Federal Practitioner

President Donald Trump, who seems intent on announcing a COVID-19 vaccine before Election Day, could legally authorize a vaccine over the objections of experts, officials at the Food and Drug Administration and even vaccine manufacturers, who have pledged not to release any vaccine unless it’s proved safe and effective.

In podcasts, public forums, social media and medical journals, a growing number of prominent health leaders say they fear that Mr. Trump – who has repeatedly signaled his desire for the swift approval of a vaccine and his displeasure with perceived delays at the FDA – will take matters into his own hands, running roughshod over the usual regulatory process.

It would reflect another attempt by a norm-breaking administration, poised to ram through a Supreme Court nominee opposed to existing abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act, to inject politics into sensitive public health decisions. Mr. Trump has repeatedly contradicted the advice of senior scientists on COVID-19 while pushing controversial treatments for the disease.

If the executive branch were to overrule the FDA’s scientific judgment, a vaccine of limited efficacy and, worse, unknown side effects could be rushed to market.

The worries intensified over the weekend, after Alex Azar, the administration’s secretary of Health & Human Services, asserted his agency’s rule-making authority over the FDA. HHS spokesperson Caitlin Oakley said Mr. Azar’s decision had no bearing on the vaccine approval process.

Vaccines are typically approved by the FDA. Alternatively, Mr. Azar – who reports directly to Mr. Trump – can issue an emergency use authorization, even before any vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in late-stage clinical trials.

“Yes, this scenario is certainly possible legally and politically,” said Jerry Avorn, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who outlined such an event in the New England Journal of Medicine. He said it “seems frighteningly more plausible each day.”

Vaccine experts and public health officials are particularly vexed by the possibility because it could ruin the fragile public confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine. It might put scientific authorities in the position of urging people not to be vaccinated after years of coaxing hesitant parents to ignore baseless fears.

Physicians might refuse to administer a vaccine approved with inadequate data, said Preeti Malani, MD, chief health officer and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, in a recent webinar. “You could have a safe, effective vaccine that no one wants to take.” A recent KFF poll found that 54% of Americans would not submit to a COVID-19 vaccine authorized before Election Day.

After this story was published, an HHS official said that Mr. Azar “will defer completely to the FDA” as the agency weighs whether to approve a vaccine produced through the government’s Operation Warp Speed effort.

“The idea the Secretary would approve or authorize a vaccine over the FDA’s objections is preposterous and betrays ignorance of the transparent process that we’re following for the development of the OWS vaccines,” HHS chief of staff Brian Harrison wrote in an email.

White House spokesperson Judd Deere dismissed the scientists’ concerns, saying Trump cared only about the public’s safety and health. “This false narrative that the media and Democrats have created that politics is influencing approvals is not only false but is a danger to the American public,” he said.

Usually, the FDA approves vaccines only after companies submit years of data proving that a vaccine is safe and effective. But a 2004 law allows the FDA to issue an emergency use authorization with much less evidence, as long as the vaccine “may be effective” and its “known and potential benefits” outweigh its “known and potential risks.”

Many scientists doubt a vaccine could meet those criteria before the election. But the terms might be legally vague enough to allow the administration to take such steps.

Moncef Slaoui, chief scientific adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the government program aiming to more quickly develop COVID-19 vaccines, said it’s “extremely unlikely” that vaccine trial results will be ready before the end of October.

Mr. Trump, however, has insisted repeatedly that a vaccine to fight the pandemic that has claimed 200,000 American lives will be distributed starting next month. He reiterated that claim Saturday at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C.

The vaccine will be ready “in a matter of weeks,” he said. “We will end the pandemic from China.”

Although pharmaceutical companies have launched three clinical trials in the United States, no one can say with certainty when those trials will have enough data to determine whether the vaccines are safe and effective.

Officials at Moderna, whose vaccine is being tested in 30,000 volunteers, have said their studies could produce a result by the end of the year, although the final analysis could take place next spring.

Pfizer executives, who have expanded their clinical trial to 44,000 participants, boast that they could know their vaccine works by the end of October.

AstraZeneca’s U.S. vaccine trial, which was scheduled to enroll 30,000 volunteers, is on hold pending an investigation of a possible vaccine-related illness.

Scientists have warned for months that the Trump administration could try to win the election with an “October surprise,” authorizing a vaccine that hasn’t been fully tested. “I don’t think people are crazy to be thinking about all of this,” said William Schultz, a partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm who served as a former FDA commissioner for policy and as general counsel for HHS.

“You’ve got a president saying you’ll have an approval in October. Everybody’s wondering how that could happen.”

In an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, conservative former FDA commissioners Scott Gottlieb and Mark McClellan argued that presidential intrusion was unlikely because the FDA’s “thorough and transparent process doesn’t lend itself to meddling. Any deviation would quickly be apparent.”

But the administration has demonstrated a willingness to bend the agency to its will. The FDA has been criticized for issuing emergency authorizations for two COVID-19 treatments that were boosted by the president but lacked strong evidence to support them: hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma.

Mr. Azar has sidelined the FDA in other ways, such as by blocking the agency from regulating lab-developed tests, including tests for the novel coronavirus.

Although FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn told the Financial Times he would be willing to approve emergency use of a vaccine before large-scale studies conclude, agency officials also have pledged to ensure the safety of any COVID-19 vaccines.

A senior FDA official who oversees vaccine approvals, Peter Marks, MD, has said he will quit if his agency rubber-stamps an unproven COVID-19 vaccine.

“I think there would be an outcry from the public health community second to none, which is my worst nightmare – my worst nightmare – because we will so confuse the public,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, in his weekly podcast.

Still, “even if a company did not want it to be done, even if the FDA did not want it to be done, he could still do that,” said Dr. Osterholm, in his podcast. “I hope that we’d never see that happen, but we have to entertain that’s a possibility.”

In the New England Journal editorial, Dr. Avorn and coauthor Aaron Kesselheim, MD, wondered whether Mr. Trump might invoke the 1950 Defense Production Act to force reluctant drug companies to manufacture their vaccines.

But Mr. Trump would have to sue a company to enforce the Defense Production Act, and the company would have a strong case in refusing, said Lawrence Gostin, director of Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.

Also, he noted that Mr. Trump could not invoke the Defense Production Act unless a vaccine were “scientifically justified and approved by the FDA.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

President Donald Trump, who seems intent on announcing a COVID-19 vaccine before Election Day, could legally authorize a vaccine over the objections of experts, officials at the Food and Drug Administration and even vaccine manufacturers, who have pledged not to release any vaccine unless it’s proved safe and effective.

In podcasts, public forums, social media and medical journals, a growing number of prominent health leaders say they fear that Mr. Trump – who has repeatedly signaled his desire for the swift approval of a vaccine and his displeasure with perceived delays at the FDA – will take matters into his own hands, running roughshod over the usual regulatory process.

It would reflect another attempt by a norm-breaking administration, poised to ram through a Supreme Court nominee opposed to existing abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act, to inject politics into sensitive public health decisions. Mr. Trump has repeatedly contradicted the advice of senior scientists on COVID-19 while pushing controversial treatments for the disease.

If the executive branch were to overrule the FDA’s scientific judgment, a vaccine of limited efficacy and, worse, unknown side effects could be rushed to market.

The worries intensified over the weekend, after Alex Azar, the administration’s secretary of Health & Human Services, asserted his agency’s rule-making authority over the FDA. HHS spokesperson Caitlin Oakley said Mr. Azar’s decision had no bearing on the vaccine approval process.

Vaccines are typically approved by the FDA. Alternatively, Mr. Azar – who reports directly to Mr. Trump – can issue an emergency use authorization, even before any vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in late-stage clinical trials.

“Yes, this scenario is certainly possible legally and politically,” said Jerry Avorn, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who outlined such an event in the New England Journal of Medicine. He said it “seems frighteningly more plausible each day.”

Vaccine experts and public health officials are particularly vexed by the possibility because it could ruin the fragile public confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine. It might put scientific authorities in the position of urging people not to be vaccinated after years of coaxing hesitant parents to ignore baseless fears.

Physicians might refuse to administer a vaccine approved with inadequate data, said Preeti Malani, MD, chief health officer and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, in a recent webinar. “You could have a safe, effective vaccine that no one wants to take.” A recent KFF poll found that 54% of Americans would not submit to a COVID-19 vaccine authorized before Election Day.

After this story was published, an HHS official said that Mr. Azar “will defer completely to the FDA” as the agency weighs whether to approve a vaccine produced through the government’s Operation Warp Speed effort.

“The idea the Secretary would approve or authorize a vaccine over the FDA’s objections is preposterous and betrays ignorance of the transparent process that we’re following for the development of the OWS vaccines,” HHS chief of staff Brian Harrison wrote in an email.

White House spokesperson Judd Deere dismissed the scientists’ concerns, saying Trump cared only about the public’s safety and health. “This false narrative that the media and Democrats have created that politics is influencing approvals is not only false but is a danger to the American public,” he said.

Usually, the FDA approves vaccines only after companies submit years of data proving that a vaccine is safe and effective. But a 2004 law allows the FDA to issue an emergency use authorization with much less evidence, as long as the vaccine “may be effective” and its “known and potential benefits” outweigh its “known and potential risks.”

Many scientists doubt a vaccine could meet those criteria before the election. But the terms might be legally vague enough to allow the administration to take such steps.

Moncef Slaoui, chief scientific adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the government program aiming to more quickly develop COVID-19 vaccines, said it’s “extremely unlikely” that vaccine trial results will be ready before the end of October.

Mr. Trump, however, has insisted repeatedly that a vaccine to fight the pandemic that has claimed 200,000 American lives will be distributed starting next month. He reiterated that claim Saturday at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C.

The vaccine will be ready “in a matter of weeks,” he said. “We will end the pandemic from China.”

Although pharmaceutical companies have launched three clinical trials in the United States, no one can say with certainty when those trials will have enough data to determine whether the vaccines are safe and effective.

Officials at Moderna, whose vaccine is being tested in 30,000 volunteers, have said their studies could produce a result by the end of the year, although the final analysis could take place next spring.

Pfizer executives, who have expanded their clinical trial to 44,000 participants, boast that they could know their vaccine works by the end of October.

AstraZeneca’s U.S. vaccine trial, which was scheduled to enroll 30,000 volunteers, is on hold pending an investigation of a possible vaccine-related illness.

Scientists have warned for months that the Trump administration could try to win the election with an “October surprise,” authorizing a vaccine that hasn’t been fully tested. “I don’t think people are crazy to be thinking about all of this,” said William Schultz, a partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm who served as a former FDA commissioner for policy and as general counsel for HHS.

“You’ve got a president saying you’ll have an approval in October. Everybody’s wondering how that could happen.”

In an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, conservative former FDA commissioners Scott Gottlieb and Mark McClellan argued that presidential intrusion was unlikely because the FDA’s “thorough and transparent process doesn’t lend itself to meddling. Any deviation would quickly be apparent.”

But the administration has demonstrated a willingness to bend the agency to its will. The FDA has been criticized for issuing emergency authorizations for two COVID-19 treatments that were boosted by the president but lacked strong evidence to support them: hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma.

Mr. Azar has sidelined the FDA in other ways, such as by blocking the agency from regulating lab-developed tests, including tests for the novel coronavirus.

Although FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn told the Financial Times he would be willing to approve emergency use of a vaccine before large-scale studies conclude, agency officials also have pledged to ensure the safety of any COVID-19 vaccines.

A senior FDA official who oversees vaccine approvals, Peter Marks, MD, has said he will quit if his agency rubber-stamps an unproven COVID-19 vaccine.

“I think there would be an outcry from the public health community second to none, which is my worst nightmare – my worst nightmare – because we will so confuse the public,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, in his weekly podcast.

Still, “even if a company did not want it to be done, even if the FDA did not want it to be done, he could still do that,” said Dr. Osterholm, in his podcast. “I hope that we’d never see that happen, but we have to entertain that’s a possibility.”

In the New England Journal editorial, Dr. Avorn and coauthor Aaron Kesselheim, MD, wondered whether Mr. Trump might invoke the 1950 Defense Production Act to force reluctant drug companies to manufacture their vaccines.

But Mr. Trump would have to sue a company to enforce the Defense Production Act, and the company would have a strong case in refusing, said Lawrence Gostin, director of Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.

Also, he noted that Mr. Trump could not invoke the Defense Production Act unless a vaccine were “scientifically justified and approved by the FDA.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

President Donald Trump, who seems intent on announcing a COVID-19 vaccine before Election Day, could legally authorize a vaccine over the objections of experts, officials at the Food and Drug Administration and even vaccine manufacturers, who have pledged not to release any vaccine unless it’s proved safe and effective.

In podcasts, public forums, social media and medical journals, a growing number of prominent health leaders say they fear that Mr. Trump – who has repeatedly signaled his desire for the swift approval of a vaccine and his displeasure with perceived delays at the FDA – will take matters into his own hands, running roughshod over the usual regulatory process.

It would reflect another attempt by a norm-breaking administration, poised to ram through a Supreme Court nominee opposed to existing abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act, to inject politics into sensitive public health decisions. Mr. Trump has repeatedly contradicted the advice of senior scientists on COVID-19 while pushing controversial treatments for the disease.

If the executive branch were to overrule the FDA’s scientific judgment, a vaccine of limited efficacy and, worse, unknown side effects could be rushed to market.

The worries intensified over the weekend, after Alex Azar, the administration’s secretary of Health & Human Services, asserted his agency’s rule-making authority over the FDA. HHS spokesperson Caitlin Oakley said Mr. Azar’s decision had no bearing on the vaccine approval process.

Vaccines are typically approved by the FDA. Alternatively, Mr. Azar – who reports directly to Mr. Trump – can issue an emergency use authorization, even before any vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in late-stage clinical trials.

“Yes, this scenario is certainly possible legally and politically,” said Jerry Avorn, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who outlined such an event in the New England Journal of Medicine. He said it “seems frighteningly more plausible each day.”

Vaccine experts and public health officials are particularly vexed by the possibility because it could ruin the fragile public confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine. It might put scientific authorities in the position of urging people not to be vaccinated after years of coaxing hesitant parents to ignore baseless fears.

Physicians might refuse to administer a vaccine approved with inadequate data, said Preeti Malani, MD, chief health officer and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, in a recent webinar. “You could have a safe, effective vaccine that no one wants to take.” A recent KFF poll found that 54% of Americans would not submit to a COVID-19 vaccine authorized before Election Day.

After this story was published, an HHS official said that Mr. Azar “will defer completely to the FDA” as the agency weighs whether to approve a vaccine produced through the government’s Operation Warp Speed effort.

“The idea the Secretary would approve or authorize a vaccine over the FDA’s objections is preposterous and betrays ignorance of the transparent process that we’re following for the development of the OWS vaccines,” HHS chief of staff Brian Harrison wrote in an email.

White House spokesperson Judd Deere dismissed the scientists’ concerns, saying Trump cared only about the public’s safety and health. “This false narrative that the media and Democrats have created that politics is influencing approvals is not only false but is a danger to the American public,” he said.

Usually, the FDA approves vaccines only after companies submit years of data proving that a vaccine is safe and effective. But a 2004 law allows the FDA to issue an emergency use authorization with much less evidence, as long as the vaccine “may be effective” and its “known and potential benefits” outweigh its “known and potential risks.”

Many scientists doubt a vaccine could meet those criteria before the election. But the terms might be legally vague enough to allow the administration to take such steps.

Moncef Slaoui, chief scientific adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the government program aiming to more quickly develop COVID-19 vaccines, said it’s “extremely unlikely” that vaccine trial results will be ready before the end of October.

Mr. Trump, however, has insisted repeatedly that a vaccine to fight the pandemic that has claimed 200,000 American lives will be distributed starting next month. He reiterated that claim Saturday at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C.

The vaccine will be ready “in a matter of weeks,” he said. “We will end the pandemic from China.”

Although pharmaceutical companies have launched three clinical trials in the United States, no one can say with certainty when those trials will have enough data to determine whether the vaccines are safe and effective.

Officials at Moderna, whose vaccine is being tested in 30,000 volunteers, have said their studies could produce a result by the end of the year, although the final analysis could take place next spring.

Pfizer executives, who have expanded their clinical trial to 44,000 participants, boast that they could know their vaccine works by the end of October.

AstraZeneca’s U.S. vaccine trial, which was scheduled to enroll 30,000 volunteers, is on hold pending an investigation of a possible vaccine-related illness.

Scientists have warned for months that the Trump administration could try to win the election with an “October surprise,” authorizing a vaccine that hasn’t been fully tested. “I don’t think people are crazy to be thinking about all of this,” said William Schultz, a partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm who served as a former FDA commissioner for policy and as general counsel for HHS.

“You’ve got a president saying you’ll have an approval in October. Everybody’s wondering how that could happen.”

In an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, conservative former FDA commissioners Scott Gottlieb and Mark McClellan argued that presidential intrusion was unlikely because the FDA’s “thorough and transparent process doesn’t lend itself to meddling. Any deviation would quickly be apparent.”

But the administration has demonstrated a willingness to bend the agency to its will. The FDA has been criticized for issuing emergency authorizations for two COVID-19 treatments that were boosted by the president but lacked strong evidence to support them: hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma.

Mr. Azar has sidelined the FDA in other ways, such as by blocking the agency from regulating lab-developed tests, including tests for the novel coronavirus.

Although FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn told the Financial Times he would be willing to approve emergency use of a vaccine before large-scale studies conclude, agency officials also have pledged to ensure the safety of any COVID-19 vaccines.

A senior FDA official who oversees vaccine approvals, Peter Marks, MD, has said he will quit if his agency rubber-stamps an unproven COVID-19 vaccine.

“I think there would be an outcry from the public health community second to none, which is my worst nightmare – my worst nightmare – because we will so confuse the public,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, in his weekly podcast.

Still, “even if a company did not want it to be done, even if the FDA did not want it to be done, he could still do that,” said Dr. Osterholm, in his podcast. “I hope that we’d never see that happen, but we have to entertain that’s a possibility.”

In the New England Journal editorial, Dr. Avorn and coauthor Aaron Kesselheim, MD, wondered whether Mr. Trump might invoke the 1950 Defense Production Act to force reluctant drug companies to manufacture their vaccines.

But Mr. Trump would have to sue a company to enforce the Defense Production Act, and the company would have a strong case in refusing, said Lawrence Gostin, director of Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.

Also, he noted that Mr. Trump could not invoke the Defense Production Act unless a vaccine were “scientifically justified and approved by the FDA.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

On March 3 of this year, Bryant Cameron Webb, MD, JD, won two-thirds of the vote in Virginia’s Democratic primary race. In November, he’ll compete against Republican Bob Good to represent the state’s 5th Congressional District. If he succeeds, he will become the first Black physician ever elected to a seat in Congress.

Courtesy Dr. Bryant Cameron Webb

The political and social unrest across the United States in recent months has resulted in millions of people becoming more proactive: from sports arenas to the halls of Congress, the rally cry of Black Lives Matter has echoed like never before after the killing of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor at the hands of law enforcement. Dr. Webb, a practicing internist and professor at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, is among many physicians joining the cause. If elected, he hopes to bring a unique perspective to Washington and advocate for racial equity to help combat systemic racist policies that result in health disparities.

“For me as a professor at UVA in both public health sciences and in medicine, I have a lot to bring to this moment,” he commented, “real expertise on issues that are critical to the nation. Beyond my passion for health and wellness, I have a passion for justice.”

Dr. Webb also believes that serving in Congress is a way to help his patients. “I balance the work of direct patient care and patient advocacy in different spaces,” said the Spotsylvania County native. “Working in Congress is patient advocacy to me. It’s where I can be at my highest use to the people I take care of. It is different from direct patient care. I think this [unique] background that I have is needed in Congress.”

Dr. Webb has never held an elected office before, and he’s looking to get elected in a district that voted for President Trump in the past election. He knows challenges lie ahead.
 

A calling

The field of medicine called for Dr. Webb at an early age. He credits his family doctor, a Black man, for inspiring him. “With six kids in our family, we saw the doctor frequently. Dr. Yarboro was a young Black man just a few years out of residency. My mom had supreme confidence in him, and he made us feel at ease. So I wanted to be a doctor ever since I was 5 or 6 years old.”

Dr. Webb earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Virginia in 2005. He entered medical school at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., the following year. Following his third year of medical training, he heeded another calling: He took time off to attend law school. He enrolled in Loyola University of Chicago School of Law and earned his juris doctorate in 2012.

The move may seem an unexpected turn. But Dr. Webb feels his law degree enhances his work. “I think that it’s because I’m so steeped in the legal resources that folks need to navigate. I think I am able to provide better care. ... It’s a complement and helpful to me professionally, whether it’s fighting with an insurance company or with a prescription drug company.”

After law school, Dr. Webb finished his medical training at Wake Forest and moved north, where he completed an internal medicine residency at New York–Presbyterian Hospital. Then came yet another twist in Dr. Webb’s unconventional career path: in 2016, he was selected by President Obama as a White House fellow. He spent the next 2 years in Washington, where he worked on Mr. Obama’s My Brother’s Keeper Task Force, an initiative that addresses opportunity gaps faced by boys and young men of color.

Adeze Enekwechi, MD, president of Impaq and associate professor at the George Washington University, Washington, worked with Dr. Webb at the White House. “This is the place where he will have the most impact. We’ve been talking and writing about health equity ever since our time [there]. Not everybody can speak that language. Being an African American male physician and an attorney can really help drive change by being the right person at the table.”
 

Why here? Why now?

Dr. Webb sees patients 2-3 days a week on alternating weeks and knows well the concerns of people who struggle with health. Now he’s ready to have those conversations on a larger platform. “As a Black physician, it’s about bringing that healer mindset to these problems. It’s not about just going there to brow beat people or add to that divisive nature in Congress. You acknowledge that the problems exist, and then bridge,” he said, hoping that bridging party divides can be a catalyst for healing.

Carla Boutin-Foster, MD, associate dean, office of diversity education and research at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, has mentored Dr. Webb since 2013. With his credentials, confidence, and persistence, she believes, he will be a great representative of the medical community in D.C. “You need someone who respects the Constitution. When policy needs to be developed, you need a healer, someone who understands the science of vaccines. This is something Cam has been groomed for. It’s something he has been living and practicing for years.”

The killing of George Floyd and the uprising that ensued has opened the dialogue about racial inequality in America. Health care is not immune to racial bias, and the effects are palatable. One survey conducted by the Larry A. Green Center, in collaboration with the Primary Care Collaborative and 3rd Conversation, found that more than 40% of clinicians say Mr. Floyd’s demise has become a topic of concern among patients of all demographics.

When it comes to racism, Dr. Webb understands that he plays a critical role in moving America forward. “We have so many voices that are powerful and important in the highest level of legislation. We have to use those voices to root out the injustices in our society, like in the Breonna Taylor case. We have to do so because that is how you achieve the American dream,” he said.

The social determinants of health – or “ZIP-code risk” – has been proven to influence health outcomes, yet few physicians screen for them during patient visits. For Dr. Webb, discussing things like housing security and interpersonal violence are critical to providing care.

One of Dr. Webb’s biggest supporters is his wife of 11 years, Leigh Ann Webb, MD, MBA, an emergency medicine physician and assistant professor of emergency medicine at UVA. “He is an effective leader and a consensus builder,” she said of her husband, with whom she has two children. “There has always been something very unique and special about him and the way he engages the world. We need more thoughtful, intelligent people like him to help our country move forward.”

In addition to being the director of health policy and equity at UVA this fall, Dr. Webb plans to teach a course at UVA centered around the social determinants of health called Place Matters. “The focus is on understanding how education and housing and food insecurity all come together to cause illness,” he said. “Health doesn’t happen in hospitals and clinics. It happens in the community.”

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

On March 3 of this year, Bryant Cameron Webb, MD, JD, won two-thirds of the vote in Virginia’s Democratic primary race. In November, he’ll compete against Republican Bob Good to represent the state’s 5th Congressional District. If he succeeds, he will become the first Black physician ever elected to a seat in Congress.

Courtesy Dr. Bryant Cameron Webb

The political and social unrest across the United States in recent months has resulted in millions of people becoming more proactive: from sports arenas to the halls of Congress, the rally cry of Black Lives Matter has echoed like never before after the killing of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor at the hands of law enforcement. Dr. Webb, a practicing internist and professor at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, is among many physicians joining the cause. If elected, he hopes to bring a unique perspective to Washington and advocate for racial equity to help combat systemic racist policies that result in health disparities.

“For me as a professor at UVA in both public health sciences and in medicine, I have a lot to bring to this moment,” he commented, “real expertise on issues that are critical to the nation. Beyond my passion for health and wellness, I have a passion for justice.”

Dr. Webb also believes that serving in Congress is a way to help his patients. “I balance the work of direct patient care and patient advocacy in different spaces,” said the Spotsylvania County native. “Working in Congress is patient advocacy to me. It’s where I can be at my highest use to the people I take care of. It is different from direct patient care. I think this [unique] background that I have is needed in Congress.”

Dr. Webb has never held an elected office before, and he’s looking to get elected in a district that voted for President Trump in the past election. He knows challenges lie ahead.
 

A calling

The field of medicine called for Dr. Webb at an early age. He credits his family doctor, a Black man, for inspiring him. “With six kids in our family, we saw the doctor frequently. Dr. Yarboro was a young Black man just a few years out of residency. My mom had supreme confidence in him, and he made us feel at ease. So I wanted to be a doctor ever since I was 5 or 6 years old.”

Dr. Webb earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Virginia in 2005. He entered medical school at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., the following year. Following his third year of medical training, he heeded another calling: He took time off to attend law school. He enrolled in Loyola University of Chicago School of Law and earned his juris doctorate in 2012.

The move may seem an unexpected turn. But Dr. Webb feels his law degree enhances his work. “I think that it’s because I’m so steeped in the legal resources that folks need to navigate. I think I am able to provide better care. ... It’s a complement and helpful to me professionally, whether it’s fighting with an insurance company or with a prescription drug company.”

After law school, Dr. Webb finished his medical training at Wake Forest and moved north, where he completed an internal medicine residency at New York–Presbyterian Hospital. Then came yet another twist in Dr. Webb’s unconventional career path: in 2016, he was selected by President Obama as a White House fellow. He spent the next 2 years in Washington, where he worked on Mr. Obama’s My Brother’s Keeper Task Force, an initiative that addresses opportunity gaps faced by boys and young men of color.

Adeze Enekwechi, MD, president of Impaq and associate professor at the George Washington University, Washington, worked with Dr. Webb at the White House. “This is the place where he will have the most impact. We’ve been talking and writing about health equity ever since our time [there]. Not everybody can speak that language. Being an African American male physician and an attorney can really help drive change by being the right person at the table.”
 

Why here? Why now?

Dr. Webb sees patients 2-3 days a week on alternating weeks and knows well the concerns of people who struggle with health. Now he’s ready to have those conversations on a larger platform. “As a Black physician, it’s about bringing that healer mindset to these problems. It’s not about just going there to brow beat people or add to that divisive nature in Congress. You acknowledge that the problems exist, and then bridge,” he said, hoping that bridging party divides can be a catalyst for healing.

Carla Boutin-Foster, MD, associate dean, office of diversity education and research at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, has mentored Dr. Webb since 2013. With his credentials, confidence, and persistence, she believes, he will be a great representative of the medical community in D.C. “You need someone who respects the Constitution. When policy needs to be developed, you need a healer, someone who understands the science of vaccines. This is something Cam has been groomed for. It’s something he has been living and practicing for years.”

The killing of George Floyd and the uprising that ensued has opened the dialogue about racial inequality in America. Health care is not immune to racial bias, and the effects are palatable. One survey conducted by the Larry A. Green Center, in collaboration with the Primary Care Collaborative and 3rd Conversation, found that more than 40% of clinicians say Mr. Floyd’s demise has become a topic of concern among patients of all demographics.

When it comes to racism, Dr. Webb understands that he plays a critical role in moving America forward. “We have so many voices that are powerful and important in the highest level of legislation. We have to use those voices to root out the injustices in our society, like in the Breonna Taylor case. We have to do so because that is how you achieve the American dream,” he said.

The social determinants of health – or “ZIP-code risk” – has been proven to influence health outcomes, yet few physicians screen for them during patient visits. For Dr. Webb, discussing things like housing security and interpersonal violence are critical to providing care.

One of Dr. Webb’s biggest supporters is his wife of 11 years, Leigh Ann Webb, MD, MBA, an emergency medicine physician and assistant professor of emergency medicine at UVA. “He is an effective leader and a consensus builder,” she said of her husband, with whom she has two children. “There has always been something very unique and special about him and the way he engages the world. We need more thoughtful, intelligent people like him to help our country move forward.”

In addition to being the director of health policy and equity at UVA this fall, Dr. Webb plans to teach a course at UVA centered around the social determinants of health called Place Matters. “The focus is on understanding how education and housing and food insecurity all come together to cause illness,” he said. “Health doesn’t happen in hospitals and clinics. It happens in the community.”

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

On March 3 of this year, Bryant Cameron Webb, MD, JD, won two-thirds of the vote in Virginia’s Democratic primary race. In November, he’ll compete against Republican Bob Good to represent the state’s 5th Congressional District. If he succeeds, he will become the first Black physician ever elected to a seat in Congress.

Courtesy Dr. Bryant Cameron Webb

The political and social unrest across the United States in recent months has resulted in millions of people becoming more proactive: from sports arenas to the halls of Congress, the rally cry of Black Lives Matter has echoed like never before after the killing of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor at the hands of law enforcement. Dr. Webb, a practicing internist and professor at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, is among many physicians joining the cause. If elected, he hopes to bring a unique perspective to Washington and advocate for racial equity to help combat systemic racist policies that result in health disparities.

“For me as a professor at UVA in both public health sciences and in medicine, I have a lot to bring to this moment,” he commented, “real expertise on issues that are critical to the nation. Beyond my passion for health and wellness, I have a passion for justice.”

Dr. Webb also believes that serving in Congress is a way to help his patients. “I balance the work of direct patient care and patient advocacy in different spaces,” said the Spotsylvania County native. “Working in Congress is patient advocacy to me. It’s where I can be at my highest use to the people I take care of. It is different from direct patient care. I think this [unique] background that I have is needed in Congress.”

Dr. Webb has never held an elected office before, and he’s looking to get elected in a district that voted for President Trump in the past election. He knows challenges lie ahead.
 

A calling

The field of medicine called for Dr. Webb at an early age. He credits his family doctor, a Black man, for inspiring him. “With six kids in our family, we saw the doctor frequently. Dr. Yarboro was a young Black man just a few years out of residency. My mom had supreme confidence in him, and he made us feel at ease. So I wanted to be a doctor ever since I was 5 or 6 years old.”

Dr. Webb earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Virginia in 2005. He entered medical school at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., the following year. Following his third year of medical training, he heeded another calling: He took time off to attend law school. He enrolled in Loyola University of Chicago School of Law and earned his juris doctorate in 2012.

The move may seem an unexpected turn. But Dr. Webb feels his law degree enhances his work. “I think that it’s because I’m so steeped in the legal resources that folks need to navigate. I think I am able to provide better care. ... It’s a complement and helpful to me professionally, whether it’s fighting with an insurance company or with a prescription drug company.”

After law school, Dr. Webb finished his medical training at Wake Forest and moved north, where he completed an internal medicine residency at New York–Presbyterian Hospital. Then came yet another twist in Dr. Webb’s unconventional career path: in 2016, he was selected by President Obama as a White House fellow. He spent the next 2 years in Washington, where he worked on Mr. Obama’s My Brother’s Keeper Task Force, an initiative that addresses opportunity gaps faced by boys and young men of color.

Adeze Enekwechi, MD, president of Impaq and associate professor at the George Washington University, Washington, worked with Dr. Webb at the White House. “This is the place where he will have the most impact. We’ve been talking and writing about health equity ever since our time [there]. Not everybody can speak that language. Being an African American male physician and an attorney can really help drive change by being the right person at the table.”
 

Why here? Why now?

Dr. Webb sees patients 2-3 days a week on alternating weeks and knows well the concerns of people who struggle with health. Now he’s ready to have those conversations on a larger platform. “As a Black physician, it’s about bringing that healer mindset to these problems. It’s not about just going there to brow beat people or add to that divisive nature in Congress. You acknowledge that the problems exist, and then bridge,” he said, hoping that bridging party divides can be a catalyst for healing.

Carla Boutin-Foster, MD, associate dean, office of diversity education and research at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, has mentored Dr. Webb since 2013. With his credentials, confidence, and persistence, she believes, he will be a great representative of the medical community in D.C. “You need someone who respects the Constitution. When policy needs to be developed, you need a healer, someone who understands the science of vaccines. This is something Cam has been groomed for. It’s something he has been living and practicing for years.”

The killing of George Floyd and the uprising that ensued has opened the dialogue about racial inequality in America. Health care is not immune to racial bias, and the effects are palatable. One survey conducted by the Larry A. Green Center, in collaboration with the Primary Care Collaborative and 3rd Conversation, found that more than 40% of clinicians say Mr. Floyd’s demise has become a topic of concern among patients of all demographics.

When it comes to racism, Dr. Webb understands that he plays a critical role in moving America forward. “We have so many voices that are powerful and important in the highest level of legislation. We have to use those voices to root out the injustices in our society, like in the Breonna Taylor case. We have to do so because that is how you achieve the American dream,” he said.

The social determinants of health – or “ZIP-code risk” – has been proven to influence health outcomes, yet few physicians screen for them during patient visits. For Dr. Webb, discussing things like housing security and interpersonal violence are critical to providing care.

One of Dr. Webb’s biggest supporters is his wife of 11 years, Leigh Ann Webb, MD, MBA, an emergency medicine physician and assistant professor of emergency medicine at UVA. “He is an effective leader and a consensus builder,” she said of her husband, with whom she has two children. “There has always been something very unique and special about him and the way he engages the world. We need more thoughtful, intelligent people like him to help our country move forward.”

In addition to being the director of health policy and equity at UVA this fall, Dr. Webb plans to teach a course at UVA centered around the social determinants of health called Place Matters. “The focus is on understanding how education and housing and food insecurity all come together to cause illness,” he said. “Health doesn’t happen in hospitals and clinics. It happens in the community.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On Feb. 27, 2018, I got an email from the Heritage Foundation that alerted me to a news conference that afternoon held by Republican attorneys general of Texas and other states. It was referred to only as a “discussion about the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.”

Supreme Court of the United States

I sent the following note to my editor: “I’m off to the Hill anyway. I could stop by this. You never know what it might morph into.”

Few people took that case very seriously – barely a handful of reporters attended the news conference. But it has now “morphed into” the latest existential threat to the Affordable Care Act, scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court a week after the general election in November. And with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, that case could well morph into the threat that brings down the law in its entirety.

Democrats are raising alarms about the future of the law without Ms. Ginsburg. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning, said that part of the strategy by President Trump and Senate Republicans to quickly fill her seat was to help undermine the ACA.

“The president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because … Nov. 10 is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “He doesn’t want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.”

Ms. Ginsburg’s death could throw an already chaotic general election campaign during a pandemic into even more turmoil. But in the longer term, her absence from the bench could accelerate a trend underway to get cases to the Supreme Court toward invalidating the ACA and rolling back reproductive freedoms for women.

Let’s take them one at a time.
 

The ACA under fire – again

The GOP attorneys general argued in February 2018 that the Republican-sponsored tax cut bill Congress passed two months earlier had rendered the ACA unconstitutional by reducing to zero the ACA’s penalty for not having insurance. They based their argument on Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid, interpreting that penalty as a constitutionally appropriate tax.

Most legal scholars, including several who challenged the law before the Supreme Court in 2012 and again in 2015, find the argument that the entire law should fall to be unconvincing. “If courts invalidate an entire law merely because Congress eliminates or revises one part, as happened here, that may well inhibit necessary reform of federal legislation in the future by turning it into an ‘all or nothing’ proposition,” wrote a group of conservative and liberal law professors in a brief filed in the case.

Still, in December 2018, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas accepted the GOP argument and declared the law unconstitutional. In December 2019, a three-judge 5th Circuit appeals court panel in New Orleans agreed that without the penalty the requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But it sent the case back to Mr. O’Connor to suggest that perhaps the entire law need not fall.

Not wanting to wait the months or years that reconsideration would take, Democratic attorneys general defending the ACA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this year. (Democrats are defending the law in court because the Trump administration decided to support the GOP attorneys general’s case.) The court agreed to take the case but scheduled arguments for the week after the November election.

While the fate of the ACA was and is a live political issue, few legal observers were terribly worried about the legal outcome of the case, now known as Texas v. California, if only because the case seemed much weaker than the 2012 and 2015 cases in which Mr. Roberts joined the court’s four liberals. In the 2015 case, which challenged the validity of federal tax subsidies helping millions of Americans buy health insurance on the ACA’s marketplaces, both Mr. Roberts and now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the law.

But without Ms. Ginsburg, the case could wind up in a 4-4 tie, even if Mr. Roberts supports the law’s constitutionality. That could let the lower-court ruling stand, although it would not be binding on other courts outside of the 5th Circuit. The court could also put off the arguments or, if the Republican Senate replaces Ms. Ginsburg with another conservative justice before arguments are heard, Republicans could secure a 5-4 ruling against the law. Some court observers argue that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has not favored invalidating an entire statute if only part of it is flawed and might not approve overturning the ACA. Still, what started out as an effort to energize Republican voters for the 2018 midterms after Congress failed to “repeal and replace” the health law in 2017 could end up throwing the nation’s entire health system into chaos.

At least 20 million Americans – and likely many more who sought coverage since the start of the coronavirus pandemic — who buy insurance through the ACA marketplaces or have Medicaid through the law’s expansion could lose coverage right away. Many millions more would lose the law’s popular protections guaranteeing coverage for people with preexisting health conditions, including those who have had COVID-19.

Adult children under age 26 years would no longer be guaranteed the right to remain on their parents’ health plans, and Medicare patients would lose enhanced prescription drug coverage. Women would lose guaranteed access to birth control at no out-of-pocket cost.

But a sudden elimination would affect more than just health care consumers. Insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, and doctors have all changed the way they do business because of incentives and penalties in the health law. If it’s struck down, many of the “rules of the road” would literally be wiped away, including billing and payment mechanisms.

A new Democratic president could not drop the lawsuit because the Trump administration is not the plaintiff (the GOP attorneys general are). But a Democratic Congress and president could in theory make the entire issue go away by reinstating the penalty for failure to have insurance, even at a minimal amount. However, as far as the health law goes, for now, nothing is a sure thing.

As Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in health issues, tweeted: “Among other things, the Affordable Care Act now dangles from a thread.”
 

Reproductive rights

A woman’s right to abortion – and even to birth control – also has been hanging by a thread at the high court for more than a decade. This past term, Mr. Roberts joined the liberals to invalidate a Louisiana law that would have closed most of the state’s abortion clinics, but he made it clear it was not a vote for abortion rights. The Louisiana law was too similar to a Texas law the court (without his vote) struck down in 2016, Mr. Roberts argued.

Ms. Ginsburg had been a stalwart supporter of reproductive freedom for women. In her nearly 3 decades on the court, she always voted with backers of abortion rights and birth control and led the dissenters in 2007 when the court upheld a federal ban on a specific abortion procedure.

Adding a justice opposed to abortion to the bench – which is what Trump has promised his supporters – would almost certainly tilt the court in favor of far more dramatic restrictions on the procedure and possibly an overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade.

But not only is abortion on the line: The court in recent years has repeatedly ruled that employers with religious objections can refuse to provide contraception.

And waiting in the lower-court pipeline are cases involving federal funding of Planned Parenthood in both the Medicaid and federal family planning programs, and the ability of individual health workers to decline to participate in abortion and other procedures.

For Ms. Ginsburg, those issues came down to a clear question of a woman’s guarantee of equal status under the law.

“Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ‘to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation,’ ” she wrote in her dissent in that 2007 abortion case. “Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’ ”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

On Feb. 27, 2018, I got an email from the Heritage Foundation that alerted me to a news conference that afternoon held by Republican attorneys general of Texas and other states. It was referred to only as a “discussion about the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.”

Supreme Court of the United States

I sent the following note to my editor: “I’m off to the Hill anyway. I could stop by this. You never know what it might morph into.”

Few people took that case very seriously – barely a handful of reporters attended the news conference. But it has now “morphed into” the latest existential threat to the Affordable Care Act, scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court a week after the general election in November. And with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, that case could well morph into the threat that brings down the law in its entirety.

Democrats are raising alarms about the future of the law without Ms. Ginsburg. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning, said that part of the strategy by President Trump and Senate Republicans to quickly fill her seat was to help undermine the ACA.

“The president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because … Nov. 10 is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “He doesn’t want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.”

Ms. Ginsburg’s death could throw an already chaotic general election campaign during a pandemic into even more turmoil. But in the longer term, her absence from the bench could accelerate a trend underway to get cases to the Supreme Court toward invalidating the ACA and rolling back reproductive freedoms for women.

Let’s take them one at a time.
 

The ACA under fire – again

The GOP attorneys general argued in February 2018 that the Republican-sponsored tax cut bill Congress passed two months earlier had rendered the ACA unconstitutional by reducing to zero the ACA’s penalty for not having insurance. They based their argument on Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid, interpreting that penalty as a constitutionally appropriate tax.

Most legal scholars, including several who challenged the law before the Supreme Court in 2012 and again in 2015, find the argument that the entire law should fall to be unconvincing. “If courts invalidate an entire law merely because Congress eliminates or revises one part, as happened here, that may well inhibit necessary reform of federal legislation in the future by turning it into an ‘all or nothing’ proposition,” wrote a group of conservative and liberal law professors in a brief filed in the case.

Still, in December 2018, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas accepted the GOP argument and declared the law unconstitutional. In December 2019, a three-judge 5th Circuit appeals court panel in New Orleans agreed that without the penalty the requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But it sent the case back to Mr. O’Connor to suggest that perhaps the entire law need not fall.

Not wanting to wait the months or years that reconsideration would take, Democratic attorneys general defending the ACA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this year. (Democrats are defending the law in court because the Trump administration decided to support the GOP attorneys general’s case.) The court agreed to take the case but scheduled arguments for the week after the November election.

While the fate of the ACA was and is a live political issue, few legal observers were terribly worried about the legal outcome of the case, now known as Texas v. California, if only because the case seemed much weaker than the 2012 and 2015 cases in which Mr. Roberts joined the court’s four liberals. In the 2015 case, which challenged the validity of federal tax subsidies helping millions of Americans buy health insurance on the ACA’s marketplaces, both Mr. Roberts and now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the law.

But without Ms. Ginsburg, the case could wind up in a 4-4 tie, even if Mr. Roberts supports the law’s constitutionality. That could let the lower-court ruling stand, although it would not be binding on other courts outside of the 5th Circuit. The court could also put off the arguments or, if the Republican Senate replaces Ms. Ginsburg with another conservative justice before arguments are heard, Republicans could secure a 5-4 ruling against the law. Some court observers argue that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has not favored invalidating an entire statute if only part of it is flawed and might not approve overturning the ACA. Still, what started out as an effort to energize Republican voters for the 2018 midterms after Congress failed to “repeal and replace” the health law in 2017 could end up throwing the nation’s entire health system into chaos.

At least 20 million Americans – and likely many more who sought coverage since the start of the coronavirus pandemic — who buy insurance through the ACA marketplaces or have Medicaid through the law’s expansion could lose coverage right away. Many millions more would lose the law’s popular protections guaranteeing coverage for people with preexisting health conditions, including those who have had COVID-19.

Adult children under age 26 years would no longer be guaranteed the right to remain on their parents’ health plans, and Medicare patients would lose enhanced prescription drug coverage. Women would lose guaranteed access to birth control at no out-of-pocket cost.

But a sudden elimination would affect more than just health care consumers. Insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, and doctors have all changed the way they do business because of incentives and penalties in the health law. If it’s struck down, many of the “rules of the road” would literally be wiped away, including billing and payment mechanisms.

A new Democratic president could not drop the lawsuit because the Trump administration is not the plaintiff (the GOP attorneys general are). But a Democratic Congress and president could in theory make the entire issue go away by reinstating the penalty for failure to have insurance, even at a minimal amount. However, as far as the health law goes, for now, nothing is a sure thing.

As Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in health issues, tweeted: “Among other things, the Affordable Care Act now dangles from a thread.”
 

Reproductive rights

A woman’s right to abortion – and even to birth control – also has been hanging by a thread at the high court for more than a decade. This past term, Mr. Roberts joined the liberals to invalidate a Louisiana law that would have closed most of the state’s abortion clinics, but he made it clear it was not a vote for abortion rights. The Louisiana law was too similar to a Texas law the court (without his vote) struck down in 2016, Mr. Roberts argued.

Ms. Ginsburg had been a stalwart supporter of reproductive freedom for women. In her nearly 3 decades on the court, she always voted with backers of abortion rights and birth control and led the dissenters in 2007 when the court upheld a federal ban on a specific abortion procedure.

Adding a justice opposed to abortion to the bench – which is what Trump has promised his supporters – would almost certainly tilt the court in favor of far more dramatic restrictions on the procedure and possibly an overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade.

But not only is abortion on the line: The court in recent years has repeatedly ruled that employers with religious objections can refuse to provide contraception.

And waiting in the lower-court pipeline are cases involving federal funding of Planned Parenthood in both the Medicaid and federal family planning programs, and the ability of individual health workers to decline to participate in abortion and other procedures.

For Ms. Ginsburg, those issues came down to a clear question of a woman’s guarantee of equal status under the law.

“Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ‘to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation,’ ” she wrote in her dissent in that 2007 abortion case. “Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’ ”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

On Feb. 27, 2018, I got an email from the Heritage Foundation that alerted me to a news conference that afternoon held by Republican attorneys general of Texas and other states. It was referred to only as a “discussion about the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.”

Supreme Court of the United States

I sent the following note to my editor: “I’m off to the Hill anyway. I could stop by this. You never know what it might morph into.”

Few people took that case very seriously – barely a handful of reporters attended the news conference. But it has now “morphed into” the latest existential threat to the Affordable Care Act, scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court a week after the general election in November. And with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, that case could well morph into the threat that brings down the law in its entirety.

Democrats are raising alarms about the future of the law without Ms. Ginsburg. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning, said that part of the strategy by President Trump and Senate Republicans to quickly fill her seat was to help undermine the ACA.

“The president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because … Nov. 10 is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “He doesn’t want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.”

Ms. Ginsburg’s death could throw an already chaotic general election campaign during a pandemic into even more turmoil. But in the longer term, her absence from the bench could accelerate a trend underway to get cases to the Supreme Court toward invalidating the ACA and rolling back reproductive freedoms for women.

Let’s take them one at a time.
 

The ACA under fire – again

The GOP attorneys general argued in February 2018 that the Republican-sponsored tax cut bill Congress passed two months earlier had rendered the ACA unconstitutional by reducing to zero the ACA’s penalty for not having insurance. They based their argument on Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid, interpreting that penalty as a constitutionally appropriate tax.

Most legal scholars, including several who challenged the law before the Supreme Court in 2012 and again in 2015, find the argument that the entire law should fall to be unconvincing. “If courts invalidate an entire law merely because Congress eliminates or revises one part, as happened here, that may well inhibit necessary reform of federal legislation in the future by turning it into an ‘all or nothing’ proposition,” wrote a group of conservative and liberal law professors in a brief filed in the case.

Still, in December 2018, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas accepted the GOP argument and declared the law unconstitutional. In December 2019, a three-judge 5th Circuit appeals court panel in New Orleans agreed that without the penalty the requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But it sent the case back to Mr. O’Connor to suggest that perhaps the entire law need not fall.

Not wanting to wait the months or years that reconsideration would take, Democratic attorneys general defending the ACA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this year. (Democrats are defending the law in court because the Trump administration decided to support the GOP attorneys general’s case.) The court agreed to take the case but scheduled arguments for the week after the November election.

While the fate of the ACA was and is a live political issue, few legal observers were terribly worried about the legal outcome of the case, now known as Texas v. California, if only because the case seemed much weaker than the 2012 and 2015 cases in which Mr. Roberts joined the court’s four liberals. In the 2015 case, which challenged the validity of federal tax subsidies helping millions of Americans buy health insurance on the ACA’s marketplaces, both Mr. Roberts and now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the law.

But without Ms. Ginsburg, the case could wind up in a 4-4 tie, even if Mr. Roberts supports the law’s constitutionality. That could let the lower-court ruling stand, although it would not be binding on other courts outside of the 5th Circuit. The court could also put off the arguments or, if the Republican Senate replaces Ms. Ginsburg with another conservative justice before arguments are heard, Republicans could secure a 5-4 ruling against the law. Some court observers argue that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has not favored invalidating an entire statute if only part of it is flawed and might not approve overturning the ACA. Still, what started out as an effort to energize Republican voters for the 2018 midterms after Congress failed to “repeal and replace” the health law in 2017 could end up throwing the nation’s entire health system into chaos.

At least 20 million Americans – and likely many more who sought coverage since the start of the coronavirus pandemic — who buy insurance through the ACA marketplaces or have Medicaid through the law’s expansion could lose coverage right away. Many millions more would lose the law’s popular protections guaranteeing coverage for people with preexisting health conditions, including those who have had COVID-19.

Adult children under age 26 years would no longer be guaranteed the right to remain on their parents’ health plans, and Medicare patients would lose enhanced prescription drug coverage. Women would lose guaranteed access to birth control at no out-of-pocket cost.

But a sudden elimination would affect more than just health care consumers. Insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, and doctors have all changed the way they do business because of incentives and penalties in the health law. If it’s struck down, many of the “rules of the road” would literally be wiped away, including billing and payment mechanisms.

A new Democratic president could not drop the lawsuit because the Trump administration is not the plaintiff (the GOP attorneys general are). But a Democratic Congress and president could in theory make the entire issue go away by reinstating the penalty for failure to have insurance, even at a minimal amount. However, as far as the health law goes, for now, nothing is a sure thing.

As Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in health issues, tweeted: “Among other things, the Affordable Care Act now dangles from a thread.”
 

Reproductive rights

A woman’s right to abortion – and even to birth control – also has been hanging by a thread at the high court for more than a decade. This past term, Mr. Roberts joined the liberals to invalidate a Louisiana law that would have closed most of the state’s abortion clinics, but he made it clear it was not a vote for abortion rights. The Louisiana law was too similar to a Texas law the court (without his vote) struck down in 2016, Mr. Roberts argued.

Ms. Ginsburg had been a stalwart supporter of reproductive freedom for women. In her nearly 3 decades on the court, she always voted with backers of abortion rights and birth control and led the dissenters in 2007 when the court upheld a federal ban on a specific abortion procedure.

Adding a justice opposed to abortion to the bench – which is what Trump has promised his supporters – would almost certainly tilt the court in favor of far more dramatic restrictions on the procedure and possibly an overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade.

But not only is abortion on the line: The court in recent years has repeatedly ruled that employers with religious objections can refuse to provide contraception.

And waiting in the lower-court pipeline are cases involving federal funding of Planned Parenthood in both the Medicaid and federal family planning programs, and the ability of individual health workers to decline to participate in abortion and other procedures.

For Ms. Ginsburg, those issues came down to a clear question of a woman’s guarantee of equal status under the law.

“Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ‘to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation,’ ” she wrote in her dissent in that 2007 abortion case. “Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’ ”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recently authored a guideline regarding the treatment of acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting. While their recommendations mirror what most clinicians currently do in their medical practices, they don’t address the multiple components of pain that include sensory, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes in addition to the physical discomfort.

According to the authors, musculoskeletal injuries result in more than 65 million medical visits a year with an annual estimated cost of $176.1 billion in 2010.

In summary, the guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on a review of the best available evidence. The research reviewed by the guideline authors showed favorable results with topical NSAIDs, oral NSAIDs, oral acetaminophen, acupressure, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in reducing pain and/or improving function. The guideline authors “recommend that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical [NSAIDs] with or without gel as first-line therapy to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain; improve physical function; and improve the patient’s treatment satisfaction (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).” Additionally, the guideline recommends against treating acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, including tramadol (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

The guideline also mentions improving function in relation to decreasing pain, which can be multifactorial.

Treating pain requires a multipronged approach. Many patients require more than one therapy to treat their pain, such as NSAIDs plus physical therapy. The ACP and AAFP did not make any recommendations for combination therapies in this guideline.

When physical therapy is needed

Nonopioid pain medications can do a great job of reducing a patient’s physical discomfort, which the evidence for these guideline demonstrates. However, much of the dysfunction caused by musculoskeletal injuries will not improve by reducing the pain alone. Physical therapy, exercise, and mobilization did not show a significant benefit in reducing symptoms in the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that appeared alongside the guideline. The type of pain, however, was not evaluated in relation to the effectiveness of these treatments. A fractured bone, for example, may heal just fine with casting and pain management, without the need for additional therapies. However, the muscles surrounding that bone can atrophy and become weak from not being used. Physical therapy may be needed to restrengthen those muscles. Therefore, a multifaceted approach is often needed, even for uncomplicated conditions.

Mental pain often comes with physical pain, and this is an aspect of care that is often neglected. It can be quite devastating for patients to not be able to do the things they were previously able to do. While this is easily recognized in professional athletes when they can no longer play, it is not so readily apparent with a mother who is just trying to take care of her kids. As doctors, especially those of us in family medicine, we should be addressing more than just physical pain.

Patients can also do activities that exacerbate their pain. As doctors, we need to be asking questions that help us determine whether a patient’s pain is caused by a particular action. Maybe that increase in shoulder pain is due to nothing more than lifting something heavy rather than a failure in a prescribed medication. Pain diaries are helpful, and clinicians don’t use them often enough.
 

How pain affects mental health

Acute injuries can also lead to disability. Many patients become quite distressed about being unable to work. They often need Famiy & Medical Leave Act forms filled out, and this task usually falls to the primary care doctor. In addition to assessing the pain, we need to be evaluating, at each visit, a patient’s level of functioning and their ability to do their job.

Every patient responds to pain differently, and it is important to evaluate patients’ mindsets regarding theirs. A patient may be in severe pain and may try to ignore it for a variety of reasons. A patient may “catastrophize” their pain, believing only the worst outcome will happen to them. Helping patients set appropriate expectations and having a positive mindset can help.

Overall, the new recommendations are a great tool as a guideline, but they are not complete enough to be the only ones used in managing acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal pain in adults.

They are very important for clinicians who may be prescribing opioid medications for patients with this type of pain. Amid an opioid crisis, it is the responsibility of every doctor to prescribe these medications appropriately. The evidence clearly shows they provide little benefit and place patients at risk of addiction.

We should all be following these recommendations as the baseline of care for acute pain. However, we need to delve deeper and manage all the components involved. We would be ignoring very real suffering in our patients if we limited our focus to only the physical discomfort.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Rutgers RWJ Medical School.

SOURCE: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3602.

The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recently authored a guideline regarding the treatment of acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting. While their recommendations mirror what most clinicians currently do in their medical practices, they don’t address the multiple components of pain that include sensory, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes in addition to the physical discomfort.

According to the authors, musculoskeletal injuries result in more than 65 million medical visits a year with an annual estimated cost of $176.1 billion in 2010.

In summary, the guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on a review of the best available evidence. The research reviewed by the guideline authors showed favorable results with topical NSAIDs, oral NSAIDs, oral acetaminophen, acupressure, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in reducing pain and/or improving function. The guideline authors “recommend that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical [NSAIDs] with or without gel as first-line therapy to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain; improve physical function; and improve the patient’s treatment satisfaction (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).” Additionally, the guideline recommends against treating acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, including tramadol (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

The guideline also mentions improving function in relation to decreasing pain, which can be multifactorial.

Treating pain requires a multipronged approach. Many patients require more than one therapy to treat their pain, such as NSAIDs plus physical therapy. The ACP and AAFP did not make any recommendations for combination therapies in this guideline.

When physical therapy is needed

Nonopioid pain medications can do a great job of reducing a patient’s physical discomfort, which the evidence for these guideline demonstrates. However, much of the dysfunction caused by musculoskeletal injuries will not improve by reducing the pain alone. Physical therapy, exercise, and mobilization did not show a significant benefit in reducing symptoms in the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that appeared alongside the guideline. The type of pain, however, was not evaluated in relation to the effectiveness of these treatments. A fractured bone, for example, may heal just fine with casting and pain management, without the need for additional therapies. However, the muscles surrounding that bone can atrophy and become weak from not being used. Physical therapy may be needed to restrengthen those muscles. Therefore, a multifaceted approach is often needed, even for uncomplicated conditions.

Mental pain often comes with physical pain, and this is an aspect of care that is often neglected. It can be quite devastating for patients to not be able to do the things they were previously able to do. While this is easily recognized in professional athletes when they can no longer play, it is not so readily apparent with a mother who is just trying to take care of her kids. As doctors, especially those of us in family medicine, we should be addressing more than just physical pain.

Patients can also do activities that exacerbate their pain. As doctors, we need to be asking questions that help us determine whether a patient’s pain is caused by a particular action. Maybe that increase in shoulder pain is due to nothing more than lifting something heavy rather than a failure in a prescribed medication. Pain diaries are helpful, and clinicians don’t use them often enough.
 

How pain affects mental health

Acute injuries can also lead to disability. Many patients become quite distressed about being unable to work. They often need Famiy & Medical Leave Act forms filled out, and this task usually falls to the primary care doctor. In addition to assessing the pain, we need to be evaluating, at each visit, a patient’s level of functioning and their ability to do their job.

Every patient responds to pain differently, and it is important to evaluate patients’ mindsets regarding theirs. A patient may be in severe pain and may try to ignore it for a variety of reasons. A patient may “catastrophize” their pain, believing only the worst outcome will happen to them. Helping patients set appropriate expectations and having a positive mindset can help.

Overall, the new recommendations are a great tool as a guideline, but they are not complete enough to be the only ones used in managing acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal pain in adults.

They are very important for clinicians who may be prescribing opioid medications for patients with this type of pain. Amid an opioid crisis, it is the responsibility of every doctor to prescribe these medications appropriately. The evidence clearly shows they provide little benefit and place patients at risk of addiction.

We should all be following these recommendations as the baseline of care for acute pain. However, we need to delve deeper and manage all the components involved. We would be ignoring very real suffering in our patients if we limited our focus to only the physical discomfort.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Rutgers RWJ Medical School.

SOURCE: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3602.

The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recently authored a guideline regarding the treatment of acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting. While their recommendations mirror what most clinicians currently do in their medical practices, they don’t address the multiple components of pain that include sensory, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes in addition to the physical discomfort.

According to the authors, musculoskeletal injuries result in more than 65 million medical visits a year with an annual estimated cost of $176.1 billion in 2010.

In summary, the guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on a review of the best available evidence. The research reviewed by the guideline authors showed favorable results with topical NSAIDs, oral NSAIDs, oral acetaminophen, acupressure, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in reducing pain and/or improving function. The guideline authors “recommend that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical [NSAIDs] with or without gel as first-line therapy to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain; improve physical function; and improve the patient’s treatment satisfaction (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).” Additionally, the guideline recommends against treating acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, including tramadol (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

The guideline also mentions improving function in relation to decreasing pain, which can be multifactorial.

Treating pain requires a multipronged approach. Many patients require more than one therapy to treat their pain, such as NSAIDs plus physical therapy. The ACP and AAFP did not make any recommendations for combination therapies in this guideline.

When physical therapy is needed

Nonopioid pain medications can do a great job of reducing a patient’s physical discomfort, which the evidence for these guideline demonstrates. However, much of the dysfunction caused by musculoskeletal injuries will not improve by reducing the pain alone. Physical therapy, exercise, and mobilization did not show a significant benefit in reducing symptoms in the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that appeared alongside the guideline. The type of pain, however, was not evaluated in relation to the effectiveness of these treatments. A fractured bone, for example, may heal just fine with casting and pain management, without the need for additional therapies. However, the muscles surrounding that bone can atrophy and become weak from not being used. Physical therapy may be needed to restrengthen those muscles. Therefore, a multifaceted approach is often needed, even for uncomplicated conditions.

Mental pain often comes with physical pain, and this is an aspect of care that is often neglected. It can be quite devastating for patients to not be able to do the things they were previously able to do. While this is easily recognized in professional athletes when they can no longer play, it is not so readily apparent with a mother who is just trying to take care of her kids. As doctors, especially those of us in family medicine, we should be addressing more than just physical pain.

Patients can also do activities that exacerbate their pain. As doctors, we need to be asking questions that help us determine whether a patient’s pain is caused by a particular action. Maybe that increase in shoulder pain is due to nothing more than lifting something heavy rather than a failure in a prescribed medication. Pain diaries are helpful, and clinicians don’t use them often enough.
 

How pain affects mental health

Acute injuries can also lead to disability. Many patients become quite distressed about being unable to work. They often need Famiy & Medical Leave Act forms filled out, and this task usually falls to the primary care doctor. In addition to assessing the pain, we need to be evaluating, at each visit, a patient’s level of functioning and their ability to do their job.

Every patient responds to pain differently, and it is important to evaluate patients’ mindsets regarding theirs. A patient may be in severe pain and may try to ignore it for a variety of reasons. A patient may “catastrophize” their pain, believing only the worst outcome will happen to them. Helping patients set appropriate expectations and having a positive mindset can help.

Overall, the new recommendations are a great tool as a guideline, but they are not complete enough to be the only ones used in managing acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal pain in adults.

They are very important for clinicians who may be prescribing opioid medications for patients with this type of pain. Amid an opioid crisis, it is the responsibility of every doctor to prescribe these medications appropriately. The evidence clearly shows they provide little benefit and place patients at risk of addiction.

We should all be following these recommendations as the baseline of care for acute pain. However, we need to delve deeper and manage all the components involved. We would be ignoring very real suffering in our patients if we limited our focus to only the physical discomfort.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Rutgers RWJ Medical School.

SOURCE: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3602.

The more patients with type 2 diabetes exercise, the greater their drop in A1c, according to a new post hoc analysis of data collected during 6 months of supervised exercise.

This “dose-response” relationship between exercise and reductions in A1c held firm for those who did aerobic training or a mixture of aerobic and resistance exercises (combined), but not for those who did only resistance exercises, say Ronald J. Sigal, MD, and colleagues in their article published in the September issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

The findings “suggest that an increased volume of aerobic or combined aerobic and resistance exercise is associated with greater improvement in glycemic control,” say Dr. Sigal, a professor in the division of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues.

In addition, the results “support aerobic and combined exercise prescriptions outlined in clinical practice guidelines … such as those published by the American Diabetes Association (Diabetes Care. 2016;39:2065-79),” they note.

Dr. Sigal was also a coauthor of the ADA position statement on exercise, physical activity, and diabetes.
 

Those who exercised the most saw biggest drop in A1c

In the new report, Dr. Sigal and coauthors note they are “unaware of previous studies exploring the relationship between adherence to prescribed exercise and change in glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.”

The analysis used data collected from the DARE (Diabetes Aerobic and Resistance Exercise) trial, which randomized 251 patients with type 2 diabetes to a 6-month supervised exercise program or their usual habits (the latter were used as sedentary controls). The original DARE results showed that each of the three tested modes of supervised exercise – exclusively aerobic, exclusively resistance training, or a combination of both – resulted in a significant drop in average A1c level, compared with controls (Ann Int Med. 2007;147:357-69).  

This original study did not subdivide patients in the intervention groups by level of adherence to their exercise prescription.

The new analysis focused on the 185 patients randomized to one of the three exercise arms and tracked adherence by both self-recorded logs from patients and reports from the trainers who ran the exercise sessions.

The patients were an average of 54 years old, and slightly more than a third were women. Median A1c at baseline was about 7.7%. Median overall adherence to their exercise regimen was about 86% and was roughly similar in the three exercise subgroups.

The exercise prescription consisted of a 60-minute session (including warm-up and cool-down) three times weekly.

Those who did the most exercise saw the biggest improvements in A1c: a 20% increase in adherence (which correlated with an additional two sessions per month) was associated with a 0.15% decrease in A1c (P = .021)

When analyzed by type of exercise, both the subgroup that performed aerobic exercise only and the subgroup that did both aerobic and resistance exercise showed significant correlations with reductions in A1c. There was no significant association with A1c for the patients who did only resistance training.

Further subgroup analyses showed that significant relationships between exercise adherence and reduced glycemia were seen in only patients younger than 55 years old, men, and those with a baseline A1c ≥ 7.5%.

The researchers caution that the low number of patients in their analysis limits the statistical power and thereby interpretation of the findings, as does the post-hoc nature of the analysis.

DARE received no commercial funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The more patients with type 2 diabetes exercise, the greater their drop in A1c, according to a new post hoc analysis of data collected during 6 months of supervised exercise.

This “dose-response” relationship between exercise and reductions in A1c held firm for those who did aerobic training or a mixture of aerobic and resistance exercises (combined), but not for those who did only resistance exercises, say Ronald J. Sigal, MD, and colleagues in their article published in the September issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

The findings “suggest that an increased volume of aerobic or combined aerobic and resistance exercise is associated with greater improvement in glycemic control,” say Dr. Sigal, a professor in the division of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues.

In addition, the results “support aerobic and combined exercise prescriptions outlined in clinical practice guidelines … such as those published by the American Diabetes Association (Diabetes Care. 2016;39:2065-79),” they note.

Dr. Sigal was also a coauthor of the ADA position statement on exercise, physical activity, and diabetes.
 

Those who exercised the most saw biggest drop in A1c

In the new report, Dr. Sigal and coauthors note they are “unaware of previous studies exploring the relationship between adherence to prescribed exercise and change in glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.”

The analysis used data collected from the DARE (Diabetes Aerobic and Resistance Exercise) trial, which randomized 251 patients with type 2 diabetes to a 6-month supervised exercise program or their usual habits (the latter were used as sedentary controls). The original DARE results showed that each of the three tested modes of supervised exercise – exclusively aerobic, exclusively resistance training, or a combination of both – resulted in a significant drop in average A1c level, compared with controls (Ann Int Med. 2007;147:357-69).  

This original study did not subdivide patients in the intervention groups by level of adherence to their exercise prescription.

The new analysis focused on the 185 patients randomized to one of the three exercise arms and tracked adherence by both self-recorded logs from patients and reports from the trainers who ran the exercise sessions.

The patients were an average of 54 years old, and slightly more than a third were women. Median A1c at baseline was about 7.7%. Median overall adherence to their exercise regimen was about 86% and was roughly similar in the three exercise subgroups.

The exercise prescription consisted of a 60-minute session (including warm-up and cool-down) three times weekly.

Those who did the most exercise saw the biggest improvements in A1c: a 20% increase in adherence (which correlated with an additional two sessions per month) was associated with a 0.15% decrease in A1c (P = .021)

When analyzed by type of exercise, both the subgroup that performed aerobic exercise only and the subgroup that did both aerobic and resistance exercise showed significant correlations with reductions in A1c. There was no significant association with A1c for the patients who did only resistance training.

Further subgroup analyses showed that significant relationships between exercise adherence and reduced glycemia were seen in only patients younger than 55 years old, men, and those with a baseline A1c ≥ 7.5%.

The researchers caution that the low number of patients in their analysis limits the statistical power and thereby interpretation of the findings, as does the post-hoc nature of the analysis.

DARE received no commercial funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The more patients with type 2 diabetes exercise, the greater their drop in A1c, according to a new post hoc analysis of data collected during 6 months of supervised exercise.

This “dose-response” relationship between exercise and reductions in A1c held firm for those who did aerobic training or a mixture of aerobic and resistance exercises (combined), but not for those who did only resistance exercises, say Ronald J. Sigal, MD, and colleagues in their article published in the September issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

The findings “suggest that an increased volume of aerobic or combined aerobic and resistance exercise is associated with greater improvement in glycemic control,” say Dr. Sigal, a professor in the division of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues.

In addition, the results “support aerobic and combined exercise prescriptions outlined in clinical practice guidelines … such as those published by the American Diabetes Association (Diabetes Care. 2016;39:2065-79),” they note.

Dr. Sigal was also a coauthor of the ADA position statement on exercise, physical activity, and diabetes.
 

Those who exercised the most saw biggest drop in A1c

In the new report, Dr. Sigal and coauthors note they are “unaware of previous studies exploring the relationship between adherence to prescribed exercise and change in glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.”

The analysis used data collected from the DARE (Diabetes Aerobic and Resistance Exercise) trial, which randomized 251 patients with type 2 diabetes to a 6-month supervised exercise program or their usual habits (the latter were used as sedentary controls). The original DARE results showed that each of the three tested modes of supervised exercise – exclusively aerobic, exclusively resistance training, or a combination of both – resulted in a significant drop in average A1c level, compared with controls (Ann Int Med. 2007;147:357-69).  

This original study did not subdivide patients in the intervention groups by level of adherence to their exercise prescription.

The new analysis focused on the 185 patients randomized to one of the three exercise arms and tracked adherence by both self-recorded logs from patients and reports from the trainers who ran the exercise sessions.

The patients were an average of 54 years old, and slightly more than a third were women. Median A1c at baseline was about 7.7%. Median overall adherence to their exercise regimen was about 86% and was roughly similar in the three exercise subgroups.

The exercise prescription consisted of a 60-minute session (including warm-up and cool-down) three times weekly.

Those who did the most exercise saw the biggest improvements in A1c: a 20% increase in adherence (which correlated with an additional two sessions per month) was associated with a 0.15% decrease in A1c (P = .021)

When analyzed by type of exercise, both the subgroup that performed aerobic exercise only and the subgroup that did both aerobic and resistance exercise showed significant correlations with reductions in A1c. There was no significant association with A1c for the patients who did only resistance training.

Further subgroup analyses showed that significant relationships between exercise adherence and reduced glycemia were seen in only patients younger than 55 years old, men, and those with a baseline A1c ≥ 7.5%.

The researchers caution that the low number of patients in their analysis limits the statistical power and thereby interpretation of the findings, as does the post-hoc nature of the analysis.

DARE received no commercial funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The risk for death goes up for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who are put on direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) at dosages other than those approved for stroke prevention, whether higher or lower than doses specified in the labeling, suggests a large registry study.

A quarter of more than 10,000 patients in the registry took the drugs at such nonrecommended higher or lower dosages. Overwhelmingly it was the latter, perhaps reflecting caution on the part of some practitioners looking to minimize the risk of bleeding complications.

The risk of major bleeding indeed dropped sharply for those taking DOACs at lower-than-recommended levels, but at the cost of a 25% jump in all-cause mortality over 2 years, report investigators from their analysis of patients in the GARFIELD-AF registry published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Risks of major bleeding and of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t climb significantly for patients either under- or overdosed.

In general, “physicians are worried about giving too much anticoagulant, and they tend to favor erring on the low-dose side,” lead author A. John Camm, MD, St. George’s University of London, said in an interview. That’s how it was when an oral anticoagulation meant a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and underdosing was frequent; and it remains an issue in the DOAC era. “It’s not just a little problem. It’s a very big problem.”

Today, clinicians may prescribe DOACs similar to how they prescribed VKAs, by cautiously choosing a lower dosage for selected patients based on their risk profile, Dr. Camm observed. But in contrast to the VKAs, the DOACs “were studied with different dose-reduction strategies, and their labeling requires them to be prescribed according to different parameters.”

They variously base dosage reductions on age, body weight, renal function, or drug-drug interactions, for example, but some clinicians “tend to think that all of those factors should be applied in every instance, with every drug,” he said.

“So I think there’s some confusion and a lot of caution that physicians use with anticoagulants, and they often forget that the purpose of the anticoagulant is to prevent strokes and adverse outcomes such as mortality,” Dr. Camm said. “But by reducing the dose, they expose their patients to these other major cardiovascular events.”

Numerically, the excess mortality among underdosed patients appeared to be driven by death from heart failure or myocardial infarction. There was little or no contribution from sudden death, fatal strokes, or noncardiovascular death.

The findings “remind clinicians to dose DOACs properly and that there are consequences of dosing errors,” observes Gerald V. Naccarelli, MD, of Penn State University and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, in an accompanying editorial.

Based on the major clinical trials that established the drugs as mainstream stroke-preventive therapy in AFib, as well as extensive regulatory review, each DOAC’s label-recommended dosing “is a guidance of the truth to achieve the highest efficacy and most safety in our patients,” Dr. Naccarelli wrote. “As clinicians are risk adverse, underdosing might result in lower major bleeding rates, and physicians are blamed for bleeding but not necessarily for allowing embolic strokes to occur. These data raise the issue that underdosing is associated with worse patient outcomes.”

The GARFIELD-AF analysis covered 10,426 adults with nonvalvular AFib in 35 countries who initiated a DOAC from 2013 to 2016. The drugs were prescribed at dosages consistent with recommendations in each respective country’s labeling for stroke prevention in AFib in 72.9% of the cohort. Most full and adjusted dose levels approved by the European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and regulators in Japan were the same or similar.

But there were a few exceptions. All dosing criteria across the three regulatory domains were the same for apixaban (Eliquis). But variations included lower dosage options for rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana) in Japan, and a uniquely low dabigatran (Pradaxa) dosage option in the United States.

The DOAC used least often was the one most frequently underdosed. More than half of patients prescribed edoxaban were given it at a lower-than-recommended dosage.

The adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality at 2 years for DOAC under- or overdosing, compared with dosing at recommended levels, was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.48). The difference was driven by underdosing, for which the HR was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.04-1.50). The HR for over-dosing was only 1.19 (95% CI, 0.83-1.71).

Multivariate adjustment accounted for age, sex, and ethnicity; type of AFib; diabetes; hypertension; history of bleeding; prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism; heart failure; vascular disease; smoking; and heavy alcohol consumption.

The risk of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t go up or down significantly for either overdosed or underdosed patients. Neither group showed an increased risk for major bleeding; however, the HR for major bleeding in underdosed patients fell to 0.50 (95% CI, 0.28-0.88).

Underdosing was more common in some world regions than others. The rate exceeded 30% in all Latin American countries except Argentina, the report stated, and in all Asian countries except Singapore.

Japanese patients have long received oral anticoagulation at lower dosages than are used in the West, Dr. Camm observed. When VKAs were the only choice, for example, international normalized ratio targets were consistently a bit lower in Japan than in, for example, North America or Europe.

“And when [novel] OACs were developed, again, the Japanese took the view that their patients are more vulnerable to bleeding, and therefore a lower dose would be appropriate. In some instances, lower-dose regimens have been specifically studied in the Japanese,” Dr. Camm said. “Having said that, this concept of bleeding being more problematic in Asian patients has expanded well beyond Japan, and therefore in many Asian communities, lower doses of [novel] OACs are chosen.”

Many other factors may contribute to DOAC underdosing, including differences in dosing strategies between primary care practitioners and specialists, or between hospital-based and office-based clinicians, for example.

“It might also be argued that a physician who fails to treat a patient adequately in one arena may also be failing to treat the patient well in other aspects of their care,” Dr. Camm proposed. “Therefore you could have increased mortality due to other cardiovascular causes, or even noncardiovascular events, through absence of good quality care. Our study did not address that specifically. But it might be the case, speculatively.”

The study was supported by a grant from Bayer to the Thrombosis Research Institute, “which sponsors the GARFIELD-AF registry.” Dr. Camm discloses receiving grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer/Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Daiichi Sankyo. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Naccarelli disclosed consulting and participating in research for Janssen and serving as a consultant for Milestone, Sanofi, Omeicos, and Acesion Pharma.

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

The risk for death goes up for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who are put on direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) at dosages other than those approved for stroke prevention, whether higher or lower than doses specified in the labeling, suggests a large registry study.

A quarter of more than 10,000 patients in the registry took the drugs at such nonrecommended higher or lower dosages. Overwhelmingly it was the latter, perhaps reflecting caution on the part of some practitioners looking to minimize the risk of bleeding complications.

The risk of major bleeding indeed dropped sharply for those taking DOACs at lower-than-recommended levels, but at the cost of a 25% jump in all-cause mortality over 2 years, report investigators from their analysis of patients in the GARFIELD-AF registry published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Risks of major bleeding and of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t climb significantly for patients either under- or overdosed.

In general, “physicians are worried about giving too much anticoagulant, and they tend to favor erring on the low-dose side,” lead author A. John Camm, MD, St. George’s University of London, said in an interview. That’s how it was when an oral anticoagulation meant a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and underdosing was frequent; and it remains an issue in the DOAC era. “It’s not just a little problem. It’s a very big problem.”

Today, clinicians may prescribe DOACs similar to how they prescribed VKAs, by cautiously choosing a lower dosage for selected patients based on their risk profile, Dr. Camm observed. But in contrast to the VKAs, the DOACs “were studied with different dose-reduction strategies, and their labeling requires them to be prescribed according to different parameters.”

They variously base dosage reductions on age, body weight, renal function, or drug-drug interactions, for example, but some clinicians “tend to think that all of those factors should be applied in every instance, with every drug,” he said.

“So I think there’s some confusion and a lot of caution that physicians use with anticoagulants, and they often forget that the purpose of the anticoagulant is to prevent strokes and adverse outcomes such as mortality,” Dr. Camm said. “But by reducing the dose, they expose their patients to these other major cardiovascular events.”

Numerically, the excess mortality among underdosed patients appeared to be driven by death from heart failure or myocardial infarction. There was little or no contribution from sudden death, fatal strokes, or noncardiovascular death.

The findings “remind clinicians to dose DOACs properly and that there are consequences of dosing errors,” observes Gerald V. Naccarelli, MD, of Penn State University and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, in an accompanying editorial.

Based on the major clinical trials that established the drugs as mainstream stroke-preventive therapy in AFib, as well as extensive regulatory review, each DOAC’s label-recommended dosing “is a guidance of the truth to achieve the highest efficacy and most safety in our patients,” Dr. Naccarelli wrote. “As clinicians are risk adverse, underdosing might result in lower major bleeding rates, and physicians are blamed for bleeding but not necessarily for allowing embolic strokes to occur. These data raise the issue that underdosing is associated with worse patient outcomes.”

The GARFIELD-AF analysis covered 10,426 adults with nonvalvular AFib in 35 countries who initiated a DOAC from 2013 to 2016. The drugs were prescribed at dosages consistent with recommendations in each respective country’s labeling for stroke prevention in AFib in 72.9% of the cohort. Most full and adjusted dose levels approved by the European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and regulators in Japan were the same or similar.

But there were a few exceptions. All dosing criteria across the three regulatory domains were the same for apixaban (Eliquis). But variations included lower dosage options for rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana) in Japan, and a uniquely low dabigatran (Pradaxa) dosage option in the United States.

The DOAC used least often was the one most frequently underdosed. More than half of patients prescribed edoxaban were given it at a lower-than-recommended dosage.

The adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality at 2 years for DOAC under- or overdosing, compared with dosing at recommended levels, was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.48). The difference was driven by underdosing, for which the HR was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.04-1.50). The HR for over-dosing was only 1.19 (95% CI, 0.83-1.71).

Multivariate adjustment accounted for age, sex, and ethnicity; type of AFib; diabetes; hypertension; history of bleeding; prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism; heart failure; vascular disease; smoking; and heavy alcohol consumption.

The risk of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t go up or down significantly for either overdosed or underdosed patients. Neither group showed an increased risk for major bleeding; however, the HR for major bleeding in underdosed patients fell to 0.50 (95% CI, 0.28-0.88).

Underdosing was more common in some world regions than others. The rate exceeded 30% in all Latin American countries except Argentina, the report stated, and in all Asian countries except Singapore.

Japanese patients have long received oral anticoagulation at lower dosages than are used in the West, Dr. Camm observed. When VKAs were the only choice, for example, international normalized ratio targets were consistently a bit lower in Japan than in, for example, North America or Europe.

“And when [novel] OACs were developed, again, the Japanese took the view that their patients are more vulnerable to bleeding, and therefore a lower dose would be appropriate. In some instances, lower-dose regimens have been specifically studied in the Japanese,” Dr. Camm said. “Having said that, this concept of bleeding being more problematic in Asian patients has expanded well beyond Japan, and therefore in many Asian communities, lower doses of [novel] OACs are chosen.”

Many other factors may contribute to DOAC underdosing, including differences in dosing strategies between primary care practitioners and specialists, or between hospital-based and office-based clinicians, for example.

“It might also be argued that a physician who fails to treat a patient adequately in one arena may also be failing to treat the patient well in other aspects of their care,” Dr. Camm proposed. “Therefore you could have increased mortality due to other cardiovascular causes, or even noncardiovascular events, through absence of good quality care. Our study did not address that specifically. But it might be the case, speculatively.”

The study was supported by a grant from Bayer to the Thrombosis Research Institute, “which sponsors the GARFIELD-AF registry.” Dr. Camm discloses receiving grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer/Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Daiichi Sankyo. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Naccarelli disclosed consulting and participating in research for Janssen and serving as a consultant for Milestone, Sanofi, Omeicos, and Acesion Pharma.

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

The risk for death goes up for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who are put on direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) at dosages other than those approved for stroke prevention, whether higher or lower than doses specified in the labeling, suggests a large registry study.

A quarter of more than 10,000 patients in the registry took the drugs at such nonrecommended higher or lower dosages. Overwhelmingly it was the latter, perhaps reflecting caution on the part of some practitioners looking to minimize the risk of bleeding complications.

The risk of major bleeding indeed dropped sharply for those taking DOACs at lower-than-recommended levels, but at the cost of a 25% jump in all-cause mortality over 2 years, report investigators from their analysis of patients in the GARFIELD-AF registry published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Risks of major bleeding and of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t climb significantly for patients either under- or overdosed.

In general, “physicians are worried about giving too much anticoagulant, and they tend to favor erring on the low-dose side,” lead author A. John Camm, MD, St. George’s University of London, said in an interview. That’s how it was when an oral anticoagulation meant a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and underdosing was frequent; and it remains an issue in the DOAC era. “It’s not just a little problem. It’s a very big problem.”

Today, clinicians may prescribe DOACs similar to how they prescribed VKAs, by cautiously choosing a lower dosage for selected patients based on their risk profile, Dr. Camm observed. But in contrast to the VKAs, the DOACs “were studied with different dose-reduction strategies, and their labeling requires them to be prescribed according to different parameters.”

They variously base dosage reductions on age, body weight, renal function, or drug-drug interactions, for example, but some clinicians “tend to think that all of those factors should be applied in every instance, with every drug,” he said.

“So I think there’s some confusion and a lot of caution that physicians use with anticoagulants, and they often forget that the purpose of the anticoagulant is to prevent strokes and adverse outcomes such as mortality,” Dr. Camm said. “But by reducing the dose, they expose their patients to these other major cardiovascular events.”

Numerically, the excess mortality among underdosed patients appeared to be driven by death from heart failure or myocardial infarction. There was little or no contribution from sudden death, fatal strokes, or noncardiovascular death.

The findings “remind clinicians to dose DOACs properly and that there are consequences of dosing errors,” observes Gerald V. Naccarelli, MD, of Penn State University and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, in an accompanying editorial.

Based on the major clinical trials that established the drugs as mainstream stroke-preventive therapy in AFib, as well as extensive regulatory review, each DOAC’s label-recommended dosing “is a guidance of the truth to achieve the highest efficacy and most safety in our patients,” Dr. Naccarelli wrote. “As clinicians are risk adverse, underdosing might result in lower major bleeding rates, and physicians are blamed for bleeding but not necessarily for allowing embolic strokes to occur. These data raise the issue that underdosing is associated with worse patient outcomes.”

The GARFIELD-AF analysis covered 10,426 adults with nonvalvular AFib in 35 countries who initiated a DOAC from 2013 to 2016. The drugs were prescribed at dosages consistent with recommendations in each respective country’s labeling for stroke prevention in AFib in 72.9% of the cohort. Most full and adjusted dose levels approved by the European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and regulators in Japan were the same or similar.

But there were a few exceptions. All dosing criteria across the three regulatory domains were the same for apixaban (Eliquis). But variations included lower dosage options for rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana) in Japan, and a uniquely low dabigatran (Pradaxa) dosage option in the United States.

The DOAC used least often was the one most frequently underdosed. More than half of patients prescribed edoxaban were given it at a lower-than-recommended dosage.

The adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality at 2 years for DOAC under- or overdosing, compared with dosing at recommended levels, was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.48). The difference was driven by underdosing, for which the HR was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.04-1.50). The HR for over-dosing was only 1.19 (95% CI, 0.83-1.71).

Multivariate adjustment accounted for age, sex, and ethnicity; type of AFib; diabetes; hypertension; history of bleeding; prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism; heart failure; vascular disease; smoking; and heavy alcohol consumption.

The risk of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t go up or down significantly for either overdosed or underdosed patients. Neither group showed an increased risk for major bleeding; however, the HR for major bleeding in underdosed patients fell to 0.50 (95% CI, 0.28-0.88).

Underdosing was more common in some world regions than others. The rate exceeded 30% in all Latin American countries except Argentina, the report stated, and in all Asian countries except Singapore.

Japanese patients have long received oral anticoagulation at lower dosages than are used in the West, Dr. Camm observed. When VKAs were the only choice, for example, international normalized ratio targets were consistently a bit lower in Japan than in, for example, North America or Europe.

“And when [novel] OACs were developed, again, the Japanese took the view that their patients are more vulnerable to bleeding, and therefore a lower dose would be appropriate. In some instances, lower-dose regimens have been specifically studied in the Japanese,” Dr. Camm said. “Having said that, this concept of bleeding being more problematic in Asian patients has expanded well beyond Japan, and therefore in many Asian communities, lower doses of [novel] OACs are chosen.”

Many other factors may contribute to DOAC underdosing, including differences in dosing strategies between primary care practitioners and specialists, or between hospital-based and office-based clinicians, for example.

“It might also be argued that a physician who fails to treat a patient adequately in one arena may also be failing to treat the patient well in other aspects of their care,” Dr. Camm proposed. “Therefore you could have increased mortality due to other cardiovascular causes, or even noncardiovascular events, through absence of good quality care. Our study did not address that specifically. But it might be the case, speculatively.”

The study was supported by a grant from Bayer to the Thrombosis Research Institute, “which sponsors the GARFIELD-AF registry.” Dr. Camm discloses receiving grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer/Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Daiichi Sankyo. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Naccarelli disclosed consulting and participating in research for Janssen and serving as a consultant for Milestone, Sanofi, Omeicos, and Acesion Pharma.

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

A new study using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to examine the effects of novel coronavirus infection on the heart showed signs suggestive of myocarditis in 4 out of 26 competitive athletes who recovered from asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID-19.

While these and other similar findings are concerning, commentators are saying the results are preliminary and do not indicate widespread CMR screening is appropriate.

Two of the 4 patients showing signs of myocarditis in this series had no symptoms of COVID-19 but tested positive on routine testing. An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (30.8%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (31%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

This finding, said Saurabh Rajpal, MBBS, MD, the study’s lead author, “could suggest prior myocardial injury or it could suggest athletic myocardial adaptation.”

In a research letter published in JAMA Cardiology, Rajpal and colleagues at Ohio State University in Columbus, described the findings of comprehensive CMR examinations in competitive athletes referred to the sport medicine clinic after testing positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between June and August 2020.

The university had made the decision in the spring to use CMR imaging as a screening tool for return to play, said Dr. Rajpal. While CMR is being used for research purposes, the American College of Cardiology’s recent “consensus expert opinion” statement on resumption of sport and exercise after COVID-19 infection does not require CMR imaging for resumption of competitive activity (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 13. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136).

None of the athletes required hospitalization for their illness, and only 27% reported mild symptoms during the short-term infection, including sore throat, shortness of breath, myalgia, and fever.

On the day of CMR imaging, ECG and transthoracic echocardiography were performed, and serum troponin I was measured. There were no diagnostic ST/T wave changes, ventricular function and volumes were normal, and no athletes showed elevated serum troponin levels.

The updated Lake Louise Criteria were used to assess CMR findings consistent with myocarditis.

“I don’t think this is a COVID-specific issue. We have seen myocarditis after other viral infections; it’s just that COVID-19 is the most studied thus far, and with strenuous activity, inflammation in the heart can be risky,” Dr. Rajpal said in an interview. He added that more long-term and larger studies with control populations are needed.

His group is continuing to follow these athletes and has suggested that CMR “may provide an excellent risk-stratification assessment for myocarditis in athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 to guide safe competitive sports participation.”
 

Significance still unknown

Matthew Martinez, MD, the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health – Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, urged caution in making too much of the findings of this small study.

“We know that viruses cause myocardial damage and myocarditis. What we don’t know is how important these findings are. And in terms of risk, would we find the same phenomenon if we did this, say, in flu patients or in other age groups?” Dr. Martinez said in an interview.

“I haven’t seen all the images, but what I’d want to know is are these very subtle findings? Are these overt findings? Is this part of an active individual with symptoms? I need to know a little more data before I can tell if this influences the increased risk of sudden cardiac death that we often associate with myocarditis. I’m not sure how this should influence making decisions with regards to return to play.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the ACC’s chair of Sports and Exercise but was not an author of their recent guidance on return to sport, said that he is not routinely using CMR to assess athletes post-infection, as per the ACC’s recommendations.

“My approach is to evaluate anybody with a history of COVID infection and, first, determine whether it was an important infection with significant symptoms or not. And then, if they’re participating at a high level or are professional athletes, I would suggest an ECG, echo, and troponin. That’s our recommendation for the last several months and is still an appropriate way to evaluate that group.”

“In the presence of an abnormality or ongoing symptoms, I would ask for an MRI at that point,” said Dr. Martinez.

“We just don’t have much data on athletes with no symptoms to use to interpret these CMR findings and the study didn’t offer any controls. We don’t even know if these findings are new findings or old findings that have just been identified now,” he added.

New, updated recommendations from the ACC are coming soon, said Dr. Martinez. “I do not expect them to include CMR as first line.”
 

Cardiologists concerned about misinformation

This is at least the fourth study showing myocardial damage post-COVID-19 infection and there is concern in the medical community that the media has overstated the risks of heart damage, especially in athletes, and at the same time overstated the benefits of CMR.

In particular, Puntmann et al reported in July a 100-patient study that showed evidence of myocardial inflammation by CMR in 78% of patients recently recovered from a bout of COVID-19 (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 27; doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3557).

“That paper is completely problematic,” John Mandrola, MD, of Baptists Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It has the same overarching weaknesses [of other studies] that it’s observational and retrospective, but there were also numerical issues. So to me that paper is an interesting observation, but utterly unconvincing and preliminary,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Those limitations didn’t stop the study from garnering media attention, however. The Altmetric score (an attention score that tracks all mentions of an article in the media and on social media) for the Puntmann et al paper is approaching 13,000, including coverage from 276 news outlets and more than 19,000 tweets, putting it in the 99th percentile of all research outputs tracked by Altmetric to date.

To counter this, an “open letter” posted online just days before the Rajpal study published urging professional societies to “offer clear guidance discouraging CMR screening for COVID-19 related heart abnormalities in asymptomatic members of the general public.” The letter was signed by 51 clinicians, researchers, and imaging specialists from around the world.

Dr. Mandrola, one of the signatories, said: “This topic really scares people, and when it gets in the media like this, I think the leaders of these societies need to come out and say something really clear on major news networks letting people know that it’s just way too premature to start doing CMRs on every athlete that’s gotten this virus.”

“I understand that the current guidelines may be clear that CMR is not a first-line test for this indication, but when the media coverage is so extensive and so overblown, I wonder how much impact the guidelines will have in countering this fear that’s in the community,” he added.

Asked to comment on the letter, Dr. Rajpal said he agrees with the signatories that asymptomatic people from general population do not need routine cardiac MRI. “However, competitive athletes are a different story. Testing depends on risk assessment in specific population and competitive athletes as per our protocol will get enhanced cardiac workup including CMR for responsible and safe start of competitive sports. ... In the present scenario, while we get more data including control data, we will continue with our current protocol.”

Dr. Mandrola is Medscape Cardiology’s Chief Cardiology Consultant. MDedge is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to examine the effects of novel coronavirus infection on the heart showed signs suggestive of myocarditis in 4 out of 26 competitive athletes who recovered from asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID-19.

While these and other similar findings are concerning, commentators are saying the results are preliminary and do not indicate widespread CMR screening is appropriate.

Two of the 4 patients showing signs of myocarditis in this series had no symptoms of COVID-19 but tested positive on routine testing. An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (30.8%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (31%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

This finding, said Saurabh Rajpal, MBBS, MD, the study’s lead author, “could suggest prior myocardial injury or it could suggest athletic myocardial adaptation.”

In a research letter published in JAMA Cardiology, Rajpal and colleagues at Ohio State University in Columbus, described the findings of comprehensive CMR examinations in competitive athletes referred to the sport medicine clinic after testing positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between June and August 2020.

The university had made the decision in the spring to use CMR imaging as a screening tool for return to play, said Dr. Rajpal. While CMR is being used for research purposes, the American College of Cardiology’s recent “consensus expert opinion” statement on resumption of sport and exercise after COVID-19 infection does not require CMR imaging for resumption of competitive activity (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 13. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136).

None of the athletes required hospitalization for their illness, and only 27% reported mild symptoms during the short-term infection, including sore throat, shortness of breath, myalgia, and fever.

On the day of CMR imaging, ECG and transthoracic echocardiography were performed, and serum troponin I was measured. There were no diagnostic ST/T wave changes, ventricular function and volumes were normal, and no athletes showed elevated serum troponin levels.

The updated Lake Louise Criteria were used to assess CMR findings consistent with myocarditis.

“I don’t think this is a COVID-specific issue. We have seen myocarditis after other viral infections; it’s just that COVID-19 is the most studied thus far, and with strenuous activity, inflammation in the heart can be risky,” Dr. Rajpal said in an interview. He added that more long-term and larger studies with control populations are needed.

His group is continuing to follow these athletes and has suggested that CMR “may provide an excellent risk-stratification assessment for myocarditis in athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 to guide safe competitive sports participation.”