User login
-
Do patients with cancer need a third shot of COVID vaccine?
Patients with cancer have shown varying responses to COVID-19 vaccination, with good responses in patients with solid tumors (even while on systemic therapy) and poor responses in patients with blood cancers, particularly those on immunosuppressive therapies.
The data are evolving to show factors associated with a poor response but are not strong enough yet to recommend booster shots, say researchers.
The work is defining who will likely need a COVID vaccine booster when they become available. “It’s definitely not all cancer patients,” said Dimpy Shah, MD, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at the Mays Cancer Center, University of Texas, San Antonio.
Public anxiously awaiting boosters
Boosters aren’t recommended in the United States at the moment, in large part because the Emergency Use Authorization under which the vaccines are being administered allows for only two shots of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and one shot of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
Even so, regulators and policymakers are “keenly aware that physicians and patients alike are anxious to get going and start doing boosters,” Dr. Shah said. There’s concern that antibody response might wane over time, perhaps even more quickly in patients with cancer.
Pfizer is already in talks with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to authorize a third dose of its vaccine in the United States. Guidelines could very well change in coming months, said Ghady Haidar, MD, a specialist in infectious diseases and cancer at the University of Pittsburgh.
However, it’s still early in the game, and it’s not clear yet if boosters are necessary in cancer, Dr. Haidar said in an interview.
For one thing, it’s unknown if poor antibody response really means that patients aren’t protected, he explained. The vaccines elicit T-cell responses that could protect patients regardless of antibody levels. It’s also unclear if antibody titer levels are clinically relevant, and there hasn’t been much indication yet that less-than-robust vaccine responses translate to worse COVID outcomes in patients with cancer.
Those and other questions are areas of active investigation by Dr. Shah, Dr. Haidar, and others. Dozens of clinical trials are investigating vaccine response in patients with cancer, including the use of boosters.
Meanwhile, some cancer patients aren’t waiting around for more study results. “I get many, many emails a day” about booster shots, Dr. Haidar said. “We recommend against” them for now but some people bend the rules and get an extra shot anyway. “I get it. People are apprehensive.”
Three COVID deaths despite full vaccination
The vaccine clinical trials had fewer patients with cancer, so researchers are moving fast to backfill the data. Although there is some variation in what’s being reported, an overall picture is slowly emerging.
Dr. Shah and her team reported on responses to the mRNA COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna and found a 94% seroconversion rate in 131 patients with cancer 3-4 weeks after their second dose of vaccine. They also found good responses among patients on cytotoxic chemotherapy within 6 months of their first vaccine dose, although their antibody titer levels were significantly lower than seen in other patients with cancer.
Investigators from Montefiore Medical Center in New York City also recently reported a 94% seroconversion rate among 200 patients with cancer, including 98% seroconversion in patients with solid tumors. Rates were lower in patients with blood cancers but were still 85% overall, with 70% conversion among patients on anti-CD20 therapies and 73% among stem cell transplant patients.
Dr. Haidar’s group reported a seroconversion rate of 82.4% among patients with solid tumors but only 54.7% among those with blood cancer. Risk factors for poor response included treatment with antimetabolites and anti-CD20 therapies, and, in the solid tumor group, radiation therapy, likely because of its overall toxicity and impact on lymphocyte function.
Israeli investigators reported in May a 90% seroconversion rate after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine among 102 patients with solid tumors on active treatment, which compared favorably to the 100% conversion rate in healthy controls, but they noted that antibody titers were considerably lower in patients with cancer.
The only variable associated with lower titer levels was combined use of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, they noted. There were also three women on dose-dense chemotherapy for breast cancer who did not produce any antibodies.
In a study limited to patients with blood cancers, a Lithuanian team recently reported that among 885 patients, those on Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi), venetoclax (Venclexta), or anti-CD20 therapies mounted almost no antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine.
The Lithuanian group also reported nine breakthrough COVID infections among their fully vaccinated blood cancer patients, including three deaths.
A team from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York reported that more than 15% of 260 patients with multiple myeloma also had no response to the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine; they were on BCMA-targeted therapy or anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapy at the time of vaccination, but a few had undergone CAR-T cell therapy more than 3 months beforehand.
Heated debate about antibody testing
Despite these reports of some patients with cancer having poorer responses, there’s some uncertainty over the benefit of giving a third (booster) shot.
There’s the question about the clinical relevance of antibody titer levels, and very little work has been done to date on cellular T-cell immunity from the vaccines.
“Right now, we are using titer levels like they actually mean something when they might not,” said Ravi Parikh, MD, a genitourinary and thoracic oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who co-wrote an editorial that accompanies the Israeli report.
That’s one of the reasons why the FDA and others do not currently recommend antibody tests for COVID vaccine decisions outside of a clinical trial, but not everyone agrees with that position.
There’s been “a lot of heated debate in the medical community” over the issue, Dr. Haidar said.
The Icahn team, for instance, said that their results “underscore the need for routine serological monitoring of [multiple myeloma] patients following COVID-19 vaccination” to see if they might still need to mask-up and socially distance.
There is precedence, too, for vaccine boosters in cancer. As Dr. Parikh noted in his editorial, guidelines recommend revaccination after stem cell transplant for meningococcus, tetanus, and varicella, and other infections.
In France, COVID booster shots are already standard care for patients on dialysis and those on anti-CD20 agents, as well as for solid organ transplant recipients, for whom the literature supporting the benefit of COVID boosters is much more evolved than in cancer.
Israel has also authorized vaccine boosters for immunocompromised patients, including those with cancer, according to news reports.
It is also almost certain that the FDA will grant a formal approval for the COVID vaccines, at which point doctors will be free to administer boosters as they see fit.
“People are going to have to think really hard about what to do with them” if guidance hasn’t changed by then, Dr. Haidar said.
As the story unfolds, Dr. Haidar and others said in an interview that the take-home message for oncologists remains largely what it has been – namely to get patients vaccinated but also to consider masks and social distancing afterward for those at risk of a poor response.
Dr. Shah, Dr. Haidar, and Dr. Parikh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Parikh is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with cancer have shown varying responses to COVID-19 vaccination, with good responses in patients with solid tumors (even while on systemic therapy) and poor responses in patients with blood cancers, particularly those on immunosuppressive therapies.
The data are evolving to show factors associated with a poor response but are not strong enough yet to recommend booster shots, say researchers.
The work is defining who will likely need a COVID vaccine booster when they become available. “It’s definitely not all cancer patients,” said Dimpy Shah, MD, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at the Mays Cancer Center, University of Texas, San Antonio.
Public anxiously awaiting boosters
Boosters aren’t recommended in the United States at the moment, in large part because the Emergency Use Authorization under which the vaccines are being administered allows for only two shots of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and one shot of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
Even so, regulators and policymakers are “keenly aware that physicians and patients alike are anxious to get going and start doing boosters,” Dr. Shah said. There’s concern that antibody response might wane over time, perhaps even more quickly in patients with cancer.
Pfizer is already in talks with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to authorize a third dose of its vaccine in the United States. Guidelines could very well change in coming months, said Ghady Haidar, MD, a specialist in infectious diseases and cancer at the University of Pittsburgh.
However, it’s still early in the game, and it’s not clear yet if boosters are necessary in cancer, Dr. Haidar said in an interview.
For one thing, it’s unknown if poor antibody response really means that patients aren’t protected, he explained. The vaccines elicit T-cell responses that could protect patients regardless of antibody levels. It’s also unclear if antibody titer levels are clinically relevant, and there hasn’t been much indication yet that less-than-robust vaccine responses translate to worse COVID outcomes in patients with cancer.
Those and other questions are areas of active investigation by Dr. Shah, Dr. Haidar, and others. Dozens of clinical trials are investigating vaccine response in patients with cancer, including the use of boosters.
Meanwhile, some cancer patients aren’t waiting around for more study results. “I get many, many emails a day” about booster shots, Dr. Haidar said. “We recommend against” them for now but some people bend the rules and get an extra shot anyway. “I get it. People are apprehensive.”
Three COVID deaths despite full vaccination
The vaccine clinical trials had fewer patients with cancer, so researchers are moving fast to backfill the data. Although there is some variation in what’s being reported, an overall picture is slowly emerging.
Dr. Shah and her team reported on responses to the mRNA COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna and found a 94% seroconversion rate in 131 patients with cancer 3-4 weeks after their second dose of vaccine. They also found good responses among patients on cytotoxic chemotherapy within 6 months of their first vaccine dose, although their antibody titer levels were significantly lower than seen in other patients with cancer.
Investigators from Montefiore Medical Center in New York City also recently reported a 94% seroconversion rate among 200 patients with cancer, including 98% seroconversion in patients with solid tumors. Rates were lower in patients with blood cancers but were still 85% overall, with 70% conversion among patients on anti-CD20 therapies and 73% among stem cell transplant patients.
Dr. Haidar’s group reported a seroconversion rate of 82.4% among patients with solid tumors but only 54.7% among those with blood cancer. Risk factors for poor response included treatment with antimetabolites and anti-CD20 therapies, and, in the solid tumor group, radiation therapy, likely because of its overall toxicity and impact on lymphocyte function.
Israeli investigators reported in May a 90% seroconversion rate after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine among 102 patients with solid tumors on active treatment, which compared favorably to the 100% conversion rate in healthy controls, but they noted that antibody titers were considerably lower in patients with cancer.
The only variable associated with lower titer levels was combined use of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, they noted. There were also three women on dose-dense chemotherapy for breast cancer who did not produce any antibodies.
In a study limited to patients with blood cancers, a Lithuanian team recently reported that among 885 patients, those on Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi), venetoclax (Venclexta), or anti-CD20 therapies mounted almost no antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine.
The Lithuanian group also reported nine breakthrough COVID infections among their fully vaccinated blood cancer patients, including three deaths.
A team from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York reported that more than 15% of 260 patients with multiple myeloma also had no response to the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine; they were on BCMA-targeted therapy or anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapy at the time of vaccination, but a few had undergone CAR-T cell therapy more than 3 months beforehand.
Heated debate about antibody testing
Despite these reports of some patients with cancer having poorer responses, there’s some uncertainty over the benefit of giving a third (booster) shot.
There’s the question about the clinical relevance of antibody titer levels, and very little work has been done to date on cellular T-cell immunity from the vaccines.
“Right now, we are using titer levels like they actually mean something when they might not,” said Ravi Parikh, MD, a genitourinary and thoracic oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who co-wrote an editorial that accompanies the Israeli report.
That’s one of the reasons why the FDA and others do not currently recommend antibody tests for COVID vaccine decisions outside of a clinical trial, but not everyone agrees with that position.
There’s been “a lot of heated debate in the medical community” over the issue, Dr. Haidar said.
The Icahn team, for instance, said that their results “underscore the need for routine serological monitoring of [multiple myeloma] patients following COVID-19 vaccination” to see if they might still need to mask-up and socially distance.
There is precedence, too, for vaccine boosters in cancer. As Dr. Parikh noted in his editorial, guidelines recommend revaccination after stem cell transplant for meningococcus, tetanus, and varicella, and other infections.
In France, COVID booster shots are already standard care for patients on dialysis and those on anti-CD20 agents, as well as for solid organ transplant recipients, for whom the literature supporting the benefit of COVID boosters is much more evolved than in cancer.
Israel has also authorized vaccine boosters for immunocompromised patients, including those with cancer, according to news reports.
It is also almost certain that the FDA will grant a formal approval for the COVID vaccines, at which point doctors will be free to administer boosters as they see fit.
“People are going to have to think really hard about what to do with them” if guidance hasn’t changed by then, Dr. Haidar said.
As the story unfolds, Dr. Haidar and others said in an interview that the take-home message for oncologists remains largely what it has been – namely to get patients vaccinated but also to consider masks and social distancing afterward for those at risk of a poor response.
Dr. Shah, Dr. Haidar, and Dr. Parikh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Parikh is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with cancer have shown varying responses to COVID-19 vaccination, with good responses in patients with solid tumors (even while on systemic therapy) and poor responses in patients with blood cancers, particularly those on immunosuppressive therapies.
The data are evolving to show factors associated with a poor response but are not strong enough yet to recommend booster shots, say researchers.
The work is defining who will likely need a COVID vaccine booster when they become available. “It’s definitely not all cancer patients,” said Dimpy Shah, MD, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at the Mays Cancer Center, University of Texas, San Antonio.
Public anxiously awaiting boosters
Boosters aren’t recommended in the United States at the moment, in large part because the Emergency Use Authorization under which the vaccines are being administered allows for only two shots of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and one shot of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
Even so, regulators and policymakers are “keenly aware that physicians and patients alike are anxious to get going and start doing boosters,” Dr. Shah said. There’s concern that antibody response might wane over time, perhaps even more quickly in patients with cancer.
Pfizer is already in talks with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to authorize a third dose of its vaccine in the United States. Guidelines could very well change in coming months, said Ghady Haidar, MD, a specialist in infectious diseases and cancer at the University of Pittsburgh.
However, it’s still early in the game, and it’s not clear yet if boosters are necessary in cancer, Dr. Haidar said in an interview.
For one thing, it’s unknown if poor antibody response really means that patients aren’t protected, he explained. The vaccines elicit T-cell responses that could protect patients regardless of antibody levels. It’s also unclear if antibody titer levels are clinically relevant, and there hasn’t been much indication yet that less-than-robust vaccine responses translate to worse COVID outcomes in patients with cancer.
Those and other questions are areas of active investigation by Dr. Shah, Dr. Haidar, and others. Dozens of clinical trials are investigating vaccine response in patients with cancer, including the use of boosters.
Meanwhile, some cancer patients aren’t waiting around for more study results. “I get many, many emails a day” about booster shots, Dr. Haidar said. “We recommend against” them for now but some people bend the rules and get an extra shot anyway. “I get it. People are apprehensive.”
Three COVID deaths despite full vaccination
The vaccine clinical trials had fewer patients with cancer, so researchers are moving fast to backfill the data. Although there is some variation in what’s being reported, an overall picture is slowly emerging.
Dr. Shah and her team reported on responses to the mRNA COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna and found a 94% seroconversion rate in 131 patients with cancer 3-4 weeks after their second dose of vaccine. They also found good responses among patients on cytotoxic chemotherapy within 6 months of their first vaccine dose, although their antibody titer levels were significantly lower than seen in other patients with cancer.
Investigators from Montefiore Medical Center in New York City also recently reported a 94% seroconversion rate among 200 patients with cancer, including 98% seroconversion in patients with solid tumors. Rates were lower in patients with blood cancers but were still 85% overall, with 70% conversion among patients on anti-CD20 therapies and 73% among stem cell transplant patients.
Dr. Haidar’s group reported a seroconversion rate of 82.4% among patients with solid tumors but only 54.7% among those with blood cancer. Risk factors for poor response included treatment with antimetabolites and anti-CD20 therapies, and, in the solid tumor group, radiation therapy, likely because of its overall toxicity and impact on lymphocyte function.
Israeli investigators reported in May a 90% seroconversion rate after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine among 102 patients with solid tumors on active treatment, which compared favorably to the 100% conversion rate in healthy controls, but they noted that antibody titers were considerably lower in patients with cancer.
The only variable associated with lower titer levels was combined use of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, they noted. There were also three women on dose-dense chemotherapy for breast cancer who did not produce any antibodies.
In a study limited to patients with blood cancers, a Lithuanian team recently reported that among 885 patients, those on Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi), venetoclax (Venclexta), or anti-CD20 therapies mounted almost no antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine.
The Lithuanian group also reported nine breakthrough COVID infections among their fully vaccinated blood cancer patients, including three deaths.
A team from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York reported that more than 15% of 260 patients with multiple myeloma also had no response to the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine; they were on BCMA-targeted therapy or anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapy at the time of vaccination, but a few had undergone CAR-T cell therapy more than 3 months beforehand.
Heated debate about antibody testing
Despite these reports of some patients with cancer having poorer responses, there’s some uncertainty over the benefit of giving a third (booster) shot.
There’s the question about the clinical relevance of antibody titer levels, and very little work has been done to date on cellular T-cell immunity from the vaccines.
“Right now, we are using titer levels like they actually mean something when they might not,” said Ravi Parikh, MD, a genitourinary and thoracic oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who co-wrote an editorial that accompanies the Israeli report.
That’s one of the reasons why the FDA and others do not currently recommend antibody tests for COVID vaccine decisions outside of a clinical trial, but not everyone agrees with that position.
There’s been “a lot of heated debate in the medical community” over the issue, Dr. Haidar said.
The Icahn team, for instance, said that their results “underscore the need for routine serological monitoring of [multiple myeloma] patients following COVID-19 vaccination” to see if they might still need to mask-up and socially distance.
There is precedence, too, for vaccine boosters in cancer. As Dr. Parikh noted in his editorial, guidelines recommend revaccination after stem cell transplant for meningococcus, tetanus, and varicella, and other infections.
In France, COVID booster shots are already standard care for patients on dialysis and those on anti-CD20 agents, as well as for solid organ transplant recipients, for whom the literature supporting the benefit of COVID boosters is much more evolved than in cancer.
Israel has also authorized vaccine boosters for immunocompromised patients, including those with cancer, according to news reports.
It is also almost certain that the FDA will grant a formal approval for the COVID vaccines, at which point doctors will be free to administer boosters as they see fit.
“People are going to have to think really hard about what to do with them” if guidance hasn’t changed by then, Dr. Haidar said.
As the story unfolds, Dr. Haidar and others said in an interview that the take-home message for oncologists remains largely what it has been – namely to get patients vaccinated but also to consider masks and social distancing afterward for those at risk of a poor response.
Dr. Shah, Dr. Haidar, and Dr. Parikh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Parikh is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Most U.S. adults age 50+ report good health: Survey
a nonprofit hospice/advanced illness care organization based in Virginia.
Among the respondents, 41% said their health was very good or excellent.
However, the ratings differed largely by race, employment status, and income.
Employment status was also associated with a significant difference in the way people viewed their health at the top tier and bottom tier.
The middle tier (“good” health) was reported similarly (from 33% to 37%) whether a person was employed, retired, or not employed. However, employed respondents were much more likely to report they had “excellent” or “very good” health (51% vs. 44% for retirees and 21% for the not employed).
Conversely, those who were not employed were far more likely to report “fair” or “poor” health (45%) than those who were employed (13%) or retired (20%).
Similarly, respondents with incomes of less than $50,000 were three times more likely to report their health as “fair” or “poor” than were those with incomes of more than $100,000 (36% vs. 12%).
WebMD/CCH surveyed 3,464 U.S. residents ages 50 and older between Aug. 13 and Nov. 9, 2020. WebMD.com readers were randomly invited to take a 10-minute online survey.
Aging at home a priority
The survey also highlighted a strong preference for aging in place, says Steve Cone, chief of communications and philanthropy at CCH.
“More now than ever before, thanks to the COVID experience, baby boomers and their children really believe that’s the holy grail,” he says.
Mr. Cone notes that the quick spread of COVID-19 through some nursing homes early in the pandemic likely has strengthened people’s resolve to live out their lives in their own homes.
The survey indicated that 85% of people aged 50+ who are living in their own home, a family member’s home, or a loved one’s home responded that it is “very important” or “important” to stay in their home as they age.
When asked what services they would need to continue their living situation, the most common responses were housekeeping, home repair services, and transportation (listed as needs by 35% to 45% of respondents). Regarding changes they would have to make to feel safe in their home as they age, installing grab bars and/or safety rails in the bath/shower was the most popular answer (50%).
Use of telemedicine
Respondents were also asked about their acceptance of telemedicine, and 62% said they would be likely or very likely to engage in virtual visits with a doctor it in the future.
However, the likelihood varied by income level. Specifically, respondents with incomes over $100,000 were significantly more likely to say they would use telemedicine in the future than were those with incomes below $50,000 (74% vs. 60%). They were also more likely to already have used telemedicine.
Although respondents generally embraced telemedicine, they are less confident about some types of monitoring, according to Mr. Cone.
Emergency response (64%) was the leading type of remote monitoring respondents ages 50 and older would allow. Only a minority of respondents would allow the other types of monitoring asked about in the survey.
Close to one-quarter of respondents would not allow any type of monitoring.
Fewer than one-third would allow tracking of medication compliance, refrigerator use, sleep habits, or bathroom use.
People see monitoring of some movements as “Orwellian,” Mr. Cone says.
Knowledge of hospice
The survey findings support the need for more widespread use of hospice so people can stay in their homes as they age, Mr. Cone says.
When illness gets severe, “There’s no reason you have to get rushed to the emergency room or wind up in a hospital,” Mr. Cone says.
He notes that hospice and palliative care can come to patients wherever they reside – in their home, an assisted living center, a nursing home, or even a hospital room.
“That doesn’t mean the physician isn’t involved,” he says. “But working as a team, we can keep them in their homes and their lifestyle intact.”
Patients whose doctors attest that they are likely to live a maximum 6 months are eligible for hospice. But most families wait too long to long to start hospice or palliative care for a patient, Mr. Cone says, and may not be aware of what these services typically cover, including meal preparation and pet care.
In the survey, nearly one-third of respondents said they did not know that palliative care is something that “can be given at any stage of a serious illness” or “provides non-medical services (e.g., patient/family communication, help with insurance issues, scheduling appointments, arranging transportation).”
He notes palliative care and hospice are covered by Medicare and Medicaid and also by most private insurance plans or by individual companies providing the service.
However, health care providers may have to overcome a general reluctance to discuss hospice when sharing options for those severely ill.
The survey showed that while 51% of those 50 and older are at least “slightly interested” in learning more about hospice, a nearly equal number say they are “not at all interested” (49%).
Most using hospice are White
More than 90% of those surveyed reported that aspects of hospice care, including “comfort and relief from pain at the end of patients’ lives,” providing a dedicated care team, and an alternative to other care settings, are “very important” or “important.”
However, national hospice use rates are extremely low for minorities and the LGBTQ community, according to Mr. Cone. Among Medicare hospice recipients, 82% were white, 8.2% Black, 6.7% Hispanic, and 1.8% Asian or Pacific Islander, according to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.
Those numbers signal a need for outreach to those communities with information on what services are available and how to access them, he says.
Health costs top concern
The survey also asked about level of concern regarding matters including family, health, financials, and end-of-life directives and found adults aged 50 and older expressed the greatest amount of concern for health care costs that are not covered by insurance.
More than half (56%) said they were concerned or very concerned about those costs, which was higher than the percentage concerned about losing a spouse (49%).
Respondents were less concerned (“slightly concerned” or “not at all concerned”) about their children living far away, planning end-of life-directives, and falling or having reduced mobility.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
a nonprofit hospice/advanced illness care organization based in Virginia.
Among the respondents, 41% said their health was very good or excellent.
However, the ratings differed largely by race, employment status, and income.
Employment status was also associated with a significant difference in the way people viewed their health at the top tier and bottom tier.
The middle tier (“good” health) was reported similarly (from 33% to 37%) whether a person was employed, retired, or not employed. However, employed respondents were much more likely to report they had “excellent” or “very good” health (51% vs. 44% for retirees and 21% for the not employed).
Conversely, those who were not employed were far more likely to report “fair” or “poor” health (45%) than those who were employed (13%) or retired (20%).
Similarly, respondents with incomes of less than $50,000 were three times more likely to report their health as “fair” or “poor” than were those with incomes of more than $100,000 (36% vs. 12%).
WebMD/CCH surveyed 3,464 U.S. residents ages 50 and older between Aug. 13 and Nov. 9, 2020. WebMD.com readers were randomly invited to take a 10-minute online survey.
Aging at home a priority
The survey also highlighted a strong preference for aging in place, says Steve Cone, chief of communications and philanthropy at CCH.
“More now than ever before, thanks to the COVID experience, baby boomers and their children really believe that’s the holy grail,” he says.
Mr. Cone notes that the quick spread of COVID-19 through some nursing homes early in the pandemic likely has strengthened people’s resolve to live out their lives in their own homes.
The survey indicated that 85% of people aged 50+ who are living in their own home, a family member’s home, or a loved one’s home responded that it is “very important” or “important” to stay in their home as they age.
When asked what services they would need to continue their living situation, the most common responses were housekeeping, home repair services, and transportation (listed as needs by 35% to 45% of respondents). Regarding changes they would have to make to feel safe in their home as they age, installing grab bars and/or safety rails in the bath/shower was the most popular answer (50%).
Use of telemedicine
Respondents were also asked about their acceptance of telemedicine, and 62% said they would be likely or very likely to engage in virtual visits with a doctor it in the future.
However, the likelihood varied by income level. Specifically, respondents with incomes over $100,000 were significantly more likely to say they would use telemedicine in the future than were those with incomes below $50,000 (74% vs. 60%). They were also more likely to already have used telemedicine.
Although respondents generally embraced telemedicine, they are less confident about some types of monitoring, according to Mr. Cone.
Emergency response (64%) was the leading type of remote monitoring respondents ages 50 and older would allow. Only a minority of respondents would allow the other types of monitoring asked about in the survey.
Close to one-quarter of respondents would not allow any type of monitoring.
Fewer than one-third would allow tracking of medication compliance, refrigerator use, sleep habits, or bathroom use.
People see monitoring of some movements as “Orwellian,” Mr. Cone says.
Knowledge of hospice
The survey findings support the need for more widespread use of hospice so people can stay in their homes as they age, Mr. Cone says.
When illness gets severe, “There’s no reason you have to get rushed to the emergency room or wind up in a hospital,” Mr. Cone says.
He notes that hospice and palliative care can come to patients wherever they reside – in their home, an assisted living center, a nursing home, or even a hospital room.
“That doesn’t mean the physician isn’t involved,” he says. “But working as a team, we can keep them in their homes and their lifestyle intact.”
Patients whose doctors attest that they are likely to live a maximum 6 months are eligible for hospice. But most families wait too long to long to start hospice or palliative care for a patient, Mr. Cone says, and may not be aware of what these services typically cover, including meal preparation and pet care.
In the survey, nearly one-third of respondents said they did not know that palliative care is something that “can be given at any stage of a serious illness” or “provides non-medical services (e.g., patient/family communication, help with insurance issues, scheduling appointments, arranging transportation).”
He notes palliative care and hospice are covered by Medicare and Medicaid and also by most private insurance plans or by individual companies providing the service.
However, health care providers may have to overcome a general reluctance to discuss hospice when sharing options for those severely ill.
The survey showed that while 51% of those 50 and older are at least “slightly interested” in learning more about hospice, a nearly equal number say they are “not at all interested” (49%).
Most using hospice are White
More than 90% of those surveyed reported that aspects of hospice care, including “comfort and relief from pain at the end of patients’ lives,” providing a dedicated care team, and an alternative to other care settings, are “very important” or “important.”
However, national hospice use rates are extremely low for minorities and the LGBTQ community, according to Mr. Cone. Among Medicare hospice recipients, 82% were white, 8.2% Black, 6.7% Hispanic, and 1.8% Asian or Pacific Islander, according to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.
Those numbers signal a need for outreach to those communities with information on what services are available and how to access them, he says.
Health costs top concern
The survey also asked about level of concern regarding matters including family, health, financials, and end-of-life directives and found adults aged 50 and older expressed the greatest amount of concern for health care costs that are not covered by insurance.
More than half (56%) said they were concerned or very concerned about those costs, which was higher than the percentage concerned about losing a spouse (49%).
Respondents were less concerned (“slightly concerned” or “not at all concerned”) about their children living far away, planning end-of life-directives, and falling or having reduced mobility.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
a nonprofit hospice/advanced illness care organization based in Virginia.
Among the respondents, 41% said their health was very good or excellent.
However, the ratings differed largely by race, employment status, and income.
Employment status was also associated with a significant difference in the way people viewed their health at the top tier and bottom tier.
The middle tier (“good” health) was reported similarly (from 33% to 37%) whether a person was employed, retired, or not employed. However, employed respondents were much more likely to report they had “excellent” or “very good” health (51% vs. 44% for retirees and 21% for the not employed).
Conversely, those who were not employed were far more likely to report “fair” or “poor” health (45%) than those who were employed (13%) or retired (20%).
Similarly, respondents with incomes of less than $50,000 were three times more likely to report their health as “fair” or “poor” than were those with incomes of more than $100,000 (36% vs. 12%).
WebMD/CCH surveyed 3,464 U.S. residents ages 50 and older between Aug. 13 and Nov. 9, 2020. WebMD.com readers were randomly invited to take a 10-minute online survey.
Aging at home a priority
The survey also highlighted a strong preference for aging in place, says Steve Cone, chief of communications and philanthropy at CCH.
“More now than ever before, thanks to the COVID experience, baby boomers and their children really believe that’s the holy grail,” he says.
Mr. Cone notes that the quick spread of COVID-19 through some nursing homes early in the pandemic likely has strengthened people’s resolve to live out their lives in their own homes.
The survey indicated that 85% of people aged 50+ who are living in their own home, a family member’s home, or a loved one’s home responded that it is “very important” or “important” to stay in their home as they age.
When asked what services they would need to continue their living situation, the most common responses were housekeeping, home repair services, and transportation (listed as needs by 35% to 45% of respondents). Regarding changes they would have to make to feel safe in their home as they age, installing grab bars and/or safety rails in the bath/shower was the most popular answer (50%).
Use of telemedicine
Respondents were also asked about their acceptance of telemedicine, and 62% said they would be likely or very likely to engage in virtual visits with a doctor it in the future.
However, the likelihood varied by income level. Specifically, respondents with incomes over $100,000 were significantly more likely to say they would use telemedicine in the future than were those with incomes below $50,000 (74% vs. 60%). They were also more likely to already have used telemedicine.
Although respondents generally embraced telemedicine, they are less confident about some types of monitoring, according to Mr. Cone.
Emergency response (64%) was the leading type of remote monitoring respondents ages 50 and older would allow. Only a minority of respondents would allow the other types of monitoring asked about in the survey.
Close to one-quarter of respondents would not allow any type of monitoring.
Fewer than one-third would allow tracking of medication compliance, refrigerator use, sleep habits, or bathroom use.
People see monitoring of some movements as “Orwellian,” Mr. Cone says.
Knowledge of hospice
The survey findings support the need for more widespread use of hospice so people can stay in their homes as they age, Mr. Cone says.
When illness gets severe, “There’s no reason you have to get rushed to the emergency room or wind up in a hospital,” Mr. Cone says.
He notes that hospice and palliative care can come to patients wherever they reside – in their home, an assisted living center, a nursing home, or even a hospital room.
“That doesn’t mean the physician isn’t involved,” he says. “But working as a team, we can keep them in their homes and their lifestyle intact.”
Patients whose doctors attest that they are likely to live a maximum 6 months are eligible for hospice. But most families wait too long to long to start hospice or palliative care for a patient, Mr. Cone says, and may not be aware of what these services typically cover, including meal preparation and pet care.
In the survey, nearly one-third of respondents said they did not know that palliative care is something that “can be given at any stage of a serious illness” or “provides non-medical services (e.g., patient/family communication, help with insurance issues, scheduling appointments, arranging transportation).”
He notes palliative care and hospice are covered by Medicare and Medicaid and also by most private insurance plans or by individual companies providing the service.
However, health care providers may have to overcome a general reluctance to discuss hospice when sharing options for those severely ill.
The survey showed that while 51% of those 50 and older are at least “slightly interested” in learning more about hospice, a nearly equal number say they are “not at all interested” (49%).
Most using hospice are White
More than 90% of those surveyed reported that aspects of hospice care, including “comfort and relief from pain at the end of patients’ lives,” providing a dedicated care team, and an alternative to other care settings, are “very important” or “important.”
However, national hospice use rates are extremely low for minorities and the LGBTQ community, according to Mr. Cone. Among Medicare hospice recipients, 82% were white, 8.2% Black, 6.7% Hispanic, and 1.8% Asian or Pacific Islander, according to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.
Those numbers signal a need for outreach to those communities with information on what services are available and how to access them, he says.
Health costs top concern
The survey also asked about level of concern regarding matters including family, health, financials, and end-of-life directives and found adults aged 50 and older expressed the greatest amount of concern for health care costs that are not covered by insurance.
More than half (56%) said they were concerned or very concerned about those costs, which was higher than the percentage concerned about losing a spouse (49%).
Respondents were less concerned (“slightly concerned” or “not at all concerned”) about their children living far away, planning end-of life-directives, and falling or having reduced mobility.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Are oncologists liable for pandemic-related treatment delays?
Albuquerque oncologist Barbara McAneny, MD, has a patient in his 30s who experienced rectal bleeding for 6 months in 2020 but didn’t see a physician because he was afraid of catching COVID-19. He hoped it was just hemorrhoids.
When he finally came in to see her recently, Dr. McAneny diagnosed a large colon cancer. She fears the delay could prove fatal. “We’ll do our best to cure him, but I don’t know if he’ll be treatable,” she said. “Six months absolutely can make a difference.”
She and other oncologists around the country are seeing many patients in the past few months with advanced breast, colon, lung, and other cancers who were not diagnosed and treated during the COVID-19 pandemic because the patients didn’t want to come in, or because medical facilities weren’t taking nonemergency or non-COVID patients.
Given that failure to diagnose cancer is among the most common medical malpractice allegations, should oncologists be worried that they are at legal risk?
Pandemic provides ‘safe harbor’
In a March survey done by medical malpractice insurer The Doctors Company, one-third of physicians said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned that malpractice claims related to care during the pandemic will rise.
But in most of these cases, physicians and hospitals have little to worry about in terms of medical malpractice liability, according to veteran plaintiff and defense attorneys and the head of a large medical liability insurer.
“You had people with diseases like cancer not getting care because health care systems were overwhelmed,” said Sean Domnick, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Boca Raton, Fla. “Will those lead to successful malpractice lawsuits? Most likely not.”
“The risks will be low because it’s hard to pin it on the doctor if the patient didn’t want to come in or facilities weren’t scheduling appointments because of the public health emergency,” said Richard Roberts, MD, JD, a professor of family medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who is also a malpractice defense attorney.
In addition, liability protections enacted in more than 30 states because of the COVID-19 pandemic will help shield clinicians from lawsuits. Those laws generally require allegations of gross negligence or reckless conduct far beyond ordinary negligence, which are hard to prove. But the immunity provisions remain largely untested in the courts, and it’s unclear how they will affect cases involving care for conditions other than COVID-19.
Another helpful factor is the widespread public appreciation of the valiant work by health care professionals throughout the pandemic, though that halo effect could fade over the next several years as malpractice claims from the pandemic period are filed and tried.
“In many circumstances, the pandemic will prove to be a safe harbor for providers,” said Steven Wigrizer, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Philadelphia. “Jurors will be reluctant to impose liability on providers who were doing their best in a global pandemic the world hadn’t seen in 100 years.”
Risky situations
These predictions from liability experts should reassure physicians who are anxious over reports that many cancer diagnoses were missed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Still, there are situations where physicians and hospitals could be vulnerable to malpractice claims despite the pandemic conditions. The highest-risk cases are those where patients recognized a potential cancer symptom like a breast lump or rectal bleeding, and tried to visit a doctor’s office or hospital, but were told they couldn’t be seen.
“Those kinds of cases lend themselves to delayed diagnosis claims,” said Richard Anderson, MD, an oncologist who is chairman and CEO of The Doctors Company. “My guess is we will see claims,” though he expects a reduced number arising from 2020 care scenarios, compared with previous years.
So far, his company has seen 20% fewer claims in 2020, which he said isn’t surprising given that the volume of physician and hospital visits plummeted.
Another risky situation is where physicians – particularly primary care physicians but also specialists like gynecologists and urologists – did not inform patients about concerning test results and order a follow-up test or visit. That is dangerous even if the physician did try to schedule a visit but the patient canceled the appointment.
“The jury will ask, ‘What did you do to get the patient back?’ ” said Sean Byrne, JD, a malpractice defense attorney in Richmond, Va. “The provider will say: ‘I’m sure we called.’ But it’s a difficult defense to say the patient didn’t return the call. I need written proof.”
Mr. Domnick said failures to follow up on suspicious test results could produce viable malpractice claims, pandemic or not. “The question becomes to what extent doctors will try to hide behind COVID to explain otherwise run-of-the-mill negligence,” he said. “We’ll have to see how that plays out.”
There are also worries about missed cancer diagnoses during telemedicine visits. “On telemedicine, I can’t feel a lymph node, I can’t palpate a breast mass, and I can’t see if someone’s liver is enlarged,” Dr. McAneny fretted. “I think you’ll get suits because you’ll miss stuff.”
One other area of exposure cited by the experts: Radiologists and pathologists could be sued for missing tumors in reading imaging tests. “The COVID-19 demand on resources has been immense,” Mr. Byrne said. “If that production pressure resulted in any quality loss in testing services, we could see claims.”
Patient protocols provide protection
There’s no question that cancer screenings dropped sharply during the pandemic. In June 2020, the National Cancer Institute estimated there was a 75% decrease in mammograms and colonoscopies during the first few months of the pandemic. It projected that delays in screenings, diagnoses, and treatment likely would result in 10,000 more breast and colorectal cancer deaths than otherwise expected over the next decade.
Delays of even 1 month in treatment for seven common forms of cancer can increase mortality risk by 6%-13%, according to a BMJ study.
While many medical facilities stopped doing preventive screening tests during the height of the pandemic last year, health care professionals still found ways to bring in patients with diagnosed cancers or who were at heightened cancer risk for tests and treatment.
Most facilities convened multidisciplinary tumor boards to decide which patients could wait for treatment, which patients could be maintained on drug therapy, and which ones needed immediate surgery, said Carla Fisher, MD, director of breast surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis. For breast cancer, they used guidelines from her professional group, the American Society of Breast Surgeons.
Following such protocols for prioritizing patients for treatment during the pandemic should help protect against liability, experts said.
Even if it can be shown that a clinician’s negligence led to delayed diagnosis or treatment of a patient’s cancer, plaintiff attorneys will be wary about filing such claims. That is because it is difficult in most cases to prove that the delay significantly worsened the course of the patient’s disease or the odds of survival. Showing harm may be more possible with certain cancers known to be particularly aggressive.
“The plaintiff attorney will have to get an expert to say that the 3-month delay in getting the patient a mammogram caused her great harm,” said Dr. Roberts. “But it’s hard to calculate that scientifically, and it’s really hard to lay that all on the doctor or health system, because they were supposed to lock down during the pandemic.”
Playing catch-up
With patients now feeling more comfortable about coming in for physician visits, Mr. Byrne urges clinicians to make a special effort to mitigate potential liability arising from the past year. Physicians should carefully review patients’ charts and make sure to catch them up on preventive screenings. Some health systems, like Kaiser Permanente, have been doing proactive patient outreach for cancer screening throughout the pandemic.
“Providers may need to be extra diligent, and consider expanding the exam into a wellness visit and remind patients about cancer surveillance,” he said.
Overall, however, the expert consensus is that physicians should focus on providing the best quality care going forward, and not worry excessively about the care they wish they could have delivered over the past year during the extraordinary pandemic conditions.
“Liability risks will be decreased, because state laws have changed and doctors will be cut some slack, not just by judges and juries but by patients themselves,” Dr. Roberts said. “As you are running down the hall to take care of the next person, don’t be looking over your shoulder or you’ll run into the wall.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Albuquerque oncologist Barbara McAneny, MD, has a patient in his 30s who experienced rectal bleeding for 6 months in 2020 but didn’t see a physician because he was afraid of catching COVID-19. He hoped it was just hemorrhoids.
When he finally came in to see her recently, Dr. McAneny diagnosed a large colon cancer. She fears the delay could prove fatal. “We’ll do our best to cure him, but I don’t know if he’ll be treatable,” she said. “Six months absolutely can make a difference.”
She and other oncologists around the country are seeing many patients in the past few months with advanced breast, colon, lung, and other cancers who were not diagnosed and treated during the COVID-19 pandemic because the patients didn’t want to come in, or because medical facilities weren’t taking nonemergency or non-COVID patients.
Given that failure to diagnose cancer is among the most common medical malpractice allegations, should oncologists be worried that they are at legal risk?
Pandemic provides ‘safe harbor’
In a March survey done by medical malpractice insurer The Doctors Company, one-third of physicians said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned that malpractice claims related to care during the pandemic will rise.
But in most of these cases, physicians and hospitals have little to worry about in terms of medical malpractice liability, according to veteran plaintiff and defense attorneys and the head of a large medical liability insurer.
“You had people with diseases like cancer not getting care because health care systems were overwhelmed,” said Sean Domnick, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Boca Raton, Fla. “Will those lead to successful malpractice lawsuits? Most likely not.”
“The risks will be low because it’s hard to pin it on the doctor if the patient didn’t want to come in or facilities weren’t scheduling appointments because of the public health emergency,” said Richard Roberts, MD, JD, a professor of family medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who is also a malpractice defense attorney.
In addition, liability protections enacted in more than 30 states because of the COVID-19 pandemic will help shield clinicians from lawsuits. Those laws generally require allegations of gross negligence or reckless conduct far beyond ordinary negligence, which are hard to prove. But the immunity provisions remain largely untested in the courts, and it’s unclear how they will affect cases involving care for conditions other than COVID-19.
Another helpful factor is the widespread public appreciation of the valiant work by health care professionals throughout the pandemic, though that halo effect could fade over the next several years as malpractice claims from the pandemic period are filed and tried.
“In many circumstances, the pandemic will prove to be a safe harbor for providers,” said Steven Wigrizer, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Philadelphia. “Jurors will be reluctant to impose liability on providers who were doing their best in a global pandemic the world hadn’t seen in 100 years.”
Risky situations
These predictions from liability experts should reassure physicians who are anxious over reports that many cancer diagnoses were missed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Still, there are situations where physicians and hospitals could be vulnerable to malpractice claims despite the pandemic conditions. The highest-risk cases are those where patients recognized a potential cancer symptom like a breast lump or rectal bleeding, and tried to visit a doctor’s office or hospital, but were told they couldn’t be seen.
“Those kinds of cases lend themselves to delayed diagnosis claims,” said Richard Anderson, MD, an oncologist who is chairman and CEO of The Doctors Company. “My guess is we will see claims,” though he expects a reduced number arising from 2020 care scenarios, compared with previous years.
So far, his company has seen 20% fewer claims in 2020, which he said isn’t surprising given that the volume of physician and hospital visits plummeted.
Another risky situation is where physicians – particularly primary care physicians but also specialists like gynecologists and urologists – did not inform patients about concerning test results and order a follow-up test or visit. That is dangerous even if the physician did try to schedule a visit but the patient canceled the appointment.
“The jury will ask, ‘What did you do to get the patient back?’ ” said Sean Byrne, JD, a malpractice defense attorney in Richmond, Va. “The provider will say: ‘I’m sure we called.’ But it’s a difficult defense to say the patient didn’t return the call. I need written proof.”
Mr. Domnick said failures to follow up on suspicious test results could produce viable malpractice claims, pandemic or not. “The question becomes to what extent doctors will try to hide behind COVID to explain otherwise run-of-the-mill negligence,” he said. “We’ll have to see how that plays out.”
There are also worries about missed cancer diagnoses during telemedicine visits. “On telemedicine, I can’t feel a lymph node, I can’t palpate a breast mass, and I can’t see if someone’s liver is enlarged,” Dr. McAneny fretted. “I think you’ll get suits because you’ll miss stuff.”
One other area of exposure cited by the experts: Radiologists and pathologists could be sued for missing tumors in reading imaging tests. “The COVID-19 demand on resources has been immense,” Mr. Byrne said. “If that production pressure resulted in any quality loss in testing services, we could see claims.”
Patient protocols provide protection
There’s no question that cancer screenings dropped sharply during the pandemic. In June 2020, the National Cancer Institute estimated there was a 75% decrease in mammograms and colonoscopies during the first few months of the pandemic. It projected that delays in screenings, diagnoses, and treatment likely would result in 10,000 more breast and colorectal cancer deaths than otherwise expected over the next decade.
Delays of even 1 month in treatment for seven common forms of cancer can increase mortality risk by 6%-13%, according to a BMJ study.
While many medical facilities stopped doing preventive screening tests during the height of the pandemic last year, health care professionals still found ways to bring in patients with diagnosed cancers or who were at heightened cancer risk for tests and treatment.
Most facilities convened multidisciplinary tumor boards to decide which patients could wait for treatment, which patients could be maintained on drug therapy, and which ones needed immediate surgery, said Carla Fisher, MD, director of breast surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis. For breast cancer, they used guidelines from her professional group, the American Society of Breast Surgeons.
Following such protocols for prioritizing patients for treatment during the pandemic should help protect against liability, experts said.
Even if it can be shown that a clinician’s negligence led to delayed diagnosis or treatment of a patient’s cancer, plaintiff attorneys will be wary about filing such claims. That is because it is difficult in most cases to prove that the delay significantly worsened the course of the patient’s disease or the odds of survival. Showing harm may be more possible with certain cancers known to be particularly aggressive.
“The plaintiff attorney will have to get an expert to say that the 3-month delay in getting the patient a mammogram caused her great harm,” said Dr. Roberts. “But it’s hard to calculate that scientifically, and it’s really hard to lay that all on the doctor or health system, because they were supposed to lock down during the pandemic.”
Playing catch-up
With patients now feeling more comfortable about coming in for physician visits, Mr. Byrne urges clinicians to make a special effort to mitigate potential liability arising from the past year. Physicians should carefully review patients’ charts and make sure to catch them up on preventive screenings. Some health systems, like Kaiser Permanente, have been doing proactive patient outreach for cancer screening throughout the pandemic.
“Providers may need to be extra diligent, and consider expanding the exam into a wellness visit and remind patients about cancer surveillance,” he said.
Overall, however, the expert consensus is that physicians should focus on providing the best quality care going forward, and not worry excessively about the care they wish they could have delivered over the past year during the extraordinary pandemic conditions.
“Liability risks will be decreased, because state laws have changed and doctors will be cut some slack, not just by judges and juries but by patients themselves,” Dr. Roberts said. “As you are running down the hall to take care of the next person, don’t be looking over your shoulder or you’ll run into the wall.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Albuquerque oncologist Barbara McAneny, MD, has a patient in his 30s who experienced rectal bleeding for 6 months in 2020 but didn’t see a physician because he was afraid of catching COVID-19. He hoped it was just hemorrhoids.
When he finally came in to see her recently, Dr. McAneny diagnosed a large colon cancer. She fears the delay could prove fatal. “We’ll do our best to cure him, but I don’t know if he’ll be treatable,” she said. “Six months absolutely can make a difference.”
She and other oncologists around the country are seeing many patients in the past few months with advanced breast, colon, lung, and other cancers who were not diagnosed and treated during the COVID-19 pandemic because the patients didn’t want to come in, or because medical facilities weren’t taking nonemergency or non-COVID patients.
Given that failure to diagnose cancer is among the most common medical malpractice allegations, should oncologists be worried that they are at legal risk?
Pandemic provides ‘safe harbor’
In a March survey done by medical malpractice insurer The Doctors Company, one-third of physicians said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned that malpractice claims related to care during the pandemic will rise.
But in most of these cases, physicians and hospitals have little to worry about in terms of medical malpractice liability, according to veteran plaintiff and defense attorneys and the head of a large medical liability insurer.
“You had people with diseases like cancer not getting care because health care systems were overwhelmed,” said Sean Domnick, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Boca Raton, Fla. “Will those lead to successful malpractice lawsuits? Most likely not.”
“The risks will be low because it’s hard to pin it on the doctor if the patient didn’t want to come in or facilities weren’t scheduling appointments because of the public health emergency,” said Richard Roberts, MD, JD, a professor of family medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who is also a malpractice defense attorney.
In addition, liability protections enacted in more than 30 states because of the COVID-19 pandemic will help shield clinicians from lawsuits. Those laws generally require allegations of gross negligence or reckless conduct far beyond ordinary negligence, which are hard to prove. But the immunity provisions remain largely untested in the courts, and it’s unclear how they will affect cases involving care for conditions other than COVID-19.
Another helpful factor is the widespread public appreciation of the valiant work by health care professionals throughout the pandemic, though that halo effect could fade over the next several years as malpractice claims from the pandemic period are filed and tried.
“In many circumstances, the pandemic will prove to be a safe harbor for providers,” said Steven Wigrizer, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Philadelphia. “Jurors will be reluctant to impose liability on providers who were doing their best in a global pandemic the world hadn’t seen in 100 years.”
Risky situations
These predictions from liability experts should reassure physicians who are anxious over reports that many cancer diagnoses were missed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Still, there are situations where physicians and hospitals could be vulnerable to malpractice claims despite the pandemic conditions. The highest-risk cases are those where patients recognized a potential cancer symptom like a breast lump or rectal bleeding, and tried to visit a doctor’s office or hospital, but were told they couldn’t be seen.
“Those kinds of cases lend themselves to delayed diagnosis claims,” said Richard Anderson, MD, an oncologist who is chairman and CEO of The Doctors Company. “My guess is we will see claims,” though he expects a reduced number arising from 2020 care scenarios, compared with previous years.
So far, his company has seen 20% fewer claims in 2020, which he said isn’t surprising given that the volume of physician and hospital visits plummeted.
Another risky situation is where physicians – particularly primary care physicians but also specialists like gynecologists and urologists – did not inform patients about concerning test results and order a follow-up test or visit. That is dangerous even if the physician did try to schedule a visit but the patient canceled the appointment.
“The jury will ask, ‘What did you do to get the patient back?’ ” said Sean Byrne, JD, a malpractice defense attorney in Richmond, Va. “The provider will say: ‘I’m sure we called.’ But it’s a difficult defense to say the patient didn’t return the call. I need written proof.”
Mr. Domnick said failures to follow up on suspicious test results could produce viable malpractice claims, pandemic or not. “The question becomes to what extent doctors will try to hide behind COVID to explain otherwise run-of-the-mill negligence,” he said. “We’ll have to see how that plays out.”
There are also worries about missed cancer diagnoses during telemedicine visits. “On telemedicine, I can’t feel a lymph node, I can’t palpate a breast mass, and I can’t see if someone’s liver is enlarged,” Dr. McAneny fretted. “I think you’ll get suits because you’ll miss stuff.”
One other area of exposure cited by the experts: Radiologists and pathologists could be sued for missing tumors in reading imaging tests. “The COVID-19 demand on resources has been immense,” Mr. Byrne said. “If that production pressure resulted in any quality loss in testing services, we could see claims.”
Patient protocols provide protection
There’s no question that cancer screenings dropped sharply during the pandemic. In June 2020, the National Cancer Institute estimated there was a 75% decrease in mammograms and colonoscopies during the first few months of the pandemic. It projected that delays in screenings, diagnoses, and treatment likely would result in 10,000 more breast and colorectal cancer deaths than otherwise expected over the next decade.
Delays of even 1 month in treatment for seven common forms of cancer can increase mortality risk by 6%-13%, according to a BMJ study.
While many medical facilities stopped doing preventive screening tests during the height of the pandemic last year, health care professionals still found ways to bring in patients with diagnosed cancers or who were at heightened cancer risk for tests and treatment.
Most facilities convened multidisciplinary tumor boards to decide which patients could wait for treatment, which patients could be maintained on drug therapy, and which ones needed immediate surgery, said Carla Fisher, MD, director of breast surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis. For breast cancer, they used guidelines from her professional group, the American Society of Breast Surgeons.
Following such protocols for prioritizing patients for treatment during the pandemic should help protect against liability, experts said.
Even if it can be shown that a clinician’s negligence led to delayed diagnosis or treatment of a patient’s cancer, plaintiff attorneys will be wary about filing such claims. That is because it is difficult in most cases to prove that the delay significantly worsened the course of the patient’s disease or the odds of survival. Showing harm may be more possible with certain cancers known to be particularly aggressive.
“The plaintiff attorney will have to get an expert to say that the 3-month delay in getting the patient a mammogram caused her great harm,” said Dr. Roberts. “But it’s hard to calculate that scientifically, and it’s really hard to lay that all on the doctor or health system, because they were supposed to lock down during the pandemic.”
Playing catch-up
With patients now feeling more comfortable about coming in for physician visits, Mr. Byrne urges clinicians to make a special effort to mitigate potential liability arising from the past year. Physicians should carefully review patients’ charts and make sure to catch them up on preventive screenings. Some health systems, like Kaiser Permanente, have been doing proactive patient outreach for cancer screening throughout the pandemic.
“Providers may need to be extra diligent, and consider expanding the exam into a wellness visit and remind patients about cancer surveillance,” he said.
Overall, however, the expert consensus is that physicians should focus on providing the best quality care going forward, and not worry excessively about the care they wish they could have delivered over the past year during the extraordinary pandemic conditions.
“Liability risks will be decreased, because state laws have changed and doctors will be cut some slack, not just by judges and juries but by patients themselves,” Dr. Roberts said. “As you are running down the hall to take care of the next person, don’t be looking over your shoulder or you’ll run into the wall.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Limited English proficiency linked with less health care in U.S.
Jessica Himmelstein, MD, a Harvard research fellow and primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance in Cambridge, Mass., led a study of more than 120,000 adults published July 6, 2021. The study population included 17,776 Hispanic adults with limited English proficiency, 14,936 Hispanic adults proficient in English and 87,834 non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults.
Researchers compared several measures of care usage from information in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1998 to 2018.
They found that, in adjusted analyses, total use of care per capita from 2014-2018, measured by health care expenditures, was $1,463 lower (98% confidence interval, $1,030-$1,897), or 35% lower for primary-Spanish speakers than for Hispanic adults who were English proficient and $2,802 lower (98% CI, $2,356-$3,247), or 42% lower versus non-Hispanic adults who were English proficient.
Spanish speakers also had 36% fewer outpatient visits and 48% fewer prescription medications than non-Hispanic adults, and 35% fewer outpatient visits and 37% fewer prescription medications than English-proficient Hispanic adults.
Even when accounting for differences in health, age, sex, income and insurance, adults with language barriers fared worse.
Gaps span all types of care
The services that those with limited English skills are missing are “the types of care people need to lead a healthy life,” from routine visits and medications to urgent or emergency care, Dr. Himmelstein said in an interview.
She said the gaps were greater in outpatient care and in medication use, compared with emergency department visits and inpatient care, but the inequities were present in all the categories she and her coinvestigators studied.
Underlying causes for having less care may include that people who struggle with English may not feel comfortable accessing the health system or may feel unwelcome or discriminated against.
“An undercurrent of biases, including racism, could also be contributing,” she said.
The data show that, despite several federal policy changes aimed at promoting language services in hospitals and clinics, several language-based disparities have not improved over 2 decades.
Some of the changes have included an executive order in 2000 requiring interpreters to be available in federally funded health facilities. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act enhanced the definition of meaningful access to language services and setting standards for qualified interpreters.
Gap widened over 2 decades
The adjusted gap in annual health care expenditures per capita between adults with limited English skills and non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults widened by $1,596 (98% CI, $837-$2,356) between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, after accounting for inflation.
Dr. Himmelstein said that though this study period predated COVID-19, its findings may help explain the disproportionate burden the pandemic placed on the Hispanic population.
“This is a community that traditionally wasn’t getting access to care and then suddenly something like COVID-19 comes and they were even more devastated,” she noted.
Telehealth, which proved an important way to access care during the pandemic, also added a degree of communication difficulty for those with fewer English skills, she said.
Many of the telehealth changes are here to stay, and it will be important to ask: “Are we ensuring equity in telehealth use for individuals who face language barriers?” Dr. Himmelstein said.
Olga Garcia-Bedoya, MD, an associate professor at University of Illinois at Chicago’s department of medicine and medical director of UIC’s Institute for Minority Health Research, said having access to interpreters with high accuracy is key to narrowing the gaps.
“The literature is very clear that access to professional medical interpreters is associated with decreased health disparities for patients with limited English proficiency,” she said.
More cultural training for clinicians is needed surrounding beliefs about illness and that some care may be declined not because of a person’s limited English proficiency, but because their beliefs may keep them from getting care, Dr. Garcia-Bedoya added. When it comes to getting a flu shot, for example, sometimes belief systems, rather than English proficiency, keep people from accessing care.
What can be done?
Addressing barriers caused by lack of English proficiency will likely take change in policies, including one related reimbursement for medical interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.
Currently, only 15 states’ Medicaid programs or Children’s Health Insurance Programs reimburse providers for language services, the paper notes, and neither Medicare nor private insurers routinely pay for those services.
Recruiting bilingual providers and staff at health care facilities and in medical and nursing schools will also be important to narrow the gaps, Dr. Himmelstein said.
Strengthening standards for interpreters also will help. “Currently such standards vary by state or by institution and are not necessarily enforced,” she explained.
It will also be important to make sure patients know that they are entitled by law to care, free of discriminatory practices and to have certain language services including qualified interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.
Dr. Garcia-Bedoya said changes need to come from health systems working in combination with clinicians, providing resources so that quality interpreters can be accessed and making sure that equipment supports clear communication in telehealth. Patients’ language preferences should also be noted as soon as they make the appointment.
The findings of the study may have large significance as one in seven people in the United States speak Spanish at home, and 25 million people in the United States have limited English proficiency, the authors noted.
Dr. Himmelstein receives funding support from an Institutional National Research Service Award. Dr. Garcia-Bedoya reports no relevant financial relationships.
Jessica Himmelstein, MD, a Harvard research fellow and primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance in Cambridge, Mass., led a study of more than 120,000 adults published July 6, 2021. The study population included 17,776 Hispanic adults with limited English proficiency, 14,936 Hispanic adults proficient in English and 87,834 non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults.
Researchers compared several measures of care usage from information in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1998 to 2018.
They found that, in adjusted analyses, total use of care per capita from 2014-2018, measured by health care expenditures, was $1,463 lower (98% confidence interval, $1,030-$1,897), or 35% lower for primary-Spanish speakers than for Hispanic adults who were English proficient and $2,802 lower (98% CI, $2,356-$3,247), or 42% lower versus non-Hispanic adults who were English proficient.
Spanish speakers also had 36% fewer outpatient visits and 48% fewer prescription medications than non-Hispanic adults, and 35% fewer outpatient visits and 37% fewer prescription medications than English-proficient Hispanic adults.
Even when accounting for differences in health, age, sex, income and insurance, adults with language barriers fared worse.
Gaps span all types of care
The services that those with limited English skills are missing are “the types of care people need to lead a healthy life,” from routine visits and medications to urgent or emergency care, Dr. Himmelstein said in an interview.
She said the gaps were greater in outpatient care and in medication use, compared with emergency department visits and inpatient care, but the inequities were present in all the categories she and her coinvestigators studied.
Underlying causes for having less care may include that people who struggle with English may not feel comfortable accessing the health system or may feel unwelcome or discriminated against.
“An undercurrent of biases, including racism, could also be contributing,” she said.
The data show that, despite several federal policy changes aimed at promoting language services in hospitals and clinics, several language-based disparities have not improved over 2 decades.
Some of the changes have included an executive order in 2000 requiring interpreters to be available in federally funded health facilities. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act enhanced the definition of meaningful access to language services and setting standards for qualified interpreters.
Gap widened over 2 decades
The adjusted gap in annual health care expenditures per capita between adults with limited English skills and non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults widened by $1,596 (98% CI, $837-$2,356) between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, after accounting for inflation.
Dr. Himmelstein said that though this study period predated COVID-19, its findings may help explain the disproportionate burden the pandemic placed on the Hispanic population.
“This is a community that traditionally wasn’t getting access to care and then suddenly something like COVID-19 comes and they were even more devastated,” she noted.
Telehealth, which proved an important way to access care during the pandemic, also added a degree of communication difficulty for those with fewer English skills, she said.
Many of the telehealth changes are here to stay, and it will be important to ask: “Are we ensuring equity in telehealth use for individuals who face language barriers?” Dr. Himmelstein said.
Olga Garcia-Bedoya, MD, an associate professor at University of Illinois at Chicago’s department of medicine and medical director of UIC’s Institute for Minority Health Research, said having access to interpreters with high accuracy is key to narrowing the gaps.
“The literature is very clear that access to professional medical interpreters is associated with decreased health disparities for patients with limited English proficiency,” she said.
More cultural training for clinicians is needed surrounding beliefs about illness and that some care may be declined not because of a person’s limited English proficiency, but because their beliefs may keep them from getting care, Dr. Garcia-Bedoya added. When it comes to getting a flu shot, for example, sometimes belief systems, rather than English proficiency, keep people from accessing care.
What can be done?
Addressing barriers caused by lack of English proficiency will likely take change in policies, including one related reimbursement for medical interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.
Currently, only 15 states’ Medicaid programs or Children’s Health Insurance Programs reimburse providers for language services, the paper notes, and neither Medicare nor private insurers routinely pay for those services.
Recruiting bilingual providers and staff at health care facilities and in medical and nursing schools will also be important to narrow the gaps, Dr. Himmelstein said.
Strengthening standards for interpreters also will help. “Currently such standards vary by state or by institution and are not necessarily enforced,” she explained.
It will also be important to make sure patients know that they are entitled by law to care, free of discriminatory practices and to have certain language services including qualified interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.
Dr. Garcia-Bedoya said changes need to come from health systems working in combination with clinicians, providing resources so that quality interpreters can be accessed and making sure that equipment supports clear communication in telehealth. Patients’ language preferences should also be noted as soon as they make the appointment.
The findings of the study may have large significance as one in seven people in the United States speak Spanish at home, and 25 million people in the United States have limited English proficiency, the authors noted.
Dr. Himmelstein receives funding support from an Institutional National Research Service Award. Dr. Garcia-Bedoya reports no relevant financial relationships.
Jessica Himmelstein, MD, a Harvard research fellow and primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance in Cambridge, Mass., led a study of more than 120,000 adults published July 6, 2021. The study population included 17,776 Hispanic adults with limited English proficiency, 14,936 Hispanic adults proficient in English and 87,834 non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults.
Researchers compared several measures of care usage from information in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1998 to 2018.
They found that, in adjusted analyses, total use of care per capita from 2014-2018, measured by health care expenditures, was $1,463 lower (98% confidence interval, $1,030-$1,897), or 35% lower for primary-Spanish speakers than for Hispanic adults who were English proficient and $2,802 lower (98% CI, $2,356-$3,247), or 42% lower versus non-Hispanic adults who were English proficient.
Spanish speakers also had 36% fewer outpatient visits and 48% fewer prescription medications than non-Hispanic adults, and 35% fewer outpatient visits and 37% fewer prescription medications than English-proficient Hispanic adults.
Even when accounting for differences in health, age, sex, income and insurance, adults with language barriers fared worse.
Gaps span all types of care
The services that those with limited English skills are missing are “the types of care people need to lead a healthy life,” from routine visits and medications to urgent or emergency care, Dr. Himmelstein said in an interview.
She said the gaps were greater in outpatient care and in medication use, compared with emergency department visits and inpatient care, but the inequities were present in all the categories she and her coinvestigators studied.
Underlying causes for having less care may include that people who struggle with English may not feel comfortable accessing the health system or may feel unwelcome or discriminated against.
“An undercurrent of biases, including racism, could also be contributing,” she said.
The data show that, despite several federal policy changes aimed at promoting language services in hospitals and clinics, several language-based disparities have not improved over 2 decades.
Some of the changes have included an executive order in 2000 requiring interpreters to be available in federally funded health facilities. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act enhanced the definition of meaningful access to language services and setting standards for qualified interpreters.
Gap widened over 2 decades
The adjusted gap in annual health care expenditures per capita between adults with limited English skills and non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults widened by $1,596 (98% CI, $837-$2,356) between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, after accounting for inflation.
Dr. Himmelstein said that though this study period predated COVID-19, its findings may help explain the disproportionate burden the pandemic placed on the Hispanic population.
“This is a community that traditionally wasn’t getting access to care and then suddenly something like COVID-19 comes and they were even more devastated,” she noted.
Telehealth, which proved an important way to access care during the pandemic, also added a degree of communication difficulty for those with fewer English skills, she said.
Many of the telehealth changes are here to stay, and it will be important to ask: “Are we ensuring equity in telehealth use for individuals who face language barriers?” Dr. Himmelstein said.
Olga Garcia-Bedoya, MD, an associate professor at University of Illinois at Chicago’s department of medicine and medical director of UIC’s Institute for Minority Health Research, said having access to interpreters with high accuracy is key to narrowing the gaps.
“The literature is very clear that access to professional medical interpreters is associated with decreased health disparities for patients with limited English proficiency,” she said.
More cultural training for clinicians is needed surrounding beliefs about illness and that some care may be declined not because of a person’s limited English proficiency, but because their beliefs may keep them from getting care, Dr. Garcia-Bedoya added. When it comes to getting a flu shot, for example, sometimes belief systems, rather than English proficiency, keep people from accessing care.
What can be done?
Addressing barriers caused by lack of English proficiency will likely take change in policies, including one related reimbursement for medical interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.
Currently, only 15 states’ Medicaid programs or Children’s Health Insurance Programs reimburse providers for language services, the paper notes, and neither Medicare nor private insurers routinely pay for those services.
Recruiting bilingual providers and staff at health care facilities and in medical and nursing schools will also be important to narrow the gaps, Dr. Himmelstein said.
Strengthening standards for interpreters also will help. “Currently such standards vary by state or by institution and are not necessarily enforced,” she explained.
It will also be important to make sure patients know that they are entitled by law to care, free of discriminatory practices and to have certain language services including qualified interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.
Dr. Garcia-Bedoya said changes need to come from health systems working in combination with clinicians, providing resources so that quality interpreters can be accessed and making sure that equipment supports clear communication in telehealth. Patients’ language preferences should also be noted as soon as they make the appointment.
The findings of the study may have large significance as one in seven people in the United States speak Spanish at home, and 25 million people in the United States have limited English proficiency, the authors noted.
Dr. Himmelstein receives funding support from an Institutional National Research Service Award. Dr. Garcia-Bedoya reports no relevant financial relationships.
FROM HEALTH AFFAIRS
Delta variant key to breakthrough infections in vaccinated Israelis
Israeli officials are reporting a 30% decrease in the effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild to moderate cases of COVID-19. At the same time, protection against hospitalization and severe illness remains robust.
The country’s Ministry of Health data cited high levels of circulating Delta variant and a relaxation of public health measures in early June for the drop in the vaccine’s prevention of “breakthrough” cases from 94% to 64% in recent weeks.
However, it is important to consider the findings in context, experts cautioned.
“My overall take on this that the vaccine is highly protective against the endpoints that matter – hospitalization and severe disease,” Anna Durbin, MD, told this news organization.
“I was very pleasantly surprised with the very high efficacy against hospitalization and severe disease – even against the Delta variant,” added Dr. Durbin, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Ali Mokdad, PhD, of the Institute for Health Metrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, agreed that the high degree of protection against severe outcomes should be the focus.
“That’s the whole idea. You want to defend against COVID-19. So even if someone is infected, they don’t end up in the hospital or in the morgue,” he said in an interview.
Compared with an earlier report, the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine against hospitalization fell slightly from 98% to 93%.
“For me, the fact that there is increased infection from the Delta variant after the vaccines such as Pfizer is of course a concern. But the positive news is that there is 93% prevention against severe disease or mortality,” added Dr. Mokdad, who is also professor of global health at University of Washington.
In addition, the absolute numbers remain relatively small. The Ministry of Health data show that, of the 63 Israelis hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide on July 3, 34 were in critical condition.
Unrealistic expectations?
People may have unrealistic expectations regarding breakthrough infections, Dr. Durbin said. “It seems that people are almost expecting ‘sterilizing immunity’ from these vaccines,” she said, explaining that would mean complete protection from infection.
Expectations may be high “because these vaccines have been so effective,” added Dr. Durbin, who is also affiliated with the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health.
The higher the number of vaccinated residents, the more breakthrough cases will be reported, epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of epidemiology, human genetics, and environmental sciences at the University of Texas Science Center at Houston, wrote in her “Your Local Epidemiologist” blog.
This could apply to Israel, with an estimated 60% of adults in Israel fully vaccinated and 65% receiving at least one dose as of July 5, Our World in Data figures show.
How the updated figures were reported could be confusing, Dr. Jetelina said. Israel’s Health Minister Chezy Levy noted that “55% of the newly infected had been vaccinated” in a radio interview announcing the results.
“This language is important because it’s very different than ‘half of vaccinated people were infected,’ ” Dr. Jetelina noted.
Israel had a 7-day rolling average of 324 new confirmed COVID-19 cases as of July 5. Assuming 55% of these cases were among vaccinated people, that would mean 178 people experienced breakthrough infections.
In contrast, almost 6 million people in Israel are fully vaccinated. If 55% of them experienced breakthrough infections, the number would be much higher – more than 3 million.
Dr. Jetelina added that more details about the new Israel figures would be helpful, including the severity of COVID-19 among the vaccinated cases and breakdown of infections between adults and children.
Next steps
Israeli health officials are weighing the necessity of a third or booster dose of the vaccine. Whether they will reinstate public health measures to prevent spread of COVID-19 also remains unknown.
Going forward, Israel intends to study whether factors such as age, comorbidities, or time since immunization affect risk for breakthrough infections among people vaccinated against COVID-19.
“We want to prevent people from getting hospitalized, seriously ill, and of course, dying. It’s encouraging these vaccines will be able to have a high impact on those outcomes,” Dr. Durbin said. “We just need to get people vaccinated.”
A call for better global surveillance
A global surveillance system is a potential solution to track and respond to the growing threat of the Delta variant and other variants of concern, Scott P. Layne, MD, and Jeffery K. Taubenberger, MD, PhD, wrote in a July 7, 2021, editorial in Science Translational Medicine.
One goal, Dr. Layne said in an interview, is to highlight “the compelling need for a new global COVID-19 program of surveillance and offer a blueprint for building it.” A second aim is to promote global cooperation among key advisers and leaders in the G7, G20, and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation nations.
“It’s an uphill struggle with superpower discords, global warming, cybersecurity, and pandemics all competing for finite attention,” Dr. Layne said. “However, what other options do we have for taming the so-called forever virus?”
Dr. Mokdad and Dr. Jetelina had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Durban disclosed she was the site primary investigator for the phase 3 AstraZeneca vaccine trial and an investigator on the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Israeli officials are reporting a 30% decrease in the effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild to moderate cases of COVID-19. At the same time, protection against hospitalization and severe illness remains robust.
The country’s Ministry of Health data cited high levels of circulating Delta variant and a relaxation of public health measures in early June for the drop in the vaccine’s prevention of “breakthrough” cases from 94% to 64% in recent weeks.
However, it is important to consider the findings in context, experts cautioned.
“My overall take on this that the vaccine is highly protective against the endpoints that matter – hospitalization and severe disease,” Anna Durbin, MD, told this news organization.
“I was very pleasantly surprised with the very high efficacy against hospitalization and severe disease – even against the Delta variant,” added Dr. Durbin, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Ali Mokdad, PhD, of the Institute for Health Metrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, agreed that the high degree of protection against severe outcomes should be the focus.
“That’s the whole idea. You want to defend against COVID-19. So even if someone is infected, they don’t end up in the hospital or in the morgue,” he said in an interview.
Compared with an earlier report, the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine against hospitalization fell slightly from 98% to 93%.
“For me, the fact that there is increased infection from the Delta variant after the vaccines such as Pfizer is of course a concern. But the positive news is that there is 93% prevention against severe disease or mortality,” added Dr. Mokdad, who is also professor of global health at University of Washington.
In addition, the absolute numbers remain relatively small. The Ministry of Health data show that, of the 63 Israelis hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide on July 3, 34 were in critical condition.
Unrealistic expectations?
People may have unrealistic expectations regarding breakthrough infections, Dr. Durbin said. “It seems that people are almost expecting ‘sterilizing immunity’ from these vaccines,” she said, explaining that would mean complete protection from infection.
Expectations may be high “because these vaccines have been so effective,” added Dr. Durbin, who is also affiliated with the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health.
The higher the number of vaccinated residents, the more breakthrough cases will be reported, epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of epidemiology, human genetics, and environmental sciences at the University of Texas Science Center at Houston, wrote in her “Your Local Epidemiologist” blog.
This could apply to Israel, with an estimated 60% of adults in Israel fully vaccinated and 65% receiving at least one dose as of July 5, Our World in Data figures show.
How the updated figures were reported could be confusing, Dr. Jetelina said. Israel’s Health Minister Chezy Levy noted that “55% of the newly infected had been vaccinated” in a radio interview announcing the results.
“This language is important because it’s very different than ‘half of vaccinated people were infected,’ ” Dr. Jetelina noted.
Israel had a 7-day rolling average of 324 new confirmed COVID-19 cases as of July 5. Assuming 55% of these cases were among vaccinated people, that would mean 178 people experienced breakthrough infections.
In contrast, almost 6 million people in Israel are fully vaccinated. If 55% of them experienced breakthrough infections, the number would be much higher – more than 3 million.
Dr. Jetelina added that more details about the new Israel figures would be helpful, including the severity of COVID-19 among the vaccinated cases and breakdown of infections between adults and children.
Next steps
Israeli health officials are weighing the necessity of a third or booster dose of the vaccine. Whether they will reinstate public health measures to prevent spread of COVID-19 also remains unknown.
Going forward, Israel intends to study whether factors such as age, comorbidities, or time since immunization affect risk for breakthrough infections among people vaccinated against COVID-19.
“We want to prevent people from getting hospitalized, seriously ill, and of course, dying. It’s encouraging these vaccines will be able to have a high impact on those outcomes,” Dr. Durbin said. “We just need to get people vaccinated.”
A call for better global surveillance
A global surveillance system is a potential solution to track and respond to the growing threat of the Delta variant and other variants of concern, Scott P. Layne, MD, and Jeffery K. Taubenberger, MD, PhD, wrote in a July 7, 2021, editorial in Science Translational Medicine.
One goal, Dr. Layne said in an interview, is to highlight “the compelling need for a new global COVID-19 program of surveillance and offer a blueprint for building it.” A second aim is to promote global cooperation among key advisers and leaders in the G7, G20, and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation nations.
“It’s an uphill struggle with superpower discords, global warming, cybersecurity, and pandemics all competing for finite attention,” Dr. Layne said. “However, what other options do we have for taming the so-called forever virus?”
Dr. Mokdad and Dr. Jetelina had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Durban disclosed she was the site primary investigator for the phase 3 AstraZeneca vaccine trial and an investigator on the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Israeli officials are reporting a 30% decrease in the effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild to moderate cases of COVID-19. At the same time, protection against hospitalization and severe illness remains robust.
The country’s Ministry of Health data cited high levels of circulating Delta variant and a relaxation of public health measures in early June for the drop in the vaccine’s prevention of “breakthrough” cases from 94% to 64% in recent weeks.
However, it is important to consider the findings in context, experts cautioned.
“My overall take on this that the vaccine is highly protective against the endpoints that matter – hospitalization and severe disease,” Anna Durbin, MD, told this news organization.
“I was very pleasantly surprised with the very high efficacy against hospitalization and severe disease – even against the Delta variant,” added Dr. Durbin, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Ali Mokdad, PhD, of the Institute for Health Metrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, agreed that the high degree of protection against severe outcomes should be the focus.
“That’s the whole idea. You want to defend against COVID-19. So even if someone is infected, they don’t end up in the hospital or in the morgue,” he said in an interview.
Compared with an earlier report, the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine against hospitalization fell slightly from 98% to 93%.
“For me, the fact that there is increased infection from the Delta variant after the vaccines such as Pfizer is of course a concern. But the positive news is that there is 93% prevention against severe disease or mortality,” added Dr. Mokdad, who is also professor of global health at University of Washington.
In addition, the absolute numbers remain relatively small. The Ministry of Health data show that, of the 63 Israelis hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide on July 3, 34 were in critical condition.
Unrealistic expectations?
People may have unrealistic expectations regarding breakthrough infections, Dr. Durbin said. “It seems that people are almost expecting ‘sterilizing immunity’ from these vaccines,” she said, explaining that would mean complete protection from infection.
Expectations may be high “because these vaccines have been so effective,” added Dr. Durbin, who is also affiliated with the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health.
The higher the number of vaccinated residents, the more breakthrough cases will be reported, epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of epidemiology, human genetics, and environmental sciences at the University of Texas Science Center at Houston, wrote in her “Your Local Epidemiologist” blog.
This could apply to Israel, with an estimated 60% of adults in Israel fully vaccinated and 65% receiving at least one dose as of July 5, Our World in Data figures show.
How the updated figures were reported could be confusing, Dr. Jetelina said. Israel’s Health Minister Chezy Levy noted that “55% of the newly infected had been vaccinated” in a radio interview announcing the results.
“This language is important because it’s very different than ‘half of vaccinated people were infected,’ ” Dr. Jetelina noted.
Israel had a 7-day rolling average of 324 new confirmed COVID-19 cases as of July 5. Assuming 55% of these cases were among vaccinated people, that would mean 178 people experienced breakthrough infections.
In contrast, almost 6 million people in Israel are fully vaccinated. If 55% of them experienced breakthrough infections, the number would be much higher – more than 3 million.
Dr. Jetelina added that more details about the new Israel figures would be helpful, including the severity of COVID-19 among the vaccinated cases and breakdown of infections between adults and children.
Next steps
Israeli health officials are weighing the necessity of a third or booster dose of the vaccine. Whether they will reinstate public health measures to prevent spread of COVID-19 also remains unknown.
Going forward, Israel intends to study whether factors such as age, comorbidities, or time since immunization affect risk for breakthrough infections among people vaccinated against COVID-19.
“We want to prevent people from getting hospitalized, seriously ill, and of course, dying. It’s encouraging these vaccines will be able to have a high impact on those outcomes,” Dr. Durbin said. “We just need to get people vaccinated.”
A call for better global surveillance
A global surveillance system is a potential solution to track and respond to the growing threat of the Delta variant and other variants of concern, Scott P. Layne, MD, and Jeffery K. Taubenberger, MD, PhD, wrote in a July 7, 2021, editorial in Science Translational Medicine.
One goal, Dr. Layne said in an interview, is to highlight “the compelling need for a new global COVID-19 program of surveillance and offer a blueprint for building it.” A second aim is to promote global cooperation among key advisers and leaders in the G7, G20, and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation nations.
“It’s an uphill struggle with superpower discords, global warming, cybersecurity, and pandemics all competing for finite attention,” Dr. Layne said. “However, what other options do we have for taming the so-called forever virus?”
Dr. Mokdad and Dr. Jetelina had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Durban disclosed she was the site primary investigator for the phase 3 AstraZeneca vaccine trial and an investigator on the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Extra COVID-19 vaccine could help immunocompromised people
People whose immune systems are compromised by therapy or disease may benefit from additional doses of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, researchers say.
In a study involving 101 people with solid-organ transplants, there was a significant boost in antibodies after the patients received third doses of the Pfizer vaccine, said Nassim Kamar, MD, PhD, professor of nephrology at Toulouse University Hospital, France.
None of the transplant patients had antibodies against the virus before their first dose of the vaccine, and only 4% produced antibodies after the first dose. That proportion rose to 40% after the second dose and to 68% after the third dose.
The effect is so strong that Dr. Kamar and colleagues at Toulouse University Hospital routinely administer three doses of mRNA vaccines to patients with solid-organ transplant without testing them for antibodies.
“When we observed that the second dose was not sufficient to have an immune response, the Francophone Society of Transplantation asked the National Health Authority to allow the third dose,” he told this news organization.
That agency on April 11 approved third doses of mRNA vaccines not only for people with solid-organ transplants but also for those with recent bone marrow transplants, those undergoing dialysis, and those with autoimmune diseases who were receiving strong immunosuppressive treatment, such as anti-CD20 or antimetabolites. Contrary to their procedure for people with solid-organ transplants, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital test these patients for antibodies and administer third doses of vaccine only to those who test negative or have very low titers.
The researchers’ findings, published on June 23 as a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, come as other researchers document more and more categories of patients whose responses to the vaccines typically fall short.
A study at the University of Pittsburgh that was published as a preprint on MedRxiv compared people with various health conditions to healthy health care workers. People with HIV who were taking antivirals against that virus responded almost as well as did the health care workers, said John Mellors, MD, chief of infectious diseases at the university. But people whose immune systems were compromised for other reasons fared less well.
“The areas of concern are hematological malignancy and solid-organ transplants, with the most nonresponsive groups being those who have had lung transplantation,” he said in an interview.
For patients with liver disease, mixed news came from the International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021 annual meeting.
In a study involving patients with liver disease who had received the Pfizer vaccine at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem, antibody titers were lower in patients who had received liver transplants or who had advanced liver fibrosis, as reported by this news organization.
A multicenter study in China that was presented at the ILC meeting and that was also published in the Journal of Hepatology, provided a more optimistic picture. Among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease who were immunized against SARS-CoV-2 with the Sinopharm vaccine, 95.5% had neutralizing antibodies; the median neutralizing antibody titer was 32.
In the Toulouse University Hospital study, for the 40 patients who were seropositive after the second dose, antibody titers increased from 36 before the third dose to 2,676 a month after the third dose, a statistically significant result (P < .001).
For patients whose immune systems are compromised for reasons other than having received a transplant, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital use a titer of 14 as the threshold below which they administer a third dose of mRNA vaccines. But Dr. Kamar acknowledged that the threshold is arbitrary and that the assays for antibodies with different vaccines in different populations can’t be compared head to head.
“We can’t tell you simply on the basis of the amount of antibody in your laboratory report how protected you are,” agreed William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Not enough research has been done to establish that relationship, and results vary from one laboratory to another, he said.
That doesn’t mean that antibody tests don’t help, Dr. Schaffner said. On the basis of views of other experts he has consulted, Dr. Schaffner recommends that people who are immunocompromised undergo an antibody test. If the test is positive – meaning they have some antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, however low the titers – patients can take fewer precautions than before they were vaccinated.
But they should still be more cautious than people with healthy immune systems, he said. “Would I be going to large indoor gatherings without a mask? No. Would I be outside without a mask? Yes. Would I gather with three other people who are vaccinated to play a game of bridge? Yes. You have to titrate things a little and use some common sense,” he added.
If the results are negative, such patients may still be protected. Much research remains to be done on T-cell immunity, a second line of defense against the virus. And the current assays often produce false negative results. But to be on the safe side, people with this result should assume that their vaccine is not protecting them, Dr. Schaffner said.
That suggestion contradicts the Food and Drug Administration, which issued a recommendation on May 19 against using antibody tests to check the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
The studies so far suggest that vaccines are safe for people whose immune systems are compromised, Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Kamar agreed. Dr. Kamar is aware of only two case reports of transplant patients rejecting their transplants after vaccination. One of these was his own patient, and the rejection occurred after her second dose. She has not needed dialysis, although her kidney function was impaired.
But the FDA has not approved additional doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to treat patients who are immunocompromised, and Dr. Kamar has not heard of any other national regulatory agencies that have.
In the United States, it may be difficult for anyone to obtain a third dose of vaccine outside of a clinical trial, Dr. Schaffner said, because vaccinators are likely to check databases and deny vaccination to anyone who has already received the recommended number.
Dr. Kamar, Dr. Mellors, and Dr. Schaffner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People whose immune systems are compromised by therapy or disease may benefit from additional doses of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, researchers say.
In a study involving 101 people with solid-organ transplants, there was a significant boost in antibodies after the patients received third doses of the Pfizer vaccine, said Nassim Kamar, MD, PhD, professor of nephrology at Toulouse University Hospital, France.
None of the transplant patients had antibodies against the virus before their first dose of the vaccine, and only 4% produced antibodies after the first dose. That proportion rose to 40% after the second dose and to 68% after the third dose.
The effect is so strong that Dr. Kamar and colleagues at Toulouse University Hospital routinely administer three doses of mRNA vaccines to patients with solid-organ transplant without testing them for antibodies.
“When we observed that the second dose was not sufficient to have an immune response, the Francophone Society of Transplantation asked the National Health Authority to allow the third dose,” he told this news organization.
That agency on April 11 approved third doses of mRNA vaccines not only for people with solid-organ transplants but also for those with recent bone marrow transplants, those undergoing dialysis, and those with autoimmune diseases who were receiving strong immunosuppressive treatment, such as anti-CD20 or antimetabolites. Contrary to their procedure for people with solid-organ transplants, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital test these patients for antibodies and administer third doses of vaccine only to those who test negative or have very low titers.
The researchers’ findings, published on June 23 as a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, come as other researchers document more and more categories of patients whose responses to the vaccines typically fall short.
A study at the University of Pittsburgh that was published as a preprint on MedRxiv compared people with various health conditions to healthy health care workers. People with HIV who were taking antivirals against that virus responded almost as well as did the health care workers, said John Mellors, MD, chief of infectious diseases at the university. But people whose immune systems were compromised for other reasons fared less well.
“The areas of concern are hematological malignancy and solid-organ transplants, with the most nonresponsive groups being those who have had lung transplantation,” he said in an interview.
For patients with liver disease, mixed news came from the International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021 annual meeting.
In a study involving patients with liver disease who had received the Pfizer vaccine at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem, antibody titers were lower in patients who had received liver transplants or who had advanced liver fibrosis, as reported by this news organization.
A multicenter study in China that was presented at the ILC meeting and that was also published in the Journal of Hepatology, provided a more optimistic picture. Among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease who were immunized against SARS-CoV-2 with the Sinopharm vaccine, 95.5% had neutralizing antibodies; the median neutralizing antibody titer was 32.
In the Toulouse University Hospital study, for the 40 patients who were seropositive after the second dose, antibody titers increased from 36 before the third dose to 2,676 a month after the third dose, a statistically significant result (P < .001).
For patients whose immune systems are compromised for reasons other than having received a transplant, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital use a titer of 14 as the threshold below which they administer a third dose of mRNA vaccines. But Dr. Kamar acknowledged that the threshold is arbitrary and that the assays for antibodies with different vaccines in different populations can’t be compared head to head.
“We can’t tell you simply on the basis of the amount of antibody in your laboratory report how protected you are,” agreed William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Not enough research has been done to establish that relationship, and results vary from one laboratory to another, he said.
That doesn’t mean that antibody tests don’t help, Dr. Schaffner said. On the basis of views of other experts he has consulted, Dr. Schaffner recommends that people who are immunocompromised undergo an antibody test. If the test is positive – meaning they have some antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, however low the titers – patients can take fewer precautions than before they were vaccinated.
But they should still be more cautious than people with healthy immune systems, he said. “Would I be going to large indoor gatherings without a mask? No. Would I be outside without a mask? Yes. Would I gather with three other people who are vaccinated to play a game of bridge? Yes. You have to titrate things a little and use some common sense,” he added.
If the results are negative, such patients may still be protected. Much research remains to be done on T-cell immunity, a second line of defense against the virus. And the current assays often produce false negative results. But to be on the safe side, people with this result should assume that their vaccine is not protecting them, Dr. Schaffner said.
That suggestion contradicts the Food and Drug Administration, which issued a recommendation on May 19 against using antibody tests to check the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
The studies so far suggest that vaccines are safe for people whose immune systems are compromised, Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Kamar agreed. Dr. Kamar is aware of only two case reports of transplant patients rejecting their transplants after vaccination. One of these was his own patient, and the rejection occurred after her second dose. She has not needed dialysis, although her kidney function was impaired.
But the FDA has not approved additional doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to treat patients who are immunocompromised, and Dr. Kamar has not heard of any other national regulatory agencies that have.
In the United States, it may be difficult for anyone to obtain a third dose of vaccine outside of a clinical trial, Dr. Schaffner said, because vaccinators are likely to check databases and deny vaccination to anyone who has already received the recommended number.
Dr. Kamar, Dr. Mellors, and Dr. Schaffner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People whose immune systems are compromised by therapy or disease may benefit from additional doses of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, researchers say.
In a study involving 101 people with solid-organ transplants, there was a significant boost in antibodies after the patients received third doses of the Pfizer vaccine, said Nassim Kamar, MD, PhD, professor of nephrology at Toulouse University Hospital, France.
None of the transplant patients had antibodies against the virus before their first dose of the vaccine, and only 4% produced antibodies after the first dose. That proportion rose to 40% after the second dose and to 68% after the third dose.
The effect is so strong that Dr. Kamar and colleagues at Toulouse University Hospital routinely administer three doses of mRNA vaccines to patients with solid-organ transplant without testing them for antibodies.
“When we observed that the second dose was not sufficient to have an immune response, the Francophone Society of Transplantation asked the National Health Authority to allow the third dose,” he told this news organization.
That agency on April 11 approved third doses of mRNA vaccines not only for people with solid-organ transplants but also for those with recent bone marrow transplants, those undergoing dialysis, and those with autoimmune diseases who were receiving strong immunosuppressive treatment, such as anti-CD20 or antimetabolites. Contrary to their procedure for people with solid-organ transplants, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital test these patients for antibodies and administer third doses of vaccine only to those who test negative or have very low titers.
The researchers’ findings, published on June 23 as a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, come as other researchers document more and more categories of patients whose responses to the vaccines typically fall short.
A study at the University of Pittsburgh that was published as a preprint on MedRxiv compared people with various health conditions to healthy health care workers. People with HIV who were taking antivirals against that virus responded almost as well as did the health care workers, said John Mellors, MD, chief of infectious diseases at the university. But people whose immune systems were compromised for other reasons fared less well.
“The areas of concern are hematological malignancy and solid-organ transplants, with the most nonresponsive groups being those who have had lung transplantation,” he said in an interview.
For patients with liver disease, mixed news came from the International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021 annual meeting.
In a study involving patients with liver disease who had received the Pfizer vaccine at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem, antibody titers were lower in patients who had received liver transplants or who had advanced liver fibrosis, as reported by this news organization.
A multicenter study in China that was presented at the ILC meeting and that was also published in the Journal of Hepatology, provided a more optimistic picture. Among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease who were immunized against SARS-CoV-2 with the Sinopharm vaccine, 95.5% had neutralizing antibodies; the median neutralizing antibody titer was 32.
In the Toulouse University Hospital study, for the 40 patients who were seropositive after the second dose, antibody titers increased from 36 before the third dose to 2,676 a month after the third dose, a statistically significant result (P < .001).
For patients whose immune systems are compromised for reasons other than having received a transplant, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital use a titer of 14 as the threshold below which they administer a third dose of mRNA vaccines. But Dr. Kamar acknowledged that the threshold is arbitrary and that the assays for antibodies with different vaccines in different populations can’t be compared head to head.
“We can’t tell you simply on the basis of the amount of antibody in your laboratory report how protected you are,” agreed William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Not enough research has been done to establish that relationship, and results vary from one laboratory to another, he said.
That doesn’t mean that antibody tests don’t help, Dr. Schaffner said. On the basis of views of other experts he has consulted, Dr. Schaffner recommends that people who are immunocompromised undergo an antibody test. If the test is positive – meaning they have some antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, however low the titers – patients can take fewer precautions than before they were vaccinated.
But they should still be more cautious than people with healthy immune systems, he said. “Would I be going to large indoor gatherings without a mask? No. Would I be outside without a mask? Yes. Would I gather with three other people who are vaccinated to play a game of bridge? Yes. You have to titrate things a little and use some common sense,” he added.
If the results are negative, such patients may still be protected. Much research remains to be done on T-cell immunity, a second line of defense against the virus. And the current assays often produce false negative results. But to be on the safe side, people with this result should assume that their vaccine is not protecting them, Dr. Schaffner said.
That suggestion contradicts the Food and Drug Administration, which issued a recommendation on May 19 against using antibody tests to check the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
The studies so far suggest that vaccines are safe for people whose immune systems are compromised, Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Kamar agreed. Dr. Kamar is aware of only two case reports of transplant patients rejecting their transplants after vaccination. One of these was his own patient, and the rejection occurred after her second dose. She has not needed dialysis, although her kidney function was impaired.
But the FDA has not approved additional doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to treat patients who are immunocompromised, and Dr. Kamar has not heard of any other national regulatory agencies that have.
In the United States, it may be difficult for anyone to obtain a third dose of vaccine outside of a clinical trial, Dr. Schaffner said, because vaccinators are likely to check databases and deny vaccination to anyone who has already received the recommended number.
Dr. Kamar, Dr. Mellors, and Dr. Schaffner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Garlic cloves in the nose and beer dreams and pareidolia faces
Insert clove A into nostril B
Just when you start wondering what crazy and potentially dangerous thing people can do to themselves next, comes a crazy and potentially dangerous new trend. The good folks at TikTok have provided patients a new treatment for stuffed up sinuses.
Dangerous? Well, that’s what doctors say, anyway.
“We typically do not recommend putting anything into the nostril for the obvious fact that it could get dislodged or lodged up into the nasal cavity,” Anthony Del Signore, MD, of Mount Sinai Union Square, New York, told TODAY.
“Not only does it have the potential to rot or cause a nasal obstruction, it can induce an episode of sinusitis,” Omid Mehdizadeh, MD, of Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif., explained to Shape.
But who doesn't want to breathe easier and keep blood-sucking vampires at bay?
TikTokers are posting videos of themselves sticking garlic cloves in their nostrils for several minutes. They, “then, pull the garlic out, followed, typically, by long strands of mucus,” according to The Hill.
That can’t be real, you’re probably saying. Or maybe you think that no one is actually watching this stuff. Well, wake up! This isn’t network television we’re talking about. It’s freakin’ TikTok! One video has been favorited over half a million times. Another is up to 2.2 million.
It’s all true. Really. We couldn’t make this stuff up if we tried.
Seeing faces in random places?
Ever look up at the clouds, at a fast-moving train, or into your morning bowl of cereal and see two eyes, a nose, and a mouth looking back at you? You may shake it off and think you’re imagining something, but it's actually your brain doing what it’s built to do and researchers know why.
The phenomenon is called face pareidolia, and it’s technically an error function of the human brain. Evolution has molded our brains to rapidly identify faces, according to David Alais, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, lead author of the study.
“But the system plays ‘fast and loose’ by applying a crude template of two eyes over a nose and mouth. Lots of things can satisfy that template and thus trigger a face detection response,” he said in a separate statement. But not only are we seeing faces, our brains go one step further and seemingly give those faces feelings.
In the study, Dr. Alais and his team looked for two things about each pareidolia face: Was it analyzed for facial expression or just rejected as a face altogether? The participants were shown a series of faces and then asked to rate the expression on a scale from angry to happy. What the researchers found was that once a face was detected, the brain analyzed the pareidolia face in the same way as a human face. Have you ever seen an angry trash can? Or a smile on an over-easy egg?
The other question faced: Was there a bias on emotion? Yup, and excuse the dad joke.
The researchers showed a mixed series of human faces and pareidolia faces to participants and found that responses were influenced by the previous face seen, no matter if the face was human or not.
So if someone smiled at you on the way to the grocery store and you see a grinning tomato in the produce section, your mind is playing tricks on you, and it’s totally normal.
Corporate dream manipulation
Advertisements are quite literally everywhere. On billboards, in commercials, in videos, in movies; the list goes on and on. Still, at least you can shut your eyes and be mercifully free of corporate interference inside your own head, right? Right?
Early in 2021, Coors launched an ad campaign that seemed to be a b bit of a gimmick, if not a joke. Coors claimed that if people watched an ad before bed, and played an 8-hour soundscape while sleeping, their dreams would be filled with crisp mountains and cold, thirst-quenching beverages. While, the Coors campaign didn’t go viral, someone was paying attention. A group of 35 leading researchers published an open letter on the subject of corporate dream manipulation, in the journal Dream Engineering.
"Multiple marketing studies are openly testing new ways to alter and motivate purchasing behavior through dream and sleep hacking. The commercial, for-profit use of dream incubation is rapidly becoming a reality," wrote the investigators. "As sleep and dream researchers, we are deeply concerned about marketing plans aimed at generating profits at the cost of interfering with our natural nocturnal memory processing."
People have tried to manipulate their dreams for countless years, but only in recent years have scientists attempted to target or manipulate behavior through dreams. In a 2014 study, smokers exposed to tobacco smoke and rotten egg smell while sleeping reduced their cigarette consumption by 30%.
Most research into dream manipulation has been aimed at positive results, but the experts warn that there’s no reason corporations couldn’t use it for their own purposes, especially given the widespread usage of devices such as Alexa. A company could play a certain sound during a commercial, they suggested, and then replay that sound through a device while people are sleeping to trigger a dream about that product.
And just when our COVID-19–driven anxiety dreams were starting to subside.
The experts said that the Federal Trade Commission could intervene to prevent companies from attempting dream manipulation, and have done so in the past to stop subliminal advertising, but as of right now, there’s nothing stopping big business from messing with your dreams. But hey, at least they’re not directly beaming commercials into our heads with gamma radiation. Yet.
Got breast milk?
As we know, breast milk has endless benefits for newbords and babies, but many things can stand in the way of a mother’s ability to breastfeed. Baby formula has served as a good enough substitute. But now, there might be something that’s even better.
A start-up company called BIOMILQ created a product that could be groundbreaking. Using “breakthrough mammary biotechnology,” BIOMILQ created cell-cultured breast milk.
Leila Strickland, a biologist who is the company’s cofounder and chief science officer, said she’s had her own personal experience with breastfeeding and believes the product could benefit many if just given a chance. "Some of the cells we’ve looked at can produce milk for months and months," according to a company statement
Baby formula has done its job feeding and nourishing babies since 1865, but could BIOMILQ do better?
Time – and babies – will tell.
Insert clove A into nostril B
Just when you start wondering what crazy and potentially dangerous thing people can do to themselves next, comes a crazy and potentially dangerous new trend. The good folks at TikTok have provided patients a new treatment for stuffed up sinuses.
Dangerous? Well, that’s what doctors say, anyway.
“We typically do not recommend putting anything into the nostril for the obvious fact that it could get dislodged or lodged up into the nasal cavity,” Anthony Del Signore, MD, of Mount Sinai Union Square, New York, told TODAY.
“Not only does it have the potential to rot or cause a nasal obstruction, it can induce an episode of sinusitis,” Omid Mehdizadeh, MD, of Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif., explained to Shape.
But who doesn't want to breathe easier and keep blood-sucking vampires at bay?
TikTokers are posting videos of themselves sticking garlic cloves in their nostrils for several minutes. They, “then, pull the garlic out, followed, typically, by long strands of mucus,” according to The Hill.
That can’t be real, you’re probably saying. Or maybe you think that no one is actually watching this stuff. Well, wake up! This isn’t network television we’re talking about. It’s freakin’ TikTok! One video has been favorited over half a million times. Another is up to 2.2 million.
It’s all true. Really. We couldn’t make this stuff up if we tried.
Seeing faces in random places?
Ever look up at the clouds, at a fast-moving train, or into your morning bowl of cereal and see two eyes, a nose, and a mouth looking back at you? You may shake it off and think you’re imagining something, but it's actually your brain doing what it’s built to do and researchers know why.
The phenomenon is called face pareidolia, and it’s technically an error function of the human brain. Evolution has molded our brains to rapidly identify faces, according to David Alais, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, lead author of the study.
“But the system plays ‘fast and loose’ by applying a crude template of two eyes over a nose and mouth. Lots of things can satisfy that template and thus trigger a face detection response,” he said in a separate statement. But not only are we seeing faces, our brains go one step further and seemingly give those faces feelings.
In the study, Dr. Alais and his team looked for two things about each pareidolia face: Was it analyzed for facial expression or just rejected as a face altogether? The participants were shown a series of faces and then asked to rate the expression on a scale from angry to happy. What the researchers found was that once a face was detected, the brain analyzed the pareidolia face in the same way as a human face. Have you ever seen an angry trash can? Or a smile on an over-easy egg?
The other question faced: Was there a bias on emotion? Yup, and excuse the dad joke.
The researchers showed a mixed series of human faces and pareidolia faces to participants and found that responses were influenced by the previous face seen, no matter if the face was human or not.
So if someone smiled at you on the way to the grocery store and you see a grinning tomato in the produce section, your mind is playing tricks on you, and it’s totally normal.
Corporate dream manipulation
Advertisements are quite literally everywhere. On billboards, in commercials, in videos, in movies; the list goes on and on. Still, at least you can shut your eyes and be mercifully free of corporate interference inside your own head, right? Right?
Early in 2021, Coors launched an ad campaign that seemed to be a b bit of a gimmick, if not a joke. Coors claimed that if people watched an ad before bed, and played an 8-hour soundscape while sleeping, their dreams would be filled with crisp mountains and cold, thirst-quenching beverages. While, the Coors campaign didn’t go viral, someone was paying attention. A group of 35 leading researchers published an open letter on the subject of corporate dream manipulation, in the journal Dream Engineering.
"Multiple marketing studies are openly testing new ways to alter and motivate purchasing behavior through dream and sleep hacking. The commercial, for-profit use of dream incubation is rapidly becoming a reality," wrote the investigators. "As sleep and dream researchers, we are deeply concerned about marketing plans aimed at generating profits at the cost of interfering with our natural nocturnal memory processing."
People have tried to manipulate their dreams for countless years, but only in recent years have scientists attempted to target or manipulate behavior through dreams. In a 2014 study, smokers exposed to tobacco smoke and rotten egg smell while sleeping reduced their cigarette consumption by 30%.
Most research into dream manipulation has been aimed at positive results, but the experts warn that there’s no reason corporations couldn’t use it for their own purposes, especially given the widespread usage of devices such as Alexa. A company could play a certain sound during a commercial, they suggested, and then replay that sound through a device while people are sleeping to trigger a dream about that product.
And just when our COVID-19–driven anxiety dreams were starting to subside.
The experts said that the Federal Trade Commission could intervene to prevent companies from attempting dream manipulation, and have done so in the past to stop subliminal advertising, but as of right now, there’s nothing stopping big business from messing with your dreams. But hey, at least they’re not directly beaming commercials into our heads with gamma radiation. Yet.
Got breast milk?
As we know, breast milk has endless benefits for newbords and babies, but many things can stand in the way of a mother’s ability to breastfeed. Baby formula has served as a good enough substitute. But now, there might be something that’s even better.
A start-up company called BIOMILQ created a product that could be groundbreaking. Using “breakthrough mammary biotechnology,” BIOMILQ created cell-cultured breast milk.
Leila Strickland, a biologist who is the company’s cofounder and chief science officer, said she’s had her own personal experience with breastfeeding and believes the product could benefit many if just given a chance. "Some of the cells we’ve looked at can produce milk for months and months," according to a company statement
Baby formula has done its job feeding and nourishing babies since 1865, but could BIOMILQ do better?
Time – and babies – will tell.
Insert clove A into nostril B
Just when you start wondering what crazy and potentially dangerous thing people can do to themselves next, comes a crazy and potentially dangerous new trend. The good folks at TikTok have provided patients a new treatment for stuffed up sinuses.
Dangerous? Well, that’s what doctors say, anyway.
“We typically do not recommend putting anything into the nostril for the obvious fact that it could get dislodged or lodged up into the nasal cavity,” Anthony Del Signore, MD, of Mount Sinai Union Square, New York, told TODAY.
“Not only does it have the potential to rot or cause a nasal obstruction, it can induce an episode of sinusitis,” Omid Mehdizadeh, MD, of Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif., explained to Shape.
But who doesn't want to breathe easier and keep blood-sucking vampires at bay?
TikTokers are posting videos of themselves sticking garlic cloves in their nostrils for several minutes. They, “then, pull the garlic out, followed, typically, by long strands of mucus,” according to The Hill.
That can’t be real, you’re probably saying. Or maybe you think that no one is actually watching this stuff. Well, wake up! This isn’t network television we’re talking about. It’s freakin’ TikTok! One video has been favorited over half a million times. Another is up to 2.2 million.
It’s all true. Really. We couldn’t make this stuff up if we tried.
Seeing faces in random places?
Ever look up at the clouds, at a fast-moving train, or into your morning bowl of cereal and see two eyes, a nose, and a mouth looking back at you? You may shake it off and think you’re imagining something, but it's actually your brain doing what it’s built to do and researchers know why.
The phenomenon is called face pareidolia, and it’s technically an error function of the human brain. Evolution has molded our brains to rapidly identify faces, according to David Alais, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, lead author of the study.
“But the system plays ‘fast and loose’ by applying a crude template of two eyes over a nose and mouth. Lots of things can satisfy that template and thus trigger a face detection response,” he said in a separate statement. But not only are we seeing faces, our brains go one step further and seemingly give those faces feelings.
In the study, Dr. Alais and his team looked for two things about each pareidolia face: Was it analyzed for facial expression or just rejected as a face altogether? The participants were shown a series of faces and then asked to rate the expression on a scale from angry to happy. What the researchers found was that once a face was detected, the brain analyzed the pareidolia face in the same way as a human face. Have you ever seen an angry trash can? Or a smile on an over-easy egg?
The other question faced: Was there a bias on emotion? Yup, and excuse the dad joke.
The researchers showed a mixed series of human faces and pareidolia faces to participants and found that responses were influenced by the previous face seen, no matter if the face was human or not.
So if someone smiled at you on the way to the grocery store and you see a grinning tomato in the produce section, your mind is playing tricks on you, and it’s totally normal.
Corporate dream manipulation
Advertisements are quite literally everywhere. On billboards, in commercials, in videos, in movies; the list goes on and on. Still, at least you can shut your eyes and be mercifully free of corporate interference inside your own head, right? Right?
Early in 2021, Coors launched an ad campaign that seemed to be a b bit of a gimmick, if not a joke. Coors claimed that if people watched an ad before bed, and played an 8-hour soundscape while sleeping, their dreams would be filled with crisp mountains and cold, thirst-quenching beverages. While, the Coors campaign didn’t go viral, someone was paying attention. A group of 35 leading researchers published an open letter on the subject of corporate dream manipulation, in the journal Dream Engineering.
"Multiple marketing studies are openly testing new ways to alter and motivate purchasing behavior through dream and sleep hacking. The commercial, for-profit use of dream incubation is rapidly becoming a reality," wrote the investigators. "As sleep and dream researchers, we are deeply concerned about marketing plans aimed at generating profits at the cost of interfering with our natural nocturnal memory processing."
People have tried to manipulate their dreams for countless years, but only in recent years have scientists attempted to target or manipulate behavior through dreams. In a 2014 study, smokers exposed to tobacco smoke and rotten egg smell while sleeping reduced their cigarette consumption by 30%.
Most research into dream manipulation has been aimed at positive results, but the experts warn that there’s no reason corporations couldn’t use it for their own purposes, especially given the widespread usage of devices such as Alexa. A company could play a certain sound during a commercial, they suggested, and then replay that sound through a device while people are sleeping to trigger a dream about that product.
And just when our COVID-19–driven anxiety dreams were starting to subside.
The experts said that the Federal Trade Commission could intervene to prevent companies from attempting dream manipulation, and have done so in the past to stop subliminal advertising, but as of right now, there’s nothing stopping big business from messing with your dreams. But hey, at least they’re not directly beaming commercials into our heads with gamma radiation. Yet.
Got breast milk?
As we know, breast milk has endless benefits for newbords and babies, but many things can stand in the way of a mother’s ability to breastfeed. Baby formula has served as a good enough substitute. But now, there might be something that’s even better.
A start-up company called BIOMILQ created a product that could be groundbreaking. Using “breakthrough mammary biotechnology,” BIOMILQ created cell-cultured breast milk.
Leila Strickland, a biologist who is the company’s cofounder and chief science officer, said she’s had her own personal experience with breastfeeding and believes the product could benefit many if just given a chance. "Some of the cells we’ve looked at can produce milk for months and months," according to a company statement
Baby formula has done its job feeding and nourishing babies since 1865, but could BIOMILQ do better?
Time – and babies – will tell.
Delta becomes dominant coronavirus variant in U.S.
The contagious Delta variant has become the dominant form of the coronavirus in the United States, now accounting for more than 51% of COVID-19 cases in the country, according to new CDC data to updated on July 6.
The variant, also known as B.1.617.2 and first detected in India, makes up more than 80% of new cases in some Midwestern states, including Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. Delta also accounts for 74% of cases in Western states such as Colorado and Utah and 59% of cases in Southern states such as Louisiana and Texas.
Communities with low vaccination rates are bearing the brunt of new Delta cases. Public health experts are urging those who are unvaccinated to get a shot to protect themselves and their communities against future surges.
“Right now we have two Americas: the vaccinated and the unvaccinated,” Paul Offit, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told NPR.
“We’re feeling pretty good right now because it’s the summer,” he said. “But come winter, if we still have a significant percentage of the population that is unvaccinated, we’re going to see this virus surge again.”
So far, COVID-19 vaccines appear to protect people against the Delta variant. But health officials are watching other variants that could evade vaccine protection and lead to major outbreaks this year.
For instance, certain mutations in the Epsilon variant may allow it to evade the immunity from past infections and current COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study published July 1 in the Science. The variant, also known as B.1.427/B.1.429 and first identified in California, has now been reported in 34 countries and could become widespread in the United States.
Researchers from the University of Washington and clinics in Switzerland tested the variant in blood samples from vaccinated people, as well as those who were previously infected with COVID-19. They found that the neutralizing power was reduced by about 2 to 3½ times.
The research team also visualized the variant and found that three mutations on Epsilon’s spike protein allow the virus to escape certain antibodies and lower the strength of vaccines.
Epsilon “relies on an indirect and unusual neutralization-escape strategy,” they wrote, saying that understanding these escape routes could help scientists track new variants, curb the pandemic, and create booster shots.
In Australia, for instance, public health officials have detected the Lambda variant, which could be more infectious than the Delta variant and resistant to vaccines, according to Sky News.
A hotel quarantine program in New South Wales identified the variant in someone who had returned from travel, the news outlet reported. Also known as C.37, Lambda was named a “variant of interest” by the World Health Organization in June.
Lambda was first identified in Peru in December and now accounts for more than 80% of the country’s cases, according to the Financial Times. It has since been found in 27 countries, including the U.S., U.K., and Germany.
The variant has seven mutations on the spike protein that allow the virus to infect human cells, the news outlet reported. One mutation is like another mutation on the Delta variant, which could make it more contagious.
In a preprint study published July 1, researchers at the University of Chile at Santiago found that Lambda is better able to escape antibodies created by the CoronaVac vaccine made by Sinovac in China. In the paper, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, researchers tested blood samples from local health care workers in Santiago who had received two doses of the vaccine.
“Our data revealed that the spike protein ... carries mutations conferring increased infectivity and the ability to escape from neutralizing antibodies,” they wrote.
The research team urged countries to continue testing for contagious variants, even in areas with high vaccination rates, so scientists can identify mutations quickly and analyze whether new variants can escape vaccines.
“The world has to get its act together,” Saad Omer, PhD, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told NPR. “Otherwise yet another, potentially more dangerous, variant could emerge.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The contagious Delta variant has become the dominant form of the coronavirus in the United States, now accounting for more than 51% of COVID-19 cases in the country, according to new CDC data to updated on July 6.
The variant, also known as B.1.617.2 and first detected in India, makes up more than 80% of new cases in some Midwestern states, including Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. Delta also accounts for 74% of cases in Western states such as Colorado and Utah and 59% of cases in Southern states such as Louisiana and Texas.
Communities with low vaccination rates are bearing the brunt of new Delta cases. Public health experts are urging those who are unvaccinated to get a shot to protect themselves and their communities against future surges.
“Right now we have two Americas: the vaccinated and the unvaccinated,” Paul Offit, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told NPR.
“We’re feeling pretty good right now because it’s the summer,” he said. “But come winter, if we still have a significant percentage of the population that is unvaccinated, we’re going to see this virus surge again.”
So far, COVID-19 vaccines appear to protect people against the Delta variant. But health officials are watching other variants that could evade vaccine protection and lead to major outbreaks this year.
For instance, certain mutations in the Epsilon variant may allow it to evade the immunity from past infections and current COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study published July 1 in the Science. The variant, also known as B.1.427/B.1.429 and first identified in California, has now been reported in 34 countries and could become widespread in the United States.
Researchers from the University of Washington and clinics in Switzerland tested the variant in blood samples from vaccinated people, as well as those who were previously infected with COVID-19. They found that the neutralizing power was reduced by about 2 to 3½ times.
The research team also visualized the variant and found that three mutations on Epsilon’s spike protein allow the virus to escape certain antibodies and lower the strength of vaccines.
Epsilon “relies on an indirect and unusual neutralization-escape strategy,” they wrote, saying that understanding these escape routes could help scientists track new variants, curb the pandemic, and create booster shots.
In Australia, for instance, public health officials have detected the Lambda variant, which could be more infectious than the Delta variant and resistant to vaccines, according to Sky News.
A hotel quarantine program in New South Wales identified the variant in someone who had returned from travel, the news outlet reported. Also known as C.37, Lambda was named a “variant of interest” by the World Health Organization in June.
Lambda was first identified in Peru in December and now accounts for more than 80% of the country’s cases, according to the Financial Times. It has since been found in 27 countries, including the U.S., U.K., and Germany.
The variant has seven mutations on the spike protein that allow the virus to infect human cells, the news outlet reported. One mutation is like another mutation on the Delta variant, which could make it more contagious.
In a preprint study published July 1, researchers at the University of Chile at Santiago found that Lambda is better able to escape antibodies created by the CoronaVac vaccine made by Sinovac in China. In the paper, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, researchers tested blood samples from local health care workers in Santiago who had received two doses of the vaccine.
“Our data revealed that the spike protein ... carries mutations conferring increased infectivity and the ability to escape from neutralizing antibodies,” they wrote.
The research team urged countries to continue testing for contagious variants, even in areas with high vaccination rates, so scientists can identify mutations quickly and analyze whether new variants can escape vaccines.
“The world has to get its act together,” Saad Omer, PhD, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told NPR. “Otherwise yet another, potentially more dangerous, variant could emerge.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The contagious Delta variant has become the dominant form of the coronavirus in the United States, now accounting for more than 51% of COVID-19 cases in the country, according to new CDC data to updated on July 6.
The variant, also known as B.1.617.2 and first detected in India, makes up more than 80% of new cases in some Midwestern states, including Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. Delta also accounts for 74% of cases in Western states such as Colorado and Utah and 59% of cases in Southern states such as Louisiana and Texas.
Communities with low vaccination rates are bearing the brunt of new Delta cases. Public health experts are urging those who are unvaccinated to get a shot to protect themselves and their communities against future surges.
“Right now we have two Americas: the vaccinated and the unvaccinated,” Paul Offit, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told NPR.
“We’re feeling pretty good right now because it’s the summer,” he said. “But come winter, if we still have a significant percentage of the population that is unvaccinated, we’re going to see this virus surge again.”
So far, COVID-19 vaccines appear to protect people against the Delta variant. But health officials are watching other variants that could evade vaccine protection and lead to major outbreaks this year.
For instance, certain mutations in the Epsilon variant may allow it to evade the immunity from past infections and current COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study published July 1 in the Science. The variant, also known as B.1.427/B.1.429 and first identified in California, has now been reported in 34 countries and could become widespread in the United States.
Researchers from the University of Washington and clinics in Switzerland tested the variant in blood samples from vaccinated people, as well as those who were previously infected with COVID-19. They found that the neutralizing power was reduced by about 2 to 3½ times.
The research team also visualized the variant and found that three mutations on Epsilon’s spike protein allow the virus to escape certain antibodies and lower the strength of vaccines.
Epsilon “relies on an indirect and unusual neutralization-escape strategy,” they wrote, saying that understanding these escape routes could help scientists track new variants, curb the pandemic, and create booster shots.
In Australia, for instance, public health officials have detected the Lambda variant, which could be more infectious than the Delta variant and resistant to vaccines, according to Sky News.
A hotel quarantine program in New South Wales identified the variant in someone who had returned from travel, the news outlet reported. Also known as C.37, Lambda was named a “variant of interest” by the World Health Organization in June.
Lambda was first identified in Peru in December and now accounts for more than 80% of the country’s cases, according to the Financial Times. It has since been found in 27 countries, including the U.S., U.K., and Germany.
The variant has seven mutations on the spike protein that allow the virus to infect human cells, the news outlet reported. One mutation is like another mutation on the Delta variant, which could make it more contagious.
In a preprint study published July 1, researchers at the University of Chile at Santiago found that Lambda is better able to escape antibodies created by the CoronaVac vaccine made by Sinovac in China. In the paper, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, researchers tested blood samples from local health care workers in Santiago who had received two doses of the vaccine.
“Our data revealed that the spike protein ... carries mutations conferring increased infectivity and the ability to escape from neutralizing antibodies,” they wrote.
The research team urged countries to continue testing for contagious variants, even in areas with high vaccination rates, so scientists can identify mutations quickly and analyze whether new variants can escape vaccines.
“The world has to get its act together,” Saad Omer, PhD, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told NPR. “Otherwise yet another, potentially more dangerous, variant could emerge.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Bleeding events tied to higher mortality in patients with factor V inhibition
Coagulation factor V (FV) inhibitor is a rare disease with a mortality rate of nearly 15%. Increased mortality was significantly associated with the incidence of major bleeding, according to a review of PubMed case reports published in Thrombosis Update.
FV autoantibodies are most often detected in patients in the postoperative state, in those who have received a blood transfusion, in patients treated with antibiotics, and in those with immune diseases, according to the online report by Hideo Wada, MD, PhD, of the Mie Prefectural General Medical Center, Yokkaichi, Japan, and colleagues. These patients who acquired immune FV inhibitor (AIFVD) vary widely in symptoms from asymptomatic to mild or severe hemorrhagic manifestations, with some reports of thrombotic complications, the authors added.
Their review assessed the PubMed literature from Jan. 1, 1968, to July 31, 2020, and found 212 case reports on acquired FV deficiency. Of these, 150 cases with confirmed FV inhibitor positivity were included. The 150 reported cases of FV inhibitor were primarily from the United States (n = 48) and Japan (n = 43). The median patient age was 68.0 years, and the female to male ratio of patients was 0.47, according to the authors. The largest associated percentage of underlying conditions were postoperative state (25.3%), idiopathic (18.7%), infection (12.7%) and malignant neoplasms and autoimmune disease, at 7.3% each.
Major bleeds
A total of 73 cases were positive for major bleeding (48.7%) and 30 cases were negative (20.0%), while the rest were undetermined (31.3%). The FV activity was ≤ 28% in all patients with FV inhibitor.
The overall mortality rate was 14.6%, with half of the nonsurvivors dying of major bleeding. The mortality rate was more than twofold higher in the group with major bleeding (23.3% mortality) compared to the group without major bleeding (10.0%), yielding an odds ratio of 2.73 of death because of a major bleed. The most frequent types of fatal bleeding were intracranial bleeding and gastrointestinal bleeding. Of the 20 deaths reported in 135 patients with data, the causes of death were major bleeding (12 patients), infection (6 patients) and thrombosis (2 patients). Remission was observed in three of the nonsurvivors, indicating that even after remission, patients with FV inhibitor might still be susceptible to infection or thrombosis, according to the authors.
“[Major bleeding] should be treated aggressively; however, the best treatment is not clear and even patients in remission should be followed closely due to the risk of death from infection or thrombosis,” the authors concluded.
They reported having no conflicts of interest.
Coagulation factor V (FV) inhibitor is a rare disease with a mortality rate of nearly 15%. Increased mortality was significantly associated with the incidence of major bleeding, according to a review of PubMed case reports published in Thrombosis Update.
FV autoantibodies are most often detected in patients in the postoperative state, in those who have received a blood transfusion, in patients treated with antibiotics, and in those with immune diseases, according to the online report by Hideo Wada, MD, PhD, of the Mie Prefectural General Medical Center, Yokkaichi, Japan, and colleagues. These patients who acquired immune FV inhibitor (AIFVD) vary widely in symptoms from asymptomatic to mild or severe hemorrhagic manifestations, with some reports of thrombotic complications, the authors added.
Their review assessed the PubMed literature from Jan. 1, 1968, to July 31, 2020, and found 212 case reports on acquired FV deficiency. Of these, 150 cases with confirmed FV inhibitor positivity were included. The 150 reported cases of FV inhibitor were primarily from the United States (n = 48) and Japan (n = 43). The median patient age was 68.0 years, and the female to male ratio of patients was 0.47, according to the authors. The largest associated percentage of underlying conditions were postoperative state (25.3%), idiopathic (18.7%), infection (12.7%) and malignant neoplasms and autoimmune disease, at 7.3% each.
Major bleeds
A total of 73 cases were positive for major bleeding (48.7%) and 30 cases were negative (20.0%), while the rest were undetermined (31.3%). The FV activity was ≤ 28% in all patients with FV inhibitor.
The overall mortality rate was 14.6%, with half of the nonsurvivors dying of major bleeding. The mortality rate was more than twofold higher in the group with major bleeding (23.3% mortality) compared to the group without major bleeding (10.0%), yielding an odds ratio of 2.73 of death because of a major bleed. The most frequent types of fatal bleeding were intracranial bleeding and gastrointestinal bleeding. Of the 20 deaths reported in 135 patients with data, the causes of death were major bleeding (12 patients), infection (6 patients) and thrombosis (2 patients). Remission was observed in three of the nonsurvivors, indicating that even after remission, patients with FV inhibitor might still be susceptible to infection or thrombosis, according to the authors.
“[Major bleeding] should be treated aggressively; however, the best treatment is not clear and even patients in remission should be followed closely due to the risk of death from infection or thrombosis,” the authors concluded.
They reported having no conflicts of interest.
Coagulation factor V (FV) inhibitor is a rare disease with a mortality rate of nearly 15%. Increased mortality was significantly associated with the incidence of major bleeding, according to a review of PubMed case reports published in Thrombosis Update.
FV autoantibodies are most often detected in patients in the postoperative state, in those who have received a blood transfusion, in patients treated with antibiotics, and in those with immune diseases, according to the online report by Hideo Wada, MD, PhD, of the Mie Prefectural General Medical Center, Yokkaichi, Japan, and colleagues. These patients who acquired immune FV inhibitor (AIFVD) vary widely in symptoms from asymptomatic to mild or severe hemorrhagic manifestations, with some reports of thrombotic complications, the authors added.
Their review assessed the PubMed literature from Jan. 1, 1968, to July 31, 2020, and found 212 case reports on acquired FV deficiency. Of these, 150 cases with confirmed FV inhibitor positivity were included. The 150 reported cases of FV inhibitor were primarily from the United States (n = 48) and Japan (n = 43). The median patient age was 68.0 years, and the female to male ratio of patients was 0.47, according to the authors. The largest associated percentage of underlying conditions were postoperative state (25.3%), idiopathic (18.7%), infection (12.7%) and malignant neoplasms and autoimmune disease, at 7.3% each.
Major bleeds
A total of 73 cases were positive for major bleeding (48.7%) and 30 cases were negative (20.0%), while the rest were undetermined (31.3%). The FV activity was ≤ 28% in all patients with FV inhibitor.
The overall mortality rate was 14.6%, with half of the nonsurvivors dying of major bleeding. The mortality rate was more than twofold higher in the group with major bleeding (23.3% mortality) compared to the group without major bleeding (10.0%), yielding an odds ratio of 2.73 of death because of a major bleed. The most frequent types of fatal bleeding were intracranial bleeding and gastrointestinal bleeding. Of the 20 deaths reported in 135 patients with data, the causes of death were major bleeding (12 patients), infection (6 patients) and thrombosis (2 patients). Remission was observed in three of the nonsurvivors, indicating that even after remission, patients with FV inhibitor might still be susceptible to infection or thrombosis, according to the authors.
“[Major bleeding] should be treated aggressively; however, the best treatment is not clear and even patients in remission should be followed closely due to the risk of death from infection or thrombosis,” the authors concluded.
They reported having no conflicts of interest.
FROM THROMBOSIS UPDATE
What’s my number? Do I really need $10 million to retire from my medical practice?
“What’s my number?” When I hear this from my financial planning clients, I know they mean: In my 20-year career, this “magic number” is by far the most common thing physicians want to know.
If you look online, articles may recommend having a portfolio valued at $2 million, $5 million, and not uncommonly $10 million or more to retire. Really? $10 million? You might be thinking that surely not everyone needs that amount. Luckily, that’s true.
There’s no magic number your portfolio should be – just your number.
It’s human nature to want a simple, clear target to shoot for. But unfortunately, there’s no generic answer when it comes to saving for retirement. Even after a comprehensive hour-long review of a client’s financial plan – including insurance, investments, estate planning, and other items – the most honest answer I can give is: “It depends.” Not satisfying, I know. But there are still too many holes to fill.
By far the most important factor in getting beyond “it depends” is having an accurate estimate of annual retirement expenses. I have clients who live comfortably on $50,000 a year in retirement and others who need $250,000 or more. Knowing how much you need – your personal number – depends on the individual’s unique dream for retirement and calculating what that dream will cost.
Form a guesstimate based on savings and anticipated expenses
The total portfolio value needed to sustain an annual expense of $50,000 a year in retirement spending versus the portfolio size needed for $250,000 or more, blows apart the fiction of a universal “magic number.” It’s just not that simple. While it’s hard to gauge exactly what you will need, the right information can lead to a logical guesstimate about what size portfolio will provide you with financial independence.
In the end, it’s up to you to determine your desired retirement lifestyle. Then, the only way to get there is to calculate how much it will cost and save up for it by following a well-informed financial plan. This plan will be based on strategy that shifts from the middle to the later stages of your medical career and into retirement.
Let’s see how it works.
Early to mid-career: Focus on building up retirement savings
We ultimately want to save enough to meet our retirement expenses. But figuring out how much to save when you’re in your 40s and 50s is difficult. A mid-career physician likely has significant family- and child-related expenses. When we become empty-nesters, those expenses will decline. In retirement they may disappear entirely, but new expenses may arise.
With large variations in expenses at different life stages, it’s hard to calculate exactly how much you will need to save. Early on, the most sensible thing is putting aside a “reasonable” percentage of gross income for retirement savings.
What is a ‘reasonable’ savings goal for retirement?
As is often the case with high-income earners, many of our clients don’t have a budget or a clear picture of their current expenses and spending habits. That’s alright as long as they are building up a reasonable nest egg for the future – which begs the question of what is reasonable.
For mid-career docs, a reasonable goal to aim for is putting aside 20% of gross income for retirement. What you spend the rest of your money on is less important than how much you’re saving.
This is quite different from how you’ll handle expenses during retirement, when you no longer have a steady stream of income; rather, you have a pot of money that needs to last you another 20, 30, or even 40 years. At that point, thinking about specific expenses becomes more important (more on this topic later). That said, if you’re a mid-career doctor who is not meeting this 20% savings goal, it’s time to make a plan that will free up cash for retirement savings and investments.
Later-career docs: Calculate your spending level in retirement
Financial success means having a portfolio that can support your retirement dreams – with the confidence that your money will last and you won’t need to watch every dollar you spend. As you near retirement, your focus will shift away from accumulating savings to calculating the annual expenses you will have to meet in retirement.
A good place to start is figuring out which expenses will be necessary and which will be more flexible. To do this, separate your anticipated spending into these two categories:
- Fixed expenses: You can confidently forecast your “must-have” fixed expenses – such as property taxes, property/casualty insurance, health care costs, utilities, and groceries – because they remain steady from month to month.
- Discretionary expenses: These “like-to-have” expenses vary from month to month. This makes them harder to predict but easier to control. They might include dining out, travel, and charitable contributions.
As a retiree, understanding your fixed and discretionary expenses can help you prepare for a bear market, when the stock market can decline by 20% or more. Your portfolio won’t consist entirely of stocks, so it shouldn’t drop to that degree. Still, it will decline significantly. You may need to cut back on spending for a year or 2 to allow your portfolio to recover, particularly if the portfolio declines early in retirement.
Are you ready for retirement?
During the long bull market preceding the great recession of 2007 and 2009, many physicians retired –only to return to their practices when their portfolio values plummeted. In the exuberance of the moment, many failed to heed the warnings of many economists and got caught flat-footed.
Right now it’s a bull market, but we’re seeing concerning signs, such as an out-of-control housing market and rumblings about inflation and rising consumer costs. Sound familiar? If you hope to retire soon, take the time to objectively look around the corner so you can plan appropriately – whether your goal is to retire completely, stay in practice part-time, or even take on a new opportunity.
In an “it-depends” world, don’t be lured by a fictitious magic number, no matter what comes up when you Google: “When can I retire?” Instead, save early, imagine your dream retirement, and calculate expenses later to see what’s possible.
Dr. Greenwald is a graduate of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. Dr. Greenwald completed his internal medicine residency at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He practiced internal medicine in the Twin Cities for 11 years before making the transition to financial planning for physicians, beginning in 1998.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“What’s my number?” When I hear this from my financial planning clients, I know they mean: In my 20-year career, this “magic number” is by far the most common thing physicians want to know.
If you look online, articles may recommend having a portfolio valued at $2 million, $5 million, and not uncommonly $10 million or more to retire. Really? $10 million? You might be thinking that surely not everyone needs that amount. Luckily, that’s true.
There’s no magic number your portfolio should be – just your number.
It’s human nature to want a simple, clear target to shoot for. But unfortunately, there’s no generic answer when it comes to saving for retirement. Even after a comprehensive hour-long review of a client’s financial plan – including insurance, investments, estate planning, and other items – the most honest answer I can give is: “It depends.” Not satisfying, I know. But there are still too many holes to fill.
By far the most important factor in getting beyond “it depends” is having an accurate estimate of annual retirement expenses. I have clients who live comfortably on $50,000 a year in retirement and others who need $250,000 or more. Knowing how much you need – your personal number – depends on the individual’s unique dream for retirement and calculating what that dream will cost.
Form a guesstimate based on savings and anticipated expenses
The total portfolio value needed to sustain an annual expense of $50,000 a year in retirement spending versus the portfolio size needed for $250,000 or more, blows apart the fiction of a universal “magic number.” It’s just not that simple. While it’s hard to gauge exactly what you will need, the right information can lead to a logical guesstimate about what size portfolio will provide you with financial independence.
In the end, it’s up to you to determine your desired retirement lifestyle. Then, the only way to get there is to calculate how much it will cost and save up for it by following a well-informed financial plan. This plan will be based on strategy that shifts from the middle to the later stages of your medical career and into retirement.
Let’s see how it works.
Early to mid-career: Focus on building up retirement savings
We ultimately want to save enough to meet our retirement expenses. But figuring out how much to save when you’re in your 40s and 50s is difficult. A mid-career physician likely has significant family- and child-related expenses. When we become empty-nesters, those expenses will decline. In retirement they may disappear entirely, but new expenses may arise.
With large variations in expenses at different life stages, it’s hard to calculate exactly how much you will need to save. Early on, the most sensible thing is putting aside a “reasonable” percentage of gross income for retirement savings.
What is a ‘reasonable’ savings goal for retirement?
As is often the case with high-income earners, many of our clients don’t have a budget or a clear picture of their current expenses and spending habits. That’s alright as long as they are building up a reasonable nest egg for the future – which begs the question of what is reasonable.
For mid-career docs, a reasonable goal to aim for is putting aside 20% of gross income for retirement. What you spend the rest of your money on is less important than how much you’re saving.
This is quite different from how you’ll handle expenses during retirement, when you no longer have a steady stream of income; rather, you have a pot of money that needs to last you another 20, 30, or even 40 years. At that point, thinking about specific expenses becomes more important (more on this topic later). That said, if you’re a mid-career doctor who is not meeting this 20% savings goal, it’s time to make a plan that will free up cash for retirement savings and investments.
Later-career docs: Calculate your spending level in retirement
Financial success means having a portfolio that can support your retirement dreams – with the confidence that your money will last and you won’t need to watch every dollar you spend. As you near retirement, your focus will shift away from accumulating savings to calculating the annual expenses you will have to meet in retirement.
A good place to start is figuring out which expenses will be necessary and which will be more flexible. To do this, separate your anticipated spending into these two categories:
- Fixed expenses: You can confidently forecast your “must-have” fixed expenses – such as property taxes, property/casualty insurance, health care costs, utilities, and groceries – because they remain steady from month to month.
- Discretionary expenses: These “like-to-have” expenses vary from month to month. This makes them harder to predict but easier to control. They might include dining out, travel, and charitable contributions.
As a retiree, understanding your fixed and discretionary expenses can help you prepare for a bear market, when the stock market can decline by 20% or more. Your portfolio won’t consist entirely of stocks, so it shouldn’t drop to that degree. Still, it will decline significantly. You may need to cut back on spending for a year or 2 to allow your portfolio to recover, particularly if the portfolio declines early in retirement.
Are you ready for retirement?
During the long bull market preceding the great recession of 2007 and 2009, many physicians retired –only to return to their practices when their portfolio values plummeted. In the exuberance of the moment, many failed to heed the warnings of many economists and got caught flat-footed.
Right now it’s a bull market, but we’re seeing concerning signs, such as an out-of-control housing market and rumblings about inflation and rising consumer costs. Sound familiar? If you hope to retire soon, take the time to objectively look around the corner so you can plan appropriately – whether your goal is to retire completely, stay in practice part-time, or even take on a new opportunity.
In an “it-depends” world, don’t be lured by a fictitious magic number, no matter what comes up when you Google: “When can I retire?” Instead, save early, imagine your dream retirement, and calculate expenses later to see what’s possible.
Dr. Greenwald is a graduate of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. Dr. Greenwald completed his internal medicine residency at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He practiced internal medicine in the Twin Cities for 11 years before making the transition to financial planning for physicians, beginning in 1998.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“What’s my number?” When I hear this from my financial planning clients, I know they mean: In my 20-year career, this “magic number” is by far the most common thing physicians want to know.
If you look online, articles may recommend having a portfolio valued at $2 million, $5 million, and not uncommonly $10 million or more to retire. Really? $10 million? You might be thinking that surely not everyone needs that amount. Luckily, that’s true.
There’s no magic number your portfolio should be – just your number.
It’s human nature to want a simple, clear target to shoot for. But unfortunately, there’s no generic answer when it comes to saving for retirement. Even after a comprehensive hour-long review of a client’s financial plan – including insurance, investments, estate planning, and other items – the most honest answer I can give is: “It depends.” Not satisfying, I know. But there are still too many holes to fill.
By far the most important factor in getting beyond “it depends” is having an accurate estimate of annual retirement expenses. I have clients who live comfortably on $50,000 a year in retirement and others who need $250,000 or more. Knowing how much you need – your personal number – depends on the individual’s unique dream for retirement and calculating what that dream will cost.
Form a guesstimate based on savings and anticipated expenses
The total portfolio value needed to sustain an annual expense of $50,000 a year in retirement spending versus the portfolio size needed for $250,000 or more, blows apart the fiction of a universal “magic number.” It’s just not that simple. While it’s hard to gauge exactly what you will need, the right information can lead to a logical guesstimate about what size portfolio will provide you with financial independence.
In the end, it’s up to you to determine your desired retirement lifestyle. Then, the only way to get there is to calculate how much it will cost and save up for it by following a well-informed financial plan. This plan will be based on strategy that shifts from the middle to the later stages of your medical career and into retirement.
Let’s see how it works.
Early to mid-career: Focus on building up retirement savings
We ultimately want to save enough to meet our retirement expenses. But figuring out how much to save when you’re in your 40s and 50s is difficult. A mid-career physician likely has significant family- and child-related expenses. When we become empty-nesters, those expenses will decline. In retirement they may disappear entirely, but new expenses may arise.
With large variations in expenses at different life stages, it’s hard to calculate exactly how much you will need to save. Early on, the most sensible thing is putting aside a “reasonable” percentage of gross income for retirement savings.
What is a ‘reasonable’ savings goal for retirement?
As is often the case with high-income earners, many of our clients don’t have a budget or a clear picture of their current expenses and spending habits. That’s alright as long as they are building up a reasonable nest egg for the future – which begs the question of what is reasonable.
For mid-career docs, a reasonable goal to aim for is putting aside 20% of gross income for retirement. What you spend the rest of your money on is less important than how much you’re saving.
This is quite different from how you’ll handle expenses during retirement, when you no longer have a steady stream of income; rather, you have a pot of money that needs to last you another 20, 30, or even 40 years. At that point, thinking about specific expenses becomes more important (more on this topic later). That said, if you’re a mid-career doctor who is not meeting this 20% savings goal, it’s time to make a plan that will free up cash for retirement savings and investments.
Later-career docs: Calculate your spending level in retirement
Financial success means having a portfolio that can support your retirement dreams – with the confidence that your money will last and you won’t need to watch every dollar you spend. As you near retirement, your focus will shift away from accumulating savings to calculating the annual expenses you will have to meet in retirement.
A good place to start is figuring out which expenses will be necessary and which will be more flexible. To do this, separate your anticipated spending into these two categories:
- Fixed expenses: You can confidently forecast your “must-have” fixed expenses – such as property taxes, property/casualty insurance, health care costs, utilities, and groceries – because they remain steady from month to month.
- Discretionary expenses: These “like-to-have” expenses vary from month to month. This makes them harder to predict but easier to control. They might include dining out, travel, and charitable contributions.
As a retiree, understanding your fixed and discretionary expenses can help you prepare for a bear market, when the stock market can decline by 20% or more. Your portfolio won’t consist entirely of stocks, so it shouldn’t drop to that degree. Still, it will decline significantly. You may need to cut back on spending for a year or 2 to allow your portfolio to recover, particularly if the portfolio declines early in retirement.
Are you ready for retirement?
During the long bull market preceding the great recession of 2007 and 2009, many physicians retired –only to return to their practices when their portfolio values plummeted. In the exuberance of the moment, many failed to heed the warnings of many economists and got caught flat-footed.
Right now it’s a bull market, but we’re seeing concerning signs, such as an out-of-control housing market and rumblings about inflation and rising consumer costs. Sound familiar? If you hope to retire soon, take the time to objectively look around the corner so you can plan appropriately – whether your goal is to retire completely, stay in practice part-time, or even take on a new opportunity.
In an “it-depends” world, don’t be lured by a fictitious magic number, no matter what comes up when you Google: “When can I retire?” Instead, save early, imagine your dream retirement, and calculate expenses later to see what’s possible.
Dr. Greenwald is a graduate of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. Dr. Greenwald completed his internal medicine residency at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He practiced internal medicine in the Twin Cities for 11 years before making the transition to financial planning for physicians, beginning in 1998.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.