User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
If you give a mouse a genetically engineered bitcoin wallet
The world’s most valuable mouse
You’ve heard of Mighty Mouse. Now say hello to the world’s newest mouse superhero, Crypto-Mouse! After being bitten by a radioactive cryptocurrency investor, Crypto-Mouse can tap directly into the power of the blockchain itself, allowing it to perform incredible, death-defying feats of strength!
We’re going to stop right there before Crypto-Mouse gains entry into the Marvel cinematic universe. Let’s rewind to the beginning, because that’s precisely where this crazy scheme is at. In late January, a new decentralized autonomous organization, BitMouseDAO, launched to enormous … -ly little fanfare, according to Vice. Two investors as of Jan. 31. But what they lack in money they make up for in sheer ambition.
BitMouseDAO’s $100 million dollar idea is to genetically engineer mice to carry bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency and one of the most valuable. This isn’t as crazy an idea as it sounds since DNA can be modified to store information, potentially even bitcoin information. Their plan is to create a private bitcoin wallet, which will be stored in the mouse DNA, and purchase online bitcoin to store in this wallet.
BitMouseDAO, being a “collection of artists,” plans to partner with a lab to translate its private key into a specific DNA sequence to be encoded into the mice during fertilization; or, if that doesn’t work, inject them with a harmless virus that carries the key.
Since these are artists, their ultimate plan is to use their bitcoin mice to make NFTs (scratch that off your cryptocurrency bingo card) and auction them off to people. Or, as Vice put it, BitMouseDAO essentially plans to send preserved dead mice to people. Artistic dead mice! Artistic dead mice worth millions! Maybe. Even BitMouseDAO admits bitcoin could be worthless by the time the project gets off the ground.
If this all sounds completely insane, that’s because it is. But it also sounds crazy enough to work. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to write a screenplay about a scrappy group of high-tech thieves who steal a group of genetically altered bitcoin mice to sell for millions, only to keep them as their adorable pets. Trust us Hollywood, it’ll make millions!
Alcoholic monkeys vs. the future of feces
Which is more important, the journey or the destination? Science is all about the destination, yes? Solving the problem, saving a life, expanding horizons. That’s science. Or is it? The scientific method is a process, so does that make it a journey?
For us, today’s journey begins at the University of Iowa, where investigators are trying to reduce alcohol consumption. A worthy goal, and they seem to have made some progress by targeting a liver hormone called fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21). But we’re more interested in the process right now, so bring on the alcoholic monkeys. And no, that’s not a death metal/reggae fusion band. Should be, though.
“The vervet monkey population is [composed] of alcohol avoiders, moderate alcohol drinkers, and a group of heavy drinkers,” Matthew Potthoff, PhD, and associates wrote in Cell Metabolism. When this particular bunch of heavy-drinking vervets were given FGF21, they consumed 50% less alcohol than did vehicle-treated controls, so mission accomplished.
Maybe it could be a breakfast cereal. Who wouldn’t enjoy a bowl of alcoholic monkeys in the morning?
And after breakfast, you might be ready for a digitized bowel movement, courtesy of researchers at University of California, San Diego. They’re studying ulcerative colitis (UC) by examining the gut microbiome, and their “most useful biological sample is patient stool,” according to a written statement from the university.
“Once we had all the technology to digitize the stool, the question was, is this going to tell us what’s happening in these patients? The answer turned out to be yes,” co-senior author Rob Knight, PhD, said in the statement. “Digitizing fecal material is the future.” The road to UC treatment, in other words, is paved with digital stool.
About 40% of the UC patients had elevated protease levels, and their high-protease feces were then transplanted into germ-free mice, which subsequently developed colitis and were successfully treated with protease inhibitors. And that is our final destination.
As our revered founder and mentor, Josephine Lotmevich, used to say, an alcoholic monkey in the hand is worth a number 2 in the bush.
Raise a glass to delinquency
You wouldn’t think that a glass of water could lead to a life of crime, but a recent study suggests just that.
Children exposed to lead in their drinking water during their early years had a 21% higher risk of delinquency after the age of 14 years and a 38% higher risk of having a record for a serious complaint, Jackie MacDonald Gibson and associates said in a statement on Eurekalert.
Data for the study came from Wake County, N.C., which includes rural areas, wealthy exurban developments, and predominantly Black communities. The investigators compared the blood lead levels for children tested between 1998 and 2011 with juvenile delinquency reports of the same children from the N.C. Department of Public Safety.
The main culprit, they found, was well water. Blood lead levels were 11% higher in the children whose water came from private wells, compared with children using community water. About 13% of U.S. households rely on private wells, which are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, for their water supply.
The researchers said there is an urgent need for better drinking-water solutions in communities that rely on well water, whether it be through subsidized home filtration or infrastructure redevelopment.
An earlier study had estimated that preventing just one child from entering the adult criminal justice system would save $1.3 to $1.5 million in 1997 dollars. That’s about $2.2 to $2.5 million dollars today!
If you do the math, it’s not hard to see what’s cheaper (and healthier) in the long run.
A ‘dirty’ scam
Another one? This is just getting sad. You’ve probably heard of muds and clays being good for the skin and maybe you’ve gone to a spa and sat in a mud bath, but would you believe it if someone told you that mud can cure all your ailments? No? Neither would we. Senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke was definitely someone who brought this strange treatment to light, but it seems like this is something that has been going on for years, even before the pandemic.
A company called Black Oxygen Organics (BOO) was selling “magic dirt” for $110 per 4-ounce package. It claimed the dirt was high in fulvic acid and humic acid, which are good for many things. They were, however, literally getting this mud from bogs with landfills nearby, Mel magazine reported.
That doesn’t sound appealing at all, but wait, there’s more. People were eating, drinking, bathing, and feeding their families this sludge in hopes that they would be cured of their ailments. A lot of people jumped aboard the magic dirt train when the pandemic arose, but it quickly became clear that this mud was not as helpful as BOO claimed it to be.
“We began to receive inquiries and calls on our website with people having problems and issues. Ultimately, we sent the products out for independent testing, and then when that came back and showed that there were toxic heavy metals [lead, arsenic, and cadmium among them] at an unsafe level, that’s when we knew we had to act,” Atlanta-based attorney Matt Wetherington, who filed a federal lawsuit against BOO, told Mel.
After a very complicated series of events involving an expose by NBC, product recalls, extortion claims, and grassroots activism, BOO was shut down by both the Canadian and U.S. governments.
As always, please listen only to health care professionals when you wish to use natural remedies for illnesses and ailments.
The world’s most valuable mouse
You’ve heard of Mighty Mouse. Now say hello to the world’s newest mouse superhero, Crypto-Mouse! After being bitten by a radioactive cryptocurrency investor, Crypto-Mouse can tap directly into the power of the blockchain itself, allowing it to perform incredible, death-defying feats of strength!
We’re going to stop right there before Crypto-Mouse gains entry into the Marvel cinematic universe. Let’s rewind to the beginning, because that’s precisely where this crazy scheme is at. In late January, a new decentralized autonomous organization, BitMouseDAO, launched to enormous … -ly little fanfare, according to Vice. Two investors as of Jan. 31. But what they lack in money they make up for in sheer ambition.
BitMouseDAO’s $100 million dollar idea is to genetically engineer mice to carry bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency and one of the most valuable. This isn’t as crazy an idea as it sounds since DNA can be modified to store information, potentially even bitcoin information. Their plan is to create a private bitcoin wallet, which will be stored in the mouse DNA, and purchase online bitcoin to store in this wallet.
BitMouseDAO, being a “collection of artists,” plans to partner with a lab to translate its private key into a specific DNA sequence to be encoded into the mice during fertilization; or, if that doesn’t work, inject them with a harmless virus that carries the key.
Since these are artists, their ultimate plan is to use their bitcoin mice to make NFTs (scratch that off your cryptocurrency bingo card) and auction them off to people. Or, as Vice put it, BitMouseDAO essentially plans to send preserved dead mice to people. Artistic dead mice! Artistic dead mice worth millions! Maybe. Even BitMouseDAO admits bitcoin could be worthless by the time the project gets off the ground.
If this all sounds completely insane, that’s because it is. But it also sounds crazy enough to work. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to write a screenplay about a scrappy group of high-tech thieves who steal a group of genetically altered bitcoin mice to sell for millions, only to keep them as their adorable pets. Trust us Hollywood, it’ll make millions!
Alcoholic monkeys vs. the future of feces
Which is more important, the journey or the destination? Science is all about the destination, yes? Solving the problem, saving a life, expanding horizons. That’s science. Or is it? The scientific method is a process, so does that make it a journey?
For us, today’s journey begins at the University of Iowa, where investigators are trying to reduce alcohol consumption. A worthy goal, and they seem to have made some progress by targeting a liver hormone called fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21). But we’re more interested in the process right now, so bring on the alcoholic monkeys. And no, that’s not a death metal/reggae fusion band. Should be, though.
“The vervet monkey population is [composed] of alcohol avoiders, moderate alcohol drinkers, and a group of heavy drinkers,” Matthew Potthoff, PhD, and associates wrote in Cell Metabolism. When this particular bunch of heavy-drinking vervets were given FGF21, they consumed 50% less alcohol than did vehicle-treated controls, so mission accomplished.
Maybe it could be a breakfast cereal. Who wouldn’t enjoy a bowl of alcoholic monkeys in the morning?
And after breakfast, you might be ready for a digitized bowel movement, courtesy of researchers at University of California, San Diego. They’re studying ulcerative colitis (UC) by examining the gut microbiome, and their “most useful biological sample is patient stool,” according to a written statement from the university.
“Once we had all the technology to digitize the stool, the question was, is this going to tell us what’s happening in these patients? The answer turned out to be yes,” co-senior author Rob Knight, PhD, said in the statement. “Digitizing fecal material is the future.” The road to UC treatment, in other words, is paved with digital stool.
About 40% of the UC patients had elevated protease levels, and their high-protease feces were then transplanted into germ-free mice, which subsequently developed colitis and were successfully treated with protease inhibitors. And that is our final destination.
As our revered founder and mentor, Josephine Lotmevich, used to say, an alcoholic monkey in the hand is worth a number 2 in the bush.
Raise a glass to delinquency
You wouldn’t think that a glass of water could lead to a life of crime, but a recent study suggests just that.
Children exposed to lead in their drinking water during their early years had a 21% higher risk of delinquency after the age of 14 years and a 38% higher risk of having a record for a serious complaint, Jackie MacDonald Gibson and associates said in a statement on Eurekalert.
Data for the study came from Wake County, N.C., which includes rural areas, wealthy exurban developments, and predominantly Black communities. The investigators compared the blood lead levels for children tested between 1998 and 2011 with juvenile delinquency reports of the same children from the N.C. Department of Public Safety.
The main culprit, they found, was well water. Blood lead levels were 11% higher in the children whose water came from private wells, compared with children using community water. About 13% of U.S. households rely on private wells, which are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, for their water supply.
The researchers said there is an urgent need for better drinking-water solutions in communities that rely on well water, whether it be through subsidized home filtration or infrastructure redevelopment.
An earlier study had estimated that preventing just one child from entering the adult criminal justice system would save $1.3 to $1.5 million in 1997 dollars. That’s about $2.2 to $2.5 million dollars today!
If you do the math, it’s not hard to see what’s cheaper (and healthier) in the long run.
A ‘dirty’ scam
Another one? This is just getting sad. You’ve probably heard of muds and clays being good for the skin and maybe you’ve gone to a spa and sat in a mud bath, but would you believe it if someone told you that mud can cure all your ailments? No? Neither would we. Senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke was definitely someone who brought this strange treatment to light, but it seems like this is something that has been going on for years, even before the pandemic.
A company called Black Oxygen Organics (BOO) was selling “magic dirt” for $110 per 4-ounce package. It claimed the dirt was high in fulvic acid and humic acid, which are good for many things. They were, however, literally getting this mud from bogs with landfills nearby, Mel magazine reported.
That doesn’t sound appealing at all, but wait, there’s more. People were eating, drinking, bathing, and feeding their families this sludge in hopes that they would be cured of their ailments. A lot of people jumped aboard the magic dirt train when the pandemic arose, but it quickly became clear that this mud was not as helpful as BOO claimed it to be.
“We began to receive inquiries and calls on our website with people having problems and issues. Ultimately, we sent the products out for independent testing, and then when that came back and showed that there were toxic heavy metals [lead, arsenic, and cadmium among them] at an unsafe level, that’s when we knew we had to act,” Atlanta-based attorney Matt Wetherington, who filed a federal lawsuit against BOO, told Mel.
After a very complicated series of events involving an expose by NBC, product recalls, extortion claims, and grassroots activism, BOO was shut down by both the Canadian and U.S. governments.
As always, please listen only to health care professionals when you wish to use natural remedies for illnesses and ailments.
The world’s most valuable mouse
You’ve heard of Mighty Mouse. Now say hello to the world’s newest mouse superhero, Crypto-Mouse! After being bitten by a radioactive cryptocurrency investor, Crypto-Mouse can tap directly into the power of the blockchain itself, allowing it to perform incredible, death-defying feats of strength!
We’re going to stop right there before Crypto-Mouse gains entry into the Marvel cinematic universe. Let’s rewind to the beginning, because that’s precisely where this crazy scheme is at. In late January, a new decentralized autonomous organization, BitMouseDAO, launched to enormous … -ly little fanfare, according to Vice. Two investors as of Jan. 31. But what they lack in money they make up for in sheer ambition.
BitMouseDAO’s $100 million dollar idea is to genetically engineer mice to carry bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency and one of the most valuable. This isn’t as crazy an idea as it sounds since DNA can be modified to store information, potentially even bitcoin information. Their plan is to create a private bitcoin wallet, which will be stored in the mouse DNA, and purchase online bitcoin to store in this wallet.
BitMouseDAO, being a “collection of artists,” plans to partner with a lab to translate its private key into a specific DNA sequence to be encoded into the mice during fertilization; or, if that doesn’t work, inject them with a harmless virus that carries the key.
Since these are artists, their ultimate plan is to use their bitcoin mice to make NFTs (scratch that off your cryptocurrency bingo card) and auction them off to people. Or, as Vice put it, BitMouseDAO essentially plans to send preserved dead mice to people. Artistic dead mice! Artistic dead mice worth millions! Maybe. Even BitMouseDAO admits bitcoin could be worthless by the time the project gets off the ground.
If this all sounds completely insane, that’s because it is. But it also sounds crazy enough to work. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to write a screenplay about a scrappy group of high-tech thieves who steal a group of genetically altered bitcoin mice to sell for millions, only to keep them as their adorable pets. Trust us Hollywood, it’ll make millions!
Alcoholic monkeys vs. the future of feces
Which is more important, the journey or the destination? Science is all about the destination, yes? Solving the problem, saving a life, expanding horizons. That’s science. Or is it? The scientific method is a process, so does that make it a journey?
For us, today’s journey begins at the University of Iowa, where investigators are trying to reduce alcohol consumption. A worthy goal, and they seem to have made some progress by targeting a liver hormone called fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21). But we’re more interested in the process right now, so bring on the alcoholic monkeys. And no, that’s not a death metal/reggae fusion band. Should be, though.
“The vervet monkey population is [composed] of alcohol avoiders, moderate alcohol drinkers, and a group of heavy drinkers,” Matthew Potthoff, PhD, and associates wrote in Cell Metabolism. When this particular bunch of heavy-drinking vervets were given FGF21, they consumed 50% less alcohol than did vehicle-treated controls, so mission accomplished.
Maybe it could be a breakfast cereal. Who wouldn’t enjoy a bowl of alcoholic monkeys in the morning?
And after breakfast, you might be ready for a digitized bowel movement, courtesy of researchers at University of California, San Diego. They’re studying ulcerative colitis (UC) by examining the gut microbiome, and their “most useful biological sample is patient stool,” according to a written statement from the university.
“Once we had all the technology to digitize the stool, the question was, is this going to tell us what’s happening in these patients? The answer turned out to be yes,” co-senior author Rob Knight, PhD, said in the statement. “Digitizing fecal material is the future.” The road to UC treatment, in other words, is paved with digital stool.
About 40% of the UC patients had elevated protease levels, and their high-protease feces were then transplanted into germ-free mice, which subsequently developed colitis and were successfully treated with protease inhibitors. And that is our final destination.
As our revered founder and mentor, Josephine Lotmevich, used to say, an alcoholic monkey in the hand is worth a number 2 in the bush.
Raise a glass to delinquency
You wouldn’t think that a glass of water could lead to a life of crime, but a recent study suggests just that.
Children exposed to lead in their drinking water during their early years had a 21% higher risk of delinquency after the age of 14 years and a 38% higher risk of having a record for a serious complaint, Jackie MacDonald Gibson and associates said in a statement on Eurekalert.
Data for the study came from Wake County, N.C., which includes rural areas, wealthy exurban developments, and predominantly Black communities. The investigators compared the blood lead levels for children tested between 1998 and 2011 with juvenile delinquency reports of the same children from the N.C. Department of Public Safety.
The main culprit, they found, was well water. Blood lead levels were 11% higher in the children whose water came from private wells, compared with children using community water. About 13% of U.S. households rely on private wells, which are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, for their water supply.
The researchers said there is an urgent need for better drinking-water solutions in communities that rely on well water, whether it be through subsidized home filtration or infrastructure redevelopment.
An earlier study had estimated that preventing just one child from entering the adult criminal justice system would save $1.3 to $1.5 million in 1997 dollars. That’s about $2.2 to $2.5 million dollars today!
If you do the math, it’s not hard to see what’s cheaper (and healthier) in the long run.
A ‘dirty’ scam
Another one? This is just getting sad. You’ve probably heard of muds and clays being good for the skin and maybe you’ve gone to a spa and sat in a mud bath, but would you believe it if someone told you that mud can cure all your ailments? No? Neither would we. Senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke was definitely someone who brought this strange treatment to light, but it seems like this is something that has been going on for years, even before the pandemic.
A company called Black Oxygen Organics (BOO) was selling “magic dirt” for $110 per 4-ounce package. It claimed the dirt was high in fulvic acid and humic acid, which are good for many things. They were, however, literally getting this mud from bogs with landfills nearby, Mel magazine reported.
That doesn’t sound appealing at all, but wait, there’s more. People were eating, drinking, bathing, and feeding their families this sludge in hopes that they would be cured of their ailments. A lot of people jumped aboard the magic dirt train when the pandemic arose, but it quickly became clear that this mud was not as helpful as BOO claimed it to be.
“We began to receive inquiries and calls on our website with people having problems and issues. Ultimately, we sent the products out for independent testing, and then when that came back and showed that there were toxic heavy metals [lead, arsenic, and cadmium among them] at an unsafe level, that’s when we knew we had to act,” Atlanta-based attorney Matt Wetherington, who filed a federal lawsuit against BOO, told Mel.
After a very complicated series of events involving an expose by NBC, product recalls, extortion claims, and grassroots activism, BOO was shut down by both the Canadian and U.S. governments.
As always, please listen only to health care professionals when you wish to use natural remedies for illnesses and ailments.
10 things not to do in a medical board hearing
A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.
When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.
Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that
The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
1. Not responding to the complaint
The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.
You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”
If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint
“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”
According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”
“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”
“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.
Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
3. Thinking the board is on your side
You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.
As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.
Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
4. Not being honest or forthcoming
“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.
As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.
Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”
Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
5. Providing too much information
You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.
“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.
Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
6. Trying to contact the complainant
Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”
Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.
The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
7. Simply signing a consent agreement
A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.
“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
8. Not hiring an attorney
Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”
Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”
Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.
Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
9. Not requesting a hearing
When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”
In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.
A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.
Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
10. Getting upset with board officials
A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.
In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.
When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.
Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.
When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.
Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that
The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
1. Not responding to the complaint
The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.
You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”
If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint
“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”
According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”
“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”
“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.
Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
3. Thinking the board is on your side
You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.
As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.
Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
4. Not being honest or forthcoming
“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.
As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.
Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”
Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
5. Providing too much information
You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.
“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.
Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
6. Trying to contact the complainant
Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”
Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.
The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
7. Simply signing a consent agreement
A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.
“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
8. Not hiring an attorney
Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”
Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”
Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.
Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
9. Not requesting a hearing
When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”
In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.
A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.
Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
10. Getting upset with board officials
A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.
In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.
When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.
Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.
When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.
Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that
The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
1. Not responding to the complaint
The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.
You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”
If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint
“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”
According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”
“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”
“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.
Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
3. Thinking the board is on your side
You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.
As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.
Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
4. Not being honest or forthcoming
“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.
As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.
Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”
Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
5. Providing too much information
You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.
“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.
Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
6. Trying to contact the complainant
Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”
Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.
The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
7. Simply signing a consent agreement
A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.
“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
8. Not hiring an attorney
Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”
Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”
Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.
Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
9. Not requesting a hearing
When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”
In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.
A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.
Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
10. Getting upset with board officials
A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.
In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.
When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.
Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dr. Jeremiah Stamler, pioneer of preventive cardiology, dies at 102
On the occasion of his 100th birthday, The Washington Post wrote of the trailblazing cardiologist and scientist Jeremiah Dr. Stamler, MD: “You may not know him, but he may have saved your life.”
Hyperbole, it was not.
Over a career spanning more than 70 years, Dr. Stamler transformed medicine and the public’s understanding of diet and lifestyle in cardiovascular health and helped introduce the concept of readily measured ‘risk factors’ such as cholesterol, hypertension, smoking, and diabetes.
Dr. Stamler, the founding chair and a professor emeritus of preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, died Wednesday at his home in Sag Harbor, New York, at age 102.
“It is no exaggeration to say that few people in history have had as great an impact on human health,” Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Feinberg and president of the American Heart Association, said in a statement.
“Jerry was a giant intellect who founded the fields of cardiovascular epidemiology and preventive cardiology and led [the way] in defining new prevention concepts right up until his last days,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added in a statement issued by the university.
Tom Frieden, MD, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tweeted, “Jerry and my father did research on sodium together in the early 1950s. He was a giant in the field of public health, and we’re still benefiting from his brilliance and dedication.”
Roger Blumenthal, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, tweeted, “R.I.P., Dr. Jeremiah Stamler, ‘the father of preventive cardiology,’ dies at 102 – a true legendary force for health.”
The son of Russian immigrants, Dr. Stamler was born in Brooklyn in 1919 and received a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University and a medical degree from State University of New York.
Discharged from the U.S. Army with the rank of captain, Dr. Stamler and his first wife, Rose, herself a distinguished cardiology researcher, moved to Chicago in 1947 and began researching nutrition and atherosclerosis under pioneering cardiology researcher Louis N. Katz, MD, ultimately showing that atherosclerosis could be introduced by changing the diet of chickens. She died in 1998.
Dr. Stamler also worked for Chicago’s Public Health Department in the 1950s, starting a rheumatic fever prevention program for children and the Chicago Coronary Prevention Evaluation Program, working with higher-risk middle-aged men.
Dr. Stamler’s international INTERSALT study established an independent relationship between blood pressure and increased sodium intake, as well as body mass index and heavy alcohol intake. First published in 1988, the research faced opposition from fellow scientists and the food industry alike.
In a 2006 interview, Dr. Stamler said he and fellow researchers began pressing the American Heart Association in the late 1950s to adopt a public policy of support to improve lifestyles, including smoking cessation and better nutrition. “It took some doing. The AHA was initially reluctant and was under pressure from industry.”
Their efforts were rewarded with the AHA’s first statement on smoking in 1959 and first statement on diet in 1960, whereas, Dr. Stamler noted, “the first World Health Organization statement did not come out until the 1980s.”
Philip Greenland, MD, professor of cardiology and former chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern, described Dr. Stamler as a “force for truth that never backed down when confronted by others who did not share his passion for truth and the best science.”
“I loved working with him since I always knew he would make our research better, clearer, more relevant, and more impactful,” he said in the AHA statement.
A lifelong activist and opponent of the Vietnam War, Dr. Stamler was subpoenaed in May 1965 by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) along with his nutritionist-assistant Yolanda Hall. Rather than pleading the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, Dr. Stamler and Ms. Hall refused to testify before the committee and were charged with contempt of Congress.
With the help of local attorneys, Dr. Stamler filed a civil suit against the HUAC, charging that its mandate was unconstitutional. After 8½ years of litigation that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the government agreed to drop its indictment against Dr. Stamler and he dropped his civil suit against the committee.
A year after the Stamler v. Willis case ended, the House voted to terminate the HUAC. In an essay detailing the high-profile case, Henry Blackburn quipped, “They simply did not know who they were taking on when they tagged ol’ Jerry Stamler.”
“Dr. Stamler’s exceptional science was paralleled by his remarkable humanity. He was a champion of our best American ideals, he was fearless when facing the status quo, and he was tireless in the pursuit of what was right and just. He remains a beacon for all that is noble in medicine,” said Clyde Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern’s chair of cardiology.
Over the course of his career, Dr. Stamler published more than 670 peer-reviewed papers, 22 books and monographs, and his work has been cited more than 56,000 times. A committed mentor, Dr. Stamler was the 2014 recipient of the AHA’s Eugene Braunwald Academic Mentorship Award.
A lifelong proponent of the Mediterranean diet, Dr. Stamler divided his time between New York, a home in Italy, and Chicago, with his wife Gloria Beckerman Stamler, whom he married in 2004 and who preceded him in death.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On the occasion of his 100th birthday, The Washington Post wrote of the trailblazing cardiologist and scientist Jeremiah Dr. Stamler, MD: “You may not know him, but he may have saved your life.”
Hyperbole, it was not.
Over a career spanning more than 70 years, Dr. Stamler transformed medicine and the public’s understanding of diet and lifestyle in cardiovascular health and helped introduce the concept of readily measured ‘risk factors’ such as cholesterol, hypertension, smoking, and diabetes.
Dr. Stamler, the founding chair and a professor emeritus of preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, died Wednesday at his home in Sag Harbor, New York, at age 102.
“It is no exaggeration to say that few people in history have had as great an impact on human health,” Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Feinberg and president of the American Heart Association, said in a statement.
“Jerry was a giant intellect who founded the fields of cardiovascular epidemiology and preventive cardiology and led [the way] in defining new prevention concepts right up until his last days,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added in a statement issued by the university.
Tom Frieden, MD, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tweeted, “Jerry and my father did research on sodium together in the early 1950s. He was a giant in the field of public health, and we’re still benefiting from his brilliance and dedication.”
Roger Blumenthal, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, tweeted, “R.I.P., Dr. Jeremiah Stamler, ‘the father of preventive cardiology,’ dies at 102 – a true legendary force for health.”
The son of Russian immigrants, Dr. Stamler was born in Brooklyn in 1919 and received a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University and a medical degree from State University of New York.
Discharged from the U.S. Army with the rank of captain, Dr. Stamler and his first wife, Rose, herself a distinguished cardiology researcher, moved to Chicago in 1947 and began researching nutrition and atherosclerosis under pioneering cardiology researcher Louis N. Katz, MD, ultimately showing that atherosclerosis could be introduced by changing the diet of chickens. She died in 1998.
Dr. Stamler also worked for Chicago’s Public Health Department in the 1950s, starting a rheumatic fever prevention program for children and the Chicago Coronary Prevention Evaluation Program, working with higher-risk middle-aged men.
Dr. Stamler’s international INTERSALT study established an independent relationship between blood pressure and increased sodium intake, as well as body mass index and heavy alcohol intake. First published in 1988, the research faced opposition from fellow scientists and the food industry alike.
In a 2006 interview, Dr. Stamler said he and fellow researchers began pressing the American Heart Association in the late 1950s to adopt a public policy of support to improve lifestyles, including smoking cessation and better nutrition. “It took some doing. The AHA was initially reluctant and was under pressure from industry.”
Their efforts were rewarded with the AHA’s first statement on smoking in 1959 and first statement on diet in 1960, whereas, Dr. Stamler noted, “the first World Health Organization statement did not come out until the 1980s.”
Philip Greenland, MD, professor of cardiology and former chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern, described Dr. Stamler as a “force for truth that never backed down when confronted by others who did not share his passion for truth and the best science.”
“I loved working with him since I always knew he would make our research better, clearer, more relevant, and more impactful,” he said in the AHA statement.
A lifelong activist and opponent of the Vietnam War, Dr. Stamler was subpoenaed in May 1965 by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) along with his nutritionist-assistant Yolanda Hall. Rather than pleading the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, Dr. Stamler and Ms. Hall refused to testify before the committee and were charged with contempt of Congress.
With the help of local attorneys, Dr. Stamler filed a civil suit against the HUAC, charging that its mandate was unconstitutional. After 8½ years of litigation that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the government agreed to drop its indictment against Dr. Stamler and he dropped his civil suit against the committee.
A year after the Stamler v. Willis case ended, the House voted to terminate the HUAC. In an essay detailing the high-profile case, Henry Blackburn quipped, “They simply did not know who they were taking on when they tagged ol’ Jerry Stamler.”
“Dr. Stamler’s exceptional science was paralleled by his remarkable humanity. He was a champion of our best American ideals, he was fearless when facing the status quo, and he was tireless in the pursuit of what was right and just. He remains a beacon for all that is noble in medicine,” said Clyde Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern’s chair of cardiology.
Over the course of his career, Dr. Stamler published more than 670 peer-reviewed papers, 22 books and monographs, and his work has been cited more than 56,000 times. A committed mentor, Dr. Stamler was the 2014 recipient of the AHA’s Eugene Braunwald Academic Mentorship Award.
A lifelong proponent of the Mediterranean diet, Dr. Stamler divided his time between New York, a home in Italy, and Chicago, with his wife Gloria Beckerman Stamler, whom he married in 2004 and who preceded him in death.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On the occasion of his 100th birthday, The Washington Post wrote of the trailblazing cardiologist and scientist Jeremiah Dr. Stamler, MD: “You may not know him, but he may have saved your life.”
Hyperbole, it was not.
Over a career spanning more than 70 years, Dr. Stamler transformed medicine and the public’s understanding of diet and lifestyle in cardiovascular health and helped introduce the concept of readily measured ‘risk factors’ such as cholesterol, hypertension, smoking, and diabetes.
Dr. Stamler, the founding chair and a professor emeritus of preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, died Wednesday at his home in Sag Harbor, New York, at age 102.
“It is no exaggeration to say that few people in history have had as great an impact on human health,” Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Feinberg and president of the American Heart Association, said in a statement.
“Jerry was a giant intellect who founded the fields of cardiovascular epidemiology and preventive cardiology and led [the way] in defining new prevention concepts right up until his last days,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added in a statement issued by the university.
Tom Frieden, MD, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tweeted, “Jerry and my father did research on sodium together in the early 1950s. He was a giant in the field of public health, and we’re still benefiting from his brilliance and dedication.”
Roger Blumenthal, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, tweeted, “R.I.P., Dr. Jeremiah Stamler, ‘the father of preventive cardiology,’ dies at 102 – a true legendary force for health.”
The son of Russian immigrants, Dr. Stamler was born in Brooklyn in 1919 and received a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University and a medical degree from State University of New York.
Discharged from the U.S. Army with the rank of captain, Dr. Stamler and his first wife, Rose, herself a distinguished cardiology researcher, moved to Chicago in 1947 and began researching nutrition and atherosclerosis under pioneering cardiology researcher Louis N. Katz, MD, ultimately showing that atherosclerosis could be introduced by changing the diet of chickens. She died in 1998.
Dr. Stamler also worked for Chicago’s Public Health Department in the 1950s, starting a rheumatic fever prevention program for children and the Chicago Coronary Prevention Evaluation Program, working with higher-risk middle-aged men.
Dr. Stamler’s international INTERSALT study established an independent relationship between blood pressure and increased sodium intake, as well as body mass index and heavy alcohol intake. First published in 1988, the research faced opposition from fellow scientists and the food industry alike.
In a 2006 interview, Dr. Stamler said he and fellow researchers began pressing the American Heart Association in the late 1950s to adopt a public policy of support to improve lifestyles, including smoking cessation and better nutrition. “It took some doing. The AHA was initially reluctant and was under pressure from industry.”
Their efforts were rewarded with the AHA’s first statement on smoking in 1959 and first statement on diet in 1960, whereas, Dr. Stamler noted, “the first World Health Organization statement did not come out until the 1980s.”
Philip Greenland, MD, professor of cardiology and former chair of preventive medicine at Northwestern, described Dr. Stamler as a “force for truth that never backed down when confronted by others who did not share his passion for truth and the best science.”
“I loved working with him since I always knew he would make our research better, clearer, more relevant, and more impactful,” he said in the AHA statement.
A lifelong activist and opponent of the Vietnam War, Dr. Stamler was subpoenaed in May 1965 by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) along with his nutritionist-assistant Yolanda Hall. Rather than pleading the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, Dr. Stamler and Ms. Hall refused to testify before the committee and were charged with contempt of Congress.
With the help of local attorneys, Dr. Stamler filed a civil suit against the HUAC, charging that its mandate was unconstitutional. After 8½ years of litigation that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the government agreed to drop its indictment against Dr. Stamler and he dropped his civil suit against the committee.
A year after the Stamler v. Willis case ended, the House voted to terminate the HUAC. In an essay detailing the high-profile case, Henry Blackburn quipped, “They simply did not know who they were taking on when they tagged ol’ Jerry Stamler.”
“Dr. Stamler’s exceptional science was paralleled by his remarkable humanity. He was a champion of our best American ideals, he was fearless when facing the status quo, and he was tireless in the pursuit of what was right and just. He remains a beacon for all that is noble in medicine,” said Clyde Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern’s chair of cardiology.
Over the course of his career, Dr. Stamler published more than 670 peer-reviewed papers, 22 books and monographs, and his work has been cited more than 56,000 times. A committed mentor, Dr. Stamler was the 2014 recipient of the AHA’s Eugene Braunwald Academic Mentorship Award.
A lifelong proponent of the Mediterranean diet, Dr. Stamler divided his time between New York, a home in Italy, and Chicago, with his wife Gloria Beckerman Stamler, whom he married in 2004 and who preceded him in death.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Children and COVID-19: The Omicron tide may have turned
The Omicron-fueled surge appears to have peaked as new cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children dropped for the first time since late November 2021, dipping back below the 1 million mark for the week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The total number of cases in children was up to 11.4 million as of Jan. 27, with children representing 18.6% of all cases reported since the pandemic started, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
As children remain the largest reservoir of unvaccinated Americans, their share of the COVID case load continues to rise quickly. Just 2 weeks ago, children made up 17.8% of the cumulative number of cases, and at the end of December it was 17.4%, the AAP/CHA data show.
The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that trends for admissions and emergency department visits reflect the decline in new cases. New admissions of children aged 0-17 years with diagnosed COVID-19 peaked at 1.25 per 100,000 population on Jan. 15 and were down to 0.95 per 100,000 on Jan. 29.
Daily ED visits for COVID-19, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, peaked at 13.9% on Jan. 14 for children aged 0-11 years and on Jan. 9 for both 12- to 15-year-olds (14.1%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (13.8%). By Jan. 28, the rates were down to 5.6% (0-11), 3.1% (12-15), and 3.3% (16-17), the CDC reported based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.
Trends involving more severe illness support observations that Omicron is milder than earlier variants. Children hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit over the last 2 months than during the Delta surge in the late summer and early fall or during the winter of 2020-2021, the CDC said based on data from the BD Insights Research Database, which includes 229,000 patients and 267 hospitals.
Those data show that the highest monthly rate occurred early on, in May of 2020, when 27.8% of children with COVID-19 ended up in the ICU. The rates for December 2021 and January 2022, by comparison, were 11.0% and 11.3%, respectively, the CDC said.
Vaccination lags in younger children
As reports surface about Pfizer-BioNTech filing an emergency use request to extend vaccine coverage to children aged 6 months to 5 years, it does appear that prevention efforts could use the proverbial shot in the arm.
As of Jan. 30, just 30.4% of children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and only 21.6% are fully vaccinated. At a comparable point in their timeline – just short of 3 months after approval – the respective numbers for children aged 12-15 were about 42% and 31%, CDC data show.
In the younger group, both initial doses and completions rose slightly in the first 2 weeks of January but then dropped in each of the last 2 weeks. There was a more significant surge in interest among the 12- to 17-year-olds in mid-January, but the last full week of the month brought declines of more than 50% in both measures, according to a separate AAP analysis.
The Omicron-fueled surge appears to have peaked as new cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children dropped for the first time since late November 2021, dipping back below the 1 million mark for the week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The total number of cases in children was up to 11.4 million as of Jan. 27, with children representing 18.6% of all cases reported since the pandemic started, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
As children remain the largest reservoir of unvaccinated Americans, their share of the COVID case load continues to rise quickly. Just 2 weeks ago, children made up 17.8% of the cumulative number of cases, and at the end of December it was 17.4%, the AAP/CHA data show.
The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that trends for admissions and emergency department visits reflect the decline in new cases. New admissions of children aged 0-17 years with diagnosed COVID-19 peaked at 1.25 per 100,000 population on Jan. 15 and were down to 0.95 per 100,000 on Jan. 29.
Daily ED visits for COVID-19, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, peaked at 13.9% on Jan. 14 for children aged 0-11 years and on Jan. 9 for both 12- to 15-year-olds (14.1%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (13.8%). By Jan. 28, the rates were down to 5.6% (0-11), 3.1% (12-15), and 3.3% (16-17), the CDC reported based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.
Trends involving more severe illness support observations that Omicron is milder than earlier variants. Children hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit over the last 2 months than during the Delta surge in the late summer and early fall or during the winter of 2020-2021, the CDC said based on data from the BD Insights Research Database, which includes 229,000 patients and 267 hospitals.
Those data show that the highest monthly rate occurred early on, in May of 2020, when 27.8% of children with COVID-19 ended up in the ICU. The rates for December 2021 and January 2022, by comparison, were 11.0% and 11.3%, respectively, the CDC said.
Vaccination lags in younger children
As reports surface about Pfizer-BioNTech filing an emergency use request to extend vaccine coverage to children aged 6 months to 5 years, it does appear that prevention efforts could use the proverbial shot in the arm.
As of Jan. 30, just 30.4% of children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and only 21.6% are fully vaccinated. At a comparable point in their timeline – just short of 3 months after approval – the respective numbers for children aged 12-15 were about 42% and 31%, CDC data show.
In the younger group, both initial doses and completions rose slightly in the first 2 weeks of January but then dropped in each of the last 2 weeks. There was a more significant surge in interest among the 12- to 17-year-olds in mid-January, but the last full week of the month brought declines of more than 50% in both measures, according to a separate AAP analysis.
The Omicron-fueled surge appears to have peaked as new cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children dropped for the first time since late November 2021, dipping back below the 1 million mark for the week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The total number of cases in children was up to 11.4 million as of Jan. 27, with children representing 18.6% of all cases reported since the pandemic started, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
As children remain the largest reservoir of unvaccinated Americans, their share of the COVID case load continues to rise quickly. Just 2 weeks ago, children made up 17.8% of the cumulative number of cases, and at the end of December it was 17.4%, the AAP/CHA data show.
The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that trends for admissions and emergency department visits reflect the decline in new cases. New admissions of children aged 0-17 years with diagnosed COVID-19 peaked at 1.25 per 100,000 population on Jan. 15 and were down to 0.95 per 100,000 on Jan. 29.
Daily ED visits for COVID-19, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, peaked at 13.9% on Jan. 14 for children aged 0-11 years and on Jan. 9 for both 12- to 15-year-olds (14.1%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (13.8%). By Jan. 28, the rates were down to 5.6% (0-11), 3.1% (12-15), and 3.3% (16-17), the CDC reported based on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.
Trends involving more severe illness support observations that Omicron is milder than earlier variants. Children hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit over the last 2 months than during the Delta surge in the late summer and early fall or during the winter of 2020-2021, the CDC said based on data from the BD Insights Research Database, which includes 229,000 patients and 267 hospitals.
Those data show that the highest monthly rate occurred early on, in May of 2020, when 27.8% of children with COVID-19 ended up in the ICU. The rates for December 2021 and January 2022, by comparison, were 11.0% and 11.3%, respectively, the CDC said.
Vaccination lags in younger children
As reports surface about Pfizer-BioNTech filing an emergency use request to extend vaccine coverage to children aged 6 months to 5 years, it does appear that prevention efforts could use the proverbial shot in the arm.
As of Jan. 30, just 30.4% of children aged 5-11 have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and only 21.6% are fully vaccinated. At a comparable point in their timeline – just short of 3 months after approval – the respective numbers for children aged 12-15 were about 42% and 31%, CDC data show.
In the younger group, both initial doses and completions rose slightly in the first 2 weeks of January but then dropped in each of the last 2 weeks. There was a more significant surge in interest among the 12- to 17-year-olds in mid-January, but the last full week of the month brought declines of more than 50% in both measures, according to a separate AAP analysis.
CDC issues new pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults
The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).
The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.
If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.
As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.
Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.
“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.
The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.
“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.
Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.
While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the
CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.
More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.
Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.
“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”
The new approach should help change that, he said.
“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.
Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.
“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”
“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”
According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.
“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”
Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).
The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.
If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.
As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.
Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.
“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.
The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.
“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.
Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.
While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the
CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.
More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.
Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.
“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”
The new approach should help change that, he said.
“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.
Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.
“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”
“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”
According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.
“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”
Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).
The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.
If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.
As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.
Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.
“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.
The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.
“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.
Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.
While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the
CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.
More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.
Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.
“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”
The new approach should help change that, he said.
“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.
Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.
“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”
“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”
According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.
“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”
Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE MMWR
Vitamin D shows no survival benefit in nondeficient elderly
, including mortality linked to cardiovascular disease, new results from a large, placebo-controlled trial show.
“The take-home message is that routine vitamin D supplementation, irrespective of the dosing regimen, is unlikely to be beneficial in a population with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency,” first author Rachel E. Neale, PhD, of the Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, in Brisbane, Australia, told this news organization.
Despite extensive previous research on vitamin D supplementation, “mortality has not been the primary outcome in any previous large trial of high-dose vitamin D supplementation,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted. The results, published online in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, are from the D-Health trial.
With more than 20,000 participants, this is the largest intermittent-dosing trial to date, the authors noted. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.
In an accompanying editorial, Inez Schoenmakers, PhD, noted that “the findings [are] highly relevant for population policy, owing to the study’s population-based design, large scale, and long duration.”
This new “research contributes to the concept that improving vitamin D status with supplementation in a mostly vitamin D-replete older population does not influence all-cause mortality,” Dr. Schoenmakers, of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, said in an interview.
“This is not dissimilar to research with many other nutrients showing that increasing intake above the adequate intake has no further health benefits,” she added.
D-Health Trial
The D-Health Trial involved 21,315 participants in Australia, enrolled between February 2014 and June 2015, who had not been screened for vitamin D deficiency but were largely considered to be vitamin D replete. They were a mean age of 69.3 years and 54% were men.
Participants were randomized 1:1 to a once-monthly oral vitamin D3 supplementation of 60,000 IU (n = 10,662) or a placebo capsule (n = 10,653).
They were permitted to take up to 2,000 IU/day of supplemental vitamin D in addition to the study protocol and had no history of kidney stones, hypercalcemia, hyperparathyroidism, osteomalacia, or sarcoidosis.
Over a median follow-up of 5.7 years, there were 1,100 deaths: 562 in the vitamin D group (5.3%) and 538 in the placebo group (5.1%). With a hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality of 1.04, the difference was not significant (P = .47).
There were also no significant differences in terms of mortality from cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.96; P = .77), cancer (HR, 1.15; P = .13), or other causes (HR, 0.83; P = .15).
Rates of total adverse events between the two groups, including hypercalcemia and kidney stones, were similar.
An exploratory analysis excluding the first 2 years of follow-up in fact showed a numerically higher hazard ratio for cancer mortality in the vitamin D group versus no supplementation (HR, 1.24; P = .05). However, the authors noted that the effect was “not apparent when the analysis was restricted to deaths that were coded by the study team and not officially coded.”
Nevertheless, “our findings, from a large study in an unscreened population, give pause to earlier reports that vitamin D supplements might reduce cancer mortality,” they underscored.
Retention and adherence in the study were high, each exceeding 80%. Although blood samples were not collected at baseline, samples from 3,943 randomly sampled participants during follow-up showed mean serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D concentrations of 77 nmol/L in the placebo group and 115 nmol/L in the vitamin D group, both within the normal range of 50-125 nmol/L.
Findings supported by previous research
The trial results are consistent with those of prior large studies and meta-analyses of older adults with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency showing that vitamin D3 supplementation, regardless of whether taken daily or monthly, is not likely to have an effect on all-cause mortality.
In the US VITAL trial, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, among 25,871 participants administered 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D3 for a median of 5.3 years, there was no reduction in all-cause mortality.
The ViDA trial of 5,110 older adults in New Zealand, published in 2019 in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, also showed monthly vitamin D3 supplementation of 100,000 IU for a median of 3.3 years was not associated with a benefit in people who were not deficient.
“In total, the results from the large trials and meta-analyses suggest that routine supplementation of older adults in populations with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is unlikely to reduce the rate of all-cause mortality,” Dr. Neale and colleagues concluded.
Longer-term supplementation beneficial?
The population was limited to older adults and the study had a relatively short follow-up period, which Dr. Neale noted was necessary for pragmatic reasons.
“Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, so to have sufficient deaths we either needed to study older adults or a much larger sample of younger adults,” she explained.
“However, we felt that [the former] ... had biological justification, as there is evidence that vitamin D plays a role later in the course of a number of diseases, with potential impacts on mortality.”
She noted that recent studies evaluating genetically predicted concentrations of serum 25(OH)D have further shown no link between those levels and all-cause mortality, stroke, or coronary heart disease.
“This confirms the statement that vitamin D is unlikely to be beneficial in people who are not vitamin D deficient, irrespective of whether supplementation occurs over the short or longer term,” Dr. Neale said.
The source of vitamin D, itself, is another consideration, with ongoing speculation of differences in benefits between dietary or supplementation sources versus sunlight exposure.
“Exposure to ultraviolet radiation, for which serum 25(OH)D concentration is a good marker, might confer benefits not mediated by vitamin D,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted.
They added that the results in the older Australian population “cannot be generalized to populations with a higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, or with a greater proportion of people not of White ancestry, than the study population.”
Ten-year mortality rates from the D-Health trial are expected to be reported in the future.
Strategies still needed to address vitamin D deficiency
Further commenting on the findings, Dr. Schoenmakers underscored that “vitamin D deficiency is very common worldwide, [and] more should be done to develop strategies to address the needs of those groups and populations that are at risk of the consequences of vitamin D deficiency.”
That said, the D-Health study is important in helping to distinguish when supplementation may – and may not – be of benefit, she noted.
“This and other research in the past 15 years have contributed to our understanding [of] what the ranges of vitamin D status are [in which] health consequences may be anticipated.”
The D-Health Trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Neale and Dr. Schoenmakers have reported no relevant financial relationships.
version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, including mortality linked to cardiovascular disease, new results from a large, placebo-controlled trial show.
“The take-home message is that routine vitamin D supplementation, irrespective of the dosing regimen, is unlikely to be beneficial in a population with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency,” first author Rachel E. Neale, PhD, of the Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, in Brisbane, Australia, told this news organization.
Despite extensive previous research on vitamin D supplementation, “mortality has not been the primary outcome in any previous large trial of high-dose vitamin D supplementation,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted. The results, published online in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, are from the D-Health trial.
With more than 20,000 participants, this is the largest intermittent-dosing trial to date, the authors noted. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.
In an accompanying editorial, Inez Schoenmakers, PhD, noted that “the findings [are] highly relevant for population policy, owing to the study’s population-based design, large scale, and long duration.”
This new “research contributes to the concept that improving vitamin D status with supplementation in a mostly vitamin D-replete older population does not influence all-cause mortality,” Dr. Schoenmakers, of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, said in an interview.
“This is not dissimilar to research with many other nutrients showing that increasing intake above the adequate intake has no further health benefits,” she added.
D-Health Trial
The D-Health Trial involved 21,315 participants in Australia, enrolled between February 2014 and June 2015, who had not been screened for vitamin D deficiency but were largely considered to be vitamin D replete. They were a mean age of 69.3 years and 54% were men.
Participants were randomized 1:1 to a once-monthly oral vitamin D3 supplementation of 60,000 IU (n = 10,662) or a placebo capsule (n = 10,653).
They were permitted to take up to 2,000 IU/day of supplemental vitamin D in addition to the study protocol and had no history of kidney stones, hypercalcemia, hyperparathyroidism, osteomalacia, or sarcoidosis.
Over a median follow-up of 5.7 years, there were 1,100 deaths: 562 in the vitamin D group (5.3%) and 538 in the placebo group (5.1%). With a hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality of 1.04, the difference was not significant (P = .47).
There were also no significant differences in terms of mortality from cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.96; P = .77), cancer (HR, 1.15; P = .13), or other causes (HR, 0.83; P = .15).
Rates of total adverse events between the two groups, including hypercalcemia and kidney stones, were similar.
An exploratory analysis excluding the first 2 years of follow-up in fact showed a numerically higher hazard ratio for cancer mortality in the vitamin D group versus no supplementation (HR, 1.24; P = .05). However, the authors noted that the effect was “not apparent when the analysis was restricted to deaths that were coded by the study team and not officially coded.”
Nevertheless, “our findings, from a large study in an unscreened population, give pause to earlier reports that vitamin D supplements might reduce cancer mortality,” they underscored.
Retention and adherence in the study were high, each exceeding 80%. Although blood samples were not collected at baseline, samples from 3,943 randomly sampled participants during follow-up showed mean serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D concentrations of 77 nmol/L in the placebo group and 115 nmol/L in the vitamin D group, both within the normal range of 50-125 nmol/L.
Findings supported by previous research
The trial results are consistent with those of prior large studies and meta-analyses of older adults with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency showing that vitamin D3 supplementation, regardless of whether taken daily or monthly, is not likely to have an effect on all-cause mortality.
In the US VITAL trial, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, among 25,871 participants administered 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D3 for a median of 5.3 years, there was no reduction in all-cause mortality.
The ViDA trial of 5,110 older adults in New Zealand, published in 2019 in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, also showed monthly vitamin D3 supplementation of 100,000 IU for a median of 3.3 years was not associated with a benefit in people who were not deficient.
“In total, the results from the large trials and meta-analyses suggest that routine supplementation of older adults in populations with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is unlikely to reduce the rate of all-cause mortality,” Dr. Neale and colleagues concluded.
Longer-term supplementation beneficial?
The population was limited to older adults and the study had a relatively short follow-up period, which Dr. Neale noted was necessary for pragmatic reasons.
“Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, so to have sufficient deaths we either needed to study older adults or a much larger sample of younger adults,” she explained.
“However, we felt that [the former] ... had biological justification, as there is evidence that vitamin D plays a role later in the course of a number of diseases, with potential impacts on mortality.”
She noted that recent studies evaluating genetically predicted concentrations of serum 25(OH)D have further shown no link between those levels and all-cause mortality, stroke, or coronary heart disease.
“This confirms the statement that vitamin D is unlikely to be beneficial in people who are not vitamin D deficient, irrespective of whether supplementation occurs over the short or longer term,” Dr. Neale said.
The source of vitamin D, itself, is another consideration, with ongoing speculation of differences in benefits between dietary or supplementation sources versus sunlight exposure.
“Exposure to ultraviolet radiation, for which serum 25(OH)D concentration is a good marker, might confer benefits not mediated by vitamin D,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted.
They added that the results in the older Australian population “cannot be generalized to populations with a higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, or with a greater proportion of people not of White ancestry, than the study population.”
Ten-year mortality rates from the D-Health trial are expected to be reported in the future.
Strategies still needed to address vitamin D deficiency
Further commenting on the findings, Dr. Schoenmakers underscored that “vitamin D deficiency is very common worldwide, [and] more should be done to develop strategies to address the needs of those groups and populations that are at risk of the consequences of vitamin D deficiency.”
That said, the D-Health study is important in helping to distinguish when supplementation may – and may not – be of benefit, she noted.
“This and other research in the past 15 years have contributed to our understanding [of] what the ranges of vitamin D status are [in which] health consequences may be anticipated.”
The D-Health Trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Neale and Dr. Schoenmakers have reported no relevant financial relationships.
version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, including mortality linked to cardiovascular disease, new results from a large, placebo-controlled trial show.
“The take-home message is that routine vitamin D supplementation, irrespective of the dosing regimen, is unlikely to be beneficial in a population with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency,” first author Rachel E. Neale, PhD, of the Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, in Brisbane, Australia, told this news organization.
Despite extensive previous research on vitamin D supplementation, “mortality has not been the primary outcome in any previous large trial of high-dose vitamin D supplementation,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted. The results, published online in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, are from the D-Health trial.
With more than 20,000 participants, this is the largest intermittent-dosing trial to date, the authors noted. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.
In an accompanying editorial, Inez Schoenmakers, PhD, noted that “the findings [are] highly relevant for population policy, owing to the study’s population-based design, large scale, and long duration.”
This new “research contributes to the concept that improving vitamin D status with supplementation in a mostly vitamin D-replete older population does not influence all-cause mortality,” Dr. Schoenmakers, of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, said in an interview.
“This is not dissimilar to research with many other nutrients showing that increasing intake above the adequate intake has no further health benefits,” she added.
D-Health Trial
The D-Health Trial involved 21,315 participants in Australia, enrolled between February 2014 and June 2015, who had not been screened for vitamin D deficiency but were largely considered to be vitamin D replete. They were a mean age of 69.3 years and 54% were men.
Participants were randomized 1:1 to a once-monthly oral vitamin D3 supplementation of 60,000 IU (n = 10,662) or a placebo capsule (n = 10,653).
They were permitted to take up to 2,000 IU/day of supplemental vitamin D in addition to the study protocol and had no history of kidney stones, hypercalcemia, hyperparathyroidism, osteomalacia, or sarcoidosis.
Over a median follow-up of 5.7 years, there were 1,100 deaths: 562 in the vitamin D group (5.3%) and 538 in the placebo group (5.1%). With a hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality of 1.04, the difference was not significant (P = .47).
There were also no significant differences in terms of mortality from cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.96; P = .77), cancer (HR, 1.15; P = .13), or other causes (HR, 0.83; P = .15).
Rates of total adverse events between the two groups, including hypercalcemia and kidney stones, were similar.
An exploratory analysis excluding the first 2 years of follow-up in fact showed a numerically higher hazard ratio for cancer mortality in the vitamin D group versus no supplementation (HR, 1.24; P = .05). However, the authors noted that the effect was “not apparent when the analysis was restricted to deaths that were coded by the study team and not officially coded.”
Nevertheless, “our findings, from a large study in an unscreened population, give pause to earlier reports that vitamin D supplements might reduce cancer mortality,” they underscored.
Retention and adherence in the study were high, each exceeding 80%. Although blood samples were not collected at baseline, samples from 3,943 randomly sampled participants during follow-up showed mean serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D concentrations of 77 nmol/L in the placebo group and 115 nmol/L in the vitamin D group, both within the normal range of 50-125 nmol/L.
Findings supported by previous research
The trial results are consistent with those of prior large studies and meta-analyses of older adults with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency showing that vitamin D3 supplementation, regardless of whether taken daily or monthly, is not likely to have an effect on all-cause mortality.
In the US VITAL trial, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, among 25,871 participants administered 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D3 for a median of 5.3 years, there was no reduction in all-cause mortality.
The ViDA trial of 5,110 older adults in New Zealand, published in 2019 in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, also showed monthly vitamin D3 supplementation of 100,000 IU for a median of 3.3 years was not associated with a benefit in people who were not deficient.
“In total, the results from the large trials and meta-analyses suggest that routine supplementation of older adults in populations with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is unlikely to reduce the rate of all-cause mortality,” Dr. Neale and colleagues concluded.
Longer-term supplementation beneficial?
The population was limited to older adults and the study had a relatively short follow-up period, which Dr. Neale noted was necessary for pragmatic reasons.
“Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, so to have sufficient deaths we either needed to study older adults or a much larger sample of younger adults,” she explained.
“However, we felt that [the former] ... had biological justification, as there is evidence that vitamin D plays a role later in the course of a number of diseases, with potential impacts on mortality.”
She noted that recent studies evaluating genetically predicted concentrations of serum 25(OH)D have further shown no link between those levels and all-cause mortality, stroke, or coronary heart disease.
“This confirms the statement that vitamin D is unlikely to be beneficial in people who are not vitamin D deficient, irrespective of whether supplementation occurs over the short or longer term,” Dr. Neale said.
The source of vitamin D, itself, is another consideration, with ongoing speculation of differences in benefits between dietary or supplementation sources versus sunlight exposure.
“Exposure to ultraviolet radiation, for which serum 25(OH)D concentration is a good marker, might confer benefits not mediated by vitamin D,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted.
They added that the results in the older Australian population “cannot be generalized to populations with a higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, or with a greater proportion of people not of White ancestry, than the study population.”
Ten-year mortality rates from the D-Health trial are expected to be reported in the future.
Strategies still needed to address vitamin D deficiency
Further commenting on the findings, Dr. Schoenmakers underscored that “vitamin D deficiency is very common worldwide, [and] more should be done to develop strategies to address the needs of those groups and populations that are at risk of the consequences of vitamin D deficiency.”
That said, the D-Health study is important in helping to distinguish when supplementation may – and may not – be of benefit, she noted.
“This and other research in the past 15 years have contributed to our understanding [of] what the ranges of vitamin D status are [in which] health consequences may be anticipated.”
The D-Health Trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Neale and Dr. Schoenmakers have reported no relevant financial relationships.
version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET DIABETES & ENDOCRINOLOGY
Omicron subvariant 1.5 times more contagious than Omicron
according to CNBC.
The Statens Serum Institut, which monitors infectious diseases in Denmark, said that BA.2 is more contagious, but it doesn’t appear to increase hospitalizations or reduce how well the vaccine works.
BA.2 overtook BA.1 as the primary variant in Denmark within a few weeks, Troels Lillebaek, director of the institute, told CNBC. The subvariant has five unique mutations on a key part of the spike protein, which is what the coronavirus uses to invade human cells. This often means a higher rate of spreading.
The Omicron subvariant has been detected in at least 29 states in the United States and 56 countries, according to the latest update from Outbreak.info. The United States has detected 188 infections, with the worldwide total nearing 25,000.
Denmark has reported the highest number of cases, followed by the United Kingdom and India. Both Denmark and India have reported that BA.2 now accounts for about half of new COVID-19 cases in those countries.
On Jan. 28, the U.K. Health Security Agency said BA.2 has a “substantial” growth advantage over the original Omicron strain. The subvariant has spread faster in all regions of England where there were enough cases to conduct an analysis, the agency said in a report.
A preliminary evaluation found that BA.2 doesn’t appear to change how well the vaccine works compared to the original Omicron strain, the agency said. A booster dose was 70% effective at preventing symptomatic illness for BA.2, compared with 63% for the original Omicron strain.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also said on Jan. 28 that, although the subvariant has become more common in some countries, it is currently at a low level in the United States and doesn’t appear to be more serious.
“Currently there is no evidence that the BA.2 lineage is more severe than the BA.1 lineage,” Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, told CNBC.
The World Health Organization hasn’t labeled BA.2 a “variant of concern” so far but will continue to monitor it. WHO officials have said that new variants will arise as Omicron spreads across the world.
“The next variant of concern will be more fit, and what we mean by that is it will be more transmissible because it will have to overtake what is currently circulating,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, said during a livestream on Jan. 25.
“The big question is whether or not future variants will be more or less severe,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to CNBC.
The Statens Serum Institut, which monitors infectious diseases in Denmark, said that BA.2 is more contagious, but it doesn’t appear to increase hospitalizations or reduce how well the vaccine works.
BA.2 overtook BA.1 as the primary variant in Denmark within a few weeks, Troels Lillebaek, director of the institute, told CNBC. The subvariant has five unique mutations on a key part of the spike protein, which is what the coronavirus uses to invade human cells. This often means a higher rate of spreading.
The Omicron subvariant has been detected in at least 29 states in the United States and 56 countries, according to the latest update from Outbreak.info. The United States has detected 188 infections, with the worldwide total nearing 25,000.
Denmark has reported the highest number of cases, followed by the United Kingdom and India. Both Denmark and India have reported that BA.2 now accounts for about half of new COVID-19 cases in those countries.
On Jan. 28, the U.K. Health Security Agency said BA.2 has a “substantial” growth advantage over the original Omicron strain. The subvariant has spread faster in all regions of England where there were enough cases to conduct an analysis, the agency said in a report.
A preliminary evaluation found that BA.2 doesn’t appear to change how well the vaccine works compared to the original Omicron strain, the agency said. A booster dose was 70% effective at preventing symptomatic illness for BA.2, compared with 63% for the original Omicron strain.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also said on Jan. 28 that, although the subvariant has become more common in some countries, it is currently at a low level in the United States and doesn’t appear to be more serious.
“Currently there is no evidence that the BA.2 lineage is more severe than the BA.1 lineage,” Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, told CNBC.
The World Health Organization hasn’t labeled BA.2 a “variant of concern” so far but will continue to monitor it. WHO officials have said that new variants will arise as Omicron spreads across the world.
“The next variant of concern will be more fit, and what we mean by that is it will be more transmissible because it will have to overtake what is currently circulating,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, said during a livestream on Jan. 25.
“The big question is whether or not future variants will be more or less severe,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to CNBC.
The Statens Serum Institut, which monitors infectious diseases in Denmark, said that BA.2 is more contagious, but it doesn’t appear to increase hospitalizations or reduce how well the vaccine works.
BA.2 overtook BA.1 as the primary variant in Denmark within a few weeks, Troels Lillebaek, director of the institute, told CNBC. The subvariant has five unique mutations on a key part of the spike protein, which is what the coronavirus uses to invade human cells. This often means a higher rate of spreading.
The Omicron subvariant has been detected in at least 29 states in the United States and 56 countries, according to the latest update from Outbreak.info. The United States has detected 188 infections, with the worldwide total nearing 25,000.
Denmark has reported the highest number of cases, followed by the United Kingdom and India. Both Denmark and India have reported that BA.2 now accounts for about half of new COVID-19 cases in those countries.
On Jan. 28, the U.K. Health Security Agency said BA.2 has a “substantial” growth advantage over the original Omicron strain. The subvariant has spread faster in all regions of England where there were enough cases to conduct an analysis, the agency said in a report.
A preliminary evaluation found that BA.2 doesn’t appear to change how well the vaccine works compared to the original Omicron strain, the agency said. A booster dose was 70% effective at preventing symptomatic illness for BA.2, compared with 63% for the original Omicron strain.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also said on Jan. 28 that, although the subvariant has become more common in some countries, it is currently at a low level in the United States and doesn’t appear to be more serious.
“Currently there is no evidence that the BA.2 lineage is more severe than the BA.1 lineage,” Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, told CNBC.
The World Health Organization hasn’t labeled BA.2 a “variant of concern” so far but will continue to monitor it. WHO officials have said that new variants will arise as Omicron spreads across the world.
“The next variant of concern will be more fit, and what we mean by that is it will be more transmissible because it will have to overtake what is currently circulating,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, said during a livestream on Jan. 25.
“The big question is whether or not future variants will be more or less severe,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Ischemic stroke rates higher in young women than young men
Young women appear to be at a higher risk of ischemic stroke than young men, according to a new systematic review of studies on this topic.
The review included 19 studies that reported on sex-specific stroke incidence among young adults and found that overall, in young adults aged 18-35 years, there were 44% more women with ischemic strokes than men.
This gap narrowed in the age group 35-45 years, for which there was conflicting evidence whether more men or women have ischemic strokes.
“An assertion that young women may be disproportionately at risk of ischemic stroke represents a significant departure from our current scientific understanding and may have important implications about the etiology of ischemic strokes in young adults,” the authors note.
“One of the take-home messages from this study is that stroke happens across the entire age spectrum, including young adults, even if they do not have traditional risk factors,” study coauthor Sharon N. Poisson, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, told this news organization.
“If a young person presents with focal neurological symptoms, the possibility of a stroke should not be discounted just because they may not fit the typical profile of a stroke patient. We need more education of the population that young people – including young women – can have a stroke and that fast action to call emergency services is critical,” she said.
The study was published online Jan. 24 in the journal Stroke as part of a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue.
The researchers note that historically it has been believed that men have a higher incidence of stroke in every age group until very old age. However, recent evidence focused on the young adult age group has reported that there are more young women (ages 18-45) with ischemic strokes compared with young men, suggesting that young women may be disproportionately at risk compared with their male counterparts.
Pointing out that a better understanding of these sex differences is important in implementing strategies that can more effectively prevent and treat strokes in this age group, the researchers conducted the current review to synthesize the updated evidence.
They searched PubMed from January 2008 to July 2021 for relevant studies that were population-based and reported stroke incidence by sex or sex-specific incidence rate ratios of young adults age 45 and younger. Statistical synthesis was performed to estimate sex difference by age group (less than or equal to 35, 35-45 and less than or equal to 45 years) and stroke type.
They found 19 relevant studies, including three that reported on overlapping data, with a total of 69,793 young adults (33,775 women and 36,018 men).
Nine studies did not show a statistically significant sex difference among young adults less than or equal to 45 years. Three studies found higher rates of ischemic stroke among men among young adults less than or equal to 30 to 35 years. Four studies showed more women with ischemic strokes among young adults less than or equal to 35 years.
Overall, there was an effect of a significantly higher incidence of ischemic stroke in women younger than age 35 years, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.44. In the 35- to 45-year age group, there was a nonsignificant sex difference in the rate of ischemic stroke, with a slight trend toward a higher incidence in women (IRR, 1.08).
“In this study the sex difference was not clear in the 35-45 age group. But in the age group of over 45 years we know that men have a higher risk of stroke than women, which is probably related to a higher level of atherosclerotic risk factors,” Dr. Poisson commented.
“Interpreting data on stroke in young people is challenging, as stroke is not so common in this population,” she said. “Combining multiple studies helps, but this also introduces a lot of variability, so we need to interpret these results with some caution. However, this is certainly intriguing data and suggests that something interesting may be going on in young adults,” she added. “These observations give us an initial clue that we need to look further into this issue.”
The study did not look at the possible mechanisms behind the results, as the current data came from administrative datasets that are limited in terms of the information collected.
But Dr. Poisson noted that the traditional risk factors for stroke are high blood pressure and the usual atherosclerotic factors such as high cholesterol.
“These are normally more common in men than in women, and myocardial infarction is more common in younger men than in younger women. But the observation that young women may have a higher risk of stroke than young men suggests that something different may be going on in the mechanism for stroke.”
She pointed out that women have some unique risk factors for stroke, including oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, and the postpartum period, particularly pre-eclampsia during pregnancy. In addition, migraine, especially migraine with aura, is associated with an increased stroke risk, and migraine is more common in young women than in young men.
“We don’t completely understand the role of these risk factors, but they may contribute to the results that we found,” Dr. Poisson commented. “The role of estrogen in stroke is complicated. While estrogen is generally thought to be protective against atherosclerotic risk factors, it also increases risk of clotting, so high estrogen states like pregnancy increase risk of stroke,” she added.
To better understand what is happening, prospectively collected clinical data on younger patients who have had a stroke are needed. Some such studies are underway, but a concerted effort to do this in a large, multicenter registry would be desirable, Dr. Poisson said.
She noted that the presentation of a stroke in young people would be similar to that in the older population, with the most recent acronym to help recognize stroke symptoms being “BE FAST” – balance, eyes (vision), face (drooping), arm, speech (slurred), time (call emergency services quickly).
Call for more women in clinical trials
In an accompanying commentary, Cheryl Bushnell, MD, professor of neurology at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and Moira Kapral, MD, professor in medicine and health policy at the University of Toronto, say these findings support the need for further study to understand and address the causes and risk factors of stroke in young women.
However, they point out that representation and reporting of women in clinical trials of acute stroke continues to be suboptimal, and they call for improved incorporation of sex and gender into study design, analysis, and interpretation, which they say is critical for producing research that is broadly generalizable and applicable to different populations.
Coauthor Stacey L. Daugherty, MD, is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Poisson and Dr. Kapral have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bushnell reports ownership interest in Care Directions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Young women appear to be at a higher risk of ischemic stroke than young men, according to a new systematic review of studies on this topic.
The review included 19 studies that reported on sex-specific stroke incidence among young adults and found that overall, in young adults aged 18-35 years, there were 44% more women with ischemic strokes than men.
This gap narrowed in the age group 35-45 years, for which there was conflicting evidence whether more men or women have ischemic strokes.
“An assertion that young women may be disproportionately at risk of ischemic stroke represents a significant departure from our current scientific understanding and may have important implications about the etiology of ischemic strokes in young adults,” the authors note.
“One of the take-home messages from this study is that stroke happens across the entire age spectrum, including young adults, even if they do not have traditional risk factors,” study coauthor Sharon N. Poisson, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, told this news organization.
“If a young person presents with focal neurological symptoms, the possibility of a stroke should not be discounted just because they may not fit the typical profile of a stroke patient. We need more education of the population that young people – including young women – can have a stroke and that fast action to call emergency services is critical,” she said.
The study was published online Jan. 24 in the journal Stroke as part of a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue.
The researchers note that historically it has been believed that men have a higher incidence of stroke in every age group until very old age. However, recent evidence focused on the young adult age group has reported that there are more young women (ages 18-45) with ischemic strokes compared with young men, suggesting that young women may be disproportionately at risk compared with their male counterparts.
Pointing out that a better understanding of these sex differences is important in implementing strategies that can more effectively prevent and treat strokes in this age group, the researchers conducted the current review to synthesize the updated evidence.
They searched PubMed from January 2008 to July 2021 for relevant studies that were population-based and reported stroke incidence by sex or sex-specific incidence rate ratios of young adults age 45 and younger. Statistical synthesis was performed to estimate sex difference by age group (less than or equal to 35, 35-45 and less than or equal to 45 years) and stroke type.
They found 19 relevant studies, including three that reported on overlapping data, with a total of 69,793 young adults (33,775 women and 36,018 men).
Nine studies did not show a statistically significant sex difference among young adults less than or equal to 45 years. Three studies found higher rates of ischemic stroke among men among young adults less than or equal to 30 to 35 years. Four studies showed more women with ischemic strokes among young adults less than or equal to 35 years.
Overall, there was an effect of a significantly higher incidence of ischemic stroke in women younger than age 35 years, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.44. In the 35- to 45-year age group, there was a nonsignificant sex difference in the rate of ischemic stroke, with a slight trend toward a higher incidence in women (IRR, 1.08).
“In this study the sex difference was not clear in the 35-45 age group. But in the age group of over 45 years we know that men have a higher risk of stroke than women, which is probably related to a higher level of atherosclerotic risk factors,” Dr. Poisson commented.
“Interpreting data on stroke in young people is challenging, as stroke is not so common in this population,” she said. “Combining multiple studies helps, but this also introduces a lot of variability, so we need to interpret these results with some caution. However, this is certainly intriguing data and suggests that something interesting may be going on in young adults,” she added. “These observations give us an initial clue that we need to look further into this issue.”
The study did not look at the possible mechanisms behind the results, as the current data came from administrative datasets that are limited in terms of the information collected.
But Dr. Poisson noted that the traditional risk factors for stroke are high blood pressure and the usual atherosclerotic factors such as high cholesterol.
“These are normally more common in men than in women, and myocardial infarction is more common in younger men than in younger women. But the observation that young women may have a higher risk of stroke than young men suggests that something different may be going on in the mechanism for stroke.”
She pointed out that women have some unique risk factors for stroke, including oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, and the postpartum period, particularly pre-eclampsia during pregnancy. In addition, migraine, especially migraine with aura, is associated with an increased stroke risk, and migraine is more common in young women than in young men.
“We don’t completely understand the role of these risk factors, but they may contribute to the results that we found,” Dr. Poisson commented. “The role of estrogen in stroke is complicated. While estrogen is generally thought to be protective against atherosclerotic risk factors, it also increases risk of clotting, so high estrogen states like pregnancy increase risk of stroke,” she added.
To better understand what is happening, prospectively collected clinical data on younger patients who have had a stroke are needed. Some such studies are underway, but a concerted effort to do this in a large, multicenter registry would be desirable, Dr. Poisson said.
She noted that the presentation of a stroke in young people would be similar to that in the older population, with the most recent acronym to help recognize stroke symptoms being “BE FAST” – balance, eyes (vision), face (drooping), arm, speech (slurred), time (call emergency services quickly).
Call for more women in clinical trials
In an accompanying commentary, Cheryl Bushnell, MD, professor of neurology at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and Moira Kapral, MD, professor in medicine and health policy at the University of Toronto, say these findings support the need for further study to understand and address the causes and risk factors of stroke in young women.
However, they point out that representation and reporting of women in clinical trials of acute stroke continues to be suboptimal, and they call for improved incorporation of sex and gender into study design, analysis, and interpretation, which they say is critical for producing research that is broadly generalizable and applicable to different populations.
Coauthor Stacey L. Daugherty, MD, is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Poisson and Dr. Kapral have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bushnell reports ownership interest in Care Directions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Young women appear to be at a higher risk of ischemic stroke than young men, according to a new systematic review of studies on this topic.
The review included 19 studies that reported on sex-specific stroke incidence among young adults and found that overall, in young adults aged 18-35 years, there were 44% more women with ischemic strokes than men.
This gap narrowed in the age group 35-45 years, for which there was conflicting evidence whether more men or women have ischemic strokes.
“An assertion that young women may be disproportionately at risk of ischemic stroke represents a significant departure from our current scientific understanding and may have important implications about the etiology of ischemic strokes in young adults,” the authors note.
“One of the take-home messages from this study is that stroke happens across the entire age spectrum, including young adults, even if they do not have traditional risk factors,” study coauthor Sharon N. Poisson, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, told this news organization.
“If a young person presents with focal neurological symptoms, the possibility of a stroke should not be discounted just because they may not fit the typical profile of a stroke patient. We need more education of the population that young people – including young women – can have a stroke and that fast action to call emergency services is critical,” she said.
The study was published online Jan. 24 in the journal Stroke as part of a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue.
The researchers note that historically it has been believed that men have a higher incidence of stroke in every age group until very old age. However, recent evidence focused on the young adult age group has reported that there are more young women (ages 18-45) with ischemic strokes compared with young men, suggesting that young women may be disproportionately at risk compared with their male counterparts.
Pointing out that a better understanding of these sex differences is important in implementing strategies that can more effectively prevent and treat strokes in this age group, the researchers conducted the current review to synthesize the updated evidence.
They searched PubMed from January 2008 to July 2021 for relevant studies that were population-based and reported stroke incidence by sex or sex-specific incidence rate ratios of young adults age 45 and younger. Statistical synthesis was performed to estimate sex difference by age group (less than or equal to 35, 35-45 and less than or equal to 45 years) and stroke type.
They found 19 relevant studies, including three that reported on overlapping data, with a total of 69,793 young adults (33,775 women and 36,018 men).
Nine studies did not show a statistically significant sex difference among young adults less than or equal to 45 years. Three studies found higher rates of ischemic stroke among men among young adults less than or equal to 30 to 35 years. Four studies showed more women with ischemic strokes among young adults less than or equal to 35 years.
Overall, there was an effect of a significantly higher incidence of ischemic stroke in women younger than age 35 years, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.44. In the 35- to 45-year age group, there was a nonsignificant sex difference in the rate of ischemic stroke, with a slight trend toward a higher incidence in women (IRR, 1.08).
“In this study the sex difference was not clear in the 35-45 age group. But in the age group of over 45 years we know that men have a higher risk of stroke than women, which is probably related to a higher level of atherosclerotic risk factors,” Dr. Poisson commented.
“Interpreting data on stroke in young people is challenging, as stroke is not so common in this population,” she said. “Combining multiple studies helps, but this also introduces a lot of variability, so we need to interpret these results with some caution. However, this is certainly intriguing data and suggests that something interesting may be going on in young adults,” she added. “These observations give us an initial clue that we need to look further into this issue.”
The study did not look at the possible mechanisms behind the results, as the current data came from administrative datasets that are limited in terms of the information collected.
But Dr. Poisson noted that the traditional risk factors for stroke are high blood pressure and the usual atherosclerotic factors such as high cholesterol.
“These are normally more common in men than in women, and myocardial infarction is more common in younger men than in younger women. But the observation that young women may have a higher risk of stroke than young men suggests that something different may be going on in the mechanism for stroke.”
She pointed out that women have some unique risk factors for stroke, including oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, and the postpartum period, particularly pre-eclampsia during pregnancy. In addition, migraine, especially migraine with aura, is associated with an increased stroke risk, and migraine is more common in young women than in young men.
“We don’t completely understand the role of these risk factors, but they may contribute to the results that we found,” Dr. Poisson commented. “The role of estrogen in stroke is complicated. While estrogen is generally thought to be protective against atherosclerotic risk factors, it also increases risk of clotting, so high estrogen states like pregnancy increase risk of stroke,” she added.
To better understand what is happening, prospectively collected clinical data on younger patients who have had a stroke are needed. Some such studies are underway, but a concerted effort to do this in a large, multicenter registry would be desirable, Dr. Poisson said.
She noted that the presentation of a stroke in young people would be similar to that in the older population, with the most recent acronym to help recognize stroke symptoms being “BE FAST” – balance, eyes (vision), face (drooping), arm, speech (slurred), time (call emergency services quickly).
Call for more women in clinical trials
In an accompanying commentary, Cheryl Bushnell, MD, professor of neurology at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and Moira Kapral, MD, professor in medicine and health policy at the University of Toronto, say these findings support the need for further study to understand and address the causes and risk factors of stroke in young women.
However, they point out that representation and reporting of women in clinical trials of acute stroke continues to be suboptimal, and they call for improved incorporation of sex and gender into study design, analysis, and interpretation, which they say is critical for producing research that is broadly generalizable and applicable to different populations.
Coauthor Stacey L. Daugherty, MD, is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Poisson and Dr. Kapral have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bushnell reports ownership interest in Care Directions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA grants full approval to Moderna COVID-19 vaccine
Moderna announced today that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has received full Food and Drug Administration approval for adults 18 years and older.
The move lifts an FDA emergency use authorization for the vaccine, which started Dec. 18, 2020.
The Moderna vaccine also now has a new trade name: Spikevax.
The FDA approval comes a little more than 5 months after the agency granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 23. At the time, the Pfizer vaccine received the trade name Comirnaty.
The FDA approved the Moderna vaccine based on how well it works and its safety for 6 months after a second dose, including follow-up data from a phase 3 study, Moderna announced this morning through a news release. The FDA also announced the news.
Spikevax is the first Moderna product to be fully licensed in the United States.
The United States joins more than 70 other countries where regulators have approved the vaccine. A total of 807 million doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine were shipped worldwide in 2021, the company reported.
“The full licensure of Spikevax in the U.S. now joins that in Canada, Japan, the European Union, the U.K., Israel, and other countries, where the adolescent indication is also approved,” Stéphane Bancel, Moderna chief executive officer, said in the release.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Moderna announced today that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has received full Food and Drug Administration approval for adults 18 years and older.
The move lifts an FDA emergency use authorization for the vaccine, which started Dec. 18, 2020.
The Moderna vaccine also now has a new trade name: Spikevax.
The FDA approval comes a little more than 5 months after the agency granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 23. At the time, the Pfizer vaccine received the trade name Comirnaty.
The FDA approved the Moderna vaccine based on how well it works and its safety for 6 months after a second dose, including follow-up data from a phase 3 study, Moderna announced this morning through a news release. The FDA also announced the news.
Spikevax is the first Moderna product to be fully licensed in the United States.
The United States joins more than 70 other countries where regulators have approved the vaccine. A total of 807 million doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine were shipped worldwide in 2021, the company reported.
“The full licensure of Spikevax in the U.S. now joins that in Canada, Japan, the European Union, the U.K., Israel, and other countries, where the adolescent indication is also approved,” Stéphane Bancel, Moderna chief executive officer, said in the release.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Moderna announced today that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has received full Food and Drug Administration approval for adults 18 years and older.
The move lifts an FDA emergency use authorization for the vaccine, which started Dec. 18, 2020.
The Moderna vaccine also now has a new trade name: Spikevax.
The FDA approval comes a little more than 5 months after the agency granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 23. At the time, the Pfizer vaccine received the trade name Comirnaty.
The FDA approved the Moderna vaccine based on how well it works and its safety for 6 months after a second dose, including follow-up data from a phase 3 study, Moderna announced this morning through a news release. The FDA also announced the news.
Spikevax is the first Moderna product to be fully licensed in the United States.
The United States joins more than 70 other countries where regulators have approved the vaccine. A total of 807 million doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine were shipped worldwide in 2021, the company reported.
“The full licensure of Spikevax in the U.S. now joins that in Canada, Japan, the European Union, the U.K., Israel, and other countries, where the adolescent indication is also approved,” Stéphane Bancel, Moderna chief executive officer, said in the release.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Billionaire Mark Cuban launches online pharmacy for generics
The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company (MCCPDC) plans to offer the leukemia therapy imatinib for $47 per month, for example, compared with $120 or more with a common voucher and a retail price of $9,657 per month.
Other examples of lower-priced generics include the ulcerative colitis treatment mesalamine, which goes for $32.40 per month on the new online pharmacy versus $940 per month retail. In addition, the MCCPDC will offer the gout treatment colchicine at a lower price, charging $8.70, compared with $182 per month retail.
Likely in part because of claims of significant cost savings and in part because of Mr. Cuban’s celebrity status, the new venture is getting widespread media attention. Forbes, NPR, and TMZ have shared the news since the new digital pharmacy was announced earlier this month.
The new venture plans to charge consumers 15% above the manufacturing cost for the generic medications, plus a $3 fee for pharmacists and $5 for shipping. People will still require a prescription from their doctor to get the medications.
Generic pricing and social benefit
The top 100 generic products account for about half of generic sales, and there is enough competition for these high-demand medications that “the prices have come down close to zero,” said William Comanor, PhD, a health economist and professor of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The remaining generic agents have lower-volume demand.
One prominent example is Daraprim, a decades-old treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The drug jumped into the spotlight in 2015 when Martin Shkreli and his company Vyera Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to make the generic drug and raised the price overnight from $13.50 to $750. In January 2022, a U.S. judge banned Mr. Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry and ordered him to pay an almost $65 million fine.
Dr. Comanor agreed the price should have been raised – $13.50 “was not economically viable” – but not as steep as $750.
“Say Mark Cuban says he will cut the price from $750 to $300. He will still make money. There is a market for these low-volume products,” he said. “There would also be a social benefit.”
A direct-to-consumer digital pharmacy
MCCPDC is “cutting out the middleman” in two ways. The business model calls for charging consumers out of pocket, so insurance companies are not involved. Also, the company created its own pharmacy business manager firm in October 2021, allowing it to negotiate prices with drugmakers in house.
The company also announced plans to complete construction of a 22,000-square-foot pharmaceutical factory in Dallas by the end of 2022.
Reactions on social media ranged from celebratory to people disappointed their generic medication would not cost significantly less or is not provided by the digital pharmacy.
When weighted by the number of prescriptions, prices for generics have declined in the United States.
“Overall, U.S. generic prices are the lowest in the world,” Dr. Comanor said. “People say U.S. drug prices are the highest in the world. That’s true for branded, but it’s not true for generics.
“So if someone asks if U.S. drug prices are the highest or lowest in the world, the answer is both,” he said.
“Maybe there is a role to play for this new pharmacy,” Dr. Comanor said when asked if the initiative seems like a positive development.
The state of California also announced plans to provide its own generic drugs, he said.
“But you won’t see a lot of entrepreneurs getting into this because the volumes are so low. If Cuban called me, I would tell him to provide Daraprim and similar, low-volume products,” Dr. Comanor said of the billionaire. “He’s a rich guy; maybe he can do it.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company (MCCPDC) plans to offer the leukemia therapy imatinib for $47 per month, for example, compared with $120 or more with a common voucher and a retail price of $9,657 per month.
Other examples of lower-priced generics include the ulcerative colitis treatment mesalamine, which goes for $32.40 per month on the new online pharmacy versus $940 per month retail. In addition, the MCCPDC will offer the gout treatment colchicine at a lower price, charging $8.70, compared with $182 per month retail.
Likely in part because of claims of significant cost savings and in part because of Mr. Cuban’s celebrity status, the new venture is getting widespread media attention. Forbes, NPR, and TMZ have shared the news since the new digital pharmacy was announced earlier this month.
The new venture plans to charge consumers 15% above the manufacturing cost for the generic medications, plus a $3 fee for pharmacists and $5 for shipping. People will still require a prescription from their doctor to get the medications.
Generic pricing and social benefit
The top 100 generic products account for about half of generic sales, and there is enough competition for these high-demand medications that “the prices have come down close to zero,” said William Comanor, PhD, a health economist and professor of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The remaining generic agents have lower-volume demand.
One prominent example is Daraprim, a decades-old treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The drug jumped into the spotlight in 2015 when Martin Shkreli and his company Vyera Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to make the generic drug and raised the price overnight from $13.50 to $750. In January 2022, a U.S. judge banned Mr. Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry and ordered him to pay an almost $65 million fine.
Dr. Comanor agreed the price should have been raised – $13.50 “was not economically viable” – but not as steep as $750.
“Say Mark Cuban says he will cut the price from $750 to $300. He will still make money. There is a market for these low-volume products,” he said. “There would also be a social benefit.”
A direct-to-consumer digital pharmacy
MCCPDC is “cutting out the middleman” in two ways. The business model calls for charging consumers out of pocket, so insurance companies are not involved. Also, the company created its own pharmacy business manager firm in October 2021, allowing it to negotiate prices with drugmakers in house.
The company also announced plans to complete construction of a 22,000-square-foot pharmaceutical factory in Dallas by the end of 2022.
Reactions on social media ranged from celebratory to people disappointed their generic medication would not cost significantly less or is not provided by the digital pharmacy.
When weighted by the number of prescriptions, prices for generics have declined in the United States.
“Overall, U.S. generic prices are the lowest in the world,” Dr. Comanor said. “People say U.S. drug prices are the highest in the world. That’s true for branded, but it’s not true for generics.
“So if someone asks if U.S. drug prices are the highest or lowest in the world, the answer is both,” he said.
“Maybe there is a role to play for this new pharmacy,” Dr. Comanor said when asked if the initiative seems like a positive development.
The state of California also announced plans to provide its own generic drugs, he said.
“But you won’t see a lot of entrepreneurs getting into this because the volumes are so low. If Cuban called me, I would tell him to provide Daraprim and similar, low-volume products,” Dr. Comanor said of the billionaire. “He’s a rich guy; maybe he can do it.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company (MCCPDC) plans to offer the leukemia therapy imatinib for $47 per month, for example, compared with $120 or more with a common voucher and a retail price of $9,657 per month.
Other examples of lower-priced generics include the ulcerative colitis treatment mesalamine, which goes for $32.40 per month on the new online pharmacy versus $940 per month retail. In addition, the MCCPDC will offer the gout treatment colchicine at a lower price, charging $8.70, compared with $182 per month retail.
Likely in part because of claims of significant cost savings and in part because of Mr. Cuban’s celebrity status, the new venture is getting widespread media attention. Forbes, NPR, and TMZ have shared the news since the new digital pharmacy was announced earlier this month.
The new venture plans to charge consumers 15% above the manufacturing cost for the generic medications, plus a $3 fee for pharmacists and $5 for shipping. People will still require a prescription from their doctor to get the medications.
Generic pricing and social benefit
The top 100 generic products account for about half of generic sales, and there is enough competition for these high-demand medications that “the prices have come down close to zero,” said William Comanor, PhD, a health economist and professor of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The remaining generic agents have lower-volume demand.
One prominent example is Daraprim, a decades-old treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The drug jumped into the spotlight in 2015 when Martin Shkreli and his company Vyera Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to make the generic drug and raised the price overnight from $13.50 to $750. In January 2022, a U.S. judge banned Mr. Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry and ordered him to pay an almost $65 million fine.
Dr. Comanor agreed the price should have been raised – $13.50 “was not economically viable” – but not as steep as $750.
“Say Mark Cuban says he will cut the price from $750 to $300. He will still make money. There is a market for these low-volume products,” he said. “There would also be a social benefit.”
A direct-to-consumer digital pharmacy
MCCPDC is “cutting out the middleman” in two ways. The business model calls for charging consumers out of pocket, so insurance companies are not involved. Also, the company created its own pharmacy business manager firm in October 2021, allowing it to negotiate prices with drugmakers in house.
The company also announced plans to complete construction of a 22,000-square-foot pharmaceutical factory in Dallas by the end of 2022.
Reactions on social media ranged from celebratory to people disappointed their generic medication would not cost significantly less or is not provided by the digital pharmacy.
When weighted by the number of prescriptions, prices for generics have declined in the United States.
“Overall, U.S. generic prices are the lowest in the world,” Dr. Comanor said. “People say U.S. drug prices are the highest in the world. That’s true for branded, but it’s not true for generics.
“So if someone asks if U.S. drug prices are the highest or lowest in the world, the answer is both,” he said.
“Maybe there is a role to play for this new pharmacy,” Dr. Comanor said when asked if the initiative seems like a positive development.
The state of California also announced plans to provide its own generic drugs, he said.
“But you won’t see a lot of entrepreneurs getting into this because the volumes are so low. If Cuban called me, I would tell him to provide Daraprim and similar, low-volume products,” Dr. Comanor said of the billionaire. “He’s a rich guy; maybe he can do it.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.