Federal Practitioner

For patients with mild or remitted ulcerative colitis, a catered, low-fat, high-fiber diet improved quality of life and stool markers of dysbiosis and inflammation, according to the findings of a small crossover trial.

Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease often ask what they should eat, but few studies have addressed that question, Julia Fritsch, of the University of Miami and her associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Building on previous findings that a high-fat diet may contribute to inflammatory bowel disease, they randomly assigned 38 adults whose ulcerative colitis was in remission or mild (with a flare within the past 18 months) to receive either a low-fat diet (with 10% of daily calories from fat and high amounts of fruit and vegetables) or an “improved American standard diet” (with 35%-40% of daily calories from fat but more fruit and vegetables than Americans typically eat). Each diet was catered, delivered to patients’ homes, and lasted 4 weeks, followed by a 2-week washout period, after which each participant switched to the other diet.

Of the 38 patients, 17 completed the study. Food recall surveys over 24 hours showed that both diets were healthier than what participants ate at baseline, and daily web-based food diaries (such as www.nutrihand.com/Static/index.html) confirmed that more than 94% of patients adhered to the amount of fat in each diet. Even though participants in both groups ate only about half of the provided fruits and vegetables, the primary outcome of quality of life based on the short inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (SIBDQ) significantly improved from a median of 4.98 (interquartile range, 4.1-6.0) at baseline to 5.77 (IQR, 5-6.4) with the low-fat diet and 5.55 (IQR, 4.75-6.25) with the improved American standard diet. Both diets also produced significant improvements in quality of life as measured by the 36-Item Short Form Survey and in disease activity as measured by the partial Mayo score.

Notably, however, only the low-fat diet significantly reduced serum amyloid A, which is a marker of mucosal inflammation, and intestinal dysbiosis, which was quantified by 16S RNA ribosomal sequencing. “Of note, there were several variables that were associated with changes in the microbiota composition,” the researchers wrote. These included the SIBDQ, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, interleukin-1 beta, and 32 dietary components such as protein, potassium, iron, and zinc.

“These data suggest that even patients in remission [from ulcerative colitis] could benefit from a healthier diet,” the investigators concluded. “Just as importantly, neither diet exacerbated symptoms, which is notable given the higher fiber in both catered diets.” They called catering “a feasible way to perform a diet intervention study with high adherence,” noting that “catering a diet for a patient with IBD for a year costs between $19,000 and $21,000 per patient. The cost of a patient on a biologic such as ustekinumab is approximately $130,752 to $261,504.”

The study was supported by the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation Broad Medical Research Program, Micky and Madeleine Arison Family Foundation Crohn’s and Colitis Discovery Laboratory, and the Martin Kalser Chair. The senior author disclosed ties to Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, AbbVie, Seres Therapeutics, Shire, Landos, Pfizer, and several other pharmaceutical companies. The other researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

For patients with mild or remitted ulcerative colitis, a catered, low-fat, high-fiber diet improved quality of life and stool markers of dysbiosis and inflammation, according to the findings of a small crossover trial.

Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease often ask what they should eat, but few studies have addressed that question, Julia Fritsch, of the University of Miami and her associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Building on previous findings that a high-fat diet may contribute to inflammatory bowel disease, they randomly assigned 38 adults whose ulcerative colitis was in remission or mild (with a flare within the past 18 months) to receive either a low-fat diet (with 10% of daily calories from fat and high amounts of fruit and vegetables) or an “improved American standard diet” (with 35%-40% of daily calories from fat but more fruit and vegetables than Americans typically eat). Each diet was catered, delivered to patients’ homes, and lasted 4 weeks, followed by a 2-week washout period, after which each participant switched to the other diet.

Of the 38 patients, 17 completed the study. Food recall surveys over 24 hours showed that both diets were healthier than what participants ate at baseline, and daily web-based food diaries (such as www.nutrihand.com/Static/index.html) confirmed that more than 94% of patients adhered to the amount of fat in each diet. Even though participants in both groups ate only about half of the provided fruits and vegetables, the primary outcome of quality of life based on the short inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (SIBDQ) significantly improved from a median of 4.98 (interquartile range, 4.1-6.0) at baseline to 5.77 (IQR, 5-6.4) with the low-fat diet and 5.55 (IQR, 4.75-6.25) with the improved American standard diet. Both diets also produced significant improvements in quality of life as measured by the 36-Item Short Form Survey and in disease activity as measured by the partial Mayo score.

Notably, however, only the low-fat diet significantly reduced serum amyloid A, which is a marker of mucosal inflammation, and intestinal dysbiosis, which was quantified by 16S RNA ribosomal sequencing. “Of note, there were several variables that were associated with changes in the microbiota composition,” the researchers wrote. These included the SIBDQ, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, interleukin-1 beta, and 32 dietary components such as protein, potassium, iron, and zinc.

“These data suggest that even patients in remission [from ulcerative colitis] could benefit from a healthier diet,” the investigators concluded. “Just as importantly, neither diet exacerbated symptoms, which is notable given the higher fiber in both catered diets.” They called catering “a feasible way to perform a diet intervention study with high adherence,” noting that “catering a diet for a patient with IBD for a year costs between $19,000 and $21,000 per patient. The cost of a patient on a biologic such as ustekinumab is approximately $130,752 to $261,504.”

The study was supported by the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation Broad Medical Research Program, Micky and Madeleine Arison Family Foundation Crohn’s and Colitis Discovery Laboratory, and the Martin Kalser Chair. The senior author disclosed ties to Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, AbbVie, Seres Therapeutics, Shire, Landos, Pfizer, and several other pharmaceutical companies. The other researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

For patients with mild or remitted ulcerative colitis, a catered, low-fat, high-fiber diet improved quality of life and stool markers of dysbiosis and inflammation, according to the findings of a small crossover trial.

Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease often ask what they should eat, but few studies have addressed that question, Julia Fritsch, of the University of Miami and her associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Building on previous findings that a high-fat diet may contribute to inflammatory bowel disease, they randomly assigned 38 adults whose ulcerative colitis was in remission or mild (with a flare within the past 18 months) to receive either a low-fat diet (with 10% of daily calories from fat and high amounts of fruit and vegetables) or an “improved American standard diet” (with 35%-40% of daily calories from fat but more fruit and vegetables than Americans typically eat). Each diet was catered, delivered to patients’ homes, and lasted 4 weeks, followed by a 2-week washout period, after which each participant switched to the other diet.

Of the 38 patients, 17 completed the study. Food recall surveys over 24 hours showed that both diets were healthier than what participants ate at baseline, and daily web-based food diaries (such as www.nutrihand.com/Static/index.html) confirmed that more than 94% of patients adhered to the amount of fat in each diet. Even though participants in both groups ate only about half of the provided fruits and vegetables, the primary outcome of quality of life based on the short inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (SIBDQ) significantly improved from a median of 4.98 (interquartile range, 4.1-6.0) at baseline to 5.77 (IQR, 5-6.4) with the low-fat diet and 5.55 (IQR, 4.75-6.25) with the improved American standard diet. Both diets also produced significant improvements in quality of life as measured by the 36-Item Short Form Survey and in disease activity as measured by the partial Mayo score.

Notably, however, only the low-fat diet significantly reduced serum amyloid A, which is a marker of mucosal inflammation, and intestinal dysbiosis, which was quantified by 16S RNA ribosomal sequencing. “Of note, there were several variables that were associated with changes in the microbiota composition,” the researchers wrote. These included the SIBDQ, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, interleukin-1 beta, and 32 dietary components such as protein, potassium, iron, and zinc.

“These data suggest that even patients in remission [from ulcerative colitis] could benefit from a healthier diet,” the investigators concluded. “Just as importantly, neither diet exacerbated symptoms, which is notable given the higher fiber in both catered diets.” They called catering “a feasible way to perform a diet intervention study with high adherence,” noting that “catering a diet for a patient with IBD for a year costs between $19,000 and $21,000 per patient. The cost of a patient on a biologic such as ustekinumab is approximately $130,752 to $261,504.”

The study was supported by the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation Broad Medical Research Program, Micky and Madeleine Arison Family Foundation Crohn’s and Colitis Discovery Laboratory, and the Martin Kalser Chair. The senior author disclosed ties to Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, AbbVie, Seres Therapeutics, Shire, Landos, Pfizer, and several other pharmaceutical companies. The other researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

Noninvasive brain stimulation has the potential to boost a patient’s placebo experience or blunt the nocebo experience, according to results of a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

“Placebo and nocebo effects are a critical component of clinical care and efficacy studies,” said senior author Jian Kong, MD, associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown campus. “Harnessing these effects in clinical practice and research could facilitate the development of new pain management methods,” he said. “Healing may involve multiple components: the self-healing properties of the body; the nonspecific effects of treatment (i.e., placebo effect); and the specific effect of a physical or pharmacologic intervention. Therefore, enhancing the placebo effect may ultimately boost the overall therapeutic effect of existing treatment,” he explained, emphasizing that the results are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution.

The authors noted that reducing nocebo effects could also be a major benefit “since patients discontinue prescribed medications, make unnecessary medical visits, and take additional medications to counteract adverse effects that are actually nocebo effects.”


 

Testing the hypothesis

The randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which delivers an electrical current to the brain via scalp electrodes. The aim was to see if stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with tDCS could alter the brain’s perception of placebo and nocebo experiences.

The study included 81 participants (37 females, mean age: 27.4 years), who were randomized into one of three tDCS groups (anodal, cathodal, or sham).

All participants were first conditioned to believe that an inert cream was either lidocaine or capsaicin and that this cream could either dull the impact of a painful heat stimulus (placebo analgesia) or exacerbate it (nocebo hyperalgesia). Participants were then placed into a functional MRI scanner where tDCS was initiated. Painful stimuli were then applied to spots on their forearms where they believed they had either lidocaine, capsaicin, or a neutral control cream and they rated the pain using the Gracely Sensory Scale.

Placebo analgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where participants believed they had lidocaine cream compared with where they believed they had control cream. Nocebo hyperalgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where they believed they had capsaicin cream compared with where they believed they had control cream.

The researchers found that compared with sham tDCS, cathodal tDCS showed significant effects in increasing placebo analgesia and brain responses in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), while anodal tDCS showed significant effects in inhibiting nocebo hyperalgesia and brain responses in the insula.

“The potential to enhance salubrious placebo effects and/or diminish treatment-interfering nocebo effects may have clinical significance,” the authors noted. “For example, clinical studies have suggested that expectancy is positively associated with chronic pain improvement, and using conditioning-like expectancy manipulation, we have shown that significantly boosting expectancy can improve treatment outcome.”
 

Proof of concept

Asked to comment on the study, Brian E. McGeeney, MD, of the John R. Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, said “the findings are a proof of concept that it is possible to use noninvasive brain stimulation to modulate placebo and nocebo pain effects.”

Although the findings do not have immediate clinical application, they are “exciting” and “break new ground in expectancy research,” he said.

“It is important to recognize that the researchers are trying to utilize a purported expectancy mechanism rather than attempting to alter placebo/nocebo by verbal and other cues. It remains to be seen whether the manipulation of brief experimental pain like this can translate into altered chronic pain over time, the main clinical goal. Current tDCS therapy for various reasons is necessarily brief and one can ask whether there are meaningful changes from brief stimulation. Such results can foster speculation as to whether direct strategic placement of intracranial stimulation leads could result in more longstanding similar benefits.”

Dr. Kong holds equity in a startup company (MNT) and a pending patent to develop new peripheral neuromodulation tools, but declares no conflict of interest. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Noninvasive brain stimulation has the potential to boost a patient’s placebo experience or blunt the nocebo experience, according to results of a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

“Placebo and nocebo effects are a critical component of clinical care and efficacy studies,” said senior author Jian Kong, MD, associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown campus. “Harnessing these effects in clinical practice and research could facilitate the development of new pain management methods,” he said. “Healing may involve multiple components: the self-healing properties of the body; the nonspecific effects of treatment (i.e., placebo effect); and the specific effect of a physical or pharmacologic intervention. Therefore, enhancing the placebo effect may ultimately boost the overall therapeutic effect of existing treatment,” he explained, emphasizing that the results are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution.

The authors noted that reducing nocebo effects could also be a major benefit “since patients discontinue prescribed medications, make unnecessary medical visits, and take additional medications to counteract adverse effects that are actually nocebo effects.”


 

Testing the hypothesis

The randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which delivers an electrical current to the brain via scalp electrodes. The aim was to see if stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with tDCS could alter the brain’s perception of placebo and nocebo experiences.

The study included 81 participants (37 females, mean age: 27.4 years), who were randomized into one of three tDCS groups (anodal, cathodal, or sham).

All participants were first conditioned to believe that an inert cream was either lidocaine or capsaicin and that this cream could either dull the impact of a painful heat stimulus (placebo analgesia) or exacerbate it (nocebo hyperalgesia). Participants were then placed into a functional MRI scanner where tDCS was initiated. Painful stimuli were then applied to spots on their forearms where they believed they had either lidocaine, capsaicin, or a neutral control cream and they rated the pain using the Gracely Sensory Scale.

Placebo analgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where participants believed they had lidocaine cream compared with where they believed they had control cream. Nocebo hyperalgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where they believed they had capsaicin cream compared with where they believed they had control cream.

The researchers found that compared with sham tDCS, cathodal tDCS showed significant effects in increasing placebo analgesia and brain responses in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), while anodal tDCS showed significant effects in inhibiting nocebo hyperalgesia and brain responses in the insula.

“The potential to enhance salubrious placebo effects and/or diminish treatment-interfering nocebo effects may have clinical significance,” the authors noted. “For example, clinical studies have suggested that expectancy is positively associated with chronic pain improvement, and using conditioning-like expectancy manipulation, we have shown that significantly boosting expectancy can improve treatment outcome.”
 

Proof of concept

Asked to comment on the study, Brian E. McGeeney, MD, of the John R. Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, said “the findings are a proof of concept that it is possible to use noninvasive brain stimulation to modulate placebo and nocebo pain effects.”

Although the findings do not have immediate clinical application, they are “exciting” and “break new ground in expectancy research,” he said.

“It is important to recognize that the researchers are trying to utilize a purported expectancy mechanism rather than attempting to alter placebo/nocebo by verbal and other cues. It remains to be seen whether the manipulation of brief experimental pain like this can translate into altered chronic pain over time, the main clinical goal. Current tDCS therapy for various reasons is necessarily brief and one can ask whether there are meaningful changes from brief stimulation. Such results can foster speculation as to whether direct strategic placement of intracranial stimulation leads could result in more longstanding similar benefits.”

Dr. Kong holds equity in a startup company (MNT) and a pending patent to develop new peripheral neuromodulation tools, but declares no conflict of interest. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Noninvasive brain stimulation has the potential to boost a patient’s placebo experience or blunt the nocebo experience, according to results of a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

“Placebo and nocebo effects are a critical component of clinical care and efficacy studies,” said senior author Jian Kong, MD, associate professor in the department of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown campus. “Harnessing these effects in clinical practice and research could facilitate the development of new pain management methods,” he said. “Healing may involve multiple components: the self-healing properties of the body; the nonspecific effects of treatment (i.e., placebo effect); and the specific effect of a physical or pharmacologic intervention. Therefore, enhancing the placebo effect may ultimately boost the overall therapeutic effect of existing treatment,” he explained, emphasizing that the results are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution.

The authors noted that reducing nocebo effects could also be a major benefit “since patients discontinue prescribed medications, make unnecessary medical visits, and take additional medications to counteract adverse effects that are actually nocebo effects.”


 

Testing the hypothesis

The randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which delivers an electrical current to the brain via scalp electrodes. The aim was to see if stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with tDCS could alter the brain’s perception of placebo and nocebo experiences.

The study included 81 participants (37 females, mean age: 27.4 years), who were randomized into one of three tDCS groups (anodal, cathodal, or sham).

All participants were first conditioned to believe that an inert cream was either lidocaine or capsaicin and that this cream could either dull the impact of a painful heat stimulus (placebo analgesia) or exacerbate it (nocebo hyperalgesia). Participants were then placed into a functional MRI scanner where tDCS was initiated. Painful stimuli were then applied to spots on their forearms where they believed they had either lidocaine, capsaicin, or a neutral control cream and they rated the pain using the Gracely Sensory Scale.

Placebo analgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where participants believed they had lidocaine cream compared with where they believed they had control cream. Nocebo hyperalgesia was defined as the difference between perceived pain intensity where they believed they had capsaicin cream compared with where they believed they had control cream.

The researchers found that compared with sham tDCS, cathodal tDCS showed significant effects in increasing placebo analgesia and brain responses in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), while anodal tDCS showed significant effects in inhibiting nocebo hyperalgesia and brain responses in the insula.

“The potential to enhance salubrious placebo effects and/or diminish treatment-interfering nocebo effects may have clinical significance,” the authors noted. “For example, clinical studies have suggested that expectancy is positively associated with chronic pain improvement, and using conditioning-like expectancy manipulation, we have shown that significantly boosting expectancy can improve treatment outcome.”
 

Proof of concept

Asked to comment on the study, Brian E. McGeeney, MD, of the John R. Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, said “the findings are a proof of concept that it is possible to use noninvasive brain stimulation to modulate placebo and nocebo pain effects.”

Although the findings do not have immediate clinical application, they are “exciting” and “break new ground in expectancy research,” he said.

“It is important to recognize that the researchers are trying to utilize a purported expectancy mechanism rather than attempting to alter placebo/nocebo by verbal and other cues. It remains to be seen whether the manipulation of brief experimental pain like this can translate into altered chronic pain over time, the main clinical goal. Current tDCS therapy for various reasons is necessarily brief and one can ask whether there are meaningful changes from brief stimulation. Such results can foster speculation as to whether direct strategic placement of intracranial stimulation leads could result in more longstanding similar benefits.”

Dr. Kong holds equity in a startup company (MNT) and a pending patent to develop new peripheral neuromodulation tools, but declares no conflict of interest. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Cardiothoracic surgeon J. Marvin Smith III, MD, had always thrived on a busy practice schedule, often performing 20-30 surgeries a week. A practicing surgeon for more than 40 years, Dr. Smith said he had no plans to slow down anytime soon.

But Dr. Smith said his career was derailed when leaders at Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio initiated a sudden peer review proceeding against him. The hospital system alleged certain surgeries performed by Dr. Smith had excessive mortality rates. When he proved the data inaccurate, Dr. Smith said administrators next claimed he was cognitively impaired and wasn’t safe to practice.

Dr. Smith has now been embroiled in a peer review dispute with the hospital system for more than 2 years and says the conflict has essentially forced him out of surgical practice. He believes the peer review was “malicious” and was really launched because of complaints he made about nurse staffing and other issues at the hospital.

“I think it is absolutely in bad faith and is disingenuous what they’ve told me along the way,” said Dr. Smith, 73. “It’s because I pointed out deficiencies in nursing care, and they want to get rid of me. It would be a lot easier for them if I had a contract and they could control me better. But the fact that I was independent, meant they had to resort to a malicious peer review to try and push me out.”

Dr. Smith had a peer review hearing with Methodist in March 2021, and in April, a panel found in Dr. Smith’s favor, according to Dr. Smith. The findings were sent to the hospital’s medical board for review, which issued a decision in early May.

Eric A. Pullen, an attorney for Dr. Smith, said he could not go into detail about the board’s decision for legal reasons, but that “the medical board’s decision did not completely resolve the matter, and Dr. Smith intends to exercise his procedural rights, which could include an appeal.”

Methodist Hospital Texsan and its parent company, Methodist Health System of San Antonio, did not respond to messages seeking comment about the case. Without hearing from the hospital system, its side is unknown and it is unclear if there is more to the story from Methodist’s view.

Malicious peer review – also called sham peer review – is defined as misusing the medical peer review process for malevolent purposes, such as to silence or to remove a physician. The problem is not new, but some experts, such as Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, say the practice has become more common in recent years, particularly against independent doctors.

Dr. Huntoon believes there is a nationwide trend at many hospitals to get rid of independent physicians and replace them with employed doctors, he said.

However, because most sham peer reviews go on behind closed doors, there are no data to pinpoint its prevalence or measure its growth.

“Independent physicians are basically being purged from medical staffs across the United States,” said Dr. Huntoon, who is chair of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ Committee to Combat Sham Peer Review. “The hospitals want more control over how physicians practice and who they refer to, and they do that by having employees.”

Anthony P. Weiss, MD, MBA, chief medical officer for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center said it has not been his experience that independent physicians are being targeted in such a way. Dr. Weiss responded to an inquiry sent to the American Hospital Association for this story.

“As the authority for peer review rests with the organized medical staff (i.e., physicians), and not formally with the hospital per se, the peer review lever is not typically available as a management tool for hospital administration,” said Dr. Weiss, who is a former member of the AHA’s Committee on Clinical Leadership, but who was speaking on behalf of himself.

A spokesman for the AHA said the organization stands behinds Dr. Weiss’ comments.

Peer review remains a foundational aspect of overseeing the safety and appropriateness of healthcare provided by physicians, Dr. Weiss said. Peer review likely varies from hospital to hospital, he added, although the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act provides some level of guidance as does the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics (section 9.4.1).

“In essence, both require that the evaluation be conducted in good faith with the intention to improve care, by physicians with adequate training and knowledge, using a process that is fair and inclusive of the physician under review,” he said. “I believe that most medical staffs abide by these ethical principles, but we have little data to confirm this supposition.”
 

Did hospital target doc for being vocal?

When members of Methodist’s medical staff first approached Dr. Smith with concerns about his surgery outcomes in November 2018, the physician says he was surprised, but that he was open to an assessment.

“They came to me and said they thought my numbers were bad, and I said: ‘Well my gosh, I certainly don’t want that to be the case. I need to see what numbers you are talking about,’ ” Dr. Smith recalled. “I’ve been president of the Bexar County Medical Society; I’ve been involved with standards and ethics for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Quality health care means a whole lot to me.”

The statistical information provided by hospital administrators indicated that Dr. Smith’s mortality rates for coronary artery surgery in 2018 were “excessive” and that his rates for aortic surgery were “unacceptable,” according to a lawsuit Dr. Smith filed against the hospital system. Dr. Smith, who is double boarded with the American Board of Surgery and the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, said his outcomes had never come into question in the past. Dr. Smith said the timing was suspicious to him, however, considering he had recently raised concerns with the hospital through letters about nursing performance, staffing, and compensation.

A peer review investigation was initiated. In the meantime, Dr. Smith agreed to intensivist consults on his postoperative patients and consults with the hospital’s “Heart Team” on all preoperative cardiac, valve, and aortic cases. A vocal critic of the Heart Team, Dr. Smith had long contended the entity provided no meaningful benefit to his patients in most cases and, rather, increased hospital stays and raised medical expenses. Despite his agreement, Dr. Smith was later asked to voluntarily stop performing surgeries at the hospital.

“I agreed, convinced that we’d get this all settled,” he said.

Another report issued by the hospital in 2019 also indicated elevated mortality rates associated with some of Smith’s surgeries, although the document differed from the first report, according to the lawsuit. Dr. Smith says he was ignored when he pointed out problems with the data, including a lack of appropriate risk stratification in the report, departure from Society of Thoracic Surgeons data rules, and improper inclusion of his cases in the denominator of the ratio when a comparison was made of his outcomes with those hospitalwide. A subsequent report from Methodist in March 2019 indicated Dr. Smith’s surgery outcomes were “within the expected parameters of performance,” according to court documents.

The surgery accusations were dropped, but the peer review proceeding against Dr. Smith wasn’t over. The hospital next requested that Dr. Smith undergo a competency evaluation.

“When they realized the data was bad, they then changed their argument in the peer review proceeding and essentially started to argue that Dr. Smith had some sort of cognitive disability that prevented him from continuing to practice,” said Mr. Pullen. “The way I look at it, when the initial basis for the peer review was proven false, the hospital found something else and some other reason to try to keep Dr. Smith from practicing.”

Thus began a lengthy disagreement about which entity would conduct the evaluation, who would pay, and the type of acceptable assessment. An evaluation by the hospital’s preferred organization resulted in a finding of mild cognitive impairment, Dr. Smith said. He hired his own experts who conducted separate evaluations, finding no impairment and no basis for the former evaluation’s conclusion.

“Literally, the determinant as to whether I was normal or below normal on their test was one point, which was associated with a finding that I didn’t draw a clock correctly,” Dr. Smith claimed. “The reviewer said my minute hand was a little too short and docked me a point. It was purely subjective. To me, the gold standard of whether you are learned in thoracic surgery is the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s test. The board’s test shows my cognitive ability is entirely in keeping with my practice. That contrasts with the one point off I got for drawing a clock wrong in somebody’s estimation.”
 

Conflict leads to legal case

In September 2020, Dr. Smith filed a lawsuit against Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, alleging business disparagement by Methodist for allegedly publishing false and disparaging information about Dr. Smith and tortious interference with business relations. The latter claim stems from Methodist refusing to provide documents to other hospitals about the status of Dr. Smith’s privileges at Methodist, Mr. Pullen said.

Because Methodist refused to confirm his status, the renewal process for Baptist Health System could not be completed and Dr. Smith lost his privileges at Baptist Health System facilities, according to the lawsuit.

Notably, Dr. Smith’s legal challenge also asks the court to take a stance against alleged amendments by Methodist to its Unified Medical Staff Bylaws. The hospital allegedly proposed changes that would prevent physicians from seeking legal action against the hospital for malicious peer review, according to Dr. Smith’s lawsuit.

The amendments would make the peer review process itself the “sole and exclusive remedy with respect to any action or recommendation taken at the hospital affecting medical staff appointment and/or clinical privileges,” according to an excerpt of the proposed amendments included in Dr. Smith’s lawsuit. In addition, the changes would hold practitioners liable for lost revenues if the doctor initiates “any type of legal action challenging credentialing, privileging, or other medical peer review or professional review activity,” according to the lawsuit.

Dr. Smith’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws are “void as against public policy,” and a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws cannot take away physicians’ statutory right to bring litigation against Methodist for malicious peer review.

“The proposed amendments have a tendency to and will injure the public good,” Dr. Smith argued in the lawsuit. “The proposed amendments allow Methodist to act with malice and in bad faith in conducting peer review proceedings and face no legal repercussions.”

Regardless of the final outcome of the peer review proceeding, Mr. Pullen said the harm Dr. Smith has already endured cannot be reversed.

“Even if comes out in his favor, the damage is already done,” he said. “It will not remedy the damage Dr. Smith has incurred.”
 

Fighting sham peer review is difficult

Battling a malicious peer review has long been an uphill battle for physicians, according to Dr. Huntoon. That’s because the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), a federal law passed in 1986, provides near absolute immunity to hospitals and peer reviewers in legal disputes.

The HCQIA was created by Congress to extend immunity to good-faith peer review of doctors and to increase overall participation in peer review by removing fear of litigation. However, the act has also enabled abuse of peer review by shielding bad-faith reviewers from accountability, said Dr. Huntoon.

“The Health Care Quality Improvement Act presumes that what the hospital did was warranted and reasonable and shifts the burden to the physician to prove his innocence by a preponderance of evidence,” he said. “That’s an entirely foreign concept to most people who think a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Here, it’s the exact opposite.”

The HCQIA has been challenged numerous times over the years and tested at the appellate level, but continues to survive and remain settled law, added Richard B. Willner, DPM, founder and director of the Center for Peer Review Justice, which assists and counsels physicians about sham peer review.

In 2011, former Rep. Joe Heck, DO, (R-Nev.) introduced a bill that would have amended the HCQIA to prohibit a professional review entity from submitting a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) while the doctor was still under investigation and before the doctor was afforded adequate notice and a hearing. Although the measure had 16 cosponsors and plenty of support from the physician community, it failed.

In addition to a heavy legal burden, physicians who experience malicious peer reviews also face ramifications from being reported to the NPDB. Peer review organizations are required to report certain negative actions or findings to the NPDB.

“A databank entry is a scarlet letter on your forehead,” Dr. Willner said. “The rules at a lot of institutions are not to take anyone who has been databanked, rightfully or wrongfully. And what is the evidence necessary to databank you? None. There’s no evidence needed to databank somebody.”

Despite the bleak landscape, experts say progress has been made on a case-by-case basis by physicians who have succeeded in fighting back against questionable peer reviews in recent years.

In January 2020, Indiana ob.gyn. Rebecca Denman, MD, prevailed in her defamation lawsuit against St Vincent Carmel Hospital and St Vincent Carmel Medical Group, winning $4.75 million in damages. Dr. Denman alleged administrators failed to conduct a proper peer review investigation after a false allegation by a nurse that she was under the influence while on the job.

Indianapolis attorney Kathleen A. DeLaney, who represented Dr. Denman, said hospital leaders misled Dr. Denman into believing a peer review had occurred when no formal peer review hearing or proceeding took place.

“The CMO of the medical group claimed that he performed a peer review ‘screening,’ but he never informed the other members of the peer review executive committee of the matter until after he had placed Dr. Denman on administrative leave,” Ms. DeLaney said. “He also neglected to tell the peer review executive committee that the substance abuse policy had not been followed, or that Dr. Denman had not been tested for alcohol use – due to the 12-hour delay in report.”

Dr. Denman was ultimately required to undergo an alcohol abuse evaluation, enter a treatment program, and sign a 5-year monitoring contract with the Indiana State Medical Association as a condition of her employment, according to the lawsuit. She claimed repercussions from the false allegation resulted in lost compensation, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, and damage to her professional reputation.

She sued the hospital in July 2018, alleging fraud, defamation, tortious interference with an employment relationship, and negligent misrepresentation. After a 4-day trial, jurors found in her favor, awarding Dr. Denman $2 million for her defamation claims, $2 million for her claims of fraud and constructive fraud, $500,000 for her claim of tortious interference with an employment relationship, and $250,000 for her claim of negligent misrepresentation.

A hospital spokesperson said Ascension St Vincent is pursuing an appeal, and that it looks “forward to the opportunity to bring this matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals in June.”

In another case, South Dakota surgeon Linda Miller, MD, was awarded $1.1 million in 2017 after a federal jury found Huron Regional Medical Center breached her contract and violated her due process rights. Dr. Miller became the subject of a peer review at Huron Regional Medical Center when the hospital began analyzing some of her surgery outcomes.

Ken Barker, an attorney for Dr. Miller, said he feels it became evident at trial that the campaign to force Dr. Miller to either resign or lose her privileges was led by the lay board of directors of the hospital and upper-level administration at the hospital.

“They began the process by ordering an unprecedented 90-day review of her medical charts, looking for errors in the medical care she provided patients,” he said. “They could find nothing, so they did a second 90-day review, waiting for a patient’s ‘bad outcome.’ As any general surgeon will say, a ‘bad outcome’ is inevitable. And so it was. Upon that occurrence, they had a medical review committee review the patient’s chart and use it as an excuse to force her to reduce her privileges. Unbeknown to Dr. Miller, an external review had been conducted on another patient’s chart, in which the external review found her care above the standards and, in some measure, ‘exemplary.’ ”

Dr. Miller was eventually pressured to resign, according to her claim. Because of reports made to the NPDB by the medical center, including a patient complication that was allegedly falsified by the hospital, Dr. Miller said she was unable to find work as a general surgeon and went to work as a wound care doctor. At trial, jurors awarded Dr. Miller $586,617 in lost wages, $343,640 for lost future earning capacity, and $250,000 for mental anguish. (The mental anguish award was subsequently struck by a district court.)

Attorneys for Huron Regional Medical Center argued the jury improperly awarded damages and requested a new trial, which was denied by an appeals court.

In the end, the evidence came to light and the jury’s verdict spoke loudly that the hospital had taken unfair advantage of Dr. Miller, Mr. Barker said. But he emphasized that such cases often end differently.

“There are a handful of cases in which physicians like Dr. Miller have challenged the system and won,” he said. “In most cases, however, it is a ‘David vs. Goliath’ scenario where the giant prevails.”
 

What to do if faced with malicious peer review

An important step when doctors encounter a peer review that they believe is malicious is to consult with an experienced attorney as early as possible, Dr. Huntoon said. “Not all attorneys who set themselves out to be health law attorneys necessarily have knowledge and expertise in sham peer review. And before such a thing happens, I always encourage physicians to read their medical staff bylaws. That’s where everything is set forth, [such as] the corrective action section that tells how peer review is to take place.”

Mr. Barker added that documentation is also key in the event of a potential malicious peer review.

“When a physician senses [the] administration has targeted them, they should start documenting their conversations and actions very carefully, and if possible, recruit another ‘observer’ who can provide a third-party perspective, if necessary,” Mr. Barker said.

Dr. Huntoon recently wrote an article with advice about preparedness and defense of sham peer reviews. The guidance includes that physicians educate themselves about the tactics used by some hospitals to conduct sham peer reviews and the factors that place doctors more at risk. Factors that may raise a doctor’s danger of being targeted include being in solo practice or a small group, being new on staff, or being an older physician approaching retirement as some bad-actor hospitals may view older physicians as being less likely to fight back, said Dr. Huntoon.

Doctors should also keep detailed records and a timeline in the event of a malicious peer review and insist that an independent court reporter record all peer review hearings, even if that means the physician has to pay for the reporter him or herself, according to the guidance. An independent record is invaluable should the physician ultimately issue a future legal challenge against the hospital.

Mr. Willner encourages physicians to call the Center for Peer Review Justice hotline at (504) 621-1670 or visit the website for help with peer review and NPDB issues.

As for Dr. Smith, his days are much quieter and slower today, compared with the active practice he was accustomed to for more than half his life. He misses the fast pace, the patients, and the work that always brought him great joy.

“I hope to get back to doing surgeries eventually,” he said. “I graduated medical school in 1972. Practicing surgery has been my whole life and my career. They have taken my identity and my livelihood away from me based on false numbers and false premises. I want it back.”

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

Cardiothoracic surgeon J. Marvin Smith III, MD, had always thrived on a busy practice schedule, often performing 20-30 surgeries a week. A practicing surgeon for more than 40 years, Dr. Smith said he had no plans to slow down anytime soon.

But Dr. Smith said his career was derailed when leaders at Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio initiated a sudden peer review proceeding against him. The hospital system alleged certain surgeries performed by Dr. Smith had excessive mortality rates. When he proved the data inaccurate, Dr. Smith said administrators next claimed he was cognitively impaired and wasn’t safe to practice.

Dr. Smith has now been embroiled in a peer review dispute with the hospital system for more than 2 years and says the conflict has essentially forced him out of surgical practice. He believes the peer review was “malicious” and was really launched because of complaints he made about nurse staffing and other issues at the hospital.

“I think it is absolutely in bad faith and is disingenuous what they’ve told me along the way,” said Dr. Smith, 73. “It’s because I pointed out deficiencies in nursing care, and they want to get rid of me. It would be a lot easier for them if I had a contract and they could control me better. But the fact that I was independent, meant they had to resort to a malicious peer review to try and push me out.”

Dr. Smith had a peer review hearing with Methodist in March 2021, and in April, a panel found in Dr. Smith’s favor, according to Dr. Smith. The findings were sent to the hospital’s medical board for review, which issued a decision in early May.

Eric A. Pullen, an attorney for Dr. Smith, said he could not go into detail about the board’s decision for legal reasons, but that “the medical board’s decision did not completely resolve the matter, and Dr. Smith intends to exercise his procedural rights, which could include an appeal.”

Methodist Hospital Texsan and its parent company, Methodist Health System of San Antonio, did not respond to messages seeking comment about the case. Without hearing from the hospital system, its side is unknown and it is unclear if there is more to the story from Methodist’s view.

Malicious peer review – also called sham peer review – is defined as misusing the medical peer review process for malevolent purposes, such as to silence or to remove a physician. The problem is not new, but some experts, such as Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, say the practice has become more common in recent years, particularly against independent doctors.

Dr. Huntoon believes there is a nationwide trend at many hospitals to get rid of independent physicians and replace them with employed doctors, he said.

However, because most sham peer reviews go on behind closed doors, there are no data to pinpoint its prevalence or measure its growth.

“Independent physicians are basically being purged from medical staffs across the United States,” said Dr. Huntoon, who is chair of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ Committee to Combat Sham Peer Review. “The hospitals want more control over how physicians practice and who they refer to, and they do that by having employees.”

Anthony P. Weiss, MD, MBA, chief medical officer for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center said it has not been his experience that independent physicians are being targeted in such a way. Dr. Weiss responded to an inquiry sent to the American Hospital Association for this story.

“As the authority for peer review rests with the organized medical staff (i.e., physicians), and not formally with the hospital per se, the peer review lever is not typically available as a management tool for hospital administration,” said Dr. Weiss, who is a former member of the AHA’s Committee on Clinical Leadership, but who was speaking on behalf of himself.

A spokesman for the AHA said the organization stands behinds Dr. Weiss’ comments.

Peer review remains a foundational aspect of overseeing the safety and appropriateness of healthcare provided by physicians, Dr. Weiss said. Peer review likely varies from hospital to hospital, he added, although the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act provides some level of guidance as does the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics (section 9.4.1).

“In essence, both require that the evaluation be conducted in good faith with the intention to improve care, by physicians with adequate training and knowledge, using a process that is fair and inclusive of the physician under review,” he said. “I believe that most medical staffs abide by these ethical principles, but we have little data to confirm this supposition.”
 

Did hospital target doc for being vocal?

When members of Methodist’s medical staff first approached Dr. Smith with concerns about his surgery outcomes in November 2018, the physician says he was surprised, but that he was open to an assessment.

“They came to me and said they thought my numbers were bad, and I said: ‘Well my gosh, I certainly don’t want that to be the case. I need to see what numbers you are talking about,’ ” Dr. Smith recalled. “I’ve been president of the Bexar County Medical Society; I’ve been involved with standards and ethics for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Quality health care means a whole lot to me.”

The statistical information provided by hospital administrators indicated that Dr. Smith’s mortality rates for coronary artery surgery in 2018 were “excessive” and that his rates for aortic surgery were “unacceptable,” according to a lawsuit Dr. Smith filed against the hospital system. Dr. Smith, who is double boarded with the American Board of Surgery and the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, said his outcomes had never come into question in the past. Dr. Smith said the timing was suspicious to him, however, considering he had recently raised concerns with the hospital through letters about nursing performance, staffing, and compensation.

A peer review investigation was initiated. In the meantime, Dr. Smith agreed to intensivist consults on his postoperative patients and consults with the hospital’s “Heart Team” on all preoperative cardiac, valve, and aortic cases. A vocal critic of the Heart Team, Dr. Smith had long contended the entity provided no meaningful benefit to his patients in most cases and, rather, increased hospital stays and raised medical expenses. Despite his agreement, Dr. Smith was later asked to voluntarily stop performing surgeries at the hospital.

“I agreed, convinced that we’d get this all settled,” he said.

Another report issued by the hospital in 2019 also indicated elevated mortality rates associated with some of Smith’s surgeries, although the document differed from the first report, according to the lawsuit. Dr. Smith says he was ignored when he pointed out problems with the data, including a lack of appropriate risk stratification in the report, departure from Society of Thoracic Surgeons data rules, and improper inclusion of his cases in the denominator of the ratio when a comparison was made of his outcomes with those hospitalwide. A subsequent report from Methodist in March 2019 indicated Dr. Smith’s surgery outcomes were “within the expected parameters of performance,” according to court documents.

The surgery accusations were dropped, but the peer review proceeding against Dr. Smith wasn’t over. The hospital next requested that Dr. Smith undergo a competency evaluation.

“When they realized the data was bad, they then changed their argument in the peer review proceeding and essentially started to argue that Dr. Smith had some sort of cognitive disability that prevented him from continuing to practice,” said Mr. Pullen. “The way I look at it, when the initial basis for the peer review was proven false, the hospital found something else and some other reason to try to keep Dr. Smith from practicing.”

Thus began a lengthy disagreement about which entity would conduct the evaluation, who would pay, and the type of acceptable assessment. An evaluation by the hospital’s preferred organization resulted in a finding of mild cognitive impairment, Dr. Smith said. He hired his own experts who conducted separate evaluations, finding no impairment and no basis for the former evaluation’s conclusion.

“Literally, the determinant as to whether I was normal or below normal on their test was one point, which was associated with a finding that I didn’t draw a clock correctly,” Dr. Smith claimed. “The reviewer said my minute hand was a little too short and docked me a point. It was purely subjective. To me, the gold standard of whether you are learned in thoracic surgery is the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s test. The board’s test shows my cognitive ability is entirely in keeping with my practice. That contrasts with the one point off I got for drawing a clock wrong in somebody’s estimation.”
 

Conflict leads to legal case

In September 2020, Dr. Smith filed a lawsuit against Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, alleging business disparagement by Methodist for allegedly publishing false and disparaging information about Dr. Smith and tortious interference with business relations. The latter claim stems from Methodist refusing to provide documents to other hospitals about the status of Dr. Smith’s privileges at Methodist, Mr. Pullen said.

Because Methodist refused to confirm his status, the renewal process for Baptist Health System could not be completed and Dr. Smith lost his privileges at Baptist Health System facilities, according to the lawsuit.

Notably, Dr. Smith’s legal challenge also asks the court to take a stance against alleged amendments by Methodist to its Unified Medical Staff Bylaws. The hospital allegedly proposed changes that would prevent physicians from seeking legal action against the hospital for malicious peer review, according to Dr. Smith’s lawsuit.

The amendments would make the peer review process itself the “sole and exclusive remedy with respect to any action or recommendation taken at the hospital affecting medical staff appointment and/or clinical privileges,” according to an excerpt of the proposed amendments included in Dr. Smith’s lawsuit. In addition, the changes would hold practitioners liable for lost revenues if the doctor initiates “any type of legal action challenging credentialing, privileging, or other medical peer review or professional review activity,” according to the lawsuit.

Dr. Smith’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws are “void as against public policy,” and a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws cannot take away physicians’ statutory right to bring litigation against Methodist for malicious peer review.

“The proposed amendments have a tendency to and will injure the public good,” Dr. Smith argued in the lawsuit. “The proposed amendments allow Methodist to act with malice and in bad faith in conducting peer review proceedings and face no legal repercussions.”

Regardless of the final outcome of the peer review proceeding, Mr. Pullen said the harm Dr. Smith has already endured cannot be reversed.

“Even if comes out in his favor, the damage is already done,” he said. “It will not remedy the damage Dr. Smith has incurred.”
 

Fighting sham peer review is difficult

Battling a malicious peer review has long been an uphill battle for physicians, according to Dr. Huntoon. That’s because the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), a federal law passed in 1986, provides near absolute immunity to hospitals and peer reviewers in legal disputes.

The HCQIA was created by Congress to extend immunity to good-faith peer review of doctors and to increase overall participation in peer review by removing fear of litigation. However, the act has also enabled abuse of peer review by shielding bad-faith reviewers from accountability, said Dr. Huntoon.

“The Health Care Quality Improvement Act presumes that what the hospital did was warranted and reasonable and shifts the burden to the physician to prove his innocence by a preponderance of evidence,” he said. “That’s an entirely foreign concept to most people who think a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Here, it’s the exact opposite.”

The HCQIA has been challenged numerous times over the years and tested at the appellate level, but continues to survive and remain settled law, added Richard B. Willner, DPM, founder and director of the Center for Peer Review Justice, which assists and counsels physicians about sham peer review.

In 2011, former Rep. Joe Heck, DO, (R-Nev.) introduced a bill that would have amended the HCQIA to prohibit a professional review entity from submitting a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) while the doctor was still under investigation and before the doctor was afforded adequate notice and a hearing. Although the measure had 16 cosponsors and plenty of support from the physician community, it failed.

In addition to a heavy legal burden, physicians who experience malicious peer reviews also face ramifications from being reported to the NPDB. Peer review organizations are required to report certain negative actions or findings to the NPDB.

“A databank entry is a scarlet letter on your forehead,” Dr. Willner said. “The rules at a lot of institutions are not to take anyone who has been databanked, rightfully or wrongfully. And what is the evidence necessary to databank you? None. There’s no evidence needed to databank somebody.”

Despite the bleak landscape, experts say progress has been made on a case-by-case basis by physicians who have succeeded in fighting back against questionable peer reviews in recent years.

In January 2020, Indiana ob.gyn. Rebecca Denman, MD, prevailed in her defamation lawsuit against St Vincent Carmel Hospital and St Vincent Carmel Medical Group, winning $4.75 million in damages. Dr. Denman alleged administrators failed to conduct a proper peer review investigation after a false allegation by a nurse that she was under the influence while on the job.

Indianapolis attorney Kathleen A. DeLaney, who represented Dr. Denman, said hospital leaders misled Dr. Denman into believing a peer review had occurred when no formal peer review hearing or proceeding took place.

“The CMO of the medical group claimed that he performed a peer review ‘screening,’ but he never informed the other members of the peer review executive committee of the matter until after he had placed Dr. Denman on administrative leave,” Ms. DeLaney said. “He also neglected to tell the peer review executive committee that the substance abuse policy had not been followed, or that Dr. Denman had not been tested for alcohol use – due to the 12-hour delay in report.”

Dr. Denman was ultimately required to undergo an alcohol abuse evaluation, enter a treatment program, and sign a 5-year monitoring contract with the Indiana State Medical Association as a condition of her employment, according to the lawsuit. She claimed repercussions from the false allegation resulted in lost compensation, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, and damage to her professional reputation.

She sued the hospital in July 2018, alleging fraud, defamation, tortious interference with an employment relationship, and negligent misrepresentation. After a 4-day trial, jurors found in her favor, awarding Dr. Denman $2 million for her defamation claims, $2 million for her claims of fraud and constructive fraud, $500,000 for her claim of tortious interference with an employment relationship, and $250,000 for her claim of negligent misrepresentation.

A hospital spokesperson said Ascension St Vincent is pursuing an appeal, and that it looks “forward to the opportunity to bring this matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals in June.”

In another case, South Dakota surgeon Linda Miller, MD, was awarded $1.1 million in 2017 after a federal jury found Huron Regional Medical Center breached her contract and violated her due process rights. Dr. Miller became the subject of a peer review at Huron Regional Medical Center when the hospital began analyzing some of her surgery outcomes.

Ken Barker, an attorney for Dr. Miller, said he feels it became evident at trial that the campaign to force Dr. Miller to either resign or lose her privileges was led by the lay board of directors of the hospital and upper-level administration at the hospital.

“They began the process by ordering an unprecedented 90-day review of her medical charts, looking for errors in the medical care she provided patients,” he said. “They could find nothing, so they did a second 90-day review, waiting for a patient’s ‘bad outcome.’ As any general surgeon will say, a ‘bad outcome’ is inevitable. And so it was. Upon that occurrence, they had a medical review committee review the patient’s chart and use it as an excuse to force her to reduce her privileges. Unbeknown to Dr. Miller, an external review had been conducted on another patient’s chart, in which the external review found her care above the standards and, in some measure, ‘exemplary.’ ”

Dr. Miller was eventually pressured to resign, according to her claim. Because of reports made to the NPDB by the medical center, including a patient complication that was allegedly falsified by the hospital, Dr. Miller said she was unable to find work as a general surgeon and went to work as a wound care doctor. At trial, jurors awarded Dr. Miller $586,617 in lost wages, $343,640 for lost future earning capacity, and $250,000 for mental anguish. (The mental anguish award was subsequently struck by a district court.)

Attorneys for Huron Regional Medical Center argued the jury improperly awarded damages and requested a new trial, which was denied by an appeals court.

In the end, the evidence came to light and the jury’s verdict spoke loudly that the hospital had taken unfair advantage of Dr. Miller, Mr. Barker said. But he emphasized that such cases often end differently.

“There are a handful of cases in which physicians like Dr. Miller have challenged the system and won,” he said. “In most cases, however, it is a ‘David vs. Goliath’ scenario where the giant prevails.”
 

What to do if faced with malicious peer review

An important step when doctors encounter a peer review that they believe is malicious is to consult with an experienced attorney as early as possible, Dr. Huntoon said. “Not all attorneys who set themselves out to be health law attorneys necessarily have knowledge and expertise in sham peer review. And before such a thing happens, I always encourage physicians to read their medical staff bylaws. That’s where everything is set forth, [such as] the corrective action section that tells how peer review is to take place.”

Mr. Barker added that documentation is also key in the event of a potential malicious peer review.

“When a physician senses [the] administration has targeted them, they should start documenting their conversations and actions very carefully, and if possible, recruit another ‘observer’ who can provide a third-party perspective, if necessary,” Mr. Barker said.

Dr. Huntoon recently wrote an article with advice about preparedness and defense of sham peer reviews. The guidance includes that physicians educate themselves about the tactics used by some hospitals to conduct sham peer reviews and the factors that place doctors more at risk. Factors that may raise a doctor’s danger of being targeted include being in solo practice or a small group, being new on staff, or being an older physician approaching retirement as some bad-actor hospitals may view older physicians as being less likely to fight back, said Dr. Huntoon.

Doctors should also keep detailed records and a timeline in the event of a malicious peer review and insist that an independent court reporter record all peer review hearings, even if that means the physician has to pay for the reporter him or herself, according to the guidance. An independent record is invaluable should the physician ultimately issue a future legal challenge against the hospital.

Mr. Willner encourages physicians to call the Center for Peer Review Justice hotline at (504) 621-1670 or visit the website for help with peer review and NPDB issues.

As for Dr. Smith, his days are much quieter and slower today, compared with the active practice he was accustomed to for more than half his life. He misses the fast pace, the patients, and the work that always brought him great joy.

“I hope to get back to doing surgeries eventually,” he said. “I graduated medical school in 1972. Practicing surgery has been my whole life and my career. They have taken my identity and my livelihood away from me based on false numbers and false premises. I want it back.”

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

Cardiothoracic surgeon J. Marvin Smith III, MD, had always thrived on a busy practice schedule, often performing 20-30 surgeries a week. A practicing surgeon for more than 40 years, Dr. Smith said he had no plans to slow down anytime soon.

But Dr. Smith said his career was derailed when leaders at Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio initiated a sudden peer review proceeding against him. The hospital system alleged certain surgeries performed by Dr. Smith had excessive mortality rates. When he proved the data inaccurate, Dr. Smith said administrators next claimed he was cognitively impaired and wasn’t safe to practice.

Dr. Smith has now been embroiled in a peer review dispute with the hospital system for more than 2 years and says the conflict has essentially forced him out of surgical practice. He believes the peer review was “malicious” and was really launched because of complaints he made about nurse staffing and other issues at the hospital.

“I think it is absolutely in bad faith and is disingenuous what they’ve told me along the way,” said Dr. Smith, 73. “It’s because I pointed out deficiencies in nursing care, and they want to get rid of me. It would be a lot easier for them if I had a contract and they could control me better. But the fact that I was independent, meant they had to resort to a malicious peer review to try and push me out.”

Dr. Smith had a peer review hearing with Methodist in March 2021, and in April, a panel found in Dr. Smith’s favor, according to Dr. Smith. The findings were sent to the hospital’s medical board for review, which issued a decision in early May.

Eric A. Pullen, an attorney for Dr. Smith, said he could not go into detail about the board’s decision for legal reasons, but that “the medical board’s decision did not completely resolve the matter, and Dr. Smith intends to exercise his procedural rights, which could include an appeal.”

Methodist Hospital Texsan and its parent company, Methodist Health System of San Antonio, did not respond to messages seeking comment about the case. Without hearing from the hospital system, its side is unknown and it is unclear if there is more to the story from Methodist’s view.

Malicious peer review – also called sham peer review – is defined as misusing the medical peer review process for malevolent purposes, such as to silence or to remove a physician. The problem is not new, but some experts, such as Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, say the practice has become more common in recent years, particularly against independent doctors.

Dr. Huntoon believes there is a nationwide trend at many hospitals to get rid of independent physicians and replace them with employed doctors, he said.

However, because most sham peer reviews go on behind closed doors, there are no data to pinpoint its prevalence or measure its growth.

“Independent physicians are basically being purged from medical staffs across the United States,” said Dr. Huntoon, who is chair of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ Committee to Combat Sham Peer Review. “The hospitals want more control over how physicians practice and who they refer to, and they do that by having employees.”

Anthony P. Weiss, MD, MBA, chief medical officer for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center said it has not been his experience that independent physicians are being targeted in such a way. Dr. Weiss responded to an inquiry sent to the American Hospital Association for this story.

“As the authority for peer review rests with the organized medical staff (i.e., physicians), and not formally with the hospital per se, the peer review lever is not typically available as a management tool for hospital administration,” said Dr. Weiss, who is a former member of the AHA’s Committee on Clinical Leadership, but who was speaking on behalf of himself.

A spokesman for the AHA said the organization stands behinds Dr. Weiss’ comments.

Peer review remains a foundational aspect of overseeing the safety and appropriateness of healthcare provided by physicians, Dr. Weiss said. Peer review likely varies from hospital to hospital, he added, although the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act provides some level of guidance as does the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics (section 9.4.1).

“In essence, both require that the evaluation be conducted in good faith with the intention to improve care, by physicians with adequate training and knowledge, using a process that is fair and inclusive of the physician under review,” he said. “I believe that most medical staffs abide by these ethical principles, but we have little data to confirm this supposition.”
 

Did hospital target doc for being vocal?

When members of Methodist’s medical staff first approached Dr. Smith with concerns about his surgery outcomes in November 2018, the physician says he was surprised, but that he was open to an assessment.

“They came to me and said they thought my numbers were bad, and I said: ‘Well my gosh, I certainly don’t want that to be the case. I need to see what numbers you are talking about,’ ” Dr. Smith recalled. “I’ve been president of the Bexar County Medical Society; I’ve been involved with standards and ethics for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Quality health care means a whole lot to me.”

The statistical information provided by hospital administrators indicated that Dr. Smith’s mortality rates for coronary artery surgery in 2018 were “excessive” and that his rates for aortic surgery were “unacceptable,” according to a lawsuit Dr. Smith filed against the hospital system. Dr. Smith, who is double boarded with the American Board of Surgery and the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, said his outcomes had never come into question in the past. Dr. Smith said the timing was suspicious to him, however, considering he had recently raised concerns with the hospital through letters about nursing performance, staffing, and compensation.

A peer review investigation was initiated. In the meantime, Dr. Smith agreed to intensivist consults on his postoperative patients and consults with the hospital’s “Heart Team” on all preoperative cardiac, valve, and aortic cases. A vocal critic of the Heart Team, Dr. Smith had long contended the entity provided no meaningful benefit to his patients in most cases and, rather, increased hospital stays and raised medical expenses. Despite his agreement, Dr. Smith was later asked to voluntarily stop performing surgeries at the hospital.

“I agreed, convinced that we’d get this all settled,” he said.

Another report issued by the hospital in 2019 also indicated elevated mortality rates associated with some of Smith’s surgeries, although the document differed from the first report, according to the lawsuit. Dr. Smith says he was ignored when he pointed out problems with the data, including a lack of appropriate risk stratification in the report, departure from Society of Thoracic Surgeons data rules, and improper inclusion of his cases in the denominator of the ratio when a comparison was made of his outcomes with those hospitalwide. A subsequent report from Methodist in March 2019 indicated Dr. Smith’s surgery outcomes were “within the expected parameters of performance,” according to court documents.

The surgery accusations were dropped, but the peer review proceeding against Dr. Smith wasn’t over. The hospital next requested that Dr. Smith undergo a competency evaluation.

“When they realized the data was bad, they then changed their argument in the peer review proceeding and essentially started to argue that Dr. Smith had some sort of cognitive disability that prevented him from continuing to practice,” said Mr. Pullen. “The way I look at it, when the initial basis for the peer review was proven false, the hospital found something else and some other reason to try to keep Dr. Smith from practicing.”

Thus began a lengthy disagreement about which entity would conduct the evaluation, who would pay, and the type of acceptable assessment. An evaluation by the hospital’s preferred organization resulted in a finding of mild cognitive impairment, Dr. Smith said. He hired his own experts who conducted separate evaluations, finding no impairment and no basis for the former evaluation’s conclusion.

“Literally, the determinant as to whether I was normal or below normal on their test was one point, which was associated with a finding that I didn’t draw a clock correctly,” Dr. Smith claimed. “The reviewer said my minute hand was a little too short and docked me a point. It was purely subjective. To me, the gold standard of whether you are learned in thoracic surgery is the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s test. The board’s test shows my cognitive ability is entirely in keeping with my practice. That contrasts with the one point off I got for drawing a clock wrong in somebody’s estimation.”
 

Conflict leads to legal case

In September 2020, Dr. Smith filed a lawsuit against Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, alleging business disparagement by Methodist for allegedly publishing false and disparaging information about Dr. Smith and tortious interference with business relations. The latter claim stems from Methodist refusing to provide documents to other hospitals about the status of Dr. Smith’s privileges at Methodist, Mr. Pullen said.

Because Methodist refused to confirm his status, the renewal process for Baptist Health System could not be completed and Dr. Smith lost his privileges at Baptist Health System facilities, according to the lawsuit.

Notably, Dr. Smith’s legal challenge also asks the court to take a stance against alleged amendments by Methodist to its Unified Medical Staff Bylaws. The hospital allegedly proposed changes that would prevent physicians from seeking legal action against the hospital for malicious peer review, according to Dr. Smith’s lawsuit.

The amendments would make the peer review process itself the “sole and exclusive remedy with respect to any action or recommendation taken at the hospital affecting medical staff appointment and/or clinical privileges,” according to an excerpt of the proposed amendments included in Dr. Smith’s lawsuit. In addition, the changes would hold practitioners liable for lost revenues if the doctor initiates “any type of legal action challenging credentialing, privileging, or other medical peer review or professional review activity,” according to the lawsuit.

Dr. Smith’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws are “void as against public policy,” and a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws cannot take away physicians’ statutory right to bring litigation against Methodist for malicious peer review.

“The proposed amendments have a tendency to and will injure the public good,” Dr. Smith argued in the lawsuit. “The proposed amendments allow Methodist to act with malice and in bad faith in conducting peer review proceedings and face no legal repercussions.”

Regardless of the final outcome of the peer review proceeding, Mr. Pullen said the harm Dr. Smith has already endured cannot be reversed.

“Even if comes out in his favor, the damage is already done,” he said. “It will not remedy the damage Dr. Smith has incurred.”
 

Fighting sham peer review is difficult

Battling a malicious peer review has long been an uphill battle for physicians, according to Dr. Huntoon. That’s because the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), a federal law passed in 1986, provides near absolute immunity to hospitals and peer reviewers in legal disputes.

The HCQIA was created by Congress to extend immunity to good-faith peer review of doctors and to increase overall participation in peer review by removing fear of litigation. However, the act has also enabled abuse of peer review by shielding bad-faith reviewers from accountability, said Dr. Huntoon.

“The Health Care Quality Improvement Act presumes that what the hospital did was warranted and reasonable and shifts the burden to the physician to prove his innocence by a preponderance of evidence,” he said. “That’s an entirely foreign concept to most people who think a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Here, it’s the exact opposite.”

The HCQIA has been challenged numerous times over the years and tested at the appellate level, but continues to survive and remain settled law, added Richard B. Willner, DPM, founder and director of the Center for Peer Review Justice, which assists and counsels physicians about sham peer review.

In 2011, former Rep. Joe Heck, DO, (R-Nev.) introduced a bill that would have amended the HCQIA to prohibit a professional review entity from submitting a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) while the doctor was still under investigation and before the doctor was afforded adequate notice and a hearing. Although the measure had 16 cosponsors and plenty of support from the physician community, it failed.

In addition to a heavy legal burden, physicians who experience malicious peer reviews also face ramifications from being reported to the NPDB. Peer review organizations are required to report certain negative actions or findings to the NPDB.

“A databank entry is a scarlet letter on your forehead,” Dr. Willner said. “The rules at a lot of institutions are not to take anyone who has been databanked, rightfully or wrongfully. And what is the evidence necessary to databank you? None. There’s no evidence needed to databank somebody.”

Despite the bleak landscape, experts say progress has been made on a case-by-case basis by physicians who have succeeded in fighting back against questionable peer reviews in recent years.

In January 2020, Indiana ob.gyn. Rebecca Denman, MD, prevailed in her defamation lawsuit against St Vincent Carmel Hospital and St Vincent Carmel Medical Group, winning $4.75 million in damages. Dr. Denman alleged administrators failed to conduct a proper peer review investigation after a false allegation by a nurse that she was under the influence while on the job.

Indianapolis attorney Kathleen A. DeLaney, who represented Dr. Denman, said hospital leaders misled Dr. Denman into believing a peer review had occurred when no formal peer review hearing or proceeding took place.

“The CMO of the medical group claimed that he performed a peer review ‘screening,’ but he never informed the other members of the peer review executive committee of the matter until after he had placed Dr. Denman on administrative leave,” Ms. DeLaney said. “He also neglected to tell the peer review executive committee that the substance abuse policy had not been followed, or that Dr. Denman had not been tested for alcohol use – due to the 12-hour delay in report.”

Dr. Denman was ultimately required to undergo an alcohol abuse evaluation, enter a treatment program, and sign a 5-year monitoring contract with the Indiana State Medical Association as a condition of her employment, according to the lawsuit. She claimed repercussions from the false allegation resulted in lost compensation, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, and damage to her professional reputation.

She sued the hospital in July 2018, alleging fraud, defamation, tortious interference with an employment relationship, and negligent misrepresentation. After a 4-day trial, jurors found in her favor, awarding Dr. Denman $2 million for her defamation claims, $2 million for her claims of fraud and constructive fraud, $500,000 for her claim of tortious interference with an employment relationship, and $250,000 for her claim of negligent misrepresentation.

A hospital spokesperson said Ascension St Vincent is pursuing an appeal, and that it looks “forward to the opportunity to bring this matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals in June.”

In another case, South Dakota surgeon Linda Miller, MD, was awarded $1.1 million in 2017 after a federal jury found Huron Regional Medical Center breached her contract and violated her due process rights. Dr. Miller became the subject of a peer review at Huron Regional Medical Center when the hospital began analyzing some of her surgery outcomes.

Ken Barker, an attorney for Dr. Miller, said he feels it became evident at trial that the campaign to force Dr. Miller to either resign or lose her privileges was led by the lay board of directors of the hospital and upper-level administration at the hospital.

“They began the process by ordering an unprecedented 90-day review of her medical charts, looking for errors in the medical care she provided patients,” he said. “They could find nothing, so they did a second 90-day review, waiting for a patient’s ‘bad outcome.’ As any general surgeon will say, a ‘bad outcome’ is inevitable. And so it was. Upon that occurrence, they had a medical review committee review the patient’s chart and use it as an excuse to force her to reduce her privileges. Unbeknown to Dr. Miller, an external review had been conducted on another patient’s chart, in which the external review found her care above the standards and, in some measure, ‘exemplary.’ ”

Dr. Miller was eventually pressured to resign, according to her claim. Because of reports made to the NPDB by the medical center, including a patient complication that was allegedly falsified by the hospital, Dr. Miller said she was unable to find work as a general surgeon and went to work as a wound care doctor. At trial, jurors awarded Dr. Miller $586,617 in lost wages, $343,640 for lost future earning capacity, and $250,000 for mental anguish. (The mental anguish award was subsequently struck by a district court.)

Attorneys for Huron Regional Medical Center argued the jury improperly awarded damages and requested a new trial, which was denied by an appeals court.

In the end, the evidence came to light and the jury’s verdict spoke loudly that the hospital had taken unfair advantage of Dr. Miller, Mr. Barker said. But he emphasized that such cases often end differently.

“There are a handful of cases in which physicians like Dr. Miller have challenged the system and won,” he said. “In most cases, however, it is a ‘David vs. Goliath’ scenario where the giant prevails.”
 

What to do if faced with malicious peer review

An important step when doctors encounter a peer review that they believe is malicious is to consult with an experienced attorney as early as possible, Dr. Huntoon said. “Not all attorneys who set themselves out to be health law attorneys necessarily have knowledge and expertise in sham peer review. And before such a thing happens, I always encourage physicians to read their medical staff bylaws. That’s where everything is set forth, [such as] the corrective action section that tells how peer review is to take place.”

Mr. Barker added that documentation is also key in the event of a potential malicious peer review.

“When a physician senses [the] administration has targeted them, they should start documenting their conversations and actions very carefully, and if possible, recruit another ‘observer’ who can provide a third-party perspective, if necessary,” Mr. Barker said.

Dr. Huntoon recently wrote an article with advice about preparedness and defense of sham peer reviews. The guidance includes that physicians educate themselves about the tactics used by some hospitals to conduct sham peer reviews and the factors that place doctors more at risk. Factors that may raise a doctor’s danger of being targeted include being in solo practice or a small group, being new on staff, or being an older physician approaching retirement as some bad-actor hospitals may view older physicians as being less likely to fight back, said Dr. Huntoon.

Doctors should also keep detailed records and a timeline in the event of a malicious peer review and insist that an independent court reporter record all peer review hearings, even if that means the physician has to pay for the reporter him or herself, according to the guidance. An independent record is invaluable should the physician ultimately issue a future legal challenge against the hospital.

Mr. Willner encourages physicians to call the Center for Peer Review Justice hotline at (504) 621-1670 or visit the website for help with peer review and NPDB issues.

As for Dr. Smith, his days are much quieter and slower today, compared with the active practice he was accustomed to for more than half his life. He misses the fast pace, the patients, and the work that always brought him great joy.

“I hope to get back to doing surgeries eventually,” he said. “I graduated medical school in 1972. Practicing surgery has been my whole life and my career. They have taken my identity and my livelihood away from me based on false numbers and false premises. I want it back.”

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

The obesity epidemic in the United States may be slowing improvements in cancer mortality, according to a new analysis of over 50 million cancer and heart disease deaths.

“By integrating 20 years of cancer mortality data, we demonstrated that trends in obesity-associated cancer mortality showed signs of recent deceleration, consistent with recent findings for heart disease mortality,” Christy L. Avery, PhD, and associates wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Improvements in mortality related to heart disease slowed after 2011, a phenomenon that has been associated with rising obesity rates. The age-adjusted mortality rate (AAMR) declined at an average of 3.8 deaths per 100,000 persons from 1999 to 2011 but only 0.7 deaths per 100,000 from 2011 to 2018, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER).

To understand trends in cancer mortality and their possible connection with obesity, data for 1999-2018 from the WONDER database were divided into obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated categories and compared with heart disease mortality, they explained. The database included more than 50 million deaths that matched inclusion criteria.

The analysis showed there was difference between obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated cancers that was obscured when all cancer deaths were considered together. The average annual change in AAMR for obesity-associated cancers slowed from –1.19 deaths per 100,000 in 1999-2011 to –0.83 in 2011-2018, Dr. Avery and associates reported.

For non–obesity-associated cancers, the annual change in AAMR increased from –1.62 per 100,000 for 1999-2011 to –2.29 for 2011-2018, following the trend for all cancers: –1.48 per 100,000 during 1999-2011 and –1.77 in 2011-2018, they said.

“The largest mortality decreases were observed for melanoma of the skin and lung cancer, two cancers not associated with obesity. For obesity-associated cancers, stable or increasing mortality rates have been observed for liver and pancreatic cancer among both men and women as well as for uterine cancer among women,” the investigators wrote.

Demographically, however, the slowing improvement in mortality for obesity-associated cancers did not follow the trend for heart disease. The deceleration for cancer was more pronounced for women and for non-Hispanic Whites and not seen at all in non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander individuals. “For heart disease, evidence of a deceleration was consistent across sex, race, and ethnicity,” they said.

There are “longstanding disparities in obesity” among various populations in the United States, and the recent trend of obesity occurring earlier in life may be having an effect. “Whether the findings of decelerating mortality rates potentially signal a changing profile of cancer and heart disease mortality as the consequences of the obesity epidemic are realized remains to be seen,” they concluded.

The investigators reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study, but no other disclosures were reported.

[email protected]

The obesity epidemic in the United States may be slowing improvements in cancer mortality, according to a new analysis of over 50 million cancer and heart disease deaths.

“By integrating 20 years of cancer mortality data, we demonstrated that trends in obesity-associated cancer mortality showed signs of recent deceleration, consistent with recent findings for heart disease mortality,” Christy L. Avery, PhD, and associates wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Improvements in mortality related to heart disease slowed after 2011, a phenomenon that has been associated with rising obesity rates. The age-adjusted mortality rate (AAMR) declined at an average of 3.8 deaths per 100,000 persons from 1999 to 2011 but only 0.7 deaths per 100,000 from 2011 to 2018, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER).

To understand trends in cancer mortality and their possible connection with obesity, data for 1999-2018 from the WONDER database were divided into obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated categories and compared with heart disease mortality, they explained. The database included more than 50 million deaths that matched inclusion criteria.

The analysis showed there was difference between obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated cancers that was obscured when all cancer deaths were considered together. The average annual change in AAMR for obesity-associated cancers slowed from –1.19 deaths per 100,000 in 1999-2011 to –0.83 in 2011-2018, Dr. Avery and associates reported.

For non–obesity-associated cancers, the annual change in AAMR increased from –1.62 per 100,000 for 1999-2011 to –2.29 for 2011-2018, following the trend for all cancers: –1.48 per 100,000 during 1999-2011 and –1.77 in 2011-2018, they said.

“The largest mortality decreases were observed for melanoma of the skin and lung cancer, two cancers not associated with obesity. For obesity-associated cancers, stable or increasing mortality rates have been observed for liver and pancreatic cancer among both men and women as well as for uterine cancer among women,” the investigators wrote.

Demographically, however, the slowing improvement in mortality for obesity-associated cancers did not follow the trend for heart disease. The deceleration for cancer was more pronounced for women and for non-Hispanic Whites and not seen at all in non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander individuals. “For heart disease, evidence of a deceleration was consistent across sex, race, and ethnicity,” they said.

There are “longstanding disparities in obesity” among various populations in the United States, and the recent trend of obesity occurring earlier in life may be having an effect. “Whether the findings of decelerating mortality rates potentially signal a changing profile of cancer and heart disease mortality as the consequences of the obesity epidemic are realized remains to be seen,” they concluded.

The investigators reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study, but no other disclosures were reported.

[email protected]

The obesity epidemic in the United States may be slowing improvements in cancer mortality, according to a new analysis of over 50 million cancer and heart disease deaths.

“By integrating 20 years of cancer mortality data, we demonstrated that trends in obesity-associated cancer mortality showed signs of recent deceleration, consistent with recent findings for heart disease mortality,” Christy L. Avery, PhD, and associates wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Improvements in mortality related to heart disease slowed after 2011, a phenomenon that has been associated with rising obesity rates. The age-adjusted mortality rate (AAMR) declined at an average of 3.8 deaths per 100,000 persons from 1999 to 2011 but only 0.7 deaths per 100,000 from 2011 to 2018, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER).

To understand trends in cancer mortality and their possible connection with obesity, data for 1999-2018 from the WONDER database were divided into obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated categories and compared with heart disease mortality, they explained. The database included more than 50 million deaths that matched inclusion criteria.

The analysis showed there was difference between obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated cancers that was obscured when all cancer deaths were considered together. The average annual change in AAMR for obesity-associated cancers slowed from –1.19 deaths per 100,000 in 1999-2011 to –0.83 in 2011-2018, Dr. Avery and associates reported.

For non–obesity-associated cancers, the annual change in AAMR increased from –1.62 per 100,000 for 1999-2011 to –2.29 for 2011-2018, following the trend for all cancers: –1.48 per 100,000 during 1999-2011 and –1.77 in 2011-2018, they said.

“The largest mortality decreases were observed for melanoma of the skin and lung cancer, two cancers not associated with obesity. For obesity-associated cancers, stable or increasing mortality rates have been observed for liver and pancreatic cancer among both men and women as well as for uterine cancer among women,” the investigators wrote.

Demographically, however, the slowing improvement in mortality for obesity-associated cancers did not follow the trend for heart disease. The deceleration for cancer was more pronounced for women and for non-Hispanic Whites and not seen at all in non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander individuals. “For heart disease, evidence of a deceleration was consistent across sex, race, and ethnicity,” they said.

There are “longstanding disparities in obesity” among various populations in the United States, and the recent trend of obesity occurring earlier in life may be having an effect. “Whether the findings of decelerating mortality rates potentially signal a changing profile of cancer and heart disease mortality as the consequences of the obesity epidemic are realized remains to be seen,” they concluded.

The investigators reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study, but no other disclosures were reported.

[email protected]

Scientists have proposed a simple new definition for “metabolically healthy obesity” to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) death and total mortality.

The team – led by Anika Zembic, MPH, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany – performed an assessment of anthropometric and metabolic risk factors as well as mortality data from two cohorts that “yielded a simple definition to categorize participants with obesity as metabolically healthy or unhealthy.”

They defined “metabolically healthy” as systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg and no use of blood pressure-lowering medication; waist-to-hip ratio <0.95 (in women) and <1.03 (in men); and no prevalent type 2 diabetes.

Based on this new definition, 42% of participants in the third U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-III) and 19% of participants in the UK Biobank study had metabolically healthy obesity and did not have an increased risk for CVD mortality and total mortality compared with individuals with metabolically healthy normal weight.  

“People with a phenotype defined as metabolically unhealthy using this definition had significantly higher hazard ratios for [CVD] mortality and total mortality irrespective of body mass index category, and people with phenotypes defined as having metabolically healthy obesity displayed no increased risk,” the researchers noted in their article, published May 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our new definition may be important not only to stratify risk of mortality in people with obesity, but also in people with overweight and normal weight,” they concluded.
 

Thirty different definitions of ‘metabolically healthy obesity’

“To date, there is no universally accepted standard for defining [metabolically healthy obesity] and more than 30 different definitions have been used to operationalize the phenotypes in studies,” which may explain the “continued unresolved debate” about outcomes in patients with metabolically unhealthy obesity, Ayana K. April-Sanders, PhD, and Carlos J. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote in an accompanying commentary.

The current study, they noted, suggests that waist-to-hip ratio is a better measure of central adiposity than waist circumference, and that the effect of dyslipidemia on CVD mortality may be weaker among individuals with obesity.

However, the findings may not be generalizable to other CVD outcomes, they cautioned.

And importantly, some individuals with metabolically healthy obesity will likely transition to unhealthy obesity over time due to weight gain, aging, and lack of physical activity.

Therefore, “the present study provides a prototype of how that definition can be derived, but more rigorous tests and evidence using similar techniques are needed, particularly in prospective studies,” according to Dr. April-Sanders and Dr. Rodriguez.

They call for more research to establish a standardized definition of metabolically healthy obesity and then, using that definition, to determine the prevalence of healthy and unhealthy obesity and identify factors that preserve healthy obesity. 
 

Definition developed from NHANES cohort, validated in UK biobank

Ms. Zembic and colleagues explained that previous definitions for metabolically healthy obesity were mainly based on the absence of either metabolic syndrome or insulin resistance, but some individuals with obesity but without metabolic disease still have increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

To develop a more precise definition of metabolically healthy obesity, the researchers analyzed data from 12,341 individuals in the United States who participated in NHANES-III, conducted between 1988 and 1994. The individuals were a mean age of 42 and 51% were women, and they were followed for an average of 14.5 years.  

The researchers validated this definition using data from 374,079 individuals in the population-based UK Biobank cohort who were assessed in 2006 to 2010. Those individuals were a mean age of 56 and 55% were women, and they were followed for a mean of 7.8 years.

The combination of systolic blood pressure and waist-to-hip ratio had the strongest association with CVD mortality and total mortality, and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes was also associated with greater risk.

Regardless of BMI, all groups of metabolically unhealthy individuals had increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

The study and some of the researchers were supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.  

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

Scientists have proposed a simple new definition for “metabolically healthy obesity” to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) death and total mortality.

The team – led by Anika Zembic, MPH, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany – performed an assessment of anthropometric and metabolic risk factors as well as mortality data from two cohorts that “yielded a simple definition to categorize participants with obesity as metabolically healthy or unhealthy.”

They defined “metabolically healthy” as systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg and no use of blood pressure-lowering medication; waist-to-hip ratio <0.95 (in women) and <1.03 (in men); and no prevalent type 2 diabetes.

Based on this new definition, 42% of participants in the third U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-III) and 19% of participants in the UK Biobank study had metabolically healthy obesity and did not have an increased risk for CVD mortality and total mortality compared with individuals with metabolically healthy normal weight.  

“People with a phenotype defined as metabolically unhealthy using this definition had significantly higher hazard ratios for [CVD] mortality and total mortality irrespective of body mass index category, and people with phenotypes defined as having metabolically healthy obesity displayed no increased risk,” the researchers noted in their article, published May 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our new definition may be important not only to stratify risk of mortality in people with obesity, but also in people with overweight and normal weight,” they concluded.
 

Thirty different definitions of ‘metabolically healthy obesity’

“To date, there is no universally accepted standard for defining [metabolically healthy obesity] and more than 30 different definitions have been used to operationalize the phenotypes in studies,” which may explain the “continued unresolved debate” about outcomes in patients with metabolically unhealthy obesity, Ayana K. April-Sanders, PhD, and Carlos J. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote in an accompanying commentary.

The current study, they noted, suggests that waist-to-hip ratio is a better measure of central adiposity than waist circumference, and that the effect of dyslipidemia on CVD mortality may be weaker among individuals with obesity.

However, the findings may not be generalizable to other CVD outcomes, they cautioned.

And importantly, some individuals with metabolically healthy obesity will likely transition to unhealthy obesity over time due to weight gain, aging, and lack of physical activity.

Therefore, “the present study provides a prototype of how that definition can be derived, but more rigorous tests and evidence using similar techniques are needed, particularly in prospective studies,” according to Dr. April-Sanders and Dr. Rodriguez.

They call for more research to establish a standardized definition of metabolically healthy obesity and then, using that definition, to determine the prevalence of healthy and unhealthy obesity and identify factors that preserve healthy obesity. 
 

Definition developed from NHANES cohort, validated in UK biobank

Ms. Zembic and colleagues explained that previous definitions for metabolically healthy obesity were mainly based on the absence of either metabolic syndrome or insulin resistance, but some individuals with obesity but without metabolic disease still have increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

To develop a more precise definition of metabolically healthy obesity, the researchers analyzed data from 12,341 individuals in the United States who participated in NHANES-III, conducted between 1988 and 1994. The individuals were a mean age of 42 and 51% were women, and they were followed for an average of 14.5 years.  

The researchers validated this definition using data from 374,079 individuals in the population-based UK Biobank cohort who were assessed in 2006 to 2010. Those individuals were a mean age of 56 and 55% were women, and they were followed for a mean of 7.8 years.

The combination of systolic blood pressure and waist-to-hip ratio had the strongest association with CVD mortality and total mortality, and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes was also associated with greater risk.

Regardless of BMI, all groups of metabolically unhealthy individuals had increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

The study and some of the researchers were supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.  

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

Scientists have proposed a simple new definition for “metabolically healthy obesity” to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) death and total mortality.

The team – led by Anika Zembic, MPH, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany – performed an assessment of anthropometric and metabolic risk factors as well as mortality data from two cohorts that “yielded a simple definition to categorize participants with obesity as metabolically healthy or unhealthy.”

They defined “metabolically healthy” as systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg and no use of blood pressure-lowering medication; waist-to-hip ratio <0.95 (in women) and <1.03 (in men); and no prevalent type 2 diabetes.

Based on this new definition, 42% of participants in the third U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-III) and 19% of participants in the UK Biobank study had metabolically healthy obesity and did not have an increased risk for CVD mortality and total mortality compared with individuals with metabolically healthy normal weight.  

“People with a phenotype defined as metabolically unhealthy using this definition had significantly higher hazard ratios for [CVD] mortality and total mortality irrespective of body mass index category, and people with phenotypes defined as having metabolically healthy obesity displayed no increased risk,” the researchers noted in their article, published May 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our new definition may be important not only to stratify risk of mortality in people with obesity, but also in people with overweight and normal weight,” they concluded.
 

Thirty different definitions of ‘metabolically healthy obesity’

“To date, there is no universally accepted standard for defining [metabolically healthy obesity] and more than 30 different definitions have been used to operationalize the phenotypes in studies,” which may explain the “continued unresolved debate” about outcomes in patients with metabolically unhealthy obesity, Ayana K. April-Sanders, PhD, and Carlos J. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote in an accompanying commentary.

The current study, they noted, suggests that waist-to-hip ratio is a better measure of central adiposity than waist circumference, and that the effect of dyslipidemia on CVD mortality may be weaker among individuals with obesity.

However, the findings may not be generalizable to other CVD outcomes, they cautioned.

And importantly, some individuals with metabolically healthy obesity will likely transition to unhealthy obesity over time due to weight gain, aging, and lack of physical activity.

Therefore, “the present study provides a prototype of how that definition can be derived, but more rigorous tests and evidence using similar techniques are needed, particularly in prospective studies,” according to Dr. April-Sanders and Dr. Rodriguez.

They call for more research to establish a standardized definition of metabolically healthy obesity and then, using that definition, to determine the prevalence of healthy and unhealthy obesity and identify factors that preserve healthy obesity. 
 

Definition developed from NHANES cohort, validated in UK biobank

Ms. Zembic and colleagues explained that previous definitions for metabolically healthy obesity were mainly based on the absence of either metabolic syndrome or insulin resistance, but some individuals with obesity but without metabolic disease still have increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

To develop a more precise definition of metabolically healthy obesity, the researchers analyzed data from 12,341 individuals in the United States who participated in NHANES-III, conducted between 1988 and 1994. The individuals were a mean age of 42 and 51% were women, and they were followed for an average of 14.5 years.  

The researchers validated this definition using data from 374,079 individuals in the population-based UK Biobank cohort who were assessed in 2006 to 2010. Those individuals were a mean age of 56 and 55% were women, and they were followed for a mean of 7.8 years.

The combination of systolic blood pressure and waist-to-hip ratio had the strongest association with CVD mortality and total mortality, and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes was also associated with greater risk.

Regardless of BMI, all groups of metabolically unhealthy individuals had increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

The study and some of the researchers were supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.  

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

Single breath diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide shows greater decline over time in COPD patients compared with controls, but declines significantly more in women compared with men, according to data from 602 adults with a history of smoking.

In previous studies, diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLco) has been associated with decreased exercise capacity and poor health status in patients with COPD, but its association as a measure of disease progression has not been well studied, wrote Ciro Casanova, MD, of Hospital Universitario La Candelaria, Spain, and colleagues.

In a study published in the journal CHEST^®, the researchers identified 506 adult smokers with COPD and 96 adult smoker controls without COPD. Lung function based on single breath DLco was measured each year for 5 years. The study population was part of the COPH History Assessment in SpaiN (CHAIN), an ongoing observational study of adults with COPD. COPD was defined as a history of at least 10 pack-years of smoking and a post-bronchodilator FEV₁/FVC greater than 0.7 after 400 micrograms of albuterol, the researchers said.

During the 5-year period, the average overall annual decline in DLco was 1.34% in COPD patients, compared with .04% in non-COPD controls (P = .004). Among COPD patients, age, body mass index, FEV₁%, and active smoking were not associated with longitudinal change in DLco values, the researchers said.

Notably, women with COPD at baseline had lower baseline DLco values compared with men (11.37%) and a significantly steeper decline in DLco (.89%) compared with men (P = .039). “Being a woman was the only factor that related to the annual rate of change in DLco,” the researchers said.

In a subgroup analysis, the researchers identified 305 COPD patients and 69 non-COPD controls who had at least 3 DLco measurements over the 5-year study period. In this group, 16.4% patients with COPD and 4.3% smokers without COPD showed significant yearly declines in DLco of –4.139% and –4.440%, respectively. Among COPD patients, significantly more women than men showed significant DLco declines (26% vs. 14%, P = .005). No significant differences were observed in mortality or hospitalizations per patient-year for COPD patients with and without DLco decline, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of annual measurements of DLco among some patients, potential variability in the instruments used to measure DLco, and the absence of computerized tomography data for the chest, the researchers noted. However, the results support the value of the test for COPD progression when conducted at 3- to 4-year intervals, given the slow pace of the decline, they said. More research is needed, but “women seem to have a different susceptibility to cigarette smoke in the alveolar or pulmonary vascular domains,” they added.

DLco remains a valuable marker

The study is important because the usual longitudinal decline of diffusion capacity, an important physiological parameter in patients with COPD, was unknown, Juan P. de Torres, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview.

“The finding of a different longitudinal decline of DLco in women was a surprise,” said Dr. de Torres, who was a coauthor on the study. “We knew from previous works from our group that COPD has a different clinical and prognostic behavior in women with COPD, but this specific finding is novel and important,” he said.

“These results provide information about the testing frequency (3-4 years) needed to use DLco as a marker of COPD progression in clinical practice,” Dr. de Torres added.

“What is the driving cause of this sex difference is unknown. We speculate that different causes of low DLco in COPD such as degree of emphysema, interstitial lung abnormalities, and pulmonary hypertension, may have a different prevalence and progression in women with COPD,” he said.

Looking ahead, “Large studies including an adequate sample of women with COPD is urgently needed because they will be the main face of COPD in the near future,” said Dr. de Torres. “Sex difference in their physiological characteristics, the reason to explain those differences and how they behave longitudinally is also urgently needed,” he added. 

The study was supported in part by AstraZeneca and by the COPD research program of the Spanish Respiratory Society. The researchers and Dr. de Torres had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Single breath diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide shows greater decline over time in COPD patients compared with controls, but declines significantly more in women compared with men, according to data from 602 adults with a history of smoking.

In previous studies, diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLco) has been associated with decreased exercise capacity and poor health status in patients with COPD, but its association as a measure of disease progression has not been well studied, wrote Ciro Casanova, MD, of Hospital Universitario La Candelaria, Spain, and colleagues.

In a study published in the journal CHEST^®, the researchers identified 506 adult smokers with COPD and 96 adult smoker controls without COPD. Lung function based on single breath DLco was measured each year for 5 years. The study population was part of the COPH History Assessment in SpaiN (CHAIN), an ongoing observational study of adults with COPD. COPD was defined as a history of at least 10 pack-years of smoking and a post-bronchodilator FEV₁/FVC greater than 0.7 after 400 micrograms of albuterol, the researchers said.

During the 5-year period, the average overall annual decline in DLco was 1.34% in COPD patients, compared with .04% in non-COPD controls (P = .004). Among COPD patients, age, body mass index, FEV₁%, and active smoking were not associated with longitudinal change in DLco values, the researchers said.

Notably, women with COPD at baseline had lower baseline DLco values compared with men (11.37%) and a significantly steeper decline in DLco (.89%) compared with men (P = .039). “Being a woman was the only factor that related to the annual rate of change in DLco,” the researchers said.

In a subgroup analysis, the researchers identified 305 COPD patients and 69 non-COPD controls who had at least 3 DLco measurements over the 5-year study period. In this group, 16.4% patients with COPD and 4.3% smokers without COPD showed significant yearly declines in DLco of –4.139% and –4.440%, respectively. Among COPD patients, significantly more women than men showed significant DLco declines (26% vs. 14%, P = .005). No significant differences were observed in mortality or hospitalizations per patient-year for COPD patients with and without DLco decline, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of annual measurements of DLco among some patients, potential variability in the instruments used to measure DLco, and the absence of computerized tomography data for the chest, the researchers noted. However, the results support the value of the test for COPD progression when conducted at 3- to 4-year intervals, given the slow pace of the decline, they said. More research is needed, but “women seem to have a different susceptibility to cigarette smoke in the alveolar or pulmonary vascular domains,” they added.

DLco remains a valuable marker

The study is important because the usual longitudinal decline of diffusion capacity, an important physiological parameter in patients with COPD, was unknown, Juan P. de Torres, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview.

“The finding of a different longitudinal decline of DLco in women was a surprise,” said Dr. de Torres, who was a coauthor on the study. “We knew from previous works from our group that COPD has a different clinical and prognostic behavior in women with COPD, but this specific finding is novel and important,” he said.

“These results provide information about the testing frequency (3-4 years) needed to use DLco as a marker of COPD progression in clinical practice,” Dr. de Torres added.

“What is the driving cause of this sex difference is unknown. We speculate that different causes of low DLco in COPD such as degree of emphysema, interstitial lung abnormalities, and pulmonary hypertension, may have a different prevalence and progression in women with COPD,” he said.

Looking ahead, “Large studies including an adequate sample of women with COPD is urgently needed because they will be the main face of COPD in the near future,” said Dr. de Torres. “Sex difference in their physiological characteristics, the reason to explain those differences and how they behave longitudinally is also urgently needed,” he added. 

The study was supported in part by AstraZeneca and by the COPD research program of the Spanish Respiratory Society. The researchers and Dr. de Torres had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Single breath diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide shows greater decline over time in COPD patients compared with controls, but declines significantly more in women compared with men, according to data from 602 adults with a history of smoking.

In previous studies, diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLco) has been associated with decreased exercise capacity and poor health status in patients with COPD, but its association as a measure of disease progression has not been well studied, wrote Ciro Casanova, MD, of Hospital Universitario La Candelaria, Spain, and colleagues.

In a study published in the journal CHEST^®, the researchers identified 506 adult smokers with COPD and 96 adult smoker controls without COPD. Lung function based on single breath DLco was measured each year for 5 years. The study population was part of the COPH History Assessment in SpaiN (CHAIN), an ongoing observational study of adults with COPD. COPD was defined as a history of at least 10 pack-years of smoking and a post-bronchodilator FEV₁/FVC greater than 0.7 after 400 micrograms of albuterol, the researchers said.

During the 5-year period, the average overall annual decline in DLco was 1.34% in COPD patients, compared with .04% in non-COPD controls (P = .004). Among COPD patients, age, body mass index, FEV₁%, and active smoking were not associated with longitudinal change in DLco values, the researchers said.

Notably, women with COPD at baseline had lower baseline DLco values compared with men (11.37%) and a significantly steeper decline in DLco (.89%) compared with men (P = .039). “Being a woman was the only factor that related to the annual rate of change in DLco,” the researchers said.

In a subgroup analysis, the researchers identified 305 COPD patients and 69 non-COPD controls who had at least 3 DLco measurements over the 5-year study period. In this group, 16.4% patients with COPD and 4.3% smokers without COPD showed significant yearly declines in DLco of –4.139% and –4.440%, respectively. Among COPD patients, significantly more women than men showed significant DLco declines (26% vs. 14%, P = .005). No significant differences were observed in mortality or hospitalizations per patient-year for COPD patients with and without DLco decline, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of annual measurements of DLco among some patients, potential variability in the instruments used to measure DLco, and the absence of computerized tomography data for the chest, the researchers noted. However, the results support the value of the test for COPD progression when conducted at 3- to 4-year intervals, given the slow pace of the decline, they said. More research is needed, but “women seem to have a different susceptibility to cigarette smoke in the alveolar or pulmonary vascular domains,” they added.

DLco remains a valuable marker

The study is important because the usual longitudinal decline of diffusion capacity, an important physiological parameter in patients with COPD, was unknown, Juan P. de Torres, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview.

“The finding of a different longitudinal decline of DLco in women was a surprise,” said Dr. de Torres, who was a coauthor on the study. “We knew from previous works from our group that COPD has a different clinical and prognostic behavior in women with COPD, but this specific finding is novel and important,” he said.

“These results provide information about the testing frequency (3-4 years) needed to use DLco as a marker of COPD progression in clinical practice,” Dr. de Torres added.

“What is the driving cause of this sex difference is unknown. We speculate that different causes of low DLco in COPD such as degree of emphysema, interstitial lung abnormalities, and pulmonary hypertension, may have a different prevalence and progression in women with COPD,” he said.

Looking ahead, “Large studies including an adequate sample of women with COPD is urgently needed because they will be the main face of COPD in the near future,” said Dr. de Torres. “Sex difference in their physiological characteristics, the reason to explain those differences and how they behave longitudinally is also urgently needed,” he added. 

The study was supported in part by AstraZeneca and by the COPD research program of the Spanish Respiratory Society. The researchers and Dr. de Torres had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Social and economic disparities are linked to an increased risk for psychosis in Black and Latino communities, new research shows.

Results of a literature review of social and economic disparities in mental illness suggest that “structural racism” contributes to social and environmental conditions that affect psychosis risk.

“Black and Latino people suffer disproportionately from psychosis risk factors, at the neighborhood level and at the individual level, in large part as a result of structural racism,” study investigator Deidre M. Anglin, PhD, associate professor, department of psychology, City College of New York (N.Y.), told reporters attending a press briefing.

The social environment, which, for minorities, involves disadvantage and discrimination, may account for this increased psychosis risk, perhaps even more so than genetics, she said. Structural racism “is a critical public health threat,” Dr. Anglin added.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Psychiatric Association annual meeting and were simultaneously published online May 3 in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Perpetual disadvantage

Dr. Anglin and colleagues examined U.S.-based evidence connecting characteristics of social environments with outcomes across the psychosis continuum – from psychotic experiences to schizophrenia.

Citing numerous studies, the researchers highlighted three key areas that reflect social and environmental conditions that may affect psychosis risk, and that disproportionately affect minorities. These were neighborhood factors, trauma in a U.S. context, and racial disparities during the prenatal and perinatal periods.

The data that were related to neighborhoods revealed “just how much racism has historically structured U.S. neighborhoods in ways that generationally perpetuate disadvantage for racially minoritized communities,” said Dr. Anglin.

“This happens through inequitable access to resources, such as health care, clean air, education, [and] employment, but also in terms of disproportionate exposure to environmental toxins and stressors,” she said.

These neighborhood factors are associated with cumulative stress that may be linked to heightened risk for psychosis, the investigators noted.

U.S. studies show that rates of adverse childhood experiences, such as abuse and emotional and physical neglect, are higher among racial and ethnic minorities.

Police victimization and gun violence disproportionately affect racial minorities and create what the investigators call “a unique type of collective trauma” in the United States. They note that Black men have a 1 in 1,000 chance of being victims of lethal force by police over their lifetimes. By comparison, White men have a 39 in 100,000 chance.

One study of a diverse sample from four large U.S. urban centers showed that those who self-reported different types of police victimization were more likely to report psychotic experiences. Another study showed that greater exposure to gun violence fatalities, regardless of police involvement, was positively associated with psychotic experiences.
 

Obstetric complications

A variety of obstetric complications, including infection, maternal inflammation, and stress, have been associated with increased risk for psychotic disorders in U.S. samples.

“What we saw emerge from the literature is that Black women in the U.S. are at substantially increased risk for many of these obstetrical complications compared to White women, and this is not necessarily explained by socioeconomic status,” said Dr. Anglin.

Neighborhood- and individual-level factors appear to affect the disparity in these outcomes. A recent study revealed that exposure to environmental contaminants such as air pollution is associated with higher rates of preterm birth and low birth weight differentially in Black mothers compared with other mothers, “possibly as a result of an interaction between prenatal stress and contaminants,” the investigators noted.

Research also indicates that Black women are more likely to have lower levels of cortisol during the second trimester of pregnancy compared with women of other racial and ethnic groups. Cortisol is essential for fetal growth. Evidence links lower cortisol levels in later stages of pregnancy with decreased fetal growth in individuals who develop schizophrenia.

Black women have higher levels of certain stress biomarkers, including inflammatory C-reactive protein and adrenocorticotropic hormone, in mid- to late pregnancy, compared with White women of the same socioeconomic status.

Such findings “highlight a complex picture” involving maternal cortisol levels and other stress biomarkers, “potentially leading to poor birth outcomes and subsequent risk for psychotic disorders in adulthood,” the investigators noted.

The researchers call for the dismantling of structural racism and the social policies and norms it shapes. They also recommend changes in health care policy and in the approach to early intervention for psychosis among Black and other racially-minoritized groups.

“Altogether, the current evidence suggests the need to identify, address, and tackle the social determinants deeply ingrained in U.S. society, in tandem with empowering the most marginalized communities,” the researchers wrote.

“We recommend that the field of psychiatry devote considerably more effort to addressing structural racism and social determinants of psychosis in funding priorities, training, and intervention development,” they added.

Dr. Anglin suggests that mental health providers use what she called a “cultural formulation interview” that takes a person’s environmental and social context into consideration. Studies show that incorporating this into clinical practice helps reduce misdiagnosis of mental illness in Black populations, she said.
 

Call to action

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Ned H. Kalin, MD, editor of The American Journal of Psychiatry and professor and chair of the department of psychiatry, University of Wisconsin, Madison, said the study was well done and serves as a “call to action” to address the impact of structural racism on mental health issues and psychiatric diseases.

The article highlights the need for “collecting better data” on structural racism, said Dr. Kalin. “We know it’s a big issue, but we can’t even quantitate it, so we need some fundamental measures to use as a benchmark as we move forward, as we try to make change.”

He noted that racism “is so embedded in one’s experience and in our society that we sort of don’t even think about it as a trauma.”

In psychiatry, for example, trauma is often thought of as a loss or a traumatic event. “We don’t typically think of trauma as an experience that pervades one’s entire life,” but that needs to change, he said. “At the individual level and in the doctor’s office, being sensitive to and aware of these issues is absolutely critical.”

Dr. Anglin and Dr. Kalin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Social and economic disparities are linked to an increased risk for psychosis in Black and Latino communities, new research shows.

Results of a literature review of social and economic disparities in mental illness suggest that “structural racism” contributes to social and environmental conditions that affect psychosis risk.

“Black and Latino people suffer disproportionately from psychosis risk factors, at the neighborhood level and at the individual level, in large part as a result of structural racism,” study investigator Deidre M. Anglin, PhD, associate professor, department of psychology, City College of New York (N.Y.), told reporters attending a press briefing.

The social environment, which, for minorities, involves disadvantage and discrimination, may account for this increased psychosis risk, perhaps even more so than genetics, she said. Structural racism “is a critical public health threat,” Dr. Anglin added.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Psychiatric Association annual meeting and were simultaneously published online May 3 in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Perpetual disadvantage

Dr. Anglin and colleagues examined U.S.-based evidence connecting characteristics of social environments with outcomes across the psychosis continuum – from psychotic experiences to schizophrenia.

Citing numerous studies, the researchers highlighted three key areas that reflect social and environmental conditions that may affect psychosis risk, and that disproportionately affect minorities. These were neighborhood factors, trauma in a U.S. context, and racial disparities during the prenatal and perinatal periods.

The data that were related to neighborhoods revealed “just how much racism has historically structured U.S. neighborhoods in ways that generationally perpetuate disadvantage for racially minoritized communities,” said Dr. Anglin.

“This happens through inequitable access to resources, such as health care, clean air, education, [and] employment, but also in terms of disproportionate exposure to environmental toxins and stressors,” she said.

These neighborhood factors are associated with cumulative stress that may be linked to heightened risk for psychosis, the investigators noted.

U.S. studies show that rates of adverse childhood experiences, such as abuse and emotional and physical neglect, are higher among racial and ethnic minorities.

Police victimization and gun violence disproportionately affect racial minorities and create what the investigators call “a unique type of collective trauma” in the United States. They note that Black men have a 1 in 1,000 chance of being victims of lethal force by police over their lifetimes. By comparison, White men have a 39 in 100,000 chance.

One study of a diverse sample from four large U.S. urban centers showed that those who self-reported different types of police victimization were more likely to report psychotic experiences. Another study showed that greater exposure to gun violence fatalities, regardless of police involvement, was positively associated with psychotic experiences.
 

Obstetric complications

A variety of obstetric complications, including infection, maternal inflammation, and stress, have been associated with increased risk for psychotic disorders in U.S. samples.

“What we saw emerge from the literature is that Black women in the U.S. are at substantially increased risk for many of these obstetrical complications compared to White women, and this is not necessarily explained by socioeconomic status,” said Dr. Anglin.

Neighborhood- and individual-level factors appear to affect the disparity in these outcomes. A recent study revealed that exposure to environmental contaminants such as air pollution is associated with higher rates of preterm birth and low birth weight differentially in Black mothers compared with other mothers, “possibly as a result of an interaction between prenatal stress and contaminants,” the investigators noted.

Research also indicates that Black women are more likely to have lower levels of cortisol during the second trimester of pregnancy compared with women of other racial and ethnic groups. Cortisol is essential for fetal growth. Evidence links lower cortisol levels in later stages of pregnancy with decreased fetal growth in individuals who develop schizophrenia.

Black women have higher levels of certain stress biomarkers, including inflammatory C-reactive protein and adrenocorticotropic hormone, in mid- to late pregnancy, compared with White women of the same socioeconomic status.

Such findings “highlight a complex picture” involving maternal cortisol levels and other stress biomarkers, “potentially leading to poor birth outcomes and subsequent risk for psychotic disorders in adulthood,” the investigators noted.

The researchers call for the dismantling of structural racism and the social policies and norms it shapes. They also recommend changes in health care policy and in the approach to early intervention for psychosis among Black and other racially-minoritized groups.

“Altogether, the current evidence suggests the need to identify, address, and tackle the social determinants deeply ingrained in U.S. society, in tandem with empowering the most marginalized communities,” the researchers wrote.

“We recommend that the field of psychiatry devote considerably more effort to addressing structural racism and social determinants of psychosis in funding priorities, training, and intervention development,” they added.

Dr. Anglin suggests that mental health providers use what she called a “cultural formulation interview” that takes a person’s environmental and social context into consideration. Studies show that incorporating this into clinical practice helps reduce misdiagnosis of mental illness in Black populations, she said.
 

Call to action

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Ned H. Kalin, MD, editor of The American Journal of Psychiatry and professor and chair of the department of psychiatry, University of Wisconsin, Madison, said the study was well done and serves as a “call to action” to address the impact of structural racism on mental health issues and psychiatric diseases.

The article highlights the need for “collecting better data” on structural racism, said Dr. Kalin. “We know it’s a big issue, but we can’t even quantitate it, so we need some fundamental measures to use as a benchmark as we move forward, as we try to make change.”

He noted that racism “is so embedded in one’s experience and in our society that we sort of don’t even think about it as a trauma.”

In psychiatry, for example, trauma is often thought of as a loss or a traumatic event. “We don’t typically think of trauma as an experience that pervades one’s entire life,” but that needs to change, he said. “At the individual level and in the doctor’s office, being sensitive to and aware of these issues is absolutely critical.”

Dr. Anglin and Dr. Kalin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Social and economic disparities are linked to an increased risk for psychosis in Black and Latino communities, new research shows.

Results of a literature review of social and economic disparities in mental illness suggest that “structural racism” contributes to social and environmental conditions that affect psychosis risk.

“Black and Latino people suffer disproportionately from psychosis risk factors, at the neighborhood level and at the individual level, in large part as a result of structural racism,” study investigator Deidre M. Anglin, PhD, associate professor, department of psychology, City College of New York (N.Y.), told reporters attending a press briefing.

The social environment, which, for minorities, involves disadvantage and discrimination, may account for this increased psychosis risk, perhaps even more so than genetics, she said. Structural racism “is a critical public health threat,” Dr. Anglin added.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Psychiatric Association annual meeting and were simultaneously published online May 3 in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Perpetual disadvantage

Dr. Anglin and colleagues examined U.S.-based evidence connecting characteristics of social environments with outcomes across the psychosis continuum – from psychotic experiences to schizophrenia.

Citing numerous studies, the researchers highlighted three key areas that reflect social and environmental conditions that may affect psychosis risk, and that disproportionately affect minorities. These were neighborhood factors, trauma in a U.S. context, and racial disparities during the prenatal and perinatal periods.

The data that were related to neighborhoods revealed “just how much racism has historically structured U.S. neighborhoods in ways that generationally perpetuate disadvantage for racially minoritized communities,” said Dr. Anglin.

“This happens through inequitable access to resources, such as health care, clean air, education, [and] employment, but also in terms of disproportionate exposure to environmental toxins and stressors,” she said.

These neighborhood factors are associated with cumulative stress that may be linked to heightened risk for psychosis, the investigators noted.

U.S. studies show that rates of adverse childhood experiences, such as abuse and emotional and physical neglect, are higher among racial and ethnic minorities.

Police victimization and gun violence disproportionately affect racial minorities and create what the investigators call “a unique type of collective trauma” in the United States. They note that Black men have a 1 in 1,000 chance of being victims of lethal force by police over their lifetimes. By comparison, White men have a 39 in 100,000 chance.

One study of a diverse sample from four large U.S. urban centers showed that those who self-reported different types of police victimization were more likely to report psychotic experiences. Another study showed that greater exposure to gun violence fatalities, regardless of police involvement, was positively associated with psychotic experiences.
 

Obstetric complications

A variety of obstetric complications, including infection, maternal inflammation, and stress, have been associated with increased risk for psychotic disorders in U.S. samples.

“What we saw emerge from the literature is that Black women in the U.S. are at substantially increased risk for many of these obstetrical complications compared to White women, and this is not necessarily explained by socioeconomic status,” said Dr. Anglin.

Neighborhood- and individual-level factors appear to affect the disparity in these outcomes. A recent study revealed that exposure to environmental contaminants such as air pollution is associated with higher rates of preterm birth and low birth weight differentially in Black mothers compared with other mothers, “possibly as a result of an interaction between prenatal stress and contaminants,” the investigators noted.

Research also indicates that Black women are more likely to have lower levels of cortisol during the second trimester of pregnancy compared with women of other racial and ethnic groups. Cortisol is essential for fetal growth. Evidence links lower cortisol levels in later stages of pregnancy with decreased fetal growth in individuals who develop schizophrenia.

Black women have higher levels of certain stress biomarkers, including inflammatory C-reactive protein and adrenocorticotropic hormone, in mid- to late pregnancy, compared with White women of the same socioeconomic status.

Such findings “highlight a complex picture” involving maternal cortisol levels and other stress biomarkers, “potentially leading to poor birth outcomes and subsequent risk for psychotic disorders in adulthood,” the investigators noted.

The researchers call for the dismantling of structural racism and the social policies and norms it shapes. They also recommend changes in health care policy and in the approach to early intervention for psychosis among Black and other racially-minoritized groups.

“Altogether, the current evidence suggests the need to identify, address, and tackle the social determinants deeply ingrained in U.S. society, in tandem with empowering the most marginalized communities,” the researchers wrote.

“We recommend that the field of psychiatry devote considerably more effort to addressing structural racism and social determinants of psychosis in funding priorities, training, and intervention development,” they added.

Dr. Anglin suggests that mental health providers use what she called a “cultural formulation interview” that takes a person’s environmental and social context into consideration. Studies show that incorporating this into clinical practice helps reduce misdiagnosis of mental illness in Black populations, she said.
 

Call to action

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Ned H. Kalin, MD, editor of The American Journal of Psychiatry and professor and chair of the department of psychiatry, University of Wisconsin, Madison, said the study was well done and serves as a “call to action” to address the impact of structural racism on mental health issues and psychiatric diseases.

The article highlights the need for “collecting better data” on structural racism, said Dr. Kalin. “We know it’s a big issue, but we can’t even quantitate it, so we need some fundamental measures to use as a benchmark as we move forward, as we try to make change.”

He noted that racism “is so embedded in one’s experience and in our society that we sort of don’t even think about it as a trauma.”

In psychiatry, for example, trauma is often thought of as a loss or a traumatic event. “We don’t typically think of trauma as an experience that pervades one’s entire life,” but that needs to change, he said. “At the individual level and in the doctor’s office, being sensitive to and aware of these issues is absolutely critical.”

Dr. Anglin and Dr. Kalin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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