MDedge Infectious Disease

Just 56% of infectious disease fellowship programs filled their 2023 slots, according to new data released by the National Resident Matching Program. Infectious disease (ID) fellowships had seen a jump in applications in the previous 2 years, but these new numbers may suggest a backward slide in a specialty that for many years has struggled to recruit residents.

This latest match rate in ID fellowships is lower than those of the previous 5 years. There are unfilled positions across the country, including in health care hot spots. In Boston, all three slots at Boston Medical Center ID fellowship program are currently empty.

“For our program, going unfilled is a pretty rare event,” said Daniel Bourque, MD, an assistant professor of infectious disease at Boston University and director of the program. “For a program in the city of Boston that’s at a large tertiary care center, that definitely was a big surprise.”

Many other ID fellowships have joined BMC in posting about their vacancies on social media, looking for residents who may not have matched in other fellowships and for physicians who initially decided not to pursue additional training but are now reconsidering.

“If you are interested in a career in this exciting field, in the amazing city of Seattle, with incredible and friendly colleagues, please contact us,” the University of Washington’s ID fellowship program tweeted. Tulane University, Creighton University, the University of Connecticut, Washington University in St. Louis, and the University of Colorado also advertised their unfilled positions.

Other ID doctors commiserated with the disappointing match year. “I made a new riddle after yesterday’s match results: In the hospital, everyone needs me. Yet, no one wants to be me. What am I? An ID doctor,” tweeted Nathan Nolan, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at the Veterans Health Administration in St. Louis.
 

Infectious disease positions continue to grow

One contributor to this downturn could be the growing number of infectious disease programs offered, whereas the number of applicants has generally remained stable. In 2018, there were 394 slots at 151 infectious disease fellowship programs offered. For the 2023 match year, there were 441 slots at 175 programs.

At the same time, there has not been a notable rise in applicants. From match years 2018 to 2020, about 320 applicants applied for ID fellowship positions each year. There was a rise in in interest in first 2 years of the pandemic, with 404 and 387 applicants in the 2021 and 2022 match years, respectively. The most recent round suggests a return to prepandemic numbers, with 330 residents applying to ID programs.

“I think it’s fair to question whether, as a field, we should be increasing training programs and spots at this point, and if it’s better to focus on ways to increase interest and demand,” said Daniel Diekema, MD, an ID physician at Maine Medical Center in Portland. “Otherwise, we’re just going to look worse and worse every year,” he added, and the work that goes into creating these training opportunities will not have a return on investment.
 

More training, less pay

The fellowship recruitment issues combined with an already short supply of infectious disease specialists can be traced back to comparatively worse pay compared with other subspecialties, experts say. Infectious disease was the fifth lowest paid specialty in the 2022 Medscape Physician Compensation Report – ranking above only primary care specialties and diabetes and endocrinology.

Pursuing this subspeciality in medicine may not translate to higher pay, Dr. Diekema noted. For example, a physician who completes an internal medicine residency and then a 2- to 3-year infectious disease fellowship can make less than a physician who pursues hospital medicine directly after completing the same residency.

“You’re in a situation where you’re doing additional training to reduce your income earning potential, and that’s a very hard sales pitch to make,” he said. It’s become more difficult as student loan debts continue to increase, he added.

Because infectious disease is a cognitive specialty and does not perform procedures, it is at a disadvantage in a typical fee-for-service pay model. ID physicians also advise on hospital policies for testing and personal protective equipment, which is not always compensated, said Wendy Armstrong, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, Atlanta.
 

A reflection of pandemic burnout?

Experts also wonder if the past 2 years of the pandemic and the notable burnout in ID and other in-demand specialties may have dissuaded applicants from pursuing the ID career path.

“This residency class is the class that started their training in June or July of 2020 and represent that residency class that has trained throughout the pandemic,” Dr. Bourque said. “Does [this low match rate] reflect a negative outlook on the field of ID because of COVID? Is it a reflection of trainee burnout in the setting of the pandemic?”

Dr. Diekema wonders if increased public scrutiny and politicization of the field may have discouraged residents. “The vilification of public health and [of] infectious disease experts like Dr. Fauci by significant portions of our society can be demoralizing,” he said. “People might say, ‘Why would I want to put myself through that?’ ”

But Dr. Armstrong doubts this is the case. “I’ve never had a resident tell me that was on their radar screen,” she said, noting that while there had been recent improvements in applicants, lower match numbers for ID fellowships have been a long-standing issue.
 

Rethinking reimbursement

Experts agree that pay issues need to be addressed to make ID a more attractive specialty. Moving away from traditional payment plans to value-based models using quality measurements specific to infectious disease could be one way to quantify the value of ID specialists in care systems.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America recently met with the panel that sets compensation rates for Medicare to discuss ways to increase compensation for ID, said IDSA president Carlos del Rio, MD. He is also a professor of medicine at Emory University.

ID specialists need to be able to put a dollar value to their policy work that’s not related to patient reimbursement, Dr. del Rio said. IDSA’s ongoing compensation initiative advocates for value-based care and provides salary negotiation tools for ID specialists, he added.

“Salaries shouldn’t simply be defined by what reimbursement is, and that’s true for other specialties,” such as hospital medicine and palliative care at many institutions, Dr. Armstrong said. “Infectious disease needs to be held at the same level of respect and value.”

But despite issues within the specialties, ID physicians remain passionate about their field.

“It is the most fascinating specialty I can ever imagine,” Dr. Armstrong said. Dr. Bourque agreed, noting the dynamic nature of specialty, with the emergence of new diseases like COVID-19 and reemergence of diseases like mpox (formerly called monkeypox), Zika, Ebola, and chikungunya in the past decade.

“There’s nothing about the field of infectious diseases that, in my mind, isn’t fascinating or rewarding enough to bring people in,” added Dr. Diekema. “The factors that are keeping people out are primarily economic factors and aspects of our health care system that need attention.”

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

Just 56% of infectious disease fellowship programs filled their 2023 slots, according to new data released by the National Resident Matching Program. Infectious disease (ID) fellowships had seen a jump in applications in the previous 2 years, but these new numbers may suggest a backward slide in a specialty that for many years has struggled to recruit residents.

This latest match rate in ID fellowships is lower than those of the previous 5 years. There are unfilled positions across the country, including in health care hot spots. In Boston, all three slots at Boston Medical Center ID fellowship program are currently empty.

“For our program, going unfilled is a pretty rare event,” said Daniel Bourque, MD, an assistant professor of infectious disease at Boston University and director of the program. “For a program in the city of Boston that’s at a large tertiary care center, that definitely was a big surprise.”

Many other ID fellowships have joined BMC in posting about their vacancies on social media, looking for residents who may not have matched in other fellowships and for physicians who initially decided not to pursue additional training but are now reconsidering.

“If you are interested in a career in this exciting field, in the amazing city of Seattle, with incredible and friendly colleagues, please contact us,” the University of Washington’s ID fellowship program tweeted. Tulane University, Creighton University, the University of Connecticut, Washington University in St. Louis, and the University of Colorado also advertised their unfilled positions.

Other ID doctors commiserated with the disappointing match year. “I made a new riddle after yesterday’s match results: In the hospital, everyone needs me. Yet, no one wants to be me. What am I? An ID doctor,” tweeted Nathan Nolan, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at the Veterans Health Administration in St. Louis.
 

Infectious disease positions continue to grow

One contributor to this downturn could be the growing number of infectious disease programs offered, whereas the number of applicants has generally remained stable. In 2018, there were 394 slots at 151 infectious disease fellowship programs offered. For the 2023 match year, there were 441 slots at 175 programs.

At the same time, there has not been a notable rise in applicants. From match years 2018 to 2020, about 320 applicants applied for ID fellowship positions each year. There was a rise in in interest in first 2 years of the pandemic, with 404 and 387 applicants in the 2021 and 2022 match years, respectively. The most recent round suggests a return to prepandemic numbers, with 330 residents applying to ID programs.

“I think it’s fair to question whether, as a field, we should be increasing training programs and spots at this point, and if it’s better to focus on ways to increase interest and demand,” said Daniel Diekema, MD, an ID physician at Maine Medical Center in Portland. “Otherwise, we’re just going to look worse and worse every year,” he added, and the work that goes into creating these training opportunities will not have a return on investment.
 

More training, less pay

The fellowship recruitment issues combined with an already short supply of infectious disease specialists can be traced back to comparatively worse pay compared with other subspecialties, experts say. Infectious disease was the fifth lowest paid specialty in the 2022 Medscape Physician Compensation Report – ranking above only primary care specialties and diabetes and endocrinology.

Pursuing this subspeciality in medicine may not translate to higher pay, Dr. Diekema noted. For example, a physician who completes an internal medicine residency and then a 2- to 3-year infectious disease fellowship can make less than a physician who pursues hospital medicine directly after completing the same residency.

“You’re in a situation where you’re doing additional training to reduce your income earning potential, and that’s a very hard sales pitch to make,” he said. It’s become more difficult as student loan debts continue to increase, he added.

Because infectious disease is a cognitive specialty and does not perform procedures, it is at a disadvantage in a typical fee-for-service pay model. ID physicians also advise on hospital policies for testing and personal protective equipment, which is not always compensated, said Wendy Armstrong, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, Atlanta.
 

A reflection of pandemic burnout?

Experts also wonder if the past 2 years of the pandemic and the notable burnout in ID and other in-demand specialties may have dissuaded applicants from pursuing the ID career path.

“This residency class is the class that started their training in June or July of 2020 and represent that residency class that has trained throughout the pandemic,” Dr. Bourque said. “Does [this low match rate] reflect a negative outlook on the field of ID because of COVID? Is it a reflection of trainee burnout in the setting of the pandemic?”

Dr. Diekema wonders if increased public scrutiny and politicization of the field may have discouraged residents. “The vilification of public health and [of] infectious disease experts like Dr. Fauci by significant portions of our society can be demoralizing,” he said. “People might say, ‘Why would I want to put myself through that?’ ”

But Dr. Armstrong doubts this is the case. “I’ve never had a resident tell me that was on their radar screen,” she said, noting that while there had been recent improvements in applicants, lower match numbers for ID fellowships have been a long-standing issue.
 

Rethinking reimbursement

Experts agree that pay issues need to be addressed to make ID a more attractive specialty. Moving away from traditional payment plans to value-based models using quality measurements specific to infectious disease could be one way to quantify the value of ID specialists in care systems.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America recently met with the panel that sets compensation rates for Medicare to discuss ways to increase compensation for ID, said IDSA president Carlos del Rio, MD. He is also a professor of medicine at Emory University.

ID specialists need to be able to put a dollar value to their policy work that’s not related to patient reimbursement, Dr. del Rio said. IDSA’s ongoing compensation initiative advocates for value-based care and provides salary negotiation tools for ID specialists, he added.

“Salaries shouldn’t simply be defined by what reimbursement is, and that’s true for other specialties,” such as hospital medicine and palliative care at many institutions, Dr. Armstrong said. “Infectious disease needs to be held at the same level of respect and value.”

But despite issues within the specialties, ID physicians remain passionate about their field.

“It is the most fascinating specialty I can ever imagine,” Dr. Armstrong said. Dr. Bourque agreed, noting the dynamic nature of specialty, with the emergence of new diseases like COVID-19 and reemergence of diseases like mpox (formerly called monkeypox), Zika, Ebola, and chikungunya in the past decade.

“There’s nothing about the field of infectious diseases that, in my mind, isn’t fascinating or rewarding enough to bring people in,” added Dr. Diekema. “The factors that are keeping people out are primarily economic factors and aspects of our health care system that need attention.”

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

Just 56% of infectious disease fellowship programs filled their 2023 slots, according to new data released by the National Resident Matching Program. Infectious disease (ID) fellowships had seen a jump in applications in the previous 2 years, but these new numbers may suggest a backward slide in a specialty that for many years has struggled to recruit residents.

This latest match rate in ID fellowships is lower than those of the previous 5 years. There are unfilled positions across the country, including in health care hot spots. In Boston, all three slots at Boston Medical Center ID fellowship program are currently empty.

“For our program, going unfilled is a pretty rare event,” said Daniel Bourque, MD, an assistant professor of infectious disease at Boston University and director of the program. “For a program in the city of Boston that’s at a large tertiary care center, that definitely was a big surprise.”

Many other ID fellowships have joined BMC in posting about their vacancies on social media, looking for residents who may not have matched in other fellowships and for physicians who initially decided not to pursue additional training but are now reconsidering.

“If you are interested in a career in this exciting field, in the amazing city of Seattle, with incredible and friendly colleagues, please contact us,” the University of Washington’s ID fellowship program tweeted. Tulane University, Creighton University, the University of Connecticut, Washington University in St. Louis, and the University of Colorado also advertised their unfilled positions.

Other ID doctors commiserated with the disappointing match year. “I made a new riddle after yesterday’s match results: In the hospital, everyone needs me. Yet, no one wants to be me. What am I? An ID doctor,” tweeted Nathan Nolan, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at the Veterans Health Administration in St. Louis.
 

Infectious disease positions continue to grow

One contributor to this downturn could be the growing number of infectious disease programs offered, whereas the number of applicants has generally remained stable. In 2018, there were 394 slots at 151 infectious disease fellowship programs offered. For the 2023 match year, there were 441 slots at 175 programs.

At the same time, there has not been a notable rise in applicants. From match years 2018 to 2020, about 320 applicants applied for ID fellowship positions each year. There was a rise in in interest in first 2 years of the pandemic, with 404 and 387 applicants in the 2021 and 2022 match years, respectively. The most recent round suggests a return to prepandemic numbers, with 330 residents applying to ID programs.

“I think it’s fair to question whether, as a field, we should be increasing training programs and spots at this point, and if it’s better to focus on ways to increase interest and demand,” said Daniel Diekema, MD, an ID physician at Maine Medical Center in Portland. “Otherwise, we’re just going to look worse and worse every year,” he added, and the work that goes into creating these training opportunities will not have a return on investment.
 

More training, less pay

The fellowship recruitment issues combined with an already short supply of infectious disease specialists can be traced back to comparatively worse pay compared with other subspecialties, experts say. Infectious disease was the fifth lowest paid specialty in the 2022 Medscape Physician Compensation Report – ranking above only primary care specialties and diabetes and endocrinology.

Pursuing this subspeciality in medicine may not translate to higher pay, Dr. Diekema noted. For example, a physician who completes an internal medicine residency and then a 2- to 3-year infectious disease fellowship can make less than a physician who pursues hospital medicine directly after completing the same residency.

“You’re in a situation where you’re doing additional training to reduce your income earning potential, and that’s a very hard sales pitch to make,” he said. It’s become more difficult as student loan debts continue to increase, he added.

Because infectious disease is a cognitive specialty and does not perform procedures, it is at a disadvantage in a typical fee-for-service pay model. ID physicians also advise on hospital policies for testing and personal protective equipment, which is not always compensated, said Wendy Armstrong, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, Atlanta.
 

A reflection of pandemic burnout?

Experts also wonder if the past 2 years of the pandemic and the notable burnout in ID and other in-demand specialties may have dissuaded applicants from pursuing the ID career path.

“This residency class is the class that started their training in June or July of 2020 and represent that residency class that has trained throughout the pandemic,” Dr. Bourque said. “Does [this low match rate] reflect a negative outlook on the field of ID because of COVID? Is it a reflection of trainee burnout in the setting of the pandemic?”

Dr. Diekema wonders if increased public scrutiny and politicization of the field may have discouraged residents. “The vilification of public health and [of] infectious disease experts like Dr. Fauci by significant portions of our society can be demoralizing,” he said. “People might say, ‘Why would I want to put myself through that?’ ”

But Dr. Armstrong doubts this is the case. “I’ve never had a resident tell me that was on their radar screen,” she said, noting that while there had been recent improvements in applicants, lower match numbers for ID fellowships have been a long-standing issue.
 

Rethinking reimbursement

Experts agree that pay issues need to be addressed to make ID a more attractive specialty. Moving away from traditional payment plans to value-based models using quality measurements specific to infectious disease could be one way to quantify the value of ID specialists in care systems.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America recently met with the panel that sets compensation rates for Medicare to discuss ways to increase compensation for ID, said IDSA president Carlos del Rio, MD. He is also a professor of medicine at Emory University.

ID specialists need to be able to put a dollar value to their policy work that’s not related to patient reimbursement, Dr. del Rio said. IDSA’s ongoing compensation initiative advocates for value-based care and provides salary negotiation tools for ID specialists, he added.

“Salaries shouldn’t simply be defined by what reimbursement is, and that’s true for other specialties,” such as hospital medicine and palliative care at many institutions, Dr. Armstrong said. “Infectious disease needs to be held at the same level of respect and value.”

But despite issues within the specialties, ID physicians remain passionate about their field.

“It is the most fascinating specialty I can ever imagine,” Dr. Armstrong said. Dr. Bourque agreed, noting the dynamic nature of specialty, with the emergence of new diseases like COVID-19 and reemergence of diseases like mpox (formerly called monkeypox), Zika, Ebola, and chikungunya in the past decade.

“There’s nothing about the field of infectious diseases that, in my mind, isn’t fascinating or rewarding enough to bring people in,” added Dr. Diekema. “The factors that are keeping people out are primarily economic factors and aspects of our health care system that need attention.”

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

Maybe the cow was late for its appointment

It’s been a long day running the front desk at your doctor’s office. People calling in prescriptions, a million appointments, you’ve been running yourself ragged keeping things together. Finally, it’s almost closing time. The last patient of the day has just checked out and you turn back to the waiting room, expecting to see it blessedly empty.

Instead, a 650-pound cow is staring at you.

“I’m sorry, sir or madam, we’re about to close.”

Moo.
 

tilo/Thinkstock

We can see that decision in your eyes

The cliché that eyes are the windows to the soul doesn’t tell the whole story about how telling eyes really are. It’s all about how they move. In a recent study, researchers determined that a type of eye movement known as a saccade reveals your choice before you even decide.

pxfuel

Saccades involve the eyes jumping from one fixation point to another, senior author Alaa Ahmed of the University of Colorado, Boulder, explained in a statement from the university. Saccade vigor was the key in how aligned the type of decisions were made by the 22 study participants.

In the study, subjects walked on a treadmill at varied inclines for a period of time. Then they sat in front of a monitor and a high-speed camera that tracked their eye movements as the monitor presented them with a series of exercise options. The participants had only 4 seconds to choose between them.

After they made their choices, participants went back on the treadmill to perform the exercises they had chosen. The researchers found that participants’ eyes jumped between the options slowly then faster to the option they eventually picked. The more impulsive decision-makers also tended to move their eyes even more rapidly before slowing down after a decision was made, making it pretty conclusive that the eyes were revealing their choices.

The way your eyes shift gives you away without saying a thing. Might be wise, then, to wear sunglasses to your next poker tournament.
 

Let them eat soap

Okay, we admit it: LOTME spends a lot of time in the bathroom. Today, though, we’re interested in the sinks. Specifically, the P-traps under the sinks. You know, the curvy bit that keeps sewer gas from wafting back into the room?

PxHere

Well, researchers from the University of Reading (England) recently found some fungi while examining a bunch of sinks on the university’s Whiteknights campus. “It isn’t a big surprise to find fungi in a warm, wet environment. But sinks and P-traps have thus far been overlooked as potential reservoirs of these microorganisms,” they said in a written statement.

Samples collected from 289 P-traps contained “a very similar community of yeasts and molds, showing that sinks in use in public environments share a role as reservoirs of fungal organisms,” they noted.

The fungi living in the traps survived conditions with high temperatures, low pH, and little in the way of nutrients. So what were they eating? Some varieties, they said, “use detergents, found in soap, as a source of carbon-rich food.” We’ll repeat that last part: They used the soap as food.

WARNING: Rant Ahead.

There are a lot of cleaning products for sale that say they will make your home safe by killing 99.9% of germs and bacteria. Not fungi, exactly, but we’re still talking microorganisms. Molds, bacteria, and viruses are all stuff that can infect humans and make them sick.

So you kill 99.9% of them. Great, but that leaves 0.1% that you just made angry. And what do they do next? They learn to eat soap. Then University of Reading investigators find out that all the extra hand washing going on during the COVID-19 pandemic was “clogging up sinks with nasty disease-causing bacteria.”

These are microorganisms we’re talking about people. They’ve been at this for a billion years! Rats can’t beat them, cockroaches won’t stop them – Earth’s ultimate survivors are powerless against the invisible horde.

We’re doomed.

Maybe the cow was late for its appointment

It’s been a long day running the front desk at your doctor’s office. People calling in prescriptions, a million appointments, you’ve been running yourself ragged keeping things together. Finally, it’s almost closing time. The last patient of the day has just checked out and you turn back to the waiting room, expecting to see it blessedly empty.

Instead, a 650-pound cow is staring at you.

“I’m sorry, sir or madam, we’re about to close.”

Moo.
 

tilo/Thinkstock

We can see that decision in your eyes

The cliché that eyes are the windows to the soul doesn’t tell the whole story about how telling eyes really are. It’s all about how they move. In a recent study, researchers determined that a type of eye movement known as a saccade reveals your choice before you even decide.

pxfuel

Saccades involve the eyes jumping from one fixation point to another, senior author Alaa Ahmed of the University of Colorado, Boulder, explained in a statement from the university. Saccade vigor was the key in how aligned the type of decisions were made by the 22 study participants.

In the study, subjects walked on a treadmill at varied inclines for a period of time. Then they sat in front of a monitor and a high-speed camera that tracked their eye movements as the monitor presented them with a series of exercise options. The participants had only 4 seconds to choose between them.

After they made their choices, participants went back on the treadmill to perform the exercises they had chosen. The researchers found that participants’ eyes jumped between the options slowly then faster to the option they eventually picked. The more impulsive decision-makers also tended to move their eyes even more rapidly before slowing down after a decision was made, making it pretty conclusive that the eyes were revealing their choices.

The way your eyes shift gives you away without saying a thing. Might be wise, then, to wear sunglasses to your next poker tournament.
 

Let them eat soap

Okay, we admit it: LOTME spends a lot of time in the bathroom. Today, though, we’re interested in the sinks. Specifically, the P-traps under the sinks. You know, the curvy bit that keeps sewer gas from wafting back into the room?

PxHere

Well, researchers from the University of Reading (England) recently found some fungi while examining a bunch of sinks on the university’s Whiteknights campus. “It isn’t a big surprise to find fungi in a warm, wet environment. But sinks and P-traps have thus far been overlooked as potential reservoirs of these microorganisms,” they said in a written statement.

Samples collected from 289 P-traps contained “a very similar community of yeasts and molds, showing that sinks in use in public environments share a role as reservoirs of fungal organisms,” they noted.

The fungi living in the traps survived conditions with high temperatures, low pH, and little in the way of nutrients. So what were they eating? Some varieties, they said, “use detergents, found in soap, as a source of carbon-rich food.” We’ll repeat that last part: They used the soap as food.

WARNING: Rant Ahead.

There are a lot of cleaning products for sale that say they will make your home safe by killing 99.9% of germs and bacteria. Not fungi, exactly, but we’re still talking microorganisms. Molds, bacteria, and viruses are all stuff that can infect humans and make them sick.

So you kill 99.9% of them. Great, but that leaves 0.1% that you just made angry. And what do they do next? They learn to eat soap. Then University of Reading investigators find out that all the extra hand washing going on during the COVID-19 pandemic was “clogging up sinks with nasty disease-causing bacteria.”

These are microorganisms we’re talking about people. They’ve been at this for a billion years! Rats can’t beat them, cockroaches won’t stop them – Earth’s ultimate survivors are powerless against the invisible horde.

We’re doomed.

Maybe the cow was late for its appointment

It’s been a long day running the front desk at your doctor’s office. People calling in prescriptions, a million appointments, you’ve been running yourself ragged keeping things together. Finally, it’s almost closing time. The last patient of the day has just checked out and you turn back to the waiting room, expecting to see it blessedly empty.

Instead, a 650-pound cow is staring at you.

“I’m sorry, sir or madam, we’re about to close.”

Moo.
 

tilo/Thinkstock

We can see that decision in your eyes

The cliché that eyes are the windows to the soul doesn’t tell the whole story about how telling eyes really are. It’s all about how they move. In a recent study, researchers determined that a type of eye movement known as a saccade reveals your choice before you even decide.

pxfuel

Saccades involve the eyes jumping from one fixation point to another, senior author Alaa Ahmed of the University of Colorado, Boulder, explained in a statement from the university. Saccade vigor was the key in how aligned the type of decisions were made by the 22 study participants.

In the study, subjects walked on a treadmill at varied inclines for a period of time. Then they sat in front of a monitor and a high-speed camera that tracked their eye movements as the monitor presented them with a series of exercise options. The participants had only 4 seconds to choose between them.

After they made their choices, participants went back on the treadmill to perform the exercises they had chosen. The researchers found that participants’ eyes jumped between the options slowly then faster to the option they eventually picked. The more impulsive decision-makers also tended to move their eyes even more rapidly before slowing down after a decision was made, making it pretty conclusive that the eyes were revealing their choices.

The way your eyes shift gives you away without saying a thing. Might be wise, then, to wear sunglasses to your next poker tournament.
 

Let them eat soap

Okay, we admit it: LOTME spends a lot of time in the bathroom. Today, though, we’re interested in the sinks. Specifically, the P-traps under the sinks. You know, the curvy bit that keeps sewer gas from wafting back into the room?

PxHere

Well, researchers from the University of Reading (England) recently found some fungi while examining a bunch of sinks on the university’s Whiteknights campus. “It isn’t a big surprise to find fungi in a warm, wet environment. But sinks and P-traps have thus far been overlooked as potential reservoirs of these microorganisms,” they said in a written statement.

Samples collected from 289 P-traps contained “a very similar community of yeasts and molds, showing that sinks in use in public environments share a role as reservoirs of fungal organisms,” they noted.

The fungi living in the traps survived conditions with high temperatures, low pH, and little in the way of nutrients. So what were they eating? Some varieties, they said, “use detergents, found in soap, as a source of carbon-rich food.” We’ll repeat that last part: They used the soap as food.

WARNING: Rant Ahead.

There are a lot of cleaning products for sale that say they will make your home safe by killing 99.9% of germs and bacteria. Not fungi, exactly, but we’re still talking microorganisms. Molds, bacteria, and viruses are all stuff that can infect humans and make them sick.

So you kill 99.9% of them. Great, but that leaves 0.1% that you just made angry. And what do they do next? They learn to eat soap. Then University of Reading investigators find out that all the extra hand washing going on during the COVID-19 pandemic was “clogging up sinks with nasty disease-causing bacteria.”

These are microorganisms we’re talking about people. They’ve been at this for a billion years! Rats can’t beat them, cockroaches won’t stop them – Earth’s ultimate survivors are powerless against the invisible horde.

We’re doomed.

Scientists are one step closer to developing a breakthrough technology that could lead to a vaccine for HIV, which infects more than 1 million people worldwide each year.

The announcement comes from the journal Science, which published phase 1 results of a small clinical trial for a vaccine technology that aims to cause the body to create a rare kind of cell.

“At the most general level, the trial results show that one can design vaccines that induce antibodies with prespecified genetic features, and this may herald a new era of precision vaccines,” William Schief, PhD, a researcher at the Scripps Research Institute and study coauthor, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The study was the first to test the approach in humans and was effective in 97% – or 35 of 36 – participants. The vaccine technology is called “germline targeting.” Trial results show that “one can design a vaccine that elicits made-to-order antibodies in humans,” Dr. Schief said in a news release.

In addition to possibly being a breakthrough for the treatment of HIV, the vaccine technology could also impact the development of treatments for flu, hepatitis C, and coronaviruses, study authors wrote.

There is no cure for HIV, but there are treatments to manage how the disease progresses. HIV attacks the body’s immune system, destroys white blood cells, and increases susceptibility to other infections, AAAS summarized. More than 1 million people in the United States and 38 million people worldwide have HIV.

Previous HIV vaccine attempts were not able to cause the production of specialized cells known as “broadly neutralizing antibodies,” CNN reported.

“Call them super antibodies, if you want,” University of Minnesota HIV researcher Timothy Schacker, MD, who was not involved in the research, told CNN. “The hope is that if you can induce this kind of immunity in people, you can protect them from some of these viruses that we’ve had a very hard time designing vaccines for that are effective. So this is an important step forward.”

Study authors said this is just the first step in the multiphase vaccine design, which so far is a theory. Further study is needed to see if the next steps also work in humans, and then if all the steps can be linked together and can be effective against HIV.

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

Scientists are one step closer to developing a breakthrough technology that could lead to a vaccine for HIV, which infects more than 1 million people worldwide each year.

The announcement comes from the journal Science, which published phase 1 results of a small clinical trial for a vaccine technology that aims to cause the body to create a rare kind of cell.

“At the most general level, the trial results show that one can design vaccines that induce antibodies with prespecified genetic features, and this may herald a new era of precision vaccines,” William Schief, PhD, a researcher at the Scripps Research Institute and study coauthor, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The study was the first to test the approach in humans and was effective in 97% – or 35 of 36 – participants. The vaccine technology is called “germline targeting.” Trial results show that “one can design a vaccine that elicits made-to-order antibodies in humans,” Dr. Schief said in a news release.

In addition to possibly being a breakthrough for the treatment of HIV, the vaccine technology could also impact the development of treatments for flu, hepatitis C, and coronaviruses, study authors wrote.

There is no cure for HIV, but there are treatments to manage how the disease progresses. HIV attacks the body’s immune system, destroys white blood cells, and increases susceptibility to other infections, AAAS summarized. More than 1 million people in the United States and 38 million people worldwide have HIV.

Previous HIV vaccine attempts were not able to cause the production of specialized cells known as “broadly neutralizing antibodies,” CNN reported.

“Call them super antibodies, if you want,” University of Minnesota HIV researcher Timothy Schacker, MD, who was not involved in the research, told CNN. “The hope is that if you can induce this kind of immunity in people, you can protect them from some of these viruses that we’ve had a very hard time designing vaccines for that are effective. So this is an important step forward.”

Study authors said this is just the first step in the multiphase vaccine design, which so far is a theory. Further study is needed to see if the next steps also work in humans, and then if all the steps can be linked together and can be effective against HIV.

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

Scientists are one step closer to developing a breakthrough technology that could lead to a vaccine for HIV, which infects more than 1 million people worldwide each year.

The announcement comes from the journal Science, which published phase 1 results of a small clinical trial for a vaccine technology that aims to cause the body to create a rare kind of cell.

“At the most general level, the trial results show that one can design vaccines that induce antibodies with prespecified genetic features, and this may herald a new era of precision vaccines,” William Schief, PhD, a researcher at the Scripps Research Institute and study coauthor, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The study was the first to test the approach in humans and was effective in 97% – or 35 of 36 – participants. The vaccine technology is called “germline targeting.” Trial results show that “one can design a vaccine that elicits made-to-order antibodies in humans,” Dr. Schief said in a news release.

In addition to possibly being a breakthrough for the treatment of HIV, the vaccine technology could also impact the development of treatments for flu, hepatitis C, and coronaviruses, study authors wrote.

There is no cure for HIV, but there are treatments to manage how the disease progresses. HIV attacks the body’s immune system, destroys white blood cells, and increases susceptibility to other infections, AAAS summarized. More than 1 million people in the United States and 38 million people worldwide have HIV.

Previous HIV vaccine attempts were not able to cause the production of specialized cells known as “broadly neutralizing antibodies,” CNN reported.

“Call them super antibodies, if you want,” University of Minnesota HIV researcher Timothy Schacker, MD, who was not involved in the research, told CNN. “The hope is that if you can induce this kind of immunity in people, you can protect them from some of these viruses that we’ve had a very hard time designing vaccines for that are effective. So this is an important step forward.”

Study authors said this is just the first step in the multiphase vaccine design, which so far is a theory. Further study is needed to see if the next steps also work in humans, and then if all the steps can be linked together and can be effective against HIV.

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

“Everyone said private practice is dying,” said Omar Maniya, MD, an emergency physician who left his hospital job for family practice in New Jersey. “But I think it could be one of the best models we have to advance our health care system and prevent burnout – and bring joy back to the practice of medicine.”

In 2021, the American Medical Association found that, for the first time, less than half of all physicians work in private practice. But employment doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. In the Medscape “Employed Physicians: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy” ” report, more than 1,350 U.S. physicians employed by a health care organization, hospital, large group practice, or other medical group were surveyedabout their work. As the subtitle suggests, many are torn.

In the survey, employed doctors cited three main downsides to the lifestyle: They have less autonomy, more corporate rules than they’d like, and lower earning potential. Nearly one-third say they’re unhappy about their work-life balance, too, which raises the risk for burnout.

Some physicians find that employment has more cons than pros and turn to private practice instead.
 

A system skewed toward employment

In the mid-1990s, when James Milford, MD, completed his residency, going straight into private practice was the norm. The family physician bucked that trend by joining a large regional medical center in Wisconsin. He spent the next 20+ years working to establish a network of medical clinics.

“It was very satisfying,” Dr. Milford said. “When I started, I had a lot of input, a lot of control.”

Since then, the pendulum has been swinging toward employment. Brieanna Seefeldt, DO, a family physician outside Denver, completed her residency in 2012.

“I told the recruiter I wanted my own practice,” Dr. Seefeldt said, “They said if you’re not independently wealthy, there’s no way.”

Sonal G. Patel, MD, a pediatric neurologist in Bethesda, finished her residency the same year as Dr. Seefeldt. Dr. Patel never even considered private practice.

“I always thought I would have a certain amount of clinic time where I have my regular patients,” she said, “but I’d also be doing hospital rounds and reading EEG studies at the hospital.”

For Dr. Maniya, who completed his residency in 2021, the choice was simple. Growing up, he watched his immigrant parents, both doctors in private practice, struggle to keep up.

“I opted for a big, sophisticated health system,” he said. “I thought we’d be pushing the envelope of what was possible in medicine.”
 

Becoming disillusioned with employment

All four of these physicians are now in private practice and are much happier.

Within a few years of starting her job, Dr. Seefeldt was one of the top producers in her area but felt tremendous pressure to see more and more patients. The last straw came after an unpaid maternity leave.

“They told me I owed them for my maternity leave, for lack of productivity,” she said. “I was in practice for only 4 years, but already feeling the effects of burnout.”

Dr. Patel only lasted 2 years before realizing employment didn’t suit her.

“There was an excessive amount of hospital calls,” she said. “And there were bureaucratic issues that made it very difficult to practice the way I thought my practice would be.”

It took just 18 months for Dr. Maniya’s light-bulb moment. He was working at a hospital when COVID-19 hit.

“At my big health care system, it took 9 months to come up with a way to get COVID swabs for free,” he said. “At the same time, I was helping out the family business, a private practice. It took me two calls and 48 hours to get free swabs for not just the practice, not just our patients, but the entire city of Hamilton, New Jersey.”

Milford lasted the longest as an employee – nearly 25 years. The end came after a healthcare company with hospitals in 30 states bought out the medical center.

“My control gradually eroded,” he said. “It got to the point where I had no input regarding things like employees or processes we wanted to improve.”
 

Making the leap to private practice

Private practice can take different forms.

Dr. Seefeldt opted for direct primary care, a model in which her patients pay a set monthly fee for care whenever needed. Her practice doesn’t take any insurance besides Medicaid.

“Direct primary care is about working directly with the patient and cost-conscious, transparent care,” she said. “And I don’t have to deal with insurance.”

For Dr. Patel, working with an accountable care organization made the transition easier. She owns her practice solo but works with a company called Privia for administrative needs. Privia sent a consultant to set up her office in the company’s electronic medical record. Things were up and running within the first week.

Dr. Maniya joined his mother’s practice, easing his way in over 18 months.

And then there’s what Milford did, building a private practice from the ground up.

“We did a lot of Googling, a lot of meeting with accountants, meeting with small business development from the state of Wisconsin,” he said. “We asked people that were in business, ‘What are the things businesses fail on? Not medical practices, but businesses.’” All that research helped him launch successfully.
 

Making the dollars and cents add up

Moving from employment into private practice takes time, effort, and of course, money. How much of each varies depending on where you live, your specialty, whether you choose to rent or buy office space, staffing needs, and other factors.

Dr. Seefeldt, Dr. Patel, Dr. Milford, and Dr. Maniya illustrate the range.

• Dr. Seefeldt got a home equity loan of $50,000 to cover startup costs – and paid it back within 6 months.
• Purchasing EEG equipment added to Dr. Patel’s budget; she spent $130,000 of her own money to launch her practice in a temporary office and took out a $150,000 loan to finance the buildout of her final space. It took her 3 years to pay it back.
• When Dr. Milford left employment, he borrowed the buildout and startup costs for his practice from his father, a retired surgeon, to the tune of $500,000.
• Dr. Maniya assumed the largest risk. When he took over the family practice, he borrowed $1.5 million to modernize and build a new office. The practice has now quintupled in size. “It’s going great,” he said. “One of our questions is, should we pay back the loan at a faster pace rather than make the minimum payments?”

Several years in, Dr. Patel reports she’s easily making three to four times as much as she would have at a hospital. However, Dr. Maniya’s guaranteed compensation is 10% less than his old job.

“But as a partner in a private practice, if it succeeds, it could be 100%-150% more in a good year,” he said. On the flip side, if the practice runs into financial trouble, so does he. “Does the risk keep me up at night, give me heartburn? You betcha.”

Dr. Milford and Dr. Seefeldt have both chosen to take less compensation than they could, opting to reinvest in and nurture their practices.

“I love it,” said Dr. Milford. “I joke that I have half as much in my pocketbook, twice as much in my heart. But it’s not really half as much, 5 years in. If I weren’t growing the business, I’d be making more than before.”
 

Private practice is not without challenges

Being the big cheese does have drawbacks. In the current climate, staffing is a persistent issue for doctors in private practice – both maintaining a full staff and managing their employees.

And without the backing of a large corporation, doctors are sometimes called on to do less than pleasant tasks.

“If the toilet gets clogged and the plumber can’t come for a few hours, the patients still need a bathroom,” Dr. Maniya said. “I’ll go in with my $400 shoes and snake the toilet.”

Dr. Milford pointed out that when the buck stops with you, small mistakes can have enormous ramifications. “But with the bad comes the great potential for good. You have the ability to positively affect patients and healthcare, and to make a difference for people. It creates great personal satisfaction.”
 

Is running your own practice all it’s cracked up to be?

If it’s not yet apparent, all four doctors highly recommend moving from employment to private practice when possible. The autonomy and the improved work-life balance have helped them find the satisfaction they’d been missing while making burnout less likely.

“When you don’t have to spend 30% of your day apologizing to patients for how bad the health care system is, it reignites your passion for why you went into medicine in the first place,” said Dr. Maniya. In his practice, he’s made a conscious decision to pursue a mix of demographics. “Thirty percent of our patients are Medicaid. The vast majority are middle to low income.”

For physicians who are also parents, the ability to set their own schedules is life-changing.

“My son got an award ... and the teacher invited me to the assembly. In a corporate-based world, I’d struggle to be able to go,” said Dr. Seefeldt. As her own boss, she didn’t have to forgo this special event. Instead, she coordinated directly with her scheduled patient to make time for it.

In Medscape’s report, 61% of employed physicians indicated that they don’t have a say on key management decisions. However, doctors who launch private practices embrace the chance to set their own standards.

“We make sure from the minute someone calls they know they’re in good hands, we’re responsive, we address concerns right away. That’s the difference with private practice – the one-on-one connection is huge,” said Dr. Patel.

“This is exactly what I always wanted. It brings me joy knowing we’ve made a difference in these children’s lives, in their parents’ lives,” she concluded.

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

“Everyone said private practice is dying,” said Omar Maniya, MD, an emergency physician who left his hospital job for family practice in New Jersey. “But I think it could be one of the best models we have to advance our health care system and prevent burnout – and bring joy back to the practice of medicine.”

In 2021, the American Medical Association found that, for the first time, less than half of all physicians work in private practice. But employment doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. In the Medscape “Employed Physicians: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy” ” report, more than 1,350 U.S. physicians employed by a health care organization, hospital, large group practice, or other medical group were surveyedabout their work. As the subtitle suggests, many are torn.

In the survey, employed doctors cited three main downsides to the lifestyle: They have less autonomy, more corporate rules than they’d like, and lower earning potential. Nearly one-third say they’re unhappy about their work-life balance, too, which raises the risk for burnout.

Some physicians find that employment has more cons than pros and turn to private practice instead.
 

A system skewed toward employment

In the mid-1990s, when James Milford, MD, completed his residency, going straight into private practice was the norm. The family physician bucked that trend by joining a large regional medical center in Wisconsin. He spent the next 20+ years working to establish a network of medical clinics.

“It was very satisfying,” Dr. Milford said. “When I started, I had a lot of input, a lot of control.”

Since then, the pendulum has been swinging toward employment. Brieanna Seefeldt, DO, a family physician outside Denver, completed her residency in 2012.

“I told the recruiter I wanted my own practice,” Dr. Seefeldt said, “They said if you’re not independently wealthy, there’s no way.”

Sonal G. Patel, MD, a pediatric neurologist in Bethesda, finished her residency the same year as Dr. Seefeldt. Dr. Patel never even considered private practice.

“I always thought I would have a certain amount of clinic time where I have my regular patients,” she said, “but I’d also be doing hospital rounds and reading EEG studies at the hospital.”

For Dr. Maniya, who completed his residency in 2021, the choice was simple. Growing up, he watched his immigrant parents, both doctors in private practice, struggle to keep up.

“I opted for a big, sophisticated health system,” he said. “I thought we’d be pushing the envelope of what was possible in medicine.”
 

Becoming disillusioned with employment

All four of these physicians are now in private practice and are much happier.

Within a few years of starting her job, Dr. Seefeldt was one of the top producers in her area but felt tremendous pressure to see more and more patients. The last straw came after an unpaid maternity leave.

“They told me I owed them for my maternity leave, for lack of productivity,” she said. “I was in practice for only 4 years, but already feeling the effects of burnout.”

Dr. Patel only lasted 2 years before realizing employment didn’t suit her.

“There was an excessive amount of hospital calls,” she said. “And there were bureaucratic issues that made it very difficult to practice the way I thought my practice would be.”

It took just 18 months for Dr. Maniya’s light-bulb moment. He was working at a hospital when COVID-19 hit.

“At my big health care system, it took 9 months to come up with a way to get COVID swabs for free,” he said. “At the same time, I was helping out the family business, a private practice. It took me two calls and 48 hours to get free swabs for not just the practice, not just our patients, but the entire city of Hamilton, New Jersey.”

Milford lasted the longest as an employee – nearly 25 years. The end came after a healthcare company with hospitals in 30 states bought out the medical center.

“My control gradually eroded,” he said. “It got to the point where I had no input regarding things like employees or processes we wanted to improve.”
 

Making the leap to private practice

Private practice can take different forms.

Dr. Seefeldt opted for direct primary care, a model in which her patients pay a set monthly fee for care whenever needed. Her practice doesn’t take any insurance besides Medicaid.

“Direct primary care is about working directly with the patient and cost-conscious, transparent care,” she said. “And I don’t have to deal with insurance.”

For Dr. Patel, working with an accountable care organization made the transition easier. She owns her practice solo but works with a company called Privia for administrative needs. Privia sent a consultant to set up her office in the company’s electronic medical record. Things were up and running within the first week.

Dr. Maniya joined his mother’s practice, easing his way in over 18 months.

And then there’s what Milford did, building a private practice from the ground up.

“We did a lot of Googling, a lot of meeting with accountants, meeting with small business development from the state of Wisconsin,” he said. “We asked people that were in business, ‘What are the things businesses fail on? Not medical practices, but businesses.’” All that research helped him launch successfully.
 

Making the dollars and cents add up

Moving from employment into private practice takes time, effort, and of course, money. How much of each varies depending on where you live, your specialty, whether you choose to rent or buy office space, staffing needs, and other factors.

Dr. Seefeldt, Dr. Patel, Dr. Milford, and Dr. Maniya illustrate the range.

• Dr. Seefeldt got a home equity loan of $50,000 to cover startup costs – and paid it back within 6 months.
• Purchasing EEG equipment added to Dr. Patel’s budget; she spent $130,000 of her own money to launch her practice in a temporary office and took out a $150,000 loan to finance the buildout of her final space. It took her 3 years to pay it back.
• When Dr. Milford left employment, he borrowed the buildout and startup costs for his practice from his father, a retired surgeon, to the tune of $500,000.
• Dr. Maniya assumed the largest risk. When he took over the family practice, he borrowed $1.5 million to modernize and build a new office. The practice has now quintupled in size. “It’s going great,” he said. “One of our questions is, should we pay back the loan at a faster pace rather than make the minimum payments?”

Several years in, Dr. Patel reports she’s easily making three to four times as much as she would have at a hospital. However, Dr. Maniya’s guaranteed compensation is 10% less than his old job.

“But as a partner in a private practice, if it succeeds, it could be 100%-150% more in a good year,” he said. On the flip side, if the practice runs into financial trouble, so does he. “Does the risk keep me up at night, give me heartburn? You betcha.”

Dr. Milford and Dr. Seefeldt have both chosen to take less compensation than they could, opting to reinvest in and nurture their practices.

“I love it,” said Dr. Milford. “I joke that I have half as much in my pocketbook, twice as much in my heart. But it’s not really half as much, 5 years in. If I weren’t growing the business, I’d be making more than before.”
 

Private practice is not without challenges

Being the big cheese does have drawbacks. In the current climate, staffing is a persistent issue for doctors in private practice – both maintaining a full staff and managing their employees.

And without the backing of a large corporation, doctors are sometimes called on to do less than pleasant tasks.

“If the toilet gets clogged and the plumber can’t come for a few hours, the patients still need a bathroom,” Dr. Maniya said. “I’ll go in with my $400 shoes and snake the toilet.”

Dr. Milford pointed out that when the buck stops with you, small mistakes can have enormous ramifications. “But with the bad comes the great potential for good. You have the ability to positively affect patients and healthcare, and to make a difference for people. It creates great personal satisfaction.”
 

Is running your own practice all it’s cracked up to be?

If it’s not yet apparent, all four doctors highly recommend moving from employment to private practice when possible. The autonomy and the improved work-life balance have helped them find the satisfaction they’d been missing while making burnout less likely.

“When you don’t have to spend 30% of your day apologizing to patients for how bad the health care system is, it reignites your passion for why you went into medicine in the first place,” said Dr. Maniya. In his practice, he’s made a conscious decision to pursue a mix of demographics. “Thirty percent of our patients are Medicaid. The vast majority are middle to low income.”

For physicians who are also parents, the ability to set their own schedules is life-changing.

“My son got an award ... and the teacher invited me to the assembly. In a corporate-based world, I’d struggle to be able to go,” said Dr. Seefeldt. As her own boss, she didn’t have to forgo this special event. Instead, she coordinated directly with her scheduled patient to make time for it.

In Medscape’s report, 61% of employed physicians indicated that they don’t have a say on key management decisions. However, doctors who launch private practices embrace the chance to set their own standards.

“We make sure from the minute someone calls they know they’re in good hands, we’re responsive, we address concerns right away. That’s the difference with private practice – the one-on-one connection is huge,” said Dr. Patel.

“This is exactly what I always wanted. It brings me joy knowing we’ve made a difference in these children’s lives, in their parents’ lives,” she concluded.

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

“Everyone said private practice is dying,” said Omar Maniya, MD, an emergency physician who left his hospital job for family practice in New Jersey. “But I think it could be one of the best models we have to advance our health care system and prevent burnout – and bring joy back to the practice of medicine.”

In 2021, the American Medical Association found that, for the first time, less than half of all physicians work in private practice. But employment doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. In the Medscape “Employed Physicians: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy” ” report, more than 1,350 U.S. physicians employed by a health care organization, hospital, large group practice, or other medical group were surveyedabout their work. As the subtitle suggests, many are torn.

In the survey, employed doctors cited three main downsides to the lifestyle: They have less autonomy, more corporate rules than they’d like, and lower earning potential. Nearly one-third say they’re unhappy about their work-life balance, too, which raises the risk for burnout.

Some physicians find that employment has more cons than pros and turn to private practice instead.
 

A system skewed toward employment

In the mid-1990s, when James Milford, MD, completed his residency, going straight into private practice was the norm. The family physician bucked that trend by joining a large regional medical center in Wisconsin. He spent the next 20+ years working to establish a network of medical clinics.

“It was very satisfying,” Dr. Milford said. “When I started, I had a lot of input, a lot of control.”

Since then, the pendulum has been swinging toward employment. Brieanna Seefeldt, DO, a family physician outside Denver, completed her residency in 2012.

“I told the recruiter I wanted my own practice,” Dr. Seefeldt said, “They said if you’re not independently wealthy, there’s no way.”

Sonal G. Patel, MD, a pediatric neurologist in Bethesda, finished her residency the same year as Dr. Seefeldt. Dr. Patel never even considered private practice.

“I always thought I would have a certain amount of clinic time where I have my regular patients,” she said, “but I’d also be doing hospital rounds and reading EEG studies at the hospital.”

For Dr. Maniya, who completed his residency in 2021, the choice was simple. Growing up, he watched his immigrant parents, both doctors in private practice, struggle to keep up.

“I opted for a big, sophisticated health system,” he said. “I thought we’d be pushing the envelope of what was possible in medicine.”
 

Becoming disillusioned with employment

All four of these physicians are now in private practice and are much happier.

Within a few years of starting her job, Dr. Seefeldt was one of the top producers in her area but felt tremendous pressure to see more and more patients. The last straw came after an unpaid maternity leave.

“They told me I owed them for my maternity leave, for lack of productivity,” she said. “I was in practice for only 4 years, but already feeling the effects of burnout.”

Dr. Patel only lasted 2 years before realizing employment didn’t suit her.

“There was an excessive amount of hospital calls,” she said. “And there were bureaucratic issues that made it very difficult to practice the way I thought my practice would be.”

It took just 18 months for Dr. Maniya’s light-bulb moment. He was working at a hospital when COVID-19 hit.

“At my big health care system, it took 9 months to come up with a way to get COVID swabs for free,” he said. “At the same time, I was helping out the family business, a private practice. It took me two calls and 48 hours to get free swabs for not just the practice, not just our patients, but the entire city of Hamilton, New Jersey.”

Milford lasted the longest as an employee – nearly 25 years. The end came after a healthcare company with hospitals in 30 states bought out the medical center.

“My control gradually eroded,” he said. “It got to the point where I had no input regarding things like employees or processes we wanted to improve.”
 

Making the leap to private practice

Private practice can take different forms.

Dr. Seefeldt opted for direct primary care, a model in which her patients pay a set monthly fee for care whenever needed. Her practice doesn’t take any insurance besides Medicaid.

“Direct primary care is about working directly with the patient and cost-conscious, transparent care,” she said. “And I don’t have to deal with insurance.”

For Dr. Patel, working with an accountable care organization made the transition easier. She owns her practice solo but works with a company called Privia for administrative needs. Privia sent a consultant to set up her office in the company’s electronic medical record. Things were up and running within the first week.

Dr. Maniya joined his mother’s practice, easing his way in over 18 months.

And then there’s what Milford did, building a private practice from the ground up.

“We did a lot of Googling, a lot of meeting with accountants, meeting with small business development from the state of Wisconsin,” he said. “We asked people that were in business, ‘What are the things businesses fail on? Not medical practices, but businesses.’” All that research helped him launch successfully.
 

Making the dollars and cents add up

Moving from employment into private practice takes time, effort, and of course, money. How much of each varies depending on where you live, your specialty, whether you choose to rent or buy office space, staffing needs, and other factors.

Dr. Seefeldt, Dr. Patel, Dr. Milford, and Dr. Maniya illustrate the range.

• Dr. Seefeldt got a home equity loan of $50,000 to cover startup costs – and paid it back within 6 months.
• Purchasing EEG equipment added to Dr. Patel’s budget; she spent $130,000 of her own money to launch her practice in a temporary office and took out a $150,000 loan to finance the buildout of her final space. It took her 3 years to pay it back.
• When Dr. Milford left employment, he borrowed the buildout and startup costs for his practice from his father, a retired surgeon, to the tune of $500,000.
• Dr. Maniya assumed the largest risk. When he took over the family practice, he borrowed $1.5 million to modernize and build a new office. The practice has now quintupled in size. “It’s going great,” he said. “One of our questions is, should we pay back the loan at a faster pace rather than make the minimum payments?”

Several years in, Dr. Patel reports she’s easily making three to four times as much as she would have at a hospital. However, Dr. Maniya’s guaranteed compensation is 10% less than his old job.

“But as a partner in a private practice, if it succeeds, it could be 100%-150% more in a good year,” he said. On the flip side, if the practice runs into financial trouble, so does he. “Does the risk keep me up at night, give me heartburn? You betcha.”

Dr. Milford and Dr. Seefeldt have both chosen to take less compensation than they could, opting to reinvest in and nurture their practices.

“I love it,” said Dr. Milford. “I joke that I have half as much in my pocketbook, twice as much in my heart. But it’s not really half as much, 5 years in. If I weren’t growing the business, I’d be making more than before.”
 

Private practice is not without challenges

Being the big cheese does have drawbacks. In the current climate, staffing is a persistent issue for doctors in private practice – both maintaining a full staff and managing their employees.

And without the backing of a large corporation, doctors are sometimes called on to do less than pleasant tasks.

“If the toilet gets clogged and the plumber can’t come for a few hours, the patients still need a bathroom,” Dr. Maniya said. “I’ll go in with my $400 shoes and snake the toilet.”

Dr. Milford pointed out that when the buck stops with you, small mistakes can have enormous ramifications. “But with the bad comes the great potential for good. You have the ability to positively affect patients and healthcare, and to make a difference for people. It creates great personal satisfaction.”
 

Is running your own practice all it’s cracked up to be?

If it’s not yet apparent, all four doctors highly recommend moving from employment to private practice when possible. The autonomy and the improved work-life balance have helped them find the satisfaction they’d been missing while making burnout less likely.

“When you don’t have to spend 30% of your day apologizing to patients for how bad the health care system is, it reignites your passion for why you went into medicine in the first place,” said Dr. Maniya. In his practice, he’s made a conscious decision to pursue a mix of demographics. “Thirty percent of our patients are Medicaid. The vast majority are middle to low income.”

For physicians who are also parents, the ability to set their own schedules is life-changing.

“My son got an award ... and the teacher invited me to the assembly. In a corporate-based world, I’d struggle to be able to go,” said Dr. Seefeldt. As her own boss, she didn’t have to forgo this special event. Instead, she coordinated directly with her scheduled patient to make time for it.

In Medscape’s report, 61% of employed physicians indicated that they don’t have a say on key management decisions. However, doctors who launch private practices embrace the chance to set their own standards.

“We make sure from the minute someone calls they know they’re in good hands, we’re responsive, we address concerns right away. That’s the difference with private practice – the one-on-one connection is huge,” said Dr. Patel.

“This is exactly what I always wanted. It brings me joy knowing we’ve made a difference in these children’s lives, in their parents’ lives,” she concluded.

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

Long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) has the potential to fill the gaps for people at high risk for sexually transmitted HIV who have trouble taking oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), but several factors stand in the way of a widespread rollout, say authors of a new review article.

CAB-LA “represents the most important breakthrough in HIV prevention in recent years,” write Geoffroy Liegeon, MD, and Jade Ghosn, MD, PhD, with Université Paris Cité, in this month’s HIV Medicine.

It has been found to be safe, and more effective in phase 3 trials than oral PrEP, and is well-accepted in men who have sex with men, and transgender and cisgender women.
 

Reductions in stigma

Surveys show patients at high risk for HIV – especially those who see PrEP as burdensome – are highly interested in long-acting injectable drugs. Reduced stigma with the injections also appears to steer the choice toward a long-acting agent and may attract more people to HIV prevention programs.

The first two injections are given 4 weeks apart, followed by an injection every 8 weeks.

Models designed to increase uptake, adherence, and persistence when on and after discontinuing CAB-LA will be important for wider rollout, as will better patient education and demonstrated efficacy and safety in populations not included in clinical trials, Dr. Liegeon and Dr. Ghosn note.

Still, they point out that its broader integration into clinical routine is held back by factors including breakthrough infections despite timely injections, complexity of follow-up, logistical considerations, and its cost-effectiveness compared with oral PrEP.
 

A hefty price tag

“[T]he cost effectiveness compared with TDF-FTC [tenofovir/emtricitabine] generics may not support its use at the current price in many settings,” the authors write.

For low- and middle-income countries, the TDF/FTC price is about $55, according to the World Health Organization’s Global Price Reporting, while the current price of CAB-LA in the United States is about $22,000, according to Dr. Ghosn. He said in an interview that because the cost of generics can reach $400-$500 per year in the United States, depending on the pharmaceutical companies, the price for CAB-LA is almost 60 times higher than TDF/FTC in the Untied States.

The biggest hope for the price reduction, at least in lower-income countries, he said, is a new licensing agreement.

ViiV Healthcare signed a new voluntary licensing agreement with the Medicines Patent Pool in July to help access in low-income, lower-middle-income, and sub-Saharan African countries, he explained.

The authors summarize: “[E]stablishing the effectiveness of CAB-LA does not guarantee its uptake into clinical routine.”

Because of the combined issues, the WHO recommended CAB-LA as an additional prevention choice for PrEP in its recent guidelines, pending further studies.
 

Barriers frustrate providers

Lauren Fontana, DO, assistant professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and infectious disease physician at M Health Fairview, said in an interview that “as a health care provider, cost and insurance barriers can be frustrating, especially when CAB-LA is identified as the best option for a patient.”

Lack of nonphysician-led initiatives, such as nurse- or pharmacy-led services for CAB-LA, may limit availability to marginalized and at-risk populations, she said.

“If a clinic can acquire CAB-LA, clinic protocols need to be developed and considerations of missed visits and doses must be thought about when implementing a program,” Dr. Fontana said.

Clinics need resources to engage with patients to promote retention in the program with case management and pharmacy support, she added.

“Simplification processes need to be developed to make CAB-LA an option for more clinics and patients,” she continued. “We are still learning about the incidence of breakthrough HIV infections, patterns of HIV seroconversion, and how to optimize testing so that HIV infections are detected early.”

Dr. Liegeon, Dr. Ghosn, and Dr. Fontana report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) has the potential to fill the gaps for people at high risk for sexually transmitted HIV who have trouble taking oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), but several factors stand in the way of a widespread rollout, say authors of a new review article.

CAB-LA “represents the most important breakthrough in HIV prevention in recent years,” write Geoffroy Liegeon, MD, and Jade Ghosn, MD, PhD, with Université Paris Cité, in this month’s HIV Medicine.

It has been found to be safe, and more effective in phase 3 trials than oral PrEP, and is well-accepted in men who have sex with men, and transgender and cisgender women.
 

Reductions in stigma

Surveys show patients at high risk for HIV – especially those who see PrEP as burdensome – are highly interested in long-acting injectable drugs. Reduced stigma with the injections also appears to steer the choice toward a long-acting agent and may attract more people to HIV prevention programs.

The first two injections are given 4 weeks apart, followed by an injection every 8 weeks.

Models designed to increase uptake, adherence, and persistence when on and after discontinuing CAB-LA will be important for wider rollout, as will better patient education and demonstrated efficacy and safety in populations not included in clinical trials, Dr. Liegeon and Dr. Ghosn note.

Still, they point out that its broader integration into clinical routine is held back by factors including breakthrough infections despite timely injections, complexity of follow-up, logistical considerations, and its cost-effectiveness compared with oral PrEP.
 

A hefty price tag

“[T]he cost effectiveness compared with TDF-FTC [tenofovir/emtricitabine] generics may not support its use at the current price in many settings,” the authors write.

For low- and middle-income countries, the TDF/FTC price is about $55, according to the World Health Organization’s Global Price Reporting, while the current price of CAB-LA in the United States is about $22,000, according to Dr. Ghosn. He said in an interview that because the cost of generics can reach $400-$500 per year in the United States, depending on the pharmaceutical companies, the price for CAB-LA is almost 60 times higher than TDF/FTC in the Untied States.

The biggest hope for the price reduction, at least in lower-income countries, he said, is a new licensing agreement.

ViiV Healthcare signed a new voluntary licensing agreement with the Medicines Patent Pool in July to help access in low-income, lower-middle-income, and sub-Saharan African countries, he explained.

The authors summarize: “[E]stablishing the effectiveness of CAB-LA does not guarantee its uptake into clinical routine.”

Because of the combined issues, the WHO recommended CAB-LA as an additional prevention choice for PrEP in its recent guidelines, pending further studies.
 

Barriers frustrate providers

Lauren Fontana, DO, assistant professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and infectious disease physician at M Health Fairview, said in an interview that “as a health care provider, cost and insurance barriers can be frustrating, especially when CAB-LA is identified as the best option for a patient.”

Lack of nonphysician-led initiatives, such as nurse- or pharmacy-led services for CAB-LA, may limit availability to marginalized and at-risk populations, she said.

“If a clinic can acquire CAB-LA, clinic protocols need to be developed and considerations of missed visits and doses must be thought about when implementing a program,” Dr. Fontana said.

Clinics need resources to engage with patients to promote retention in the program with case management and pharmacy support, she added.

“Simplification processes need to be developed to make CAB-LA an option for more clinics and patients,” she continued. “We are still learning about the incidence of breakthrough HIV infections, patterns of HIV seroconversion, and how to optimize testing so that HIV infections are detected early.”

Dr. Liegeon, Dr. Ghosn, and Dr. Fontana report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) has the potential to fill the gaps for people at high risk for sexually transmitted HIV who have trouble taking oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), but several factors stand in the way of a widespread rollout, say authors of a new review article.

CAB-LA “represents the most important breakthrough in HIV prevention in recent years,” write Geoffroy Liegeon, MD, and Jade Ghosn, MD, PhD, with Université Paris Cité, in this month’s HIV Medicine.

It has been found to be safe, and more effective in phase 3 trials than oral PrEP, and is well-accepted in men who have sex with men, and transgender and cisgender women.
 

Reductions in stigma

Surveys show patients at high risk for HIV – especially those who see PrEP as burdensome – are highly interested in long-acting injectable drugs. Reduced stigma with the injections also appears to steer the choice toward a long-acting agent and may attract more people to HIV prevention programs.

The first two injections are given 4 weeks apart, followed by an injection every 8 weeks.

Models designed to increase uptake, adherence, and persistence when on and after discontinuing CAB-LA will be important for wider rollout, as will better patient education and demonstrated efficacy and safety in populations not included in clinical trials, Dr. Liegeon and Dr. Ghosn note.

Still, they point out that its broader integration into clinical routine is held back by factors including breakthrough infections despite timely injections, complexity of follow-up, logistical considerations, and its cost-effectiveness compared with oral PrEP.
 

A hefty price tag

“[T]he cost effectiveness compared with TDF-FTC [tenofovir/emtricitabine] generics may not support its use at the current price in many settings,” the authors write.

For low- and middle-income countries, the TDF/FTC price is about $55, according to the World Health Organization’s Global Price Reporting, while the current price of CAB-LA in the United States is about $22,000, according to Dr. Ghosn. He said in an interview that because the cost of generics can reach $400-$500 per year in the United States, depending on the pharmaceutical companies, the price for CAB-LA is almost 60 times higher than TDF/FTC in the Untied States.

The biggest hope for the price reduction, at least in lower-income countries, he said, is a new licensing agreement.

ViiV Healthcare signed a new voluntary licensing agreement with the Medicines Patent Pool in July to help access in low-income, lower-middle-income, and sub-Saharan African countries, he explained.

The authors summarize: “[E]stablishing the effectiveness of CAB-LA does not guarantee its uptake into clinical routine.”

Because of the combined issues, the WHO recommended CAB-LA as an additional prevention choice for PrEP in its recent guidelines, pending further studies.
 

Barriers frustrate providers

Lauren Fontana, DO, assistant professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and infectious disease physician at M Health Fairview, said in an interview that “as a health care provider, cost and insurance barriers can be frustrating, especially when CAB-LA is identified as the best option for a patient.”

Lack of nonphysician-led initiatives, such as nurse- or pharmacy-led services for CAB-LA, may limit availability to marginalized and at-risk populations, she said.

“If a clinic can acquire CAB-LA, clinic protocols need to be developed and considerations of missed visits and doses must be thought about when implementing a program,” Dr. Fontana said.

Clinics need resources to engage with patients to promote retention in the program with case management and pharmacy support, she added.

“Simplification processes need to be developed to make CAB-LA an option for more clinics and patients,” she continued. “We are still learning about the incidence of breakthrough HIV infections, patterns of HIV seroconversion, and how to optimize testing so that HIV infections are detected early.”

Dr. Liegeon, Dr. Ghosn, and Dr. Fontana report no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a cautiously optimistic report, researchers described pregnancy outcomes in 25 women living with HIV in clinical trials of a new long-acting injectable antiretroviral regimen of cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB + RPV).

Among 10 live births, there was one birth defect (congenital ptosis, or droopy eyelid), which was not attributed to the trial drugs. There were no instances of perinatal HIV transmission at delivery or during the 1-year follow-up.

“Long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine is the first and only complete injectable regimen potentially available for pregnant women,” first author Parul Patel, PharmD, global medical affairs director for cabotegravir at ViiV Healthcare, said in an interview. The regimen was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 for injections every 4 weeks and in February 2022 for injections every 8 weeks.

“Importantly, it can be dosed monthly or every 2 months,” Patel said. “This could be advantageous for women who are experiencing constant change during pregnancy. This could be a consideration for women who might have problems tolerating oral pills during pregnancy or might have problems with emesis.”

The study was published in HIV Medicine.

“We are really pursuing the development of the long-acting version of cabotegravir in combination with rilpivirine,” Dr. Patel said. “It’s an industry standard during initial development that you start very conservatively and not allow a woman who is pregnant to continue dosing of a drug while still evaluating its overall safety profile. We really want to understand the use of this agent in nonpregnant adults before exposing pregnant women to active treatment.”
 

Pregnancies in trials excluding pregnant women

In the paper, Dr. Patel and her coauthors noted the limited data on pregnant women exposed to CAB + RPV. They analyzed pregnancies in four phase 2b/3/3b clinical trials sponsored by ViiV Healthcare and a compassionate use program. All clinical trial participants first received oral CAB + RPV daily for 4 weeks to assess individual tolerance before the experimental long-acting injection of CAB + RPV every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks.

Women participants were required to use highly effective contraception during the trials and for at least 52 weeks after the last injection. Urine pregnancy tests were given at baseline, before each injection, and when pregnancy was suspected. If a pregnancy was detected, CAB + RPV (oral or long-acting injections) was discontinued and the woman switched to an alternative oral antiretroviral, unless she and her physician decided to continue with injections in the compassionate use program.
 

Pregnancy outcomes

Among 25 reported pregnancies in 22 women during the trial, there were 10 live births. Nine of the mothers who delivered their babies at term had switched to an alternative antiretroviral regimen and maintained virologic suppression throughout pregnancy and post partum, or the last available viral load assessment.

The 10th participant remained on long-acting CAB + RPV during her pregnancy and had a live birth with congenital ptosis that was resolving without treatment at the 4-month ophthalmology consult, the authors wrote. The mother experienced persistent low-level viremia before and throughout her pregnancy.

Two of the pregnancies occurred after the last monthly injection, during the washout period. Other studies have reported that each long-acting drug, CAB and RPV, can be detected more than 1 year after the last injection. In the new report, plasma CAB and RPV washout concentrations during pregnancy were within the range of those in nonpregnant women, the authors wrote.

Among the 14 participants with non–live birth outcomes, 13 switched to an alternative antiretroviral regimen during pregnancy and maintained virologic suppression through pregnancy and post partum, or until their last viral assessment. The remaining participant received long-acting CAB + RPV and continued this treatment for the duration of their pregnancy.

“It’s a very limited data set, so we’re not in a position to be able to make definitive conclusions around long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine in pregnancy,” Dr. Patel acknowledged. “But the data that we presented among the 25 women who were exposed to cabotegravir-rilpivirine looks reassuring.”
 

Planned studies during pregnancy

Vani Vannappagari, MBBS, MPH, PhD, global head of epidemiology and real-world evidence at ViiV Healthcare and study coauthor, said in an interview that the initial results are spurring promising new research.

“We are working with an external IMPAACT [International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials Network] group on a clinical trial ... to try to determine the appropriate dose of long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine during pregnancy,” Dr. Vannappagari said. “The clinical trial will give us the immediate safety, dose information, and viral suppression rates for both the mother and the infant. But long-term safety, especially birth defects and any adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, will come from our antiretroviral pregnancy registry and other noninterventional studies.

“In the very small cohort studied, [in] pregnancies that were continued after exposure to long-acting cabotegravir and rilpivirine in the first trimester, there were no significant adverse fetal outcomes identified,” he said. “That’s reassuring, as is the fact that at the time these patients were switched in early pregnancy, their viral loads were all undetectable at the time that their pregnancies were diagnosed.”

Neil Silverman, MD, professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology and director of the Infections in Pregnancy Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center, who was not associated with the study, provided a comment to this news organization.

“The larger question still remains why pregnant women were so actively excluded from the original study design when this trial was evaluating a newer long-acting preparation of two anti-HIV medications that otherwise would be perfectly fine to use during pregnancy?”

Dr. Silverman continued, “In this case, it’s particularly frustrating since the present study was simply evaluating established medications currently being used to manage HIV infection, but in a newer longer-acting mode of administration by an injection every 2 months. If a patient had already been successfully managed on an oral antiviral regimen containing an integrase inhibitor and a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, like the two drugs studied here, it would not be considered reasonable to switch that regimen simply because she was found to be pregnant.”

Dr. Patel and Dr. Vannappagari are employees of ViiV Healthcare and stockholders of GlaxoSmithKline.

This analysis was funded by ViiV Healthcare, and all studies were cofunded by ViiV Healthcare and Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Silverman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a cautiously optimistic report, researchers described pregnancy outcomes in 25 women living with HIV in clinical trials of a new long-acting injectable antiretroviral regimen of cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB + RPV).

Among 10 live births, there was one birth defect (congenital ptosis, or droopy eyelid), which was not attributed to the trial drugs. There were no instances of perinatal HIV transmission at delivery or during the 1-year follow-up.

“Long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine is the first and only complete injectable regimen potentially available for pregnant women,” first author Parul Patel, PharmD, global medical affairs director for cabotegravir at ViiV Healthcare, said in an interview. The regimen was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 for injections every 4 weeks and in February 2022 for injections every 8 weeks.

“Importantly, it can be dosed monthly or every 2 months,” Patel said. “This could be advantageous for women who are experiencing constant change during pregnancy. This could be a consideration for women who might have problems tolerating oral pills during pregnancy or might have problems with emesis.”

The study was published in HIV Medicine.

“We are really pursuing the development of the long-acting version of cabotegravir in combination with rilpivirine,” Dr. Patel said. “It’s an industry standard during initial development that you start very conservatively and not allow a woman who is pregnant to continue dosing of a drug while still evaluating its overall safety profile. We really want to understand the use of this agent in nonpregnant adults before exposing pregnant women to active treatment.”
 

Pregnancies in trials excluding pregnant women

In the paper, Dr. Patel and her coauthors noted the limited data on pregnant women exposed to CAB + RPV. They analyzed pregnancies in four phase 2b/3/3b clinical trials sponsored by ViiV Healthcare and a compassionate use program. All clinical trial participants first received oral CAB + RPV daily for 4 weeks to assess individual tolerance before the experimental long-acting injection of CAB + RPV every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks.

Women participants were required to use highly effective contraception during the trials and for at least 52 weeks after the last injection. Urine pregnancy tests were given at baseline, before each injection, and when pregnancy was suspected. If a pregnancy was detected, CAB + RPV (oral or long-acting injections) was discontinued and the woman switched to an alternative oral antiretroviral, unless she and her physician decided to continue with injections in the compassionate use program.
 

Pregnancy outcomes

Among 25 reported pregnancies in 22 women during the trial, there were 10 live births. Nine of the mothers who delivered their babies at term had switched to an alternative antiretroviral regimen and maintained virologic suppression throughout pregnancy and post partum, or the last available viral load assessment.

The 10th participant remained on long-acting CAB + RPV during her pregnancy and had a live birth with congenital ptosis that was resolving without treatment at the 4-month ophthalmology consult, the authors wrote. The mother experienced persistent low-level viremia before and throughout her pregnancy.

Two of the pregnancies occurred after the last monthly injection, during the washout period. Other studies have reported that each long-acting drug, CAB and RPV, can be detected more than 1 year after the last injection. In the new report, plasma CAB and RPV washout concentrations during pregnancy were within the range of those in nonpregnant women, the authors wrote.

Among the 14 participants with non–live birth outcomes, 13 switched to an alternative antiretroviral regimen during pregnancy and maintained virologic suppression through pregnancy and post partum, or until their last viral assessment. The remaining participant received long-acting CAB + RPV and continued this treatment for the duration of their pregnancy.

“It’s a very limited data set, so we’re not in a position to be able to make definitive conclusions around long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine in pregnancy,” Dr. Patel acknowledged. “But the data that we presented among the 25 women who were exposed to cabotegravir-rilpivirine looks reassuring.”
 

Planned studies during pregnancy

Vani Vannappagari, MBBS, MPH, PhD, global head of epidemiology and real-world evidence at ViiV Healthcare and study coauthor, said in an interview that the initial results are spurring promising new research.

“We are working with an external IMPAACT [International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials Network] group on a clinical trial ... to try to determine the appropriate dose of long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine during pregnancy,” Dr. Vannappagari said. “The clinical trial will give us the immediate safety, dose information, and viral suppression rates for both the mother and the infant. But long-term safety, especially birth defects and any adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, will come from our antiretroviral pregnancy registry and other noninterventional studies.

“In the very small cohort studied, [in] pregnancies that were continued after exposure to long-acting cabotegravir and rilpivirine in the first trimester, there were no significant adverse fetal outcomes identified,” he said. “That’s reassuring, as is the fact that at the time these patients were switched in early pregnancy, their viral loads were all undetectable at the time that their pregnancies were diagnosed.”

Neil Silverman, MD, professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology and director of the Infections in Pregnancy Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center, who was not associated with the study, provided a comment to this news organization.

“The larger question still remains why pregnant women were so actively excluded from the original study design when this trial was evaluating a newer long-acting preparation of two anti-HIV medications that otherwise would be perfectly fine to use during pregnancy?”

Dr. Silverman continued, “In this case, it’s particularly frustrating since the present study was simply evaluating established medications currently being used to manage HIV infection, but in a newer longer-acting mode of administration by an injection every 2 months. If a patient had already been successfully managed on an oral antiviral regimen containing an integrase inhibitor and a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, like the two drugs studied here, it would not be considered reasonable to switch that regimen simply because she was found to be pregnant.”

Dr. Patel and Dr. Vannappagari are employees of ViiV Healthcare and stockholders of GlaxoSmithKline.

This analysis was funded by ViiV Healthcare, and all studies were cofunded by ViiV Healthcare and Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Silverman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a cautiously optimistic report, researchers described pregnancy outcomes in 25 women living with HIV in clinical trials of a new long-acting injectable antiretroviral regimen of cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB + RPV).

Among 10 live births, there was one birth defect (congenital ptosis, or droopy eyelid), which was not attributed to the trial drugs. There were no instances of perinatal HIV transmission at delivery or during the 1-year follow-up.

“Long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine is the first and only complete injectable regimen potentially available for pregnant women,” first author Parul Patel, PharmD, global medical affairs director for cabotegravir at ViiV Healthcare, said in an interview. The regimen was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 for injections every 4 weeks and in February 2022 for injections every 8 weeks.

“Importantly, it can be dosed monthly or every 2 months,” Patel said. “This could be advantageous for women who are experiencing constant change during pregnancy. This could be a consideration for women who might have problems tolerating oral pills during pregnancy or might have problems with emesis.”

The study was published in HIV Medicine.

“We are really pursuing the development of the long-acting version of cabotegravir in combination with rilpivirine,” Dr. Patel said. “It’s an industry standard during initial development that you start very conservatively and not allow a woman who is pregnant to continue dosing of a drug while still evaluating its overall safety profile. We really want to understand the use of this agent in nonpregnant adults before exposing pregnant women to active treatment.”
 

Pregnancies in trials excluding pregnant women

In the paper, Dr. Patel and her coauthors noted the limited data on pregnant women exposed to CAB + RPV. They analyzed pregnancies in four phase 2b/3/3b clinical trials sponsored by ViiV Healthcare and a compassionate use program. All clinical trial participants first received oral CAB + RPV daily for 4 weeks to assess individual tolerance before the experimental long-acting injection of CAB + RPV every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks.

Women participants were required to use highly effective contraception during the trials and for at least 52 weeks after the last injection. Urine pregnancy tests were given at baseline, before each injection, and when pregnancy was suspected. If a pregnancy was detected, CAB + RPV (oral or long-acting injections) was discontinued and the woman switched to an alternative oral antiretroviral, unless she and her physician decided to continue with injections in the compassionate use program.
 

Pregnancy outcomes

Among 25 reported pregnancies in 22 women during the trial, there were 10 live births. Nine of the mothers who delivered their babies at term had switched to an alternative antiretroviral regimen and maintained virologic suppression throughout pregnancy and post partum, or the last available viral load assessment.

The 10th participant remained on long-acting CAB + RPV during her pregnancy and had a live birth with congenital ptosis that was resolving without treatment at the 4-month ophthalmology consult, the authors wrote. The mother experienced persistent low-level viremia before and throughout her pregnancy.

Two of the pregnancies occurred after the last monthly injection, during the washout period. Other studies have reported that each long-acting drug, CAB and RPV, can be detected more than 1 year after the last injection. In the new report, plasma CAB and RPV washout concentrations during pregnancy were within the range of those in nonpregnant women, the authors wrote.

Among the 14 participants with non–live birth outcomes, 13 switched to an alternative antiretroviral regimen during pregnancy and maintained virologic suppression through pregnancy and post partum, or until their last viral assessment. The remaining participant received long-acting CAB + RPV and continued this treatment for the duration of their pregnancy.

“It’s a very limited data set, so we’re not in a position to be able to make definitive conclusions around long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine in pregnancy,” Dr. Patel acknowledged. “But the data that we presented among the 25 women who were exposed to cabotegravir-rilpivirine looks reassuring.”
 

Planned studies during pregnancy

Vani Vannappagari, MBBS, MPH, PhD, global head of epidemiology and real-world evidence at ViiV Healthcare and study coauthor, said in an interview that the initial results are spurring promising new research.

“We are working with an external IMPAACT [International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials Network] group on a clinical trial ... to try to determine the appropriate dose of long-acting cabotegravir-rilpivirine during pregnancy,” Dr. Vannappagari said. “The clinical trial will give us the immediate safety, dose information, and viral suppression rates for both the mother and the infant. But long-term safety, especially birth defects and any adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, will come from our antiretroviral pregnancy registry and other noninterventional studies.

“In the very small cohort studied, [in] pregnancies that were continued after exposure to long-acting cabotegravir and rilpivirine in the first trimester, there were no significant adverse fetal outcomes identified,” he said. “That’s reassuring, as is the fact that at the time these patients were switched in early pregnancy, their viral loads were all undetectable at the time that their pregnancies were diagnosed.”

Neil Silverman, MD, professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology and director of the Infections in Pregnancy Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center, who was not associated with the study, provided a comment to this news organization.

“The larger question still remains why pregnant women were so actively excluded from the original study design when this trial was evaluating a newer long-acting preparation of two anti-HIV medications that otherwise would be perfectly fine to use during pregnancy?”

Dr. Silverman continued, “In this case, it’s particularly frustrating since the present study was simply evaluating established medications currently being used to manage HIV infection, but in a newer longer-acting mode of administration by an injection every 2 months. If a patient had already been successfully managed on an oral antiviral regimen containing an integrase inhibitor and a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, like the two drugs studied here, it would not be considered reasonable to switch that regimen simply because she was found to be pregnant.”

Dr. Patel and Dr. Vannappagari are employees of ViiV Healthcare and stockholders of GlaxoSmithKline.

This analysis was funded by ViiV Healthcare, and all studies were cofunded by ViiV Healthcare and Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Silverman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of Americans hospitalized because of the flu has hit the highest levels the country has seen in at least a decade, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
 

But the number of deaths and outpatient visits for flu or flu-like illnesses was down slightly from the week before, the CDC said in its weekly FluView report.

There were almost 26,000 new hospital admissions involving laboratory-confirmed influenza over those 7 days, up by over 31% from the previous week, based on data from 5,000 hospitals in the HHS Protect system, which tracks and shares COVID-19 data.

The cumulative hospitalization rate for the 2022-2023 season is 26.0 per 100,000 people, the highest seen at this time of year since 2010-2011, the CDC said, based on data from its Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network, which includes hospitals in select counties in 13 states.

At this point in the 2019-2020 season, just before the COVID-19 pandemic began, the cumulative rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people, the CDC’s data show.

On the positive side, the proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness dropped slightly to 7.2%, from 7.5% the week before. But these cases from the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network are not laboratory confirmed, so the data could include people with the flu, COVID-19, or respiratory syncytial virus. 

The number of confirmed flu deaths for the week of Nov. 27 to Dec. 3 also fell slightly from the last full week of November, 246 vs. 255, but the number of pediatric deaths rose from 2 to 7, and total deaths in children are already up to 21 for 2022-2023. That’s compared to 44 that were reported during all of the 2021-2022 season, the CDC said.

“So far this season, there have been at least 13 million illnesses, 120,000 hospitalizations, and 7,300 deaths from flu,” the agency estimated.

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

The number of Americans hospitalized because of the flu has hit the highest levels the country has seen in at least a decade, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
 

But the number of deaths and outpatient visits for flu or flu-like illnesses was down slightly from the week before, the CDC said in its weekly FluView report.

There were almost 26,000 new hospital admissions involving laboratory-confirmed influenza over those 7 days, up by over 31% from the previous week, based on data from 5,000 hospitals in the HHS Protect system, which tracks and shares COVID-19 data.

The cumulative hospitalization rate for the 2022-2023 season is 26.0 per 100,000 people, the highest seen at this time of year since 2010-2011, the CDC said, based on data from its Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network, which includes hospitals in select counties in 13 states.

At this point in the 2019-2020 season, just before the COVID-19 pandemic began, the cumulative rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people, the CDC’s data show.

On the positive side, the proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness dropped slightly to 7.2%, from 7.5% the week before. But these cases from the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network are not laboratory confirmed, so the data could include people with the flu, COVID-19, or respiratory syncytial virus. 

The number of confirmed flu deaths for the week of Nov. 27 to Dec. 3 also fell slightly from the last full week of November, 246 vs. 255, but the number of pediatric deaths rose from 2 to 7, and total deaths in children are already up to 21 for 2022-2023. That’s compared to 44 that were reported during all of the 2021-2022 season, the CDC said.

“So far this season, there have been at least 13 million illnesses, 120,000 hospitalizations, and 7,300 deaths from flu,” the agency estimated.

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

The number of Americans hospitalized because of the flu has hit the highest levels the country has seen in at least a decade, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
 

But the number of deaths and outpatient visits for flu or flu-like illnesses was down slightly from the week before, the CDC said in its weekly FluView report.

There were almost 26,000 new hospital admissions involving laboratory-confirmed influenza over those 7 days, up by over 31% from the previous week, based on data from 5,000 hospitals in the HHS Protect system, which tracks and shares COVID-19 data.

The cumulative hospitalization rate for the 2022-2023 season is 26.0 per 100,000 people, the highest seen at this time of year since 2010-2011, the CDC said, based on data from its Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network, which includes hospitals in select counties in 13 states.

At this point in the 2019-2020 season, just before the COVID-19 pandemic began, the cumulative rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people, the CDC’s data show.

On the positive side, the proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness dropped slightly to 7.2%, from 7.5% the week before. But these cases from the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network are not laboratory confirmed, so the data could include people with the flu, COVID-19, or respiratory syncytial virus. 

The number of confirmed flu deaths for the week of Nov. 27 to Dec. 3 also fell slightly from the last full week of November, 246 vs. 255, but the number of pediatric deaths rose from 2 to 7, and total deaths in children are already up to 21 for 2022-2023. That’s compared to 44 that were reported during all of the 2021-2022 season, the CDC said.

“So far this season, there have been at least 13 million illnesses, 120,000 hospitalizations, and 7,300 deaths from flu,” the agency estimated.

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

It was the last monoclonal antibody treatment standing. But less than 10 months after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave bebtelovimab its emergency use authorization (EUA) to fight COVID-19, it earlier this month de-authorized it, just as it had for other monoclonal antibody treatments, and for the same reason: The treatments were outwitted by the viral mutations.
 

Bebtelovimab couldn’t neutralize the Omicron subvariants BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, the cause of nearly 60% of COVID cases nationally as of November 30.

Next on the chopping block, some predict, will be Evusheld, the combination of tixagevimab and cilgavimab given as a preventive monoclonal antibody to people who are immunocompromised and at high risk of contracting COVID and to those who can’t take the vaccine. In October, the FDA warned that Evusheld was not neutralizing circulating COVID variants.

As the options for treating and preventing COVID decline, will companies rally quickly to develop new ones, or cut their losses in developing treatments that may work for only a few months, given the speed of viral mutations?

But although monoclonal antibody treatments are off the table, at least for now, antiviral drugs – including Paxlovid – are still very much available, and some say underused.

Others suggest it’s time to resurrect interest in convalescent plasma, a treatment used early in the pandemic before drugs or vaccines were here and still authorized for use in those who are immunosuppressed or receiving immunosuppressive treatment.

And on the prevention front, staying up to date with booster vaccines, masking, and taking other precautions should be stressed more, others say, regardless of the number of treatment options, and especially now, as cases rise and people gather for the winter holidays.
 

‘A major setback’

The bebtelovimab de-authorization was “a major setback,” but an understandable one, said Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, professor and chair of molecular microbiology and immunology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. “Monoclonal antibodies are great drugs. We are in an unfortunate situation in that they are vulnerable to changes in the virus” and can’t offer long-lasting protection.

Supplies of bebtelovimab will be retained, according to the FDA, in case variants susceptible to it return.

“What happened to bebtelovimab is no surprise,” agreed Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “This is what is going to happen when you are targeting a virus that mutates a lot.”

Monoclonal antibodies work by binding to the spike protein on the virus surface to prevent it from entering cells.

However, Dr. Adalja doesn’t view the disappearance of monoclonal antibody treatments as a major setback. Monoclonal antibodies were not the primary way COVID was treated, he said.

While he does believe it’s important that more monoclonal antibody treatments be developed, “I think it’s important to remember we still have Paxlovid while everyone is lamenting the loss of bebtelovimab.’’
 

Antivirals: What’s here, what’s coming

Compared with monoclonal antibodies, “Paxlovid remains a much easier drug to give,” Dr. Adalja told this news organization, because it is taken orally, not intravenously.

And it’s effective. In a recent study, researchers found that adults diagnosed with COVID given Paxlovid within 5 days of diagnosis had a 51% lower hospitalization rate within the next 30 days than those not given it. Another study shows it could also reduce a person’s risk of developing long COVID by 26%.

Paxlovid is underused, Dr. Adalja said, partly because the rebound potential got more press than the effectiveness. When a celebrity got rebound from Paxlovid, he said, that would make the news, overshadowing the research on its effectiveness.

Besides Paxlovid, the antivirals remdesivir (Veklury), given intravenously for 3 days, and molnupiravir (Lagevrio), taken orally, are also still available. Antivirals work by targeting specific parts of the virus to prevent it from multiplying.

In the lab, remdesivir, molnupiravir, and another antiviral, nirmatrelvir, all appear to be effective against both BQ.1.1 (a BA.5 subvariant) and XBB (a BA.2 subvariant), both rapidly rising in the United States, according to a report last week in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers also tested several monoclonal antibodies and found they did not neutralize either of the subvariants BQ.1.1 and XBB.

A new oral antiviral, Xocova (ensitrelvir fumaric acid), from Japanese manufacturer Shionogi, received emergency approval in Japan on November 22. It’s taken once a day for 5 days. The goal is to expand access to it globally, according to the company.

Pardes Biosciences launched a phase 2 trial in September for its oral antiviral drug (PBI-0451), under study as a treatment and preventive for COVID. It expects data by the first quarter of 2023.

Pfizer, which makes Paxlovid, has partnered with Clear Creek Bio to develop another oral antiviral COVID drug.
 

Other approaches

A receptor protein known as ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) is the main “doorway” that SARS-CoV-2 uses to enter and infect cells.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute scientists are developing a “decoy” drug that works by mimicking the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells; when the virus tries to bind to it, the spike protein is destroyed. Human trials have not yet started.

Other researchers are investigating whether an already-approved drug used to treat a liver disease, Actigall (UDCA/ursodeoxycholic acid), could protect against COVID infection by reducing ACE2.

So far, the researchers have found in early research that people taking UDCA for liver conditions were less likely than those not taking the drug to have severe COVID. They also found that UDCA reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection in human lungs maintained outside the body.
 

Monoclonal antibody treatments?

After the FDA decision to withdraw the bebtelovimab EUA, which Eli Lilly said it agreed with, the company issued a statement, promising it wasn’t giving up on monoclonal antibody treatments.

“Lilly will continue to search and evaluate monoclonal antibodies to identify potential candidates for clinical development against new variants,” it read in part.

AstraZeneca, which makes Evusheld, is also continuing to work on monoclonal antibody development. According to a spokesperson, “We are also developing a new long-acting antibody combination – AZD5156 – which has been shown in the lab to neutralize emerging new variants and all known variants to date. We are working to accelerate the development of AZD5156 to make it available at the end of 2023.”

The AstraZeneca spokesperson said he could share no more information about what the combination would include.
 

A convalescent plasma comeback?

Although Paxlovid can help, there are many contraindications to it, such as drug-drug interactions, Dr. Casadevall told this news organization. And now that the monoclonal antibody treatments have been paused, convalescent plasma “is the only antibody-based therapy that is reliably available. Convalescent plasma includes thousands of different antibodies.”

With his colleagues, Dr. Casadevall evaluated plasma samples from 740 patients. Some had received booster vaccines and been infected with Omicron, others had received boosters and not been infected, and still others had not been vaccinated and became infected.

In a report (not yet peer-reviewed), they found the plasma from those who had been infected or boosted within the past 6 months neutralized the new Omicron variants BQ.1.1, XBB.1, and BF.7.
 

A push for boosters, masks

To get through the coming months, taking precautions like masking and distancing and staying up to date on booster vaccinations, especially for older adults, can make a difference, other experts say.

In a Twitter thread in early December, Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics and molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, urged people to take COVID seriously as holiday parties and gatherings occur.

“The single most impactful thing you can do is get your bivalent booster,” he tweeted, as well as give your kids the booster, citing preliminary research that the bivalent mRNA booster broadens immunity against the Omicron subvariants.

For seniors, he said, ‘‘if you get breakthrough COVID, [it’s] really important to get Paxlovid.” Masks will help not only for COVID but also influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and other conditions.

Mitigation measures have largely been abandoned, according to Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape. In an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, and on his Twitter feed, he reminds people about masking and urges people to get the bivalent booster.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Dec. 8, only 13.5% of people aged 5 and older have gotten an updated booster, despite research that shows an increase in antibodies to BQ.1.1. Recent research has found that the bivalent booster increases antibodies to BQ.1.1 by up to 10-fold, Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja is on advisory boards for Shionogi, GSK, and Pardes. Dr. Casadevall reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

It was the last monoclonal antibody treatment standing. But less than 10 months after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave bebtelovimab its emergency use authorization (EUA) to fight COVID-19, it earlier this month de-authorized it, just as it had for other monoclonal antibody treatments, and for the same reason: The treatments were outwitted by the viral mutations.
 

Bebtelovimab couldn’t neutralize the Omicron subvariants BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, the cause of nearly 60% of COVID cases nationally as of November 30.

Next on the chopping block, some predict, will be Evusheld, the combination of tixagevimab and cilgavimab given as a preventive monoclonal antibody to people who are immunocompromised and at high risk of contracting COVID and to those who can’t take the vaccine. In October, the FDA warned that Evusheld was not neutralizing circulating COVID variants.

As the options for treating and preventing COVID decline, will companies rally quickly to develop new ones, or cut their losses in developing treatments that may work for only a few months, given the speed of viral mutations?

But although monoclonal antibody treatments are off the table, at least for now, antiviral drugs – including Paxlovid – are still very much available, and some say underused.

Others suggest it’s time to resurrect interest in convalescent plasma, a treatment used early in the pandemic before drugs or vaccines were here and still authorized for use in those who are immunosuppressed or receiving immunosuppressive treatment.

And on the prevention front, staying up to date with booster vaccines, masking, and taking other precautions should be stressed more, others say, regardless of the number of treatment options, and especially now, as cases rise and people gather for the winter holidays.
 

‘A major setback’

The bebtelovimab de-authorization was “a major setback,” but an understandable one, said Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, professor and chair of molecular microbiology and immunology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. “Monoclonal antibodies are great drugs. We are in an unfortunate situation in that they are vulnerable to changes in the virus” and can’t offer long-lasting protection.

Supplies of bebtelovimab will be retained, according to the FDA, in case variants susceptible to it return.

“What happened to bebtelovimab is no surprise,” agreed Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “This is what is going to happen when you are targeting a virus that mutates a lot.”

Monoclonal antibodies work by binding to the spike protein on the virus surface to prevent it from entering cells.

However, Dr. Adalja doesn’t view the disappearance of monoclonal antibody treatments as a major setback. Monoclonal antibodies were not the primary way COVID was treated, he said.

While he does believe it’s important that more monoclonal antibody treatments be developed, “I think it’s important to remember we still have Paxlovid while everyone is lamenting the loss of bebtelovimab.’’
 

Antivirals: What’s here, what’s coming

Compared with monoclonal antibodies, “Paxlovid remains a much easier drug to give,” Dr. Adalja told this news organization, because it is taken orally, not intravenously.

And it’s effective. In a recent study, researchers found that adults diagnosed with COVID given Paxlovid within 5 days of diagnosis had a 51% lower hospitalization rate within the next 30 days than those not given it. Another study shows it could also reduce a person’s risk of developing long COVID by 26%.

Paxlovid is underused, Dr. Adalja said, partly because the rebound potential got more press than the effectiveness. When a celebrity got rebound from Paxlovid, he said, that would make the news, overshadowing the research on its effectiveness.

Besides Paxlovid, the antivirals remdesivir (Veklury), given intravenously for 3 days, and molnupiravir (Lagevrio), taken orally, are also still available. Antivirals work by targeting specific parts of the virus to prevent it from multiplying.

In the lab, remdesivir, molnupiravir, and another antiviral, nirmatrelvir, all appear to be effective against both BQ.1.1 (a BA.5 subvariant) and XBB (a BA.2 subvariant), both rapidly rising in the United States, according to a report last week in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers also tested several monoclonal antibodies and found they did not neutralize either of the subvariants BQ.1.1 and XBB.

A new oral antiviral, Xocova (ensitrelvir fumaric acid), from Japanese manufacturer Shionogi, received emergency approval in Japan on November 22. It’s taken once a day for 5 days. The goal is to expand access to it globally, according to the company.

Pardes Biosciences launched a phase 2 trial in September for its oral antiviral drug (PBI-0451), under study as a treatment and preventive for COVID. It expects data by the first quarter of 2023.

Pfizer, which makes Paxlovid, has partnered with Clear Creek Bio to develop another oral antiviral COVID drug.
 

Other approaches

A receptor protein known as ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) is the main “doorway” that SARS-CoV-2 uses to enter and infect cells.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute scientists are developing a “decoy” drug that works by mimicking the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells; when the virus tries to bind to it, the spike protein is destroyed. Human trials have not yet started.

Other researchers are investigating whether an already-approved drug used to treat a liver disease, Actigall (UDCA/ursodeoxycholic acid), could protect against COVID infection by reducing ACE2.

So far, the researchers have found in early research that people taking UDCA for liver conditions were less likely than those not taking the drug to have severe COVID. They also found that UDCA reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection in human lungs maintained outside the body.
 

Monoclonal antibody treatments?

After the FDA decision to withdraw the bebtelovimab EUA, which Eli Lilly said it agreed with, the company issued a statement, promising it wasn’t giving up on monoclonal antibody treatments.

“Lilly will continue to search and evaluate monoclonal antibodies to identify potential candidates for clinical development against new variants,” it read in part.

AstraZeneca, which makes Evusheld, is also continuing to work on monoclonal antibody development. According to a spokesperson, “We are also developing a new long-acting antibody combination – AZD5156 – which has been shown in the lab to neutralize emerging new variants and all known variants to date. We are working to accelerate the development of AZD5156 to make it available at the end of 2023.”

The AstraZeneca spokesperson said he could share no more information about what the combination would include.
 

A convalescent plasma comeback?

Although Paxlovid can help, there are many contraindications to it, such as drug-drug interactions, Dr. Casadevall told this news organization. And now that the monoclonal antibody treatments have been paused, convalescent plasma “is the only antibody-based therapy that is reliably available. Convalescent plasma includes thousands of different antibodies.”

With his colleagues, Dr. Casadevall evaluated plasma samples from 740 patients. Some had received booster vaccines and been infected with Omicron, others had received boosters and not been infected, and still others had not been vaccinated and became infected.

In a report (not yet peer-reviewed), they found the plasma from those who had been infected or boosted within the past 6 months neutralized the new Omicron variants BQ.1.1, XBB.1, and BF.7.
 

A push for boosters, masks

To get through the coming months, taking precautions like masking and distancing and staying up to date on booster vaccinations, especially for older adults, can make a difference, other experts say.

In a Twitter thread in early December, Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics and molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, urged people to take COVID seriously as holiday parties and gatherings occur.

“The single most impactful thing you can do is get your bivalent booster,” he tweeted, as well as give your kids the booster, citing preliminary research that the bivalent mRNA booster broadens immunity against the Omicron subvariants.

For seniors, he said, ‘‘if you get breakthrough COVID, [it’s] really important to get Paxlovid.” Masks will help not only for COVID but also influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and other conditions.

Mitigation measures have largely been abandoned, according to Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape. In an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, and on his Twitter feed, he reminds people about masking and urges people to get the bivalent booster.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Dec. 8, only 13.5% of people aged 5 and older have gotten an updated booster, despite research that shows an increase in antibodies to BQ.1.1. Recent research has found that the bivalent booster increases antibodies to BQ.1.1 by up to 10-fold, Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja is on advisory boards for Shionogi, GSK, and Pardes. Dr. Casadevall reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

It was the last monoclonal antibody treatment standing. But less than 10 months after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave bebtelovimab its emergency use authorization (EUA) to fight COVID-19, it earlier this month de-authorized it, just as it had for other monoclonal antibody treatments, and for the same reason: The treatments were outwitted by the viral mutations.
 

Bebtelovimab couldn’t neutralize the Omicron subvariants BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, the cause of nearly 60% of COVID cases nationally as of November 30.

Next on the chopping block, some predict, will be Evusheld, the combination of tixagevimab and cilgavimab given as a preventive monoclonal antibody to people who are immunocompromised and at high risk of contracting COVID and to those who can’t take the vaccine. In October, the FDA warned that Evusheld was not neutralizing circulating COVID variants.

As the options for treating and preventing COVID decline, will companies rally quickly to develop new ones, or cut their losses in developing treatments that may work for only a few months, given the speed of viral mutations?

But although monoclonal antibody treatments are off the table, at least for now, antiviral drugs – including Paxlovid – are still very much available, and some say underused.

Others suggest it’s time to resurrect interest in convalescent plasma, a treatment used early in the pandemic before drugs or vaccines were here and still authorized for use in those who are immunosuppressed or receiving immunosuppressive treatment.

And on the prevention front, staying up to date with booster vaccines, masking, and taking other precautions should be stressed more, others say, regardless of the number of treatment options, and especially now, as cases rise and people gather for the winter holidays.
 

‘A major setback’

The bebtelovimab de-authorization was “a major setback,” but an understandable one, said Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, professor and chair of molecular microbiology and immunology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. “Monoclonal antibodies are great drugs. We are in an unfortunate situation in that they are vulnerable to changes in the virus” and can’t offer long-lasting protection.

Supplies of bebtelovimab will be retained, according to the FDA, in case variants susceptible to it return.

“What happened to bebtelovimab is no surprise,” agreed Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “This is what is going to happen when you are targeting a virus that mutates a lot.”

Monoclonal antibodies work by binding to the spike protein on the virus surface to prevent it from entering cells.

However, Dr. Adalja doesn’t view the disappearance of monoclonal antibody treatments as a major setback. Monoclonal antibodies were not the primary way COVID was treated, he said.

While he does believe it’s important that more monoclonal antibody treatments be developed, “I think it’s important to remember we still have Paxlovid while everyone is lamenting the loss of bebtelovimab.’’
 

Antivirals: What’s here, what’s coming

Compared with monoclonal antibodies, “Paxlovid remains a much easier drug to give,” Dr. Adalja told this news organization, because it is taken orally, not intravenously.

And it’s effective. In a recent study, researchers found that adults diagnosed with COVID given Paxlovid within 5 days of diagnosis had a 51% lower hospitalization rate within the next 30 days than those not given it. Another study shows it could also reduce a person’s risk of developing long COVID by 26%.

Paxlovid is underused, Dr. Adalja said, partly because the rebound potential got more press than the effectiveness. When a celebrity got rebound from Paxlovid, he said, that would make the news, overshadowing the research on its effectiveness.

Besides Paxlovid, the antivirals remdesivir (Veklury), given intravenously for 3 days, and molnupiravir (Lagevrio), taken orally, are also still available. Antivirals work by targeting specific parts of the virus to prevent it from multiplying.

In the lab, remdesivir, molnupiravir, and another antiviral, nirmatrelvir, all appear to be effective against both BQ.1.1 (a BA.5 subvariant) and XBB (a BA.2 subvariant), both rapidly rising in the United States, according to a report last week in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers also tested several monoclonal antibodies and found they did not neutralize either of the subvariants BQ.1.1 and XBB.

A new oral antiviral, Xocova (ensitrelvir fumaric acid), from Japanese manufacturer Shionogi, received emergency approval in Japan on November 22. It’s taken once a day for 5 days. The goal is to expand access to it globally, according to the company.

Pardes Biosciences launched a phase 2 trial in September for its oral antiviral drug (PBI-0451), under study as a treatment and preventive for COVID. It expects data by the first quarter of 2023.

Pfizer, which makes Paxlovid, has partnered with Clear Creek Bio to develop another oral antiviral COVID drug.
 

Other approaches

A receptor protein known as ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) is the main “doorway” that SARS-CoV-2 uses to enter and infect cells.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute scientists are developing a “decoy” drug that works by mimicking the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells; when the virus tries to bind to it, the spike protein is destroyed. Human trials have not yet started.

Other researchers are investigating whether an already-approved drug used to treat a liver disease, Actigall (UDCA/ursodeoxycholic acid), could protect against COVID infection by reducing ACE2.

So far, the researchers have found in early research that people taking UDCA for liver conditions were less likely than those not taking the drug to have severe COVID. They also found that UDCA reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection in human lungs maintained outside the body.
 

Monoclonal antibody treatments?

After the FDA decision to withdraw the bebtelovimab EUA, which Eli Lilly said it agreed with, the company issued a statement, promising it wasn’t giving up on monoclonal antibody treatments.

“Lilly will continue to search and evaluate monoclonal antibodies to identify potential candidates for clinical development against new variants,” it read in part.

AstraZeneca, which makes Evusheld, is also continuing to work on monoclonal antibody development. According to a spokesperson, “We are also developing a new long-acting antibody combination – AZD5156 – which has been shown in the lab to neutralize emerging new variants and all known variants to date. We are working to accelerate the development of AZD5156 to make it available at the end of 2023.”

The AstraZeneca spokesperson said he could share no more information about what the combination would include.
 

A convalescent plasma comeback?

Although Paxlovid can help, there are many contraindications to it, such as drug-drug interactions, Dr. Casadevall told this news organization. And now that the monoclonal antibody treatments have been paused, convalescent plasma “is the only antibody-based therapy that is reliably available. Convalescent plasma includes thousands of different antibodies.”

With his colleagues, Dr. Casadevall evaluated plasma samples from 740 patients. Some had received booster vaccines and been infected with Omicron, others had received boosters and not been infected, and still others had not been vaccinated and became infected.

In a report (not yet peer-reviewed), they found the plasma from those who had been infected or boosted within the past 6 months neutralized the new Omicron variants BQ.1.1, XBB.1, and BF.7.
 

A push for boosters, masks

To get through the coming months, taking precautions like masking and distancing and staying up to date on booster vaccinations, especially for older adults, can make a difference, other experts say.

In a Twitter thread in early December, Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics and molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, urged people to take COVID seriously as holiday parties and gatherings occur.

“The single most impactful thing you can do is get your bivalent booster,” he tweeted, as well as give your kids the booster, citing preliminary research that the bivalent mRNA booster broadens immunity against the Omicron subvariants.

For seniors, he said, ‘‘if you get breakthrough COVID, [it’s] really important to get Paxlovid.” Masks will help not only for COVID but also influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and other conditions.

Mitigation measures have largely been abandoned, according to Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape. In an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, and on his Twitter feed, he reminds people about masking and urges people to get the bivalent booster.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Dec. 8, only 13.5% of people aged 5 and older have gotten an updated booster, despite research that shows an increase in antibodies to BQ.1.1. Recent research has found that the bivalent booster increases antibodies to BQ.1.1 by up to 10-fold, Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja is on advisory boards for Shionogi, GSK, and Pardes. Dr. Casadevall reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treating adults who have chronic hepatitis C (CHC) with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) was linked with a lower risk of death and poor liver outcomes, in a new study.

Eiichi Ogawa, MD, PhD, with the department of general internal medicine, Kyushu University Hospital in Fukuoka, Japan, led the retrospective study of 245,596 adults with CHC. In the new research, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the authors analyzed data from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (CDM) database, 2010-2021.

It was important to do the study because of limited and conflicting information – mostly from case reports – on safety of the DAAs when they were approved for CHC in 2014, said coauthor Mindie H. Nguyen, MD, in an interview.
 

‘DAA treatment is safe’

“The main message is that DAA treatment is safe,” said Dr. Nguyen, of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center in Palo Alto. In the early days of treatment, physicians were treating the sickest patients with the DAAs, which may have introduced patient selection bias and caused lasting misperceptions about poor safety, she noted.

“I really hope to dispel this myth,” she said, adding that this study also shows improved liver and nonliver outcomes.

Of the total cohort in this study, 40,654 patients had one or more prescriptions for a DAA (without interferon) and 204,942 patients had not been treated.
 

All-cause mortality reduced by 57%

DAA treatment, vs. no treatment, was linked with a large and significant reduction (57%) in all-cause mortality. That finding was particularly notable, because it was seen regardless of age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidities, alcohol use, and presence of hepatocellular carcinoma or cirrhosis.

The authors noted that patients without cirrhosis are a population previously considered to receive less benefit from an HCV cure than patients with cirrhosis.

DAAs were associated with lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and decompensation as well as risk of nonliver outcomes, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and chronic kidney disease (CKD).
 

Lower risk of poor nonliver outcomes

The researchers found that when they compared DAA-treated patients with untreated patients, the incidences per 1,000 person-years of having diabetes were 30.2 vs. 37.2 (P less than .001), and of having kidney disease was 31.1 vs. 34.1 (P less than .001), respectively.

“This retrospective cohort study provides valuable information to physicians,” Noel Deep, MD, chief medical officer at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo, Wis., said, in an interview.

The study’s size helps confirm DAAs’ safety and benefit, and previously unknown added benefits, in treating CHC, he continued.
 

Large study confirms, introduces DAA benefits

Dr. Deep, who was not part of the study, noted that DAAs now show much promise in efficacy and tolerability in most people with chronic hepatitis C, including those with concomitant conditions such as CKD.

“Previous studies did not have such large-scale nationwide data. [The findings of the new study] greatly enhance our knowledge of DAA treatment for chronic hepatitis C patients across the spectrum from noncirrhotic to compensated cirrhotic to decompensated cirrhotic,” Dr. Deep said. “The added benefit of improved outcomes for diabetes, CVD, CKD, and nonliver cancers truly surprised me.”

Dr. Deep pointed out some limitations of the study, including that, as the authors acknowledge, only privately insured patients were included so results may not be generalizable to the underinsured/uninsured “who might have other risk factors, poorer health, and fewer resources.”

He added: “The data also may not be reflective of the outcomes in Asians who were, in my opinion, also underrepresented in this study.”

The authors cited the insurance claims database they used as a strength of the study, due to it containing information on 61 million people from across all regions of the United States.

Dr. Ogawa reports grants from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Nguyen reports institutional grants and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reports speaking/consulting fees from Gilead and Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

The Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences (PHS) supported this study by providing access to the PHS Data Core.

Dr. Deep reports no relevant financial relationships. He serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
 

Treating adults who have chronic hepatitis C (CHC) with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) was linked with a lower risk of death and poor liver outcomes, in a new study.

Eiichi Ogawa, MD, PhD, with the department of general internal medicine, Kyushu University Hospital in Fukuoka, Japan, led the retrospective study of 245,596 adults with CHC. In the new research, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the authors analyzed data from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (CDM) database, 2010-2021.

It was important to do the study because of limited and conflicting information – mostly from case reports – on safety of the DAAs when they were approved for CHC in 2014, said coauthor Mindie H. Nguyen, MD, in an interview.
 

‘DAA treatment is safe’

“The main message is that DAA treatment is safe,” said Dr. Nguyen, of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center in Palo Alto. In the early days of treatment, physicians were treating the sickest patients with the DAAs, which may have introduced patient selection bias and caused lasting misperceptions about poor safety, she noted.

“I really hope to dispel this myth,” she said, adding that this study also shows improved liver and nonliver outcomes.

Of the total cohort in this study, 40,654 patients had one or more prescriptions for a DAA (without interferon) and 204,942 patients had not been treated.
 

All-cause mortality reduced by 57%

DAA treatment, vs. no treatment, was linked with a large and significant reduction (57%) in all-cause mortality. That finding was particularly notable, because it was seen regardless of age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidities, alcohol use, and presence of hepatocellular carcinoma or cirrhosis.

The authors noted that patients without cirrhosis are a population previously considered to receive less benefit from an HCV cure than patients with cirrhosis.

DAAs were associated with lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and decompensation as well as risk of nonliver outcomes, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and chronic kidney disease (CKD).
 

Lower risk of poor nonliver outcomes

The researchers found that when they compared DAA-treated patients with untreated patients, the incidences per 1,000 person-years of having diabetes were 30.2 vs. 37.2 (P less than .001), and of having kidney disease was 31.1 vs. 34.1 (P less than .001), respectively.

“This retrospective cohort study provides valuable information to physicians,” Noel Deep, MD, chief medical officer at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo, Wis., said, in an interview.

The study’s size helps confirm DAAs’ safety and benefit, and previously unknown added benefits, in treating CHC, he continued.
 

Large study confirms, introduces DAA benefits

Dr. Deep, who was not part of the study, noted that DAAs now show much promise in efficacy and tolerability in most people with chronic hepatitis C, including those with concomitant conditions such as CKD.

“Previous studies did not have such large-scale nationwide data. [The findings of the new study] greatly enhance our knowledge of DAA treatment for chronic hepatitis C patients across the spectrum from noncirrhotic to compensated cirrhotic to decompensated cirrhotic,” Dr. Deep said. “The added benefit of improved outcomes for diabetes, CVD, CKD, and nonliver cancers truly surprised me.”

Dr. Deep pointed out some limitations of the study, including that, as the authors acknowledge, only privately insured patients were included so results may not be generalizable to the underinsured/uninsured “who might have other risk factors, poorer health, and fewer resources.”

He added: “The data also may not be reflective of the outcomes in Asians who were, in my opinion, also underrepresented in this study.”

The authors cited the insurance claims database they used as a strength of the study, due to it containing information on 61 million people from across all regions of the United States.

Dr. Ogawa reports grants from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Nguyen reports institutional grants and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reports speaking/consulting fees from Gilead and Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

The Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences (PHS) supported this study by providing access to the PHS Data Core.

Dr. Deep reports no relevant financial relationships. He serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
 

Treating adults who have chronic hepatitis C (CHC) with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) was linked with a lower risk of death and poor liver outcomes, in a new study.

Eiichi Ogawa, MD, PhD, with the department of general internal medicine, Kyushu University Hospital in Fukuoka, Japan, led the retrospective study of 245,596 adults with CHC. In the new research, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the authors analyzed data from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (CDM) database, 2010-2021.

It was important to do the study because of limited and conflicting information – mostly from case reports – on safety of the DAAs when they were approved for CHC in 2014, said coauthor Mindie H. Nguyen, MD, in an interview.
 

‘DAA treatment is safe’

“The main message is that DAA treatment is safe,” said Dr. Nguyen, of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center in Palo Alto. In the early days of treatment, physicians were treating the sickest patients with the DAAs, which may have introduced patient selection bias and caused lasting misperceptions about poor safety, she noted.

“I really hope to dispel this myth,” she said, adding that this study also shows improved liver and nonliver outcomes.

Of the total cohort in this study, 40,654 patients had one or more prescriptions for a DAA (without interferon) and 204,942 patients had not been treated.
 

All-cause mortality reduced by 57%

DAA treatment, vs. no treatment, was linked with a large and significant reduction (57%) in all-cause mortality. That finding was particularly notable, because it was seen regardless of age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidities, alcohol use, and presence of hepatocellular carcinoma or cirrhosis.

The authors noted that patients without cirrhosis are a population previously considered to receive less benefit from an HCV cure than patients with cirrhosis.

DAAs were associated with lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and decompensation as well as risk of nonliver outcomes, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and chronic kidney disease (CKD).
 

Lower risk of poor nonliver outcomes

The researchers found that when they compared DAA-treated patients with untreated patients, the incidences per 1,000 person-years of having diabetes were 30.2 vs. 37.2 (P less than .001), and of having kidney disease was 31.1 vs. 34.1 (P less than .001), respectively.

“This retrospective cohort study provides valuable information to physicians,” Noel Deep, MD, chief medical officer at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo, Wis., said, in an interview.

The study’s size helps confirm DAAs’ safety and benefit, and previously unknown added benefits, in treating CHC, he continued.
 

Large study confirms, introduces DAA benefits

Dr. Deep, who was not part of the study, noted that DAAs now show much promise in efficacy and tolerability in most people with chronic hepatitis C, including those with concomitant conditions such as CKD.

“Previous studies did not have such large-scale nationwide data. [The findings of the new study] greatly enhance our knowledge of DAA treatment for chronic hepatitis C patients across the spectrum from noncirrhotic to compensated cirrhotic to decompensated cirrhotic,” Dr. Deep said. “The added benefit of improved outcomes for diabetes, CVD, CKD, and nonliver cancers truly surprised me.”

Dr. Deep pointed out some limitations of the study, including that, as the authors acknowledge, only privately insured patients were included so results may not be generalizable to the underinsured/uninsured “who might have other risk factors, poorer health, and fewer resources.”

He added: “The data also may not be reflective of the outcomes in Asians who were, in my opinion, also underrepresented in this study.”

The authors cited the insurance claims database they used as a strength of the study, due to it containing information on 61 million people from across all regions of the United States.

Dr. Ogawa reports grants from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Nguyen reports institutional grants and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reports speaking/consulting fees from Gilead and Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

The Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences (PHS) supported this study by providing access to the PHS Data Core.

Dr. Deep reports no relevant financial relationships. He serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
 

Interventional cardiologist Richard B. Zelman, MD, has filed a lawsuit against Cape Cod Hospital, Cape Cod Healthcare Inc., and its chief executive officer Michael K. Lauf, alleging that he was fired and maligned after raising concerns about poorly performed surgeries and poor ethical practices at the hospital.

Dr. Zelman, from Barnstable, Mass., has been affiliated with Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass., for more than 30 years. He helped found the hospital’s Heart and Vascular Institute and has served as its medical director since 2018.

In his lawsuit filed Dec. 6, Dr. Zelman alleges that the defendants, under Mr. Lauf’s leadership, “placed profit above all else, including by prioritizing revenue generation over patient safety and public health.”

Dr. Zelman says the defendants supported him “to the extent his actions were profitable.”

Yet, when he raised patient safety concerns that harmed that bottom line, Dr. Zelman says the defendants retaliated against him, including by threatening his career and reputation and unlawfully terminating his employment with the hospital.

The complaint notes Dr. Zelman is bringing this action “to recover damages for violations of the Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Whistleblower Statute ... as well as for breach of contract and common law claims.”

Dr. Zelman’s complaint alleges the defendants refused to adequately address the “dangerous care and violations of the professional standards of practice” that he reported, “resulting in harmful and tragic consequences.”

It also alleges Mr. Lauf restricted the use of a cerebral protection device used in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) deemed to be at high risk for periprocedural stroke to only those patients whose insurance reimbursed at higher rates.

Dr. Zelman says he objected to this prohibition “in accordance with his contractual and ethical obligations to ensure treatment of patients without regard to their ability to pay.”

Dr. Zelman’s lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Lauf launched a “trumped-up” and “baseless, biased, and retaliatory sham” investigation against him.

In a statement sent to the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Hospital denied Dr. Zelman’s claims that the cardiologist was retaliated against for raising patient safety issues, or that the hospital didn’t take action to improve cardiac care at the facility.
 

Voiced concerns

In a statement sent to this news organization, Dr. Zelman, now in private practice, said, “Over the past 25 years, I have been instrumental in bringing advanced cardiac care to Cape Cod. My commitment has always been to delivering the same quality outcomes and safety as the academic centers in Boston.

“Unfortunately, over the past 5 years, there has been inadequate oversight by the hospital administration and problems have occurred that in my opinion have led to serious patient consequences,” Dr. Zelman stated.

He said he has “voiced concerns over several years and they have been ignored.”

He added that Cape Cod Hospital offered him a million-dollar contract as long as he agreed to immediately issue a written statement endorsing the quality and safety of the cardiac surgical program that no longer exists.

“No amount of money was going to buy my silence,” Dr. Zelman told this news organization.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Zelman is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages, including back and front pay, lost benefits, physical and emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees.

This news organization reached out to Cape Cod Hospital for comment but has not yet received a response.

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

Interventional cardiologist Richard B. Zelman, MD, has filed a lawsuit against Cape Cod Hospital, Cape Cod Healthcare Inc., and its chief executive officer Michael K. Lauf, alleging that he was fired and maligned after raising concerns about poorly performed surgeries and poor ethical practices at the hospital.

Dr. Zelman, from Barnstable, Mass., has been affiliated with Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass., for more than 30 years. He helped found the hospital’s Heart and Vascular Institute and has served as its medical director since 2018.

In his lawsuit filed Dec. 6, Dr. Zelman alleges that the defendants, under Mr. Lauf’s leadership, “placed profit above all else, including by prioritizing revenue generation over patient safety and public health.”

Dr. Zelman says the defendants supported him “to the extent his actions were profitable.”

Yet, when he raised patient safety concerns that harmed that bottom line, Dr. Zelman says the defendants retaliated against him, including by threatening his career and reputation and unlawfully terminating his employment with the hospital.

The complaint notes Dr. Zelman is bringing this action “to recover damages for violations of the Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Whistleblower Statute ... as well as for breach of contract and common law claims.”

Dr. Zelman’s complaint alleges the defendants refused to adequately address the “dangerous care and violations of the professional standards of practice” that he reported, “resulting in harmful and tragic consequences.”

It also alleges Mr. Lauf restricted the use of a cerebral protection device used in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) deemed to be at high risk for periprocedural stroke to only those patients whose insurance reimbursed at higher rates.

Dr. Zelman says he objected to this prohibition “in accordance with his contractual and ethical obligations to ensure treatment of patients without regard to their ability to pay.”

Dr. Zelman’s lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Lauf launched a “trumped-up” and “baseless, biased, and retaliatory sham” investigation against him.

In a statement sent to the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Hospital denied Dr. Zelman’s claims that the cardiologist was retaliated against for raising patient safety issues, or that the hospital didn’t take action to improve cardiac care at the facility.
 

Voiced concerns

In a statement sent to this news organization, Dr. Zelman, now in private practice, said, “Over the past 25 years, I have been instrumental in bringing advanced cardiac care to Cape Cod. My commitment has always been to delivering the same quality outcomes and safety as the academic centers in Boston.

“Unfortunately, over the past 5 years, there has been inadequate oversight by the hospital administration and problems have occurred that in my opinion have led to serious patient consequences,” Dr. Zelman stated.

He said he has “voiced concerns over several years and they have been ignored.”

He added that Cape Cod Hospital offered him a million-dollar contract as long as he agreed to immediately issue a written statement endorsing the quality and safety of the cardiac surgical program that no longer exists.

“No amount of money was going to buy my silence,” Dr. Zelman told this news organization.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Zelman is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages, including back and front pay, lost benefits, physical and emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees.

This news organization reached out to Cape Cod Hospital for comment but has not yet received a response.

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

Interventional cardiologist Richard B. Zelman, MD, has filed a lawsuit against Cape Cod Hospital, Cape Cod Healthcare Inc., and its chief executive officer Michael K. Lauf, alleging that he was fired and maligned after raising concerns about poorly performed surgeries and poor ethical practices at the hospital.

Dr. Zelman, from Barnstable, Mass., has been affiliated with Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass., for more than 30 years. He helped found the hospital’s Heart and Vascular Institute and has served as its medical director since 2018.

In his lawsuit filed Dec. 6, Dr. Zelman alleges that the defendants, under Mr. Lauf’s leadership, “placed profit above all else, including by prioritizing revenue generation over patient safety and public health.”

Dr. Zelman says the defendants supported him “to the extent his actions were profitable.”

Yet, when he raised patient safety concerns that harmed that bottom line, Dr. Zelman says the defendants retaliated against him, including by threatening his career and reputation and unlawfully terminating his employment with the hospital.

The complaint notes Dr. Zelman is bringing this action “to recover damages for violations of the Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Whistleblower Statute ... as well as for breach of contract and common law claims.”

Dr. Zelman’s complaint alleges the defendants refused to adequately address the “dangerous care and violations of the professional standards of practice” that he reported, “resulting in harmful and tragic consequences.”

It also alleges Mr. Lauf restricted the use of a cerebral protection device used in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) deemed to be at high risk for periprocedural stroke to only those patients whose insurance reimbursed at higher rates.

Dr. Zelman says he objected to this prohibition “in accordance with his contractual and ethical obligations to ensure treatment of patients without regard to their ability to pay.”

Dr. Zelman’s lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Lauf launched a “trumped-up” and “baseless, biased, and retaliatory sham” investigation against him.

In a statement sent to the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Hospital denied Dr. Zelman’s claims that the cardiologist was retaliated against for raising patient safety issues, or that the hospital didn’t take action to improve cardiac care at the facility.
 

Voiced concerns

In a statement sent to this news organization, Dr. Zelman, now in private practice, said, “Over the past 25 years, I have been instrumental in bringing advanced cardiac care to Cape Cod. My commitment has always been to delivering the same quality outcomes and safety as the academic centers in Boston.

“Unfortunately, over the past 5 years, there has been inadequate oversight by the hospital administration and problems have occurred that in my opinion have led to serious patient consequences,” Dr. Zelman stated.

He said he has “voiced concerns over several years and they have been ignored.”

He added that Cape Cod Hospital offered him a million-dollar contract as long as he agreed to immediately issue a written statement endorsing the quality and safety of the cardiac surgical program that no longer exists.

“No amount of money was going to buy my silence,” Dr. Zelman told this news organization.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Zelman is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages, including back and front pay, lost benefits, physical and emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees.

This news organization reached out to Cape Cod Hospital for comment but has not yet received a response.

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