User login
-
High MRD rates with CAR T in r/r B-ALL in kids
It’s early days, but preliminary data show that a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T) product was associated with high rates of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and complete or near-complete responses in children and adolescents with relapsed or refractory B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).
Among 24 patients aged 3-20 years with relapsed or refractory B-ALL treated with the CAR T construct brexucabtagene autoleucel (KTE-X19; Tecartus), 16 had either a complete response or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi), for a combined CR/CRi rate of 67%, reported Alan S. Wayne, MD, from Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and the University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, also in Los Angeles.
“Optimized KTE-X19 formulation of 40 mL and revised toxicity management were associated with an improved risk/benefit profile,” he said in audio narration accompanying a poster presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.
Although overall survival for children and adolescents receiving first-line therapy for B-ALL is associated with remission rates of 80% or more, the prognosis is poor following relapse, despite the availability of newer therapies such as blinatumomab (Blincyto) and inotuzumab (Besponsa), with a 1-year overall survival rate of approximately 36%, he said.
To see whether they could improve on these odds, Dr. Wayne and colleagues conducted the phase 1 Zuma-4 trial, a single-arm, open-label study in children and adolescents with relapsed/refractory B-ALL.
He reported long-term follow-up results from the study.
Zuma-4 details
A total of 24 patients, median age 14 (range 3 to 20) years, received the CAR T product. Four patients received the starting dose of 2 x 106 CAR T per kg (these patients were enrolled per protocol for evaluation of dose-limiting toxicities).
Following the initial dosing and evaluation of safety, 11 patients were treated with a dose of 1 x 106 cells per kg with a total volume of 68 mL, and 9 received 1 x 106 per kg at a volume of 40 mL (the dose being used in current phase 2 trials).
The median follow-up at the time of data cutoff in September 2020 was 36.1 months.
The combined CR/CRi rate was 75% for patients treated at the starting dose, 64% for patients treated at the 1 x 106 68-mL dose, and 67% for those who received the 48-mL dose.
The respective median durations of response were 4.14 months, 10.68 months, and not reached.
All patients who had an objective response had undetectable MRD assessed by flow cytometry with a sensitivity of .01%.
The therapy served as a bridge to allogeneic transplant in 16 patients, including 2 in the initial dose group, 8 in the 68-mL group, and 6 in the 40-mL group.
Median overall survival was not reached in either of the two 1 x 106–dose groups, but was 8 months in the 2 x 106 group.
There were no dose-limiting toxicities seen, and the adverse event profile was consistent with that seen with the use of CAR T therapy for other malignancies.
Patients treated at either the 68-mL or 40-mL 1 x 106–dose levels received tocilizumab only for neurologic events occurring in context with the cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and were started on steroids for grade 2 or greater neurologic events.
Rates of grade 3 or greater neurologic events were 25% in the initial-dose group, 27% in the 68-mL group, and 11% in the 40-mL group. Respective rates of grade 3 or greater CRS were 75%, 27%, and 22%.
Four patients died on study, all from causes deemed unrelated to CAR T therapy: two from progressive disease, one from disseminated mucormycosis, and one from Escherichia sepsis.
Investigators are currently enrolling pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory B-ALL or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including patients with MRD-positive disease and early relapse after first-line therapy, in phase 2 of the Zuma-4 study.
How long will it last?
Howard Weinstein, MD, chief of pediatric hematology/oncology at Mass General for Children in Boston, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the response rate and comparatively low toxicity profile look good.
“One of the challenges, though, with CAR T-cell products has been relapse – almost half of the patients who go into remission relapse. Sometimes leukemic cells change their surface properties, resulting in antigen loss, there’s T-cell exhaustion, and other postulates for relapse,” he said.
He noted that due to the high number of patients who went on to transplant, the study lacks good data on the durability of remissions.
“One of the unknowns at the moment is whether CAR T cells are sufficient to cure a high percentage of children who have had a relapse, or do you need to follow it with a bone marrow transplant,” Dr. Weinstein said.
The ZUMA-4 trial is sponsored by Kite Pharma. Dr. Wayne disclosed research funding from Kite, Servier, and Institut de Recherches Internationales. Dr. Weinstein had no relevant disclosures.
It’s early days, but preliminary data show that a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T) product was associated with high rates of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and complete or near-complete responses in children and adolescents with relapsed or refractory B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).
Among 24 patients aged 3-20 years with relapsed or refractory B-ALL treated with the CAR T construct brexucabtagene autoleucel (KTE-X19; Tecartus), 16 had either a complete response or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi), for a combined CR/CRi rate of 67%, reported Alan S. Wayne, MD, from Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and the University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, also in Los Angeles.
“Optimized KTE-X19 formulation of 40 mL and revised toxicity management were associated with an improved risk/benefit profile,” he said in audio narration accompanying a poster presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.
Although overall survival for children and adolescents receiving first-line therapy for B-ALL is associated with remission rates of 80% or more, the prognosis is poor following relapse, despite the availability of newer therapies such as blinatumomab (Blincyto) and inotuzumab (Besponsa), with a 1-year overall survival rate of approximately 36%, he said.
To see whether they could improve on these odds, Dr. Wayne and colleagues conducted the phase 1 Zuma-4 trial, a single-arm, open-label study in children and adolescents with relapsed/refractory B-ALL.
He reported long-term follow-up results from the study.
Zuma-4 details
A total of 24 patients, median age 14 (range 3 to 20) years, received the CAR T product. Four patients received the starting dose of 2 x 106 CAR T per kg (these patients were enrolled per protocol for evaluation of dose-limiting toxicities).
Following the initial dosing and evaluation of safety, 11 patients were treated with a dose of 1 x 106 cells per kg with a total volume of 68 mL, and 9 received 1 x 106 per kg at a volume of 40 mL (the dose being used in current phase 2 trials).
The median follow-up at the time of data cutoff in September 2020 was 36.1 months.
The combined CR/CRi rate was 75% for patients treated at the starting dose, 64% for patients treated at the 1 x 106 68-mL dose, and 67% for those who received the 48-mL dose.
The respective median durations of response were 4.14 months, 10.68 months, and not reached.
All patients who had an objective response had undetectable MRD assessed by flow cytometry with a sensitivity of .01%.
The therapy served as a bridge to allogeneic transplant in 16 patients, including 2 in the initial dose group, 8 in the 68-mL group, and 6 in the 40-mL group.
Median overall survival was not reached in either of the two 1 x 106–dose groups, but was 8 months in the 2 x 106 group.
There were no dose-limiting toxicities seen, and the adverse event profile was consistent with that seen with the use of CAR T therapy for other malignancies.
Patients treated at either the 68-mL or 40-mL 1 x 106–dose levels received tocilizumab only for neurologic events occurring in context with the cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and were started on steroids for grade 2 or greater neurologic events.
Rates of grade 3 or greater neurologic events were 25% in the initial-dose group, 27% in the 68-mL group, and 11% in the 40-mL group. Respective rates of grade 3 or greater CRS were 75%, 27%, and 22%.
Four patients died on study, all from causes deemed unrelated to CAR T therapy: two from progressive disease, one from disseminated mucormycosis, and one from Escherichia sepsis.
Investigators are currently enrolling pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory B-ALL or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including patients with MRD-positive disease and early relapse after first-line therapy, in phase 2 of the Zuma-4 study.
How long will it last?
Howard Weinstein, MD, chief of pediatric hematology/oncology at Mass General for Children in Boston, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the response rate and comparatively low toxicity profile look good.
“One of the challenges, though, with CAR T-cell products has been relapse – almost half of the patients who go into remission relapse. Sometimes leukemic cells change their surface properties, resulting in antigen loss, there’s T-cell exhaustion, and other postulates for relapse,” he said.
He noted that due to the high number of patients who went on to transplant, the study lacks good data on the durability of remissions.
“One of the unknowns at the moment is whether CAR T cells are sufficient to cure a high percentage of children who have had a relapse, or do you need to follow it with a bone marrow transplant,” Dr. Weinstein said.
The ZUMA-4 trial is sponsored by Kite Pharma. Dr. Wayne disclosed research funding from Kite, Servier, and Institut de Recherches Internationales. Dr. Weinstein had no relevant disclosures.
It’s early days, but preliminary data show that a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T) product was associated with high rates of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and complete or near-complete responses in children and adolescents with relapsed or refractory B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).
Among 24 patients aged 3-20 years with relapsed or refractory B-ALL treated with the CAR T construct brexucabtagene autoleucel (KTE-X19; Tecartus), 16 had either a complete response or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi), for a combined CR/CRi rate of 67%, reported Alan S. Wayne, MD, from Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and the University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, also in Los Angeles.
“Optimized KTE-X19 formulation of 40 mL and revised toxicity management were associated with an improved risk/benefit profile,” he said in audio narration accompanying a poster presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.
Although overall survival for children and adolescents receiving first-line therapy for B-ALL is associated with remission rates of 80% or more, the prognosis is poor following relapse, despite the availability of newer therapies such as blinatumomab (Blincyto) and inotuzumab (Besponsa), with a 1-year overall survival rate of approximately 36%, he said.
To see whether they could improve on these odds, Dr. Wayne and colleagues conducted the phase 1 Zuma-4 trial, a single-arm, open-label study in children and adolescents with relapsed/refractory B-ALL.
He reported long-term follow-up results from the study.
Zuma-4 details
A total of 24 patients, median age 14 (range 3 to 20) years, received the CAR T product. Four patients received the starting dose of 2 x 106 CAR T per kg (these patients were enrolled per protocol for evaluation of dose-limiting toxicities).
Following the initial dosing and evaluation of safety, 11 patients were treated with a dose of 1 x 106 cells per kg with a total volume of 68 mL, and 9 received 1 x 106 per kg at a volume of 40 mL (the dose being used in current phase 2 trials).
The median follow-up at the time of data cutoff in September 2020 was 36.1 months.
The combined CR/CRi rate was 75% for patients treated at the starting dose, 64% for patients treated at the 1 x 106 68-mL dose, and 67% for those who received the 48-mL dose.
The respective median durations of response were 4.14 months, 10.68 months, and not reached.
All patients who had an objective response had undetectable MRD assessed by flow cytometry with a sensitivity of .01%.
The therapy served as a bridge to allogeneic transplant in 16 patients, including 2 in the initial dose group, 8 in the 68-mL group, and 6 in the 40-mL group.
Median overall survival was not reached in either of the two 1 x 106–dose groups, but was 8 months in the 2 x 106 group.
There were no dose-limiting toxicities seen, and the adverse event profile was consistent with that seen with the use of CAR T therapy for other malignancies.
Patients treated at either the 68-mL or 40-mL 1 x 106–dose levels received tocilizumab only for neurologic events occurring in context with the cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and were started on steroids for grade 2 or greater neurologic events.
Rates of grade 3 or greater neurologic events were 25% in the initial-dose group, 27% in the 68-mL group, and 11% in the 40-mL group. Respective rates of grade 3 or greater CRS were 75%, 27%, and 22%.
Four patients died on study, all from causes deemed unrelated to CAR T therapy: two from progressive disease, one from disseminated mucormycosis, and one from Escherichia sepsis.
Investigators are currently enrolling pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory B-ALL or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including patients with MRD-positive disease and early relapse after first-line therapy, in phase 2 of the Zuma-4 study.
How long will it last?
Howard Weinstein, MD, chief of pediatric hematology/oncology at Mass General for Children in Boston, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the response rate and comparatively low toxicity profile look good.
“One of the challenges, though, with CAR T-cell products has been relapse – almost half of the patients who go into remission relapse. Sometimes leukemic cells change their surface properties, resulting in antigen loss, there’s T-cell exhaustion, and other postulates for relapse,” he said.
He noted that due to the high number of patients who went on to transplant, the study lacks good data on the durability of remissions.
“One of the unknowns at the moment is whether CAR T cells are sufficient to cure a high percentage of children who have had a relapse, or do you need to follow it with a bone marrow transplant,” Dr. Weinstein said.
The ZUMA-4 trial is sponsored by Kite Pharma. Dr. Wayne disclosed research funding from Kite, Servier, and Institut de Recherches Internationales. Dr. Weinstein had no relevant disclosures.
FROM ASPHO 2021
FDA set to okay Pfizer vaccine in younger teens
The Food and Drug Administration could expand the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to teens early next week, The New York Times and CNN reported, both citing unnamed officials familiar with the agency’s plans.
In late March, Pfizer submitted data to the FDA showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12 to 15. Their vaccine is already authorized for use teens and adults ages 16 and older.
The move would make about 17 million more Americans eligible for vaccination and would be a major step toward getting both adolescents and teens back into classrooms full time by next fall.
“Across the globe, we are longing for a normal life. This is especially true for our children. The initial results we have seen in the adolescent studies suggest that children are particularly well protected by vaccination, which is very encouraging given the trends we have seen in recent weeks regarding the spread of the B.1.1.7 U.K. variant,” Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of Pfizer partner BioNTech, said in a March 31 press release.
Getting schools fully reopened for in-person learning has been a goal of both the Trump and Biden administrations, but it has been tricky to pull off, as some parents and teachers have been reluctant to return to classrooms with so much uncertainty about the risk and the role of children in spreading the virus.
A recent study of roughly 150,000 school-aged children in Israel found that while kids under age 10 were unlikely to catch or spread the virus as they reentered classrooms. Older children, though, were a different story. The study found that children ages 10-19 had risks of catching the virus that were as high as adults ages 20-60.
The risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 rises with age.
Children and teens are at relatively low risk from severe outcomes after a COVID-19 infection compared to adults, but they can catch it and some will get really sick with it, especially if they have an underlying health condition, like obesity or asthma that makes them more vulnerable.
Beyond the initial infection, children can get a rare late complication called MIS-C, that while treatable, can be severe and requires hospitalization. Emerging reports also suggest there are some kids that become long haulers in much the same way adults do, dealing with lingering problems for months after they first get sick.
As new variants of the coronavirus circulate in the United States, some states have seen big increases in the number of children and teens with COVID. In Michigan, for example, which recently dealt with a spring surge of cases dominated by the B.1.1.7 variant, cases in children and teens quadrupled in April compared to February.
Beyond individual protection, vaccinating children and teens has been seen as important to achieving strong community protection, or herd immunity, against the new coronavirus.
If the FDA expands the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will likely meet to review data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The committee may then vote on new recommendations for use of the vaccine in the United States.
Not everyone agrees with the idea that American adolescents, who are at relatively low risk of bad outcomes, could get access to COVID vaccines ahead of vulnerable essential workers and seniors in other parts of the world that are still fighting the pandemic with little access to vaccines.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Food and Drug Administration could expand the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to teens early next week, The New York Times and CNN reported, both citing unnamed officials familiar with the agency’s plans.
In late March, Pfizer submitted data to the FDA showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12 to 15. Their vaccine is already authorized for use teens and adults ages 16 and older.
The move would make about 17 million more Americans eligible for vaccination and would be a major step toward getting both adolescents and teens back into classrooms full time by next fall.
“Across the globe, we are longing for a normal life. This is especially true for our children. The initial results we have seen in the adolescent studies suggest that children are particularly well protected by vaccination, which is very encouraging given the trends we have seen in recent weeks regarding the spread of the B.1.1.7 U.K. variant,” Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of Pfizer partner BioNTech, said in a March 31 press release.
Getting schools fully reopened for in-person learning has been a goal of both the Trump and Biden administrations, but it has been tricky to pull off, as some parents and teachers have been reluctant to return to classrooms with so much uncertainty about the risk and the role of children in spreading the virus.
A recent study of roughly 150,000 school-aged children in Israel found that while kids under age 10 were unlikely to catch or spread the virus as they reentered classrooms. Older children, though, were a different story. The study found that children ages 10-19 had risks of catching the virus that were as high as adults ages 20-60.
The risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 rises with age.
Children and teens are at relatively low risk from severe outcomes after a COVID-19 infection compared to adults, but they can catch it and some will get really sick with it, especially if they have an underlying health condition, like obesity or asthma that makes them more vulnerable.
Beyond the initial infection, children can get a rare late complication called MIS-C, that while treatable, can be severe and requires hospitalization. Emerging reports also suggest there are some kids that become long haulers in much the same way adults do, dealing with lingering problems for months after they first get sick.
As new variants of the coronavirus circulate in the United States, some states have seen big increases in the number of children and teens with COVID. In Michigan, for example, which recently dealt with a spring surge of cases dominated by the B.1.1.7 variant, cases in children and teens quadrupled in April compared to February.
Beyond individual protection, vaccinating children and teens has been seen as important to achieving strong community protection, or herd immunity, against the new coronavirus.
If the FDA expands the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will likely meet to review data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The committee may then vote on new recommendations for use of the vaccine in the United States.
Not everyone agrees with the idea that American adolescents, who are at relatively low risk of bad outcomes, could get access to COVID vaccines ahead of vulnerable essential workers and seniors in other parts of the world that are still fighting the pandemic with little access to vaccines.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Food and Drug Administration could expand the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to teens early next week, The New York Times and CNN reported, both citing unnamed officials familiar with the agency’s plans.
In late March, Pfizer submitted data to the FDA showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12 to 15. Their vaccine is already authorized for use teens and adults ages 16 and older.
The move would make about 17 million more Americans eligible for vaccination and would be a major step toward getting both adolescents and teens back into classrooms full time by next fall.
“Across the globe, we are longing for a normal life. This is especially true for our children. The initial results we have seen in the adolescent studies suggest that children are particularly well protected by vaccination, which is very encouraging given the trends we have seen in recent weeks regarding the spread of the B.1.1.7 U.K. variant,” Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of Pfizer partner BioNTech, said in a March 31 press release.
Getting schools fully reopened for in-person learning has been a goal of both the Trump and Biden administrations, but it has been tricky to pull off, as some parents and teachers have been reluctant to return to classrooms with so much uncertainty about the risk and the role of children in spreading the virus.
A recent study of roughly 150,000 school-aged children in Israel found that while kids under age 10 were unlikely to catch or spread the virus as they reentered classrooms. Older children, though, were a different story. The study found that children ages 10-19 had risks of catching the virus that were as high as adults ages 20-60.
The risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 rises with age.
Children and teens are at relatively low risk from severe outcomes after a COVID-19 infection compared to adults, but they can catch it and some will get really sick with it, especially if they have an underlying health condition, like obesity or asthma that makes them more vulnerable.
Beyond the initial infection, children can get a rare late complication called MIS-C, that while treatable, can be severe and requires hospitalization. Emerging reports also suggest there are some kids that become long haulers in much the same way adults do, dealing with lingering problems for months after they first get sick.
As new variants of the coronavirus circulate in the United States, some states have seen big increases in the number of children and teens with COVID. In Michigan, for example, which recently dealt with a spring surge of cases dominated by the B.1.1.7 variant, cases in children and teens quadrupled in April compared to February.
Beyond individual protection, vaccinating children and teens has been seen as important to achieving strong community protection, or herd immunity, against the new coronavirus.
If the FDA expands the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will likely meet to review data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The committee may then vote on new recommendations for use of the vaccine in the United States.
Not everyone agrees with the idea that American adolescents, who are at relatively low risk of bad outcomes, could get access to COVID vaccines ahead of vulnerable essential workers and seniors in other parts of the world that are still fighting the pandemic with little access to vaccines.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The power and promise of social media in oncology
Mark A. Lewis, MD, explained to the COSMO meeting audience how storytelling on social media can educate and engage patients, advocates, and professional colleagues – advancing knowledge, dispelling misinformation, and promoting clinical research.
Dr. Lewis, an oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, reflected on the bifid roles of oncologists as scientists engaged in life-long learning and humanists who can internalize and appreciate the unique character and circumstances of their patients.
Patients who have serious illnesses are necessarily aggregated by statistics. However, in an essay published in 2011, Dr. Lewis noted that “each individual patient partakes in a unique, irreproducible experiment where n = 1” (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).
Dr. Lewis highlighted the duality of individual data points on a survival curve as descriptors of common disease trajectories and treatment effects. However, those data points also conceal important narratives regarding the most highly valued aspects of the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of cancer treatment on patients’ lives.
In referring to the futuristic essay “Ars Brevis,” Dr. Lewis contrasted the humanism of oncology specialists in the present day with the fictional image of data-regurgitating robots programmed to maximize the efficiency of each patient encounter (J Clin Oncol. 2013 May 10;31[14]:1792-4).
Dr. Lewis reminded attendees that to practice medicine without using both “head and heart” undermines the inherent nature of medical care.
Unfortunately, that perspective may not match the public perception of oncologists. Dr. Lewis described his experience of typing “oncologists are” into an Internet search engine and seeing the auto-complete function prompt words such as “criminals,” “evil,” “murderers,” and “confused.”
Obviously, it is hard to establish a trusting patient-doctor relationship if that is the prima facie perception of the oncology specialty.
Dispelling myths and creating community via social media
A primary goal of consultation with a newly-diagnosed cancer patient is for the patient to feel that the oncologist will be there to take care of them, regardless of what the future holds.
Dr. Lewis has found that social media can potentially extend that feeling to a global community of patients, caregivers, and others seeking information relevant to a cancer diagnosis. He believes that oncologists have an opportunity to dispel myths and fears by being attentive to the real-life concerns of patients.
Dr. Lewis took advantage of this opportunity when he underwent a Whipple procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy) for a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. He and the hospital’s media services staff “live-tweeted” his surgery and recovery.
With those tweets, Dr. Lewis demystified each step of a major surgical procedure. From messages he received on social media, Dr. Lewis knows he made the decision to have a Whipple procedure more acceptable to other patients.
His personal medical experience notwithstanding, Dr. Lewis acknowledged that every patient’s circumstances are unique.
Oncologists cannot possibly empathize with every circumstance. However, when they show sensitivity to personal elements of the cancer experience, they shed light on the complicated role they play in patient care and can facilitate good decision-making among patients across the globe.
Social media for professional development and patient care
The publication of his 2011 essay was gratifying for Dr. Lewis, but the finite number of comments he received thereafter illustrated the rather limited audience that traditional academic publications have and the laborious process for subsequent interaction (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).
First as an observer and later as a participant on social media, Dr. Lewis appreciated that teaching points and publications can be amplified by global distribution and the potential for informal bidirectional communication.
Social media platforms enable physicians to connect with a larger audience through participative communication, in which users develop, share, and react to content (N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 13;361[7]:649-51).
Dr. Lewis reflected on how oncologists are challenged to sort through the thousands of oncology-focused publications annually. Through social media, one can see the studies on which the experts are commenting and appreciate the nuances that contextualize the results. Focused interactions with renowned doctors, at regular intervals, require little formality.
Online journal clubs enable the sharing of ideas, opinions, multimedia resources, and references across institutional and international borders (J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Oct;29[10]:1317-8).
Social media in oncology: Accomplishments and promise
The development of broadband Internet, wireless connectivity, and social media for peer-to-peer and general communication are among the major technological advances that have transformed medical communication.
As an organization, COSMO aims to describe, understand, and improve the use of social media to increase the penetration of evidence-based guidelines and research insights into clinical practice (Future Oncol. 2017 Jun;13[15]:1281-5).
At the inaugural COSMO meeting, areas of progress since COSMO’s inception in 2015 were highlighted, including:
- The involvement of cancer professionals and advocates in multiple distinctive platforms.
- The development of hashtag libraries to aggregate interest groups and topics.
- The refinement of strategies for engaging advocates with attention to inclusiveness.
- A steady trajectory of growth in tweeting at scientific conferences.
An overarching theme of the COSMO meeting was “authenticity,” a virtue that is easy to admire but requires conscious, consistent effort to achieve.
Disclosure of conflicts of interest and avoiding using social media simply as a recruitment tool for clinical trials are basic components of accurate self-representation.
In addition, Dr. Lewis advocated for sharing personal experiences in a component of social media posts so oncologists can show humanity as a feature of their professional online identity and inherent nature.
Dr. Lewis disclosed consultancy with Medscape/WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge. He also disclosed relationships with Foundation Medicine, Natera, Exelixis, QED, HalioDX, and Ipsen.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Mark A. Lewis, MD, explained to the COSMO meeting audience how storytelling on social media can educate and engage patients, advocates, and professional colleagues – advancing knowledge, dispelling misinformation, and promoting clinical research.
Dr. Lewis, an oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, reflected on the bifid roles of oncologists as scientists engaged in life-long learning and humanists who can internalize and appreciate the unique character and circumstances of their patients.
Patients who have serious illnesses are necessarily aggregated by statistics. However, in an essay published in 2011, Dr. Lewis noted that “each individual patient partakes in a unique, irreproducible experiment where n = 1” (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).
Dr. Lewis highlighted the duality of individual data points on a survival curve as descriptors of common disease trajectories and treatment effects. However, those data points also conceal important narratives regarding the most highly valued aspects of the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of cancer treatment on patients’ lives.
In referring to the futuristic essay “Ars Brevis,” Dr. Lewis contrasted the humanism of oncology specialists in the present day with the fictional image of data-regurgitating robots programmed to maximize the efficiency of each patient encounter (J Clin Oncol. 2013 May 10;31[14]:1792-4).
Dr. Lewis reminded attendees that to practice medicine without using both “head and heart” undermines the inherent nature of medical care.
Unfortunately, that perspective may not match the public perception of oncologists. Dr. Lewis described his experience of typing “oncologists are” into an Internet search engine and seeing the auto-complete function prompt words such as “criminals,” “evil,” “murderers,” and “confused.”
Obviously, it is hard to establish a trusting patient-doctor relationship if that is the prima facie perception of the oncology specialty.
Dispelling myths and creating community via social media
A primary goal of consultation with a newly-diagnosed cancer patient is for the patient to feel that the oncologist will be there to take care of them, regardless of what the future holds.
Dr. Lewis has found that social media can potentially extend that feeling to a global community of patients, caregivers, and others seeking information relevant to a cancer diagnosis. He believes that oncologists have an opportunity to dispel myths and fears by being attentive to the real-life concerns of patients.
Dr. Lewis took advantage of this opportunity when he underwent a Whipple procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy) for a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. He and the hospital’s media services staff “live-tweeted” his surgery and recovery.
With those tweets, Dr. Lewis demystified each step of a major surgical procedure. From messages he received on social media, Dr. Lewis knows he made the decision to have a Whipple procedure more acceptable to other patients.
His personal medical experience notwithstanding, Dr. Lewis acknowledged that every patient’s circumstances are unique.
Oncologists cannot possibly empathize with every circumstance. However, when they show sensitivity to personal elements of the cancer experience, they shed light on the complicated role they play in patient care and can facilitate good decision-making among patients across the globe.
Social media for professional development and patient care
The publication of his 2011 essay was gratifying for Dr. Lewis, but the finite number of comments he received thereafter illustrated the rather limited audience that traditional academic publications have and the laborious process for subsequent interaction (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).
First as an observer and later as a participant on social media, Dr. Lewis appreciated that teaching points and publications can be amplified by global distribution and the potential for informal bidirectional communication.
Social media platforms enable physicians to connect with a larger audience through participative communication, in which users develop, share, and react to content (N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 13;361[7]:649-51).
Dr. Lewis reflected on how oncologists are challenged to sort through the thousands of oncology-focused publications annually. Through social media, one can see the studies on which the experts are commenting and appreciate the nuances that contextualize the results. Focused interactions with renowned doctors, at regular intervals, require little formality.
Online journal clubs enable the sharing of ideas, opinions, multimedia resources, and references across institutional and international borders (J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Oct;29[10]:1317-8).
Social media in oncology: Accomplishments and promise
The development of broadband Internet, wireless connectivity, and social media for peer-to-peer and general communication are among the major technological advances that have transformed medical communication.
As an organization, COSMO aims to describe, understand, and improve the use of social media to increase the penetration of evidence-based guidelines and research insights into clinical practice (Future Oncol. 2017 Jun;13[15]:1281-5).
At the inaugural COSMO meeting, areas of progress since COSMO’s inception in 2015 were highlighted, including:
- The involvement of cancer professionals and advocates in multiple distinctive platforms.
- The development of hashtag libraries to aggregate interest groups and topics.
- The refinement of strategies for engaging advocates with attention to inclusiveness.
- A steady trajectory of growth in tweeting at scientific conferences.
An overarching theme of the COSMO meeting was “authenticity,” a virtue that is easy to admire but requires conscious, consistent effort to achieve.
Disclosure of conflicts of interest and avoiding using social media simply as a recruitment tool for clinical trials are basic components of accurate self-representation.
In addition, Dr. Lewis advocated for sharing personal experiences in a component of social media posts so oncologists can show humanity as a feature of their professional online identity and inherent nature.
Dr. Lewis disclosed consultancy with Medscape/WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge. He also disclosed relationships with Foundation Medicine, Natera, Exelixis, QED, HalioDX, and Ipsen.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Mark A. Lewis, MD, explained to the COSMO meeting audience how storytelling on social media can educate and engage patients, advocates, and professional colleagues – advancing knowledge, dispelling misinformation, and promoting clinical research.
Dr. Lewis, an oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, reflected on the bifid roles of oncologists as scientists engaged in life-long learning and humanists who can internalize and appreciate the unique character and circumstances of their patients.
Patients who have serious illnesses are necessarily aggregated by statistics. However, in an essay published in 2011, Dr. Lewis noted that “each individual patient partakes in a unique, irreproducible experiment where n = 1” (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).
Dr. Lewis highlighted the duality of individual data points on a survival curve as descriptors of common disease trajectories and treatment effects. However, those data points also conceal important narratives regarding the most highly valued aspects of the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of cancer treatment on patients’ lives.
In referring to the futuristic essay “Ars Brevis,” Dr. Lewis contrasted the humanism of oncology specialists in the present day with the fictional image of data-regurgitating robots programmed to maximize the efficiency of each patient encounter (J Clin Oncol. 2013 May 10;31[14]:1792-4).
Dr. Lewis reminded attendees that to practice medicine without using both “head and heart” undermines the inherent nature of medical care.
Unfortunately, that perspective may not match the public perception of oncologists. Dr. Lewis described his experience of typing “oncologists are” into an Internet search engine and seeing the auto-complete function prompt words such as “criminals,” “evil,” “murderers,” and “confused.”
Obviously, it is hard to establish a trusting patient-doctor relationship if that is the prima facie perception of the oncology specialty.
Dispelling myths and creating community via social media
A primary goal of consultation with a newly-diagnosed cancer patient is for the patient to feel that the oncologist will be there to take care of them, regardless of what the future holds.
Dr. Lewis has found that social media can potentially extend that feeling to a global community of patients, caregivers, and others seeking information relevant to a cancer diagnosis. He believes that oncologists have an opportunity to dispel myths and fears by being attentive to the real-life concerns of patients.
Dr. Lewis took advantage of this opportunity when he underwent a Whipple procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy) for a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. He and the hospital’s media services staff “live-tweeted” his surgery and recovery.
With those tweets, Dr. Lewis demystified each step of a major surgical procedure. From messages he received on social media, Dr. Lewis knows he made the decision to have a Whipple procedure more acceptable to other patients.
His personal medical experience notwithstanding, Dr. Lewis acknowledged that every patient’s circumstances are unique.
Oncologists cannot possibly empathize with every circumstance. However, when they show sensitivity to personal elements of the cancer experience, they shed light on the complicated role they play in patient care and can facilitate good decision-making among patients across the globe.
Social media for professional development and patient care
The publication of his 2011 essay was gratifying for Dr. Lewis, but the finite number of comments he received thereafter illustrated the rather limited audience that traditional academic publications have and the laborious process for subsequent interaction (J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29[22]:3103-4).
First as an observer and later as a participant on social media, Dr. Lewis appreciated that teaching points and publications can be amplified by global distribution and the potential for informal bidirectional communication.
Social media platforms enable physicians to connect with a larger audience through participative communication, in which users develop, share, and react to content (N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 13;361[7]:649-51).
Dr. Lewis reflected on how oncologists are challenged to sort through the thousands of oncology-focused publications annually. Through social media, one can see the studies on which the experts are commenting and appreciate the nuances that contextualize the results. Focused interactions with renowned doctors, at regular intervals, require little formality.
Online journal clubs enable the sharing of ideas, opinions, multimedia resources, and references across institutional and international borders (J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Oct;29[10]:1317-8).
Social media in oncology: Accomplishments and promise
The development of broadband Internet, wireless connectivity, and social media for peer-to-peer and general communication are among the major technological advances that have transformed medical communication.
As an organization, COSMO aims to describe, understand, and improve the use of social media to increase the penetration of evidence-based guidelines and research insights into clinical practice (Future Oncol. 2017 Jun;13[15]:1281-5).
At the inaugural COSMO meeting, areas of progress since COSMO’s inception in 2015 were highlighted, including:
- The involvement of cancer professionals and advocates in multiple distinctive platforms.
- The development of hashtag libraries to aggregate interest groups and topics.
- The refinement of strategies for engaging advocates with attention to inclusiveness.
- A steady trajectory of growth in tweeting at scientific conferences.
An overarching theme of the COSMO meeting was “authenticity,” a virtue that is easy to admire but requires conscious, consistent effort to achieve.
Disclosure of conflicts of interest and avoiding using social media simply as a recruitment tool for clinical trials are basic components of accurate self-representation.
In addition, Dr. Lewis advocated for sharing personal experiences in a component of social media posts so oncologists can show humanity as a feature of their professional online identity and inherent nature.
Dr. Lewis disclosed consultancy with Medscape/WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge. He also disclosed relationships with Foundation Medicine, Natera, Exelixis, QED, HalioDX, and Ipsen.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
FROM COSMO 2021
Doctors lose jobs after speaking out about unsafe conditions
In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.
In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.
These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.
Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.
When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.
“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”
In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.
Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
The case of one physician who spoke out
One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.
In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
Postings on Facebook
Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.
Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.
He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.
Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.
In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
How employers react to physicians who speak out
Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.
“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”
Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.
Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.
“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
Administrator fires back
Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.
Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”
Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”
Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”
At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”
PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”
Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.
“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”
Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
Doctor gets a warning
Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.
Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.
“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.
“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.
Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.
In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.
Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.
Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.
Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”
He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
Do doctors who speak out have any rights?
Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.
The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.
The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.
In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.
Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
Conclusion
To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.
In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.
These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.
Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.
When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.
“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”
In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.
Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
The case of one physician who spoke out
One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.
In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
Postings on Facebook
Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.
Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.
He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.
Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.
In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
How employers react to physicians who speak out
Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.
“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”
Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.
Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.
“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
Administrator fires back
Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.
Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”
Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”
Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”
At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”
PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”
Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.
“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”
Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
Doctor gets a warning
Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.
Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.
“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.
“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.
Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.
In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.
Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.
Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.
Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”
He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
Do doctors who speak out have any rights?
Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.
The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.
The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.
In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.
Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
Conclusion
To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.
In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.
These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.
Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.
When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.
“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”
In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.
Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
The case of one physician who spoke out
One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.
In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
Postings on Facebook
Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.
Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.
He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.
Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.
In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
How employers react to physicians who speak out
Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.
“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”
Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.
Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.
“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
Administrator fires back
Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.
Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”
Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”
Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”
At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”
PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”
Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.
“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”
Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
Doctor gets a warning
Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.
Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.
“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.
“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.
Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.
In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.
Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.
Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.
Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”
He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
Do doctors who speak out have any rights?
Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.
The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.
The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.
In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.
Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
Conclusion
To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AHA guidance on blood clots linked to COVID-19 vaccine
A newly released report is offering guidance concerning rare conditions associated with COVID-19 as well as vaccines against the virus.
The report was released April 29, 2021, by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council Leadership in answer to the decision April 23 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to lift an earlier “pause” in administration of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine.
That pause had been put in place after reports were received of a possible association between the J&J vaccine and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and thrombosis-thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS, blood clots plus low blood platelets). CVST and TTS were also linked to patients in Europe and Canada who received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
However, the new report noted that these conditions are very rare.
“The risk of CVST due to infection with COVID-19 is 8-10 times higher than the risk of CVST after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine,” lead author Karen L. Furie, MD, chair of the department of neurology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in a press release.
“The public can be reassured by the CDC’s and FDA’s investigation and these statistics – the likelihood of developing CVST after a COVID-19 vaccine is extremely low,” said Dr. Furie, adding that the authors “urge all adults to receive any of the approved COVID-19 vaccines.”
The new guidance, which was published online April 29, 2021, in Stroke, discusses signs and symptoms of CVST and TTS, as well as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). It also recommends best options for treating these conditions.
Assessing 81 million patients
In their analysis, the investigators assessed a database of 59 health care organizations and 81 million patients, 98% of whom were in the United States.
Of almost 514,000 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2020 and March 2021, 20 also received a diagnosis of CVST.
Among about 490,000 adults who received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, there were no diagnosed cases of thrombocytopenia.
Dr. Furie reiterated that CVST blood clots “are very rare adverse events,” but recommended that any patient in the ED with a suspected clot should be screened immediately to determine if they received a COVID vaccine during the previous few weeks.
For those who have recently received the COVID-19 vaccine, a suspected clot should be treated with nonheparin anticoagulants, Dr. Furie said.
“No heparin products in any dose should be given for suspected CVST, TTS, or VITT. With the right treatment, most patients can have a full recovery,” she added. The report includes additional, detailed treatment recommendations if one of these conditions are suspected.
Rare events
The authors noted that cases of TTS/VITT occurred up to 2.5 weeks after receiving the J&J vaccine in the United States and up to 3.5 weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe.
An April 23 report from the CDC and FDA noted that, out of almost 7 million adults who received the J&J vaccine, the agencies investigated only 15 reported cases of TTS.
An April 7 report from the European Medicines Agency noted that, out of more than 25 million people who received the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Union, it found 62 cases of CVST.
A statement put out by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association urges “everyone to receive a COVID-19 vaccine” as soon as possible.
“We are confident the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very small, rare risks,” the organizations said. “The risks of vaccination are also far smaller than the risk of COVID-19 and its potentially fatal consequences.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A newly released report is offering guidance concerning rare conditions associated with COVID-19 as well as vaccines against the virus.
The report was released April 29, 2021, by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council Leadership in answer to the decision April 23 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to lift an earlier “pause” in administration of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine.
That pause had been put in place after reports were received of a possible association between the J&J vaccine and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and thrombosis-thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS, blood clots plus low blood platelets). CVST and TTS were also linked to patients in Europe and Canada who received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
However, the new report noted that these conditions are very rare.
“The risk of CVST due to infection with COVID-19 is 8-10 times higher than the risk of CVST after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine,” lead author Karen L. Furie, MD, chair of the department of neurology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in a press release.
“The public can be reassured by the CDC’s and FDA’s investigation and these statistics – the likelihood of developing CVST after a COVID-19 vaccine is extremely low,” said Dr. Furie, adding that the authors “urge all adults to receive any of the approved COVID-19 vaccines.”
The new guidance, which was published online April 29, 2021, in Stroke, discusses signs and symptoms of CVST and TTS, as well as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). It also recommends best options for treating these conditions.
Assessing 81 million patients
In their analysis, the investigators assessed a database of 59 health care organizations and 81 million patients, 98% of whom were in the United States.
Of almost 514,000 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2020 and March 2021, 20 also received a diagnosis of CVST.
Among about 490,000 adults who received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, there were no diagnosed cases of thrombocytopenia.
Dr. Furie reiterated that CVST blood clots “are very rare adverse events,” but recommended that any patient in the ED with a suspected clot should be screened immediately to determine if they received a COVID vaccine during the previous few weeks.
For those who have recently received the COVID-19 vaccine, a suspected clot should be treated with nonheparin anticoagulants, Dr. Furie said.
“No heparin products in any dose should be given for suspected CVST, TTS, or VITT. With the right treatment, most patients can have a full recovery,” she added. The report includes additional, detailed treatment recommendations if one of these conditions are suspected.
Rare events
The authors noted that cases of TTS/VITT occurred up to 2.5 weeks after receiving the J&J vaccine in the United States and up to 3.5 weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe.
An April 23 report from the CDC and FDA noted that, out of almost 7 million adults who received the J&J vaccine, the agencies investigated only 15 reported cases of TTS.
An April 7 report from the European Medicines Agency noted that, out of more than 25 million people who received the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Union, it found 62 cases of CVST.
A statement put out by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association urges “everyone to receive a COVID-19 vaccine” as soon as possible.
“We are confident the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very small, rare risks,” the organizations said. “The risks of vaccination are also far smaller than the risk of COVID-19 and its potentially fatal consequences.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A newly released report is offering guidance concerning rare conditions associated with COVID-19 as well as vaccines against the virus.
The report was released April 29, 2021, by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council Leadership in answer to the decision April 23 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to lift an earlier “pause” in administration of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine.
That pause had been put in place after reports were received of a possible association between the J&J vaccine and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and thrombosis-thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS, blood clots plus low blood platelets). CVST and TTS were also linked to patients in Europe and Canada who received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
However, the new report noted that these conditions are very rare.
“The risk of CVST due to infection with COVID-19 is 8-10 times higher than the risk of CVST after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine,” lead author Karen L. Furie, MD, chair of the department of neurology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in a press release.
“The public can be reassured by the CDC’s and FDA’s investigation and these statistics – the likelihood of developing CVST after a COVID-19 vaccine is extremely low,” said Dr. Furie, adding that the authors “urge all adults to receive any of the approved COVID-19 vaccines.”
The new guidance, which was published online April 29, 2021, in Stroke, discusses signs and symptoms of CVST and TTS, as well as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). It also recommends best options for treating these conditions.
Assessing 81 million patients
In their analysis, the investigators assessed a database of 59 health care organizations and 81 million patients, 98% of whom were in the United States.
Of almost 514,000 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 2020 and March 2021, 20 also received a diagnosis of CVST.
Among about 490,000 adults who received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, there were no diagnosed cases of thrombocytopenia.
Dr. Furie reiterated that CVST blood clots “are very rare adverse events,” but recommended that any patient in the ED with a suspected clot should be screened immediately to determine if they received a COVID vaccine during the previous few weeks.
For those who have recently received the COVID-19 vaccine, a suspected clot should be treated with nonheparin anticoagulants, Dr. Furie said.
“No heparin products in any dose should be given for suspected CVST, TTS, or VITT. With the right treatment, most patients can have a full recovery,” she added. The report includes additional, detailed treatment recommendations if one of these conditions are suspected.
Rare events
The authors noted that cases of TTS/VITT occurred up to 2.5 weeks after receiving the J&J vaccine in the United States and up to 3.5 weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe.
An April 23 report from the CDC and FDA noted that, out of almost 7 million adults who received the J&J vaccine, the agencies investigated only 15 reported cases of TTS.
An April 7 report from the European Medicines Agency noted that, out of more than 25 million people who received the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Union, it found 62 cases of CVST.
A statement put out by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association urges “everyone to receive a COVID-19 vaccine” as soon as possible.
“We are confident the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very small, rare risks,” the organizations said. “The risks of vaccination are also far smaller than the risk of COVID-19 and its potentially fatal consequences.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC guidelines coming on long COVID
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is finalizing new guidelines to help clinicians diagnose and manage long COVID, or postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
In a day-long congressional hearing on April 28, John Brooks, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, testified that the guidelines were going through the clearance process at the agency, but would be forthcoming.
“They should be coming out very shortly,” Dr. Brooks said.
The guidelines, which were developed in collaboration with newly established long-COVID clinics and patient advocacy groups, will “illustrate how to diagnose and begin to pull together what we know about management,” of the complex condition, he said.
For many doctors and patients who are struggling to understand symptoms that persist for months after the initial viral infection, the guidelines can’t come soon enough.
National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, who also testified at the hearing, estimated that as many as 3 million people could be left with chronic health problems after even mild COVID infections.
“I can’t overstate how serious this issue is for the health of our nation,” he said.
Dr. Collins said his estimate was based on studies showing that roughly 10% of people who get COVID could be affected by this and whose “long-term course is uncertain,” he said. So far, more than 32 million Americans are known to have been infected with the new coronavirus.
“We need to make sure we put our arms around them and bring answers and care to them,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health.
Jennifer Possick, MD, who directs the post-COVID recovery program at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, testified that the tidal wave of patients she and her colleagues were seeing was overwhelming.
“We are a well-resourced program at an academic medical center, but we are swamped by the need in our community. This year, we have seen more patients with post COVID-19 conditions in our clinic alone than we have new cases of asthma and COPD combined,” she said. “The magnitude of the challenge is daunting.”
Dr. Possick estimated that there are “over 60” clinics in the United States that have started to treat long-COVID patients, but said they are grassroots efforts and all very different from each other.
“Whoever had the resources, had the time, [and] was able to take the initiative and forge to the relationships because most of them are multidisciplinary, did so,” she said.
Patients testify
Several representatives shared moving personal stories of loved ones or staffers who remained ill months after a COVID diagnosis.
Rep. Ann Kuster, from New Hampshire, talked about her 34-year-old niece, a member of the U.S. Ski Team, who had COVID just over a year ago and “continues to struggle with everything, even the simplest activities of daily living” she said. “She has to choose between taking a shower or making dinner. I’m so proud of her for hanging in there.”
Long-COVID patients invited to testify by the subcommittee described months of disability that left them with soaring medical bills and no ability to work to pay them.
“I am now a poor, Black, disabled woman, living with long COVID,” said Chimere Smith, who said she had been a school teacher in Baltimore. “Saying it aloud makes it no more easy to accept.”
She said COVID had affected her ability to think clearly and caused debilitating fatigue, which prevented her from working. She said she lost her vision for almost 5 months because doctors misdiagnosed a cataract caused by long COVID as dry eye.
“If I did not have a loving family, I [would] be speaking to you today [from] my car, the only property I now own.”
Ms. Smith said that long-COVID clinics, which are mostly housed within academic medical centers, were not going to be accessible for all long-haulers, who are disproportionately women of color. She has started a clinic, based out of her church, to help other patients from her community.
“No one wants to hear that long COVID has decimated my life or the lives of other black women in less than a year,” Ms. Smith said. “We’ve just been waiting and hoping for compassionate doctors and politicians who would acknowledge us.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is finalizing new guidelines to help clinicians diagnose and manage long COVID, or postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
In a day-long congressional hearing on April 28, John Brooks, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, testified that the guidelines were going through the clearance process at the agency, but would be forthcoming.
“They should be coming out very shortly,” Dr. Brooks said.
The guidelines, which were developed in collaboration with newly established long-COVID clinics and patient advocacy groups, will “illustrate how to diagnose and begin to pull together what we know about management,” of the complex condition, he said.
For many doctors and patients who are struggling to understand symptoms that persist for months after the initial viral infection, the guidelines can’t come soon enough.
National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, who also testified at the hearing, estimated that as many as 3 million people could be left with chronic health problems after even mild COVID infections.
“I can’t overstate how serious this issue is for the health of our nation,” he said.
Dr. Collins said his estimate was based on studies showing that roughly 10% of people who get COVID could be affected by this and whose “long-term course is uncertain,” he said. So far, more than 32 million Americans are known to have been infected with the new coronavirus.
“We need to make sure we put our arms around them and bring answers and care to them,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health.
Jennifer Possick, MD, who directs the post-COVID recovery program at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, testified that the tidal wave of patients she and her colleagues were seeing was overwhelming.
“We are a well-resourced program at an academic medical center, but we are swamped by the need in our community. This year, we have seen more patients with post COVID-19 conditions in our clinic alone than we have new cases of asthma and COPD combined,” she said. “The magnitude of the challenge is daunting.”
Dr. Possick estimated that there are “over 60” clinics in the United States that have started to treat long-COVID patients, but said they are grassroots efforts and all very different from each other.
“Whoever had the resources, had the time, [and] was able to take the initiative and forge to the relationships because most of them are multidisciplinary, did so,” she said.
Patients testify
Several representatives shared moving personal stories of loved ones or staffers who remained ill months after a COVID diagnosis.
Rep. Ann Kuster, from New Hampshire, talked about her 34-year-old niece, a member of the U.S. Ski Team, who had COVID just over a year ago and “continues to struggle with everything, even the simplest activities of daily living” she said. “She has to choose between taking a shower or making dinner. I’m so proud of her for hanging in there.”
Long-COVID patients invited to testify by the subcommittee described months of disability that left them with soaring medical bills and no ability to work to pay them.
“I am now a poor, Black, disabled woman, living with long COVID,” said Chimere Smith, who said she had been a school teacher in Baltimore. “Saying it aloud makes it no more easy to accept.”
She said COVID had affected her ability to think clearly and caused debilitating fatigue, which prevented her from working. She said she lost her vision for almost 5 months because doctors misdiagnosed a cataract caused by long COVID as dry eye.
“If I did not have a loving family, I [would] be speaking to you today [from] my car, the only property I now own.”
Ms. Smith said that long-COVID clinics, which are mostly housed within academic medical centers, were not going to be accessible for all long-haulers, who are disproportionately women of color. She has started a clinic, based out of her church, to help other patients from her community.
“No one wants to hear that long COVID has decimated my life or the lives of other black women in less than a year,” Ms. Smith said. “We’ve just been waiting and hoping for compassionate doctors and politicians who would acknowledge us.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is finalizing new guidelines to help clinicians diagnose and manage long COVID, or postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
In a day-long congressional hearing on April 28, John Brooks, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, testified that the guidelines were going through the clearance process at the agency, but would be forthcoming.
“They should be coming out very shortly,” Dr. Brooks said.
The guidelines, which were developed in collaboration with newly established long-COVID clinics and patient advocacy groups, will “illustrate how to diagnose and begin to pull together what we know about management,” of the complex condition, he said.
For many doctors and patients who are struggling to understand symptoms that persist for months after the initial viral infection, the guidelines can’t come soon enough.
National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, who also testified at the hearing, estimated that as many as 3 million people could be left with chronic health problems after even mild COVID infections.
“I can’t overstate how serious this issue is for the health of our nation,” he said.
Dr. Collins said his estimate was based on studies showing that roughly 10% of people who get COVID could be affected by this and whose “long-term course is uncertain,” he said. So far, more than 32 million Americans are known to have been infected with the new coronavirus.
“We need to make sure we put our arms around them and bring answers and care to them,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health.
Jennifer Possick, MD, who directs the post-COVID recovery program at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, testified that the tidal wave of patients she and her colleagues were seeing was overwhelming.
“We are a well-resourced program at an academic medical center, but we are swamped by the need in our community. This year, we have seen more patients with post COVID-19 conditions in our clinic alone than we have new cases of asthma and COPD combined,” she said. “The magnitude of the challenge is daunting.”
Dr. Possick estimated that there are “over 60” clinics in the United States that have started to treat long-COVID patients, but said they are grassroots efforts and all very different from each other.
“Whoever had the resources, had the time, [and] was able to take the initiative and forge to the relationships because most of them are multidisciplinary, did so,” she said.
Patients testify
Several representatives shared moving personal stories of loved ones or staffers who remained ill months after a COVID diagnosis.
Rep. Ann Kuster, from New Hampshire, talked about her 34-year-old niece, a member of the U.S. Ski Team, who had COVID just over a year ago and “continues to struggle with everything, even the simplest activities of daily living” she said. “She has to choose between taking a shower or making dinner. I’m so proud of her for hanging in there.”
Long-COVID patients invited to testify by the subcommittee described months of disability that left them with soaring medical bills and no ability to work to pay them.
“I am now a poor, Black, disabled woman, living with long COVID,” said Chimere Smith, who said she had been a school teacher in Baltimore. “Saying it aloud makes it no more easy to accept.”
She said COVID had affected her ability to think clearly and caused debilitating fatigue, which prevented her from working. She said she lost her vision for almost 5 months because doctors misdiagnosed a cataract caused by long COVID as dry eye.
“If I did not have a loving family, I [would] be speaking to you today [from] my car, the only property I now own.”
Ms. Smith said that long-COVID clinics, which are mostly housed within academic medical centers, were not going to be accessible for all long-haulers, who are disproportionately women of color. She has started a clinic, based out of her church, to help other patients from her community.
“No one wants to hear that long COVID has decimated my life or the lives of other black women in less than a year,” Ms. Smith said. “We’ve just been waiting and hoping for compassionate doctors and politicians who would acknowledge us.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AHA statement flags CV risk of hormonal cancer therapies
Hormonal therapies for the treatment of hormone-dependent breast and prostate cancer could raise the risk for myocardial infarction and stroke, and patients need to be closely monitored to allow early detection and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
“The statement provides data on the risks of each type of hormonal therapy so clinicians can use it as a guide to help manage cardiovascular risks during cancer treatment,” Tochi Okwuosa, DO, chair of the writing group, said in a news release.
“A team-based approach to patient care that includes the oncology team, cardiologist, primary care clinician, dietitian, endocrinologist, and other health care professionals as appropriate is needed to work with each patient to manage and reduce the increased risk of heart disease and strokes associated with hormonal therapy in breast and prostate cancer treatment,” said Dr. Okwuosa, director of cardio-oncology services, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.
The scientific statement was published online April 26 in Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine.
Hormone-dependent cancers, such as prostate and breast cancer, are the most common noncutaneous cancers in the United States and around the world. As hormonal therapies have markedly improved survival in these patients, CVD has emerged as a leading cause illness and death.
The increased CVD burden might be explained by the increasing average age of cancer survivors, leading to higher rates of age-related CV risk factors and coronary artery disease.
The writing group reviewed existing evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials on the cardiovascular impact of anticancer hormonal therapies.
Among the key findings:
- In patients with breast cancer, has been shown to increase the risk for venous thromboembolic events, but to have somewhat protective to neutral effects on CVD risk burden and CVD events. Conversely, aromatase inhibitors have been shown to increase the risk for CVD risk factors and events, including MI and stroke.
- Androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer appears to increase the risk for CV events, although gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists are associated with a lower risk for CV events than are GnRH agonists. The oral antiandrogens appear to be associated with increased CVD risk as well, particularly when used for complete androgen blockade as combination GnRH/anti-androgen therapy.
- The duration of hormonal therapies has a significant impact on CVD risk; the longer patients receive hormonal therapy, the greater the risk. More research is needed to better define the risks associated with duration of treatment.
- The data are mixed on the impact of preexisting CV risk factors and CVD on CV events associated with hormonal therapy. Although the presence of baseline CV risk factors and CVD can increase CV events associated with aromatase inhibitors, it is not clear that tamoxifen does.
- Studies suggest that patients with prostate cancer and baseline CVD and CV risk factors have increased rates of CV events when treated with androgen-deprivation therapy.
- Although the prolonged use of some hormonal therapies worsens CV risk factors and , the effects of the duration of therapy on CV events are less clear.
The writing group noted that there are no definitive guidelines for the monitoring and management of hormonal therapy-related CVD risks.
The authors encourage clinicians to be alert for worsening CV problems in those with preexisting heart disease or risk factors, and to recognize that even patients without preexisting CV problems are at higher risk because of their exposure to hormonal therapies.
“For patients who have two or more cardiovascular risk factors, it is likely that referral to a cardiologist would be appropriate prior to beginning hormone treatment. For patients already receiving hormonal therapies, a discussion with the oncology team can help to determine if a cardiology referral is recommended,” Dr. Okwuosa said in the news release.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Cardio-Oncology Subcommittee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and the Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; and the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention.
The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Okwuosa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hormonal therapies for the treatment of hormone-dependent breast and prostate cancer could raise the risk for myocardial infarction and stroke, and patients need to be closely monitored to allow early detection and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
“The statement provides data on the risks of each type of hormonal therapy so clinicians can use it as a guide to help manage cardiovascular risks during cancer treatment,” Tochi Okwuosa, DO, chair of the writing group, said in a news release.
“A team-based approach to patient care that includes the oncology team, cardiologist, primary care clinician, dietitian, endocrinologist, and other health care professionals as appropriate is needed to work with each patient to manage and reduce the increased risk of heart disease and strokes associated with hormonal therapy in breast and prostate cancer treatment,” said Dr. Okwuosa, director of cardio-oncology services, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.
The scientific statement was published online April 26 in Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine.
Hormone-dependent cancers, such as prostate and breast cancer, are the most common noncutaneous cancers in the United States and around the world. As hormonal therapies have markedly improved survival in these patients, CVD has emerged as a leading cause illness and death.
The increased CVD burden might be explained by the increasing average age of cancer survivors, leading to higher rates of age-related CV risk factors and coronary artery disease.
The writing group reviewed existing evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials on the cardiovascular impact of anticancer hormonal therapies.
Among the key findings:
- In patients with breast cancer, has been shown to increase the risk for venous thromboembolic events, but to have somewhat protective to neutral effects on CVD risk burden and CVD events. Conversely, aromatase inhibitors have been shown to increase the risk for CVD risk factors and events, including MI and stroke.
- Androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer appears to increase the risk for CV events, although gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists are associated with a lower risk for CV events than are GnRH agonists. The oral antiandrogens appear to be associated with increased CVD risk as well, particularly when used for complete androgen blockade as combination GnRH/anti-androgen therapy.
- The duration of hormonal therapies has a significant impact on CVD risk; the longer patients receive hormonal therapy, the greater the risk. More research is needed to better define the risks associated with duration of treatment.
- The data are mixed on the impact of preexisting CV risk factors and CVD on CV events associated with hormonal therapy. Although the presence of baseline CV risk factors and CVD can increase CV events associated with aromatase inhibitors, it is not clear that tamoxifen does.
- Studies suggest that patients with prostate cancer and baseline CVD and CV risk factors have increased rates of CV events when treated with androgen-deprivation therapy.
- Although the prolonged use of some hormonal therapies worsens CV risk factors and , the effects of the duration of therapy on CV events are less clear.
The writing group noted that there are no definitive guidelines for the monitoring and management of hormonal therapy-related CVD risks.
The authors encourage clinicians to be alert for worsening CV problems in those with preexisting heart disease or risk factors, and to recognize that even patients without preexisting CV problems are at higher risk because of their exposure to hormonal therapies.
“For patients who have two or more cardiovascular risk factors, it is likely that referral to a cardiologist would be appropriate prior to beginning hormone treatment. For patients already receiving hormonal therapies, a discussion with the oncology team can help to determine if a cardiology referral is recommended,” Dr. Okwuosa said in the news release.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Cardio-Oncology Subcommittee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and the Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; and the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention.
The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Okwuosa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hormonal therapies for the treatment of hormone-dependent breast and prostate cancer could raise the risk for myocardial infarction and stroke, and patients need to be closely monitored to allow early detection and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
“The statement provides data on the risks of each type of hormonal therapy so clinicians can use it as a guide to help manage cardiovascular risks during cancer treatment,” Tochi Okwuosa, DO, chair of the writing group, said in a news release.
“A team-based approach to patient care that includes the oncology team, cardiologist, primary care clinician, dietitian, endocrinologist, and other health care professionals as appropriate is needed to work with each patient to manage and reduce the increased risk of heart disease and strokes associated with hormonal therapy in breast and prostate cancer treatment,” said Dr. Okwuosa, director of cardio-oncology services, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.
The scientific statement was published online April 26 in Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine.
Hormone-dependent cancers, such as prostate and breast cancer, are the most common noncutaneous cancers in the United States and around the world. As hormonal therapies have markedly improved survival in these patients, CVD has emerged as a leading cause illness and death.
The increased CVD burden might be explained by the increasing average age of cancer survivors, leading to higher rates of age-related CV risk factors and coronary artery disease.
The writing group reviewed existing evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials on the cardiovascular impact of anticancer hormonal therapies.
Among the key findings:
- In patients with breast cancer, has been shown to increase the risk for venous thromboembolic events, but to have somewhat protective to neutral effects on CVD risk burden and CVD events. Conversely, aromatase inhibitors have been shown to increase the risk for CVD risk factors and events, including MI and stroke.
- Androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer appears to increase the risk for CV events, although gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists are associated with a lower risk for CV events than are GnRH agonists. The oral antiandrogens appear to be associated with increased CVD risk as well, particularly when used for complete androgen blockade as combination GnRH/anti-androgen therapy.
- The duration of hormonal therapies has a significant impact on CVD risk; the longer patients receive hormonal therapy, the greater the risk. More research is needed to better define the risks associated with duration of treatment.
- The data are mixed on the impact of preexisting CV risk factors and CVD on CV events associated with hormonal therapy. Although the presence of baseline CV risk factors and CVD can increase CV events associated with aromatase inhibitors, it is not clear that tamoxifen does.
- Studies suggest that patients with prostate cancer and baseline CVD and CV risk factors have increased rates of CV events when treated with androgen-deprivation therapy.
- Although the prolonged use of some hormonal therapies worsens CV risk factors and , the effects of the duration of therapy on CV events are less clear.
The writing group noted that there are no definitive guidelines for the monitoring and management of hormonal therapy-related CVD risks.
The authors encourage clinicians to be alert for worsening CV problems in those with preexisting heart disease or risk factors, and to recognize that even patients without preexisting CV problems are at higher risk because of their exposure to hormonal therapies.
“For patients who have two or more cardiovascular risk factors, it is likely that referral to a cardiologist would be appropriate prior to beginning hormone treatment. For patients already receiving hormonal therapies, a discussion with the oncology team can help to determine if a cardiology referral is recommended,” Dr. Okwuosa said in the news release.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Cardio-Oncology Subcommittee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and the Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; and the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention.
The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Okwuosa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pfizer developing pill to treat COVID-19 symptoms
“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.
An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.
“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”
The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.
Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.
The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.
In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.
A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.
An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.
“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”
The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.
Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.
The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.
In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.
A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.
An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.
“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”
The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.
Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.
The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.
In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.
A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Psoriasis associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 in real-world study
in patients, compared with those on topical therapy, a new study finds.
“Our study results suggest that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 illness,” study coauthor Jeffrey Liu, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after he presented the findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience. “And our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that certain systemic agents may confer a protective effect against COVID-19 illness.”
Mr. Liu and coinvestigators used a Symphony Health dataset to analyze the health records of 167,027 U.S. patients diagnosed with psoriasis and a control group of 1,002,162 patients. The participants, all at least 20 years old, had been treated for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis from May 2019 through Jan. 1, 2020, and were tracked until Nov. 11, 2020.
The ages and races of peoples in the two groups were roughly similar. Overall, 55% were women and 75% were White, and their average age was 58 years. Type 2 diabetes was more common in the psoriasis group than the control group (23% vs. 16%), as was obesity (27% vs. 15%). Of the patients with psoriasis, 60% were on topical treatments, 19% were on oral therapies, and 22% were on biologic therapy, with only a few taking both oral and biologic therapies.
After adjustment for age and gender, patients with psoriasis were 33% more likely than the control group to develop COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.38; P < .0001).
In a separate analysis, the gap persisted after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities: Patients with psoriasis had a higher rate of COVID-19 infection vs. controls (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23; P < .0001). Among all patients, non-White race, older age, and comorbidities were all linked to higher risk of COVID-19 (all P < .0001).
Psoriasis might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 because the presence of up-regulated genes in psoriatic skin “may lead to systemic hyperinflammation and sensitization of patients with psoriasis to proinflammatory cytokine storm,” Mr. Liu said. This, in turn, may trigger more severe symptomatic disease that requires medical treatment, he said.
Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies
After adjustment for age and gender, those treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors, methotrexate, and apremilast (Otezla) all had statistically lower risks of COVID-19 vs. those on topical therapy (aIRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P < .0029 for TNF-alpha inhibitors; aIRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; P < .0001 for methotrexate; and aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; P < .0006 for apremilast).
Reduced risk held true for those in the separate analysis after adjustment for comorbidities and demographics (respectively, aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P < .0469; aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .0011; and aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P < .0014).
Apremilast and methotrexate may boost protection against COVID-19 by inhibiting the body’s production of cytokines, Mr. Liu said.
One message of the study is that “dermatologists should not be scared of prescribing biologics or oral therapies for psoriasis,” the study’s lead author Jashin J. Wu, MD, of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., said in an interview.
However, the results on the effects of systemic therapies were not all positive. Interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors were an outlier: After adjustment for age and gender, patients treated with this class of drugs were 36% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those on oral agents (aIRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63; P < .0009).
Among patients on biologics, those taking IL-17 inhibitors had the highest risk of COVID-19, Mr. Liu said. “The risk was higher in this class regardless of reference group – general population, the topical cohort, and the oral cohort,” he said. “This may relate to the observation that this biologic class exerts more broad immunosuppressive effects on antiviral host immunity. Notably, large meta-estimates of pivotal trials have observed increased risk of respiratory tract infections for patients on IL-17 inhibitors.”
In an interview, Erica Dommasch, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, cautioned that “the data from this study is very hard to interpret.”
It’s likely that some patients with psoriasis on systemic medications “may have been the most careful about limiting exposures,” she said. “Thus, it’s hard to account for behavioral changes in individuals that may have led to the decreased incidence in psoriasis in patients on systemic agents versus topical therapy alone.”
Patients with psoriasis may also be tested more often for COVID-19, and unmeasured comorbidities like chronic kidney disease may play a role too, she said. Still, she added, “it’s reassuring that the authors did not find an increased rate of COVID among psoriasis patients on systemic agents versus topicals alone.” And she agreed with Dr. Wu about the importance of treating psoriasis with therapy beyond topical treatments during the pandemic: “Providers should feel comfortable prescribing systemic medications to psoriasis patients when otherwise appropriate.”
As for the next steps, Dr. Wu said, “we will be exploring more about the prognosis of COVID-19 infection in psoriasis patients. In addition, we will be exploring the relationship of COVID-19 infection with other inflammatory skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis.”
No study funding is reported. Dr. Wu discloses investigator, consultant, or speaker relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, and Zerigo Health. Mr. Liu and Dr. Dommasch have no disclosures.
in patients, compared with those on topical therapy, a new study finds.
“Our study results suggest that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 illness,” study coauthor Jeffrey Liu, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after he presented the findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience. “And our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that certain systemic agents may confer a protective effect against COVID-19 illness.”
Mr. Liu and coinvestigators used a Symphony Health dataset to analyze the health records of 167,027 U.S. patients diagnosed with psoriasis and a control group of 1,002,162 patients. The participants, all at least 20 years old, had been treated for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis from May 2019 through Jan. 1, 2020, and were tracked until Nov. 11, 2020.
The ages and races of peoples in the two groups were roughly similar. Overall, 55% were women and 75% were White, and their average age was 58 years. Type 2 diabetes was more common in the psoriasis group than the control group (23% vs. 16%), as was obesity (27% vs. 15%). Of the patients with psoriasis, 60% were on topical treatments, 19% were on oral therapies, and 22% were on biologic therapy, with only a few taking both oral and biologic therapies.
After adjustment for age and gender, patients with psoriasis were 33% more likely than the control group to develop COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.38; P < .0001).
In a separate analysis, the gap persisted after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities: Patients with psoriasis had a higher rate of COVID-19 infection vs. controls (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23; P < .0001). Among all patients, non-White race, older age, and comorbidities were all linked to higher risk of COVID-19 (all P < .0001).
Psoriasis might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 because the presence of up-regulated genes in psoriatic skin “may lead to systemic hyperinflammation and sensitization of patients with psoriasis to proinflammatory cytokine storm,” Mr. Liu said. This, in turn, may trigger more severe symptomatic disease that requires medical treatment, he said.
Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies
After adjustment for age and gender, those treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors, methotrexate, and apremilast (Otezla) all had statistically lower risks of COVID-19 vs. those on topical therapy (aIRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P < .0029 for TNF-alpha inhibitors; aIRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; P < .0001 for methotrexate; and aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; P < .0006 for apremilast).
Reduced risk held true for those in the separate analysis after adjustment for comorbidities and demographics (respectively, aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P < .0469; aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .0011; and aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P < .0014).
Apremilast and methotrexate may boost protection against COVID-19 by inhibiting the body’s production of cytokines, Mr. Liu said.
One message of the study is that “dermatologists should not be scared of prescribing biologics or oral therapies for psoriasis,” the study’s lead author Jashin J. Wu, MD, of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., said in an interview.
However, the results on the effects of systemic therapies were not all positive. Interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors were an outlier: After adjustment for age and gender, patients treated with this class of drugs were 36% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those on oral agents (aIRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63; P < .0009).
Among patients on biologics, those taking IL-17 inhibitors had the highest risk of COVID-19, Mr. Liu said. “The risk was higher in this class regardless of reference group – general population, the topical cohort, and the oral cohort,” he said. “This may relate to the observation that this biologic class exerts more broad immunosuppressive effects on antiviral host immunity. Notably, large meta-estimates of pivotal trials have observed increased risk of respiratory tract infections for patients on IL-17 inhibitors.”
In an interview, Erica Dommasch, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, cautioned that “the data from this study is very hard to interpret.”
It’s likely that some patients with psoriasis on systemic medications “may have been the most careful about limiting exposures,” she said. “Thus, it’s hard to account for behavioral changes in individuals that may have led to the decreased incidence in psoriasis in patients on systemic agents versus topical therapy alone.”
Patients with psoriasis may also be tested more often for COVID-19, and unmeasured comorbidities like chronic kidney disease may play a role too, she said. Still, she added, “it’s reassuring that the authors did not find an increased rate of COVID among psoriasis patients on systemic agents versus topicals alone.” And she agreed with Dr. Wu about the importance of treating psoriasis with therapy beyond topical treatments during the pandemic: “Providers should feel comfortable prescribing systemic medications to psoriasis patients when otherwise appropriate.”
As for the next steps, Dr. Wu said, “we will be exploring more about the prognosis of COVID-19 infection in psoriasis patients. In addition, we will be exploring the relationship of COVID-19 infection with other inflammatory skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis.”
No study funding is reported. Dr. Wu discloses investigator, consultant, or speaker relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, and Zerigo Health. Mr. Liu and Dr. Dommasch have no disclosures.
in patients, compared with those on topical therapy, a new study finds.
“Our study results suggest that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 illness,” study coauthor Jeffrey Liu, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after he presented the findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience. “And our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that certain systemic agents may confer a protective effect against COVID-19 illness.”
Mr. Liu and coinvestigators used a Symphony Health dataset to analyze the health records of 167,027 U.S. patients diagnosed with psoriasis and a control group of 1,002,162 patients. The participants, all at least 20 years old, had been treated for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis from May 2019 through Jan. 1, 2020, and were tracked until Nov. 11, 2020.
The ages and races of peoples in the two groups were roughly similar. Overall, 55% were women and 75% were White, and their average age was 58 years. Type 2 diabetes was more common in the psoriasis group than the control group (23% vs. 16%), as was obesity (27% vs. 15%). Of the patients with psoriasis, 60% were on topical treatments, 19% were on oral therapies, and 22% were on biologic therapy, with only a few taking both oral and biologic therapies.
After adjustment for age and gender, patients with psoriasis were 33% more likely than the control group to develop COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.38; P < .0001).
In a separate analysis, the gap persisted after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities: Patients with psoriasis had a higher rate of COVID-19 infection vs. controls (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23; P < .0001). Among all patients, non-White race, older age, and comorbidities were all linked to higher risk of COVID-19 (all P < .0001).
Psoriasis might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 because the presence of up-regulated genes in psoriatic skin “may lead to systemic hyperinflammation and sensitization of patients with psoriasis to proinflammatory cytokine storm,” Mr. Liu said. This, in turn, may trigger more severe symptomatic disease that requires medical treatment, he said.
Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies
After adjustment for age and gender, those treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors, methotrexate, and apremilast (Otezla) all had statistically lower risks of COVID-19 vs. those on topical therapy (aIRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P < .0029 for TNF-alpha inhibitors; aIRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; P < .0001 for methotrexate; and aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; P < .0006 for apremilast).
Reduced risk held true for those in the separate analysis after adjustment for comorbidities and demographics (respectively, aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P < .0469; aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .0011; and aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P < .0014).
Apremilast and methotrexate may boost protection against COVID-19 by inhibiting the body’s production of cytokines, Mr. Liu said.
One message of the study is that “dermatologists should not be scared of prescribing biologics or oral therapies for psoriasis,” the study’s lead author Jashin J. Wu, MD, of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., said in an interview.
However, the results on the effects of systemic therapies were not all positive. Interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors were an outlier: After adjustment for age and gender, patients treated with this class of drugs were 36% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those on oral agents (aIRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63; P < .0009).
Among patients on biologics, those taking IL-17 inhibitors had the highest risk of COVID-19, Mr. Liu said. “The risk was higher in this class regardless of reference group – general population, the topical cohort, and the oral cohort,” he said. “This may relate to the observation that this biologic class exerts more broad immunosuppressive effects on antiviral host immunity. Notably, large meta-estimates of pivotal trials have observed increased risk of respiratory tract infections for patients on IL-17 inhibitors.”
In an interview, Erica Dommasch, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, cautioned that “the data from this study is very hard to interpret.”
It’s likely that some patients with psoriasis on systemic medications “may have been the most careful about limiting exposures,” she said. “Thus, it’s hard to account for behavioral changes in individuals that may have led to the decreased incidence in psoriasis in patients on systemic agents versus topical therapy alone.”
Patients with psoriasis may also be tested more often for COVID-19, and unmeasured comorbidities like chronic kidney disease may play a role too, she said. Still, she added, “it’s reassuring that the authors did not find an increased rate of COVID among psoriasis patients on systemic agents versus topicals alone.” And she agreed with Dr. Wu about the importance of treating psoriasis with therapy beyond topical treatments during the pandemic: “Providers should feel comfortable prescribing systemic medications to psoriasis patients when otherwise appropriate.”
As for the next steps, Dr. Wu said, “we will be exploring more about the prognosis of COVID-19 infection in psoriasis patients. In addition, we will be exploring the relationship of COVID-19 infection with other inflammatory skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis.”
No study funding is reported. Dr. Wu discloses investigator, consultant, or speaker relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, and Zerigo Health. Mr. Liu and Dr. Dommasch have no disclosures.
FROM AAD VMX 2021
CDC: Vaccinated people can mostly drop masks outdoors
After hinting that new guidelines on outdoor mask-wearing were coming, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 27 officially gave a green light to fully vaccinated people gathering outside in uncrowded activities without the masks that have become so common during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is a minor – but still significant – step toward the end of pandemic restrictions.
“Over the past year, we have spent a lot of time telling Americans what they cannot do, what they should not do,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a White House press briefing. “Today, I’m going to tell you some of the things you can do if you are fully vaccinated.”
President Joe Biden affirmed the new guidelines at a press conference soon after the CDC briefing ended.
,” he said, adding “the bottom line is clear: If you’re vaccinated, you can do more things, more safely, both outdoors as well as indoors.”
President Biden emphasized the role science played in the decision, saying “The CDC is able to make this announcement because our scientists are convinced by the data that the odds of getting or giving the virus to others is very, very low if you’ve both been fully vaccinated and are out in the open air.”
President Biden also said these new guidelines should be an incentive for more people to get vaccinated. “This is another great reason to go get vaccinated now. Now,” he said.
The CDC has long advised that outdoor activities are safer than indoor activities.
“Most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors. Less than 10% of documented transmissions in many studies have occurred outdoors,” said Dr. Walensky. “We also know there’s almost a 20-fold increased risk of transmission in the indoor setting, than the outdoor setting.”
Dr. Walensky said the lower risks outdoors, combined with growing vaccination coverage and falling COVID cases around the country, motivated the change.
The new guidelines come as the share of people in the United States who are vaccinated is growing. About 37% of all eligible Americans are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Nearly 54% have had at least one dose.
The new guidelines say unvaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors when gathering with others or dining at an outdoor restaurant.
And vaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors in crowded settings where social distancing might not always be possible, like a concert or sporting event. People are considered fully vaccinated when they are 2 weeks past their last shot
The CDC guidelines say people who live in the same house don’t need to wear masks if they’re exercising or hanging out together outdoors.
You also don’t need a mask if you’re attending a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends, whether you’re vaccinated or not.
The new guidelines also say it’s OK for fully vaccinated people to take their masks off outdoors when gathering in a small group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but suggest that unvaccinated people should still wear a mask.
Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
After hinting that new guidelines on outdoor mask-wearing were coming, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 27 officially gave a green light to fully vaccinated people gathering outside in uncrowded activities without the masks that have become so common during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is a minor – but still significant – step toward the end of pandemic restrictions.
“Over the past year, we have spent a lot of time telling Americans what they cannot do, what they should not do,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a White House press briefing. “Today, I’m going to tell you some of the things you can do if you are fully vaccinated.”
President Joe Biden affirmed the new guidelines at a press conference soon after the CDC briefing ended.
,” he said, adding “the bottom line is clear: If you’re vaccinated, you can do more things, more safely, both outdoors as well as indoors.”
President Biden emphasized the role science played in the decision, saying “The CDC is able to make this announcement because our scientists are convinced by the data that the odds of getting or giving the virus to others is very, very low if you’ve both been fully vaccinated and are out in the open air.”
President Biden also said these new guidelines should be an incentive for more people to get vaccinated. “This is another great reason to go get vaccinated now. Now,” he said.
The CDC has long advised that outdoor activities are safer than indoor activities.
“Most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors. Less than 10% of documented transmissions in many studies have occurred outdoors,” said Dr. Walensky. “We also know there’s almost a 20-fold increased risk of transmission in the indoor setting, than the outdoor setting.”
Dr. Walensky said the lower risks outdoors, combined with growing vaccination coverage and falling COVID cases around the country, motivated the change.
The new guidelines come as the share of people in the United States who are vaccinated is growing. About 37% of all eligible Americans are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Nearly 54% have had at least one dose.
The new guidelines say unvaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors when gathering with others or dining at an outdoor restaurant.
And vaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors in crowded settings where social distancing might not always be possible, like a concert or sporting event. People are considered fully vaccinated when they are 2 weeks past their last shot
The CDC guidelines say people who live in the same house don’t need to wear masks if they’re exercising or hanging out together outdoors.
You also don’t need a mask if you’re attending a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends, whether you’re vaccinated or not.
The new guidelines also say it’s OK for fully vaccinated people to take their masks off outdoors when gathering in a small group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but suggest that unvaccinated people should still wear a mask.
Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
After hinting that new guidelines on outdoor mask-wearing were coming, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 27 officially gave a green light to fully vaccinated people gathering outside in uncrowded activities without the masks that have become so common during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is a minor – but still significant – step toward the end of pandemic restrictions.
“Over the past year, we have spent a lot of time telling Americans what they cannot do, what they should not do,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a White House press briefing. “Today, I’m going to tell you some of the things you can do if you are fully vaccinated.”
President Joe Biden affirmed the new guidelines at a press conference soon after the CDC briefing ended.
,” he said, adding “the bottom line is clear: If you’re vaccinated, you can do more things, more safely, both outdoors as well as indoors.”
President Biden emphasized the role science played in the decision, saying “The CDC is able to make this announcement because our scientists are convinced by the data that the odds of getting or giving the virus to others is very, very low if you’ve both been fully vaccinated and are out in the open air.”
President Biden also said these new guidelines should be an incentive for more people to get vaccinated. “This is another great reason to go get vaccinated now. Now,” he said.
The CDC has long advised that outdoor activities are safer than indoor activities.
“Most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors. Less than 10% of documented transmissions in many studies have occurred outdoors,” said Dr. Walensky. “We also know there’s almost a 20-fold increased risk of transmission in the indoor setting, than the outdoor setting.”
Dr. Walensky said the lower risks outdoors, combined with growing vaccination coverage and falling COVID cases around the country, motivated the change.
The new guidelines come as the share of people in the United States who are vaccinated is growing. About 37% of all eligible Americans are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Nearly 54% have had at least one dose.
The new guidelines say unvaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors when gathering with others or dining at an outdoor restaurant.
And vaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors in crowded settings where social distancing might not always be possible, like a concert or sporting event. People are considered fully vaccinated when they are 2 weeks past their last shot
The CDC guidelines say people who live in the same house don’t need to wear masks if they’re exercising or hanging out together outdoors.
You also don’t need a mask if you’re attending a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends, whether you’re vaccinated or not.
The new guidelines also say it’s OK for fully vaccinated people to take their masks off outdoors when gathering in a small group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but suggest that unvaccinated people should still wear a mask.
Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.