MDedge Infectious Disease

Which conditions are caused by infection? Though it may seem like an amateur concern in the era of advanced microscopy, some culprits evade conventional methods of detection. Large medical databases hold the power to unlock answers. 

A recent study from Sweden and Denmark meticulously traced the lives and medical histories of nearly one million men and women in those countries who had received blood transfusions over nearly five decades. Some of these patients later experienced brain bleeds. The inescapable question: Could a virus found in some donor blood have caused the hemorrhages?

Traditionally, brain bleeds have been thought to strike at random. But the new study, published in JAMA, points toward an infection that causes or, at the very least, is linked to the condition. The researchers used a large databank to make the discovery. 

“As health data becomes more available and easier to analyze, we’ll see all kinds of cases like this,” said Jingcheng Zhao, MD, of the clinical epidemiology division of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet in Solna and lead author of the study.

Scientists say the field of medical research is on the cusp of a revolution as immense health databases guide discovery and improve clinical care. 

“If you can aggregate data, you have the statistical power to identify associations,” said David R. Crosslin, PhD, professor in the division of biomedical informatics and genomics at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It opens up the world for understanding diseases.”

With access to the large database, Dr. Zhao and his team found that some blood donors later experienced brain bleeds. And it turned out that the recipients of blood from those same donors carried the highest risk of experiencing a brain bleed later in life. Meanwhile, patients whose donors remained bleed-free had the lowest risk.
 

Not so fast in the United States

In Nordic countries, all hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies report data on diagnoses and health care visits to the government, tracking that began with paper and pen in the 1960s. But the United States health care system is too fragmented to replicate such efforts, with several brands of electronic medical records operating across different systems. Data sharing across institutions is minimal. 

Most comparable health data in the United States comes from reimbursement information collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on government-sponsored insurance programs.

“We would need all the health care systems in the country to operate within the same IT system or use the same data model,” said Euan Ashley, MD, PhD, professor of genomics at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s an exciting prospect. But I think [the United States] is one of the last countries where it’ll happen.”

States, meanwhile, collect health data on specific areas like sexually transmitted infection cases and rates. Other states have registries, like the Connecticut Tumor Registry, which was established in 1941 and is the oldest population-based cancer registry in the world.

But all of these efforts are ad hoc, and no equivalent exists for heart disease and other conditions.

Health data companies have recently entered the U.S. data industry mainly through partnerships with health systems and insurance companies, using deidentified information from patient charts.

The large databases have yielded important findings that randomized clinical trials simply cannot, according to Dr. Ashley.

For instance, a study found that a heavily-lauded immunotherapy treatment did not provide meaningful outcomes for patients aged 75 years or older, but it did for younger patients.

This sort of analysis might enable clinicians to administer treatments based on how effective they are for patients with particular demographics, according to Cary Gross, MD, professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

“From a bedside standpoint, these large databases can identify who benefits from what,” Dr. Gross said. “Precision medicine is not just about genetic tailoring.” These large datasets also provide insight into genetic and environmental variables that contribute to disease. 

For instance, the UK Biobank has more than 500,000 participants paired with their medical records and scans of their body and brain. Researchers perform cognitive tests on participants and extract DNA from blood samples over their lifetime, allowing examination of interactions between risk factors. 

A similar but much smaller-scale effort underway in the United States, called the All of Us Research Program, has enrolled more than 650,000 people, less than one-third the size of the UK Biobank by relative populations. The goal of the program is to provide insights into prevention and treatment of chronic disease among a diverse set of at least one million participants. The database includes information on sexual orientation, which is a fairly new datapoint collected by researchers in an effort to study health outcomes and inequities among the LGBTQ+ community.

Dr. Crosslin and his colleagues are writing a grant proposal to use the All of Us database to identify genetic risks for preeclampsia. People with certain genetic profiles may be predisposed to the life-threatening condition, and researchers may discover that lifestyle changes could decrease risk, Dr. Crosslin said. 
 

Changes in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the lack of centralized data in the United States because a majority of research on the virus has been conducted abroad in countries with national health care systems and these large databases. 

The U.S. gap spurred a group of researchers to create the National Institutes of Health–funded National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a project that gathers medical records from millions of patients across health systems and provides access to research teams investigating a wide spectrum of topics, such as optimal timing for ventilator use.

But until government or private health systems develop a way to share and regulate health data ethically and efficiently, significant limits will persist on what large-scale databases can do, Dr. Gross said. 

“At the federal level, we need to ensure this health information is made available for public health researchers so we don’t create these private fiefdoms of data,” Dr. Gross said. “Things have to be transparent. I think our country needs to take a step back and think about what we’re doing with our health data and how we can make sure it’s being managed ethically.”

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

Which conditions are caused by infection? Though it may seem like an amateur concern in the era of advanced microscopy, some culprits evade conventional methods of detection. Large medical databases hold the power to unlock answers. 

A recent study from Sweden and Denmark meticulously traced the lives and medical histories of nearly one million men and women in those countries who had received blood transfusions over nearly five decades. Some of these patients later experienced brain bleeds. The inescapable question: Could a virus found in some donor blood have caused the hemorrhages?

Traditionally, brain bleeds have been thought to strike at random. But the new study, published in JAMA, points toward an infection that causes or, at the very least, is linked to the condition. The researchers used a large databank to make the discovery. 

“As health data becomes more available and easier to analyze, we’ll see all kinds of cases like this,” said Jingcheng Zhao, MD, of the clinical epidemiology division of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet in Solna and lead author of the study.

Scientists say the field of medical research is on the cusp of a revolution as immense health databases guide discovery and improve clinical care. 

“If you can aggregate data, you have the statistical power to identify associations,” said David R. Crosslin, PhD, professor in the division of biomedical informatics and genomics at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It opens up the world for understanding diseases.”

With access to the large database, Dr. Zhao and his team found that some blood donors later experienced brain bleeds. And it turned out that the recipients of blood from those same donors carried the highest risk of experiencing a brain bleed later in life. Meanwhile, patients whose donors remained bleed-free had the lowest risk.
 

Not so fast in the United States

In Nordic countries, all hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies report data on diagnoses and health care visits to the government, tracking that began with paper and pen in the 1960s. But the United States health care system is too fragmented to replicate such efforts, with several brands of electronic medical records operating across different systems. Data sharing across institutions is minimal. 

Most comparable health data in the United States comes from reimbursement information collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on government-sponsored insurance programs.

“We would need all the health care systems in the country to operate within the same IT system or use the same data model,” said Euan Ashley, MD, PhD, professor of genomics at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s an exciting prospect. But I think [the United States] is one of the last countries where it’ll happen.”

States, meanwhile, collect health data on specific areas like sexually transmitted infection cases and rates. Other states have registries, like the Connecticut Tumor Registry, which was established in 1941 and is the oldest population-based cancer registry in the world.

But all of these efforts are ad hoc, and no equivalent exists for heart disease and other conditions.

Health data companies have recently entered the U.S. data industry mainly through partnerships with health systems and insurance companies, using deidentified information from patient charts.

The large databases have yielded important findings that randomized clinical trials simply cannot, according to Dr. Ashley.

For instance, a study found that a heavily-lauded immunotherapy treatment did not provide meaningful outcomes for patients aged 75 years or older, but it did for younger patients.

This sort of analysis might enable clinicians to administer treatments based on how effective they are for patients with particular demographics, according to Cary Gross, MD, professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

“From a bedside standpoint, these large databases can identify who benefits from what,” Dr. Gross said. “Precision medicine is not just about genetic tailoring.” These large datasets also provide insight into genetic and environmental variables that contribute to disease. 

For instance, the UK Biobank has more than 500,000 participants paired with their medical records and scans of their body and brain. Researchers perform cognitive tests on participants and extract DNA from blood samples over their lifetime, allowing examination of interactions between risk factors. 

A similar but much smaller-scale effort underway in the United States, called the All of Us Research Program, has enrolled more than 650,000 people, less than one-third the size of the UK Biobank by relative populations. The goal of the program is to provide insights into prevention and treatment of chronic disease among a diverse set of at least one million participants. The database includes information on sexual orientation, which is a fairly new datapoint collected by researchers in an effort to study health outcomes and inequities among the LGBTQ+ community.

Dr. Crosslin and his colleagues are writing a grant proposal to use the All of Us database to identify genetic risks for preeclampsia. People with certain genetic profiles may be predisposed to the life-threatening condition, and researchers may discover that lifestyle changes could decrease risk, Dr. Crosslin said. 
 

Changes in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the lack of centralized data in the United States because a majority of research on the virus has been conducted abroad in countries with national health care systems and these large databases. 

The U.S. gap spurred a group of researchers to create the National Institutes of Health–funded National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a project that gathers medical records from millions of patients across health systems and provides access to research teams investigating a wide spectrum of topics, such as optimal timing for ventilator use.

But until government or private health systems develop a way to share and regulate health data ethically and efficiently, significant limits will persist on what large-scale databases can do, Dr. Gross said. 

“At the federal level, we need to ensure this health information is made available for public health researchers so we don’t create these private fiefdoms of data,” Dr. Gross said. “Things have to be transparent. I think our country needs to take a step back and think about what we’re doing with our health data and how we can make sure it’s being managed ethically.”

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

Which conditions are caused by infection? Though it may seem like an amateur concern in the era of advanced microscopy, some culprits evade conventional methods of detection. Large medical databases hold the power to unlock answers. 

A recent study from Sweden and Denmark meticulously traced the lives and medical histories of nearly one million men and women in those countries who had received blood transfusions over nearly five decades. Some of these patients later experienced brain bleeds. The inescapable question: Could a virus found in some donor blood have caused the hemorrhages?

Traditionally, brain bleeds have been thought to strike at random. But the new study, published in JAMA, points toward an infection that causes or, at the very least, is linked to the condition. The researchers used a large databank to make the discovery. 

“As health data becomes more available and easier to analyze, we’ll see all kinds of cases like this,” said Jingcheng Zhao, MD, of the clinical epidemiology division of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet in Solna and lead author of the study.

Scientists say the field of medical research is on the cusp of a revolution as immense health databases guide discovery and improve clinical care. 

“If you can aggregate data, you have the statistical power to identify associations,” said David R. Crosslin, PhD, professor in the division of biomedical informatics and genomics at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It opens up the world for understanding diseases.”

With access to the large database, Dr. Zhao and his team found that some blood donors later experienced brain bleeds. And it turned out that the recipients of blood from those same donors carried the highest risk of experiencing a brain bleed later in life. Meanwhile, patients whose donors remained bleed-free had the lowest risk.
 

Not so fast in the United States

In Nordic countries, all hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies report data on diagnoses and health care visits to the government, tracking that began with paper and pen in the 1960s. But the United States health care system is too fragmented to replicate such efforts, with several brands of electronic medical records operating across different systems. Data sharing across institutions is minimal. 

Most comparable health data in the United States comes from reimbursement information collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on government-sponsored insurance programs.

“We would need all the health care systems in the country to operate within the same IT system or use the same data model,” said Euan Ashley, MD, PhD, professor of genomics at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s an exciting prospect. But I think [the United States] is one of the last countries where it’ll happen.”

States, meanwhile, collect health data on specific areas like sexually transmitted infection cases and rates. Other states have registries, like the Connecticut Tumor Registry, which was established in 1941 and is the oldest population-based cancer registry in the world.

But all of these efforts are ad hoc, and no equivalent exists for heart disease and other conditions.

Health data companies have recently entered the U.S. data industry mainly through partnerships with health systems and insurance companies, using deidentified information from patient charts.

The large databases have yielded important findings that randomized clinical trials simply cannot, according to Dr. Ashley.

For instance, a study found that a heavily-lauded immunotherapy treatment did not provide meaningful outcomes for patients aged 75 years or older, but it did for younger patients.

This sort of analysis might enable clinicians to administer treatments based on how effective they are for patients with particular demographics, according to Cary Gross, MD, professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

“From a bedside standpoint, these large databases can identify who benefits from what,” Dr. Gross said. “Precision medicine is not just about genetic tailoring.” These large datasets also provide insight into genetic and environmental variables that contribute to disease. 

For instance, the UK Biobank has more than 500,000 participants paired with their medical records and scans of their body and brain. Researchers perform cognitive tests on participants and extract DNA from blood samples over their lifetime, allowing examination of interactions between risk factors. 

A similar but much smaller-scale effort underway in the United States, called the All of Us Research Program, has enrolled more than 650,000 people, less than one-third the size of the UK Biobank by relative populations. The goal of the program is to provide insights into prevention and treatment of chronic disease among a diverse set of at least one million participants. The database includes information on sexual orientation, which is a fairly new datapoint collected by researchers in an effort to study health outcomes and inequities among the LGBTQ+ community.

Dr. Crosslin and his colleagues are writing a grant proposal to use the All of Us database to identify genetic risks for preeclampsia. People with certain genetic profiles may be predisposed to the life-threatening condition, and researchers may discover that lifestyle changes could decrease risk, Dr. Crosslin said. 
 

Changes in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the lack of centralized data in the United States because a majority of research on the virus has been conducted abroad in countries with national health care systems and these large databases. 

The U.S. gap spurred a group of researchers to create the National Institutes of Health–funded National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a project that gathers medical records from millions of patients across health systems and provides access to research teams investigating a wide spectrum of topics, such as optimal timing for ventilator use.

But until government or private health systems develop a way to share and regulate health data ethically and efficiently, significant limits will persist on what large-scale databases can do, Dr. Gross said. 

“At the federal level, we need to ensure this health information is made available for public health researchers so we don’t create these private fiefdoms of data,” Dr. Gross said. “Things have to be transparent. I think our country needs to take a step back and think about what we’re doing with our health data and how we can make sure it’s being managed ethically.”

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

New evidence shows for the first time that the virus that causes COVID directly infects atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, producing a persistent inflammatory response.

The findings may not only explain the link between COVID and the increased risk of cardiovascular events but mark a starting point for new therapeutic approaches.

“Our study shows there is persistence of viral debris in the artery,” senior investigator Chiara Giannarelli, MD, associate professor of medicine and pathology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview. “There is an important inflammatory response. We can now look at ways to control this inflammation,” she said.

Dr. Giannarelli says COVID is more than a respiratory virus and that it can affect the whole body. “Our study shows a remarkable ability of the virus to hijack the immune system,” she points out. “Our findings may explain how that happens.”

Dr. Giannarelli says it’s important for doctors and patients to be aware of an increased cardiovascular risk after a SARS-CoV-2 infection and to pay extra attention to traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure and cholesterol.

“This study showing that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus directly infects coronary artery plaques, producing inflammatory substances, really joins the dots and helps our understanding on why we’re seeing so much heart disease in COVID patients,” Peter Hotez, MD, professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

Asked whether this direct infection of vascular plaques was unique to SARS-CoV-2 or whether this may also occur with other viruses, both Dr. Giannarelli and Dr. Hotez said they believe this may be a specific COVID effect.

“I wouldn’t say it is likely that other viruses infect coronary arteries in this way, but I suppose it is possible,” Dr. Giannarelli said.

Dr. Hotez pointed out that other viruses can cause inflammation in the heart, such as myocarditis. “But I can’t think of another virus that stimulates the sequence of events in coronary artery inflammation like we’re seeing here.”

Dr. Giannarelli noted that influenza is also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, but there has been no evidence to date that it directly affects coronary arteries.

Dr. Hotez added that the increased risk of cardiovascular events with influenza has also been reported to be prolonged after the acute infection. “These new findings with SARS-CoV-2 could stimulate a redoubling of efforts to look at this possibility with influenza,” he suggested.
 

Heart disease after COVID

In a recent article published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research, Dr. Giannarelli and colleagues analyzed human autopsy tissue samples from coronary arterial walls of patients who had died from COVID in the early stages of the pandemic in New York.

They found an accumulation of viral RNA in atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, which was particularly concentrated in lipid-rich macrophage foam cells present within the plaques.

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature,” the researchers report.

The virus preferentially replicates in foam cells, in comparison with other macrophages, they add, suggesting that these cells might act as a reservoir of viral debris in atherosclerotic plaque.

“We have shown that the virus is targeting lipid-rich macrophages in atherosclerotic lesions. This is the first time this has been shown, and we think this is a very important finding,” Dr. Giannarelli said in an interview.

“We also found that the virus persists in these foam cells that could be responsible for long-term, low-grade inflammation in the vasculature that could contribute to the long-term cardiovascular manifestations in patients who have recovered from COVID,” she said.
 

Viral reservoirs

Macrophages residing in vascular tissue can undergo self-renewal and can remain in the tissue for many years, the investigators point out. They suggest that these macrophages may act as viral reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in atherosclerotic plaques.

Using an ex vivo model, the researchers also found that atherosclerotic tissue could be directly infected by the virus. And just as was seen in cultured macrophages and foam cells, infection of vascular tissue triggered an inflammatory response. That response induced the secretion of key proatherogenic cytokines, such as interleukin-6 and interleukin-1 beta, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and in an increased risk of cardiovascular events.

“Considering that plaque inflammation promotes disease progression and contributes to plaque rupture, our results provide a molecular basis for how infection of coronary lesions can contribute to the acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19, such as myocardial infarction,” the researchers report.

Another interesting finding was a higher accumulation of viral RNA in the coronary vasculature of the three patients with acute ischemic cardiovascular manifestations, which they say adds to evidence that infection may increase cardiovascular risk.

Dr. Giannarelli points out that the patients in their study died in New York early in the pandemic, before vaccines were available. “They were unvaccinated and likely had little immunity against initial viral strains.”

Dr. Hotez says that when COVID-19 first emerged, many in the medical and scientific communities thought it would closely resemble the original SARS viral infection, which was primarily a respiratory pathogen.

“But it became pretty clear early on this virus was causing a lot of cardiovascular and thromboembolic disease,” he says. “This study provides an insight into the mechanisms involved here.”
 

Affecting more than lungs

Dr. Hotez pointed out that a recent study reported a 5% increase in cardiovascular deaths during the years 2020-2022, compared with before the pandemic.

“Those peaks of cardiovascular deaths corresponded with specific waves of COVID – the first happening at the time of the initial wave with the original virus and second during the Delta wave. So, there’s no question that this virus is contributing to excess cardiovascular mortality, and this paper appears to explain the mechanism.”

Dr. Hotez pointed out that the new findings suggest the cardiovascular risk may be prolonged well after the acute infection resolves.

“In long COVID, a lot of people focus on the neurological effects – brain fog and depression. But cardiac insufficiency and other cardiovascular events can also be considered another element of long COVID,” he said.

Dr. Giannarelli says her group is now studying whether patients with long COVID have virus in their coronary arteries. She points out that the current studies were a result of a team effort between experts in cardiovascular disease and virology and infectious disease. “We need to collaborate more like this to understand better the impact of viral infection in patients and the clinical manifestations,” she said.

Dr. Hotez says he believes these new findings will have implications for the future.

“COVID hasn’t gone away. The numbers have been going up again steadily in the U.S. in the last few months. There are still a significant number of hospitalizations,” he said.

While it would be unwieldy to ask for a cardiology consult for every COVID patient, he acknowledged, “there is probably a subset of people – possibly those of older age and who have had a severe case of COVID – who we suspect are now going to be more prone to cardiovascular disease because of having COVID.

“We should be vigilant in looking for cardiovascular disease in these patients,” Dr. Hotez said, “and perhaps be a bit more aggressive about controlling their cardiovascular risk factors.”

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

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

New evidence shows for the first time that the virus that causes COVID directly infects atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, producing a persistent inflammatory response.

The findings may not only explain the link between COVID and the increased risk of cardiovascular events but mark a starting point for new therapeutic approaches.

“Our study shows there is persistence of viral debris in the artery,” senior investigator Chiara Giannarelli, MD, associate professor of medicine and pathology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview. “There is an important inflammatory response. We can now look at ways to control this inflammation,” she said.

Dr. Giannarelli says COVID is more than a respiratory virus and that it can affect the whole body. “Our study shows a remarkable ability of the virus to hijack the immune system,” she points out. “Our findings may explain how that happens.”

Dr. Giannarelli says it’s important for doctors and patients to be aware of an increased cardiovascular risk after a SARS-CoV-2 infection and to pay extra attention to traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure and cholesterol.

“This study showing that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus directly infects coronary artery plaques, producing inflammatory substances, really joins the dots and helps our understanding on why we’re seeing so much heart disease in COVID patients,” Peter Hotez, MD, professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

Asked whether this direct infection of vascular plaques was unique to SARS-CoV-2 or whether this may also occur with other viruses, both Dr. Giannarelli and Dr. Hotez said they believe this may be a specific COVID effect.

“I wouldn’t say it is likely that other viruses infect coronary arteries in this way, but I suppose it is possible,” Dr. Giannarelli said.

Dr. Hotez pointed out that other viruses can cause inflammation in the heart, such as myocarditis. “But I can’t think of another virus that stimulates the sequence of events in coronary artery inflammation like we’re seeing here.”

Dr. Giannarelli noted that influenza is also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, but there has been no evidence to date that it directly affects coronary arteries.

Dr. Hotez added that the increased risk of cardiovascular events with influenza has also been reported to be prolonged after the acute infection. “These new findings with SARS-CoV-2 could stimulate a redoubling of efforts to look at this possibility with influenza,” he suggested.
 

Heart disease after COVID

In a recent article published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research, Dr. Giannarelli and colleagues analyzed human autopsy tissue samples from coronary arterial walls of patients who had died from COVID in the early stages of the pandemic in New York.

They found an accumulation of viral RNA in atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, which was particularly concentrated in lipid-rich macrophage foam cells present within the plaques.

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature,” the researchers report.

The virus preferentially replicates in foam cells, in comparison with other macrophages, they add, suggesting that these cells might act as a reservoir of viral debris in atherosclerotic plaque.

“We have shown that the virus is targeting lipid-rich macrophages in atherosclerotic lesions. This is the first time this has been shown, and we think this is a very important finding,” Dr. Giannarelli said in an interview.

“We also found that the virus persists in these foam cells that could be responsible for long-term, low-grade inflammation in the vasculature that could contribute to the long-term cardiovascular manifestations in patients who have recovered from COVID,” she said.
 

Viral reservoirs

Macrophages residing in vascular tissue can undergo self-renewal and can remain in the tissue for many years, the investigators point out. They suggest that these macrophages may act as viral reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in atherosclerotic plaques.

Using an ex vivo model, the researchers also found that atherosclerotic tissue could be directly infected by the virus. And just as was seen in cultured macrophages and foam cells, infection of vascular tissue triggered an inflammatory response. That response induced the secretion of key proatherogenic cytokines, such as interleukin-6 and interleukin-1 beta, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and in an increased risk of cardiovascular events.

“Considering that plaque inflammation promotes disease progression and contributes to plaque rupture, our results provide a molecular basis for how infection of coronary lesions can contribute to the acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19, such as myocardial infarction,” the researchers report.

Another interesting finding was a higher accumulation of viral RNA in the coronary vasculature of the three patients with acute ischemic cardiovascular manifestations, which they say adds to evidence that infection may increase cardiovascular risk.

Dr. Giannarelli points out that the patients in their study died in New York early in the pandemic, before vaccines were available. “They were unvaccinated and likely had little immunity against initial viral strains.”

Dr. Hotez says that when COVID-19 first emerged, many in the medical and scientific communities thought it would closely resemble the original SARS viral infection, which was primarily a respiratory pathogen.

“But it became pretty clear early on this virus was causing a lot of cardiovascular and thromboembolic disease,” he says. “This study provides an insight into the mechanisms involved here.”
 

Affecting more than lungs

Dr. Hotez pointed out that a recent study reported a 5% increase in cardiovascular deaths during the years 2020-2022, compared with before the pandemic.

“Those peaks of cardiovascular deaths corresponded with specific waves of COVID – the first happening at the time of the initial wave with the original virus and second during the Delta wave. So, there’s no question that this virus is contributing to excess cardiovascular mortality, and this paper appears to explain the mechanism.”

Dr. Hotez pointed out that the new findings suggest the cardiovascular risk may be prolonged well after the acute infection resolves.

“In long COVID, a lot of people focus on the neurological effects – brain fog and depression. But cardiac insufficiency and other cardiovascular events can also be considered another element of long COVID,” he said.

Dr. Giannarelli says her group is now studying whether patients with long COVID have virus in their coronary arteries. She points out that the current studies were a result of a team effort between experts in cardiovascular disease and virology and infectious disease. “We need to collaborate more like this to understand better the impact of viral infection in patients and the clinical manifestations,” she said.

Dr. Hotez says he believes these new findings will have implications for the future.

“COVID hasn’t gone away. The numbers have been going up again steadily in the U.S. in the last few months. There are still a significant number of hospitalizations,” he said.

While it would be unwieldy to ask for a cardiology consult for every COVID patient, he acknowledged, “there is probably a subset of people – possibly those of older age and who have had a severe case of COVID – who we suspect are now going to be more prone to cardiovascular disease because of having COVID.

“We should be vigilant in looking for cardiovascular disease in these patients,” Dr. Hotez said, “and perhaps be a bit more aggressive about controlling their cardiovascular risk factors.”

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

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

New evidence shows for the first time that the virus that causes COVID directly infects atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, producing a persistent inflammatory response.

The findings may not only explain the link between COVID and the increased risk of cardiovascular events but mark a starting point for new therapeutic approaches.

“Our study shows there is persistence of viral debris in the artery,” senior investigator Chiara Giannarelli, MD, associate professor of medicine and pathology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview. “There is an important inflammatory response. We can now look at ways to control this inflammation,” she said.

Dr. Giannarelli says COVID is more than a respiratory virus and that it can affect the whole body. “Our study shows a remarkable ability of the virus to hijack the immune system,” she points out. “Our findings may explain how that happens.”

Dr. Giannarelli says it’s important for doctors and patients to be aware of an increased cardiovascular risk after a SARS-CoV-2 infection and to pay extra attention to traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure and cholesterol.

“This study showing that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus directly infects coronary artery plaques, producing inflammatory substances, really joins the dots and helps our understanding on why we’re seeing so much heart disease in COVID patients,” Peter Hotez, MD, professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

Asked whether this direct infection of vascular plaques was unique to SARS-CoV-2 or whether this may also occur with other viruses, both Dr. Giannarelli and Dr. Hotez said they believe this may be a specific COVID effect.

“I wouldn’t say it is likely that other viruses infect coronary arteries in this way, but I suppose it is possible,” Dr. Giannarelli said.

Dr. Hotez pointed out that other viruses can cause inflammation in the heart, such as myocarditis. “But I can’t think of another virus that stimulates the sequence of events in coronary artery inflammation like we’re seeing here.”

Dr. Giannarelli noted that influenza is also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, but there has been no evidence to date that it directly affects coronary arteries.

Dr. Hotez added that the increased risk of cardiovascular events with influenza has also been reported to be prolonged after the acute infection. “These new findings with SARS-CoV-2 could stimulate a redoubling of efforts to look at this possibility with influenza,” he suggested.
 

Heart disease after COVID

In a recent article published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research, Dr. Giannarelli and colleagues analyzed human autopsy tissue samples from coronary arterial walls of patients who had died from COVID in the early stages of the pandemic in New York.

They found an accumulation of viral RNA in atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, which was particularly concentrated in lipid-rich macrophage foam cells present within the plaques.

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature,” the researchers report.

The virus preferentially replicates in foam cells, in comparison with other macrophages, they add, suggesting that these cells might act as a reservoir of viral debris in atherosclerotic plaque.

“We have shown that the virus is targeting lipid-rich macrophages in atherosclerotic lesions. This is the first time this has been shown, and we think this is a very important finding,” Dr. Giannarelli said in an interview.

“We also found that the virus persists in these foam cells that could be responsible for long-term, low-grade inflammation in the vasculature that could contribute to the long-term cardiovascular manifestations in patients who have recovered from COVID,” she said.
 

Viral reservoirs

Macrophages residing in vascular tissue can undergo self-renewal and can remain in the tissue for many years, the investigators point out. They suggest that these macrophages may act as viral reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in atherosclerotic plaques.

Using an ex vivo model, the researchers also found that atherosclerotic tissue could be directly infected by the virus. And just as was seen in cultured macrophages and foam cells, infection of vascular tissue triggered an inflammatory response. That response induced the secretion of key proatherogenic cytokines, such as interleukin-6 and interleukin-1 beta, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and in an increased risk of cardiovascular events.

“Considering that plaque inflammation promotes disease progression and contributes to plaque rupture, our results provide a molecular basis for how infection of coronary lesions can contribute to the acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19, such as myocardial infarction,” the researchers report.

Another interesting finding was a higher accumulation of viral RNA in the coronary vasculature of the three patients with acute ischemic cardiovascular manifestations, which they say adds to evidence that infection may increase cardiovascular risk.

Dr. Giannarelli points out that the patients in their study died in New York early in the pandemic, before vaccines were available. “They were unvaccinated and likely had little immunity against initial viral strains.”

Dr. Hotez says that when COVID-19 first emerged, many in the medical and scientific communities thought it would closely resemble the original SARS viral infection, which was primarily a respiratory pathogen.

“But it became pretty clear early on this virus was causing a lot of cardiovascular and thromboembolic disease,” he says. “This study provides an insight into the mechanisms involved here.”
 

Affecting more than lungs

Dr. Hotez pointed out that a recent study reported a 5% increase in cardiovascular deaths during the years 2020-2022, compared with before the pandemic.

“Those peaks of cardiovascular deaths corresponded with specific waves of COVID – the first happening at the time of the initial wave with the original virus and second during the Delta wave. So, there’s no question that this virus is contributing to excess cardiovascular mortality, and this paper appears to explain the mechanism.”

Dr. Hotez pointed out that the new findings suggest the cardiovascular risk may be prolonged well after the acute infection resolves.

“In long COVID, a lot of people focus on the neurological effects – brain fog and depression. But cardiac insufficiency and other cardiovascular events can also be considered another element of long COVID,” he said.

Dr. Giannarelli says her group is now studying whether patients with long COVID have virus in their coronary arteries. She points out that the current studies were a result of a team effort between experts in cardiovascular disease and virology and infectious disease. “We need to collaborate more like this to understand better the impact of viral infection in patients and the clinical manifestations,” she said.

Dr. Hotez says he believes these new findings will have implications for the future.

“COVID hasn’t gone away. The numbers have been going up again steadily in the U.S. in the last few months. There are still a significant number of hospitalizations,” he said.

While it would be unwieldy to ask for a cardiology consult for every COVID patient, he acknowledged, “there is probably a subset of people – possibly those of older age and who have had a severe case of COVID – who we suspect are now going to be more prone to cardiovascular disease because of having COVID.

“We should be vigilant in looking for cardiovascular disease in these patients,” Dr. Hotez said, “and perhaps be a bit more aggressive about controlling their cardiovascular risk factors.”

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

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

TOPLINE:

Half of kids with COVID-19 become noninfectious 3 days after testing positive, whether they were vaccinated or not, according to a new study. The findings indicate that return-to-school policies for infected children may not need to differ on the basis of vaccine or booster status.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study looked at 76 children, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, aged 7-18 years who had tested positive for COVID-19. 
• Researchers performed nasal swabs every other day for 10 days, sending the swab to a lab to be tested for cytopathic effect (CPE), or cell death, an indicator of infectivity.
• They took pictures of the lab cultures to look for signs of CPE starting at 6 days after the test, which corresponds to the 2nd day after testing positive.
• If CPE characteristics were present in at least 30% of images, children were considered infectious.

TAKEAWAY:

• By day 3, half of study participants were noninfectious, independent of whether they had been vaccinated.
• By day 5, less than 25% of children were infectious, regardless of vaccination status.
• Among vaccinated children, the duration of infectivity was similar for children who received a booster and for those who had not.
• The authors state that these results are consistent with those of a study in adults with the Omicron variant, which found no association between vaccination status and infectivity duration.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that current policies requiring isolation for 5 days after a positive test might be appropriate, as the majority of children were not infectious by day 5. Additionally, return-to-school policies may not need to discriminate by vaccine or booster status,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Neeraj Sood, PhD, of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size was small, and the authors identified the potential for nonresponse bias. The research did not include data from children who didn’t receive a test. CPE is the standard for estimating infectivity, but it can still carry inaccuracies.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures. The study was funded by RF Catalytic Capital.

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

TOPLINE:

Half of kids with COVID-19 become noninfectious 3 days after testing positive, whether they were vaccinated or not, according to a new study. The findings indicate that return-to-school policies for infected children may not need to differ on the basis of vaccine or booster status.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study looked at 76 children, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, aged 7-18 years who had tested positive for COVID-19. 
• Researchers performed nasal swabs every other day for 10 days, sending the swab to a lab to be tested for cytopathic effect (CPE), or cell death, an indicator of infectivity.
• They took pictures of the lab cultures to look for signs of CPE starting at 6 days after the test, which corresponds to the 2nd day after testing positive.
• If CPE characteristics were present in at least 30% of images, children were considered infectious.

TAKEAWAY:

• By day 3, half of study participants were noninfectious, independent of whether they had been vaccinated.
• By day 5, less than 25% of children were infectious, regardless of vaccination status.
• Among vaccinated children, the duration of infectivity was similar for children who received a booster and for those who had not.
• The authors state that these results are consistent with those of a study in adults with the Omicron variant, which found no association between vaccination status and infectivity duration.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that current policies requiring isolation for 5 days after a positive test might be appropriate, as the majority of children were not infectious by day 5. Additionally, return-to-school policies may not need to discriminate by vaccine or booster status,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Neeraj Sood, PhD, of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size was small, and the authors identified the potential for nonresponse bias. The research did not include data from children who didn’t receive a test. CPE is the standard for estimating infectivity, but it can still carry inaccuracies.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures. The study was funded by RF Catalytic Capital.

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

TOPLINE:

Half of kids with COVID-19 become noninfectious 3 days after testing positive, whether they were vaccinated or not, according to a new study. The findings indicate that return-to-school policies for infected children may not need to differ on the basis of vaccine or booster status.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study looked at 76 children, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, aged 7-18 years who had tested positive for COVID-19. 
• Researchers performed nasal swabs every other day for 10 days, sending the swab to a lab to be tested for cytopathic effect (CPE), or cell death, an indicator of infectivity.
• They took pictures of the lab cultures to look for signs of CPE starting at 6 days after the test, which corresponds to the 2nd day after testing positive.
• If CPE characteristics were present in at least 30% of images, children were considered infectious.

TAKEAWAY:

• By day 3, half of study participants were noninfectious, independent of whether they had been vaccinated.
• By day 5, less than 25% of children were infectious, regardless of vaccination status.
• Among vaccinated children, the duration of infectivity was similar for children who received a booster and for those who had not.
• The authors state that these results are consistent with those of a study in adults with the Omicron variant, which found no association between vaccination status and infectivity duration.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that current policies requiring isolation for 5 days after a positive test might be appropriate, as the majority of children were not infectious by day 5. Additionally, return-to-school policies may not need to discriminate by vaccine or booster status,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Neeraj Sood, PhD, of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size was small, and the authors identified the potential for nonresponse bias. The research did not include data from children who didn’t receive a test. CPE is the standard for estimating infectivity, but it can still carry inaccuracies.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures. The study was funded by RF Catalytic Capital.

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

Alexandra Kharazi, MD, a California-based cardiothoracic surgeon, previously worked as an employed physician and is now in private practice. Though she appreciates that there are some trade-offs to working with her small group of three surgeons, Dr. Kharazi has no qualms about her choice.

“For me, it’s an issue of autonomy,” she said. “While I have to work a lot of hours, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule. I also don’t have to follow specific policies and rules.”

In contrast, Cassandra Boduch, MD, an employed psychiatrist with PsychPlus in Houston, is very satisfied with working as an employee. “I looked into private practice, but no one really prepares you for the complications that come with it,” she said. “There’s a lot more that goes into it than people realize.”

By hanging up her own shingle, Dr. Kharazi may be living a rapidly shrinking dream. According to the American Medical Association, between 2012 and 2022, the share of physicians working in private practice fell from 60% to 47%. The share of physicians working in hospitals as direct employees or contractors increased from about 6% to about 10% during the same time period.

Many factors contribute to these shifting trends, a major factor being economic stress stemming from payment cuts in Medicare. Add in rising practice costs and administrative burdens, and more doctors than ever are seeking employment, according to the AMA.

Though the traditional dream of owning your own practice may be slipping away, are employed physicians less happy than are their self-employed peers? By many measures, the answer is no.

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report 2023, doctors weighed in on the pros and cons of their jobs.

When asked what they like most about their jobs, employed physician respondents reported “not having to run a business” as their number-one benefit, followed closely by a stable income. The fact that employers pay for malpractice insurance ranked third, followed by work-life balance.

“We get no business classes in medical school or residency,” said one employed physician. “Having a good salary feels good,” said another. Yet another respondent chimed in: “Running a practice as a small business has become undoable over the past 10-12 years.”

And 50% of employed physicians said that they were “very satisfied/satisfied” with their degree of autonomy.

Still, employed physicians also had plenty to say about the downsides of their jobs.

Many pointed to “feeling like a cog in the machine,” and one doctor pointed to the hassle of dealing with bureaucracy. Others complained about the fact that nonphysicians ran the business and lacked an understanding of what physicians really need from their jobs. When asked whether administrative rules made sense, 63% of physician respondents said that yes, the rules make sense for the business; but, only 52% said that the rules make sense for the doctors themselves.

Other complaints included the requirement to reach high productivity targets and too low an income potential. In the 9 years since Medscape’s 2104 Employed Physicians Report, the share of employed doctors paid on a straight salary has declined from 46% to 31%. Those compensated on a base salary plus productivity targets and other performance metrics rose from 13% in 2014 to 32% now.

“Many doctors go into private practice because of the freedom it brings and the potential financial incentives,” added Dr. Boduch. “I know that many doctors have a dream of working for themselves, and in many cases, that works out great for them.”

Dr. Boduch noted that in her job as chief medical officer at PsychPlus, she still has flexibility plus the perks of working with a bigger practice. In this scenario, Dr. Boduch said, the company can negotiate with insurance companies, allowing her the financial rewards of private practice.
 

What’s right for you?

“I think it might be somewhat generational,” said Cody Futch, senior recruiting executive at AMN Healthcare. “It used to be that fewer hospitals offered employment, so private practice was the way to go. Now, there are fewer privates because hospitals and corporations are buying them up.”

This reality has potentially shaped the way younger generations approach their workplace. Also, Gen Z tends to have less intention to stay with a current employer for the long term than did their parents. “Older physicians were trained to expect they’d run their own business and build it over the years,” said Mr. Futch. “The younger generations look at it as a job, something they may want to switch in a few years. It’s a combination of candidates wanting more options, and also the fact that there are more options to be employed.”

Along those lines, younger generations in general tend to place work-life balance as a higher priority than do older generations, and employed physicians place this equation high on the list as well. In the Employed Physicians Report 2023, 54% said that they are satisfied or better with their work-life balance, up from 51% in the 2022 report.

With that in mind, Dr. Kharazi noted that flexibility is one of the chief reasons why she likes private practice. “If my kid has an event I want to attend, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule,” she said.

Satisfaction as an employee vs. employed doctor sometimes changes based on the type of medicine you practice too. With specialties that tend to be primarily outpatient, such as dermatology and allergy, private practice may be the best option regardless. “Hospitals don’t seek out those specialists as much and the specialists can operate successfully without a hospital,” said Mr. Futch.

Hospitals try to incentivize doctors with perks like hefty sign-on bonuses, student loan forgiveness, plenty of vacation time, and more. They also put money into marketing their doctors, a time-consuming and expensive aspect that is tough to shoulder in private practice, especially in the early years. Mr. Futch adds that many doctors view employment as a more stable option. “As the government changes reimbursement policies, the income from private practice fluctuates,” he said. “So many doctors worry that if they buy into a private practice, it is a risky endeavor.”

Hospitals aren’t always a sure bet in that regard, either: They go through tough financial times, lay off staff, or make salary cuts. Historically, however, employment tends to be the safer route, which can make it an attractive option.

Ultimately, the pros and cons of each scenario are individual. It’s up to physicians to do their own math and balance sheet before making a decision.

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

Alexandra Kharazi, MD, a California-based cardiothoracic surgeon, previously worked as an employed physician and is now in private practice. Though she appreciates that there are some trade-offs to working with her small group of three surgeons, Dr. Kharazi has no qualms about her choice.

“For me, it’s an issue of autonomy,” she said. “While I have to work a lot of hours, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule. I also don’t have to follow specific policies and rules.”

In contrast, Cassandra Boduch, MD, an employed psychiatrist with PsychPlus in Houston, is very satisfied with working as an employee. “I looked into private practice, but no one really prepares you for the complications that come with it,” she said. “There’s a lot more that goes into it than people realize.”

By hanging up her own shingle, Dr. Kharazi may be living a rapidly shrinking dream. According to the American Medical Association, between 2012 and 2022, the share of physicians working in private practice fell from 60% to 47%. The share of physicians working in hospitals as direct employees or contractors increased from about 6% to about 10% during the same time period.

Many factors contribute to these shifting trends, a major factor being economic stress stemming from payment cuts in Medicare. Add in rising practice costs and administrative burdens, and more doctors than ever are seeking employment, according to the AMA.

Though the traditional dream of owning your own practice may be slipping away, are employed physicians less happy than are their self-employed peers? By many measures, the answer is no.

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report 2023, doctors weighed in on the pros and cons of their jobs.

When asked what they like most about their jobs, employed physician respondents reported “not having to run a business” as their number-one benefit, followed closely by a stable income. The fact that employers pay for malpractice insurance ranked third, followed by work-life balance.

“We get no business classes in medical school or residency,” said one employed physician. “Having a good salary feels good,” said another. Yet another respondent chimed in: “Running a practice as a small business has become undoable over the past 10-12 years.”

And 50% of employed physicians said that they were “very satisfied/satisfied” with their degree of autonomy.

Still, employed physicians also had plenty to say about the downsides of their jobs.

Many pointed to “feeling like a cog in the machine,” and one doctor pointed to the hassle of dealing with bureaucracy. Others complained about the fact that nonphysicians ran the business and lacked an understanding of what physicians really need from their jobs. When asked whether administrative rules made sense, 63% of physician respondents said that yes, the rules make sense for the business; but, only 52% said that the rules make sense for the doctors themselves.

Other complaints included the requirement to reach high productivity targets and too low an income potential. In the 9 years since Medscape’s 2104 Employed Physicians Report, the share of employed doctors paid on a straight salary has declined from 46% to 31%. Those compensated on a base salary plus productivity targets and other performance metrics rose from 13% in 2014 to 32% now.

“Many doctors go into private practice because of the freedom it brings and the potential financial incentives,” added Dr. Boduch. “I know that many doctors have a dream of working for themselves, and in many cases, that works out great for them.”

Dr. Boduch noted that in her job as chief medical officer at PsychPlus, she still has flexibility plus the perks of working with a bigger practice. In this scenario, Dr. Boduch said, the company can negotiate with insurance companies, allowing her the financial rewards of private practice.
 

What’s right for you?

“I think it might be somewhat generational,” said Cody Futch, senior recruiting executive at AMN Healthcare. “It used to be that fewer hospitals offered employment, so private practice was the way to go. Now, there are fewer privates because hospitals and corporations are buying them up.”

This reality has potentially shaped the way younger generations approach their workplace. Also, Gen Z tends to have less intention to stay with a current employer for the long term than did their parents. “Older physicians were trained to expect they’d run their own business and build it over the years,” said Mr. Futch. “The younger generations look at it as a job, something they may want to switch in a few years. It’s a combination of candidates wanting more options, and also the fact that there are more options to be employed.”

Along those lines, younger generations in general tend to place work-life balance as a higher priority than do older generations, and employed physicians place this equation high on the list as well. In the Employed Physicians Report 2023, 54% said that they are satisfied or better with their work-life balance, up from 51% in the 2022 report.

With that in mind, Dr. Kharazi noted that flexibility is one of the chief reasons why she likes private practice. “If my kid has an event I want to attend, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule,” she said.

Satisfaction as an employee vs. employed doctor sometimes changes based on the type of medicine you practice too. With specialties that tend to be primarily outpatient, such as dermatology and allergy, private practice may be the best option regardless. “Hospitals don’t seek out those specialists as much and the specialists can operate successfully without a hospital,” said Mr. Futch.

Hospitals try to incentivize doctors with perks like hefty sign-on bonuses, student loan forgiveness, plenty of vacation time, and more. They also put money into marketing their doctors, a time-consuming and expensive aspect that is tough to shoulder in private practice, especially in the early years. Mr. Futch adds that many doctors view employment as a more stable option. “As the government changes reimbursement policies, the income from private practice fluctuates,” he said. “So many doctors worry that if they buy into a private practice, it is a risky endeavor.”

Hospitals aren’t always a sure bet in that regard, either: They go through tough financial times, lay off staff, or make salary cuts. Historically, however, employment tends to be the safer route, which can make it an attractive option.

Ultimately, the pros and cons of each scenario are individual. It’s up to physicians to do their own math and balance sheet before making a decision.

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

Alexandra Kharazi, MD, a California-based cardiothoracic surgeon, previously worked as an employed physician and is now in private practice. Though she appreciates that there are some trade-offs to working with her small group of three surgeons, Dr. Kharazi has no qualms about her choice.

“For me, it’s an issue of autonomy,” she said. “While I have to work a lot of hours, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule. I also don’t have to follow specific policies and rules.”

In contrast, Cassandra Boduch, MD, an employed psychiatrist with PsychPlus in Houston, is very satisfied with working as an employee. “I looked into private practice, but no one really prepares you for the complications that come with it,” she said. “There’s a lot more that goes into it than people realize.”

By hanging up her own shingle, Dr. Kharazi may be living a rapidly shrinking dream. According to the American Medical Association, between 2012 and 2022, the share of physicians working in private practice fell from 60% to 47%. The share of physicians working in hospitals as direct employees or contractors increased from about 6% to about 10% during the same time period.

Many factors contribute to these shifting trends, a major factor being economic stress stemming from payment cuts in Medicare. Add in rising practice costs and administrative burdens, and more doctors than ever are seeking employment, according to the AMA.

Though the traditional dream of owning your own practice may be slipping away, are employed physicians less happy than are their self-employed peers? By many measures, the answer is no.

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report 2023, doctors weighed in on the pros and cons of their jobs.

When asked what they like most about their jobs, employed physician respondents reported “not having to run a business” as their number-one benefit, followed closely by a stable income. The fact that employers pay for malpractice insurance ranked third, followed by work-life balance.

“We get no business classes in medical school or residency,” said one employed physician. “Having a good salary feels good,” said another. Yet another respondent chimed in: “Running a practice as a small business has become undoable over the past 10-12 years.”

And 50% of employed physicians said that they were “very satisfied/satisfied” with their degree of autonomy.

Still, employed physicians also had plenty to say about the downsides of their jobs.

Many pointed to “feeling like a cog in the machine,” and one doctor pointed to the hassle of dealing with bureaucracy. Others complained about the fact that nonphysicians ran the business and lacked an understanding of what physicians really need from their jobs. When asked whether administrative rules made sense, 63% of physician respondents said that yes, the rules make sense for the business; but, only 52% said that the rules make sense for the doctors themselves.

Other complaints included the requirement to reach high productivity targets and too low an income potential. In the 9 years since Medscape’s 2104 Employed Physicians Report, the share of employed doctors paid on a straight salary has declined from 46% to 31%. Those compensated on a base salary plus productivity targets and other performance metrics rose from 13% in 2014 to 32% now.

“Many doctors go into private practice because of the freedom it brings and the potential financial incentives,” added Dr. Boduch. “I know that many doctors have a dream of working for themselves, and in many cases, that works out great for them.”

Dr. Boduch noted that in her job as chief medical officer at PsychPlus, she still has flexibility plus the perks of working with a bigger practice. In this scenario, Dr. Boduch said, the company can negotiate with insurance companies, allowing her the financial rewards of private practice.
 

What’s right for you?

“I think it might be somewhat generational,” said Cody Futch, senior recruiting executive at AMN Healthcare. “It used to be that fewer hospitals offered employment, so private practice was the way to go. Now, there are fewer privates because hospitals and corporations are buying them up.”

This reality has potentially shaped the way younger generations approach their workplace. Also, Gen Z tends to have less intention to stay with a current employer for the long term than did their parents. “Older physicians were trained to expect they’d run their own business and build it over the years,” said Mr. Futch. “The younger generations look at it as a job, something they may want to switch in a few years. It’s a combination of candidates wanting more options, and also the fact that there are more options to be employed.”

Along those lines, younger generations in general tend to place work-life balance as a higher priority than do older generations, and employed physicians place this equation high on the list as well. In the Employed Physicians Report 2023, 54% said that they are satisfied or better with their work-life balance, up from 51% in the 2022 report.

With that in mind, Dr. Kharazi noted that flexibility is one of the chief reasons why she likes private practice. “If my kid has an event I want to attend, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule,” she said.

Satisfaction as an employee vs. employed doctor sometimes changes based on the type of medicine you practice too. With specialties that tend to be primarily outpatient, such as dermatology and allergy, private practice may be the best option regardless. “Hospitals don’t seek out those specialists as much and the specialists can operate successfully without a hospital,” said Mr. Futch.

Hospitals try to incentivize doctors with perks like hefty sign-on bonuses, student loan forgiveness, plenty of vacation time, and more. They also put money into marketing their doctors, a time-consuming and expensive aspect that is tough to shoulder in private practice, especially in the early years. Mr. Futch adds that many doctors view employment as a more stable option. “As the government changes reimbursement policies, the income from private practice fluctuates,” he said. “So many doctors worry that if they buy into a private practice, it is a risky endeavor.”

Hospitals aren’t always a sure bet in that regard, either: They go through tough financial times, lay off staff, or make salary cuts. Historically, however, employment tends to be the safer route, which can make it an attractive option.

Ultimately, the pros and cons of each scenario are individual. It’s up to physicians to do their own math and balance sheet before making a decision.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection is linked in men with increased incidence of urinary retention, urinary tract infection (UTI), and blood in the urine, a new study finds.

Authors of the study, led by Alex Qinyang Liu, of S.H. Ho Urology Centre, at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, highlighted the clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware of the significantly higher incidence of LUTS [lower urinary tract symptoms] complications with COVID-19 in this patient group and understand that these urological manifestations can occur regardless of COVID-19 severity,” the authors wrote.

Findings were published online in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

“This is the largest study demonstrating the detrimental urological effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the authors wrote. They explained that current literature has included only small case series and observational studies assessing the connection between COVID-19 and male LUTS.
 

Nearly 18,000 patients in study

Included in this study were all male patients who used the public health care system in Hong Kong who received alpha-blocker monotherapy for LUTS from 2021 to 2022. After propensity score matching, 17,986 patients were included. Half had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 8,993).

The retrospective study compared urologic outcomes, including male benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) complications, and changes in medical treatment in the two groups. They compared male patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were taking baseline alpha blocker monotherapy for LUTS with a control group who had no SARS-CoV-2 infection.

They found that, compared with controls, the SARS-CoV-2–infected group had significantly higher incidence of retention of urine (4.55% vs. 0.86%, P < .001), hematuria (1.36% vs. 0.41%, P < .001), clinical UTI (4.31% vs. 1.49%, P < .001), culture-proven bacteriuria (9.02% vs. 1.97%, P < .001), and addition of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (0.50% vs. 0.02%, P < .001).
 

Similar side effects even with asymptomatic infection

The researchers pointed out that similar incidence of retention of urine, hematuria, and addition of medication were seen even when patients had asymptomatic infection.

They added that their findings have biological plausibility because the coexpression of the proteins ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the prostate makes it a target for SARS-CoV-2, which leads to inflammation and may help explain the primary outcomes.

“Given the high infectivity and unprecedented scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, these urological symptoms and complications represent a significant clinical burden that clinicians and urologists should be aware of,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that the prevalence of BPH and LUTS rises with age and are among the most common urologic conditions affecting older men. “Incidentally, male patients of advanced age are also more significantly affected by COVID-19.”

The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

SARS-CoV-2 infection is linked in men with increased incidence of urinary retention, urinary tract infection (UTI), and blood in the urine, a new study finds.

Authors of the study, led by Alex Qinyang Liu, of S.H. Ho Urology Centre, at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, highlighted the clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware of the significantly higher incidence of LUTS [lower urinary tract symptoms] complications with COVID-19 in this patient group and understand that these urological manifestations can occur regardless of COVID-19 severity,” the authors wrote.

Findings were published online in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

“This is the largest study demonstrating the detrimental urological effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the authors wrote. They explained that current literature has included only small case series and observational studies assessing the connection between COVID-19 and male LUTS.
 

Nearly 18,000 patients in study

Included in this study were all male patients who used the public health care system in Hong Kong who received alpha-blocker monotherapy for LUTS from 2021 to 2022. After propensity score matching, 17,986 patients were included. Half had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 8,993).

The retrospective study compared urologic outcomes, including male benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) complications, and changes in medical treatment in the two groups. They compared male patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were taking baseline alpha blocker monotherapy for LUTS with a control group who had no SARS-CoV-2 infection.

They found that, compared with controls, the SARS-CoV-2–infected group had significantly higher incidence of retention of urine (4.55% vs. 0.86%, P < .001), hematuria (1.36% vs. 0.41%, P < .001), clinical UTI (4.31% vs. 1.49%, P < .001), culture-proven bacteriuria (9.02% vs. 1.97%, P < .001), and addition of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (0.50% vs. 0.02%, P < .001).
 

Similar side effects even with asymptomatic infection

The researchers pointed out that similar incidence of retention of urine, hematuria, and addition of medication were seen even when patients had asymptomatic infection.

They added that their findings have biological plausibility because the coexpression of the proteins ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the prostate makes it a target for SARS-CoV-2, which leads to inflammation and may help explain the primary outcomes.

“Given the high infectivity and unprecedented scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, these urological symptoms and complications represent a significant clinical burden that clinicians and urologists should be aware of,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that the prevalence of BPH and LUTS rises with age and are among the most common urologic conditions affecting older men. “Incidentally, male patients of advanced age are also more significantly affected by COVID-19.”

The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

SARS-CoV-2 infection is linked in men with increased incidence of urinary retention, urinary tract infection (UTI), and blood in the urine, a new study finds.

Authors of the study, led by Alex Qinyang Liu, of S.H. Ho Urology Centre, at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, highlighted the clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware of the significantly higher incidence of LUTS [lower urinary tract symptoms] complications with COVID-19 in this patient group and understand that these urological manifestations can occur regardless of COVID-19 severity,” the authors wrote.

Findings were published online in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

“This is the largest study demonstrating the detrimental urological effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the authors wrote. They explained that current literature has included only small case series and observational studies assessing the connection between COVID-19 and male LUTS.
 

Nearly 18,000 patients in study

Included in this study were all male patients who used the public health care system in Hong Kong who received alpha-blocker monotherapy for LUTS from 2021 to 2022. After propensity score matching, 17,986 patients were included. Half had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 8,993).

The retrospective study compared urologic outcomes, including male benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) complications, and changes in medical treatment in the two groups. They compared male patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were taking baseline alpha blocker monotherapy for LUTS with a control group who had no SARS-CoV-2 infection.

They found that, compared with controls, the SARS-CoV-2–infected group had significantly higher incidence of retention of urine (4.55% vs. 0.86%, P < .001), hematuria (1.36% vs. 0.41%, P < .001), clinical UTI (4.31% vs. 1.49%, P < .001), culture-proven bacteriuria (9.02% vs. 1.97%, P < .001), and addition of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (0.50% vs. 0.02%, P < .001).
 

Similar side effects even with asymptomatic infection

The researchers pointed out that similar incidence of retention of urine, hematuria, and addition of medication were seen even when patients had asymptomatic infection.

They added that their findings have biological plausibility because the coexpression of the proteins ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the prostate makes it a target for SARS-CoV-2, which leads to inflammation and may help explain the primary outcomes.

“Given the high infectivity and unprecedented scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, these urological symptoms and complications represent a significant clinical burden that clinicians and urologists should be aware of,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that the prevalence of BPH and LUTS rises with age and are among the most common urologic conditions affecting older men. “Incidentally, male patients of advanced age are also more significantly affected by COVID-19.”

The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

Artificial intelligence (AI) models are typically a year out of date and have this “charming problem of hallucinating made-up data and saying it with all the certainty of an attending on rounds,” Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told a packed audience at plenary at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Dr. Kohane, chair of the department of biomedical informatics, says the future intersection between AI and health care is “muddy.”

Echoing questions about the accuracy of new AI tools, researchers at the meeting presented the results of their new test of ChatGPT.

The AI chatbot is designed for language processing – not scientific accuracy – and does not guarantee that responses to medical queries are fully factual.

To test the accuracy of ChatGPT’s version 3.5, the researchers asked it if there are any boxed warnings on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s label for common antibiotics, and if so, what they are.

ChatGPT provided correct answers about FDA boxed warnings for only 12 of the 41 antibiotics queried – a matching rate of just 29%.

For the other 29 antibiotics, ChatGPT either “incorrectly reported that there was an FDA boxed warning when there was not, or inaccurately or incorrectly reported the boxed warning,” Rebecca Linfield, MD, infectious diseases fellow, Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.
 

Uncritical AI use risky

Nine of the 41 antibiotics included in the query have boxed warnings. And ChatGPT correctly identified all nine, but only three were the matching adverse event (33%). For the 32 antibiotics without an FDA boxed warning, ChatGPT correctly reported that 28% (9 of 32) do not have a boxed warning.

For example, ChatGPT stated that the antibiotic fidaxomicin has a boxed warning for increased risk for Clostridioides difficile, “but it is the first-line antibiotic used to treat C. difficile,” Dr. Linfield pointed out.

ChatGPT also reported that cefepime increased the risk for death in those with pneumonia and fabricated a study supporting that assertion. “However, cefepime is a first-line drug for those with hospital-acquired pneumonia,” Dr. Linfield explained.

“I can imagine a worried family member finding this through ChatGPT, and needing to have extensive reassurances from the patient’s physicians about why this antibiotic was chosen,” she said.

ChatGPT also incorrectly stated that aztreonam has a boxed warning for increased mortality.

“The risk is that both physicians and the public uncritically use ChatGPT as an easily accessible, readable source of clinically validated information, when these large language models are meant to generate fluid text, and not necessarily accurate information,” Dr. Linfield told this news organization.

Dr. Linfield said that the next step is to compare the ChatGPT 3.5 used in this analysis with ChatGPT 4, as well as with Google’s Med-PaLM 2 after it is released to the public.
 

Advancing fast

At plenary, Dr. Kohane pointed out that AI is a quick learner and improvements in tools are coming fast.

As an example, just 3 years ago, the best AI tool could score about as well as the worst student taking the medical boards, he told the audience. “Three years later, the leading large language models are scoring better than 90% of all the candidates. What’s it going to be doing next year?” he asked.

“I don’t know,” Dr. Kohane said, “but it will be better than this year.” AI will “transform health care.”

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

Artificial intelligence (AI) models are typically a year out of date and have this “charming problem of hallucinating made-up data and saying it with all the certainty of an attending on rounds,” Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told a packed audience at plenary at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Dr. Kohane, chair of the department of biomedical informatics, says the future intersection between AI and health care is “muddy.”

Echoing questions about the accuracy of new AI tools, researchers at the meeting presented the results of their new test of ChatGPT.

The AI chatbot is designed for language processing – not scientific accuracy – and does not guarantee that responses to medical queries are fully factual.

To test the accuracy of ChatGPT’s version 3.5, the researchers asked it if there are any boxed warnings on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s label for common antibiotics, and if so, what they are.

ChatGPT provided correct answers about FDA boxed warnings for only 12 of the 41 antibiotics queried – a matching rate of just 29%.

For the other 29 antibiotics, ChatGPT either “incorrectly reported that there was an FDA boxed warning when there was not, or inaccurately or incorrectly reported the boxed warning,” Rebecca Linfield, MD, infectious diseases fellow, Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.
 

Uncritical AI use risky

Nine of the 41 antibiotics included in the query have boxed warnings. And ChatGPT correctly identified all nine, but only three were the matching adverse event (33%). For the 32 antibiotics without an FDA boxed warning, ChatGPT correctly reported that 28% (9 of 32) do not have a boxed warning.

For example, ChatGPT stated that the antibiotic fidaxomicin has a boxed warning for increased risk for Clostridioides difficile, “but it is the first-line antibiotic used to treat C. difficile,” Dr. Linfield pointed out.

ChatGPT also reported that cefepime increased the risk for death in those with pneumonia and fabricated a study supporting that assertion. “However, cefepime is a first-line drug for those with hospital-acquired pneumonia,” Dr. Linfield explained.

“I can imagine a worried family member finding this through ChatGPT, and needing to have extensive reassurances from the patient’s physicians about why this antibiotic was chosen,” she said.

ChatGPT also incorrectly stated that aztreonam has a boxed warning for increased mortality.

“The risk is that both physicians and the public uncritically use ChatGPT as an easily accessible, readable source of clinically validated information, when these large language models are meant to generate fluid text, and not necessarily accurate information,” Dr. Linfield told this news organization.

Dr. Linfield said that the next step is to compare the ChatGPT 3.5 used in this analysis with ChatGPT 4, as well as with Google’s Med-PaLM 2 after it is released to the public.
 

Advancing fast

At plenary, Dr. Kohane pointed out that AI is a quick learner and improvements in tools are coming fast.

As an example, just 3 years ago, the best AI tool could score about as well as the worst student taking the medical boards, he told the audience. “Three years later, the leading large language models are scoring better than 90% of all the candidates. What’s it going to be doing next year?” he asked.

“I don’t know,” Dr. Kohane said, “but it will be better than this year.” AI will “transform health care.”

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

Artificial intelligence (AI) models are typically a year out of date and have this “charming problem of hallucinating made-up data and saying it with all the certainty of an attending on rounds,” Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told a packed audience at plenary at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Dr. Kohane, chair of the department of biomedical informatics, says the future intersection between AI and health care is “muddy.”

Echoing questions about the accuracy of new AI tools, researchers at the meeting presented the results of their new test of ChatGPT.

The AI chatbot is designed for language processing – not scientific accuracy – and does not guarantee that responses to medical queries are fully factual.

To test the accuracy of ChatGPT’s version 3.5, the researchers asked it if there are any boxed warnings on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s label for common antibiotics, and if so, what they are.

ChatGPT provided correct answers about FDA boxed warnings for only 12 of the 41 antibiotics queried – a matching rate of just 29%.

For the other 29 antibiotics, ChatGPT either “incorrectly reported that there was an FDA boxed warning when there was not, or inaccurately or incorrectly reported the boxed warning,” Rebecca Linfield, MD, infectious diseases fellow, Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.
 

Uncritical AI use risky

Nine of the 41 antibiotics included in the query have boxed warnings. And ChatGPT correctly identified all nine, but only three were the matching adverse event (33%). For the 32 antibiotics without an FDA boxed warning, ChatGPT correctly reported that 28% (9 of 32) do not have a boxed warning.

For example, ChatGPT stated that the antibiotic fidaxomicin has a boxed warning for increased risk for Clostridioides difficile, “but it is the first-line antibiotic used to treat C. difficile,” Dr. Linfield pointed out.

ChatGPT also reported that cefepime increased the risk for death in those with pneumonia and fabricated a study supporting that assertion. “However, cefepime is a first-line drug for those with hospital-acquired pneumonia,” Dr. Linfield explained.

“I can imagine a worried family member finding this through ChatGPT, and needing to have extensive reassurances from the patient’s physicians about why this antibiotic was chosen,” she said.

ChatGPT also incorrectly stated that aztreonam has a boxed warning for increased mortality.

“The risk is that both physicians and the public uncritically use ChatGPT as an easily accessible, readable source of clinically validated information, when these large language models are meant to generate fluid text, and not necessarily accurate information,” Dr. Linfield told this news organization.

Dr. Linfield said that the next step is to compare the ChatGPT 3.5 used in this analysis with ChatGPT 4, as well as with Google’s Med-PaLM 2 after it is released to the public.
 

Advancing fast

At plenary, Dr. Kohane pointed out that AI is a quick learner and improvements in tools are coming fast.

As an example, just 3 years ago, the best AI tool could score about as well as the worst student taking the medical boards, he told the audience. “Three years later, the leading large language models are scoring better than 90% of all the candidates. What’s it going to be doing next year?” he asked.

“I don’t know,” Dr. Kohane said, “but it will be better than this year.” AI will “transform health care.”

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

Personal beliefs and health care system barriers contribute to inappropriate antibiotic use by patients, report researchers presenting results at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Nonprescription antibiotic use includes accessing medication left over from a prior prescribed course, obtained from social networks, and purchased over-the-counter in other countries or illegally in stores and markets in the United States.

Overuse and misuse of antibiotics contributes to a growing threat of antimicrobial resistance, and it is tough to say how common it is, Lindsey A. Laytner, PhD, MPH, with Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out in her presentation.

“This is an understudied area. We don’t routinely collect these data, so we don’t actually know what the true prevalence is. The factors that contribute to this unsafe practice in the U.S. are also underexplored,” Dr. Laytner said.

To investigate, the researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 86 adults (median age, 49 years; 62% women) to identify patients’ motivations to use antibiotics without a prescription. All of them answered “yes” when asked in a previous survey whether they would use antibiotics without contacting a doctor, nurse, dentist, or clinic.

Dr. Laytner said several prominent themes emerged.

Nearly all interviewees reported nonprescription antibiotic use for symptoms that mostly do not warrant antibiotics. These included symptoms of COVID-19, influenza, and the common cold, as well as for pain management, allergies, and even wounds.
 

Ineffectively treating symptoms

Many felt they “knew their body, knew what they had, and knew how to treat themselves” without a health care provider, Dr. Laytner said.

They also felt the over-the-counter medicines “don’t always work and that antibiotics are like gold or this cure-all and because they are difficult to get a prescription for, they should be kept on hand,” she explained.

A variety of health care system barriers also contribute to inappropriate antibiotic use, including long wait times to schedule appointments and to see the doctor while at their appointments; high costs for clinic visits and prescriptions; and transportation issues.

Many patients opted to use nonprescription antibiotics out of “convenience,” Laytner added.

She explains that the findings could help inform community-level education efforts on inappropriate use of antibiotics and help shape policies to promote antibiotic stewardship.
 

Access to care, education

Commenting on the study, Emily Sydnor Spivak, MD, associate professor of medicine at University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said she “wasn’t totally surprised by the results, but found it very interesting how there was a theme of autonomy, or ‘I know my body,’ that seemed to drive patients to get antibiotics for relief of symptoms.”

“There is patient education that needs to happen about the role of antibiotics, how they act, and how they don’t actually provide symptom relief and have downsides and side effects,” said Dr. Spivak, who is also medical director of antimicrobial stewardship programs at University of Utah Health and VA Salt Lake City Health Care System.

“Given the lack of access to health care as a reason some patients use nonprescription antibiotics, we need to think about access to the health care system and process changes and policy changes to allow better access. Without better access or interaction with the health care system, we can’t educate patients,” Dr. Spivak said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Laytner and Dr. Spivak report no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Personal beliefs and health care system barriers contribute to inappropriate antibiotic use by patients, report researchers presenting results at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Nonprescription antibiotic use includes accessing medication left over from a prior prescribed course, obtained from social networks, and purchased over-the-counter in other countries or illegally in stores and markets in the United States.

Overuse and misuse of antibiotics contributes to a growing threat of antimicrobial resistance, and it is tough to say how common it is, Lindsey A. Laytner, PhD, MPH, with Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out in her presentation.

“This is an understudied area. We don’t routinely collect these data, so we don’t actually know what the true prevalence is. The factors that contribute to this unsafe practice in the U.S. are also underexplored,” Dr. Laytner said.

To investigate, the researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 86 adults (median age, 49 years; 62% women) to identify patients’ motivations to use antibiotics without a prescription. All of them answered “yes” when asked in a previous survey whether they would use antibiotics without contacting a doctor, nurse, dentist, or clinic.

Dr. Laytner said several prominent themes emerged.

Nearly all interviewees reported nonprescription antibiotic use for symptoms that mostly do not warrant antibiotics. These included symptoms of COVID-19, influenza, and the common cold, as well as for pain management, allergies, and even wounds.
 

Ineffectively treating symptoms

Many felt they “knew their body, knew what they had, and knew how to treat themselves” without a health care provider, Dr. Laytner said.

They also felt the over-the-counter medicines “don’t always work and that antibiotics are like gold or this cure-all and because they are difficult to get a prescription for, they should be kept on hand,” she explained.

A variety of health care system barriers also contribute to inappropriate antibiotic use, including long wait times to schedule appointments and to see the doctor while at their appointments; high costs for clinic visits and prescriptions; and transportation issues.

Many patients opted to use nonprescription antibiotics out of “convenience,” Laytner added.

She explains that the findings could help inform community-level education efforts on inappropriate use of antibiotics and help shape policies to promote antibiotic stewardship.
 

Access to care, education

Commenting on the study, Emily Sydnor Spivak, MD, associate professor of medicine at University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said she “wasn’t totally surprised by the results, but found it very interesting how there was a theme of autonomy, or ‘I know my body,’ that seemed to drive patients to get antibiotics for relief of symptoms.”

“There is patient education that needs to happen about the role of antibiotics, how they act, and how they don’t actually provide symptom relief and have downsides and side effects,” said Dr. Spivak, who is also medical director of antimicrobial stewardship programs at University of Utah Health and VA Salt Lake City Health Care System.

“Given the lack of access to health care as a reason some patients use nonprescription antibiotics, we need to think about access to the health care system and process changes and policy changes to allow better access. Without better access or interaction with the health care system, we can’t educate patients,” Dr. Spivak said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Laytner and Dr. Spivak report no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Personal beliefs and health care system barriers contribute to inappropriate antibiotic use by patients, report researchers presenting results at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Nonprescription antibiotic use includes accessing medication left over from a prior prescribed course, obtained from social networks, and purchased over-the-counter in other countries or illegally in stores and markets in the United States.

Overuse and misuse of antibiotics contributes to a growing threat of antimicrobial resistance, and it is tough to say how common it is, Lindsey A. Laytner, PhD, MPH, with Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out in her presentation.

“This is an understudied area. We don’t routinely collect these data, so we don’t actually know what the true prevalence is. The factors that contribute to this unsafe practice in the U.S. are also underexplored,” Dr. Laytner said.

To investigate, the researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 86 adults (median age, 49 years; 62% women) to identify patients’ motivations to use antibiotics without a prescription. All of them answered “yes” when asked in a previous survey whether they would use antibiotics without contacting a doctor, nurse, dentist, or clinic.

Dr. Laytner said several prominent themes emerged.

Nearly all interviewees reported nonprescription antibiotic use for symptoms that mostly do not warrant antibiotics. These included symptoms of COVID-19, influenza, and the common cold, as well as for pain management, allergies, and even wounds.
 

Ineffectively treating symptoms

Many felt they “knew their body, knew what they had, and knew how to treat themselves” without a health care provider, Dr. Laytner said.

They also felt the over-the-counter medicines “don’t always work and that antibiotics are like gold or this cure-all and because they are difficult to get a prescription for, they should be kept on hand,” she explained.

A variety of health care system barriers also contribute to inappropriate antibiotic use, including long wait times to schedule appointments and to see the doctor while at their appointments; high costs for clinic visits and prescriptions; and transportation issues.

Many patients opted to use nonprescription antibiotics out of “convenience,” Laytner added.

She explains that the findings could help inform community-level education efforts on inappropriate use of antibiotics and help shape policies to promote antibiotic stewardship.
 

Access to care, education

Commenting on the study, Emily Sydnor Spivak, MD, associate professor of medicine at University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said she “wasn’t totally surprised by the results, but found it very interesting how there was a theme of autonomy, or ‘I know my body,’ that seemed to drive patients to get antibiotics for relief of symptoms.”

“There is patient education that needs to happen about the role of antibiotics, how they act, and how they don’t actually provide symptom relief and have downsides and side effects,” said Dr. Spivak, who is also medical director of antimicrobial stewardship programs at University of Utah Health and VA Salt Lake City Health Care System.

“Given the lack of access to health care as a reason some patients use nonprescription antibiotics, we need to think about access to the health care system and process changes and policy changes to allow better access. Without better access or interaction with the health care system, we can’t educate patients,” Dr. Spivak said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Laytner and Dr. Spivak report no relevant financial disclosures.

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

The newly approved respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered during pregnancy substantially reduces the clinical and economic burden of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV, according to research presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

“With RSV maternal vaccination that is associated with clinical efficacy of 69% against severe RSV disease at 6 months, we estimated that up to 200,000 cases can be averted, and that is associated with almost $800 million in total,” presenting author Amy W. Law, PharmD, director of global value and evidence at Pfizer, pointed out during a news briefing.

“RSV is associated with a significant burden in the U.S. and this newly approved and recommended maternal RSV vaccine can have substantial impact in easing some of that burden,” Dr. Law explained.

This study is “particularly timely as we head into RSV peak season,” said briefing moderator Natasha Halasa, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The challenge, said Dr. Halasa, is that uptake of maternal vaccines and vaccines in general is “not optimal,” making increased awareness of this new maternal RSV vaccine important.
 

Strong efficacy data

Most children are infected with RSV at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis.

As reported previously by this news organization, in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. As part of the trial, a total of 7,400 women received a single dose of the vaccine in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Based on the results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine, known as Abrysvo, in August, to be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy.
 

New modeling study

Dr. Law and colleagues modeled the potential public health impact – both clinical and economic – of the maternal RSV vaccine among the population of all pregnant women and their infants born during a 12-month period in the United States. The model focused on severe RSV disease in babies that required medical attention.

According to their model, without widespread use of the maternal RSV vaccine, 48,246 hospitalizations, 144,495 emergency department encounters, and 399,313 outpatient clinic visits related to RSV are projected to occur annually among the U.S. birth cohort of 3.7 million infants younger than 12 months.

With widespread use of the vaccine, annual hospitalizations resulting from infant RSV would fall by 51%, emergency department encounters would decline by 32%, and outpatient clinic visits by 32% – corresponding to a decrease in direct medical costs of about $692 million and indirect nonmedical costs of roughly $110 million.

Dr. Law highlighted two important caveats to the data. “The protections are based on the year-round administration of the vaccine to pregnant women at 32 to 36 weeks’ gestational age, and this is also assuming 100% uptake. Of course, in reality, that most likely is not the case,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa noted that the peak age for severe RSV illness is 3 months and it’s tough to identify infants at highest risk for severe RSV.

Nearly 80% of infants with RSV who are hospitalized do not have an underlying medical condition, “so we don’t even know who those high-risk infants are. That’s why having this vaccine is so exciting,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa said it’s also important to note that infants with severe RSV typically make not just one but multiple visits to the clinic or emergency department, leading to missed days of work for the parent, not to mention the “emotional burden of having your otherwise healthy newborn or young infant in the hospital.”

In addition to Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine, the FDA in July approved AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody nirsevimab (Beyfortus) for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Law is employed by Pfizer. Dr. Halasa has received grant and research support from Merck.

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

The newly approved respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered during pregnancy substantially reduces the clinical and economic burden of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV, according to research presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

“With RSV maternal vaccination that is associated with clinical efficacy of 69% against severe RSV disease at 6 months, we estimated that up to 200,000 cases can be averted, and that is associated with almost $800 million in total,” presenting author Amy W. Law, PharmD, director of global value and evidence at Pfizer, pointed out during a news briefing.

“RSV is associated with a significant burden in the U.S. and this newly approved and recommended maternal RSV vaccine can have substantial impact in easing some of that burden,” Dr. Law explained.

This study is “particularly timely as we head into RSV peak season,” said briefing moderator Natasha Halasa, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The challenge, said Dr. Halasa, is that uptake of maternal vaccines and vaccines in general is “not optimal,” making increased awareness of this new maternal RSV vaccine important.
 

Strong efficacy data

Most children are infected with RSV at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis.

As reported previously by this news organization, in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. As part of the trial, a total of 7,400 women received a single dose of the vaccine in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Based on the results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine, known as Abrysvo, in August, to be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy.
 

New modeling study

Dr. Law and colleagues modeled the potential public health impact – both clinical and economic – of the maternal RSV vaccine among the population of all pregnant women and their infants born during a 12-month period in the United States. The model focused on severe RSV disease in babies that required medical attention.

According to their model, without widespread use of the maternal RSV vaccine, 48,246 hospitalizations, 144,495 emergency department encounters, and 399,313 outpatient clinic visits related to RSV are projected to occur annually among the U.S. birth cohort of 3.7 million infants younger than 12 months.

With widespread use of the vaccine, annual hospitalizations resulting from infant RSV would fall by 51%, emergency department encounters would decline by 32%, and outpatient clinic visits by 32% – corresponding to a decrease in direct medical costs of about $692 million and indirect nonmedical costs of roughly $110 million.

Dr. Law highlighted two important caveats to the data. “The protections are based on the year-round administration of the vaccine to pregnant women at 32 to 36 weeks’ gestational age, and this is also assuming 100% uptake. Of course, in reality, that most likely is not the case,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa noted that the peak age for severe RSV illness is 3 months and it’s tough to identify infants at highest risk for severe RSV.

Nearly 80% of infants with RSV who are hospitalized do not have an underlying medical condition, “so we don’t even know who those high-risk infants are. That’s why having this vaccine is so exciting,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa said it’s also important to note that infants with severe RSV typically make not just one but multiple visits to the clinic or emergency department, leading to missed days of work for the parent, not to mention the “emotional burden of having your otherwise healthy newborn or young infant in the hospital.”

In addition to Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine, the FDA in July approved AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody nirsevimab (Beyfortus) for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Law is employed by Pfizer. Dr. Halasa has received grant and research support from Merck.

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

The newly approved respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered during pregnancy substantially reduces the clinical and economic burden of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV, according to research presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

“With RSV maternal vaccination that is associated with clinical efficacy of 69% against severe RSV disease at 6 months, we estimated that up to 200,000 cases can be averted, and that is associated with almost $800 million in total,” presenting author Amy W. Law, PharmD, director of global value and evidence at Pfizer, pointed out during a news briefing.

“RSV is associated with a significant burden in the U.S. and this newly approved and recommended maternal RSV vaccine can have substantial impact in easing some of that burden,” Dr. Law explained.

This study is “particularly timely as we head into RSV peak season,” said briefing moderator Natasha Halasa, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The challenge, said Dr. Halasa, is that uptake of maternal vaccines and vaccines in general is “not optimal,” making increased awareness of this new maternal RSV vaccine important.
 

Strong efficacy data

Most children are infected with RSV at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis.

As reported previously by this news organization, in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. As part of the trial, a total of 7,400 women received a single dose of the vaccine in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Based on the results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine, known as Abrysvo, in August, to be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy.
 

New modeling study

Dr. Law and colleagues modeled the potential public health impact – both clinical and economic – of the maternal RSV vaccine among the population of all pregnant women and their infants born during a 12-month period in the United States. The model focused on severe RSV disease in babies that required medical attention.

According to their model, without widespread use of the maternal RSV vaccine, 48,246 hospitalizations, 144,495 emergency department encounters, and 399,313 outpatient clinic visits related to RSV are projected to occur annually among the U.S. birth cohort of 3.7 million infants younger than 12 months.

With widespread use of the vaccine, annual hospitalizations resulting from infant RSV would fall by 51%, emergency department encounters would decline by 32%, and outpatient clinic visits by 32% – corresponding to a decrease in direct medical costs of about $692 million and indirect nonmedical costs of roughly $110 million.

Dr. Law highlighted two important caveats to the data. “The protections are based on the year-round administration of the vaccine to pregnant women at 32 to 36 weeks’ gestational age, and this is also assuming 100% uptake. Of course, in reality, that most likely is not the case,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa noted that the peak age for severe RSV illness is 3 months and it’s tough to identify infants at highest risk for severe RSV.

Nearly 80% of infants with RSV who are hospitalized do not have an underlying medical condition, “so we don’t even know who those high-risk infants are. That’s why having this vaccine is so exciting,” she told the briefing.

Dr. Halasa said it’s also important to note that infants with severe RSV typically make not just one but multiple visits to the clinic or emergency department, leading to missed days of work for the parent, not to mention the “emotional burden of having your otherwise healthy newborn or young infant in the hospital.”

In addition to Pfizer’s maternal RSV vaccine, the FDA in July approved AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody nirsevimab (Beyfortus) for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season.

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Law is employed by Pfizer. Dr. Halasa has received grant and research support from Merck.

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

Wastewater monitoring can accurately gauge influenza A and B and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) at the population level, and help inform public response to common seasonal illnesses, according to new research reported at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The analysis of wastewater in Calgary (Alta.) found a “positive correlation” between positivity rates for these three viruses in wastewater and weekly laboratory-confirmed clinical cases and test positivity rates, study investigator Kristine Du, with Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, told this news organization.

Wastewater monitoring of viral activity has become an established tool for COVID-19 pandemic monitoring, providing a leading indicator to cases and hospitalizations. However, less is known about its potential for monitoring endemic respiratory viruses.

The new study shows that wastewater-based surveillance is a “robust and adaptable” tool for community-level surveillance of seasonal respiratory viruses – “one that can complement health care clinical testing because it’s independent from testing biases, and we can actually correlate our cases very well with it,” Ms. Du said during a preconference media briefing.
 

Tracking community trends

For the study, Ms. Du and colleagues assessed the occurrence of influenza A, influenza B, and RSV RNA in all three wastewater treatment plants in Calgary between March 2022 and April 2023 and its correlation with clinical disease.

They found that viral signals in Calgary’s wastewater for influenza A and B and RSV correlated significantly with weekly confirmed clinical cases in Calgary residents.

Influenza A peaked in Calgary’s wastewater between November and December 2022; influenza B peaked between February and April 2023; and RSV between November 2022 and February 2023.

“Wastewater gives us unbiased, objective, and comprehensive data. It can be used in addition to other testing for assessing the community burden that disease may have, and it is complementary to clinical testing,” Ms. Du said.

Their team, Ms. Du said, is continuing to proactively monitor wastewater for influenza and RSV, as well as other agents of “pandemic potential to make sure we know what could affect humans – and make sure everyone is aware of that.”

Commenting on the research, briefing moderator Belinda Ostrowsky, MD, MPH, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said, “Wastewater surveillance illustrates how understanding community levels of viral trends can identify hotspots, inform local public health decision-making, and prepare clinicians and hospitals for potential outreach. This topic is particularly timely as we head into the flu and RSV season.”

The study had no commercial funding. Ms. Du and Dr. Ostrowsky report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Wastewater monitoring can accurately gauge influenza A and B and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) at the population level, and help inform public response to common seasonal illnesses, according to new research reported at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The analysis of wastewater in Calgary (Alta.) found a “positive correlation” between positivity rates for these three viruses in wastewater and weekly laboratory-confirmed clinical cases and test positivity rates, study investigator Kristine Du, with Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, told this news organization.

Wastewater monitoring of viral activity has become an established tool for COVID-19 pandemic monitoring, providing a leading indicator to cases and hospitalizations. However, less is known about its potential for monitoring endemic respiratory viruses.

The new study shows that wastewater-based surveillance is a “robust and adaptable” tool for community-level surveillance of seasonal respiratory viruses – “one that can complement health care clinical testing because it’s independent from testing biases, and we can actually correlate our cases very well with it,” Ms. Du said during a preconference media briefing.
 

Tracking community trends

For the study, Ms. Du and colleagues assessed the occurrence of influenza A, influenza B, and RSV RNA in all three wastewater treatment plants in Calgary between March 2022 and April 2023 and its correlation with clinical disease.

They found that viral signals in Calgary’s wastewater for influenza A and B and RSV correlated significantly with weekly confirmed clinical cases in Calgary residents.

Influenza A peaked in Calgary’s wastewater between November and December 2022; influenza B peaked between February and April 2023; and RSV between November 2022 and February 2023.

“Wastewater gives us unbiased, objective, and comprehensive data. It can be used in addition to other testing for assessing the community burden that disease may have, and it is complementary to clinical testing,” Ms. Du said.

Their team, Ms. Du said, is continuing to proactively monitor wastewater for influenza and RSV, as well as other agents of “pandemic potential to make sure we know what could affect humans – and make sure everyone is aware of that.”

Commenting on the research, briefing moderator Belinda Ostrowsky, MD, MPH, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said, “Wastewater surveillance illustrates how understanding community levels of viral trends can identify hotspots, inform local public health decision-making, and prepare clinicians and hospitals for potential outreach. This topic is particularly timely as we head into the flu and RSV season.”

The study had no commercial funding. Ms. Du and Dr. Ostrowsky report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Wastewater monitoring can accurately gauge influenza A and B and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) at the population level, and help inform public response to common seasonal illnesses, according to new research reported at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The analysis of wastewater in Calgary (Alta.) found a “positive correlation” between positivity rates for these three viruses in wastewater and weekly laboratory-confirmed clinical cases and test positivity rates, study investigator Kristine Du, with Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, told this news organization.

Wastewater monitoring of viral activity has become an established tool for COVID-19 pandemic monitoring, providing a leading indicator to cases and hospitalizations. However, less is known about its potential for monitoring endemic respiratory viruses.

The new study shows that wastewater-based surveillance is a “robust and adaptable” tool for community-level surveillance of seasonal respiratory viruses – “one that can complement health care clinical testing because it’s independent from testing biases, and we can actually correlate our cases very well with it,” Ms. Du said during a preconference media briefing.
 

Tracking community trends

For the study, Ms. Du and colleagues assessed the occurrence of influenza A, influenza B, and RSV RNA in all three wastewater treatment plants in Calgary between March 2022 and April 2023 and its correlation with clinical disease.

They found that viral signals in Calgary’s wastewater for influenza A and B and RSV correlated significantly with weekly confirmed clinical cases in Calgary residents.

Influenza A peaked in Calgary’s wastewater between November and December 2022; influenza B peaked between February and April 2023; and RSV between November 2022 and February 2023.

“Wastewater gives us unbiased, objective, and comprehensive data. It can be used in addition to other testing for assessing the community burden that disease may have, and it is complementary to clinical testing,” Ms. Du said.

Their team, Ms. Du said, is continuing to proactively monitor wastewater for influenza and RSV, as well as other agents of “pandemic potential to make sure we know what could affect humans – and make sure everyone is aware of that.”

Commenting on the research, briefing moderator Belinda Ostrowsky, MD, MPH, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said, “Wastewater surveillance illustrates how understanding community levels of viral trends can identify hotspots, inform local public health decision-making, and prepare clinicians and hospitals for potential outreach. This topic is particularly timely as we head into the flu and RSV season.”

The study had no commercial funding. Ms. Du and Dr. Ostrowsky report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Earlier this year, CHEST released new clinical resources on sepsis and antibiotic stewardship developed by the Sepsis Resources Steering Committee with grant support from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The resources – including infographics, videos, podcasts, and research commentaries – aim to help clinicians increase their knowledge of sepsis prevention and treatment, especially when considering the use of antibiotics.

According to CHEST Past President, Steven Q. Simpson, MD, FCCP, who serves as Chair of the Sepsis Resources Steering Committee, sepsis is the number one cause of death in U.S. hospitals . It’s also the most expensive condition treated in those hospitals.

“Perhaps the single most important tool we have to fight sepsis is our array of antimicrobial therapies, including antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral agents,” Dr. Simpson said. “It is vital that we use the antibiotics we have wisely and preserve them for future use.”

He pointed to the apparent tension between the need to administer broad-spectrum antimicrobials quickly to patients with sepsis and the need to limit the use of broad-spectrum agents as much as possible. But these concepts aren’t at odds with each another, he said. They’re allies in the sepsis war.

CHEST’s new resources can help clinicians practice good antimicrobial stewardship as they balance these needs. Included in the collection is a two-part video discussion exploring conservative and aggressive approaches to antibiotic use in suspected sepsis. A series of podcasts delves into complex sepsis cases, and easy-reference infographics outline key components of an antimicrobial stewardship program, rapid diagnostics for infectious diseases in the ICU, and sepsis mimics.

Steering committee members were chosen from CHEST’s membership for their clinical expertise in sepsis, infectious diseases, and antimicrobial stewardship. The committee selected topics based on current practice and knowledge gaps where education is most needed.

Working with the CDC increases CHEST’s impact in this area. Much of the care of patients with sepsis happens before they reach the ICU. The CDC’s broad reach with general and specialty medical audiences allows CHEST to share these resources with a wide array of clinicians who practice inside and outside of the ICU.

“Cooperation with the CDC gives us an opportunity to spread CHEST’s knowledge and expertise to a much broader audience, making the CDC a powerful partner and allowing us to serve the nation and beyond in a way that we cannot do by ourselves,” Dr. Simpson said.

Access the full collection of sepsis resources at chestnet.org/topic-collections/sepsis.

Earlier this year, CHEST released new clinical resources on sepsis and antibiotic stewardship developed by the Sepsis Resources Steering Committee with grant support from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The resources – including infographics, videos, podcasts, and research commentaries – aim to help clinicians increase their knowledge of sepsis prevention and treatment, especially when considering the use of antibiotics.

According to CHEST Past President, Steven Q. Simpson, MD, FCCP, who serves as Chair of the Sepsis Resources Steering Committee, sepsis is the number one cause of death in U.S. hospitals . It’s also the most expensive condition treated in those hospitals.

“Perhaps the single most important tool we have to fight sepsis is our array of antimicrobial therapies, including antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral agents,” Dr. Simpson said. “It is vital that we use the antibiotics we have wisely and preserve them for future use.”

He pointed to the apparent tension between the need to administer broad-spectrum antimicrobials quickly to patients with sepsis and the need to limit the use of broad-spectrum agents as much as possible. But these concepts aren’t at odds with each another, he said. They’re allies in the sepsis war.

CHEST’s new resources can help clinicians practice good antimicrobial stewardship as they balance these needs. Included in the collection is a two-part video discussion exploring conservative and aggressive approaches to antibiotic use in suspected sepsis. A series of podcasts delves into complex sepsis cases, and easy-reference infographics outline key components of an antimicrobial stewardship program, rapid diagnostics for infectious diseases in the ICU, and sepsis mimics.

Steering committee members were chosen from CHEST’s membership for their clinical expertise in sepsis, infectious diseases, and antimicrobial stewardship. The committee selected topics based on current practice and knowledge gaps where education is most needed.

Working with the CDC increases CHEST’s impact in this area. Much of the care of patients with sepsis happens before they reach the ICU. The CDC’s broad reach with general and specialty medical audiences allows CHEST to share these resources with a wide array of clinicians who practice inside and outside of the ICU.

“Cooperation with the CDC gives us an opportunity to spread CHEST’s knowledge and expertise to a much broader audience, making the CDC a powerful partner and allowing us to serve the nation and beyond in a way that we cannot do by ourselves,” Dr. Simpson said.

Access the full collection of sepsis resources at chestnet.org/topic-collections/sepsis.

Earlier this year, CHEST released new clinical resources on sepsis and antibiotic stewardship developed by the Sepsis Resources Steering Committee with grant support from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The resources – including infographics, videos, podcasts, and research commentaries – aim to help clinicians increase their knowledge of sepsis prevention and treatment, especially when considering the use of antibiotics.

According to CHEST Past President, Steven Q. Simpson, MD, FCCP, who serves as Chair of the Sepsis Resources Steering Committee, sepsis is the number one cause of death in U.S. hospitals . It’s also the most expensive condition treated in those hospitals.

“Perhaps the single most important tool we have to fight sepsis is our array of antimicrobial therapies, including antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral agents,” Dr. Simpson said. “It is vital that we use the antibiotics we have wisely and preserve them for future use.”

He pointed to the apparent tension between the need to administer broad-spectrum antimicrobials quickly to patients with sepsis and the need to limit the use of broad-spectrum agents as much as possible. But these concepts aren’t at odds with each another, he said. They’re allies in the sepsis war.

CHEST’s new resources can help clinicians practice good antimicrobial stewardship as they balance these needs. Included in the collection is a two-part video discussion exploring conservative and aggressive approaches to antibiotic use in suspected sepsis. A series of podcasts delves into complex sepsis cases, and easy-reference infographics outline key components of an antimicrobial stewardship program, rapid diagnostics for infectious diseases in the ICU, and sepsis mimics.

Steering committee members were chosen from CHEST’s membership for their clinical expertise in sepsis, infectious diseases, and antimicrobial stewardship. The committee selected topics based on current practice and knowledge gaps where education is most needed.

Working with the CDC increases CHEST’s impact in this area. Much of the care of patients with sepsis happens before they reach the ICU. The CDC’s broad reach with general and specialty medical audiences allows CHEST to share these resources with a wide array of clinicians who practice inside and outside of the ICU.

“Cooperation with the CDC gives us an opportunity to spread CHEST’s knowledge and expertise to a much broader audience, making the CDC a powerful partner and allowing us to serve the nation and beyond in a way that we cannot do by ourselves,” Dr. Simpson said.

Access the full collection of sepsis resources at chestnet.org/topic-collections/sepsis.