Official news magazine of the Society of Hospital Medicine

Theme
medstat_thn
Top Sections
Quality
Clinical
Practice Management
Public Policy
Career
From the Society
thn
Main menu
THN Explore Menu
Explore menu
THN Main Menu
Proclivity ID
18836001
Unpublish
Specialty Focus
Critical Care
Infectious Diseases
Leadership Training
Medication Reconciliation
Neurology
Pediatrics
Transitions of Care
Negative Keywords Excluded Elements
div[contains(@class, 'view-clinical-edge-must-reads')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack nav-ce-stack__large-screen')]
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-article-hospitalist')]
Custom Lock Domain
the-hospitalist.org
Adblock Warning Text
We noticed you have an ad blocker enabled. Please whitelist The Hospitalist so that we can continue to bring you unique, HM-focused content.
Act-On Beacon Path
//shm.hospitalmedicine.org/cdnr/73/acton/bn/tracker/25526
Altmetric
Article Authors "autobrand" affiliation
MDedge News
DSM Affiliated
Display in offset block
Enable Disqus
Display Author and Disclosure Link
Publication Type
Society
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Disable Sticky Ads
Disable Ad Block Mitigation
AdBlock Gif
Featured Buckets Admin
Adblock Button Text
Whitelist the-hospitalist.org
Publication LayerRX Default ID
795
Non-Overridden Topics
Show Ads on this Publication's Homepage
Consolidated Pub
Show Article Page Numbers on TOC
Use larger logo size
Off
publication_blueconic_enabled
Off
Show More Destinations Menu
Disable Adhesion on Publication
On
Restore Menu Label on Mobile Navigation
Disable Facebook Pixel from Publication
Exclude this publication from publication selection on articles and quiz
Challenge Center
Disable Inline Native ads
Adblock Gif Media

Accelerated surgery for hip fracture did not lower risk of mortality or major complications

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/27/2021 - 16:06

Background: Patients diagnosed with a hip fracture are at substantial risk of major complications and mortality. Observational studies have suggested that accelerated surgery for a hip fracture is associated with lower risk of mortality and major complications.

Dr. Bahnsen P. Miller

Study design: International, randomized, controlled trial (RCT).

Setting: 69 hospitals in 17 countries.

Synopsis: This RCT enrolled 2,970 patients with a hip fracture, aged 45 years and older. The median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 6 h in the accelerated surgery group (n = 1,487) and 24 h in the standard-care group (n = 1,483). A total of 140 (9%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 154 (10%) assigned to standard care died at 90 days after randomization (P = .40). Composite of major complications (mortality, nonfatal MI, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, life-threatening bleeding, and major bleeding) occurred in 321 (22%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 331 (22%) assigned to standard care at 90 days after randomization (p = .71). However, accelerated surgery was associated with lower risk of delirium, urinary tract infection, andmoderate to severe pain and resulted in faster mobilization and shorter length of stay.

Practical limitations include the additional resources needed for an accelerated surgical pathway such as staffing and operating room time. Furthermore, this study included only patients diagnosed during regular working hours.

Bottom line: Among patients with a hip fracture, accelerated surgery did not lower the risk of the coprimary outcomes of mortality or a composite of major complications at 90 days compared with standard care.

Citation: Borges F et al. Accelerated surgery versus standard care in hip fracture (HIP ATTACK): An international, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2020 Feb 29; 395(10225), 698-708.

Dr. Miller is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Background: Patients diagnosed with a hip fracture are at substantial risk of major complications and mortality. Observational studies have suggested that accelerated surgery for a hip fracture is associated with lower risk of mortality and major complications.

Dr. Bahnsen P. Miller

Study design: International, randomized, controlled trial (RCT).

Setting: 69 hospitals in 17 countries.

Synopsis: This RCT enrolled 2,970 patients with a hip fracture, aged 45 years and older. The median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 6 h in the accelerated surgery group (n = 1,487) and 24 h in the standard-care group (n = 1,483). A total of 140 (9%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 154 (10%) assigned to standard care died at 90 days after randomization (P = .40). Composite of major complications (mortality, nonfatal MI, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, life-threatening bleeding, and major bleeding) occurred in 321 (22%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 331 (22%) assigned to standard care at 90 days after randomization (p = .71). However, accelerated surgery was associated with lower risk of delirium, urinary tract infection, andmoderate to severe pain and resulted in faster mobilization and shorter length of stay.

Practical limitations include the additional resources needed for an accelerated surgical pathway such as staffing and operating room time. Furthermore, this study included only patients diagnosed during regular working hours.

Bottom line: Among patients with a hip fracture, accelerated surgery did not lower the risk of the coprimary outcomes of mortality or a composite of major complications at 90 days compared with standard care.

Citation: Borges F et al. Accelerated surgery versus standard care in hip fracture (HIP ATTACK): An international, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2020 Feb 29; 395(10225), 698-708.

Dr. Miller is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: Patients diagnosed with a hip fracture are at substantial risk of major complications and mortality. Observational studies have suggested that accelerated surgery for a hip fracture is associated with lower risk of mortality and major complications.

Dr. Bahnsen P. Miller

Study design: International, randomized, controlled trial (RCT).

Setting: 69 hospitals in 17 countries.

Synopsis: This RCT enrolled 2,970 patients with a hip fracture, aged 45 years and older. The median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 6 h in the accelerated surgery group (n = 1,487) and 24 h in the standard-care group (n = 1,483). A total of 140 (9%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 154 (10%) assigned to standard care died at 90 days after randomization (P = .40). Composite of major complications (mortality, nonfatal MI, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, life-threatening bleeding, and major bleeding) occurred in 321 (22%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 331 (22%) assigned to standard care at 90 days after randomization (p = .71). However, accelerated surgery was associated with lower risk of delirium, urinary tract infection, andmoderate to severe pain and resulted in faster mobilization and shorter length of stay.

Practical limitations include the additional resources needed for an accelerated surgical pathway such as staffing and operating room time. Furthermore, this study included only patients diagnosed during regular working hours.

Bottom line: Among patients with a hip fracture, accelerated surgery did not lower the risk of the coprimary outcomes of mortality or a composite of major complications at 90 days compared with standard care.

Citation: Borges F et al. Accelerated surgery versus standard care in hip fracture (HIP ATTACK): An international, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2020 Feb 29; 395(10225), 698-708.

Dr. Miller is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Direct oral anticoagulants: Competition brought no cost relief

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/27/2021 - 13:58

 

Medicare Part D spending for oral anticoagulants has risen by almost 1,600% since 2011, while the number of users has increased by just 95%, according to a new study.

In 2011, the year after the first direct oral anticoagulant (DOACs) was approved, Medicare Part D spent $0.44 billion on all oral anticoagulants. By 2019, when there a total of four DOACs on the market, spending was $7.38 billion, an increase of 1,577%, Aaron Troy, MD, MPH, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, said in JAMA Health Forum.



Over that same time, the number of beneficiaries using oral anticoagulants went from 2.68 million to 5.24 million, they said, based on data from the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Event file.

“While higher prices for novel therapeutics like DOACs, which offer clear benefits, such as decreased drug-drug interactions and improved persistence, may partly reflect value and help drive innovation, the patterns and effects of spending on novel medications still merit attention,” they noted.

One pattern of use looked like this: 0.2 million Medicare beneficiaries took DOACs in 2011,compared with 3.5 million in 2019, while the number of warfarin users dropped from 2.48 million to 1.74 million, the investigators reported.

As for spending over the study period, the cost to treat one beneficiary with atrial fibrillation increased by 9.3% each year for apixaban (a DOAC that was the most popular oral anticoagulant in 2019), decreased 27.6% per year for generic warfarin, and increased 9.5% per year for rivaroxaban, said Dr. Troy and Dr. Anderson of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

Rising Part D enrollment had an effect on spending growth, as did increased use of oral anticoagulants in general. The introduction of competing DOACs, however, “did not substantially curb annual spending increases, suggesting a lack of price competition, which is consistent with trends observed in other therapeutic categories,” they wrote.

Dr. Anderson has received research grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American College of Cardiology outside of this study and honoraria from Alosa Health. No other disclosures were reported.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Medicare Part D spending for oral anticoagulants has risen by almost 1,600% since 2011, while the number of users has increased by just 95%, according to a new study.

In 2011, the year after the first direct oral anticoagulant (DOACs) was approved, Medicare Part D spent $0.44 billion on all oral anticoagulants. By 2019, when there a total of four DOACs on the market, spending was $7.38 billion, an increase of 1,577%, Aaron Troy, MD, MPH, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, said in JAMA Health Forum.



Over that same time, the number of beneficiaries using oral anticoagulants went from 2.68 million to 5.24 million, they said, based on data from the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Event file.

“While higher prices for novel therapeutics like DOACs, which offer clear benefits, such as decreased drug-drug interactions and improved persistence, may partly reflect value and help drive innovation, the patterns and effects of spending on novel medications still merit attention,” they noted.

One pattern of use looked like this: 0.2 million Medicare beneficiaries took DOACs in 2011,compared with 3.5 million in 2019, while the number of warfarin users dropped from 2.48 million to 1.74 million, the investigators reported.

As for spending over the study period, the cost to treat one beneficiary with atrial fibrillation increased by 9.3% each year for apixaban (a DOAC that was the most popular oral anticoagulant in 2019), decreased 27.6% per year for generic warfarin, and increased 9.5% per year for rivaroxaban, said Dr. Troy and Dr. Anderson of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

Rising Part D enrollment had an effect on spending growth, as did increased use of oral anticoagulants in general. The introduction of competing DOACs, however, “did not substantially curb annual spending increases, suggesting a lack of price competition, which is consistent with trends observed in other therapeutic categories,” they wrote.

Dr. Anderson has received research grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American College of Cardiology outside of this study and honoraria from Alosa Health. No other disclosures were reported.

 

Medicare Part D spending for oral anticoagulants has risen by almost 1,600% since 2011, while the number of users has increased by just 95%, according to a new study.

In 2011, the year after the first direct oral anticoagulant (DOACs) was approved, Medicare Part D spent $0.44 billion on all oral anticoagulants. By 2019, when there a total of four DOACs on the market, spending was $7.38 billion, an increase of 1,577%, Aaron Troy, MD, MPH, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, said in JAMA Health Forum.



Over that same time, the number of beneficiaries using oral anticoagulants went from 2.68 million to 5.24 million, they said, based on data from the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Event file.

“While higher prices for novel therapeutics like DOACs, which offer clear benefits, such as decreased drug-drug interactions and improved persistence, may partly reflect value and help drive innovation, the patterns and effects of spending on novel medications still merit attention,” they noted.

One pattern of use looked like this: 0.2 million Medicare beneficiaries took DOACs in 2011,compared with 3.5 million in 2019, while the number of warfarin users dropped from 2.48 million to 1.74 million, the investigators reported.

As for spending over the study period, the cost to treat one beneficiary with atrial fibrillation increased by 9.3% each year for apixaban (a DOAC that was the most popular oral anticoagulant in 2019), decreased 27.6% per year for generic warfarin, and increased 9.5% per year for rivaroxaban, said Dr. Troy and Dr. Anderson of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

Rising Part D enrollment had an effect on spending growth, as did increased use of oral anticoagulants in general. The introduction of competing DOACs, however, “did not substantially curb annual spending increases, suggesting a lack of price competition, which is consistent with trends observed in other therapeutic categories,” they wrote.

Dr. Anderson has received research grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American College of Cardiology outside of this study and honoraria from Alosa Health. No other disclosures were reported.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM JAMA HEALTH FORUM

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

C. Diff eradication not necessary for clinical cure of recurrent infections with fecal transplant

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/27/2021 - 12:28

 

It’s not necessary to completely eradicate all Clostridioides difficile to successfully treat recurrent C. difficile infections with fecal microbiota transplant (FMT), according to a study presented online July 12 at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.

C. difficile colonization persisted for 3 weeks after FMT in about one-quarter of patients, but it’s not clear whether this is a persistent infection, a newly acquired infection, or partial persistence of a mixed infection, said Elisabeth Terveer, MD, a medical microbiologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. In addition, “82% of patients with detectable C. diff do not relapse, so it’s absolutely not necessary for a cure,” she said.

Several mechanisms explain why FMT is a highly effective therapy for recurrent C. difficile infections, including restoration of bacterial metabolism in the gut, immune modulation, and direct competition between bacteria, Dr. Terveer said, but it’s less clear whether eradication of C. difficile spores is among these mechanisms. 

Between May 2016 and April 2020, the researchers analyzed fecal samples from 84 patients who took vancomycin for at least 4 days before undergoing FMT. The researchers took fecal samples from patients before FMT and 3 weeks after FMT to culture them and the donor samples for presence of C. difficile, and they assessed clinical outcomes at 3 weeks and 6 months after FMT.

After antibiotic treatment but prior to FMT, 19% of patients (n = 16) still had a toxigenic C. difficile culture while the other 81% had a negative culture. None of the donor samples had a positive C. difficile culture. After FMT treatment, five patients who had a positive pre-FMT culture remained positive, and the other 11 were negative. Among the 81% of patients (n = 68) who had a negative culture just before FMT, 22 had a positive culture and 46 had a negative culture after FMT. Overall, 26% of patients post FMT had a positive C. difficile culture, a finding that was 10-fold higher than another study that assessed C. difficile with PCR testing, Dr. Terveer said.

The clinical cure rate after FMT was 94%, and five patients had relapses within 2 months of their FMT. These relapses were more prevalent in patients with a positive C. difficile culture prior to FMT (odds ratio [OR], 7.6; P = .045) and a positive C. difficile culture after FMT (OR, 13.6; P = .016). Still, 82% of patients who had a positive C. difficile culture post FMT remained clinically cured 2 months later.

It’s unclear why 19% of patients had a positive culture after their antibiotic pretreatment prior to FMT, Dr. Terveer said, but it may be because the pretreatment was of such a short duration.

“I think the advice should be: Give a full anti–C. diff antibiotic course to treat the C. diff infection, and then give FMT afterward to restore the microbiota and prevent further relapses,” Dr. Terveer told attendees.

Dimitri Drekonja, MD, chief of the Minneapolis VA Infectious Disease Section, said the findings were not necessarily surprising, but it would have been interesting for the researchers to have conducted DNA sequencing of the patients’ fecal samples post FMT to see what the biological diversity looked like.

“One school of thought has been that you have to repopulate the normal diverse microbiota of the colon” with FMT, and the other “is that you need to get rid of the C. diff that›s there,” Dr. Drekonja, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “I think more people think it’s the diverse microbiota because if it’s just getting rid of C. diff, we can get do that with antibiotics – but that gets rid of the other organisms.”

As long as you have a diverse microbiota post FMT, Dr. Drekonja said, then “having a few residual organisms, even if they get magnified in the culture process, is probably not that big a deal.”

But there’s a third school of thought that Dr. Drekonja said he himself falls into: “I don’t really care how it works, just that in well-done trials, it does work.” As long as large, robust, well-blinded trials show that FMT works, “I’m open to all sorts of ideas of what the mechanism is,” he said. “The main thing is that it does or doesn’t work.”

These findings basically reinforce current guidance not to test patients’ stools if they are asymptomatic, Dr. Drekonja said. In the past, clinicians sometimes tested patients’ stool after therapy to ensure the C. difficile was eradicated, regardless of whether the patient had symptoms of infection, he said.

“We’ve since become much more attuned that there are lots of people who have detectable C. diff in their stool without any symptoms,” whether detectable by culture or PCR, Dr. Drekonja said. “Generally, if you’re doing well and you’re not having diarrhea, don’t test, and if someone does test and finds it, pretend you didn’t see the test,” he advised. “This is a big part of diagnostic stewardship, which is: You don’t go testing people who are doing well.”

The Netherlands Donor Feces Bank used in the research is funded by a grant from Vedanta Biosciences. Dr. Drekonja had no disclosures.

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

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

It’s not necessary to completely eradicate all Clostridioides difficile to successfully treat recurrent C. difficile infections with fecal microbiota transplant (FMT), according to a study presented online July 12 at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.

C. difficile colonization persisted for 3 weeks after FMT in about one-quarter of patients, but it’s not clear whether this is a persistent infection, a newly acquired infection, or partial persistence of a mixed infection, said Elisabeth Terveer, MD, a medical microbiologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. In addition, “82% of patients with detectable C. diff do not relapse, so it’s absolutely not necessary for a cure,” she said.

Several mechanisms explain why FMT is a highly effective therapy for recurrent C. difficile infections, including restoration of bacterial metabolism in the gut, immune modulation, and direct competition between bacteria, Dr. Terveer said, but it’s less clear whether eradication of C. difficile spores is among these mechanisms. 

Between May 2016 and April 2020, the researchers analyzed fecal samples from 84 patients who took vancomycin for at least 4 days before undergoing FMT. The researchers took fecal samples from patients before FMT and 3 weeks after FMT to culture them and the donor samples for presence of C. difficile, and they assessed clinical outcomes at 3 weeks and 6 months after FMT.

After antibiotic treatment but prior to FMT, 19% of patients (n = 16) still had a toxigenic C. difficile culture while the other 81% had a negative culture. None of the donor samples had a positive C. difficile culture. After FMT treatment, five patients who had a positive pre-FMT culture remained positive, and the other 11 were negative. Among the 81% of patients (n = 68) who had a negative culture just before FMT, 22 had a positive culture and 46 had a negative culture after FMT. Overall, 26% of patients post FMT had a positive C. difficile culture, a finding that was 10-fold higher than another study that assessed C. difficile with PCR testing, Dr. Terveer said.

The clinical cure rate after FMT was 94%, and five patients had relapses within 2 months of their FMT. These relapses were more prevalent in patients with a positive C. difficile culture prior to FMT (odds ratio [OR], 7.6; P = .045) and a positive C. difficile culture after FMT (OR, 13.6; P = .016). Still, 82% of patients who had a positive C. difficile culture post FMT remained clinically cured 2 months later.

It’s unclear why 19% of patients had a positive culture after their antibiotic pretreatment prior to FMT, Dr. Terveer said, but it may be because the pretreatment was of such a short duration.

“I think the advice should be: Give a full anti–C. diff antibiotic course to treat the C. diff infection, and then give FMT afterward to restore the microbiota and prevent further relapses,” Dr. Terveer told attendees.

Dimitri Drekonja, MD, chief of the Minneapolis VA Infectious Disease Section, said the findings were not necessarily surprising, but it would have been interesting for the researchers to have conducted DNA sequencing of the patients’ fecal samples post FMT to see what the biological diversity looked like.

“One school of thought has been that you have to repopulate the normal diverse microbiota of the colon” with FMT, and the other “is that you need to get rid of the C. diff that›s there,” Dr. Drekonja, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “I think more people think it’s the diverse microbiota because if it’s just getting rid of C. diff, we can get do that with antibiotics – but that gets rid of the other organisms.”

As long as you have a diverse microbiota post FMT, Dr. Drekonja said, then “having a few residual organisms, even if they get magnified in the culture process, is probably not that big a deal.”

But there’s a third school of thought that Dr. Drekonja said he himself falls into: “I don’t really care how it works, just that in well-done trials, it does work.” As long as large, robust, well-blinded trials show that FMT works, “I’m open to all sorts of ideas of what the mechanism is,” he said. “The main thing is that it does or doesn’t work.”

These findings basically reinforce current guidance not to test patients’ stools if they are asymptomatic, Dr. Drekonja said. In the past, clinicians sometimes tested patients’ stool after therapy to ensure the C. difficile was eradicated, regardless of whether the patient had symptoms of infection, he said.

“We’ve since become much more attuned that there are lots of people who have detectable C. diff in their stool without any symptoms,” whether detectable by culture or PCR, Dr. Drekonja said. “Generally, if you’re doing well and you’re not having diarrhea, don’t test, and if someone does test and finds it, pretend you didn’t see the test,” he advised. “This is a big part of diagnostic stewardship, which is: You don’t go testing people who are doing well.”

The Netherlands Donor Feces Bank used in the research is funded by a grant from Vedanta Biosciences. Dr. Drekonja had no disclosures.

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

 

It’s not necessary to completely eradicate all Clostridioides difficile to successfully treat recurrent C. difficile infections with fecal microbiota transplant (FMT), according to a study presented online July 12 at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.

C. difficile colonization persisted for 3 weeks after FMT in about one-quarter of patients, but it’s not clear whether this is a persistent infection, a newly acquired infection, or partial persistence of a mixed infection, said Elisabeth Terveer, MD, a medical microbiologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. In addition, “82% of patients with detectable C. diff do not relapse, so it’s absolutely not necessary for a cure,” she said.

Several mechanisms explain why FMT is a highly effective therapy for recurrent C. difficile infections, including restoration of bacterial metabolism in the gut, immune modulation, and direct competition between bacteria, Dr. Terveer said, but it’s less clear whether eradication of C. difficile spores is among these mechanisms. 

Between May 2016 and April 2020, the researchers analyzed fecal samples from 84 patients who took vancomycin for at least 4 days before undergoing FMT. The researchers took fecal samples from patients before FMT and 3 weeks after FMT to culture them and the donor samples for presence of C. difficile, and they assessed clinical outcomes at 3 weeks and 6 months after FMT.

After antibiotic treatment but prior to FMT, 19% of patients (n = 16) still had a toxigenic C. difficile culture while the other 81% had a negative culture. None of the donor samples had a positive C. difficile culture. After FMT treatment, five patients who had a positive pre-FMT culture remained positive, and the other 11 were negative. Among the 81% of patients (n = 68) who had a negative culture just before FMT, 22 had a positive culture and 46 had a negative culture after FMT. Overall, 26% of patients post FMT had a positive C. difficile culture, a finding that was 10-fold higher than another study that assessed C. difficile with PCR testing, Dr. Terveer said.

The clinical cure rate after FMT was 94%, and five patients had relapses within 2 months of their FMT. These relapses were more prevalent in patients with a positive C. difficile culture prior to FMT (odds ratio [OR], 7.6; P = .045) and a positive C. difficile culture after FMT (OR, 13.6; P = .016). Still, 82% of patients who had a positive C. difficile culture post FMT remained clinically cured 2 months later.

It’s unclear why 19% of patients had a positive culture after their antibiotic pretreatment prior to FMT, Dr. Terveer said, but it may be because the pretreatment was of such a short duration.

“I think the advice should be: Give a full anti–C. diff antibiotic course to treat the C. diff infection, and then give FMT afterward to restore the microbiota and prevent further relapses,” Dr. Terveer told attendees.

Dimitri Drekonja, MD, chief of the Minneapolis VA Infectious Disease Section, said the findings were not necessarily surprising, but it would have been interesting for the researchers to have conducted DNA sequencing of the patients’ fecal samples post FMT to see what the biological diversity looked like.

“One school of thought has been that you have to repopulate the normal diverse microbiota of the colon” with FMT, and the other “is that you need to get rid of the C. diff that›s there,” Dr. Drekonja, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “I think more people think it’s the diverse microbiota because if it’s just getting rid of C. diff, we can get do that with antibiotics – but that gets rid of the other organisms.”

As long as you have a diverse microbiota post FMT, Dr. Drekonja said, then “having a few residual organisms, even if they get magnified in the culture process, is probably not that big a deal.”

But there’s a third school of thought that Dr. Drekonja said he himself falls into: “I don’t really care how it works, just that in well-done trials, it does work.” As long as large, robust, well-blinded trials show that FMT works, “I’m open to all sorts of ideas of what the mechanism is,” he said. “The main thing is that it does or doesn’t work.”

These findings basically reinforce current guidance not to test patients’ stools if they are asymptomatic, Dr. Drekonja said. In the past, clinicians sometimes tested patients’ stool after therapy to ensure the C. difficile was eradicated, regardless of whether the patient had symptoms of infection, he said.

“We’ve since become much more attuned that there are lots of people who have detectable C. diff in their stool without any symptoms,” whether detectable by culture or PCR, Dr. Drekonja said. “Generally, if you’re doing well and you’re not having diarrhea, don’t test, and if someone does test and finds it, pretend you didn’t see the test,” he advised. “This is a big part of diagnostic stewardship, which is: You don’t go testing people who are doing well.”

The Netherlands Donor Feces Bank used in the research is funded by a grant from Vedanta Biosciences. Dr. Drekonja had no disclosures.

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

AMA, 55 other groups urge health care vax mandate

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 08/26/2021 - 15:44

As COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths mount again across the country, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nursing Association, and 54 other medical and allied healthcare associations released a joint statement calling on “all health care and long-term care employers” to require their workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

This injunction, issued July 26, covers everyone in healthcare, Emanuel Ezekiel, MD, PhD, chair of the department of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the organizer of the joint statement, said in an interview.

That includes not only hospitals, but also physician offices, ambulatory surgery centers, home care agencies, skilled nursing facilities, pharmacies, laboratories, and imaging centers, he said.

The exhortation to get vaccinated also extends to federal and state healthcare facilities, including those of the military health system — TRICARE and the Department of Veterans Affairs — which instituted a mandate the same day.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) and other hospital groups recently said they supported hospitals and health systems that required their personnel to get vaccinated. Several dozen healthcare organizations have already done so, including some of the nation’s largest health systems.

A substantial fraction of U.S. healthcare workers have not yet gotten vaccinated, although how many are unvaccinated is unclear. An analysis by WebMD and Medscape Medical News estimated that 25% of hospital workers who had contact with patients were unvaccinated at the end of May.

More than 38% of nursing workers were not fully vaccinated by July 11, according to an analysis of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data by LeadingAge, which was cited by the Washington Post. And more than 40% of nursing home employees have not been fully vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The joint statement did not give any indication of how many employees of physician practices have failed to get COVID shots. However, a recent AMA survey shows that 96% of physicians have been fully vaccinated.
 

Ethical commitment

The main reason for vaccine mandates, according to the healthcare associations’ statement, is “the ethical commitment to put patients as well as residents of long-term care facilities first and take all steps necessary to ensure their health and well-being.”

In addition, the statement noted, vaccination can protect healthcare workers and their families from getting COVID-19.

The statement also pointed out that many healthcare and long-term care organizations already require vaccinations for influenza, hepatitis B, and pertussis.

Workers who have certain medical conditions should be exempt from the vaccination mandates, the statement added.

While recognizing the “historical mistrust of health care institutions” among some healthcare workers, the statement said, “We must continue to address workers’ concerns, engage with marginalized populations, and work with trusted messengers to improve vaccine acceptance.”

There has been some skepticism about the legality of requiring healthcare workers to get vaccinated as a condition of employment, partly because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet fully authorized any of the COVID-19 vaccines.

But in June, a federal judge turned down a legal challenge to Houston Methodist’s vaccination mandate.

“It is critical that all people in the health care workforce get vaccinated against COVID-19 for the safety of our patients and our colleagues. With more than 300 million doses administered in the United States and nearly 4 billion doses administered worldwide, we know the vaccines are safe and highly effective at preventing severe illness and death from COVID-19.

“Increased vaccinations among health care personnel will not only reduce the spread of COVID-19 but also reduce the harmful toll this virus is taking within the health care workforce and those we are striving to serve,” Susan Bailey, MD, immediate past president of the AMA, said in a news release.

 

 

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

Publications
Topics
Sections

As COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths mount again across the country, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nursing Association, and 54 other medical and allied healthcare associations released a joint statement calling on “all health care and long-term care employers” to require their workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

This injunction, issued July 26, covers everyone in healthcare, Emanuel Ezekiel, MD, PhD, chair of the department of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the organizer of the joint statement, said in an interview.

That includes not only hospitals, but also physician offices, ambulatory surgery centers, home care agencies, skilled nursing facilities, pharmacies, laboratories, and imaging centers, he said.

The exhortation to get vaccinated also extends to federal and state healthcare facilities, including those of the military health system — TRICARE and the Department of Veterans Affairs — which instituted a mandate the same day.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) and other hospital groups recently said they supported hospitals and health systems that required their personnel to get vaccinated. Several dozen healthcare organizations have already done so, including some of the nation’s largest health systems.

A substantial fraction of U.S. healthcare workers have not yet gotten vaccinated, although how many are unvaccinated is unclear. An analysis by WebMD and Medscape Medical News estimated that 25% of hospital workers who had contact with patients were unvaccinated at the end of May.

More than 38% of nursing workers were not fully vaccinated by July 11, according to an analysis of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data by LeadingAge, which was cited by the Washington Post. And more than 40% of nursing home employees have not been fully vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The joint statement did not give any indication of how many employees of physician practices have failed to get COVID shots. However, a recent AMA survey shows that 96% of physicians have been fully vaccinated.
 

Ethical commitment

The main reason for vaccine mandates, according to the healthcare associations’ statement, is “the ethical commitment to put patients as well as residents of long-term care facilities first and take all steps necessary to ensure their health and well-being.”

In addition, the statement noted, vaccination can protect healthcare workers and their families from getting COVID-19.

The statement also pointed out that many healthcare and long-term care organizations already require vaccinations for influenza, hepatitis B, and pertussis.

Workers who have certain medical conditions should be exempt from the vaccination mandates, the statement added.

While recognizing the “historical mistrust of health care institutions” among some healthcare workers, the statement said, “We must continue to address workers’ concerns, engage with marginalized populations, and work with trusted messengers to improve vaccine acceptance.”

There has been some skepticism about the legality of requiring healthcare workers to get vaccinated as a condition of employment, partly because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet fully authorized any of the COVID-19 vaccines.

But in June, a federal judge turned down a legal challenge to Houston Methodist’s vaccination mandate.

“It is critical that all people in the health care workforce get vaccinated against COVID-19 for the safety of our patients and our colleagues. With more than 300 million doses administered in the United States and nearly 4 billion doses administered worldwide, we know the vaccines are safe and highly effective at preventing severe illness and death from COVID-19.

“Increased vaccinations among health care personnel will not only reduce the spread of COVID-19 but also reduce the harmful toll this virus is taking within the health care workforce and those we are striving to serve,” Susan Bailey, MD, immediate past president of the AMA, said in a news release.

 

 

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

As COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths mount again across the country, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nursing Association, and 54 other medical and allied healthcare associations released a joint statement calling on “all health care and long-term care employers” to require their workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

This injunction, issued July 26, covers everyone in healthcare, Emanuel Ezekiel, MD, PhD, chair of the department of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the organizer of the joint statement, said in an interview.

That includes not only hospitals, but also physician offices, ambulatory surgery centers, home care agencies, skilled nursing facilities, pharmacies, laboratories, and imaging centers, he said.

The exhortation to get vaccinated also extends to federal and state healthcare facilities, including those of the military health system — TRICARE and the Department of Veterans Affairs — which instituted a mandate the same day.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) and other hospital groups recently said they supported hospitals and health systems that required their personnel to get vaccinated. Several dozen healthcare organizations have already done so, including some of the nation’s largest health systems.

A substantial fraction of U.S. healthcare workers have not yet gotten vaccinated, although how many are unvaccinated is unclear. An analysis by WebMD and Medscape Medical News estimated that 25% of hospital workers who had contact with patients were unvaccinated at the end of May.

More than 38% of nursing workers were not fully vaccinated by July 11, according to an analysis of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data by LeadingAge, which was cited by the Washington Post. And more than 40% of nursing home employees have not been fully vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The joint statement did not give any indication of how many employees of physician practices have failed to get COVID shots. However, a recent AMA survey shows that 96% of physicians have been fully vaccinated.
 

Ethical commitment

The main reason for vaccine mandates, according to the healthcare associations’ statement, is “the ethical commitment to put patients as well as residents of long-term care facilities first and take all steps necessary to ensure their health and well-being.”

In addition, the statement noted, vaccination can protect healthcare workers and their families from getting COVID-19.

The statement also pointed out that many healthcare and long-term care organizations already require vaccinations for influenza, hepatitis B, and pertussis.

Workers who have certain medical conditions should be exempt from the vaccination mandates, the statement added.

While recognizing the “historical mistrust of health care institutions” among some healthcare workers, the statement said, “We must continue to address workers’ concerns, engage with marginalized populations, and work with trusted messengers to improve vaccine acceptance.”

There has been some skepticism about the legality of requiring healthcare workers to get vaccinated as a condition of employment, partly because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet fully authorized any of the COVID-19 vaccines.

But in June, a federal judge turned down a legal challenge to Houston Methodist’s vaccination mandate.

“It is critical that all people in the health care workforce get vaccinated against COVID-19 for the safety of our patients and our colleagues. With more than 300 million doses administered in the United States and nearly 4 billion doses administered worldwide, we know the vaccines are safe and highly effective at preventing severe illness and death from COVID-19.

“Increased vaccinations among health care personnel will not only reduce the spread of COVID-19 but also reduce the harmful toll this virus is taking within the health care workforce and those we are striving to serve,” Susan Bailey, MD, immediate past president of the AMA, said in a news release.

 

 

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Vaccine breakthrough cases rising with Delta: Here’s what that means

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 08/26/2021 - 15:44

 

At a recent town hall meeting in Cincinnati, President Joe Biden was asked about COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths rising in response to the Delta variant.

Touting the importance of vaccination, “We have a pandemic for those who haven’t gotten a vaccination. It’s that basic, that simple,” President Biden said at the event, which was broadcast live on CNN.

Andriy Onufriyenko

“If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, not going to the ICU unit, and not going to die,” he said, adding “you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”

Unfortunately, it’s not so simple. Fully vaccinated people continue to be well protected against severe disease and death, even with Delta, but so-called breakthrough cases, where a person gets infected despite being fully vaccinated, are on the rise. Because of that, many experts continue to advise caution, even if fully vaccinated.

“I was disappointed,” Leana Wen, MD, MSc, an emergency physician and visiting professor of health policy and management at George Washington University’s Milken School of Public Health in Washington, told CNN in response to the president’s statement.

“I actually thought he was answering questions as if it were a month ago. He’s not really meeting the realities of what’s happening on the ground,” she said. “I think he may have led people astray.”
 

Vaccines still work

Recent cases support Dr. Wen’s claim. Fully vaccinated Olympic athleteswedding guestshealthcare workers, and even White House staff have recently tested positive. So what gives?

The vast majority of these illnesses are mild, and public health officials say they are to be expected. 

“The vaccines were designed to keep us out of the hospital and to keep us from dying. That was the whole purpose of the vaccine and they’re even more successful than we anticipated,” says William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.

As good as they are, these shots aren’t perfect. Their protection differs from person to person depending on age and underlying health. People with immune function that’s weakened because of age or a health condition can still become seriously ill, and, in very rare cases, die after vaccination.

When people are infected with Delta, they carry approximately 1,000 times more virus compared with previous versions of the virus, according to a recent study. All that virus can overwhelm even the strong protection from the vaccines.

“Three months ago, breakthroughs didn’t occur nearly at this rate because there was just so much less virus exposure in the community,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
 

Breakthroughs by the numbers

In Los Angeles County, where 69% of residents over age 12 have been fully vaccinated, COVID-19 cases are rising, and so, too, are cases that break through the protection of the vaccine.

In June, fully vaccinated people accounted for 20%, or 1 in 5, COVID cases in the county, which is the most populous in the United States. The increase mirrors Delta’s rise. The proportion of breakthrough cases is up from 11% in May, 5% in April, and 2% in March, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. 

In the United Kingdom, which is collecting the best information on infections caused by variants, the estimated effectiveness of the vaccines to prevent an illness that causes symptoms dropped by about 10 points against Delta compared with Alpha (or B.1.1.7). 

After two doses, vaccines prevent symptomatic infection about 79% of the time against Delta, according to data compiled by Public Health England. They are still highly effective at preventing hospitalization, 96% after two doses.

Out of 229,218 COVID infections in the United Kingdom between February and July 19, 28,773 — or 12.5% — were in fully vaccinated people. Of those breakthrough infections, 1,101, or 3.8%, required a visit to an emergency room, according to Public Health England. Just 474, or 2.9%, of fully vaccinated people required hospital admission, and 229, or less than 1%, died.
 

 

 

Unanswered questions

One of the biggest questions about breakthrough cases is how often people who have it may pass the virus to others.

“We know the vaccine reduces the likelihood of carrying the virus and the amount of virus you would carry,” Dr. Wen told CNN. But we don’t yet know whether a vaccinated person with a breakthrough infection may still be contagious to others.

For that reason, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that fully vaccinated people still need to be tested if they have symptoms and shouldn’t be out in public for at least 10 days after a positive test. 

How should fully vaccinated people behave? That depends a lot on their underlying health and whether or not they have vulnerable people around them. 

If you’re older or immunocompromised, Dr. Schaffner recommends what he calls the “belt-and-suspenders approach,” in other words, do everything you can to stay safe.

“Get vaccinated for sure, but since we can’t be absolutely certain that the vaccines are going to be optimally protective and you are particularly susceptible to serious disease, you would be well advised to adopt at least one and perhaps more of the other mitigation measures,” he said.

These include wearing a mask, social distancing, making sure your spaces are well ventilated, and not spending prolonged periods of time indoors in crowded places.

Taking young children to visit vaccinated, elderly grandparents demands extra caution, again, with Delta circulating, particularly as they go back to school and start mixing with other kids.

Dr. Schaffner recommends explaining the ground rules before the visit: Hugs around the waist. No kissing. Wearing a mask while indoors with them.

Other important unanswered questions are whether breakthrough infections can lead to prolonged symptoms, or “long covid.” Most experts think that’s less likely in vaccinated people.

And Dr. Osterholm said it will be important to see whether there’s anything unusual about the breakthrough cases happening in the community.

“I think some of us have been challenged by the number of clusters that we’ve seen,” he said. “I think that really needs to be examined more.”

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

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

At a recent town hall meeting in Cincinnati, President Joe Biden was asked about COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths rising in response to the Delta variant.

Touting the importance of vaccination, “We have a pandemic for those who haven’t gotten a vaccination. It’s that basic, that simple,” President Biden said at the event, which was broadcast live on CNN.

Andriy Onufriyenko

“If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, not going to the ICU unit, and not going to die,” he said, adding “you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”

Unfortunately, it’s not so simple. Fully vaccinated people continue to be well protected against severe disease and death, even with Delta, but so-called breakthrough cases, where a person gets infected despite being fully vaccinated, are on the rise. Because of that, many experts continue to advise caution, even if fully vaccinated.

“I was disappointed,” Leana Wen, MD, MSc, an emergency physician and visiting professor of health policy and management at George Washington University’s Milken School of Public Health in Washington, told CNN in response to the president’s statement.

“I actually thought he was answering questions as if it were a month ago. He’s not really meeting the realities of what’s happening on the ground,” she said. “I think he may have led people astray.”
 

Vaccines still work

Recent cases support Dr. Wen’s claim. Fully vaccinated Olympic athleteswedding guestshealthcare workers, and even White House staff have recently tested positive. So what gives?

The vast majority of these illnesses are mild, and public health officials say they are to be expected. 

“The vaccines were designed to keep us out of the hospital and to keep us from dying. That was the whole purpose of the vaccine and they’re even more successful than we anticipated,” says William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.

As good as they are, these shots aren’t perfect. Their protection differs from person to person depending on age and underlying health. People with immune function that’s weakened because of age or a health condition can still become seriously ill, and, in very rare cases, die after vaccination.

When people are infected with Delta, they carry approximately 1,000 times more virus compared with previous versions of the virus, according to a recent study. All that virus can overwhelm even the strong protection from the vaccines.

“Three months ago, breakthroughs didn’t occur nearly at this rate because there was just so much less virus exposure in the community,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
 

Breakthroughs by the numbers

In Los Angeles County, where 69% of residents over age 12 have been fully vaccinated, COVID-19 cases are rising, and so, too, are cases that break through the protection of the vaccine.

In June, fully vaccinated people accounted for 20%, or 1 in 5, COVID cases in the county, which is the most populous in the United States. The increase mirrors Delta’s rise. The proportion of breakthrough cases is up from 11% in May, 5% in April, and 2% in March, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. 

In the United Kingdom, which is collecting the best information on infections caused by variants, the estimated effectiveness of the vaccines to prevent an illness that causes symptoms dropped by about 10 points against Delta compared with Alpha (or B.1.1.7). 

After two doses, vaccines prevent symptomatic infection about 79% of the time against Delta, according to data compiled by Public Health England. They are still highly effective at preventing hospitalization, 96% after two doses.

Out of 229,218 COVID infections in the United Kingdom between February and July 19, 28,773 — or 12.5% — were in fully vaccinated people. Of those breakthrough infections, 1,101, or 3.8%, required a visit to an emergency room, according to Public Health England. Just 474, or 2.9%, of fully vaccinated people required hospital admission, and 229, or less than 1%, died.
 

 

 

Unanswered questions

One of the biggest questions about breakthrough cases is how often people who have it may pass the virus to others.

“We know the vaccine reduces the likelihood of carrying the virus and the amount of virus you would carry,” Dr. Wen told CNN. But we don’t yet know whether a vaccinated person with a breakthrough infection may still be contagious to others.

For that reason, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that fully vaccinated people still need to be tested if they have symptoms and shouldn’t be out in public for at least 10 days after a positive test. 

How should fully vaccinated people behave? That depends a lot on their underlying health and whether or not they have vulnerable people around them. 

If you’re older or immunocompromised, Dr. Schaffner recommends what he calls the “belt-and-suspenders approach,” in other words, do everything you can to stay safe.

“Get vaccinated for sure, but since we can’t be absolutely certain that the vaccines are going to be optimally protective and you are particularly susceptible to serious disease, you would be well advised to adopt at least one and perhaps more of the other mitigation measures,” he said.

These include wearing a mask, social distancing, making sure your spaces are well ventilated, and not spending prolonged periods of time indoors in crowded places.

Taking young children to visit vaccinated, elderly grandparents demands extra caution, again, with Delta circulating, particularly as they go back to school and start mixing with other kids.

Dr. Schaffner recommends explaining the ground rules before the visit: Hugs around the waist. No kissing. Wearing a mask while indoors with them.

Other important unanswered questions are whether breakthrough infections can lead to prolonged symptoms, or “long covid.” Most experts think that’s less likely in vaccinated people.

And Dr. Osterholm said it will be important to see whether there’s anything unusual about the breakthrough cases happening in the community.

“I think some of us have been challenged by the number of clusters that we’ve seen,” he said. “I think that really needs to be examined more.”

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

 

At a recent town hall meeting in Cincinnati, President Joe Biden was asked about COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths rising in response to the Delta variant.

Touting the importance of vaccination, “We have a pandemic for those who haven’t gotten a vaccination. It’s that basic, that simple,” President Biden said at the event, which was broadcast live on CNN.

Andriy Onufriyenko

“If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, not going to the ICU unit, and not going to die,” he said, adding “you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”

Unfortunately, it’s not so simple. Fully vaccinated people continue to be well protected against severe disease and death, even with Delta, but so-called breakthrough cases, where a person gets infected despite being fully vaccinated, are on the rise. Because of that, many experts continue to advise caution, even if fully vaccinated.

“I was disappointed,” Leana Wen, MD, MSc, an emergency physician and visiting professor of health policy and management at George Washington University’s Milken School of Public Health in Washington, told CNN in response to the president’s statement.

“I actually thought he was answering questions as if it were a month ago. He’s not really meeting the realities of what’s happening on the ground,” she said. “I think he may have led people astray.”
 

Vaccines still work

Recent cases support Dr. Wen’s claim. Fully vaccinated Olympic athleteswedding guestshealthcare workers, and even White House staff have recently tested positive. So what gives?

The vast majority of these illnesses are mild, and public health officials say they are to be expected. 

“The vaccines were designed to keep us out of the hospital and to keep us from dying. That was the whole purpose of the vaccine and they’re even more successful than we anticipated,” says William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.

As good as they are, these shots aren’t perfect. Their protection differs from person to person depending on age and underlying health. People with immune function that’s weakened because of age or a health condition can still become seriously ill, and, in very rare cases, die after vaccination.

When people are infected with Delta, they carry approximately 1,000 times more virus compared with previous versions of the virus, according to a recent study. All that virus can overwhelm even the strong protection from the vaccines.

“Three months ago, breakthroughs didn’t occur nearly at this rate because there was just so much less virus exposure in the community,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
 

Breakthroughs by the numbers

In Los Angeles County, where 69% of residents over age 12 have been fully vaccinated, COVID-19 cases are rising, and so, too, are cases that break through the protection of the vaccine.

In June, fully vaccinated people accounted for 20%, or 1 in 5, COVID cases in the county, which is the most populous in the United States. The increase mirrors Delta’s rise. The proportion of breakthrough cases is up from 11% in May, 5% in April, and 2% in March, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. 

In the United Kingdom, which is collecting the best information on infections caused by variants, the estimated effectiveness of the vaccines to prevent an illness that causes symptoms dropped by about 10 points against Delta compared with Alpha (or B.1.1.7). 

After two doses, vaccines prevent symptomatic infection about 79% of the time against Delta, according to data compiled by Public Health England. They are still highly effective at preventing hospitalization, 96% after two doses.

Out of 229,218 COVID infections in the United Kingdom between February and July 19, 28,773 — or 12.5% — were in fully vaccinated people. Of those breakthrough infections, 1,101, or 3.8%, required a visit to an emergency room, according to Public Health England. Just 474, or 2.9%, of fully vaccinated people required hospital admission, and 229, or less than 1%, died.
 

 

 

Unanswered questions

One of the biggest questions about breakthrough cases is how often people who have it may pass the virus to others.

“We know the vaccine reduces the likelihood of carrying the virus and the amount of virus you would carry,” Dr. Wen told CNN. But we don’t yet know whether a vaccinated person with a breakthrough infection may still be contagious to others.

For that reason, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that fully vaccinated people still need to be tested if they have symptoms and shouldn’t be out in public for at least 10 days after a positive test. 

How should fully vaccinated people behave? That depends a lot on their underlying health and whether or not they have vulnerable people around them. 

If you’re older or immunocompromised, Dr. Schaffner recommends what he calls the “belt-and-suspenders approach,” in other words, do everything you can to stay safe.

“Get vaccinated for sure, but since we can’t be absolutely certain that the vaccines are going to be optimally protective and you are particularly susceptible to serious disease, you would be well advised to adopt at least one and perhaps more of the other mitigation measures,” he said.

These include wearing a mask, social distancing, making sure your spaces are well ventilated, and not spending prolonged periods of time indoors in crowded places.

Taking young children to visit vaccinated, elderly grandparents demands extra caution, again, with Delta circulating, particularly as they go back to school and start mixing with other kids.

Dr. Schaffner recommends explaining the ground rules before the visit: Hugs around the waist. No kissing. Wearing a mask while indoors with them.

Other important unanswered questions are whether breakthrough infections can lead to prolonged symptoms, or “long covid.” Most experts think that’s less likely in vaccinated people.

And Dr. Osterholm said it will be important to see whether there’s anything unusual about the breakthrough cases happening in the community.

“I think some of us have been challenged by the number of clusters that we’ve seen,” he said. “I think that really needs to be examined more.”

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis may not be effective

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 07/26/2021 - 16:27

Background: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is common and is associated with significant short-term mortality. Antibiotic prophylaxis is the mainstay preventive treatment, but there is concern about development of drug resistance and other adverse events. There is uncertainty regarding relative efficacy and optimal combination of the different available prophylactic treatments.

Dr. Alexander S. Millard

Study design: 29 randomized clinical trials.


Synopsis: Across 29 randomized clinical trials (total of 3,896 participants) looking at nine different antibiotic regimens for prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, there was no evidence of differences between any of the antibiotics and no intervention in terms of mortality or serious adverse events, though there was very low certainty of evidence. The authors felt only two small studies were conducted without flaws. There was no difference between any of the antibiotics and no intervention in the proportion of people who developed spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Overall, 10% of trial participants developed spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and 15% of trial participants died. The lack of effectiveness of across several outcomes may be because of sparse data and selective reporting bias.

Bottom line: Whether antibiotics are effective prophylaxis to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and which antibiotics should be used is still uncertain; future well-designed studies are needed.

Citation: Komolafe O et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people with liver cirrhosis: A network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jan 16;1:CD013125. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013125.pub2.

Dr. Millard is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Background: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is common and is associated with significant short-term mortality. Antibiotic prophylaxis is the mainstay preventive treatment, but there is concern about development of drug resistance and other adverse events. There is uncertainty regarding relative efficacy and optimal combination of the different available prophylactic treatments.

Dr. Alexander S. Millard

Study design: 29 randomized clinical trials.


Synopsis: Across 29 randomized clinical trials (total of 3,896 participants) looking at nine different antibiotic regimens for prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, there was no evidence of differences between any of the antibiotics and no intervention in terms of mortality or serious adverse events, though there was very low certainty of evidence. The authors felt only two small studies were conducted without flaws. There was no difference between any of the antibiotics and no intervention in the proportion of people who developed spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Overall, 10% of trial participants developed spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and 15% of trial participants died. The lack of effectiveness of across several outcomes may be because of sparse data and selective reporting bias.

Bottom line: Whether antibiotics are effective prophylaxis to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and which antibiotics should be used is still uncertain; future well-designed studies are needed.

Citation: Komolafe O et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people with liver cirrhosis: A network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jan 16;1:CD013125. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013125.pub2.

Dr. Millard is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is common and is associated with significant short-term mortality. Antibiotic prophylaxis is the mainstay preventive treatment, but there is concern about development of drug resistance and other adverse events. There is uncertainty regarding relative efficacy and optimal combination of the different available prophylactic treatments.

Dr. Alexander S. Millard

Study design: 29 randomized clinical trials.


Synopsis: Across 29 randomized clinical trials (total of 3,896 participants) looking at nine different antibiotic regimens for prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, there was no evidence of differences between any of the antibiotics and no intervention in terms of mortality or serious adverse events, though there was very low certainty of evidence. The authors felt only two small studies were conducted without flaws. There was no difference between any of the antibiotics and no intervention in the proportion of people who developed spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Overall, 10% of trial participants developed spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and 15% of trial participants died. The lack of effectiveness of across several outcomes may be because of sparse data and selective reporting bias.

Bottom line: Whether antibiotics are effective prophylaxis to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and which antibiotics should be used is still uncertain; future well-designed studies are needed.

Citation: Komolafe O et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in people with liver cirrhosis: A network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jan 16;1:CD013125. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013125.pub2.

Dr. Millard is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Aspirin efficacious and safe for VTE prophylaxis in total hip and knee replacement

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 07/26/2021 - 11:49

Background: Most patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) require anticoagulant therapy to reduce venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. Compared with injectable low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), warfarin, and newer oral agents, aspirin is easily administered, inexpensive, and well tolerated and requires no monitoring. There are observational data to support aspirin as VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR. However, high-quality randomized, clinical trials (RCT) in favor of aspirin have been limited. Recently, a large RCT (n = 3,224) that compared aspirin to rivaroxaban after THR and TKR has been published that supports aspirin use for VTE prophylaxis.

Dr. Rahul Mehta

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: Seven studies from North America, four from Asia, and two from Europe.

Synopsis: In a meta-analysis comprising 13 RCT including 6,060 participants (2,969 aspirin and 3,091 comparator), there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of venous thromboembolism (including deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) when comparing aspirin with other anticoagulants (LMWH, rivaroxaban) in patients undergoing THR and TKR. Also, there were no differences in the risk of adverse events, such as bleeding, wound complications, MI, and death, when aspirin was compared with other anticoagulants.

This systematic review and meta-­analysis included trials from around the world, including the most recent and largest in this area. However, because of the heterogeneity and high risk of bias encountered in most RCTs included in this analysis, additional large, well-designed RCTs are needed to validate findings of this review.

Bottom line: Findings of the current meta-analysis support the use of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR, in line with the 2012 recommendations of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Citation: Matharu GS et al. Clinical effectiveness and safety of aspirin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after total hip and knee replacement. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Feb 3;180(3):376-84.

Dr. Mehta is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Background: Most patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) require anticoagulant therapy to reduce venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. Compared with injectable low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), warfarin, and newer oral agents, aspirin is easily administered, inexpensive, and well tolerated and requires no monitoring. There are observational data to support aspirin as VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR. However, high-quality randomized, clinical trials (RCT) in favor of aspirin have been limited. Recently, a large RCT (n = 3,224) that compared aspirin to rivaroxaban after THR and TKR has been published that supports aspirin use for VTE prophylaxis.

Dr. Rahul Mehta

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: Seven studies from North America, four from Asia, and two from Europe.

Synopsis: In a meta-analysis comprising 13 RCT including 6,060 participants (2,969 aspirin and 3,091 comparator), there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of venous thromboembolism (including deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) when comparing aspirin with other anticoagulants (LMWH, rivaroxaban) in patients undergoing THR and TKR. Also, there were no differences in the risk of adverse events, such as bleeding, wound complications, MI, and death, when aspirin was compared with other anticoagulants.

This systematic review and meta-­analysis included trials from around the world, including the most recent and largest in this area. However, because of the heterogeneity and high risk of bias encountered in most RCTs included in this analysis, additional large, well-designed RCTs are needed to validate findings of this review.

Bottom line: Findings of the current meta-analysis support the use of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR, in line with the 2012 recommendations of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Citation: Matharu GS et al. Clinical effectiveness and safety of aspirin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after total hip and knee replacement. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Feb 3;180(3):376-84.

Dr. Mehta is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: Most patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) require anticoagulant therapy to reduce venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. Compared with injectable low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), warfarin, and newer oral agents, aspirin is easily administered, inexpensive, and well tolerated and requires no monitoring. There are observational data to support aspirin as VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR. However, high-quality randomized, clinical trials (RCT) in favor of aspirin have been limited. Recently, a large RCT (n = 3,224) that compared aspirin to rivaroxaban after THR and TKR has been published that supports aspirin use for VTE prophylaxis.

Dr. Rahul Mehta

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: Seven studies from North America, four from Asia, and two from Europe.

Synopsis: In a meta-analysis comprising 13 RCT including 6,060 participants (2,969 aspirin and 3,091 comparator), there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of venous thromboembolism (including deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) when comparing aspirin with other anticoagulants (LMWH, rivaroxaban) in patients undergoing THR and TKR. Also, there were no differences in the risk of adverse events, such as bleeding, wound complications, MI, and death, when aspirin was compared with other anticoagulants.

This systematic review and meta-­analysis included trials from around the world, including the most recent and largest in this area. However, because of the heterogeneity and high risk of bias encountered in most RCTs included in this analysis, additional large, well-designed RCTs are needed to validate findings of this review.

Bottom line: Findings of the current meta-analysis support the use of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR, in line with the 2012 recommendations of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Citation: Matharu GS et al. Clinical effectiveness and safety of aspirin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after total hip and knee replacement. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Feb 3;180(3):376-84.

Dr. Mehta is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

CDC panel updates info on rare side effect after J&J vaccine

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 08/26/2021 - 15:44

Despite recent reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, independent experts who advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines agree that the benefits of the one-dose shot still outweigh its risks.

Johnson & Johnson

The company also presented new data suggesting that the shots generate strong immune responses against circulating variants and that antibodies generated by the vaccine stay elevated for at least 8 months.

Members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) did not vote, but discussed and affirmed their support for recent decisions by the Food and Drug Administration and CDC to update patient information about the very low risk of GBS that appears to be associated with the vaccine, but to continue offering the vaccine to people in the United States.

The Johnson & Johnson shot has been a minor player in the U.S. vaccination campaign, accounting for less than 4% of all vaccine doses given in this country. Still, the single-dose inoculation, which doesn’t require ultra-cold storage, has been important for reaching people in rural areas, through mobile clinics, at colleges and primary care offices, and in vulnerable populations – those who are incarcerated or homeless.

The FDA says it has received reports of 100 cases of GBS after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in its Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database through the end of June. The cases are still under investigation.

To date, more than 12 million doses of the vaccine have been administered, making the rate of GBS 8.1 cases for every million doses administered.

Although it is still extremely rare, that’s above the expected background rate of GBS of 1.6 cases for every million people, said Grace Lee, MD, a Stanford, Calif., pediatrician who chairs the ACIP’s Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group. 

So far, most GBS cases (61%) have been among men. The midpoint age of the cases was 57 years. The average time to onset was 14 days, and 98% of cases occurred within 42 days of the shot.  Facial paralysis has been associated with an estimated 30%-50% of cases. One person, who had heart failure, high blood pressure, and diabetes, has died.

Still, the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh its risks. For every million doses given to people over age 50, the vaccine prevents nearly 7,500 COVID-19 hospitalizations and nearly 100 deaths in women, and more than 13,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations and more than 2,400 deaths in men. 

Rates of GBS after the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna were around 1 case for every 1 million doses given, which is not above the rate that would be expected without vaccination.

The link to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine prompted the FDA to add a warning to the vaccine’s patient safety information on July 12.

Also in July, the European Medicines Agency recommended a similar warning for the product information of the AstraZeneca vaccine Vaxzevria, which relies on similar technology.
 

Good against variants

Johnson & Johnson also presented new information showing its vaccine maintained high levels of neutralizing antibodies against four of the so-called “variants of concern” – Alpha, Gamma, Beta, and Delta. The protection generated by the vaccine lasted for at least 8 months after the shot, the company said.

“We’re still learning about the duration of protection and the breadth of coverage against this evolving variant landscape for each of the authorized vaccines,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development at Janssen, the company that makes the vaccine for J&J.

The company also said that its vaccine generated very strong T-cell responses. T cells destroy infected cells and, along with antibodies, are an important part of the body’s immune response.

Antibody levels and T-cell responses are markers for immunity. Measuring these levels isn’t the same as proving that shots can fend off an infection. 

It’s still unclear exactly which component of the immune response is most important for fighting off COVID-19.

Dr. Mammen said the companies are still gathering that clinical data, and would present it soon.

“We will have a better view of the clinical efficacy in the coming weeks,” he said.


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

Publications
Topics
Sections

Despite recent reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, independent experts who advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines agree that the benefits of the one-dose shot still outweigh its risks.

Johnson & Johnson

The company also presented new data suggesting that the shots generate strong immune responses against circulating variants and that antibodies generated by the vaccine stay elevated for at least 8 months.

Members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) did not vote, but discussed and affirmed their support for recent decisions by the Food and Drug Administration and CDC to update patient information about the very low risk of GBS that appears to be associated with the vaccine, but to continue offering the vaccine to people in the United States.

The Johnson & Johnson shot has been a minor player in the U.S. vaccination campaign, accounting for less than 4% of all vaccine doses given in this country. Still, the single-dose inoculation, which doesn’t require ultra-cold storage, has been important for reaching people in rural areas, through mobile clinics, at colleges and primary care offices, and in vulnerable populations – those who are incarcerated or homeless.

The FDA says it has received reports of 100 cases of GBS after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in its Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database through the end of June. The cases are still under investigation.

To date, more than 12 million doses of the vaccine have been administered, making the rate of GBS 8.1 cases for every million doses administered.

Although it is still extremely rare, that’s above the expected background rate of GBS of 1.6 cases for every million people, said Grace Lee, MD, a Stanford, Calif., pediatrician who chairs the ACIP’s Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group. 

So far, most GBS cases (61%) have been among men. The midpoint age of the cases was 57 years. The average time to onset was 14 days, and 98% of cases occurred within 42 days of the shot.  Facial paralysis has been associated with an estimated 30%-50% of cases. One person, who had heart failure, high blood pressure, and diabetes, has died.

Still, the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh its risks. For every million doses given to people over age 50, the vaccine prevents nearly 7,500 COVID-19 hospitalizations and nearly 100 deaths in women, and more than 13,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations and more than 2,400 deaths in men. 

Rates of GBS after the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna were around 1 case for every 1 million doses given, which is not above the rate that would be expected without vaccination.

The link to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine prompted the FDA to add a warning to the vaccine’s patient safety information on July 12.

Also in July, the European Medicines Agency recommended a similar warning for the product information of the AstraZeneca vaccine Vaxzevria, which relies on similar technology.
 

Good against variants

Johnson & Johnson also presented new information showing its vaccine maintained high levels of neutralizing antibodies against four of the so-called “variants of concern” – Alpha, Gamma, Beta, and Delta. The protection generated by the vaccine lasted for at least 8 months after the shot, the company said.

“We’re still learning about the duration of protection and the breadth of coverage against this evolving variant landscape for each of the authorized vaccines,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development at Janssen, the company that makes the vaccine for J&J.

The company also said that its vaccine generated very strong T-cell responses. T cells destroy infected cells and, along with antibodies, are an important part of the body’s immune response.

Antibody levels and T-cell responses are markers for immunity. Measuring these levels isn’t the same as proving that shots can fend off an infection. 

It’s still unclear exactly which component of the immune response is most important for fighting off COVID-19.

Dr. Mammen said the companies are still gathering that clinical data, and would present it soon.

“We will have a better view of the clinical efficacy in the coming weeks,” he said.


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

Despite recent reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, independent experts who advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines agree that the benefits of the one-dose shot still outweigh its risks.

Johnson & Johnson

The company also presented new data suggesting that the shots generate strong immune responses against circulating variants and that antibodies generated by the vaccine stay elevated for at least 8 months.

Members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) did not vote, but discussed and affirmed their support for recent decisions by the Food and Drug Administration and CDC to update patient information about the very low risk of GBS that appears to be associated with the vaccine, but to continue offering the vaccine to people in the United States.

The Johnson & Johnson shot has been a minor player in the U.S. vaccination campaign, accounting for less than 4% of all vaccine doses given in this country. Still, the single-dose inoculation, which doesn’t require ultra-cold storage, has been important for reaching people in rural areas, through mobile clinics, at colleges and primary care offices, and in vulnerable populations – those who are incarcerated or homeless.

The FDA says it has received reports of 100 cases of GBS after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in its Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database through the end of June. The cases are still under investigation.

To date, more than 12 million doses of the vaccine have been administered, making the rate of GBS 8.1 cases for every million doses administered.

Although it is still extremely rare, that’s above the expected background rate of GBS of 1.6 cases for every million people, said Grace Lee, MD, a Stanford, Calif., pediatrician who chairs the ACIP’s Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group. 

So far, most GBS cases (61%) have been among men. The midpoint age of the cases was 57 years. The average time to onset was 14 days, and 98% of cases occurred within 42 days of the shot.  Facial paralysis has been associated with an estimated 30%-50% of cases. One person, who had heart failure, high blood pressure, and diabetes, has died.

Still, the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh its risks. For every million doses given to people over age 50, the vaccine prevents nearly 7,500 COVID-19 hospitalizations and nearly 100 deaths in women, and more than 13,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations and more than 2,400 deaths in men. 

Rates of GBS after the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna were around 1 case for every 1 million doses given, which is not above the rate that would be expected without vaccination.

The link to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine prompted the FDA to add a warning to the vaccine’s patient safety information on July 12.

Also in July, the European Medicines Agency recommended a similar warning for the product information of the AstraZeneca vaccine Vaxzevria, which relies on similar technology.
 

Good against variants

Johnson & Johnson also presented new information showing its vaccine maintained high levels of neutralizing antibodies against four of the so-called “variants of concern” – Alpha, Gamma, Beta, and Delta. The protection generated by the vaccine lasted for at least 8 months after the shot, the company said.

“We’re still learning about the duration of protection and the breadth of coverage against this evolving variant landscape for each of the authorized vaccines,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development at Janssen, the company that makes the vaccine for J&J.

The company also said that its vaccine generated very strong T-cell responses. T cells destroy infected cells and, along with antibodies, are an important part of the body’s immune response.

Antibody levels and T-cell responses are markers for immunity. Measuring these levels isn’t the same as proving that shots can fend off an infection. 

It’s still unclear exactly which component of the immune response is most important for fighting off COVID-19.

Dr. Mammen said the companies are still gathering that clinical data, and would present it soon.

“We will have a better view of the clinical efficacy in the coming weeks,” he said.


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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Rising meth-related heart failure admissions a ‘crisis,’ costly for society

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/27/2021 - 08:23

 

Rates of heart failure (HF) caused by methamphetamine abuse are climbing quickly in the western United States, at great financial and societal cost, suggests an analysis that documents the trends in California over a recent decade.

In the new study, methamphetamine-associated HF (meth-HF) admissions in the state rose by 585% between 2008 and 2018, and charges related those hospitalizations jumped 840%. Cases of HF unrelated to meth fell by 6% during the same period.

The recent explosion in meth-HF hospitalizations has also been costly for society in general, because most cases are younger adults in their most productive, prime earning years, Susan X. Zhao, MD, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, Calif., said in an interview.

“Over the past 11 years, especially since 2018, it has really started to take off, with a pretty dramatic rise. And it happened without much attention, because when we think about drugs, we think about acute overdose and not so much about the chronic, smoldering, long-term effects,” said Dr. Zhao, who is lead author on the study published July 13, 2021, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

“It’s really affecting a section of the population that is not supposed to be having heart failure problems. I think it is going to continue for the next decade until we put a stop to the parent problem, which is methamphetamine,” Dr. Zhao said. “We’re at the beginning, even though the rise has been pretty dramatic. The worst is yet to come.”
 

Under the radar

Methamphetamine-associated HF has been a growing problem for many years but has largely been “flying under the radar” because HF hospitalization data focus on Medicare-age patients, not the overwhelmingly younger meth-HF population, the report notes.

“We have to get this message out. Many of my patients with meth heart failure had no idea this would happen to them. They didn’t know,” Dr. Zhao said. “Once I tell them that this is what methamphetamines will do to you after years and years of use, they say they wish someone had told them.”

Dr. Zhao and colleagues looked at HF admission data collected by California’s Health and Human Services Agency to assess meth-HF trends and disease burden. They identified 1,033,076 HF hospitalizations during the decade, of which 42,565 (4.12%) were for meth-HF.

Patients hospitalized with meth-HF had a mean age of 49.6 years, compared with 72.2 for the other patients admitted with HF (P < .001). Virtually all of the patients hospitalized for meth-HF were younger than 65 years: 94.5%, compared with 30% for the other HF patients (P < .001).

Hospitalized patients with meth-HF were mostly men, their prevalence of 80% contrasting with 52.4% for patients with non–meth-related HF (P < .001).

Rates of hospitalization for meth-HF steadily increased during the study period. The age-adjusted rate of meth-HF hospitalization per 100,000 rose from 4.1 in 2008 to 28.1 in 2018. The rate of hospitalization for HF unrelated to meth actually declined, going from 342.3 in 2008 to 321.6 in 2018.

Charges for hospitalizations related to meth-HF shot up more than eight times, from $41.5 million in 2008 to $390.2 million in 2018. In contrast, charges for other HF hospitalizations rose by only 82%, from $3.5 billion to $6.3 billion.
 

 

 

Multiple layers of prevention

Dr. Zhao proposed ways that clinicians can communicate with their patients who are using or considering to use meth. “There are multiple layers of prevention. For people who are thinking of using meth, they need to get the message that something really bad can happen to them years down the road. They’re not going to die from it overnight, but it will damage the heart slowly,” she said.

The next layer of prevention can potentially help meth users who have not yet developed heart problems, Dr. Zhao said. “This would be the time to say, ‘you’re so lucky, your heart is still good. It’s time to stop because people like you, a few years from now are going to die prematurely from a very horrible, very suffering kind of death’.”

Importantly, in meth users who have already developed HF, even then it may not be too late to reverse the cardiomyopathy and symptoms. For up to a third of people with established meth-HF, “if they stop using meth, if they take good cardiac medications, and if the heart failure is in an early enough course, their heart can entirely revert to normal,” Dr. Zhao said, citing an earlier work from her and her colleagues.

Currently, methamphetamine abuse has taken especially strong root in rural areas in California and the Midwest. But Dr. Zhao predicts it will soon become prevalent throughout the United States.
 

Spotlight on an ‘epidemic’

The rapid growth of the methamphetamine “epidemic” has been well-documented in the United States and around the world, observed an accompanying editorial from Pavan Reddy, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, and Uri Elkayam, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

They contend that more attention has been given to opioid overdose deaths; meth abuse does not seem to command the same attention, likely because meth is not as strongly associated with acute overdose.

But meth, wrote Dr. Reddy and Dr. Elkayam, “is a different drug with its own M.O., equally dangerous and costly to society but more insidious in nature, its effects potentially causing decades of mental and physical debilitation before ending in premature death.”

The current study “has turned a spotlight on a public health crisis that has grown unfettered for over 2 decades,” and is a call for the “medical community to recognize and manage cases of meth-HF with a comprehensive approach that addresses both mental and physical illness,” they concluded. “Only then can we hope to properly help these patients and with that, reduce the socioeconomic burden of meth-HF.”
 

A quietly building crisis

The sharp rise in meth-HF hospitalizations is an expected reflection of the methamphetamine crisis, which has been quietly building over the last few years, addiction psychiatrist Corneliu N. Stanciu, MD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview.

“This new version of methamphetamines looks like ice and is more potent and toxic than former versions traditionally made in home-built labs,” he said. Lately the vast majority of methamphetamines in the United States have come from Mexico, are less expensive with higher purity, “and can be manufactured in greater quantities.”

Some patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) also inject methamphetamines, which can make OUD treatment clinics good places to screen for meth abuse and educate about its cardiovascular implications, Dr. Stanciu said.

“Just as addiction treatment centers present an opportunity to implement cardiac screening and referrals,” he said, “cardiology visits and hospitalizations such as those for meth-HF also present a golden opportunity for involvement of substance use disorder interventions and referrals to get patients into treatment and prevent further damage through ongoing use.”

Dr. Zhao, Dr. Reddy, Dr. Eklayam, and Dr. Stanciu report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Rates of heart failure (HF) caused by methamphetamine abuse are climbing quickly in the western United States, at great financial and societal cost, suggests an analysis that documents the trends in California over a recent decade.

In the new study, methamphetamine-associated HF (meth-HF) admissions in the state rose by 585% between 2008 and 2018, and charges related those hospitalizations jumped 840%. Cases of HF unrelated to meth fell by 6% during the same period.

The recent explosion in meth-HF hospitalizations has also been costly for society in general, because most cases are younger adults in their most productive, prime earning years, Susan X. Zhao, MD, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, Calif., said in an interview.

“Over the past 11 years, especially since 2018, it has really started to take off, with a pretty dramatic rise. And it happened without much attention, because when we think about drugs, we think about acute overdose and not so much about the chronic, smoldering, long-term effects,” said Dr. Zhao, who is lead author on the study published July 13, 2021, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

“It’s really affecting a section of the population that is not supposed to be having heart failure problems. I think it is going to continue for the next decade until we put a stop to the parent problem, which is methamphetamine,” Dr. Zhao said. “We’re at the beginning, even though the rise has been pretty dramatic. The worst is yet to come.”
 

Under the radar

Methamphetamine-associated HF has been a growing problem for many years but has largely been “flying under the radar” because HF hospitalization data focus on Medicare-age patients, not the overwhelmingly younger meth-HF population, the report notes.

“We have to get this message out. Many of my patients with meth heart failure had no idea this would happen to them. They didn’t know,” Dr. Zhao said. “Once I tell them that this is what methamphetamines will do to you after years and years of use, they say they wish someone had told them.”

Dr. Zhao and colleagues looked at HF admission data collected by California’s Health and Human Services Agency to assess meth-HF trends and disease burden. They identified 1,033,076 HF hospitalizations during the decade, of which 42,565 (4.12%) were for meth-HF.

Patients hospitalized with meth-HF had a mean age of 49.6 years, compared with 72.2 for the other patients admitted with HF (P < .001). Virtually all of the patients hospitalized for meth-HF were younger than 65 years: 94.5%, compared with 30% for the other HF patients (P < .001).

Hospitalized patients with meth-HF were mostly men, their prevalence of 80% contrasting with 52.4% for patients with non–meth-related HF (P < .001).

Rates of hospitalization for meth-HF steadily increased during the study period. The age-adjusted rate of meth-HF hospitalization per 100,000 rose from 4.1 in 2008 to 28.1 in 2018. The rate of hospitalization for HF unrelated to meth actually declined, going from 342.3 in 2008 to 321.6 in 2018.

Charges for hospitalizations related to meth-HF shot up more than eight times, from $41.5 million in 2008 to $390.2 million in 2018. In contrast, charges for other HF hospitalizations rose by only 82%, from $3.5 billion to $6.3 billion.
 

 

 

Multiple layers of prevention

Dr. Zhao proposed ways that clinicians can communicate with their patients who are using or considering to use meth. “There are multiple layers of prevention. For people who are thinking of using meth, they need to get the message that something really bad can happen to them years down the road. They’re not going to die from it overnight, but it will damage the heart slowly,” she said.

The next layer of prevention can potentially help meth users who have not yet developed heart problems, Dr. Zhao said. “This would be the time to say, ‘you’re so lucky, your heart is still good. It’s time to stop because people like you, a few years from now are going to die prematurely from a very horrible, very suffering kind of death’.”

Importantly, in meth users who have already developed HF, even then it may not be too late to reverse the cardiomyopathy and symptoms. For up to a third of people with established meth-HF, “if they stop using meth, if they take good cardiac medications, and if the heart failure is in an early enough course, their heart can entirely revert to normal,” Dr. Zhao said, citing an earlier work from her and her colleagues.

Currently, methamphetamine abuse has taken especially strong root in rural areas in California and the Midwest. But Dr. Zhao predicts it will soon become prevalent throughout the United States.
 

Spotlight on an ‘epidemic’

The rapid growth of the methamphetamine “epidemic” has been well-documented in the United States and around the world, observed an accompanying editorial from Pavan Reddy, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, and Uri Elkayam, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

They contend that more attention has been given to opioid overdose deaths; meth abuse does not seem to command the same attention, likely because meth is not as strongly associated with acute overdose.

But meth, wrote Dr. Reddy and Dr. Elkayam, “is a different drug with its own M.O., equally dangerous and costly to society but more insidious in nature, its effects potentially causing decades of mental and physical debilitation before ending in premature death.”

The current study “has turned a spotlight on a public health crisis that has grown unfettered for over 2 decades,” and is a call for the “medical community to recognize and manage cases of meth-HF with a comprehensive approach that addresses both mental and physical illness,” they concluded. “Only then can we hope to properly help these patients and with that, reduce the socioeconomic burden of meth-HF.”
 

A quietly building crisis

The sharp rise in meth-HF hospitalizations is an expected reflection of the methamphetamine crisis, which has been quietly building over the last few years, addiction psychiatrist Corneliu N. Stanciu, MD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview.

“This new version of methamphetamines looks like ice and is more potent and toxic than former versions traditionally made in home-built labs,” he said. Lately the vast majority of methamphetamines in the United States have come from Mexico, are less expensive with higher purity, “and can be manufactured in greater quantities.”

Some patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) also inject methamphetamines, which can make OUD treatment clinics good places to screen for meth abuse and educate about its cardiovascular implications, Dr. Stanciu said.

“Just as addiction treatment centers present an opportunity to implement cardiac screening and referrals,” he said, “cardiology visits and hospitalizations such as those for meth-HF also present a golden opportunity for involvement of substance use disorder interventions and referrals to get patients into treatment and prevent further damage through ongoing use.”

Dr. Zhao, Dr. Reddy, Dr. Eklayam, and Dr. Stanciu report no relevant financial relationships.

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

 

Rates of heart failure (HF) caused by methamphetamine abuse are climbing quickly in the western United States, at great financial and societal cost, suggests an analysis that documents the trends in California over a recent decade.

In the new study, methamphetamine-associated HF (meth-HF) admissions in the state rose by 585% between 2008 and 2018, and charges related those hospitalizations jumped 840%. Cases of HF unrelated to meth fell by 6% during the same period.

The recent explosion in meth-HF hospitalizations has also been costly for society in general, because most cases are younger adults in their most productive, prime earning years, Susan X. Zhao, MD, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, Calif., said in an interview.

“Over the past 11 years, especially since 2018, it has really started to take off, with a pretty dramatic rise. And it happened without much attention, because when we think about drugs, we think about acute overdose and not so much about the chronic, smoldering, long-term effects,” said Dr. Zhao, who is lead author on the study published July 13, 2021, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

“It’s really affecting a section of the population that is not supposed to be having heart failure problems. I think it is going to continue for the next decade until we put a stop to the parent problem, which is methamphetamine,” Dr. Zhao said. “We’re at the beginning, even though the rise has been pretty dramatic. The worst is yet to come.”
 

Under the radar

Methamphetamine-associated HF has been a growing problem for many years but has largely been “flying under the radar” because HF hospitalization data focus on Medicare-age patients, not the overwhelmingly younger meth-HF population, the report notes.

“We have to get this message out. Many of my patients with meth heart failure had no idea this would happen to them. They didn’t know,” Dr. Zhao said. “Once I tell them that this is what methamphetamines will do to you after years and years of use, they say they wish someone had told them.”

Dr. Zhao and colleagues looked at HF admission data collected by California’s Health and Human Services Agency to assess meth-HF trends and disease burden. They identified 1,033,076 HF hospitalizations during the decade, of which 42,565 (4.12%) were for meth-HF.

Patients hospitalized with meth-HF had a mean age of 49.6 years, compared with 72.2 for the other patients admitted with HF (P < .001). Virtually all of the patients hospitalized for meth-HF were younger than 65 years: 94.5%, compared with 30% for the other HF patients (P < .001).

Hospitalized patients with meth-HF were mostly men, their prevalence of 80% contrasting with 52.4% for patients with non–meth-related HF (P < .001).

Rates of hospitalization for meth-HF steadily increased during the study period. The age-adjusted rate of meth-HF hospitalization per 100,000 rose from 4.1 in 2008 to 28.1 in 2018. The rate of hospitalization for HF unrelated to meth actually declined, going from 342.3 in 2008 to 321.6 in 2018.

Charges for hospitalizations related to meth-HF shot up more than eight times, from $41.5 million in 2008 to $390.2 million in 2018. In contrast, charges for other HF hospitalizations rose by only 82%, from $3.5 billion to $6.3 billion.
 

 

 

Multiple layers of prevention

Dr. Zhao proposed ways that clinicians can communicate with their patients who are using or considering to use meth. “There are multiple layers of prevention. For people who are thinking of using meth, they need to get the message that something really bad can happen to them years down the road. They’re not going to die from it overnight, but it will damage the heart slowly,” she said.

The next layer of prevention can potentially help meth users who have not yet developed heart problems, Dr. Zhao said. “This would be the time to say, ‘you’re so lucky, your heart is still good. It’s time to stop because people like you, a few years from now are going to die prematurely from a very horrible, very suffering kind of death’.”

Importantly, in meth users who have already developed HF, even then it may not be too late to reverse the cardiomyopathy and symptoms. For up to a third of people with established meth-HF, “if they stop using meth, if they take good cardiac medications, and if the heart failure is in an early enough course, their heart can entirely revert to normal,” Dr. Zhao said, citing an earlier work from her and her colleagues.

Currently, methamphetamine abuse has taken especially strong root in rural areas in California and the Midwest. But Dr. Zhao predicts it will soon become prevalent throughout the United States.
 

Spotlight on an ‘epidemic’

The rapid growth of the methamphetamine “epidemic” has been well-documented in the United States and around the world, observed an accompanying editorial from Pavan Reddy, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, and Uri Elkayam, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

They contend that more attention has been given to opioid overdose deaths; meth abuse does not seem to command the same attention, likely because meth is not as strongly associated with acute overdose.

But meth, wrote Dr. Reddy and Dr. Elkayam, “is a different drug with its own M.O., equally dangerous and costly to society but more insidious in nature, its effects potentially causing decades of mental and physical debilitation before ending in premature death.”

The current study “has turned a spotlight on a public health crisis that has grown unfettered for over 2 decades,” and is a call for the “medical community to recognize and manage cases of meth-HF with a comprehensive approach that addresses both mental and physical illness,” they concluded. “Only then can we hope to properly help these patients and with that, reduce the socioeconomic burden of meth-HF.”
 

A quietly building crisis

The sharp rise in meth-HF hospitalizations is an expected reflection of the methamphetamine crisis, which has been quietly building over the last few years, addiction psychiatrist Corneliu N. Stanciu, MD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview.

“This new version of methamphetamines looks like ice and is more potent and toxic than former versions traditionally made in home-built labs,” he said. Lately the vast majority of methamphetamines in the United States have come from Mexico, are less expensive with higher purity, “and can be manufactured in greater quantities.”

Some patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) also inject methamphetamines, which can make OUD treatment clinics good places to screen for meth abuse and educate about its cardiovascular implications, Dr. Stanciu said.

“Just as addiction treatment centers present an opportunity to implement cardiac screening and referrals,” he said, “cardiology visits and hospitalizations such as those for meth-HF also present a golden opportunity for involvement of substance use disorder interventions and referrals to get patients into treatment and prevent further damage through ongoing use.”

Dr. Zhao, Dr. Reddy, Dr. Eklayam, and Dr. Stanciu report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

PHM virtual conference promises practical pearls, plus Dr. Fauci

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 07/23/2021 - 11:02

 

The Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference, though virtual in 2021, promises to retain its role as the premier educational event for pediatric hospitalists and other clinicians involved in treating pediatric patients.

The “can’t-miss” session, on August 5, at 6:30 p.m. ET, is a one-on-one discussion between Anthony S. Fauci, MD, and Lee Savio Beers, MD, president of the American Academic of Pediatrics, according to members of the meeting planning committee.

In addition to the conversation between Dr. Beers and Dr. Fauci, this year’s meeting offers a mix of workshops with pointers and pearls to improve practice, keynote and plenary sessions to inform and inspire, and abstract presentations of new research. Three members of the PHM Planning Committee shared their insights on the hot topics, advice for new clinicians, and tips for making the most of this year’s meeting.
 

Workshops worth watching

“The keynote plenary sessions by Julie Silver, MD, on ‘Accelerating Patient Care and Healthcare Workforce Diversity and Inclusion,’ and by Ilan Alhadeff, MD, on ‘Leading through Adversity’ should inspire even the least enthusiastic among us,” Mirna Giordano, MD, FHM, of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. A talk by Nathan T. Chomilo, MD, “will likely prompt reflection on how George Floyd’s death changed us, and how we practice medicine forever.” In addition, “PHM Stories are not to be missed, they are voices that speak loud and move mountains.”

Dr. Mirna Giordano

The PHM Stories are concise, narrative talks with minimal use of slides; each PHM Stories session includes three distinct talks and a 15-minute question and answer session. PHM Stories sessions are scheduled for each day of the conference, and topics include “Practicing Medicine While Human: The Secrets Physicians Keep,” by Uchenna Ewulonu, MD; “Finding the Power of the Imposter: How I Learned to Be Exactly the Color I Am, Everywhere I Go,” by Alexandra Coria, MD; and “Purple Butterflies: A Reflection on Why I’m a Pediatric Hospitalist,” by Joanne Mendoza, MD.

“The PHM community has been through a lot in the aftermath of the pandemic,” said Dr. Giordano. “The mini-plenary session on the mental health needs of our patients, and clinical quick-hit sessions on verbal deescalation of the agitated patients and cardiac effects of COVID-19 will likely be not only very popular, but also useful in clinical endeavors. The workshop on how to navigate the adult issues in hospitalized patients will provide the Med-Peds pearls we all wish we heard earlier.”

Although a 75-minute workshop session may seem long, “the workshop choices will offer something for everyone’s taste: education, research, clinical topics, diversity, and advocacy,” Dr. Giordano said. “I suggest that attendees check in advance which sessions will be available after the meeting, so that they prioritize highly interactive sessions like workshops, and that they experience, even if virtual, small group/room gatherings and networking.” There will be time for fun, too, she emphasized, with social sessions “that we hope will break the screen monotony and bring smiles to everyone’s faces.”

For younger clinicians relatively new to practice, Dr. Giordano recommended several workshops for a wealth of advice and guidance, including “New Kids on the Block: Thriving in your First Faculty Position,” “Channeling Your Inner Coach: Techniques to Enhance Clinical Teaching & Feedback,” “Palliative Care Pearls for the Pediatric Hospitalist,” “Perioperative Medicine for Medically Complex Children: Case Studies in Programmatic Approaches,” “The Bare Necessities: Social Determinant of Health Screening for the Hospitalist,” and “Mentorship, Autonomy, and Supervising a PHM Fellow.”
 

 

 

Classic topics and new concepts

“We are so excited to be able to offer a full spectrum of offerings at this year’s virtual meeting,” Yemisi Jones, MD, FHM, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “We are covering some classic topics that we can’t do without at PHM, such as clinical updates in the management of sick and well newborns; workshops on best practices for educators; as well as the latest in PHM scholarship.” Sessions include “timely topics such as equity for women in medicine with one of our plenary speakers, Julie Silver, MD, and new febrile infant guidelines,” she added.

Dr. Yemisi Jones

In particular, the COVID-19 and mental health session will help address clinicians’ evolving understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on hospitalized children, said Dr. Jones. “Attendees can expect practical, timely updates on the current state of the science and ways to improve their practice to provide the best care for our patients.”

Attendees will be able to maximize the virtual conference format by accessing archived recordings, including clinical quick hits, mini-plenaries, and PHM Stories, which can be viewed during the scheduled meeting time or after, Dr. Jones said. “Workshops and abstract presentations will involve real-time interaction with presenters, so would be highest yield to attend during the live meeting. We also encourage all participants to take full advantage of the platform and the various networking opportunities to engage with others in our PHM community.”

For residents and new fellows, Dr. Jones advised making the workshop, “A Whole New World: Tips and Tools to Soar Into Your First Year of Fellowship,” a priority. “For early-career faculty, the ‘New Kids on the Block: Thriving in your First Faculty Position workshop will be a valuable resource.”
 

Make the meeting content a priority

This year’s conference has an exceptional slate of plenary speakers, Michelle Marks, DO, SFHM, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview. In addition to the much-anticipated session on vaccinations, school guidelines, and other topics with Dr. Fauci and Dr. Beers, the sessions on leading through adversity and workforce diversity and inclusion are “important topics to the PHM community and to our greater communities as a whole.”

Dr. Michelle Marks

Dr. Marks also highlighted the value of the COVID-19 and mental health session, as the long-term impact of COVID-19 on mental health of children and adults continues to grab headlines. “From this session specifically, I hope the attendees will gain awareness of the special mental health needs for child during a global disaster like a pandemic, which can be generalized to other situations and gain skills and resources to help meet and advocate for children’s mental health needs.”

For clinicians attending the virtual conference, “The most important strategy is to schedule time off of clinical work for the virtual meeting if you can so you can focus on the content,” said Dr. Marks. “For the longer sessions, it would be very important to block time in your day to fully attend the session, attend in a private space if possible since there will be breakouts with discussion, have your camera on, and engage with the workshop group as much as possible. The virtual format can be challenging because of all the external distractions, so intentional focus is necessary,” to get the most out of the experience.

The mini-plenary session on “The New AAP Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Febrile Infants 8-60 Days Old,” is an important session for all attendees, Dr. Marks said. She also recommended the Clinical Quick Hits sessions for anyone seeking “a diverse array of practical knowledge which can be easily applied to everyday practice.” The Clinical Quick Hits are designed as 35-minute, rapid-fire presentations focused on clinical knowledge. Each of these presentations will focus on the latest updates or evolutions in clinical practice in one area. Some key topics include counseling parents when a child has an abnormal exam finding, assessing pelvic pain in adolescent girls, and preventing venous thromboembolism in the inpatient setting.

“I would also recommend that younger clinicians take in at least one or two workshops or sessions on nonclinical topics to see the breath of content at the meeting and to develop a niche interest for themselves outside of clinical work,” Dr. Marks noted.

Nonclinical sessions at PHM 2021 include workshops on a pilot for a comprehensive LGBTQ+ curriculum, using media tools for public health messaging, and practicing health literacy.

To register for the Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2021 virtual conference, visit https://apaevents.regfox.com/phm21-virtual-conference.

Dr. Giordano, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Marks are members of the PHM conference planning committee and had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

The Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference, though virtual in 2021, promises to retain its role as the premier educational event for pediatric hospitalists and other clinicians involved in treating pediatric patients.

The “can’t-miss” session, on August 5, at 6:30 p.m. ET, is a one-on-one discussion between Anthony S. Fauci, MD, and Lee Savio Beers, MD, president of the American Academic of Pediatrics, according to members of the meeting planning committee.

In addition to the conversation between Dr. Beers and Dr. Fauci, this year’s meeting offers a mix of workshops with pointers and pearls to improve practice, keynote and plenary sessions to inform and inspire, and abstract presentations of new research. Three members of the PHM Planning Committee shared their insights on the hot topics, advice for new clinicians, and tips for making the most of this year’s meeting.
 

Workshops worth watching

“The keynote plenary sessions by Julie Silver, MD, on ‘Accelerating Patient Care and Healthcare Workforce Diversity and Inclusion,’ and by Ilan Alhadeff, MD, on ‘Leading through Adversity’ should inspire even the least enthusiastic among us,” Mirna Giordano, MD, FHM, of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. A talk by Nathan T. Chomilo, MD, “will likely prompt reflection on how George Floyd’s death changed us, and how we practice medicine forever.” In addition, “PHM Stories are not to be missed, they are voices that speak loud and move mountains.”

Dr. Mirna Giordano

The PHM Stories are concise, narrative talks with minimal use of slides; each PHM Stories session includes three distinct talks and a 15-minute question and answer session. PHM Stories sessions are scheduled for each day of the conference, and topics include “Practicing Medicine While Human: The Secrets Physicians Keep,” by Uchenna Ewulonu, MD; “Finding the Power of the Imposter: How I Learned to Be Exactly the Color I Am, Everywhere I Go,” by Alexandra Coria, MD; and “Purple Butterflies: A Reflection on Why I’m a Pediatric Hospitalist,” by Joanne Mendoza, MD.

“The PHM community has been through a lot in the aftermath of the pandemic,” said Dr. Giordano. “The mini-plenary session on the mental health needs of our patients, and clinical quick-hit sessions on verbal deescalation of the agitated patients and cardiac effects of COVID-19 will likely be not only very popular, but also useful in clinical endeavors. The workshop on how to navigate the adult issues in hospitalized patients will provide the Med-Peds pearls we all wish we heard earlier.”

Although a 75-minute workshop session may seem long, “the workshop choices will offer something for everyone’s taste: education, research, clinical topics, diversity, and advocacy,” Dr. Giordano said. “I suggest that attendees check in advance which sessions will be available after the meeting, so that they prioritize highly interactive sessions like workshops, and that they experience, even if virtual, small group/room gatherings and networking.” There will be time for fun, too, she emphasized, with social sessions “that we hope will break the screen monotony and bring smiles to everyone’s faces.”

For younger clinicians relatively new to practice, Dr. Giordano recommended several workshops for a wealth of advice and guidance, including “New Kids on the Block: Thriving in your First Faculty Position,” “Channeling Your Inner Coach: Techniques to Enhance Clinical Teaching & Feedback,” “Palliative Care Pearls for the Pediatric Hospitalist,” “Perioperative Medicine for Medically Complex Children: Case Studies in Programmatic Approaches,” “The Bare Necessities: Social Determinant of Health Screening for the Hospitalist,” and “Mentorship, Autonomy, and Supervising a PHM Fellow.”
 

 

 

Classic topics and new concepts

“We are so excited to be able to offer a full spectrum of offerings at this year’s virtual meeting,” Yemisi Jones, MD, FHM, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “We are covering some classic topics that we can’t do without at PHM, such as clinical updates in the management of sick and well newborns; workshops on best practices for educators; as well as the latest in PHM scholarship.” Sessions include “timely topics such as equity for women in medicine with one of our plenary speakers, Julie Silver, MD, and new febrile infant guidelines,” she added.

Dr. Yemisi Jones

In particular, the COVID-19 and mental health session will help address clinicians’ evolving understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on hospitalized children, said Dr. Jones. “Attendees can expect practical, timely updates on the current state of the science and ways to improve their practice to provide the best care for our patients.”

Attendees will be able to maximize the virtual conference format by accessing archived recordings, including clinical quick hits, mini-plenaries, and PHM Stories, which can be viewed during the scheduled meeting time or after, Dr. Jones said. “Workshops and abstract presentations will involve real-time interaction with presenters, so would be highest yield to attend during the live meeting. We also encourage all participants to take full advantage of the platform and the various networking opportunities to engage with others in our PHM community.”

For residents and new fellows, Dr. Jones advised making the workshop, “A Whole New World: Tips and Tools to Soar Into Your First Year of Fellowship,” a priority. “For early-career faculty, the ‘New Kids on the Block: Thriving in your First Faculty Position workshop will be a valuable resource.”
 

Make the meeting content a priority

This year’s conference has an exceptional slate of plenary speakers, Michelle Marks, DO, SFHM, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview. In addition to the much-anticipated session on vaccinations, school guidelines, and other topics with Dr. Fauci and Dr. Beers, the sessions on leading through adversity and workforce diversity and inclusion are “important topics to the PHM community and to our greater communities as a whole.”

Dr. Michelle Marks

Dr. Marks also highlighted the value of the COVID-19 and mental health session, as the long-term impact of COVID-19 on mental health of children and adults continues to grab headlines. “From this session specifically, I hope the attendees will gain awareness of the special mental health needs for child during a global disaster like a pandemic, which can be generalized to other situations and gain skills and resources to help meet and advocate for children’s mental health needs.”

For clinicians attending the virtual conference, “The most important strategy is to schedule time off of clinical work for the virtual meeting if you can so you can focus on the content,” said Dr. Marks. “For the longer sessions, it would be very important to block time in your day to fully attend the session, attend in a private space if possible since there will be breakouts with discussion, have your camera on, and engage with the workshop group as much as possible. The virtual format can be challenging because of all the external distractions, so intentional focus is necessary,” to get the most out of the experience.

The mini-plenary session on “The New AAP Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Febrile Infants 8-60 Days Old,” is an important session for all attendees, Dr. Marks said. She also recommended the Clinical Quick Hits sessions for anyone seeking “a diverse array of practical knowledge which can be easily applied to everyday practice.” The Clinical Quick Hits are designed as 35-minute, rapid-fire presentations focused on clinical knowledge. Each of these presentations will focus on the latest updates or evolutions in clinical practice in one area. Some key topics include counseling parents when a child has an abnormal exam finding, assessing pelvic pain in adolescent girls, and preventing venous thromboembolism in the inpatient setting.

“I would also recommend that younger clinicians take in at least one or two workshops or sessions on nonclinical topics to see the breath of content at the meeting and to develop a niche interest for themselves outside of clinical work,” Dr. Marks noted.

Nonclinical sessions at PHM 2021 include workshops on a pilot for a comprehensive LGBTQ+ curriculum, using media tools for public health messaging, and practicing health literacy.

To register for the Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2021 virtual conference, visit https://apaevents.regfox.com/phm21-virtual-conference.

Dr. Giordano, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Marks are members of the PHM conference planning committee and had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

 

The Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference, though virtual in 2021, promises to retain its role as the premier educational event for pediatric hospitalists and other clinicians involved in treating pediatric patients.

The “can’t-miss” session, on August 5, at 6:30 p.m. ET, is a one-on-one discussion between Anthony S. Fauci, MD, and Lee Savio Beers, MD, president of the American Academic of Pediatrics, according to members of the meeting planning committee.

In addition to the conversation between Dr. Beers and Dr. Fauci, this year’s meeting offers a mix of workshops with pointers and pearls to improve practice, keynote and plenary sessions to inform and inspire, and abstract presentations of new research. Three members of the PHM Planning Committee shared their insights on the hot topics, advice for new clinicians, and tips for making the most of this year’s meeting.
 

Workshops worth watching

“The keynote plenary sessions by Julie Silver, MD, on ‘Accelerating Patient Care and Healthcare Workforce Diversity and Inclusion,’ and by Ilan Alhadeff, MD, on ‘Leading through Adversity’ should inspire even the least enthusiastic among us,” Mirna Giordano, MD, FHM, of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. A talk by Nathan T. Chomilo, MD, “will likely prompt reflection on how George Floyd’s death changed us, and how we practice medicine forever.” In addition, “PHM Stories are not to be missed, they are voices that speak loud and move mountains.”

Dr. Mirna Giordano

The PHM Stories are concise, narrative talks with minimal use of slides; each PHM Stories session includes three distinct talks and a 15-minute question and answer session. PHM Stories sessions are scheduled for each day of the conference, and topics include “Practicing Medicine While Human: The Secrets Physicians Keep,” by Uchenna Ewulonu, MD; “Finding the Power of the Imposter: How I Learned to Be Exactly the Color I Am, Everywhere I Go,” by Alexandra Coria, MD; and “Purple Butterflies: A Reflection on Why I’m a Pediatric Hospitalist,” by Joanne Mendoza, MD.

“The PHM community has been through a lot in the aftermath of the pandemic,” said Dr. Giordano. “The mini-plenary session on the mental health needs of our patients, and clinical quick-hit sessions on verbal deescalation of the agitated patients and cardiac effects of COVID-19 will likely be not only very popular, but also useful in clinical endeavors. The workshop on how to navigate the adult issues in hospitalized patients will provide the Med-Peds pearls we all wish we heard earlier.”

Although a 75-minute workshop session may seem long, “the workshop choices will offer something for everyone’s taste: education, research, clinical topics, diversity, and advocacy,” Dr. Giordano said. “I suggest that attendees check in advance which sessions will be available after the meeting, so that they prioritize highly interactive sessions like workshops, and that they experience, even if virtual, small group/room gatherings and networking.” There will be time for fun, too, she emphasized, with social sessions “that we hope will break the screen monotony and bring smiles to everyone’s faces.”

For younger clinicians relatively new to practice, Dr. Giordano recommended several workshops for a wealth of advice and guidance, including “New Kids on the Block: Thriving in your First Faculty Position,” “Channeling Your Inner Coach: Techniques to Enhance Clinical Teaching & Feedback,” “Palliative Care Pearls for the Pediatric Hospitalist,” “Perioperative Medicine for Medically Complex Children: Case Studies in Programmatic Approaches,” “The Bare Necessities: Social Determinant of Health Screening for the Hospitalist,” and “Mentorship, Autonomy, and Supervising a PHM Fellow.”
 

 

 

Classic topics and new concepts

“We are so excited to be able to offer a full spectrum of offerings at this year’s virtual meeting,” Yemisi Jones, MD, FHM, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “We are covering some classic topics that we can’t do without at PHM, such as clinical updates in the management of sick and well newborns; workshops on best practices for educators; as well as the latest in PHM scholarship.” Sessions include “timely topics such as equity for women in medicine with one of our plenary speakers, Julie Silver, MD, and new febrile infant guidelines,” she added.

Dr. Yemisi Jones

In particular, the COVID-19 and mental health session will help address clinicians’ evolving understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on hospitalized children, said Dr. Jones. “Attendees can expect practical, timely updates on the current state of the science and ways to improve their practice to provide the best care for our patients.”

Attendees will be able to maximize the virtual conference format by accessing archived recordings, including clinical quick hits, mini-plenaries, and PHM Stories, which can be viewed during the scheduled meeting time or after, Dr. Jones said. “Workshops and abstract presentations will involve real-time interaction with presenters, so would be highest yield to attend during the live meeting. We also encourage all participants to take full advantage of the platform and the various networking opportunities to engage with others in our PHM community.”

For residents and new fellows, Dr. Jones advised making the workshop, “A Whole New World: Tips and Tools to Soar Into Your First Year of Fellowship,” a priority. “For early-career faculty, the ‘New Kids on the Block: Thriving in your First Faculty Position workshop will be a valuable resource.”
 

Make the meeting content a priority

This year’s conference has an exceptional slate of plenary speakers, Michelle Marks, DO, SFHM, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview. In addition to the much-anticipated session on vaccinations, school guidelines, and other topics with Dr. Fauci and Dr. Beers, the sessions on leading through adversity and workforce diversity and inclusion are “important topics to the PHM community and to our greater communities as a whole.”

Dr. Michelle Marks

Dr. Marks also highlighted the value of the COVID-19 and mental health session, as the long-term impact of COVID-19 on mental health of children and adults continues to grab headlines. “From this session specifically, I hope the attendees will gain awareness of the special mental health needs for child during a global disaster like a pandemic, which can be generalized to other situations and gain skills and resources to help meet and advocate for children’s mental health needs.”

For clinicians attending the virtual conference, “The most important strategy is to schedule time off of clinical work for the virtual meeting if you can so you can focus on the content,” said Dr. Marks. “For the longer sessions, it would be very important to block time in your day to fully attend the session, attend in a private space if possible since there will be breakouts with discussion, have your camera on, and engage with the workshop group as much as possible. The virtual format can be challenging because of all the external distractions, so intentional focus is necessary,” to get the most out of the experience.

The mini-plenary session on “The New AAP Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Febrile Infants 8-60 Days Old,” is an important session for all attendees, Dr. Marks said. She also recommended the Clinical Quick Hits sessions for anyone seeking “a diverse array of practical knowledge which can be easily applied to everyday practice.” The Clinical Quick Hits are designed as 35-minute, rapid-fire presentations focused on clinical knowledge. Each of these presentations will focus on the latest updates or evolutions in clinical practice in one area. Some key topics include counseling parents when a child has an abnormal exam finding, assessing pelvic pain in adolescent girls, and preventing venous thromboembolism in the inpatient setting.

“I would also recommend that younger clinicians take in at least one or two workshops or sessions on nonclinical topics to see the breath of content at the meeting and to develop a niche interest for themselves outside of clinical work,” Dr. Marks noted.

Nonclinical sessions at PHM 2021 include workshops on a pilot for a comprehensive LGBTQ+ curriculum, using media tools for public health messaging, and practicing health literacy.

To register for the Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2021 virtual conference, visit https://apaevents.regfox.com/phm21-virtual-conference.

Dr. Giordano, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Marks are members of the PHM conference planning committee and had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article