MDedge Infectious Disease

In 2020, the rapid spread of the newly identified SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus led various global public health institutions to establish strategies to stop transmission and reduce mortality. Nonpharmacological measures – including social distancing, regular hand washing, and the use of face masks – contributed to reducing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health systems in different regions of the world. However, because of the implementation of these measures, the transmission of other infectious agents also experienced a marked reduction.

Approximately 3 years after the start of the pandemic, it is evident that SARS-COV-2 has also affected the dynamic of other infectious agents, generating phenomena ranging from an immunity gap, which favors the increase in some diseases, to the apparent disappearance of an influenza virus lineage.
 

Understanding the phenomenon

In mid-2021, doctors and researchers around the world began to share their opinions about the side effect of the strict measures implemented to contain COVID-19.

In May 2021, along with some coresearchers, Emmanuel Grimprel, MD, of the Pediatric Infectious Pathology Group in Créteil, France, wrote for Infectious Disease Now, “The transmission of some pathogens is often similar to that of SARS-CoV-2, essentially large droplets, aerosols, and direct hand contact, often with lower transmissibility. The lack of immune system stimulation due to nonpharmaceutical measures induces an ‘immune debt’ that may have negative consequences when the pandemic is under control.” According to the authors, mathematical models evaluated up to that point were already suggesting that the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza A epidemics would be more serious in subsequent years.

In July 2022, a commentary in The Lancet led by Kevin Messacar, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, grew in relevance and gave prominence to the phenomenon. In the commentary, Dr. Messacar and a group of experts explained how the decrease in exposure to endemic viruses had given rise to an immunity gap.

“The immunity gap phenomenon that has been reported in articles such as The Lancet publication is mainly due to the isolation that took place to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. Although this distancing was a good response to combat infections, or at least delay them while coronavirus research advanced, what we are now experiencing is the increase in cases of respiratory diseases caused by other agents such as respiratory syncytial virus and influenza due to lack of exposure,” as explained to this news organization by Erandeni Martínez Jiménez, biomedicine graduate and member of the Medical Virology Laboratory of the Mexican Institute of Social Security, at the Zone No. 5 General Hospital in Metepec-Atlixco, Mexico.

“This phenomenon occurs in all age groups. However, it is more evident in children and babies, since at their age, they have been exposed to fewer pathogens and, when added to isolation, makes this immunity gap more evident. Many immunologists compare this to hygiene theory in which it is explained that a ‘sterile’ environment will cause children to avoid the everyday and common pathogens required to be able to develop an adequate immune system,” added Martínez Jimenez.

“In addition, due to the isolation, the vaccination rate in children decreased, since many parents did not risk their children going out. This causes the immunity gap to grow even further as these children are not protected against common pathogens. While a mother passes antibodies to the child through the uterus via her placenta, the mother will only pass on those antibodies to which she has been exposed and as expected due to the lockdown, exposure to other pathogens has been greatly reduced.”

On the other hand, Andreu Comas, MD, PhD, MHS, of the Center for Research in Health Sciences and Biomedicine of the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí (Mexico), considered that there are other immunity gaps that are not limited to respiratory infections and that are related to the fall in vaccination coverage. “Children are going to experience several immunity gaps. In the middle of the previous 6-year term, we had a vaccination schedule coverage of around 70% for children. Now that vaccination coverage has fallen to 30%, today we have an immunity gap for measles, rubella, mumps, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, and meningeal tuberculosis. We have a significant growth or risk for other diseases.”
 

Lineage extinction

Three types of influenza viruses – A, B, and C – cause infections in humans. Although influenza A virus is the main type associated with infections during seasonal periods, as of 2020, influenza B virus was considered the causative agent of about a quarter of annual influenza cases.

During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, cocirculation of the two distinct lineages of influenza B viruses, B/Victoria/2/1987 (B/Victoria) and B/Yamagata/16/1988 (B/Yamagata), decreased significantly. According to data from the FluNet tool, which is coordinated by the World Health Organization, since March 2020 the isolation or sequencing of viruses belonging to the Yamagata lineage was not conclusively carried out.

Specialists like John Paget, PhD, from the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel) in Utrecht, have indicated that determining the extinction of the B/Yamagata lineage is critical. There is the possibility of a reintroduction of the lineage, as has occurred in the past with the reemergence of influenza A (H1N1) in 1997, which could represent a risk in subsequent years.

“In the next few years, research related to viruses such as influenza B and the impact on population immunity will be important. Let’s remember that influenza changes every year due to its characteristics, so a lack of exposure will also have an impact on the development of the disease,” said Martínez Jiménez.
 

Vaccination is essential

According to Dr. Comas, the only way to overcome the immunity gap phenomenon is through vaccination campaigns. “There is no other way to overcome the phenomenon, and how fast it is done will depend on the effort,” he said.

“In the case of COVID-19, it is not planned to vaccinate children under 5 years of age, and if we do not vaccinate children under 5 years of age, that gap will exist. In addition, this winter season will be important to know whether we are already endemic or not. It will be the key point, and it will determine if we will have a peak or not in the summer.

“In the case of the rest of the diseases, we need to correct what has been deficient in different governments, and we are going to have the resurgence of other infectious diseases that had already been forgotten. We have the example of poliomyelitis, the increase in meningeal tuberculosis, and we will have an increase in whooping cough and pertussislike syndrome. In this sense, we are going back to the point where Mexico and the world were around the ‘60s and ‘70s, and we have to be very alert to detect, isolate, and revaccinate.”

Finally, Dr. Comas called for continuing precautionary measures before the arrival of the sixth wave. “At a national level, the sixth wave of COVID-19 has already begun, and an increase in cases is expected in January. Regarding vaccines, if you are over 18 years of age and have not had any vaccine dose, you can get Abdala, however, there are no studies on this vaccine as a booster, and it is not authorized by the Mexican government for this purpose. Therefore, it is necessary to continue with measures such as the use of face masks in crowded places or with poor ventilation, and in the event of having symptoms, avoid going out and encourage ventilation at work and schools. If we do this, at least in the case of diseases that are transmitted by the respiratory route, the impact will be minimal.”

Martínez Jiménez and Dr. Comas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition.

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

In 2020, the rapid spread of the newly identified SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus led various global public health institutions to establish strategies to stop transmission and reduce mortality. Nonpharmacological measures – including social distancing, regular hand washing, and the use of face masks – contributed to reducing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health systems in different regions of the world. However, because of the implementation of these measures, the transmission of other infectious agents also experienced a marked reduction.

Approximately 3 years after the start of the pandemic, it is evident that SARS-COV-2 has also affected the dynamic of other infectious agents, generating phenomena ranging from an immunity gap, which favors the increase in some diseases, to the apparent disappearance of an influenza virus lineage.
 

Understanding the phenomenon

In mid-2021, doctors and researchers around the world began to share their opinions about the side effect of the strict measures implemented to contain COVID-19.

In May 2021, along with some coresearchers, Emmanuel Grimprel, MD, of the Pediatric Infectious Pathology Group in Créteil, France, wrote for Infectious Disease Now, “The transmission of some pathogens is often similar to that of SARS-CoV-2, essentially large droplets, aerosols, and direct hand contact, often with lower transmissibility. The lack of immune system stimulation due to nonpharmaceutical measures induces an ‘immune debt’ that may have negative consequences when the pandemic is under control.” According to the authors, mathematical models evaluated up to that point were already suggesting that the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza A epidemics would be more serious in subsequent years.

In July 2022, a commentary in The Lancet led by Kevin Messacar, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, grew in relevance and gave prominence to the phenomenon. In the commentary, Dr. Messacar and a group of experts explained how the decrease in exposure to endemic viruses had given rise to an immunity gap.

“The immunity gap phenomenon that has been reported in articles such as The Lancet publication is mainly due to the isolation that took place to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. Although this distancing was a good response to combat infections, or at least delay them while coronavirus research advanced, what we are now experiencing is the increase in cases of respiratory diseases caused by other agents such as respiratory syncytial virus and influenza due to lack of exposure,” as explained to this news organization by Erandeni Martínez Jiménez, biomedicine graduate and member of the Medical Virology Laboratory of the Mexican Institute of Social Security, at the Zone No. 5 General Hospital in Metepec-Atlixco, Mexico.

“This phenomenon occurs in all age groups. However, it is more evident in children and babies, since at their age, they have been exposed to fewer pathogens and, when added to isolation, makes this immunity gap more evident. Many immunologists compare this to hygiene theory in which it is explained that a ‘sterile’ environment will cause children to avoid the everyday and common pathogens required to be able to develop an adequate immune system,” added Martínez Jimenez.

“In addition, due to the isolation, the vaccination rate in children decreased, since many parents did not risk their children going out. This causes the immunity gap to grow even further as these children are not protected against common pathogens. While a mother passes antibodies to the child through the uterus via her placenta, the mother will only pass on those antibodies to which she has been exposed and as expected due to the lockdown, exposure to other pathogens has been greatly reduced.”

On the other hand, Andreu Comas, MD, PhD, MHS, of the Center for Research in Health Sciences and Biomedicine of the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí (Mexico), considered that there are other immunity gaps that are not limited to respiratory infections and that are related to the fall in vaccination coverage. “Children are going to experience several immunity gaps. In the middle of the previous 6-year term, we had a vaccination schedule coverage of around 70% for children. Now that vaccination coverage has fallen to 30%, today we have an immunity gap for measles, rubella, mumps, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, and meningeal tuberculosis. We have a significant growth or risk for other diseases.”
 

Lineage extinction

Three types of influenza viruses – A, B, and C – cause infections in humans. Although influenza A virus is the main type associated with infections during seasonal periods, as of 2020, influenza B virus was considered the causative agent of about a quarter of annual influenza cases.

During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, cocirculation of the two distinct lineages of influenza B viruses, B/Victoria/2/1987 (B/Victoria) and B/Yamagata/16/1988 (B/Yamagata), decreased significantly. According to data from the FluNet tool, which is coordinated by the World Health Organization, since March 2020 the isolation or sequencing of viruses belonging to the Yamagata lineage was not conclusively carried out.

Specialists like John Paget, PhD, from the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel) in Utrecht, have indicated that determining the extinction of the B/Yamagata lineage is critical. There is the possibility of a reintroduction of the lineage, as has occurred in the past with the reemergence of influenza A (H1N1) in 1997, which could represent a risk in subsequent years.

“In the next few years, research related to viruses such as influenza B and the impact on population immunity will be important. Let’s remember that influenza changes every year due to its characteristics, so a lack of exposure will also have an impact on the development of the disease,” said Martínez Jiménez.
 

Vaccination is essential

According to Dr. Comas, the only way to overcome the immunity gap phenomenon is through vaccination campaigns. “There is no other way to overcome the phenomenon, and how fast it is done will depend on the effort,” he said.

“In the case of COVID-19, it is not planned to vaccinate children under 5 years of age, and if we do not vaccinate children under 5 years of age, that gap will exist. In addition, this winter season will be important to know whether we are already endemic or not. It will be the key point, and it will determine if we will have a peak or not in the summer.

“In the case of the rest of the diseases, we need to correct what has been deficient in different governments, and we are going to have the resurgence of other infectious diseases that had already been forgotten. We have the example of poliomyelitis, the increase in meningeal tuberculosis, and we will have an increase in whooping cough and pertussislike syndrome. In this sense, we are going back to the point where Mexico and the world were around the ‘60s and ‘70s, and we have to be very alert to detect, isolate, and revaccinate.”

Finally, Dr. Comas called for continuing precautionary measures before the arrival of the sixth wave. “At a national level, the sixth wave of COVID-19 has already begun, and an increase in cases is expected in January. Regarding vaccines, if you are over 18 years of age and have not had any vaccine dose, you can get Abdala, however, there are no studies on this vaccine as a booster, and it is not authorized by the Mexican government for this purpose. Therefore, it is necessary to continue with measures such as the use of face masks in crowded places or with poor ventilation, and in the event of having symptoms, avoid going out and encourage ventilation at work and schools. If we do this, at least in the case of diseases that are transmitted by the respiratory route, the impact will be minimal.”

Martínez Jiménez and Dr. Comas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition.

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

In 2020, the rapid spread of the newly identified SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus led various global public health institutions to establish strategies to stop transmission and reduce mortality. Nonpharmacological measures – including social distancing, regular hand washing, and the use of face masks – contributed to reducing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health systems in different regions of the world. However, because of the implementation of these measures, the transmission of other infectious agents also experienced a marked reduction.

Approximately 3 years after the start of the pandemic, it is evident that SARS-COV-2 has also affected the dynamic of other infectious agents, generating phenomena ranging from an immunity gap, which favors the increase in some diseases, to the apparent disappearance of an influenza virus lineage.
 

Understanding the phenomenon

In mid-2021, doctors and researchers around the world began to share their opinions about the side effect of the strict measures implemented to contain COVID-19.

In May 2021, along with some coresearchers, Emmanuel Grimprel, MD, of the Pediatric Infectious Pathology Group in Créteil, France, wrote for Infectious Disease Now, “The transmission of some pathogens is often similar to that of SARS-CoV-2, essentially large droplets, aerosols, and direct hand contact, often with lower transmissibility. The lack of immune system stimulation due to nonpharmaceutical measures induces an ‘immune debt’ that may have negative consequences when the pandemic is under control.” According to the authors, mathematical models evaluated up to that point were already suggesting that the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza A epidemics would be more serious in subsequent years.

In July 2022, a commentary in The Lancet led by Kevin Messacar, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, grew in relevance and gave prominence to the phenomenon. In the commentary, Dr. Messacar and a group of experts explained how the decrease in exposure to endemic viruses had given rise to an immunity gap.

“The immunity gap phenomenon that has been reported in articles such as The Lancet publication is mainly due to the isolation that took place to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. Although this distancing was a good response to combat infections, or at least delay them while coronavirus research advanced, what we are now experiencing is the increase in cases of respiratory diseases caused by other agents such as respiratory syncytial virus and influenza due to lack of exposure,” as explained to this news organization by Erandeni Martínez Jiménez, biomedicine graduate and member of the Medical Virology Laboratory of the Mexican Institute of Social Security, at the Zone No. 5 General Hospital in Metepec-Atlixco, Mexico.

“This phenomenon occurs in all age groups. However, it is more evident in children and babies, since at their age, they have been exposed to fewer pathogens and, when added to isolation, makes this immunity gap more evident. Many immunologists compare this to hygiene theory in which it is explained that a ‘sterile’ environment will cause children to avoid the everyday and common pathogens required to be able to develop an adequate immune system,” added Martínez Jimenez.

“In addition, due to the isolation, the vaccination rate in children decreased, since many parents did not risk their children going out. This causes the immunity gap to grow even further as these children are not protected against common pathogens. While a mother passes antibodies to the child through the uterus via her placenta, the mother will only pass on those antibodies to which she has been exposed and as expected due to the lockdown, exposure to other pathogens has been greatly reduced.”

On the other hand, Andreu Comas, MD, PhD, MHS, of the Center for Research in Health Sciences and Biomedicine of the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí (Mexico), considered that there are other immunity gaps that are not limited to respiratory infections and that are related to the fall in vaccination coverage. “Children are going to experience several immunity gaps. In the middle of the previous 6-year term, we had a vaccination schedule coverage of around 70% for children. Now that vaccination coverage has fallen to 30%, today we have an immunity gap for measles, rubella, mumps, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, and meningeal tuberculosis. We have a significant growth or risk for other diseases.”
 

Lineage extinction

Three types of influenza viruses – A, B, and C – cause infections in humans. Although influenza A virus is the main type associated with infections during seasonal periods, as of 2020, influenza B virus was considered the causative agent of about a quarter of annual influenza cases.

During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, cocirculation of the two distinct lineages of influenza B viruses, B/Victoria/2/1987 (B/Victoria) and B/Yamagata/16/1988 (B/Yamagata), decreased significantly. According to data from the FluNet tool, which is coordinated by the World Health Organization, since March 2020 the isolation or sequencing of viruses belonging to the Yamagata lineage was not conclusively carried out.

Specialists like John Paget, PhD, from the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel) in Utrecht, have indicated that determining the extinction of the B/Yamagata lineage is critical. There is the possibility of a reintroduction of the lineage, as has occurred in the past with the reemergence of influenza A (H1N1) in 1997, which could represent a risk in subsequent years.

“In the next few years, research related to viruses such as influenza B and the impact on population immunity will be important. Let’s remember that influenza changes every year due to its characteristics, so a lack of exposure will also have an impact on the development of the disease,” said Martínez Jiménez.
 

Vaccination is essential

According to Dr. Comas, the only way to overcome the immunity gap phenomenon is through vaccination campaigns. “There is no other way to overcome the phenomenon, and how fast it is done will depend on the effort,” he said.

“In the case of COVID-19, it is not planned to vaccinate children under 5 years of age, and if we do not vaccinate children under 5 years of age, that gap will exist. In addition, this winter season will be important to know whether we are already endemic or not. It will be the key point, and it will determine if we will have a peak or not in the summer.

“In the case of the rest of the diseases, we need to correct what has been deficient in different governments, and we are going to have the resurgence of other infectious diseases that had already been forgotten. We have the example of poliomyelitis, the increase in meningeal tuberculosis, and we will have an increase in whooping cough and pertussislike syndrome. In this sense, we are going back to the point where Mexico and the world were around the ‘60s and ‘70s, and we have to be very alert to detect, isolate, and revaccinate.”

Finally, Dr. Comas called for continuing precautionary measures before the arrival of the sixth wave. “At a national level, the sixth wave of COVID-19 has already begun, and an increase in cases is expected in January. Regarding vaccines, if you are over 18 years of age and have not had any vaccine dose, you can get Abdala, however, there are no studies on this vaccine as a booster, and it is not authorized by the Mexican government for this purpose. Therefore, it is necessary to continue with measures such as the use of face masks in crowded places or with poor ventilation, and in the event of having symptoms, avoid going out and encourage ventilation at work and schools. If we do this, at least in the case of diseases that are transmitted by the respiratory route, the impact will be minimal.”

Martínez Jiménez and Dr. Comas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition.

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

PCSK9 inhibitors may best be known for their powerful LDL-lowering effects but are less appreciated as anti-inflammatory agents with potential beyond cardiovascular health.

In a small pilot trial, for example, patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received a single injection of PCSK9 inhibitor became less sick and more likely to survive than those given a placebo. Their 30-day risk of death or intubation fell significantly, as did their levels of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin 6 (IL-6).

Indeed, survival gains in the PCSK9-inhibitor group were greatest among patients with higher baseline concentrations of IL-6. Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, it suggests the drugs’ efficacy in COVID-19 tracks with intensity of inflammation, proposes a report published  in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Therefore, “PCSK9 inhibition may represent a novel therapeutic pathway in addition to currently recommended therapeutic approaches for severe COVID-19,” conclude the authors, led by Eliano P. Navarese, MD, PhD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
 

PCSK9 inhibitors as anti-inflammatories

Although the study was small and only hypothesis-generating, the fact that outcomes for actively treated patients were proportional to baseline IL-6 levels “strongly suggests that PCSK9 inhibition can directly modulate inflammation in COVID-19,” argues an editorial accompanying the report.

The study adds to “our clinical arsenal against COVID-19,” and likely sheds light on “mechanisms through which PCSK9 inhibition dually modulates lipoprotein metabolism and inflammation,” write Sascha N. Goonewardena, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Robert S. Rosenson, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The results are consistent with prior evidence that the drugs are anti-inflammatory at least partly because of their interference with inflammatory pathways triggered by PCSK9 and mediated by IL-6, as described by Dr. Navarese and colleagues.

Indeed, they write, PCSK9 inhibitors may improve COVID outcomes mostly through mechanisms unrelated to LDL-receptor expression, “including direct inhibition of PCSK9-triggered inflammation.”

If true, the authors observe, it might explain “why the positive findings of the present study have not been consistently observed in trials involving other lipid-lowering agents, such as statins.” Those drugs are well-known to decrease levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein.

In patients with stable coronary disease, in whom inflammation is typically tracked by measuring CRP, “the PCSK9 inhibitors have not been shown to have an anti-inflammatory effect,” Dr. Rosenson further explained.

But the current study’s patients with acute, severe COVID-19, a “profound inflammatory insult” with upregulation of IL-6, were “a good population” for evaluating the drugs’ potential anti-inflammatory effects, Dr. Rosenson said in an interview. The results “are quite enticing but require corroboration in a larger trial.”
 

A single injection

The IMPACT-SIRIO 5 trial entered 60 adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and elevated IL-6 at four centers in Poland. Patients with other known active infections were excluded.  

They were randomly assigned double-blind to receive a 140 mg injection of evolocumab (Repatha) or placebo. The 2 groups were similar with respect to demographics, body-mass index, time since symptom onset, and treatments for managing COVID-19 and its complications.

Rates of death or need for intubation at 30 days, the primary endpoint, were 23.3% in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and 53.3% for controls, a risk difference of 30% (95% confidence interval –53.4% to –6.6%). The median durations of oxygen therapy were significantly different at 13 days and 20 days, respectively, the report states.

Serum IL-6 levels fell further over 30 days in the PCSK9-inhibitor group (–56% vs. –21% among controls). A drop by more than 90% was seen in 60% of patients in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and in 27% of controls.

The average hospital stay was shorter for those getting the PCSK9 inhibitor, compared with placebo, 16 days versus 22 days, and their 30-day mortality was numerically lower, 16% versus 33.3%.

Patients’ baseline IL-6 levels above the median, the report states, had a lower mortality on the PCSK9 inhibitor versus placebo (risk difference –37.5%; 95% CI –68.2% to –6.70%).

A larger trial to corroborate these results would potentially enter similar patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with reproducible evidence of an ongoing cytokine storm, such as elevated levels of IL-6, who would be assigned to either a PCSK9 inhibitor or placebo, Dr. Rosenson proposed.

Although the current primary endpoint that combines mortality and intubation was “reasonable” for a small pilot trial, he said, if the researchers embark on a larger study, “they’ll want to look at those events separately.”

Dr. Navarese discloses receiving speaker and consultancy fees from Amgen, Sanofi-Regeneron, Bayer; and grants from Abbott. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Rosenson discloses receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, CRISPR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Regeneron, Ultragenyx, and Verve; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer; and owning stock in MediMergent. Dr. Goonewardena reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

PCSK9 inhibitors may best be known for their powerful LDL-lowering effects but are less appreciated as anti-inflammatory agents with potential beyond cardiovascular health.

In a small pilot trial, for example, patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received a single injection of PCSK9 inhibitor became less sick and more likely to survive than those given a placebo. Their 30-day risk of death or intubation fell significantly, as did their levels of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin 6 (IL-6).

Indeed, survival gains in the PCSK9-inhibitor group were greatest among patients with higher baseline concentrations of IL-6. Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, it suggests the drugs’ efficacy in COVID-19 tracks with intensity of inflammation, proposes a report published  in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Therefore, “PCSK9 inhibition may represent a novel therapeutic pathway in addition to currently recommended therapeutic approaches for severe COVID-19,” conclude the authors, led by Eliano P. Navarese, MD, PhD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
 

PCSK9 inhibitors as anti-inflammatories

Although the study was small and only hypothesis-generating, the fact that outcomes for actively treated patients were proportional to baseline IL-6 levels “strongly suggests that PCSK9 inhibition can directly modulate inflammation in COVID-19,” argues an editorial accompanying the report.

The study adds to “our clinical arsenal against COVID-19,” and likely sheds light on “mechanisms through which PCSK9 inhibition dually modulates lipoprotein metabolism and inflammation,” write Sascha N. Goonewardena, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Robert S. Rosenson, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The results are consistent with prior evidence that the drugs are anti-inflammatory at least partly because of their interference with inflammatory pathways triggered by PCSK9 and mediated by IL-6, as described by Dr. Navarese and colleagues.

Indeed, they write, PCSK9 inhibitors may improve COVID outcomes mostly through mechanisms unrelated to LDL-receptor expression, “including direct inhibition of PCSK9-triggered inflammation.”

If true, the authors observe, it might explain “why the positive findings of the present study have not been consistently observed in trials involving other lipid-lowering agents, such as statins.” Those drugs are well-known to decrease levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein.

In patients with stable coronary disease, in whom inflammation is typically tracked by measuring CRP, “the PCSK9 inhibitors have not been shown to have an anti-inflammatory effect,” Dr. Rosenson further explained.

But the current study’s patients with acute, severe COVID-19, a “profound inflammatory insult” with upregulation of IL-6, were “a good population” for evaluating the drugs’ potential anti-inflammatory effects, Dr. Rosenson said in an interview. The results “are quite enticing but require corroboration in a larger trial.”
 

A single injection

The IMPACT-SIRIO 5 trial entered 60 adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and elevated IL-6 at four centers in Poland. Patients with other known active infections were excluded.  

They were randomly assigned double-blind to receive a 140 mg injection of evolocumab (Repatha) or placebo. The 2 groups were similar with respect to demographics, body-mass index, time since symptom onset, and treatments for managing COVID-19 and its complications.

Rates of death or need for intubation at 30 days, the primary endpoint, were 23.3% in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and 53.3% for controls, a risk difference of 30% (95% confidence interval –53.4% to –6.6%). The median durations of oxygen therapy were significantly different at 13 days and 20 days, respectively, the report states.

Serum IL-6 levels fell further over 30 days in the PCSK9-inhibitor group (–56% vs. –21% among controls). A drop by more than 90% was seen in 60% of patients in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and in 27% of controls.

The average hospital stay was shorter for those getting the PCSK9 inhibitor, compared with placebo, 16 days versus 22 days, and their 30-day mortality was numerically lower, 16% versus 33.3%.

Patients’ baseline IL-6 levels above the median, the report states, had a lower mortality on the PCSK9 inhibitor versus placebo (risk difference –37.5%; 95% CI –68.2% to –6.70%).

A larger trial to corroborate these results would potentially enter similar patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with reproducible evidence of an ongoing cytokine storm, such as elevated levels of IL-6, who would be assigned to either a PCSK9 inhibitor or placebo, Dr. Rosenson proposed.

Although the current primary endpoint that combines mortality and intubation was “reasonable” for a small pilot trial, he said, if the researchers embark on a larger study, “they’ll want to look at those events separately.”

Dr. Navarese discloses receiving speaker and consultancy fees from Amgen, Sanofi-Regeneron, Bayer; and grants from Abbott. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Rosenson discloses receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, CRISPR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Regeneron, Ultragenyx, and Verve; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer; and owning stock in MediMergent. Dr. Goonewardena reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

PCSK9 inhibitors may best be known for their powerful LDL-lowering effects but are less appreciated as anti-inflammatory agents with potential beyond cardiovascular health.

In a small pilot trial, for example, patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received a single injection of PCSK9 inhibitor became less sick and more likely to survive than those given a placebo. Their 30-day risk of death or intubation fell significantly, as did their levels of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin 6 (IL-6).

Indeed, survival gains in the PCSK9-inhibitor group were greatest among patients with higher baseline concentrations of IL-6. Although the trial wasn’t powered for clinical outcomes, it suggests the drugs’ efficacy in COVID-19 tracks with intensity of inflammation, proposes a report published  in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Therefore, “PCSK9 inhibition may represent a novel therapeutic pathway in addition to currently recommended therapeutic approaches for severe COVID-19,” conclude the authors, led by Eliano P. Navarese, MD, PhD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
 

PCSK9 inhibitors as anti-inflammatories

Although the study was small and only hypothesis-generating, the fact that outcomes for actively treated patients were proportional to baseline IL-6 levels “strongly suggests that PCSK9 inhibition can directly modulate inflammation in COVID-19,” argues an editorial accompanying the report.

The study adds to “our clinical arsenal against COVID-19,” and likely sheds light on “mechanisms through which PCSK9 inhibition dually modulates lipoprotein metabolism and inflammation,” write Sascha N. Goonewardena, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Robert S. Rosenson, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The results are consistent with prior evidence that the drugs are anti-inflammatory at least partly because of their interference with inflammatory pathways triggered by PCSK9 and mediated by IL-6, as described by Dr. Navarese and colleagues.

Indeed, they write, PCSK9 inhibitors may improve COVID outcomes mostly through mechanisms unrelated to LDL-receptor expression, “including direct inhibition of PCSK9-triggered inflammation.”

If true, the authors observe, it might explain “why the positive findings of the present study have not been consistently observed in trials involving other lipid-lowering agents, such as statins.” Those drugs are well-known to decrease levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein.

In patients with stable coronary disease, in whom inflammation is typically tracked by measuring CRP, “the PCSK9 inhibitors have not been shown to have an anti-inflammatory effect,” Dr. Rosenson further explained.

But the current study’s patients with acute, severe COVID-19, a “profound inflammatory insult” with upregulation of IL-6, were “a good population” for evaluating the drugs’ potential anti-inflammatory effects, Dr. Rosenson said in an interview. The results “are quite enticing but require corroboration in a larger trial.”
 

A single injection

The IMPACT-SIRIO 5 trial entered 60 adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and elevated IL-6 at four centers in Poland. Patients with other known active infections were excluded.  

They were randomly assigned double-blind to receive a 140 mg injection of evolocumab (Repatha) or placebo. The 2 groups were similar with respect to demographics, body-mass index, time since symptom onset, and treatments for managing COVID-19 and its complications.

Rates of death or need for intubation at 30 days, the primary endpoint, were 23.3% in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and 53.3% for controls, a risk difference of 30% (95% confidence interval –53.4% to –6.6%). The median durations of oxygen therapy were significantly different at 13 days and 20 days, respectively, the report states.

Serum IL-6 levels fell further over 30 days in the PCSK9-inhibitor group (–56% vs. –21% among controls). A drop by more than 90% was seen in 60% of patients in the PCSK9-inhibitor group and in 27% of controls.

The average hospital stay was shorter for those getting the PCSK9 inhibitor, compared with placebo, 16 days versus 22 days, and their 30-day mortality was numerically lower, 16% versus 33.3%.

Patients’ baseline IL-6 levels above the median, the report states, had a lower mortality on the PCSK9 inhibitor versus placebo (risk difference –37.5%; 95% CI –68.2% to –6.70%).

A larger trial to corroborate these results would potentially enter similar patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with reproducible evidence of an ongoing cytokine storm, such as elevated levels of IL-6, who would be assigned to either a PCSK9 inhibitor or placebo, Dr. Rosenson proposed.

Although the current primary endpoint that combines mortality and intubation was “reasonable” for a small pilot trial, he said, if the researchers embark on a larger study, “they’ll want to look at those events separately.”

Dr. Navarese discloses receiving speaker and consultancy fees from Amgen, Sanofi-Regeneron, Bayer; and grants from Abbott. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Rosenson discloses receiving research funding to his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Amgen, Arrowhead, CRISPR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Lipigon, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Regeneron, Ultragenyx, and Verve; speaking fees from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron; and royalties from Wolters Kluwer; and owning stock in MediMergent. Dr. Goonewardena reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Doctors do not appear to be bouncing back from the pandemic’s early days – their happiness at and away from work continues to be significantly lower than before the pandemic. Physicians reported similar levels of unhappiness in 2022 too.

Fewer than half of physicians said they were currently somewhat or very happy at work, compared with 75% of physicians who said they were somewhat or very happy at work in a previous survey conducted before the pandemic, the new Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2023 shows.*

“I am not surprised that we’re less happy now,” said Amaryllis Sánchez, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician and a certified physician coach.

“I speak to physicians around the country and I hear that their workplaces are understaffed, they’re overworked and they don’t feel safe. Although we’re in a different phase of the pandemic, doctors feel that the ground beneath them is still shaky,” said Dr. Sánchez, the author of “Recapturing Joy in Medicine.”

Most doctors are seeing more patients than they can handle and are expected to do that consistently. “When you no longer have the capacity to give of yourself, that becomes a nearly impossible task,” said Dr. Sánchez.

Also, physicians in understaffed workplaces often must take on additional work such as administrative or nursing duties, said Katie Cole, DO, a board-certified psychiatrist and a physician coach.

While health systems are aware that physicians need time to rest and recharge, staffing shortages prevent doctors from taking time off because they can’t find coverage, said Dr. Cole.

“While we know that it’s important for physicians to take vacations, more than one-third of doctors still take 2 weeks or less of vacation annually,” said Dr. Cole.

Physicians also tend to have less compassion for themselves and sacrifice self-care compared to other health care workers. “When a patient dies, nurses get together, debrief, and hug each other, whereas doctors have another patient to see. The culture of medicine doesn’t support self-compassion for physicians,” said Dr. Cole.

Physicians also felt less safe at work during the pandemic because of to shortages of personal protective equipment, said Dr. Sánchez. They have also witnessed or experienced an increase in abusive behavior, violence and threats of violence.

Physicians’ personal life suffers

Doctors maintain their mental health primarily by spending time with family members and friends, according to 2022’s Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report. Yet half of doctors reported in a survey by the Physicians Foundation that they withdrew from family, friends or coworkers in 2022, said Dr. Sánchez.

“When you exceed your mental, emotional, and physical capacity at work, you have no reserve left for your personal life,” said Dr. Cole.

That may explain why only 58% of doctors reported feeling somewhat or very happy outside of work, compared with 84% who felt that way before the pandemic.

More women doctors said they deal with stronger feelings of conflict in trying to balance parenting responsibilities with a highly demanding job. Nearly one in two women physician-parents reported feeling very conflicted at work, compared with about one in four male physician-parents.

When physicians go home, they may be emotionally drained and tired mentally from making a lot of decisions at work, said Dr. Cole.

“As a woman, if you have children and a husband and you’re responsible for dinner, picking up the kids at daycare or helping them with homework, and making all these decisions when you get home, it’s overwhelming,” said Dr. Cole.
 

Prioritize your well-being

Doctors need to prioritize their own well-being, said Dr. Sánchez. “That’s not being selfish, that’s doing what’s necessary to stay well and be able to take care of patients. If doctors don’t take care of themselves, no one else will.”

Dr. Sánchez recommended that doctors regularly interact with relatives, friends, trusted colleagues, or clergy to help maintain their well-being, rather than waiting until a crisis to reach out.

A good coach, mentor, or counselor can help physicians gain enough self-awareness to handle their emotions and gain more clarity about what changes need to be made, she said.

Dr. Cole suggested that doctors figure out what makes them happy and fulfilled at work and try to spend more time on that activity. “Knowing what makes you happy and your strengths are foundational for creating a life you love.”

She urged doctors to “start thinking now about what you love about medicine and what is going right at home, and what areas you want to change. Then, start advocating for your needs.”

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

Correction, 1/26/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the findings of the survey.

Doctors do not appear to be bouncing back from the pandemic’s early days – their happiness at and away from work continues to be significantly lower than before the pandemic. Physicians reported similar levels of unhappiness in 2022 too.

Fewer than half of physicians said they were currently somewhat or very happy at work, compared with 75% of physicians who said they were somewhat or very happy at work in a previous survey conducted before the pandemic, the new Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2023 shows.*

“I am not surprised that we’re less happy now,” said Amaryllis Sánchez, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician and a certified physician coach.

“I speak to physicians around the country and I hear that their workplaces are understaffed, they’re overworked and they don’t feel safe. Although we’re in a different phase of the pandemic, doctors feel that the ground beneath them is still shaky,” said Dr. Sánchez, the author of “Recapturing Joy in Medicine.”

Most doctors are seeing more patients than they can handle and are expected to do that consistently. “When you no longer have the capacity to give of yourself, that becomes a nearly impossible task,” said Dr. Sánchez.

Also, physicians in understaffed workplaces often must take on additional work such as administrative or nursing duties, said Katie Cole, DO, a board-certified psychiatrist and a physician coach.

While health systems are aware that physicians need time to rest and recharge, staffing shortages prevent doctors from taking time off because they can’t find coverage, said Dr. Cole.

“While we know that it’s important for physicians to take vacations, more than one-third of doctors still take 2 weeks or less of vacation annually,” said Dr. Cole.

Physicians also tend to have less compassion for themselves and sacrifice self-care compared to other health care workers. “When a patient dies, nurses get together, debrief, and hug each other, whereas doctors have another patient to see. The culture of medicine doesn’t support self-compassion for physicians,” said Dr. Cole.

Physicians also felt less safe at work during the pandemic because of to shortages of personal protective equipment, said Dr. Sánchez. They have also witnessed or experienced an increase in abusive behavior, violence and threats of violence.

Physicians’ personal life suffers

Doctors maintain their mental health primarily by spending time with family members and friends, according to 2022’s Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report. Yet half of doctors reported in a survey by the Physicians Foundation that they withdrew from family, friends or coworkers in 2022, said Dr. Sánchez.

“When you exceed your mental, emotional, and physical capacity at work, you have no reserve left for your personal life,” said Dr. Cole.

That may explain why only 58% of doctors reported feeling somewhat or very happy outside of work, compared with 84% who felt that way before the pandemic.

More women doctors said they deal with stronger feelings of conflict in trying to balance parenting responsibilities with a highly demanding job. Nearly one in two women physician-parents reported feeling very conflicted at work, compared with about one in four male physician-parents.

When physicians go home, they may be emotionally drained and tired mentally from making a lot of decisions at work, said Dr. Cole.

“As a woman, if you have children and a husband and you’re responsible for dinner, picking up the kids at daycare or helping them with homework, and making all these decisions when you get home, it’s overwhelming,” said Dr. Cole.
 

Prioritize your well-being

Doctors need to prioritize their own well-being, said Dr. Sánchez. “That’s not being selfish, that’s doing what’s necessary to stay well and be able to take care of patients. If doctors don’t take care of themselves, no one else will.”

Dr. Sánchez recommended that doctors regularly interact with relatives, friends, trusted colleagues, or clergy to help maintain their well-being, rather than waiting until a crisis to reach out.

A good coach, mentor, or counselor can help physicians gain enough self-awareness to handle their emotions and gain more clarity about what changes need to be made, she said.

Dr. Cole suggested that doctors figure out what makes them happy and fulfilled at work and try to spend more time on that activity. “Knowing what makes you happy and your strengths are foundational for creating a life you love.”

She urged doctors to “start thinking now about what you love about medicine and what is going right at home, and what areas you want to change. Then, start advocating for your needs.”

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

Correction, 1/26/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the findings of the survey.

Doctors do not appear to be bouncing back from the pandemic’s early days – their happiness at and away from work continues to be significantly lower than before the pandemic. Physicians reported similar levels of unhappiness in 2022 too.

Fewer than half of physicians said they were currently somewhat or very happy at work, compared with 75% of physicians who said they were somewhat or very happy at work in a previous survey conducted before the pandemic, the new Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2023 shows.*

“I am not surprised that we’re less happy now,” said Amaryllis Sánchez, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician and a certified physician coach.

“I speak to physicians around the country and I hear that their workplaces are understaffed, they’re overworked and they don’t feel safe. Although we’re in a different phase of the pandemic, doctors feel that the ground beneath them is still shaky,” said Dr. Sánchez, the author of “Recapturing Joy in Medicine.”

Most doctors are seeing more patients than they can handle and are expected to do that consistently. “When you no longer have the capacity to give of yourself, that becomes a nearly impossible task,” said Dr. Sánchez.

Also, physicians in understaffed workplaces often must take on additional work such as administrative or nursing duties, said Katie Cole, DO, a board-certified psychiatrist and a physician coach.

While health systems are aware that physicians need time to rest and recharge, staffing shortages prevent doctors from taking time off because they can’t find coverage, said Dr. Cole.

“While we know that it’s important for physicians to take vacations, more than one-third of doctors still take 2 weeks or less of vacation annually,” said Dr. Cole.

Physicians also tend to have less compassion for themselves and sacrifice self-care compared to other health care workers. “When a patient dies, nurses get together, debrief, and hug each other, whereas doctors have another patient to see. The culture of medicine doesn’t support self-compassion for physicians,” said Dr. Cole.

Physicians also felt less safe at work during the pandemic because of to shortages of personal protective equipment, said Dr. Sánchez. They have also witnessed or experienced an increase in abusive behavior, violence and threats of violence.

Physicians’ personal life suffers

Doctors maintain their mental health primarily by spending time with family members and friends, according to 2022’s Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report. Yet half of doctors reported in a survey by the Physicians Foundation that they withdrew from family, friends or coworkers in 2022, said Dr. Sánchez.

“When you exceed your mental, emotional, and physical capacity at work, you have no reserve left for your personal life,” said Dr. Cole.

That may explain why only 58% of doctors reported feeling somewhat or very happy outside of work, compared with 84% who felt that way before the pandemic.

More women doctors said they deal with stronger feelings of conflict in trying to balance parenting responsibilities with a highly demanding job. Nearly one in two women physician-parents reported feeling very conflicted at work, compared with about one in four male physician-parents.

When physicians go home, they may be emotionally drained and tired mentally from making a lot of decisions at work, said Dr. Cole.

“As a woman, if you have children and a husband and you’re responsible for dinner, picking up the kids at daycare or helping them with homework, and making all these decisions when you get home, it’s overwhelming,” said Dr. Cole.
 

Prioritize your well-being

Doctors need to prioritize their own well-being, said Dr. Sánchez. “That’s not being selfish, that’s doing what’s necessary to stay well and be able to take care of patients. If doctors don’t take care of themselves, no one else will.”

Dr. Sánchez recommended that doctors regularly interact with relatives, friends, trusted colleagues, or clergy to help maintain their well-being, rather than waiting until a crisis to reach out.

A good coach, mentor, or counselor can help physicians gain enough self-awareness to handle their emotions and gain more clarity about what changes need to be made, she said.

Dr. Cole suggested that doctors figure out what makes them happy and fulfilled at work and try to spend more time on that activity. “Knowing what makes you happy and your strengths are foundational for creating a life you love.”

She urged doctors to “start thinking now about what you love about medicine and what is going right at home, and what areas you want to change. Then, start advocating for your needs.”

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

Correction, 1/26/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the findings of the survey.

A West Virginia medical center is being sued by a man who claims that the hospital lied about removing his appendix, a story in the West Virginia Record reports.

On Nov. 1, 2020, Dallas Settle went to Plateau Medical Center, Oak Hill, W.Va., complaining of pain that was later described in court documents as being “in his right mid-abdomen migrating to his right lower abdomen.” Following a CT scan, Mr. Settle was diagnosed with diverticulitis resulting in pneumoperitoneum, which is the presence of air or other gas in the abdominal cavity. The patient, it was decided, required surgery to correct the problem, but Plateau Medical Center didn’t have the staff to perform the procedure.

Mr. Settle was then transferred to another West Virginia hospital, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). Here, he was evaluated by doctors in the facility’s General Division, who initiated treatment with IV fluids and opiate analgesics. He was then placed under the care of a trauma surgeon, who initially decided to treat the patient nonoperatively. If that approach failed, the surgeon believed, Mr. Settle would probably require a laparotomy, bowel resection, and ostomy.

Another surgical team performed an exploratory laparotomy the following day. The team determined that Mr. Settle was suffering from a ruptured appendicitis and allegedly performed an appendectomy. But Mr. Settle’s condition continued to deteriorate the following day.

Another CT scan followed. It revealed various problems – multiple fluid collections, an ileus, distended loops of the patient’s small bowel, a left renal cyst, subcentimeter mesenteric, and retroperitoneal adenopathy. Additional CT scans conducted 4 days later indicated other problems, including fluid collections in the patient’s right- and left-lower quadrants.

Over the next few days, doctors performed further exploratory laparotomies. Finally, on Nov. 22, Mr. Settle was transferred out of the intensive care unit in preparation for his discharge the following day.

His pain continued to worsen, however, and he was readmitted to CAMC a day later. At this point, an examination revealed that his surgical incisions had become infected.

Worse news was on the horizon. On Nov. 28, the trauma surgeon who had first agreed to treat Mr. Settle informed him that, despite claims to the contrary, his appendix hadn’t been removed.

Eventually, Mr. Settle was referred to the Cleveland Clinic, where at press time he was still being treated.

Mr. Settle has hired the firm Calwell Luce diTrapano to sue CAMC, accusing it of medical malpractice, medical negligence, and other lapses in the standard of care. In his complaint, he accused the hospital and its staff of breaching their duty of care “by negligently and improperly treating him” and by failing “to exercise the degree of care, skill, and learning required and expected of reasonable health care providers.”

His suit seeks not only compensatory damages and other relief but also punitive damages.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

A West Virginia medical center is being sued by a man who claims that the hospital lied about removing his appendix, a story in the West Virginia Record reports.

On Nov. 1, 2020, Dallas Settle went to Plateau Medical Center, Oak Hill, W.Va., complaining of pain that was later described in court documents as being “in his right mid-abdomen migrating to his right lower abdomen.” Following a CT scan, Mr. Settle was diagnosed with diverticulitis resulting in pneumoperitoneum, which is the presence of air or other gas in the abdominal cavity. The patient, it was decided, required surgery to correct the problem, but Plateau Medical Center didn’t have the staff to perform the procedure.

Mr. Settle was then transferred to another West Virginia hospital, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). Here, he was evaluated by doctors in the facility’s General Division, who initiated treatment with IV fluids and opiate analgesics. He was then placed under the care of a trauma surgeon, who initially decided to treat the patient nonoperatively. If that approach failed, the surgeon believed, Mr. Settle would probably require a laparotomy, bowel resection, and ostomy.

Another surgical team performed an exploratory laparotomy the following day. The team determined that Mr. Settle was suffering from a ruptured appendicitis and allegedly performed an appendectomy. But Mr. Settle’s condition continued to deteriorate the following day.

Another CT scan followed. It revealed various problems – multiple fluid collections, an ileus, distended loops of the patient’s small bowel, a left renal cyst, subcentimeter mesenteric, and retroperitoneal adenopathy. Additional CT scans conducted 4 days later indicated other problems, including fluid collections in the patient’s right- and left-lower quadrants.

Over the next few days, doctors performed further exploratory laparotomies. Finally, on Nov. 22, Mr. Settle was transferred out of the intensive care unit in preparation for his discharge the following day.

His pain continued to worsen, however, and he was readmitted to CAMC a day later. At this point, an examination revealed that his surgical incisions had become infected.

Worse news was on the horizon. On Nov. 28, the trauma surgeon who had first agreed to treat Mr. Settle informed him that, despite claims to the contrary, his appendix hadn’t been removed.

Eventually, Mr. Settle was referred to the Cleveland Clinic, where at press time he was still being treated.

Mr. Settle has hired the firm Calwell Luce diTrapano to sue CAMC, accusing it of medical malpractice, medical negligence, and other lapses in the standard of care. In his complaint, he accused the hospital and its staff of breaching their duty of care “by negligently and improperly treating him” and by failing “to exercise the degree of care, skill, and learning required and expected of reasonable health care providers.”

His suit seeks not only compensatory damages and other relief but also punitive damages.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

A West Virginia medical center is being sued by a man who claims that the hospital lied about removing his appendix, a story in the West Virginia Record reports.

On Nov. 1, 2020, Dallas Settle went to Plateau Medical Center, Oak Hill, W.Va., complaining of pain that was later described in court documents as being “in his right mid-abdomen migrating to his right lower abdomen.” Following a CT scan, Mr. Settle was diagnosed with diverticulitis resulting in pneumoperitoneum, which is the presence of air or other gas in the abdominal cavity. The patient, it was decided, required surgery to correct the problem, but Plateau Medical Center didn’t have the staff to perform the procedure.

Mr. Settle was then transferred to another West Virginia hospital, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). Here, he was evaluated by doctors in the facility’s General Division, who initiated treatment with IV fluids and opiate analgesics. He was then placed under the care of a trauma surgeon, who initially decided to treat the patient nonoperatively. If that approach failed, the surgeon believed, Mr. Settle would probably require a laparotomy, bowel resection, and ostomy.

Another surgical team performed an exploratory laparotomy the following day. The team determined that Mr. Settle was suffering from a ruptured appendicitis and allegedly performed an appendectomy. But Mr. Settle’s condition continued to deteriorate the following day.

Another CT scan followed. It revealed various problems – multiple fluid collections, an ileus, distended loops of the patient’s small bowel, a left renal cyst, subcentimeter mesenteric, and retroperitoneal adenopathy. Additional CT scans conducted 4 days later indicated other problems, including fluid collections in the patient’s right- and left-lower quadrants.

Over the next few days, doctors performed further exploratory laparotomies. Finally, on Nov. 22, Mr. Settle was transferred out of the intensive care unit in preparation for his discharge the following day.

His pain continued to worsen, however, and he was readmitted to CAMC a day later. At this point, an examination revealed that his surgical incisions had become infected.

Worse news was on the horizon. On Nov. 28, the trauma surgeon who had first agreed to treat Mr. Settle informed him that, despite claims to the contrary, his appendix hadn’t been removed.

Eventually, Mr. Settle was referred to the Cleveland Clinic, where at press time he was still being treated.

Mr. Settle has hired the firm Calwell Luce diTrapano to sue CAMC, accusing it of medical malpractice, medical negligence, and other lapses in the standard of care. In his complaint, he accused the hospital and its staff of breaching their duty of care “by negligently and improperly treating him” and by failing “to exercise the degree of care, skill, and learning required and expected of reasonable health care providers.”

His suit seeks not only compensatory damages and other relief but also punitive damages.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

Data from a dermatology monkeypox (mpox) registry reveal that patients struck during the 2022 worldwide outbreak experienced two nontraditional findings: Skin lesions that frequently appeared before systemic illness and a much lower overall numbers of lesions.

“Just these two findings alone show how important it is to remain clinically vigilant as dermatologists,” Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. She is the corresponding author of the study, which analyzed 101 mpox cases from 13 countries and was published online on in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

NIAID

“Mpox appeared to manifest differently than in previous outbreaks with morphologic and clinical evolutions much different than previously reported in endemic and prior outbreaks,” added Dr. Freeman. “Dermatologists should continue to keep mpox on the differential as it continues to circulate at low levels in the population and is a mimicker of many other common skin diseases.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Jan. 20, 2023, there have been 30,061 cases of mpox in the United States during the outbreak that began in 2022; 23 people died. Worldwide, the number of cases neared 85,000.

In contrast to past outbreaks where patients may have had dozens or hundreds of lesions, 20% had only 1 lesion, while 52% had 2-5 lesions, and 20% had 6-20 lesions. “There may be only a few lesions, so index of suspicion needs to be high,” Dr. Freeman said.

According to the study, “the most common skin lesion morphologies and secondary characteristics reported included papules, vesicles/blisters, pustules, erosions/ulcers and crust/scabs.” Dr. Freeman cautioned that “lesions may not go through the ‘typical’ progression from papule to pustule. The initial lesion could even be an ulceration or a crust. For dermatologists, this means you need to have a high index of suspicion, especially if you see a new onset lesion in the groin or perianal area, though they can also start elsewhere.”

She added that “the lesion you see on exam could be a classic pustule/pseudopustule, but it might not be – it could be a small perianal erosion or ulceration. If you have any concern it could be mpox, it’s a good idea to test by PCR.”

 

Morbilliform rash, scarring reported

The study also highlighted 10 cases of morbilliform rash. “A morbilliform exanthem is pretty nonspecific, and usually cases of mpox have more specific features,” dermatologist and study coauthor Misha Rosenbach, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“Given the current low rates of mpox, I do not think most dermatologists need to worry about mpox when evaluating morbilliform exanthems. However, in high-risk patients or patients with other morphologies, it is worth noting that there’s a chance that this may be related.”

Emory University dermatologist Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, who wasn’t involved with the study, said in an interview that morbilliform rashes in the mouth/tongue area, mostly on days 1-5, should be considered a possible sign of mpox. “While I didn’t typically think of monkeypox virus as a cause of viral exanthems, I will now add it to my differential diagnoses.”

Data from a dermatology monkeypox (mpox) registry reveal that patients struck during the 2022 worldwide outbreak experienced two nontraditional findings: Skin lesions that frequently appeared before systemic illness and a much lower overall numbers of lesions.

“Just these two findings alone show how important it is to remain clinically vigilant as dermatologists,” Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. She is the corresponding author of the study, which analyzed 101 mpox cases from 13 countries and was published online on in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

NIAID

“Mpox appeared to manifest differently than in previous outbreaks with morphologic and clinical evolutions much different than previously reported in endemic and prior outbreaks,” added Dr. Freeman. “Dermatologists should continue to keep mpox on the differential as it continues to circulate at low levels in the population and is a mimicker of many other common skin diseases.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Jan. 20, 2023, there have been 30,061 cases of mpox in the United States during the outbreak that began in 2022; 23 people died. Worldwide, the number of cases neared 85,000.

In contrast to past outbreaks where patients may have had dozens or hundreds of lesions, 20% had only 1 lesion, while 52% had 2-5 lesions, and 20% had 6-20 lesions. “There may be only a few lesions, so index of suspicion needs to be high,” Dr. Freeman said.

According to the study, “the most common skin lesion morphologies and secondary characteristics reported included papules, vesicles/blisters, pustules, erosions/ulcers and crust/scabs.” Dr. Freeman cautioned that “lesions may not go through the ‘typical’ progression from papule to pustule. The initial lesion could even be an ulceration or a crust. For dermatologists, this means you need to have a high index of suspicion, especially if you see a new onset lesion in the groin or perianal area, though they can also start elsewhere.”

She added that “the lesion you see on exam could be a classic pustule/pseudopustule, but it might not be – it could be a small perianal erosion or ulceration. If you have any concern it could be mpox, it’s a good idea to test by PCR.”

 

Morbilliform rash, scarring reported

The study also highlighted 10 cases of morbilliform rash. “A morbilliform exanthem is pretty nonspecific, and usually cases of mpox have more specific features,” dermatologist and study coauthor Misha Rosenbach, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“Given the current low rates of mpox, I do not think most dermatologists need to worry about mpox when evaluating morbilliform exanthems. However, in high-risk patients or patients with other morphologies, it is worth noting that there’s a chance that this may be related.”

Emory University dermatologist Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, who wasn’t involved with the study, said in an interview that morbilliform rashes in the mouth/tongue area, mostly on days 1-5, should be considered a possible sign of mpox. “While I didn’t typically think of monkeypox virus as a cause of viral exanthems, I will now add it to my differential diagnoses.”

Data from a dermatology monkeypox (mpox) registry reveal that patients struck during the 2022 worldwide outbreak experienced two nontraditional findings: Skin lesions that frequently appeared before systemic illness and a much lower overall numbers of lesions.

“Just these two findings alone show how important it is to remain clinically vigilant as dermatologists,” Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. She is the corresponding author of the study, which analyzed 101 mpox cases from 13 countries and was published online on in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

NIAID

“Mpox appeared to manifest differently than in previous outbreaks with morphologic and clinical evolutions much different than previously reported in endemic and prior outbreaks,” added Dr. Freeman. “Dermatologists should continue to keep mpox on the differential as it continues to circulate at low levels in the population and is a mimicker of many other common skin diseases.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Jan. 20, 2023, there have been 30,061 cases of mpox in the United States during the outbreak that began in 2022; 23 people died. Worldwide, the number of cases neared 85,000.

In contrast to past outbreaks where patients may have had dozens or hundreds of lesions, 20% had only 1 lesion, while 52% had 2-5 lesions, and 20% had 6-20 lesions. “There may be only a few lesions, so index of suspicion needs to be high,” Dr. Freeman said.

According to the study, “the most common skin lesion morphologies and secondary characteristics reported included papules, vesicles/blisters, pustules, erosions/ulcers and crust/scabs.” Dr. Freeman cautioned that “lesions may not go through the ‘typical’ progression from papule to pustule. The initial lesion could even be an ulceration or a crust. For dermatologists, this means you need to have a high index of suspicion, especially if you see a new onset lesion in the groin or perianal area, though they can also start elsewhere.”

She added that “the lesion you see on exam could be a classic pustule/pseudopustule, but it might not be – it could be a small perianal erosion or ulceration. If you have any concern it could be mpox, it’s a good idea to test by PCR.”

 

Morbilliform rash, scarring reported

The study also highlighted 10 cases of morbilliform rash. “A morbilliform exanthem is pretty nonspecific, and usually cases of mpox have more specific features,” dermatologist and study coauthor Misha Rosenbach, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

“Given the current low rates of mpox, I do not think most dermatologists need to worry about mpox when evaluating morbilliform exanthems. However, in high-risk patients or patients with other morphologies, it is worth noting that there’s a chance that this may be related.”

Emory University dermatologist Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, who wasn’t involved with the study, said in an interview that morbilliform rashes in the mouth/tongue area, mostly on days 1-5, should be considered a possible sign of mpox. “While I didn’t typically think of monkeypox virus as a cause of viral exanthems, I will now add it to my differential diagnoses.”

“When I walk in to see a patient, I always introduce myself with, ‘Hello, my name is Cyndy, I’m the PA working with the doctor today,’ ” says Cyndy Flores, a physician assistant (PA) in the emergency department at Vituity, Emeryville, Calif. “Sometimes, I can go through a complete history and physical, explain a treatment plan, and perform a procedure, and [the patient] will say, ‘Thank you, doctor.’ ”

“I always come back and say, ‘You’re very welcome, but my name is Cyndy, and I’m the PA.’ ”

Ms. Flores is used to patients calling her “doctor” when she greets them. She typically offers a quick correction and moves on with the appointment.

With 355,000 nurse practitioners (NPs) and 149,000 certified PAs practicing in the United States, it’s more common than ever for health care providers who don’t go by the title “doctor” to diagnose and treat patients.

A recent report, Evolving Scope of Practice, found that more than 70% of physicians were “somewhat satisfied to very satisfied” with patient treatment by PAs and NPs.

But for patients, having a health care team that includes physicians, NPs, and PAs can be confusing. Additionally, it creates a need for education about their correct titles and roles in patient care.

“It’s really important for patients to understand who is taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says.
 

Education starts in your practice

Educating patients about the roles of different providers on their health care team starts long before patients enter the exam room, Ms. Flores explains.

Some patients may not understand the difference, some may just forget because they’re used to calling all providers doctors, and others may find it awkward to use a provider’s first name or not know the respectful way to address an NP or a PA.

Practices can help by listing the names and biographies of the health care team on the clinic website. In addition, when patients call for an appointment, Ms. Flores believes front desk staff can reinforce that information. When offering appointments with a physician, NP, or PA, clearly use the practitioner’s title and reiterate it throughout the conversation. For example, “Would you like to see our nurse practitioner, Alice Smith, next week?” or “So, our physician assistant Mrs. Jones will see you Friday at 3 PM.”

The report also found that 76% of patients expressed a preference to see a physician over a PA, and 71% expressed a preference to see a physician over an NP, but offering appointments with nonphysician providers is part of the education process.

“Some families are super savvy and know the differences between nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and doctors, and ... there are families who don’t understand those titles, [and] we need to explain what they do in our practice,” adds Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware. Dr. Aaronson believes there’s an opportunity for educating patients when speaking about all the available providers they may see.

Hanging posters or using brochures in the clinic or hospital is another effective way to reinforce the roles of various providers on the care team. Include biographies and educational information on practice materials and video programs running in the waiting room. 

“Patients mean it [calling everyone doctor] as a way to respectfully address the nurse practitioner or physician assistant rather than meaning it as a denigration of the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. “But everyone appreciates being called by the correct title.”

Helping patients understand the members of their care team and the correct titles to use for those health care professionals could also help patients feel more confident about their health care experience.

“Patients really like knowing that there are specialists in each of the areas taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says. “I think that conveys a feeling of trust in your provider.”
 

Not everyone is a doctor

Even when PAs and NPs remind patients of their roles and reinforce the use of their preferred names, there will still be patients who continue referring to their nonphysician provider as “doctor.”

“There’s a perception that anyone who walks into a room with a stethoscope is your doctor,” says Graig Straus, DNP, an NP and president and CEO of Rockland Urgent Care Family Health NP, P.C., West Haverstraw, N.Y. “You do get a little bit of burnout correcting people all the time.”

Dr. Straus, who earned his doctorate in nursing practice, notes that patients using the honorific with him aren’t incorrect, but he still educates them on his role within the health care team.

“NPs and PAs have a valuable role to play independently and in concert with the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. This understanding is essential, as states consider expanding treatment abilities for NPs and PAs.

NPs have expanded treatment abilities or full practice authority in almost half the states, and 31% of the physicians surveyed agreed that NPs should have expanded treatment abilities.

An estimated 1 in 5 states characterizes the physician-PA relationship as collaborative, not supervisory, according to the American Academy of Physician Associates. At the same time, only 39% of physicians surveyed said they favored this trend.

“Patients need great quality care, and there are many different types of providers that can provide that care as part of the team,” Ms. Flores says. “When you have a team taking care of a patient, that patient [gets] the best care possible – and ... that’s why we went into medicine: to deliver high-quality, compassionate care to our patients, and we should all be in this together.”

When practices do their part explaining who is and isn’t a doctor and what each provider’s title and role is and what to call them, and everyone reinforces it, health care becomes not only more manageable for patients to traverse but easier to understand, leading to a better experience.

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

“When I walk in to see a patient, I always introduce myself with, ‘Hello, my name is Cyndy, I’m the PA working with the doctor today,’ ” says Cyndy Flores, a physician assistant (PA) in the emergency department at Vituity, Emeryville, Calif. “Sometimes, I can go through a complete history and physical, explain a treatment plan, and perform a procedure, and [the patient] will say, ‘Thank you, doctor.’ ”

“I always come back and say, ‘You’re very welcome, but my name is Cyndy, and I’m the PA.’ ”

Ms. Flores is used to patients calling her “doctor” when she greets them. She typically offers a quick correction and moves on with the appointment.

With 355,000 nurse practitioners (NPs) and 149,000 certified PAs practicing in the United States, it’s more common than ever for health care providers who don’t go by the title “doctor” to diagnose and treat patients.

A recent report, Evolving Scope of Practice, found that more than 70% of physicians were “somewhat satisfied to very satisfied” with patient treatment by PAs and NPs.

But for patients, having a health care team that includes physicians, NPs, and PAs can be confusing. Additionally, it creates a need for education about their correct titles and roles in patient care.

“It’s really important for patients to understand who is taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says.
 

Education starts in your practice

Educating patients about the roles of different providers on their health care team starts long before patients enter the exam room, Ms. Flores explains.

Some patients may not understand the difference, some may just forget because they’re used to calling all providers doctors, and others may find it awkward to use a provider’s first name or not know the respectful way to address an NP or a PA.

Practices can help by listing the names and biographies of the health care team on the clinic website. In addition, when patients call for an appointment, Ms. Flores believes front desk staff can reinforce that information. When offering appointments with a physician, NP, or PA, clearly use the practitioner’s title and reiterate it throughout the conversation. For example, “Would you like to see our nurse practitioner, Alice Smith, next week?” or “So, our physician assistant Mrs. Jones will see you Friday at 3 PM.”

The report also found that 76% of patients expressed a preference to see a physician over a PA, and 71% expressed a preference to see a physician over an NP, but offering appointments with nonphysician providers is part of the education process.

“Some families are super savvy and know the differences between nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and doctors, and ... there are families who don’t understand those titles, [and] we need to explain what they do in our practice,” adds Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware. Dr. Aaronson believes there’s an opportunity for educating patients when speaking about all the available providers they may see.

Hanging posters or using brochures in the clinic or hospital is another effective way to reinforce the roles of various providers on the care team. Include biographies and educational information on practice materials and video programs running in the waiting room. 

“Patients mean it [calling everyone doctor] as a way to respectfully address the nurse practitioner or physician assistant rather than meaning it as a denigration of the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. “But everyone appreciates being called by the correct title.”

Helping patients understand the members of their care team and the correct titles to use for those health care professionals could also help patients feel more confident about their health care experience.

“Patients really like knowing that there are specialists in each of the areas taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says. “I think that conveys a feeling of trust in your provider.”
 

Not everyone is a doctor

Even when PAs and NPs remind patients of their roles and reinforce the use of their preferred names, there will still be patients who continue referring to their nonphysician provider as “doctor.”

“There’s a perception that anyone who walks into a room with a stethoscope is your doctor,” says Graig Straus, DNP, an NP and president and CEO of Rockland Urgent Care Family Health NP, P.C., West Haverstraw, N.Y. “You do get a little bit of burnout correcting people all the time.”

Dr. Straus, who earned his doctorate in nursing practice, notes that patients using the honorific with him aren’t incorrect, but he still educates them on his role within the health care team.

“NPs and PAs have a valuable role to play independently and in concert with the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. This understanding is essential, as states consider expanding treatment abilities for NPs and PAs.

NPs have expanded treatment abilities or full practice authority in almost half the states, and 31% of the physicians surveyed agreed that NPs should have expanded treatment abilities.

An estimated 1 in 5 states characterizes the physician-PA relationship as collaborative, not supervisory, according to the American Academy of Physician Associates. At the same time, only 39% of physicians surveyed said they favored this trend.

“Patients need great quality care, and there are many different types of providers that can provide that care as part of the team,” Ms. Flores says. “When you have a team taking care of a patient, that patient [gets] the best care possible – and ... that’s why we went into medicine: to deliver high-quality, compassionate care to our patients, and we should all be in this together.”

When practices do their part explaining who is and isn’t a doctor and what each provider’s title and role is and what to call them, and everyone reinforces it, health care becomes not only more manageable for patients to traverse but easier to understand, leading to a better experience.

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

“When I walk in to see a patient, I always introduce myself with, ‘Hello, my name is Cyndy, I’m the PA working with the doctor today,’ ” says Cyndy Flores, a physician assistant (PA) in the emergency department at Vituity, Emeryville, Calif. “Sometimes, I can go through a complete history and physical, explain a treatment plan, and perform a procedure, and [the patient] will say, ‘Thank you, doctor.’ ”

“I always come back and say, ‘You’re very welcome, but my name is Cyndy, and I’m the PA.’ ”

Ms. Flores is used to patients calling her “doctor” when she greets them. She typically offers a quick correction and moves on with the appointment.

With 355,000 nurse practitioners (NPs) and 149,000 certified PAs practicing in the United States, it’s more common than ever for health care providers who don’t go by the title “doctor” to diagnose and treat patients.

A recent report, Evolving Scope of Practice, found that more than 70% of physicians were “somewhat satisfied to very satisfied” with patient treatment by PAs and NPs.

But for patients, having a health care team that includes physicians, NPs, and PAs can be confusing. Additionally, it creates a need for education about their correct titles and roles in patient care.

“It’s really important for patients to understand who is taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says.
 

Education starts in your practice

Educating patients about the roles of different providers on their health care team starts long before patients enter the exam room, Ms. Flores explains.

Some patients may not understand the difference, some may just forget because they’re used to calling all providers doctors, and others may find it awkward to use a provider’s first name or not know the respectful way to address an NP or a PA.

Practices can help by listing the names and biographies of the health care team on the clinic website. In addition, when patients call for an appointment, Ms. Flores believes front desk staff can reinforce that information. When offering appointments with a physician, NP, or PA, clearly use the practitioner’s title and reiterate it throughout the conversation. For example, “Would you like to see our nurse practitioner, Alice Smith, next week?” or “So, our physician assistant Mrs. Jones will see you Friday at 3 PM.”

The report also found that 76% of patients expressed a preference to see a physician over a PA, and 71% expressed a preference to see a physician over an NP, but offering appointments with nonphysician providers is part of the education process.

“Some families are super savvy and know the differences between nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and doctors, and ... there are families who don’t understand those titles, [and] we need to explain what they do in our practice,” adds Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware. Dr. Aaronson believes there’s an opportunity for educating patients when speaking about all the available providers they may see.

Hanging posters or using brochures in the clinic or hospital is another effective way to reinforce the roles of various providers on the care team. Include biographies and educational information on practice materials and video programs running in the waiting room. 

“Patients mean it [calling everyone doctor] as a way to respectfully address the nurse practitioner or physician assistant rather than meaning it as a denigration of the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. “But everyone appreciates being called by the correct title.”

Helping patients understand the members of their care team and the correct titles to use for those health care professionals could also help patients feel more confident about their health care experience.

“Patients really like knowing that there are specialists in each of the areas taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says. “I think that conveys a feeling of trust in your provider.”
 

Not everyone is a doctor

Even when PAs and NPs remind patients of their roles and reinforce the use of their preferred names, there will still be patients who continue referring to their nonphysician provider as “doctor.”

“There’s a perception that anyone who walks into a room with a stethoscope is your doctor,” says Graig Straus, DNP, an NP and president and CEO of Rockland Urgent Care Family Health NP, P.C., West Haverstraw, N.Y. “You do get a little bit of burnout correcting people all the time.”

Dr. Straus, who earned his doctorate in nursing practice, notes that patients using the honorific with him aren’t incorrect, but he still educates them on his role within the health care team.

“NPs and PAs have a valuable role to play independently and in concert with the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. This understanding is essential, as states consider expanding treatment abilities for NPs and PAs.

NPs have expanded treatment abilities or full practice authority in almost half the states, and 31% of the physicians surveyed agreed that NPs should have expanded treatment abilities.

An estimated 1 in 5 states characterizes the physician-PA relationship as collaborative, not supervisory, according to the American Academy of Physician Associates. At the same time, only 39% of physicians surveyed said they favored this trend.

“Patients need great quality care, and there are many different types of providers that can provide that care as part of the team,” Ms. Flores says. “When you have a team taking care of a patient, that patient [gets] the best care possible – and ... that’s why we went into medicine: to deliver high-quality, compassionate care to our patients, and we should all be in this together.”

When practices do their part explaining who is and isn’t a doctor and what each provider’s title and role is and what to call them, and everyone reinforces it, health care becomes not only more manageable for patients to traverse but easier to understand, leading to a better experience.

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

Women infected with COVID-19 during pregnancy are seven times more likely to die during childbirth or during the pregnancy than uninfected pregnant women, a new study shows. The new report also warns of many other severe complications linked with the virus during pregnancy, as well as risks to the baby after birth.

But the researchers said they did not find that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy impacted the risk of stillbirth or a baby’s growth rate during pregnancy.

The study, which was a meta-analysis of previous research, was published Jan. 16 in the journal BMJ Global Health. Data from 12 studies from 12 countries were combined so researchers could analyze outcomes for 13,136 pregnant women.

Babies born to mothers who were infected with COVID during pregnancy had almost double the risk of needing stays in the neonatal intensive care unit and also were more likely to be born preterm, compared with babies who were born to pregnant women who didn’t get COVID.

The researchers also found that pregnant women who got COVID were more likely to be admitted to intensive care units, need a ventilator to help them survive, develop dangerous blood clots, or develop preeclampsia, which is a high blood pressure disorder that can be fatal for the mother or baby.

One of the strengths of the study was that it included women in different trimesters during pregnancy.

“That’s something new here too is that COVID at any time during pregnancy did bring this extra risk onto mom and babies,” said lead author Emily R. Smith, ScD, MPH, assistant professor of global health at the George Washington University, in a video statement. 

The report is prompting calls for improved efforts to convince pregnant women to get vaccinated for COVID-19. The rate among them remains low: About 1 in 5 pregnant women had received the most updated COVID-19 booster as of Jan. 7, according to the CDC.

“The implications here are that it’s really important that if you’re pregnant or if you’re thinking about becoming pregnant, to get vaccinated,” Dr. Smith said. “This can really reduce the risk of having some of these bad outcomes for mom or for baby.”

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

Women infected with COVID-19 during pregnancy are seven times more likely to die during childbirth or during the pregnancy than uninfected pregnant women, a new study shows. The new report also warns of many other severe complications linked with the virus during pregnancy, as well as risks to the baby after birth.

But the researchers said they did not find that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy impacted the risk of stillbirth or a baby’s growth rate during pregnancy.

The study, which was a meta-analysis of previous research, was published Jan. 16 in the journal BMJ Global Health. Data from 12 studies from 12 countries were combined so researchers could analyze outcomes for 13,136 pregnant women.

Babies born to mothers who were infected with COVID during pregnancy had almost double the risk of needing stays in the neonatal intensive care unit and also were more likely to be born preterm, compared with babies who were born to pregnant women who didn’t get COVID.

The researchers also found that pregnant women who got COVID were more likely to be admitted to intensive care units, need a ventilator to help them survive, develop dangerous blood clots, or develop preeclampsia, which is a high blood pressure disorder that can be fatal for the mother or baby.

One of the strengths of the study was that it included women in different trimesters during pregnancy.

“That’s something new here too is that COVID at any time during pregnancy did bring this extra risk onto mom and babies,” said lead author Emily R. Smith, ScD, MPH, assistant professor of global health at the George Washington University, in a video statement. 

The report is prompting calls for improved efforts to convince pregnant women to get vaccinated for COVID-19. The rate among them remains low: About 1 in 5 pregnant women had received the most updated COVID-19 booster as of Jan. 7, according to the CDC.

“The implications here are that it’s really important that if you’re pregnant or if you’re thinking about becoming pregnant, to get vaccinated,” Dr. Smith said. “This can really reduce the risk of having some of these bad outcomes for mom or for baby.”

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

Women infected with COVID-19 during pregnancy are seven times more likely to die during childbirth or during the pregnancy than uninfected pregnant women, a new study shows. The new report also warns of many other severe complications linked with the virus during pregnancy, as well as risks to the baby after birth.

But the researchers said they did not find that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy impacted the risk of stillbirth or a baby’s growth rate during pregnancy.

The study, which was a meta-analysis of previous research, was published Jan. 16 in the journal BMJ Global Health. Data from 12 studies from 12 countries were combined so researchers could analyze outcomes for 13,136 pregnant women.

Babies born to mothers who were infected with COVID during pregnancy had almost double the risk of needing stays in the neonatal intensive care unit and also were more likely to be born preterm, compared with babies who were born to pregnant women who didn’t get COVID.

The researchers also found that pregnant women who got COVID were more likely to be admitted to intensive care units, need a ventilator to help them survive, develop dangerous blood clots, or develop preeclampsia, which is a high blood pressure disorder that can be fatal for the mother or baby.

One of the strengths of the study was that it included women in different trimesters during pregnancy.

“That’s something new here too is that COVID at any time during pregnancy did bring this extra risk onto mom and babies,” said lead author Emily R. Smith, ScD, MPH, assistant professor of global health at the George Washington University, in a video statement. 

The report is prompting calls for improved efforts to convince pregnant women to get vaccinated for COVID-19. The rate among them remains low: About 1 in 5 pregnant women had received the most updated COVID-19 booster as of Jan. 7, according to the CDC.

“The implications here are that it’s really important that if you’re pregnant or if you’re thinking about becoming pregnant, to get vaccinated,” Dr. Smith said. “This can really reduce the risk of having some of these bad outcomes for mom or for baby.”

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

The only HIV vaccine nearing the completion of testing trials is not effective at preventing HIV, officials announced Wednesday.

The vaccine had been in development since 2019 and was given to 3,900 study participants through October 2022, but data shows it does not protect against HIV compared with a placebo, according to developer Janssen Pharmaceutical.

Experts estimate the failure means there won’t be another potential vaccine on the horizon for 3 to 5 years, the New York Times reported.

“It’s obviously disappointing,” Anthony Fauci, MD, former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSNBC, noting that other areas of HIV treatment research are promising. “I don’t think that people should give up on the field of the HIV vaccine.”

No safety issues had been identified with the vaccine during the trial, which studied the experimental treatment in men who have sex with men or with transgender people.

There is no cure for HIV, but disease progression can be managed with existing treatments. HIV attacks the body’s immune system and destroys white blood cells, increasing the risk of other infections. More than 1.5 million people worldwide were infected with HIV in 2021 and 38.4 million people are living with the virus, according to UNAIDS.

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

The only HIV vaccine nearing the completion of testing trials is not effective at preventing HIV, officials announced Wednesday.

The vaccine had been in development since 2019 and was given to 3,900 study participants through October 2022, but data shows it does not protect against HIV compared with a placebo, according to developer Janssen Pharmaceutical.

Experts estimate the failure means there won’t be another potential vaccine on the horizon for 3 to 5 years, the New York Times reported.

“It’s obviously disappointing,” Anthony Fauci, MD, former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSNBC, noting that other areas of HIV treatment research are promising. “I don’t think that people should give up on the field of the HIV vaccine.”

No safety issues had been identified with the vaccine during the trial, which studied the experimental treatment in men who have sex with men or with transgender people.

There is no cure for HIV, but disease progression can be managed with existing treatments. HIV attacks the body’s immune system and destroys white blood cells, increasing the risk of other infections. More than 1.5 million people worldwide were infected with HIV in 2021 and 38.4 million people are living with the virus, according to UNAIDS.

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

The only HIV vaccine nearing the completion of testing trials is not effective at preventing HIV, officials announced Wednesday.

The vaccine had been in development since 2019 and was given to 3,900 study participants through October 2022, but data shows it does not protect against HIV compared with a placebo, according to developer Janssen Pharmaceutical.

Experts estimate the failure means there won’t be another potential vaccine on the horizon for 3 to 5 years, the New York Times reported.

“It’s obviously disappointing,” Anthony Fauci, MD, former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSNBC, noting that other areas of HIV treatment research are promising. “I don’t think that people should give up on the field of the HIV vaccine.”

No safety issues had been identified with the vaccine during the trial, which studied the experimental treatment in men who have sex with men or with transgender people.

There is no cure for HIV, but disease progression can be managed with existing treatments. HIV attacks the body’s immune system and destroys white blood cells, increasing the risk of other infections. More than 1.5 million people worldwide were infected with HIV in 2021 and 38.4 million people are living with the virus, according to UNAIDS.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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