational study.

Individuals infected with COVID-19 after receiving their first or second dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine experienced a lower number of symptoms in the first week of infection, compared with those who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine, reported the authors of the report in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. These patients also had a reduced need for hospitalization, compared with their unvaccinated peers. Those who received both doses of a vaccine were less likely to experience prolonged COVID - defined as at least 28 days of symptoms in this paper - compared with unvaccinated individuals.

“We are at a critical point in the pandemic as we see cases rising worldwide due to the delta variant,” study co–lead author Dr. Claire Steves, said in a statement. “Breakthrough infections are expected and don’t diminish the fact that these vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do – save lives and prevent serious illness.”

For the community-based, case-control study, Dr. Steves, who is a clinical senior lecturer at King’s College London, and her colleagues analyzed and presented self-reported data on demographics, geographical location, health risk factors, COVID-19 test results, symptoms, and vaccinations from more than 1.2 million UK-based adults through the COVID Symptom Study mobile phone app.

They found that, of the 1.2 million adults who received at least one dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine, fewer than 0.5% tested positive for COVID-19 14 days after their first dose. Of those who received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 0.2% acquired the infection more than 7 days post vaccination.

Likelihood of severe symptoms dropped after one dose

After just one COVID-19 vaccine dose, the likelihood of experiencing severe symptoms from a COVID-19 infection dropped by a quarter. The odds of their infection being asymptomatic increased by 94% after the second dose. Researchers also found that vaccinated participants in the study were more likely to be completely asymptomatic, especially if they were 60 years or older.

Furthermore, the odds of those with breakthrough infections experiencing severe disease – which is characterized by having five or more symptoms within the first week of becoming ill – dropped by approximately one-third.

When evaluating risk factors, the researchers found that those most vulnerable to a breakthrough infection after receiving a first dose of Pfizer, Moderna, or Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccine were older adults (ages 60 years or older) who are either frail or live with underlying conditions such as asthma, lung disease, and obesity.

The findings provide substantial evidence that there are benefits after just one dose of the vaccine, said Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis. However, the report also supports caution around becoming lax on protective COVID-19 measures such as physical distancing and wearing masks, especially around vulnerable groups, he said.

Findings may have implications for health policies

“It’s also important for people who are fully vaccinated to understand that these infections are expected and are happening, especially now with the Delta variant” Dr. Hijano said. “While the outcomes are favorable, you need to still protect yourself to also protect your loved ones. You want to be very mindful that, if you are vaccinated and you get infected, you can pass it on to somebody that actually has not been vaccinated or has some of these risk factors.”

The authors of the new research paper believe their findings may have implications for health policies regarding the timing between vaccine doses, COVID-19 booster shots, and for continuing personal protective measures.

The authors of the paper and Dr. Hijano disclosed no conflicts.

Children who receive CPR with both rescue breathing and compressions from a bystander have greater odds of survival without serious brain damage than if they receive CPR with compressions only, according to a study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Specifically, a child has a 61% better chance of surviving with good neurologic outcomes if they receive compression-only CPR versus no bystander resuscitation, but that child is more than twice as likely to survive if he or she receives rescue breathing as well.

The study’s clinical implications are most important for bystander CPR training, lead author Maryam Y. Naim, MD, MSCE, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia, told this news organization.

“Many programs teach compression-only CPR to lay rescuers, and there should be a renewed emphasis on rescue breathing for the possibility a lay rescuer has to perform CPR on a child,” Dr. Naim said.

That said, if a bystander is unfamiliar with how to properly administer rescue breathing or has concerns about hygiene or infection on someone they don’t know, Dr. Naim advises doing compression-only CPR, especially if the child is older than age 1 year. “If a child is younger than a year of age please consider giving rescue breaths with chest compressions,” she added.

Dr. Naim and colleagues analyzed 13,060 pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival database, which includes data from 911 call centers, emergency medical services (EMS) providers, and receiving hospitals across 28 states. The data sample included all cases age 18 years or younger who experienced nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between January 2013 and December 2019, excluding those with obvious signs of death or a “do not resuscitate” order.

“Because the etiology of cardiac arrest in children is difficult to determine, especially in cases that result in death, all nontraumatic cases were included regardless of presumed etiology, including respiratory, cardiac, drowning, electrocution, or other,” the authors wrote. The researchers defined neurologically favorable survival, the primary endpoint, as “a cerebral performance category score of 1 (no neurologic disability) or 2 (moderate disability)” at discharge. Neurologically unfavorable survival included a score of 3 (severe disability), 4 (coma or vegetative state), or death. 

Among the 10,429 cases ultimately analyzed after exclusions and missing data, 46.5% received bystander CPR. Slightly more than half of these (55.6%) received compression-only CPR while the other 45.3% received rescue-breathing CPR.

Dr. Naim was surprised that compression-only CPR was the most common form of CPR given to children with cardiac arrest because the current American Heart Association/International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation recommendations note rescue breathing as the preferred form in children.

That preference exists because respiratory failure occurs more often in children than in adults as a cause of cardiac arrest, explained Sandra Weiss, MD, an interventional cardiologist and the medical director of the cardiac intensive care unit at ChristianaCare’s Christiana Hospital in Newark, Del.

Because of that, “it’s not surprising that if you give respiratory resuscitation to a child who’s arresting from a respiratory cause that they’re going to do better than if you just do chest compressions,” said Dr. Weiss, who was not involved in the study.

The study found the most common presumed cause of arrest to be cardiac, occurring in 44.4% of cases, but it was closely followed by respiratory in nearly one-third of cases (32.8%).

Infants younger than age 1 year were the most common age group to have a cardiac arrest, making up more than all other ages combined. Most out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occurred in a home and were observed by someone when they happened. While rates of bystander CPR did not change during the study’s 6-year period, the incidence of compression-only CPR increased. Lay people without medical training provided the CPR in 93.6% of cases.

Only 8.6% of cardiac arrest cases resulted in neurologically favorable survival, a rate which remained steady throughout the study period. The rate increased with increasing age, at 4.6% of infants, 10.6% of children, and 16.5% of adolescents.

Those who received CPR with rescue breathing had more than double the odds of neurologically favorable survival than if they hadn’t received CPR at all (adjusted odds ratio, 2.16). Survival with a positive neurologic outcome was 1.6 times more likely with compression-only CPR than no CPR (aOR, 1.61). When researchers compared the two forms of CPR, inclusion of rescue breathing increased the child’s likelihood of survival without neurologic sequelae by 36% (aOR, 1.36).

Despite these findings, however, Dr. Weiss agrees with Dr. Naim that offering compression-only CPR is preferable to offering no CPR at all.

“All resuscitation is better than no resuscitation, regardless of whether it’s compression only or respiratory breathing,” Dr. Weiss said in an interview. “The average lay person is probably going to do the easiest thing, and survivability is going to be increased by doing anything rather than nothing.”

Dr. Weiss also noted that it’s easier to instruct people how to do chest compressions, especially, for example, during an emergency phone call with a dispatcher while waiting for EMS to arrive.

“It’s absolutely imperative for people to get the basics, and the basics are compressions,” she said. “That’s really what is the most vital component of all resuscitative efforts, regardless of whether it’s adult or pediatrics.”

Dr. Weiss also acknowledges that laypeople may feel particularly less comfortable administering rescue breaths to a child they don’t know in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even if the odds are low that the specific child experiencing a cardiac arrest is necessarily infectious, the AHA guidelines include the caveat that, “if there’s a concern for infection transmissibility, that compression only is acceptable,” Dr. Weiss said. “It’s a reality for our current state.”

The superiority of rescue-breathing CPR to compression-only CPR was true across all age groups, but compression-only CPR still resulted in better survival odds than no CPR at all for all age groups except infants, in whom only rescue breathing was associated with a statistically significant increased likelihood of neurologically favorable survival.

Protective factors for positive outcomes included being younger than age 1 year, the arrest being witnessed, and a having shockable rhythm. Risk factors reducing survival included being Black, being in a home, and cardiac arrests linked with automated external defibrillator use before EMS arrived.

The CARES program was previously funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is now funded by the American Red Cross, the AHA, Stryker, and Emory University. Dr. Naim was further supported by Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the American Red Cross. The authors and Dr. Weiss disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children who receive CPR with both rescue breathing and compressions from a bystander have greater odds of survival without serious brain damage than if they receive CPR with compressions only, according to a study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Specifically, a child has a 61% better chance of surviving with good neurologic outcomes if they receive compression-only CPR versus no bystander resuscitation, but that child is more than twice as likely to survive if he or she receives rescue breathing as well.

The study’s clinical implications are most important for bystander CPR training, lead author Maryam Y. Naim, MD, MSCE, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia, told this news organization.

“Many programs teach compression-only CPR to lay rescuers, and there should be a renewed emphasis on rescue breathing for the possibility a lay rescuer has to perform CPR on a child,” Dr. Naim said.

That said, if a bystander is unfamiliar with how to properly administer rescue breathing or has concerns about hygiene or infection on someone they don’t know, Dr. Naim advises doing compression-only CPR, especially if the child is older than age 1 year. “If a child is younger than a year of age please consider giving rescue breaths with chest compressions,” she added.

Dr. Naim and colleagues analyzed 13,060 pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival database, which includes data from 911 call centers, emergency medical services (EMS) providers, and receiving hospitals across 28 states. The data sample included all cases age 18 years or younger who experienced nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between January 2013 and December 2019, excluding those with obvious signs of death or a “do not resuscitate” order.

“Because the etiology of cardiac arrest in children is difficult to determine, especially in cases that result in death, all nontraumatic cases were included regardless of presumed etiology, including respiratory, cardiac, drowning, electrocution, or other,” the authors wrote. The researchers defined neurologically favorable survival, the primary endpoint, as “a cerebral performance category score of 1 (no neurologic disability) or 2 (moderate disability)” at discharge. Neurologically unfavorable survival included a score of 3 (severe disability), 4 (coma or vegetative state), or death. 

Among the 10,429 cases ultimately analyzed after exclusions and missing data, 46.5% received bystander CPR. Slightly more than half of these (55.6%) received compression-only CPR while the other 45.3% received rescue-breathing CPR.

Dr. Naim was surprised that compression-only CPR was the most common form of CPR given to children with cardiac arrest because the current American Heart Association/International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation recommendations note rescue breathing as the preferred form in children.

That preference exists because respiratory failure occurs more often in children than in adults as a cause of cardiac arrest, explained Sandra Weiss, MD, an interventional cardiologist and the medical director of the cardiac intensive care unit at ChristianaCare’s Christiana Hospital in Newark, Del.

Because of that, “it’s not surprising that if you give respiratory resuscitation to a child who’s arresting from a respiratory cause that they’re going to do better than if you just do chest compressions,” said Dr. Weiss, who was not involved in the study.

The study found the most common presumed cause of arrest to be cardiac, occurring in 44.4% of cases, but it was closely followed by respiratory in nearly one-third of cases (32.8%).

Infants younger than age 1 year were the most common age group to have a cardiac arrest, making up more than all other ages combined. Most out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occurred in a home and were observed by someone when they happened. While rates of bystander CPR did not change during the study’s 6-year period, the incidence of compression-only CPR increased. Lay people without medical training provided the CPR in 93.6% of cases.

Only 8.6% of cardiac arrest cases resulted in neurologically favorable survival, a rate which remained steady throughout the study period. The rate increased with increasing age, at 4.6% of infants, 10.6% of children, and 16.5% of adolescents.

Those who received CPR with rescue breathing had more than double the odds of neurologically favorable survival than if they hadn’t received CPR at all (adjusted odds ratio, 2.16). Survival with a positive neurologic outcome was 1.6 times more likely with compression-only CPR than no CPR (aOR, 1.61). When researchers compared the two forms of CPR, inclusion of rescue breathing increased the child’s likelihood of survival without neurologic sequelae by 36% (aOR, 1.36).

Despite these findings, however, Dr. Weiss agrees with Dr. Naim that offering compression-only CPR is preferable to offering no CPR at all.

“All resuscitation is better than no resuscitation, regardless of whether it’s compression only or respiratory breathing,” Dr. Weiss said in an interview. “The average lay person is probably going to do the easiest thing, and survivability is going to be increased by doing anything rather than nothing.”

Dr. Weiss also noted that it’s easier to instruct people how to do chest compressions, especially, for example, during an emergency phone call with a dispatcher while waiting for EMS to arrive.

“It’s absolutely imperative for people to get the basics, and the basics are compressions,” she said. “That’s really what is the most vital component of all resuscitative efforts, regardless of whether it’s adult or pediatrics.”

Dr. Weiss also acknowledges that laypeople may feel particularly less comfortable administering rescue breaths to a child they don’t know in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even if the odds are low that the specific child experiencing a cardiac arrest is necessarily infectious, the AHA guidelines include the caveat that, “if there’s a concern for infection transmissibility, that compression only is acceptable,” Dr. Weiss said. “It’s a reality for our current state.”

The superiority of rescue-breathing CPR to compression-only CPR was true across all age groups, but compression-only CPR still resulted in better survival odds than no CPR at all for all age groups except infants, in whom only rescue breathing was associated with a statistically significant increased likelihood of neurologically favorable survival.

Protective factors for positive outcomes included being younger than age 1 year, the arrest being witnessed, and a having shockable rhythm. Risk factors reducing survival included being Black, being in a home, and cardiac arrests linked with automated external defibrillator use before EMS arrived.

The CARES program was previously funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is now funded by the American Red Cross, the AHA, Stryker, and Emory University. Dr. Naim was further supported by Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the American Red Cross. The authors and Dr. Weiss disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children who receive CPR with both rescue breathing and compressions from a bystander have greater odds of survival without serious brain damage than if they receive CPR with compressions only, according to a study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Specifically, a child has a 61% better chance of surviving with good neurologic outcomes if they receive compression-only CPR versus no bystander resuscitation, but that child is more than twice as likely to survive if he or she receives rescue breathing as well.

The study’s clinical implications are most important for bystander CPR training, lead author Maryam Y. Naim, MD, MSCE, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia, told this news organization.

“Many programs teach compression-only CPR to lay rescuers, and there should be a renewed emphasis on rescue breathing for the possibility a lay rescuer has to perform CPR on a child,” Dr. Naim said.

That said, if a bystander is unfamiliar with how to properly administer rescue breathing or has concerns about hygiene or infection on someone they don’t know, Dr. Naim advises doing compression-only CPR, especially if the child is older than age 1 year. “If a child is younger than a year of age please consider giving rescue breaths with chest compressions,” she added.

Dr. Naim and colleagues analyzed 13,060 pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival database, which includes data from 911 call centers, emergency medical services (EMS) providers, and receiving hospitals across 28 states. The data sample included all cases age 18 years or younger who experienced nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between January 2013 and December 2019, excluding those with obvious signs of death or a “do not resuscitate” order.

“Because the etiology of cardiac arrest in children is difficult to determine, especially in cases that result in death, all nontraumatic cases were included regardless of presumed etiology, including respiratory, cardiac, drowning, electrocution, or other,” the authors wrote. The researchers defined neurologically favorable survival, the primary endpoint, as “a cerebral performance category score of 1 (no neurologic disability) or 2 (moderate disability)” at discharge. Neurologically unfavorable survival included a score of 3 (severe disability), 4 (coma or vegetative state), or death. 

Among the 10,429 cases ultimately analyzed after exclusions and missing data, 46.5% received bystander CPR. Slightly more than half of these (55.6%) received compression-only CPR while the other 45.3% received rescue-breathing CPR.

Dr. Naim was surprised that compression-only CPR was the most common form of CPR given to children with cardiac arrest because the current American Heart Association/International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation recommendations note rescue breathing as the preferred form in children.

That preference exists because respiratory failure occurs more often in children than in adults as a cause of cardiac arrest, explained Sandra Weiss, MD, an interventional cardiologist and the medical director of the cardiac intensive care unit at ChristianaCare’s Christiana Hospital in Newark, Del.

Because of that, “it’s not surprising that if you give respiratory resuscitation to a child who’s arresting from a respiratory cause that they’re going to do better than if you just do chest compressions,” said Dr. Weiss, who was not involved in the study.

The study found the most common presumed cause of arrest to be cardiac, occurring in 44.4% of cases, but it was closely followed by respiratory in nearly one-third of cases (32.8%).

Infants younger than age 1 year were the most common age group to have a cardiac arrest, making up more than all other ages combined. Most out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occurred in a home and were observed by someone when they happened. While rates of bystander CPR did not change during the study’s 6-year period, the incidence of compression-only CPR increased. Lay people without medical training provided the CPR in 93.6% of cases.

Only 8.6% of cardiac arrest cases resulted in neurologically favorable survival, a rate which remained steady throughout the study period. The rate increased with increasing age, at 4.6% of infants, 10.6% of children, and 16.5% of adolescents.

Those who received CPR with rescue breathing had more than double the odds of neurologically favorable survival than if they hadn’t received CPR at all (adjusted odds ratio, 2.16). Survival with a positive neurologic outcome was 1.6 times more likely with compression-only CPR than no CPR (aOR, 1.61). When researchers compared the two forms of CPR, inclusion of rescue breathing increased the child’s likelihood of survival without neurologic sequelae by 36% (aOR, 1.36).

Despite these findings, however, Dr. Weiss agrees with Dr. Naim that offering compression-only CPR is preferable to offering no CPR at all.

“All resuscitation is better than no resuscitation, regardless of whether it’s compression only or respiratory breathing,” Dr. Weiss said in an interview. “The average lay person is probably going to do the easiest thing, and survivability is going to be increased by doing anything rather than nothing.”

Dr. Weiss also noted that it’s easier to instruct people how to do chest compressions, especially, for example, during an emergency phone call with a dispatcher while waiting for EMS to arrive.

“It’s absolutely imperative for people to get the basics, and the basics are compressions,” she said. “That’s really what is the most vital component of all resuscitative efforts, regardless of whether it’s adult or pediatrics.”

Dr. Weiss also acknowledges that laypeople may feel particularly less comfortable administering rescue breaths to a child they don’t know in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even if the odds are low that the specific child experiencing a cardiac arrest is necessarily infectious, the AHA guidelines include the caveat that, “if there’s a concern for infection transmissibility, that compression only is acceptable,” Dr. Weiss said. “It’s a reality for our current state.”

The superiority of rescue-breathing CPR to compression-only CPR was true across all age groups, but compression-only CPR still resulted in better survival odds than no CPR at all for all age groups except infants, in whom only rescue breathing was associated with a statistically significant increased likelihood of neurologically favorable survival.

Protective factors for positive outcomes included being younger than age 1 year, the arrest being witnessed, and a having shockable rhythm. Risk factors reducing survival included being Black, being in a home, and cardiac arrests linked with automated external defibrillator use before EMS arrived.

The CARES program was previously funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is now funded by the American Red Cross, the AHA, Stryker, and Emory University. Dr. Naim was further supported by Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the American Red Cross. The authors and Dr. Weiss disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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