MDedge Infectious Disease

The emerging COVID-19 variant BQ.1 and one of its descendants now account for more than 1 in 10 cases in the United States, according to the CDC’s latest data.

Just 1 month ago, the variant accounted for less than 1% of cases.

“When you get variants like that, you look at what their rate of increase is as a relative proportion of the variants, and this has a pretty troublesome doubling time,” Anthony Fauci, MD, said in an interview with CBS News. Dr. Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and also the chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden.

There are also concerning features of the BQ.1 variant, which include mutations that could potentially escape vaccines and treatments for COVID-19. 

Currently, the most widespread variant in the U.S. is the Omicron subvariant known as BA.5, which accounts for 68% of all infections. One of the go-to treatments for BA.5 infections is monoclonal antibodies, which may not be as effective when fighting the up-and-coming strains of BQ.1 and its descendant BQ.1.1, according to experts.  

“That’s the reason why people are concerned about BQ.1.1, for the double reason of its doubling time and the fact that it seems to elude important monoclonal antibodies,” Dr. Fauci told CBS News. 

Currently, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 appear most widespread in the New York and New Jersey region, accounting for nearly 20% of infections there, according to the CDC. 

But because the new variant is a descendant of Omicron, Dr. Fauci said the currently available booster shots are still the best first line of protection against this up-and-coming threat.

“The bad news is that there’s a new variant that’s emerging and that has qualities or characteristics that could evade some of the interventions we have. But, the somewhat encouraging news is that it’s a BA.5 sub-lineage, so there is almost certainly going to be some cross-protection that you can boost up,” he said.

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

The emerging COVID-19 variant BQ.1 and one of its descendants now account for more than 1 in 10 cases in the United States, according to the CDC’s latest data.

Just 1 month ago, the variant accounted for less than 1% of cases.

“When you get variants like that, you look at what their rate of increase is as a relative proportion of the variants, and this has a pretty troublesome doubling time,” Anthony Fauci, MD, said in an interview with CBS News. Dr. Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and also the chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden.

There are also concerning features of the BQ.1 variant, which include mutations that could potentially escape vaccines and treatments for COVID-19. 

Currently, the most widespread variant in the U.S. is the Omicron subvariant known as BA.5, which accounts for 68% of all infections. One of the go-to treatments for BA.5 infections is monoclonal antibodies, which may not be as effective when fighting the up-and-coming strains of BQ.1 and its descendant BQ.1.1, according to experts.  

“That’s the reason why people are concerned about BQ.1.1, for the double reason of its doubling time and the fact that it seems to elude important monoclonal antibodies,” Dr. Fauci told CBS News. 

Currently, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 appear most widespread in the New York and New Jersey region, accounting for nearly 20% of infections there, according to the CDC. 

But because the new variant is a descendant of Omicron, Dr. Fauci said the currently available booster shots are still the best first line of protection against this up-and-coming threat.

“The bad news is that there’s a new variant that’s emerging and that has qualities or characteristics that could evade some of the interventions we have. But, the somewhat encouraging news is that it’s a BA.5 sub-lineage, so there is almost certainly going to be some cross-protection that you can boost up,” he said.

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

The emerging COVID-19 variant BQ.1 and one of its descendants now account for more than 1 in 10 cases in the United States, according to the CDC’s latest data.

Just 1 month ago, the variant accounted for less than 1% of cases.

“When you get variants like that, you look at what their rate of increase is as a relative proportion of the variants, and this has a pretty troublesome doubling time,” Anthony Fauci, MD, said in an interview with CBS News. Dr. Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and also the chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden.

There are also concerning features of the BQ.1 variant, which include mutations that could potentially escape vaccines and treatments for COVID-19. 

Currently, the most widespread variant in the U.S. is the Omicron subvariant known as BA.5, which accounts for 68% of all infections. One of the go-to treatments for BA.5 infections is monoclonal antibodies, which may not be as effective when fighting the up-and-coming strains of BQ.1 and its descendant BQ.1.1, according to experts.  

“That’s the reason why people are concerned about BQ.1.1, for the double reason of its doubling time and the fact that it seems to elude important monoclonal antibodies,” Dr. Fauci told CBS News. 

Currently, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 appear most widespread in the New York and New Jersey region, accounting for nearly 20% of infections there, according to the CDC. 

But because the new variant is a descendant of Omicron, Dr. Fauci said the currently available booster shots are still the best first line of protection against this up-and-coming threat.

“The bad news is that there’s a new variant that’s emerging and that has qualities or characteristics that could evade some of the interventions we have. But, the somewhat encouraging news is that it’s a BA.5 sub-lineage, so there is almost certainly going to be some cross-protection that you can boost up,” he said.

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

The number of adults hospitalized with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in the United States increased by 50% from 2013 to 2019, based on data from the National Inpatient Sample.

Health care–associated infections are a significant burden, and “ventilator associated-pneumonia is a contributor to that,” said Namratha S. Meda, MBBS, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

VAP can affect length of stay and other costs, but factors related to VAP hospitalization have not been well studied, said Dr. Meda, of Medstar Health/Georgetown University Hospital, Washington.

To examine trends in hospitalization for VAP, Dr. Meda and colleagues reviewed data from the National Inpatient Sample from January 2013 to December 2019. The study population included adult patients with VAP as a primary or secondary diagnosis based on ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes.

Overall, the trend in hospitalizations showed a consistent increase, said Dr. Meda.

The researchers identified 128,025 adult hospitalizations with VAP during the study period, with an increase from 50 VAP cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2013 to 75 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2019.

A total of 42,120 hospitalizations were associated with tracheostomy, ventilator dependence, or both. Hospitalizations in these categories increased by 80% during the study period, from 15 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2013 to 27 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2019.

The median cost for each hospitalization was $83,311, and showed a 2.9% increase from 2013 to 2019. The estimated annual cost of VAP hospitalizations was approximately $2.8 billion in 2019, Dr. Meda emphasized. However, all-cause hospital mortality remained unchanged over the study period, at approximately 20%.

The mean age of the hospitalized VAP patients was 58 years across all VAP-related hospitalizations, and 36.5% were women. More than half (58%) were White, 21% were Black, and 12% were Hispanic.

The researchers noted some sex and racial disparities; the median age was lower for Black and Hispanic patients, compared with White patients, but all-cause mortality was lower. Men had a significantly longer median length of stay, compared with women (21 days vs. 19 days), and higher median costs ($87,981 vs. $74,889) with a P <.001 for both, but the all-cause in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between sexes.

The steady increase in hospitalization for VAP without a significant change in all-cause mortality, might be driven by hospitals with higher levels of tracheostomy and ventilator dependence, but more research is needed, Dr. Meda noted.

The study was limited by the observational design, which allowed the researchers to report an association, but not causality, said Dr. Meda. However, the results reflect the ongoing financial burden of VAP on the health care system, although “it would be interesting to see how the trend might change if we just looked at the clinical definition versus billing data,” she noted.

The study did not include data since the advent of COVID-19, but COVID is likely to drive the trend of increasing VAP hospitalization higher, Dr. Meda added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The number of adults hospitalized with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in the United States increased by 50% from 2013 to 2019, based on data from the National Inpatient Sample.

Health care–associated infections are a significant burden, and “ventilator associated-pneumonia is a contributor to that,” said Namratha S. Meda, MBBS, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

VAP can affect length of stay and other costs, but factors related to VAP hospitalization have not been well studied, said Dr. Meda, of Medstar Health/Georgetown University Hospital, Washington.

To examine trends in hospitalization for VAP, Dr. Meda and colleagues reviewed data from the National Inpatient Sample from January 2013 to December 2019. The study population included adult patients with VAP as a primary or secondary diagnosis based on ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes.

Overall, the trend in hospitalizations showed a consistent increase, said Dr. Meda.

The researchers identified 128,025 adult hospitalizations with VAP during the study period, with an increase from 50 VAP cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2013 to 75 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2019.

A total of 42,120 hospitalizations were associated with tracheostomy, ventilator dependence, or both. Hospitalizations in these categories increased by 80% during the study period, from 15 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2013 to 27 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2019.

The median cost for each hospitalization was $83,311, and showed a 2.9% increase from 2013 to 2019. The estimated annual cost of VAP hospitalizations was approximately $2.8 billion in 2019, Dr. Meda emphasized. However, all-cause hospital mortality remained unchanged over the study period, at approximately 20%.

The mean age of the hospitalized VAP patients was 58 years across all VAP-related hospitalizations, and 36.5% were women. More than half (58%) were White, 21% were Black, and 12% were Hispanic.

The researchers noted some sex and racial disparities; the median age was lower for Black and Hispanic patients, compared with White patients, but all-cause mortality was lower. Men had a significantly longer median length of stay, compared with women (21 days vs. 19 days), and higher median costs ($87,981 vs. $74,889) with a P <.001 for both, but the all-cause in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between sexes.

The steady increase in hospitalization for VAP without a significant change in all-cause mortality, might be driven by hospitals with higher levels of tracheostomy and ventilator dependence, but more research is needed, Dr. Meda noted.

The study was limited by the observational design, which allowed the researchers to report an association, but not causality, said Dr. Meda. However, the results reflect the ongoing financial burden of VAP on the health care system, although “it would be interesting to see how the trend might change if we just looked at the clinical definition versus billing data,” she noted.

The study did not include data since the advent of COVID-19, but COVID is likely to drive the trend of increasing VAP hospitalization higher, Dr. Meda added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The number of adults hospitalized with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in the United States increased by 50% from 2013 to 2019, based on data from the National Inpatient Sample.

Health care–associated infections are a significant burden, and “ventilator associated-pneumonia is a contributor to that,” said Namratha S. Meda, MBBS, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

VAP can affect length of stay and other costs, but factors related to VAP hospitalization have not been well studied, said Dr. Meda, of Medstar Health/Georgetown University Hospital, Washington.

To examine trends in hospitalization for VAP, Dr. Meda and colleagues reviewed data from the National Inpatient Sample from January 2013 to December 2019. The study population included adult patients with VAP as a primary or secondary diagnosis based on ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes.

Overall, the trend in hospitalizations showed a consistent increase, said Dr. Meda.

The researchers identified 128,025 adult hospitalizations with VAP during the study period, with an increase from 50 VAP cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2013 to 75 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2019.

A total of 42,120 hospitalizations were associated with tracheostomy, ventilator dependence, or both. Hospitalizations in these categories increased by 80% during the study period, from 15 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2013 to 27 cases per 100,000 hospitalizations in 2019.

The median cost for each hospitalization was $83,311, and showed a 2.9% increase from 2013 to 2019. The estimated annual cost of VAP hospitalizations was approximately $2.8 billion in 2019, Dr. Meda emphasized. However, all-cause hospital mortality remained unchanged over the study period, at approximately 20%.

The mean age of the hospitalized VAP patients was 58 years across all VAP-related hospitalizations, and 36.5% were women. More than half (58%) were White, 21% were Black, and 12% were Hispanic.

The researchers noted some sex and racial disparities; the median age was lower for Black and Hispanic patients, compared with White patients, but all-cause mortality was lower. Men had a significantly longer median length of stay, compared with women (21 days vs. 19 days), and higher median costs ($87,981 vs. $74,889) with a P <.001 for both, but the all-cause in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between sexes.

The steady increase in hospitalization for VAP without a significant change in all-cause mortality, might be driven by hospitals with higher levels of tracheostomy and ventilator dependence, but more research is needed, Dr. Meda noted.

The study was limited by the observational design, which allowed the researchers to report an association, but not causality, said Dr. Meda. However, the results reflect the ongoing financial burden of VAP on the health care system, although “it would be interesting to see how the trend might change if we just looked at the clinical definition versus billing data,” she noted.

The study did not include data since the advent of COVID-19, but COVID is likely to drive the trend of increasing VAP hospitalization higher, Dr. Meda added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

In the decade since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, the United States has experienced more than 3,300 mass shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that that the margin of public opinion in the United States is the widest that it has been during the past 10 years in favor of taking steps to control gun violence; 59% of U.S. adults said it’s more important to control gun violence than to protect gun rights, and 35% said the opposite.

Have physicians’ opinions about gun issues in our country shifted meaningfully during that period? That’s a complex question that can be informed with the basic snapshot provided by doctors› comments to New York University (and Medscape blogger) bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan’s four video blogs on whether physicians should discuss gun safety with their patients. Dr. Caplan’s video blogs appeared on the Medscape website in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2022.

Hundreds of physicians have posted comments to Dr. Caplan’s arguments that doctors should bring up gun safety when talking to their patients. The great majority of comments opposed his position in 2014, and that remained the case through 2022, regardless of incidents of gun-related violence. Supportive comments have been a small minority that has grown only slightly over his four video blogs.
 

Physicians’ lack of qualifications

The most prevalent counterarguments expressed against Dr. Caplan’s position are that physicians lack the proper knowledge to discuss gun safety with patients; and the responsibility falls on family members, certified firearms instructors, teachers, and others – but not doctors – to educate people about firearm safety.

“Then there’s a third group that says, ‘I don’t want to do this because I am too busy trying to figure out what is wrong with the patient,’ ” Dr. Caplan says.

Here are a few on-point comments that were posted to his video blogs:

• “Unless physicians become certified firearms instructors like myself, they are not qualified to talk to patients on the subject and should advise patients to find a program and take a course.” – Dr. Ken Long, March 31, 2014
• “Gun safety should be taught in school, just like health and sex education.” – Patricia L., Feb. 11, 2016
• “None of my medical or surgical training or experience qualifies me as a policy expert on gun laws or regulations.” – Dr. Kelly Hyde, Dec. 23, 2018
• “I have the Constitution hanging in my office with an NRA plaque next to it. Most MDs can’t mow their own yard.” – Dr. Brian Anseeuw, June 21, 2022

Do mental health issues trump gun talks?

Another counterargument to discussing gun safety with patients involves mental health issues that many physicians may not be trained to address. Mental health entered comments to Dr. Caplan’s video blogs in 2016 and has shaped much of the discussion since.

• “First of all, two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. It is foolish to talk about counseling patients about gun safety, etc, and ignore the mental health issues.” – Dr. Jeffrey Jennings, Jan. 25, 2016
• “Suicide victims and those committing mass shootings are mentally ill. ... Blame society, drugs, mental illness, easy access to illegal firearms, and poor recognition of SOS (signs of suicide).” – Dr. Alan DeCarlo, Dec. 24, 2018
• “Yes, we have gun violence, but what is the underlying problem? Bullying? Mental issues? Not enough parental supervision? These and others are the issues I feel need to be discussed.” – T. Deese, June 24, 2022
• “The causes of increased gun violence are mental health, problems with bullying, social media, and normalization of deviant behavior.” – Julie Johng, 2022

Added responsibility is too much

Another theme that has grown over time is that talks of gun safety just heap issues onto physicians’ treatment plates that are already too full.

• “Oh, for God’s sake, is there anything else I can do while I›m at it? Primary care has gotten to be more headache than it’s worth. Thanks for another reason to think about retiring.” – Dr. Kathleen Collins, March 31, 2014
• “THE JOB OF POLICE, COURTS, AND LAW-EDUCATED PROSECUTORS SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY PHYSICIANS.” – Dr. Sudarshan Singla, Jan. 25, 2016
• “This is a debate that only those at the academic/ivory tower–level of medicine even have time to lament. The frontline medical providers barely have enough time to adequately address the pertinent.” – Tobin Purslow, Jan. 15, 2016

Other ways to communicate

For his part, Dr. Caplan believes there is a variety of ways physicians can effectively discuss gun safety with patients to help minimize the potential of injury or death.

Acknowledging that other aspects of treatment are often more pressing, he suggested that the gun safety education could be done through educational videos that are shown in waiting rooms, through pamphlets available at the front desk, or throuigh a newsletter sent to patients.

“Everything doesn’t have to happen in conversation. The doctor’s office should become more of an educational site.

“I am 100% more passionate about this than when I first started down this road.”

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

In the decade since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, the United States has experienced more than 3,300 mass shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that that the margin of public opinion in the United States is the widest that it has been during the past 10 years in favor of taking steps to control gun violence; 59% of U.S. adults said it’s more important to control gun violence than to protect gun rights, and 35% said the opposite.

Have physicians’ opinions about gun issues in our country shifted meaningfully during that period? That’s a complex question that can be informed with the basic snapshot provided by doctors› comments to New York University (and Medscape blogger) bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan’s four video blogs on whether physicians should discuss gun safety with their patients. Dr. Caplan’s video blogs appeared on the Medscape website in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2022.

Hundreds of physicians have posted comments to Dr. Caplan’s arguments that doctors should bring up gun safety when talking to their patients. The great majority of comments opposed his position in 2014, and that remained the case through 2022, regardless of incidents of gun-related violence. Supportive comments have been a small minority that has grown only slightly over his four video blogs.
 

Physicians’ lack of qualifications

The most prevalent counterarguments expressed against Dr. Caplan’s position are that physicians lack the proper knowledge to discuss gun safety with patients; and the responsibility falls on family members, certified firearms instructors, teachers, and others – but not doctors – to educate people about firearm safety.

“Then there’s a third group that says, ‘I don’t want to do this because I am too busy trying to figure out what is wrong with the patient,’ ” Dr. Caplan says.

Here are a few on-point comments that were posted to his video blogs:

• “Unless physicians become certified firearms instructors like myself, they are not qualified to talk to patients on the subject and should advise patients to find a program and take a course.” – Dr. Ken Long, March 31, 2014
• “Gun safety should be taught in school, just like health and sex education.” – Patricia L., Feb. 11, 2016
• “None of my medical or surgical training or experience qualifies me as a policy expert on gun laws or regulations.” – Dr. Kelly Hyde, Dec. 23, 2018
• “I have the Constitution hanging in my office with an NRA plaque next to it. Most MDs can’t mow their own yard.” – Dr. Brian Anseeuw, June 21, 2022

Do mental health issues trump gun talks?

Another counterargument to discussing gun safety with patients involves mental health issues that many physicians may not be trained to address. Mental health entered comments to Dr. Caplan’s video blogs in 2016 and has shaped much of the discussion since.

• “First of all, two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. It is foolish to talk about counseling patients about gun safety, etc, and ignore the mental health issues.” – Dr. Jeffrey Jennings, Jan. 25, 2016
• “Suicide victims and those committing mass shootings are mentally ill. ... Blame society, drugs, mental illness, easy access to illegal firearms, and poor recognition of SOS (signs of suicide).” – Dr. Alan DeCarlo, Dec. 24, 2018
• “Yes, we have gun violence, but what is the underlying problem? Bullying? Mental issues? Not enough parental supervision? These and others are the issues I feel need to be discussed.” – T. Deese, June 24, 2022
• “The causes of increased gun violence are mental health, problems with bullying, social media, and normalization of deviant behavior.” – Julie Johng, 2022

Added responsibility is too much

Another theme that has grown over time is that talks of gun safety just heap issues onto physicians’ treatment plates that are already too full.

• “Oh, for God’s sake, is there anything else I can do while I›m at it? Primary care has gotten to be more headache than it’s worth. Thanks for another reason to think about retiring.” – Dr. Kathleen Collins, March 31, 2014
• “THE JOB OF POLICE, COURTS, AND LAW-EDUCATED PROSECUTORS SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY PHYSICIANS.” – Dr. Sudarshan Singla, Jan. 25, 2016
• “This is a debate that only those at the academic/ivory tower–level of medicine even have time to lament. The frontline medical providers barely have enough time to adequately address the pertinent.” – Tobin Purslow, Jan. 15, 2016

Other ways to communicate

For his part, Dr. Caplan believes there is a variety of ways physicians can effectively discuss gun safety with patients to help minimize the potential of injury or death.

Acknowledging that other aspects of treatment are often more pressing, he suggested that the gun safety education could be done through educational videos that are shown in waiting rooms, through pamphlets available at the front desk, or throuigh a newsletter sent to patients.

“Everything doesn’t have to happen in conversation. The doctor’s office should become more of an educational site.

“I am 100% more passionate about this than when I first started down this road.”

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

In the decade since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, the United States has experienced more than 3,300 mass shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that that the margin of public opinion in the United States is the widest that it has been during the past 10 years in favor of taking steps to control gun violence; 59% of U.S. adults said it’s more important to control gun violence than to protect gun rights, and 35% said the opposite.

Have physicians’ opinions about gun issues in our country shifted meaningfully during that period? That’s a complex question that can be informed with the basic snapshot provided by doctors› comments to New York University (and Medscape blogger) bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan’s four video blogs on whether physicians should discuss gun safety with their patients. Dr. Caplan’s video blogs appeared on the Medscape website in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2022.

Hundreds of physicians have posted comments to Dr. Caplan’s arguments that doctors should bring up gun safety when talking to their patients. The great majority of comments opposed his position in 2014, and that remained the case through 2022, regardless of incidents of gun-related violence. Supportive comments have been a small minority that has grown only slightly over his four video blogs.
 

Physicians’ lack of qualifications

The most prevalent counterarguments expressed against Dr. Caplan’s position are that physicians lack the proper knowledge to discuss gun safety with patients; and the responsibility falls on family members, certified firearms instructors, teachers, and others – but not doctors – to educate people about firearm safety.

“Then there’s a third group that says, ‘I don’t want to do this because I am too busy trying to figure out what is wrong with the patient,’ ” Dr. Caplan says.

Here are a few on-point comments that were posted to his video blogs:

• “Unless physicians become certified firearms instructors like myself, they are not qualified to talk to patients on the subject and should advise patients to find a program and take a course.” – Dr. Ken Long, March 31, 2014
• “Gun safety should be taught in school, just like health and sex education.” – Patricia L., Feb. 11, 2016
• “None of my medical or surgical training or experience qualifies me as a policy expert on gun laws or regulations.” – Dr. Kelly Hyde, Dec. 23, 2018
• “I have the Constitution hanging in my office with an NRA plaque next to it. Most MDs can’t mow their own yard.” – Dr. Brian Anseeuw, June 21, 2022

Do mental health issues trump gun talks?

Another counterargument to discussing gun safety with patients involves mental health issues that many physicians may not be trained to address. Mental health entered comments to Dr. Caplan’s video blogs in 2016 and has shaped much of the discussion since.

• “First of all, two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. It is foolish to talk about counseling patients about gun safety, etc, and ignore the mental health issues.” – Dr. Jeffrey Jennings, Jan. 25, 2016
• “Suicide victims and those committing mass shootings are mentally ill. ... Blame society, drugs, mental illness, easy access to illegal firearms, and poor recognition of SOS (signs of suicide).” – Dr. Alan DeCarlo, Dec. 24, 2018
• “Yes, we have gun violence, but what is the underlying problem? Bullying? Mental issues? Not enough parental supervision? These and others are the issues I feel need to be discussed.” – T. Deese, June 24, 2022
• “The causes of increased gun violence are mental health, problems with bullying, social media, and normalization of deviant behavior.” – Julie Johng, 2022

Added responsibility is too much

Another theme that has grown over time is that talks of gun safety just heap issues onto physicians’ treatment plates that are already too full.

• “Oh, for God’s sake, is there anything else I can do while I›m at it? Primary care has gotten to be more headache than it’s worth. Thanks for another reason to think about retiring.” – Dr. Kathleen Collins, March 31, 2014
• “THE JOB OF POLICE, COURTS, AND LAW-EDUCATED PROSECUTORS SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY PHYSICIANS.” – Dr. Sudarshan Singla, Jan. 25, 2016
• “This is a debate that only those at the academic/ivory tower–level of medicine even have time to lament. The frontline medical providers barely have enough time to adequately address the pertinent.” – Tobin Purslow, Jan. 15, 2016

Other ways to communicate

For his part, Dr. Caplan believes there is a variety of ways physicians can effectively discuss gun safety with patients to help minimize the potential of injury or death.

Acknowledging that other aspects of treatment are often more pressing, he suggested that the gun safety education could be done through educational videos that are shown in waiting rooms, through pamphlets available at the front desk, or throuigh a newsletter sent to patients.

“Everything doesn’t have to happen in conversation. The doctor’s office should become more of an educational site.

“I am 100% more passionate about this than when I first started down this road.”

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

Gregory A. Hood, MD, remembers a patient of his who was perpetually dubious about COVID-19 – and then couldn’t be saved.

“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
 

The rise of the skeptical patient

It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.

“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”

Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.

“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”

“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
 

What are patients mistrustful about?

Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.

“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”

In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”

Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”

Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.

Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
 

Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit

Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.

“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”

Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.

However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.

For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”

Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.

Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
 

Best ways to deal with cynical patients

Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?

1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.

“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”

2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”

3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”

4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”

Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”

However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”

5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”

6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”

7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”

If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.

It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.

Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”

8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.

Conclusion

It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”

Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”

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

Gregory A. Hood, MD, remembers a patient of his who was perpetually dubious about COVID-19 – and then couldn’t be saved.

“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
 

The rise of the skeptical patient

It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.

“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”

Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.

“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”

“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
 

What are patients mistrustful about?

Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.

“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”

In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”

Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”

Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.

Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
 

Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit

Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.

“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”

Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.

However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.

For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”

Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.

Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
 

Best ways to deal with cynical patients

Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?

1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.

“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”

2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”

3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”

4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”

Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”

However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”

5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”

6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”

7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”

If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.

It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.

Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”

8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.

Conclusion

It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”

Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”

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

Gregory A. Hood, MD, remembers a patient of his who was perpetually dubious about COVID-19 – and then couldn’t be saved.

“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
 

The rise of the skeptical patient

It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.

“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”

Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.

“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”

“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
 

What are patients mistrustful about?

Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.

“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”

In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”

Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”

Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.

Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
 

Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit

Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.

“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”

Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.

However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.

For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”

Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.

Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
 

Best ways to deal with cynical patients

Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?

1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.

“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”

2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”

3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”

4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”

Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”

However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”

5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”

6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”

7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”

If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.

It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.

Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”

8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.

Conclusion

It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”

Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”

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

Sepsis survivors discharged to post-acute care facilities are at high risk for mortality and hospital readmission, according to Nicholas Colucciello, MD, and few interventions have been shown to reduce these adverse outcomes.

Dr. Colucciello and colleagues compared the effects of a Sepsis Transition And Recovery (STAR) program versus Usual Care (UC) alone on 30-day mortality and hospital readmission among sepsis survivors discharged to post-acute care.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), Dr. Colucciello, a primary care physician in Toledo, Ohio, presented data suggesting that the STAR intervention program appears beneficial for patients discharged to post-acute care facilities and may lead to decreased 30-day mortality and readmission rates.
 

Study of IMPACTS

The study was a secondary analysis of patients from the IMPACTS (Improving Morbidity During Post-Acute Care Transitions for Sepsis) randomized clinical trial, focusing only on those patients who were discharged to a post-acute care facility. IMPACTS evaluated the effectiveness of STAR, a post-sepsis transition program using nurse navigators to deliver best-practice post-sepsis care during and after hospitalization, Dr. Colucciello said. The interventions included comorbidity monitoring, medication review, evaluation for new impairments/symptoms, and goals of care assessment.

“Over one-third of sepsis survivors are discharged to post-acute care as they are not stable enough to go home,” said Dr. Colucciello, and among these patients there is a high risk for mortality and hospital readmission.

Dr. Colucciello and his colleagues randomly assigned patients hospitalized with sepsis and deemed high risk for post-discharge readmission or mortality to either STAR or usual care. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day readmission and mortality, which was assessed from the electronic health record and social security death master file.

Of the 175 (21%) IMPACTS patients discharged to post-acute care facilities, 143 (82%) were sent to skilled nursing facilities, and 12 (7%) were sent to long-term acute care hospitals. The remaining 20 patients (11%) were sent to inpatient rehabilitation. A total of 88 of these patients received the STAR intervention and 87 received usual care.
 

Suggestive results

The study showed that the composite primary endpoint occurred in 26 (30.6%) patients in the usual care group versus 18 (20.7%) patients in the STAR group, for a risk difference of –9.9% (95% CI, –22.9 to 3.1), according to Dr. Colucciello. As individual factors, 30-day all-cause mortality was 8.2% in the UC group, compared with 5.8% in the STAR group, for a risk difference of –2.5% (95% CI, –10.1 to 5.0) and the 30-day all-cause readmission was 27.1% in the UC group, compared with 17.2% in the STAR program, for a risk difference of –9.8% (95% CI, –22.2 to 2.5). On average, patients receiving UC experienced 26.5 hospital-free days, compared with 27.4 hospital-free days in the STAR group, he added.

The biggest limitation of the study was the fact that it was underpowered to detect statistically significant differences, despite the suggestive results, said Dr. Colucciello. However, he added: “This secondary analysis of the IMPACTS randomized trial found that the STAR intervention may decrease 30-day mortality and readmission rates among sepsis patients discharged to a post-acute care facility,” he concluded.

Dr. Colucciello and colleagues report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sepsis survivors discharged to post-acute care facilities are at high risk for mortality and hospital readmission, according to Nicholas Colucciello, MD, and few interventions have been shown to reduce these adverse outcomes.

Dr. Colucciello and colleagues compared the effects of a Sepsis Transition And Recovery (STAR) program versus Usual Care (UC) alone on 30-day mortality and hospital readmission among sepsis survivors discharged to post-acute care.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), Dr. Colucciello, a primary care physician in Toledo, Ohio, presented data suggesting that the STAR intervention program appears beneficial for patients discharged to post-acute care facilities and may lead to decreased 30-day mortality and readmission rates.
 

Study of IMPACTS

The study was a secondary analysis of patients from the IMPACTS (Improving Morbidity During Post-Acute Care Transitions for Sepsis) randomized clinical trial, focusing only on those patients who were discharged to a post-acute care facility. IMPACTS evaluated the effectiveness of STAR, a post-sepsis transition program using nurse navigators to deliver best-practice post-sepsis care during and after hospitalization, Dr. Colucciello said. The interventions included comorbidity monitoring, medication review, evaluation for new impairments/symptoms, and goals of care assessment.

“Over one-third of sepsis survivors are discharged to post-acute care as they are not stable enough to go home,” said Dr. Colucciello, and among these patients there is a high risk for mortality and hospital readmission.

Dr. Colucciello and his colleagues randomly assigned patients hospitalized with sepsis and deemed high risk for post-discharge readmission or mortality to either STAR or usual care. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day readmission and mortality, which was assessed from the electronic health record and social security death master file.

Of the 175 (21%) IMPACTS patients discharged to post-acute care facilities, 143 (82%) were sent to skilled nursing facilities, and 12 (7%) were sent to long-term acute care hospitals. The remaining 20 patients (11%) were sent to inpatient rehabilitation. A total of 88 of these patients received the STAR intervention and 87 received usual care.
 

Suggestive results

The study showed that the composite primary endpoint occurred in 26 (30.6%) patients in the usual care group versus 18 (20.7%) patients in the STAR group, for a risk difference of –9.9% (95% CI, –22.9 to 3.1), according to Dr. Colucciello. As individual factors, 30-day all-cause mortality was 8.2% in the UC group, compared with 5.8% in the STAR group, for a risk difference of –2.5% (95% CI, –10.1 to 5.0) and the 30-day all-cause readmission was 27.1% in the UC group, compared with 17.2% in the STAR program, for a risk difference of –9.8% (95% CI, –22.2 to 2.5). On average, patients receiving UC experienced 26.5 hospital-free days, compared with 27.4 hospital-free days in the STAR group, he added.

The biggest limitation of the study was the fact that it was underpowered to detect statistically significant differences, despite the suggestive results, said Dr. Colucciello. However, he added: “This secondary analysis of the IMPACTS randomized trial found that the STAR intervention may decrease 30-day mortality and readmission rates among sepsis patients discharged to a post-acute care facility,” he concluded.

Dr. Colucciello and colleagues report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sepsis survivors discharged to post-acute care facilities are at high risk for mortality and hospital readmission, according to Nicholas Colucciello, MD, and few interventions have been shown to reduce these adverse outcomes.

Dr. Colucciello and colleagues compared the effects of a Sepsis Transition And Recovery (STAR) program versus Usual Care (UC) alone on 30-day mortality and hospital readmission among sepsis survivors discharged to post-acute care.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), Dr. Colucciello, a primary care physician in Toledo, Ohio, presented data suggesting that the STAR intervention program appears beneficial for patients discharged to post-acute care facilities and may lead to decreased 30-day mortality and readmission rates.
 

Study of IMPACTS

The study was a secondary analysis of patients from the IMPACTS (Improving Morbidity During Post-Acute Care Transitions for Sepsis) randomized clinical trial, focusing only on those patients who were discharged to a post-acute care facility. IMPACTS evaluated the effectiveness of STAR, a post-sepsis transition program using nurse navigators to deliver best-practice post-sepsis care during and after hospitalization, Dr. Colucciello said. The interventions included comorbidity monitoring, medication review, evaluation for new impairments/symptoms, and goals of care assessment.

“Over one-third of sepsis survivors are discharged to post-acute care as they are not stable enough to go home,” said Dr. Colucciello, and among these patients there is a high risk for mortality and hospital readmission.

Dr. Colucciello and his colleagues randomly assigned patients hospitalized with sepsis and deemed high risk for post-discharge readmission or mortality to either STAR or usual care. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day readmission and mortality, which was assessed from the electronic health record and social security death master file.

Of the 175 (21%) IMPACTS patients discharged to post-acute care facilities, 143 (82%) were sent to skilled nursing facilities, and 12 (7%) were sent to long-term acute care hospitals. The remaining 20 patients (11%) were sent to inpatient rehabilitation. A total of 88 of these patients received the STAR intervention and 87 received usual care.
 

Suggestive results

The study showed that the composite primary endpoint occurred in 26 (30.6%) patients in the usual care group versus 18 (20.7%) patients in the STAR group, for a risk difference of –9.9% (95% CI, –22.9 to 3.1), according to Dr. Colucciello. As individual factors, 30-day all-cause mortality was 8.2% in the UC group, compared with 5.8% in the STAR group, for a risk difference of –2.5% (95% CI, –10.1 to 5.0) and the 30-day all-cause readmission was 27.1% in the UC group, compared with 17.2% in the STAR program, for a risk difference of –9.8% (95% CI, –22.2 to 2.5). On average, patients receiving UC experienced 26.5 hospital-free days, compared with 27.4 hospital-free days in the STAR group, he added.

The biggest limitation of the study was the fact that it was underpowered to detect statistically significant differences, despite the suggestive results, said Dr. Colucciello. However, he added: “This secondary analysis of the IMPACTS randomized trial found that the STAR intervention may decrease 30-day mortality and readmission rates among sepsis patients discharged to a post-acute care facility,” he concluded.

Dr. Colucciello and colleagues report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a sepsis predictor made little difference in time to antibiotic administration for septic patients in the emergency department, based on data from more than 200 patients.

“One of the big problems with sepsis is the lack of current tools for early and accurate diagnoses,” said Daniel Burgin, MD, an internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The EPIC Sepsis Model (ESM) was designed to help facilitate earlier detection of sepsis and speed time to the start of antibiotics, but its effectiveness has not been well studied, Dr. Burgin said.

In Dr. Burgin’s facility, the ESM is mainly driven by systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and blood pressure and is calculated every 15 minutes; the system triggers a best-practice advisory if needed, with an alert that sepsis may be suspected.

To assess the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, Dr. Burgin and colleagues reviewed data from 226 adult patients who presented to a single emergency department between February 2019 and June 2019. All patients presented with at least two criteria for SIRS. An ESM threshold of 6 was designed to trigger a set of orders to guide providers on a treatment plan that included antibiotics.

The researchers compared times to the ordering and the administration of antibiotics for patients with ESM scores of 6 or higher vs. less than 6 within 6 hours of triage in the ED. A total of 109 patients (48.2%) received antibiotics in the ED. Of these, 71 (74.5%) had ESM less than 6 and 38 (40.6%) had ESM of 6 or higher. The times from triage to antibiotics ordered and administered was significantly less in patients with ESM of 6 or higher (90.5 minutes vs. 131.5 minutes; 136 minutes vs. 186 minutes, respectively; P = .011 for both).

A total of 188 patients were evaluated for infection, and 86 met Sepsis-2 criteria based on physician chart review. These patients were significantly more likely than those not meeting the Sepsis-2 criteria to receive antibiotics in the ED (76.7% vs. 22.8%; P <.001).

Another 21 patients met criteria for Sepsis-3 based on a physician panel. Although all 21 received antibiotics, 5 did not receive them within 6 hours of triage in the ED, Dr. Burgin said. The median times to ordering and administration of antibiotics for Sepsis-3 patients with an ESM of 6 or higher were –5 and 38.5 (interquartile range), respectively.

“We hope that the ESM would prompt providers to start the order [for antibiotics],” Dr. Burgin said in his presentation. However, the researchers found no consistent patterns, and in many cases the ESM alerts occurred after the orders had been initiated, he noted.

The study findings were limited by the use of data from a single center; the implementation of the EPIC tool is hospital specific, said Dr. Burgin. However, the results suggest that “the ESM trigger is not improving the time to ordering of antibiotics for septic patients, and we question the utility of this tool in its current state,” he said.

“While this research proved useful in assessing the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, more research is needed to understand how to operationalize predictive analytics,” Dr. Burgin said of the study findings. “The goal is to find the balance between early identification of sepsis and timely antimicrobial therapy and the potential harm of overalerting treatment teams.”

The study was supported in part by Cytovale, a sepsis diagnostics company. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Cytovale. Dr. Burgin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a sepsis predictor made little difference in time to antibiotic administration for septic patients in the emergency department, based on data from more than 200 patients.

“One of the big problems with sepsis is the lack of current tools for early and accurate diagnoses,” said Daniel Burgin, MD, an internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The EPIC Sepsis Model (ESM) was designed to help facilitate earlier detection of sepsis and speed time to the start of antibiotics, but its effectiveness has not been well studied, Dr. Burgin said.

In Dr. Burgin’s facility, the ESM is mainly driven by systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and blood pressure and is calculated every 15 minutes; the system triggers a best-practice advisory if needed, with an alert that sepsis may be suspected.

To assess the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, Dr. Burgin and colleagues reviewed data from 226 adult patients who presented to a single emergency department between February 2019 and June 2019. All patients presented with at least two criteria for SIRS. An ESM threshold of 6 was designed to trigger a set of orders to guide providers on a treatment plan that included antibiotics.

The researchers compared times to the ordering and the administration of antibiotics for patients with ESM scores of 6 or higher vs. less than 6 within 6 hours of triage in the ED. A total of 109 patients (48.2%) received antibiotics in the ED. Of these, 71 (74.5%) had ESM less than 6 and 38 (40.6%) had ESM of 6 or higher. The times from triage to antibiotics ordered and administered was significantly less in patients with ESM of 6 or higher (90.5 minutes vs. 131.5 minutes; 136 minutes vs. 186 minutes, respectively; P = .011 for both).

A total of 188 patients were evaluated for infection, and 86 met Sepsis-2 criteria based on physician chart review. These patients were significantly more likely than those not meeting the Sepsis-2 criteria to receive antibiotics in the ED (76.7% vs. 22.8%; P <.001).

Another 21 patients met criteria for Sepsis-3 based on a physician panel. Although all 21 received antibiotics, 5 did not receive them within 6 hours of triage in the ED, Dr. Burgin said. The median times to ordering and administration of antibiotics for Sepsis-3 patients with an ESM of 6 or higher were –5 and 38.5 (interquartile range), respectively.

“We hope that the ESM would prompt providers to start the order [for antibiotics],” Dr. Burgin said in his presentation. However, the researchers found no consistent patterns, and in many cases the ESM alerts occurred after the orders had been initiated, he noted.

The study findings were limited by the use of data from a single center; the implementation of the EPIC tool is hospital specific, said Dr. Burgin. However, the results suggest that “the ESM trigger is not improving the time to ordering of antibiotics for septic patients, and we question the utility of this tool in its current state,” he said.

“While this research proved useful in assessing the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, more research is needed to understand how to operationalize predictive analytics,” Dr. Burgin said of the study findings. “The goal is to find the balance between early identification of sepsis and timely antimicrobial therapy and the potential harm of overalerting treatment teams.”

The study was supported in part by Cytovale, a sepsis diagnostics company. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Cytovale. Dr. Burgin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a sepsis predictor made little difference in time to antibiotic administration for septic patients in the emergency department, based on data from more than 200 patients.

“One of the big problems with sepsis is the lack of current tools for early and accurate diagnoses,” said Daniel Burgin, MD, an internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The EPIC Sepsis Model (ESM) was designed to help facilitate earlier detection of sepsis and speed time to the start of antibiotics, but its effectiveness has not been well studied, Dr. Burgin said.

In Dr. Burgin’s facility, the ESM is mainly driven by systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and blood pressure and is calculated every 15 minutes; the system triggers a best-practice advisory if needed, with an alert that sepsis may be suspected.

To assess the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, Dr. Burgin and colleagues reviewed data from 226 adult patients who presented to a single emergency department between February 2019 and June 2019. All patients presented with at least two criteria for SIRS. An ESM threshold of 6 was designed to trigger a set of orders to guide providers on a treatment plan that included antibiotics.

The researchers compared times to the ordering and the administration of antibiotics for patients with ESM scores of 6 or higher vs. less than 6 within 6 hours of triage in the ED. A total of 109 patients (48.2%) received antibiotics in the ED. Of these, 71 (74.5%) had ESM less than 6 and 38 (40.6%) had ESM of 6 or higher. The times from triage to antibiotics ordered and administered was significantly less in patients with ESM of 6 or higher (90.5 minutes vs. 131.5 minutes; 136 minutes vs. 186 minutes, respectively; P = .011 for both).

A total of 188 patients were evaluated for infection, and 86 met Sepsis-2 criteria based on physician chart review. These patients were significantly more likely than those not meeting the Sepsis-2 criteria to receive antibiotics in the ED (76.7% vs. 22.8%; P <.001).

Another 21 patients met criteria for Sepsis-3 based on a physician panel. Although all 21 received antibiotics, 5 did not receive them within 6 hours of triage in the ED, Dr. Burgin said. The median times to ordering and administration of antibiotics for Sepsis-3 patients with an ESM of 6 or higher were –5 and 38.5 (interquartile range), respectively.

“We hope that the ESM would prompt providers to start the order [for antibiotics],” Dr. Burgin said in his presentation. However, the researchers found no consistent patterns, and in many cases the ESM alerts occurred after the orders had been initiated, he noted.

The study findings were limited by the use of data from a single center; the implementation of the EPIC tool is hospital specific, said Dr. Burgin. However, the results suggest that “the ESM trigger is not improving the time to ordering of antibiotics for septic patients, and we question the utility of this tool in its current state,” he said.

“While this research proved useful in assessing the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, more research is needed to understand how to operationalize predictive analytics,” Dr. Burgin said of the study findings. “The goal is to find the balance between early identification of sepsis and timely antimicrobial therapy and the potential harm of overalerting treatment teams.”

The study was supported in part by Cytovale, a sepsis diagnostics company. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Cytovale. Dr. Burgin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.

COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.

“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”

The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.

It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.

Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.

“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.

When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.

For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.

Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.

Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.

While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.

“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”

Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.

The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.

Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.

“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.

“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.

COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.

“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”

The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.

It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.

Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.

“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.

When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.

For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.

Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.

Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.

While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.

“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”

Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.

The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.

Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.

“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.

“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.

COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.

“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”

The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.

It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.

Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.

“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.

When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.

For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.

Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.

Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.

While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.

“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”

Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.

The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.

Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.

“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.

“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s a devastating series of setbacks for long COVID patients. First, they get the debilitating symptoms of their condition. Then they are forced to give up their jobs, or severely curtail their work hours, as their symptoms linger. And next, for many, they lose their employer-sponsored health insurance. 

While not all long COVID patients are debilitated, the CDC’s ongoing survey on long COVID found a quarter of adults with long COVID report it significantly affects their day-to-day living activities.

Estimates have shown that long COVID has disrupted the lives of anywhere from 16 million to 34 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 65. 

While hard data is still limited, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before getting the virus are now either out of work or working fewer hours. 

According to data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, out of the estimated 16 million working-age adults who currently have long COVID, 2 million to 4 million of them are out of work because of their symptoms. The cost of those lost wages ranges from $170 billion a year to as much as $230 billion, the Census Bureau says. And given that approximately 155 million Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, the welfare of working-age adults may be under serious threat. 

“Millions of people are now impacted by long COVID, and oftentimes along with that comes the inability to work,” says Megan Cole Brahim, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of health law, policy, and management at Boston University and codirector of the school’s Medicaid policy lab. “And because a lot of people get their health insurance coverage through employer-sponsored coverage, no longer being able to work means you may not have access to the health insurance that you once had.”

The CDC defines long COVID as a wide array of health conditions, including malaise, fatigue, shortness of breath, mental health issues, problems with the part of the nervous system that controls body functions, and more. 

Gwen Bishop was working remotely for the human resources department at the University of Washington Medical Centers, Seattle, when she got COVID-19. When the infection passed, Ms. Bishop, 39, thought she’d start feeling well enough to get back to work – but that didn’t happen. 

“When I would log in to work and just try to read emails,” she says, “it was like they were written in Greek. It made no sense and was incredibly stressful.”

This falls in line with what researchers have found out about the nervous system issues reported by people with long COVID. People who have survived acute COVID infections have reported lasting sensory and motor function problems, brain fog, and memory problems. 

Ms. Bishop, who was diagnosed with ADHD when she was in grade school, says another complication she got from her long COVID was a new intolerance to stimulants like coffee and her ADHD medication, Vyvanse, which were normal parts of her everyday life. 

“Every time I would take my ADHD medicine or have a cup of coffee, I would have a panic attack until it wore off,” says Ms. Bishop. “Vyvanse is a very long-acting stimulant, so that would be an entire day of an endless panic attack.” 

In order for her to get a medical leave approved, Ms. Bishop needed to get documents by a certain date from her doctor’s office that confirmed her long COVID diagnosis. She was able to get a couple of extensions, but Bishop says that with the burden that has been placed on our medical systems, getting in to see a doctor through her employer insurance was taking much longer than expected. By the time she got an appointment, she says, she had already been fired for missing too much work. Emails she provided showing exchanges between her and her employer verify her story. And without her health insurance, her appointment through that provider would no longer have been covered.

In July 2021, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance recognizing long COVID as a disability “if the person’s condition or any of its symptoms is a ‘physical or mental’ impairment that ‘substantially limits’ one or more major life activities.” 

But getting access to disability benefits hasn’t been easy for people with long COVID. On top of having to be out of work for 12 months before being able to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance, some of those who have applied say they have had to put up a fight to actually gain access to disability insurance. The Social Security Administration has yet to reveal just how many applications that cited long COVID have been denied so far.  

David Barnett, a former bartender in the Seattle area in his early 40s, got COVID-19 in March 2020. Before his infection, he spent much of his time working on his feet, bodybuilding, and hiking with his partner. But for the last nearly 3 years, even just going for a walk has been a major challenge. He says he has spent much of his post-COVID life either chair-bound or bed-bound because of his symptoms. 

He is currently on his partner’s health insurance plan but is still responsible for copays and out-of-network appointments and treatments. After being unable to bartend any more, he started a GoFundMe account and dug into his personal savings. He says he applied for food stamps and is getting ready to sell his truck. Mr. Barnett applied for disability in March of this year but says he was denied benefits by the Social Security Administration and has hired a lawyer to appeal.

He runs a 24-hour online support group on Zoom for people with long COVID and says that no one in his close circle has successfully gotten access to disability payments. 

Alba Azola, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins University’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Team, says at least half of her patients need some level of accommodations to get back to work; most can, if given the proper accommodations, such as switching to a job that can be done sitting down, or with limited time standing. But there are still patients who have been more severely disabled by their long COVID symptoms. 

“Work is such a part of people’s identity. The people who are very impaired, all they want to do is to get back to work and their normal lives,” she says.

Many of Dr. Azola’s long COVID patients aren’t able to return to their original jobs. She says they often have to find new positions more tailored to their new realities. One patient, a nurse and mother of five who previously worked in a facility where she got COVID-19, was out of work for 9 months after her infection. She ultimately lost her job, and Dr. Azola says the patient’s employer was hesitant to provide her with any accommodations. The patient was finally able to find a different job as a nurse coordinator where she doesn’t have to be standing for more than 10 minutes at a time. 

Ge Bai, PhD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says the novelty of long COVID and the continued uncertainty around it raise questions for health insurance providers. 

“There’s no well-defined pathway to treat or cure this condition,” Dr. Bai says. “Right now, employers have discretion to determine when a condition is being covered or not being covered. So people with long COVID do have a risk that their treatments won’t be covered.”

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

It’s a devastating series of setbacks for long COVID patients. First, they get the debilitating symptoms of their condition. Then they are forced to give up their jobs, or severely curtail their work hours, as their symptoms linger. And next, for many, they lose their employer-sponsored health insurance. 

While not all long COVID patients are debilitated, the CDC’s ongoing survey on long COVID found a quarter of adults with long COVID report it significantly affects their day-to-day living activities.

Estimates have shown that long COVID has disrupted the lives of anywhere from 16 million to 34 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 65. 

While hard data is still limited, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before getting the virus are now either out of work or working fewer hours. 

According to data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, out of the estimated 16 million working-age adults who currently have long COVID, 2 million to 4 million of them are out of work because of their symptoms. The cost of those lost wages ranges from $170 billion a year to as much as $230 billion, the Census Bureau says. And given that approximately 155 million Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, the welfare of working-age adults may be under serious threat. 

“Millions of people are now impacted by long COVID, and oftentimes along with that comes the inability to work,” says Megan Cole Brahim, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of health law, policy, and management at Boston University and codirector of the school’s Medicaid policy lab. “And because a lot of people get their health insurance coverage through employer-sponsored coverage, no longer being able to work means you may not have access to the health insurance that you once had.”

The CDC defines long COVID as a wide array of health conditions, including malaise, fatigue, shortness of breath, mental health issues, problems with the part of the nervous system that controls body functions, and more. 

Gwen Bishop was working remotely for the human resources department at the University of Washington Medical Centers, Seattle, when she got COVID-19. When the infection passed, Ms. Bishop, 39, thought she’d start feeling well enough to get back to work – but that didn’t happen. 

“When I would log in to work and just try to read emails,” she says, “it was like they were written in Greek. It made no sense and was incredibly stressful.”

This falls in line with what researchers have found out about the nervous system issues reported by people with long COVID. People who have survived acute COVID infections have reported lasting sensory and motor function problems, brain fog, and memory problems. 

Ms. Bishop, who was diagnosed with ADHD when she was in grade school, says another complication she got from her long COVID was a new intolerance to stimulants like coffee and her ADHD medication, Vyvanse, which were normal parts of her everyday life. 

“Every time I would take my ADHD medicine or have a cup of coffee, I would have a panic attack until it wore off,” says Ms. Bishop. “Vyvanse is a very long-acting stimulant, so that would be an entire day of an endless panic attack.” 

In order for her to get a medical leave approved, Ms. Bishop needed to get documents by a certain date from her doctor’s office that confirmed her long COVID diagnosis. She was able to get a couple of extensions, but Bishop says that with the burden that has been placed on our medical systems, getting in to see a doctor through her employer insurance was taking much longer than expected. By the time she got an appointment, she says, she had already been fired for missing too much work. Emails she provided showing exchanges between her and her employer verify her story. And without her health insurance, her appointment through that provider would no longer have been covered.

In July 2021, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance recognizing long COVID as a disability “if the person’s condition or any of its symptoms is a ‘physical or mental’ impairment that ‘substantially limits’ one or more major life activities.” 

But getting access to disability benefits hasn’t been easy for people with long COVID. On top of having to be out of work for 12 months before being able to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance, some of those who have applied say they have had to put up a fight to actually gain access to disability insurance. The Social Security Administration has yet to reveal just how many applications that cited long COVID have been denied so far.  

David Barnett, a former bartender in the Seattle area in his early 40s, got COVID-19 in March 2020. Before his infection, he spent much of his time working on his feet, bodybuilding, and hiking with his partner. But for the last nearly 3 years, even just going for a walk has been a major challenge. He says he has spent much of his post-COVID life either chair-bound or bed-bound because of his symptoms. 

He is currently on his partner’s health insurance plan but is still responsible for copays and out-of-network appointments and treatments. After being unable to bartend any more, he started a GoFundMe account and dug into his personal savings. He says he applied for food stamps and is getting ready to sell his truck. Mr. Barnett applied for disability in March of this year but says he was denied benefits by the Social Security Administration and has hired a lawyer to appeal.

He runs a 24-hour online support group on Zoom for people with long COVID and says that no one in his close circle has successfully gotten access to disability payments. 

Alba Azola, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins University’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Team, says at least half of her patients need some level of accommodations to get back to work; most can, if given the proper accommodations, such as switching to a job that can be done sitting down, or with limited time standing. But there are still patients who have been more severely disabled by their long COVID symptoms. 

“Work is such a part of people’s identity. The people who are very impaired, all they want to do is to get back to work and their normal lives,” she says.

Many of Dr. Azola’s long COVID patients aren’t able to return to their original jobs. She says they often have to find new positions more tailored to their new realities. One patient, a nurse and mother of five who previously worked in a facility where she got COVID-19, was out of work for 9 months after her infection. She ultimately lost her job, and Dr. Azola says the patient’s employer was hesitant to provide her with any accommodations. The patient was finally able to find a different job as a nurse coordinator where she doesn’t have to be standing for more than 10 minutes at a time. 

Ge Bai, PhD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says the novelty of long COVID and the continued uncertainty around it raise questions for health insurance providers. 

“There’s no well-defined pathway to treat or cure this condition,” Dr. Bai says. “Right now, employers have discretion to determine when a condition is being covered or not being covered. So people with long COVID do have a risk that their treatments won’t be covered.”

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

It’s a devastating series of setbacks for long COVID patients. First, they get the debilitating symptoms of their condition. Then they are forced to give up their jobs, or severely curtail their work hours, as their symptoms linger. And next, for many, they lose their employer-sponsored health insurance. 

While not all long COVID patients are debilitated, the CDC’s ongoing survey on long COVID found a quarter of adults with long COVID report it significantly affects their day-to-day living activities.

Estimates have shown that long COVID has disrupted the lives of anywhere from 16 million to 34 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 65. 

While hard data is still limited, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before getting the virus are now either out of work or working fewer hours. 

According to data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, out of the estimated 16 million working-age adults who currently have long COVID, 2 million to 4 million of them are out of work because of their symptoms. The cost of those lost wages ranges from $170 billion a year to as much as $230 billion, the Census Bureau says. And given that approximately 155 million Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, the welfare of working-age adults may be under serious threat. 

“Millions of people are now impacted by long COVID, and oftentimes along with that comes the inability to work,” says Megan Cole Brahim, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of health law, policy, and management at Boston University and codirector of the school’s Medicaid policy lab. “And because a lot of people get their health insurance coverage through employer-sponsored coverage, no longer being able to work means you may not have access to the health insurance that you once had.”

The CDC defines long COVID as a wide array of health conditions, including malaise, fatigue, shortness of breath, mental health issues, problems with the part of the nervous system that controls body functions, and more. 

Gwen Bishop was working remotely for the human resources department at the University of Washington Medical Centers, Seattle, when she got COVID-19. When the infection passed, Ms. Bishop, 39, thought she’d start feeling well enough to get back to work – but that didn’t happen. 

“When I would log in to work and just try to read emails,” she says, “it was like they were written in Greek. It made no sense and was incredibly stressful.”

This falls in line with what researchers have found out about the nervous system issues reported by people with long COVID. People who have survived acute COVID infections have reported lasting sensory and motor function problems, brain fog, and memory problems. 

Ms. Bishop, who was diagnosed with ADHD when she was in grade school, says another complication she got from her long COVID was a new intolerance to stimulants like coffee and her ADHD medication, Vyvanse, which were normal parts of her everyday life. 

“Every time I would take my ADHD medicine or have a cup of coffee, I would have a panic attack until it wore off,” says Ms. Bishop. “Vyvanse is a very long-acting stimulant, so that would be an entire day of an endless panic attack.” 

In order for her to get a medical leave approved, Ms. Bishop needed to get documents by a certain date from her doctor’s office that confirmed her long COVID diagnosis. She was able to get a couple of extensions, but Bishop says that with the burden that has been placed on our medical systems, getting in to see a doctor through her employer insurance was taking much longer than expected. By the time she got an appointment, she says, she had already been fired for missing too much work. Emails she provided showing exchanges between her and her employer verify her story. And without her health insurance, her appointment through that provider would no longer have been covered.

In July 2021, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance recognizing long COVID as a disability “if the person’s condition or any of its symptoms is a ‘physical or mental’ impairment that ‘substantially limits’ one or more major life activities.” 

But getting access to disability benefits hasn’t been easy for people with long COVID. On top of having to be out of work for 12 months before being able to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance, some of those who have applied say they have had to put up a fight to actually gain access to disability insurance. The Social Security Administration has yet to reveal just how many applications that cited long COVID have been denied so far.  

David Barnett, a former bartender in the Seattle area in his early 40s, got COVID-19 in March 2020. Before his infection, he spent much of his time working on his feet, bodybuilding, and hiking with his partner. But for the last nearly 3 years, even just going for a walk has been a major challenge. He says he has spent much of his post-COVID life either chair-bound or bed-bound because of his symptoms. 

He is currently on his partner’s health insurance plan but is still responsible for copays and out-of-network appointments and treatments. After being unable to bartend any more, he started a GoFundMe account and dug into his personal savings. He says he applied for food stamps and is getting ready to sell his truck. Mr. Barnett applied for disability in March of this year but says he was denied benefits by the Social Security Administration and has hired a lawyer to appeal.

He runs a 24-hour online support group on Zoom for people with long COVID and says that no one in his close circle has successfully gotten access to disability payments. 

Alba Azola, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins University’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Team, says at least half of her patients need some level of accommodations to get back to work; most can, if given the proper accommodations, such as switching to a job that can be done sitting down, or with limited time standing. But there are still patients who have been more severely disabled by their long COVID symptoms. 

“Work is such a part of people’s identity. The people who are very impaired, all they want to do is to get back to work and their normal lives,” she says.

Many of Dr. Azola’s long COVID patients aren’t able to return to their original jobs. She says they often have to find new positions more tailored to their new realities. One patient, a nurse and mother of five who previously worked in a facility where she got COVID-19, was out of work for 9 months after her infection. She ultimately lost her job, and Dr. Azola says the patient’s employer was hesitant to provide her with any accommodations. The patient was finally able to find a different job as a nurse coordinator where she doesn’t have to be standing for more than 10 minutes at a time. 

Ge Bai, PhD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says the novelty of long COVID and the continued uncertainty around it raise questions for health insurance providers. 

“There’s no well-defined pathway to treat or cure this condition,” Dr. Bai says. “Right now, employers have discretion to determine when a condition is being covered or not being covered. So people with long COVID do have a risk that their treatments won’t be covered.”

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

Full vaccination status against COVID-19 was associated with significantly reduced mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19 who needed mechanical ventilation, according to results of a study that involved 265 adults.

Although COVID-19 vaccination has been demonstrated to be effective at preventing infection, breakthrough infections occur, write Eirini Grapsa, RN, of Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Greece, and colleagues. The potential protective benefits of vaccination for patients who experience these breakthrough infections, especially cases severe enough to require hospitalization and the need for mechanical ventilation, have not been well studied, the investigators say.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 265 consecutive patients older than 18 years who were admitted to intensive care units at three tertiary care centers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections between June 7, 2021, and Feb. 1, 2022. All patients in the study received invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The patients were divided into two groups: 26 patients were in the full vaccination group, and 239 served as control patients. Full vaccination was defined as having completed the primary COVID-19 series more than 14 days but less than 5 months before intubation. The control group included patients who had been fully vaccinated for less than 14 days or more than 5 months, were partially vaccinated, or were not vaccinated. A total of 20 of 26 patients in the full vaccination group received the Pfizer BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine, as did 25 of the 33 vaccinated patients in the control group.

The median age of the patients overall was 66 years; 36% were women, and 99% were White. Patients in the full vaccination group were more likely to be older and to have comorbidities. The primary outcome was the time from intubation to all-cause mortality.

Overall, mortality was lower among the patients with full vaccination status than among those in the control group (61.5% vs. 68.2%; P = .03). Full vaccination also was associated with lower mortality in sensitivity analyses that included (a) only patients who received an mRNA vaccine in the full vaccination group, and (b) only unvaccinated patients in the control group (hazard ratios, 0.47 and 0.54, respectively).

In a regression model that examined secondary outcomes, the HR was 0.40 for the association between full vaccination and 28-day mortality. No significant differences were seen in length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) or length of hospital stay among survivors, nor in the occurrence of bacteremia, use of vasopressors, number of vasopressor-free days, use of continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT), number of CKRT-free days, and the number of ventilator-free and ICU-free days.

“Our choice to take time since vaccination into consideration was based on several previous studies indicating that protection against infection from vaccination (specifically with mRNA vaccines, such as BNT162b2, which was administered to 76.9% of patients in the full vaccination group) may decrease over time,” the researchers write.

Oxygenation was higher in the full vaccination group than in the control group on the third day after intubation. Previous studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that oxygenation on the third day after intubation may be more strongly associated with mortality than oxygenation on the day of intubation, the researchers note. Bacteremia was higher among the control patients and could have affected mortality, although the difference between vaccinated patients and control patients was not significant, the researchers add.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including small sample size, which prevented direct comparisons of the effectiveness of different numbers of vaccine doses or vaccine types, the researchers note. Other limitations include selection bias and residual confounding variables, they say.

The results demonstrate an association between full vaccination and lower mortality and suggest that vaccination may benefit patients with COVID-19–related ARDS, beyond the need for mechanical ventilation alone, they say. “These results expand our understanding of the outcomes of patients with breakthrough infections,” they conclude.

The study was supported by a grant to corresponding author Ilias I. Siempos, MD, from the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Full vaccination status against COVID-19 was associated with significantly reduced mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19 who needed mechanical ventilation, according to results of a study that involved 265 adults.

Although COVID-19 vaccination has been demonstrated to be effective at preventing infection, breakthrough infections occur, write Eirini Grapsa, RN, of Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Greece, and colleagues. The potential protective benefits of vaccination for patients who experience these breakthrough infections, especially cases severe enough to require hospitalization and the need for mechanical ventilation, have not been well studied, the investigators say.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 265 consecutive patients older than 18 years who were admitted to intensive care units at three tertiary care centers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections between June 7, 2021, and Feb. 1, 2022. All patients in the study received invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The patients were divided into two groups: 26 patients were in the full vaccination group, and 239 served as control patients. Full vaccination was defined as having completed the primary COVID-19 series more than 14 days but less than 5 months before intubation. The control group included patients who had been fully vaccinated for less than 14 days or more than 5 months, were partially vaccinated, or were not vaccinated. A total of 20 of 26 patients in the full vaccination group received the Pfizer BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine, as did 25 of the 33 vaccinated patients in the control group.

The median age of the patients overall was 66 years; 36% were women, and 99% were White. Patients in the full vaccination group were more likely to be older and to have comorbidities. The primary outcome was the time from intubation to all-cause mortality.

Overall, mortality was lower among the patients with full vaccination status than among those in the control group (61.5% vs. 68.2%; P = .03). Full vaccination also was associated with lower mortality in sensitivity analyses that included (a) only patients who received an mRNA vaccine in the full vaccination group, and (b) only unvaccinated patients in the control group (hazard ratios, 0.47 and 0.54, respectively).

In a regression model that examined secondary outcomes, the HR was 0.40 for the association between full vaccination and 28-day mortality. No significant differences were seen in length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) or length of hospital stay among survivors, nor in the occurrence of bacteremia, use of vasopressors, number of vasopressor-free days, use of continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT), number of CKRT-free days, and the number of ventilator-free and ICU-free days.

“Our choice to take time since vaccination into consideration was based on several previous studies indicating that protection against infection from vaccination (specifically with mRNA vaccines, such as BNT162b2, which was administered to 76.9% of patients in the full vaccination group) may decrease over time,” the researchers write.

Oxygenation was higher in the full vaccination group than in the control group on the third day after intubation. Previous studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that oxygenation on the third day after intubation may be more strongly associated with mortality than oxygenation on the day of intubation, the researchers note. Bacteremia was higher among the control patients and could have affected mortality, although the difference between vaccinated patients and control patients was not significant, the researchers add.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including small sample size, which prevented direct comparisons of the effectiveness of different numbers of vaccine doses or vaccine types, the researchers note. Other limitations include selection bias and residual confounding variables, they say.

The results demonstrate an association between full vaccination and lower mortality and suggest that vaccination may benefit patients with COVID-19–related ARDS, beyond the need for mechanical ventilation alone, they say. “These results expand our understanding of the outcomes of patients with breakthrough infections,” they conclude.

The study was supported by a grant to corresponding author Ilias I. Siempos, MD, from the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Full vaccination status against COVID-19 was associated with significantly reduced mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19 who needed mechanical ventilation, according to results of a study that involved 265 adults.

Although COVID-19 vaccination has been demonstrated to be effective at preventing infection, breakthrough infections occur, write Eirini Grapsa, RN, of Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Greece, and colleagues. The potential protective benefits of vaccination for patients who experience these breakthrough infections, especially cases severe enough to require hospitalization and the need for mechanical ventilation, have not been well studied, the investigators say.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 265 consecutive patients older than 18 years who were admitted to intensive care units at three tertiary care centers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections between June 7, 2021, and Feb. 1, 2022. All patients in the study received invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The patients were divided into two groups: 26 patients were in the full vaccination group, and 239 served as control patients. Full vaccination was defined as having completed the primary COVID-19 series more than 14 days but less than 5 months before intubation. The control group included patients who had been fully vaccinated for less than 14 days or more than 5 months, were partially vaccinated, or were not vaccinated. A total of 20 of 26 patients in the full vaccination group received the Pfizer BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine, as did 25 of the 33 vaccinated patients in the control group.

The median age of the patients overall was 66 years; 36% were women, and 99% were White. Patients in the full vaccination group were more likely to be older and to have comorbidities. The primary outcome was the time from intubation to all-cause mortality.

Overall, mortality was lower among the patients with full vaccination status than among those in the control group (61.5% vs. 68.2%; P = .03). Full vaccination also was associated with lower mortality in sensitivity analyses that included (a) only patients who received an mRNA vaccine in the full vaccination group, and (b) only unvaccinated patients in the control group (hazard ratios, 0.47 and 0.54, respectively).

In a regression model that examined secondary outcomes, the HR was 0.40 for the association between full vaccination and 28-day mortality. No significant differences were seen in length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) or length of hospital stay among survivors, nor in the occurrence of bacteremia, use of vasopressors, number of vasopressor-free days, use of continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT), number of CKRT-free days, and the number of ventilator-free and ICU-free days.

“Our choice to take time since vaccination into consideration was based on several previous studies indicating that protection against infection from vaccination (specifically with mRNA vaccines, such as BNT162b2, which was administered to 76.9% of patients in the full vaccination group) may decrease over time,” the researchers write.

Oxygenation was higher in the full vaccination group than in the control group on the third day after intubation. Previous studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that oxygenation on the third day after intubation may be more strongly associated with mortality than oxygenation on the day of intubation, the researchers note. Bacteremia was higher among the control patients and could have affected mortality, although the difference between vaccinated patients and control patients was not significant, the researchers add.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including small sample size, which prevented direct comparisons of the effectiveness of different numbers of vaccine doses or vaccine types, the researchers note. Other limitations include selection bias and residual confounding variables, they say.

The results demonstrate an association between full vaccination and lower mortality and suggest that vaccination may benefit patients with COVID-19–related ARDS, beyond the need for mechanical ventilation alone, they say. “These results expand our understanding of the outcomes of patients with breakthrough infections,” they conclude.

The study was supported by a grant to corresponding author Ilias I. Siempos, MD, from the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is driving attention to clean indoor air like never before.

At a White House summit on Oct. 11, leaders from government, industry, and education came together to make a case that low-quality indoor air should warrant the same kind of outrage and action as low-quality water.

“Indoor air is that next frontier when it comes to thinking about public health for humanity,” said Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, who heads the White House COVID response team.

“This once-in-a-century pandemic has given us a moment. A moment when we can drive significant structural changes in the air that we all breathe,” he said.

The threat is immediate, Dr. Jha said, explaining that the return of influenza this year and other circulating respiratory viruses on top of COVID cases could overwhelm the health system.

“We have to bring the burden of respiratory pathogens down and the single biggest structural change we can make as a society is to do for indoor air what we’ve done for water quality,” he said.
 

Recent federal actions

Dr. Jha pointed to White House actions toward that end.

On Oct. 11, the White House launched a new website asking building owners and operators to sign a pledge for clean air and agree to four principles:

• Create an action plan.
• Optimize fresh air ventilation.
• Enhance air filtration and cleaning.
• Communicate with building occupants to increase awareness.

Those who pledge can download a badge to feature on their websites.

In March, the White House launched the Clean Air in Buildings Challenge as a call to action for building owners and operators to improve ventilation, filtration, and facilities for cleaner indoor air.

The government has provided funds that can be used in schools, public buildings, and other locations to improve indoor air quality, including $350 billion for state and local governments and  $122 billion for schools, through the American Rescue Plan.

The Department of Energy is offering one-on-one consultations to schools to drive air quality.
 

Calculate your ‘indoor age’

Joseph Allen, DSc, MPH, director of the Healthy Buildings program and an associate professor at Harvard’s T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, said that the indoor environment has an outsized effect on public health.

He asked people to multiply their age times 0.9 to calculate their “indoor age.”

Dr. Allen, 47, said that for him that number is 42 years spent inside spaces.

When most people realize they spend 90% of their time indoors, a startling possibility comes into play: “The person who manages your building has a greater impact on your health than your doctor,” he said. “Think about that.”

Dr. Allen led a team that published a report on four strategies every building should pursue to reduce COVID and other respiratory illnesses:

• Give every building a tune-up. “We do this for our cars, we don’t do it for our buildings,” Dr. Allen said.
• Maximize outdoor ventilation.
• Upgrade filtration. “We need to move away from filters designed to protect equipment to filters designed to protect people. MERV 13 is the new minimum.”
• Supplement with portable air cleaners.

It’s not a complete list, he said; “It’s where you should start.”
 

Indoor air innovations

Others are suggesting innovations in schools and businesses.

Denver (Colorado) Public School Superintendent Alex Marrero, EdD, said that the system is implementing an air quality dashboard to display performance on factors such as carbon dioxide levels, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds in schools.

“When you’re deciding what school you’re going to visit or even enroll in, you’ll have a snapshot of what we’re able to gather. Hopefully we’ll have something up before the end of the school year,” he said.

Shelly L. Miller, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering in the environmental engineering program at the University of Colorado Boulder, said that germicidal ultraviolet disinfection, used currently in water quality, holds promise for cleaning the COVID virus and other pathogens from indoor air.

“We were looking at germicidal UV way back in the 2000s for an outbreak of tuberculosis. We continue to see that it’s effective for measles. Why can’t we put a little more emphasis on these technologies?” Dr. Miller asks, acknowledging that there is a lack of expertise in designing such systems and in training and maintenance.

“It’s not for everybody, but it’s for a lot more places than we’re using it now,” she said.
 

Legislation like 1970 Clean Air Act needed?

Richard Corsi, PhD, dean of the College of Engineering at the University of California, Davis, said that education is lacking on the subject and indoor air quality is taught as a class in only a few universities, including his own.

He suggested starting the education even much earlier, in high school biology, chemistry, and physics courses.

Relative to other fields, he said, research and funding for indoor air quality “has been anemic.”

Work on outdoor air quality has seen dramatic improvements over the years because of the 52-year-old Clean Air Act, he noted.

“We need something akin to the Clean Air Act for indoor air quality,” Dr. Corsi said.

The speakers declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is driving attention to clean indoor air like never before.

At a White House summit on Oct. 11, leaders from government, industry, and education came together to make a case that low-quality indoor air should warrant the same kind of outrage and action as low-quality water.

“Indoor air is that next frontier when it comes to thinking about public health for humanity,” said Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, who heads the White House COVID response team.

“This once-in-a-century pandemic has given us a moment. A moment when we can drive significant structural changes in the air that we all breathe,” he said.

The threat is immediate, Dr. Jha said, explaining that the return of influenza this year and other circulating respiratory viruses on top of COVID cases could overwhelm the health system.

“We have to bring the burden of respiratory pathogens down and the single biggest structural change we can make as a society is to do for indoor air what we’ve done for water quality,” he said.
 

Recent federal actions

Dr. Jha pointed to White House actions toward that end.

On Oct. 11, the White House launched a new website asking building owners and operators to sign a pledge for clean air and agree to four principles:

• Create an action plan.
• Optimize fresh air ventilation.
• Enhance air filtration and cleaning.
• Communicate with building occupants to increase awareness.

Those who pledge can download a badge to feature on their websites.

In March, the White House launched the Clean Air in Buildings Challenge as a call to action for building owners and operators to improve ventilation, filtration, and facilities for cleaner indoor air.

The government has provided funds that can be used in schools, public buildings, and other locations to improve indoor air quality, including $350 billion for state and local governments and  $122 billion for schools, through the American Rescue Plan.

The Department of Energy is offering one-on-one consultations to schools to drive air quality.
 

Calculate your ‘indoor age’

Joseph Allen, DSc, MPH, director of the Healthy Buildings program and an associate professor at Harvard’s T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, said that the indoor environment has an outsized effect on public health.

He asked people to multiply their age times 0.9 to calculate their “indoor age.”

Dr. Allen, 47, said that for him that number is 42 years spent inside spaces.

When most people realize they spend 90% of their time indoors, a startling possibility comes into play: “The person who manages your building has a greater impact on your health than your doctor,” he said. “Think about that.”

Dr. Allen led a team that published a report on four strategies every building should pursue to reduce COVID and other respiratory illnesses:

• Give every building a tune-up. “We do this for our cars, we don’t do it for our buildings,” Dr. Allen said.
• Maximize outdoor ventilation.
• Upgrade filtration. “We need to move away from filters designed to protect equipment to filters designed to protect people. MERV 13 is the new minimum.”
• Supplement with portable air cleaners.

It’s not a complete list, he said; “It’s where you should start.”
 

Indoor air innovations

Others are suggesting innovations in schools and businesses.

Denver (Colorado) Public School Superintendent Alex Marrero, EdD, said that the system is implementing an air quality dashboard to display performance on factors such as carbon dioxide levels, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds in schools.

“When you’re deciding what school you’re going to visit or even enroll in, you’ll have a snapshot of what we’re able to gather. Hopefully we’ll have something up before the end of the school year,” he said.

Shelly L. Miller, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering in the environmental engineering program at the University of Colorado Boulder, said that germicidal ultraviolet disinfection, used currently in water quality, holds promise for cleaning the COVID virus and other pathogens from indoor air.

“We were looking at germicidal UV way back in the 2000s for an outbreak of tuberculosis. We continue to see that it’s effective for measles. Why can’t we put a little more emphasis on these technologies?” Dr. Miller asks, acknowledging that there is a lack of expertise in designing such systems and in training and maintenance.

“It’s not for everybody, but it’s for a lot more places than we’re using it now,” she said.
 

Legislation like 1970 Clean Air Act needed?

Richard Corsi, PhD, dean of the College of Engineering at the University of California, Davis, said that education is lacking on the subject and indoor air quality is taught as a class in only a few universities, including his own.

He suggested starting the education even much earlier, in high school biology, chemistry, and physics courses.

Relative to other fields, he said, research and funding for indoor air quality “has been anemic.”

Work on outdoor air quality has seen dramatic improvements over the years because of the 52-year-old Clean Air Act, he noted.

“We need something akin to the Clean Air Act for indoor air quality,” Dr. Corsi said.

The speakers declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is driving attention to clean indoor air like never before.

At a White House summit on Oct. 11, leaders from government, industry, and education came together to make a case that low-quality indoor air should warrant the same kind of outrage and action as low-quality water.

“Indoor air is that next frontier when it comes to thinking about public health for humanity,” said Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, who heads the White House COVID response team.

“This once-in-a-century pandemic has given us a moment. A moment when we can drive significant structural changes in the air that we all breathe,” he said.

The threat is immediate, Dr. Jha said, explaining that the return of influenza this year and other circulating respiratory viruses on top of COVID cases could overwhelm the health system.

“We have to bring the burden of respiratory pathogens down and the single biggest structural change we can make as a society is to do for indoor air what we’ve done for water quality,” he said.
 

Recent federal actions

Dr. Jha pointed to White House actions toward that end.

On Oct. 11, the White House launched a new website asking building owners and operators to sign a pledge for clean air and agree to four principles:

• Create an action plan.
• Optimize fresh air ventilation.
• Enhance air filtration and cleaning.
• Communicate with building occupants to increase awareness.

Those who pledge can download a badge to feature on their websites.

In March, the White House launched the Clean Air in Buildings Challenge as a call to action for building owners and operators to improve ventilation, filtration, and facilities for cleaner indoor air.

The government has provided funds that can be used in schools, public buildings, and other locations to improve indoor air quality, including $350 billion for state and local governments and  $122 billion for schools, through the American Rescue Plan.

The Department of Energy is offering one-on-one consultations to schools to drive air quality.
 

Calculate your ‘indoor age’

Joseph Allen, DSc, MPH, director of the Healthy Buildings program and an associate professor at Harvard’s T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, said that the indoor environment has an outsized effect on public health.

He asked people to multiply their age times 0.9 to calculate their “indoor age.”

Dr. Allen, 47, said that for him that number is 42 years spent inside spaces.

When most people realize they spend 90% of their time indoors, a startling possibility comes into play: “The person who manages your building has a greater impact on your health than your doctor,” he said. “Think about that.”

Dr. Allen led a team that published a report on four strategies every building should pursue to reduce COVID and other respiratory illnesses:

• Give every building a tune-up. “We do this for our cars, we don’t do it for our buildings,” Dr. Allen said.
• Maximize outdoor ventilation.
• Upgrade filtration. “We need to move away from filters designed to protect equipment to filters designed to protect people. MERV 13 is the new minimum.”
• Supplement with portable air cleaners.

It’s not a complete list, he said; “It’s where you should start.”
 

Indoor air innovations

Others are suggesting innovations in schools and businesses.

Denver (Colorado) Public School Superintendent Alex Marrero, EdD, said that the system is implementing an air quality dashboard to display performance on factors such as carbon dioxide levels, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds in schools.

“When you’re deciding what school you’re going to visit or even enroll in, you’ll have a snapshot of what we’re able to gather. Hopefully we’ll have something up before the end of the school year,” he said.

Shelly L. Miller, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering in the environmental engineering program at the University of Colorado Boulder, said that germicidal ultraviolet disinfection, used currently in water quality, holds promise for cleaning the COVID virus and other pathogens from indoor air.

“We were looking at germicidal UV way back in the 2000s for an outbreak of tuberculosis. We continue to see that it’s effective for measles. Why can’t we put a little more emphasis on these technologies?” Dr. Miller asks, acknowledging that there is a lack of expertise in designing such systems and in training and maintenance.

“It’s not for everybody, but it’s for a lot more places than we’re using it now,” she said.
 

Legislation like 1970 Clean Air Act needed?

Richard Corsi, PhD, dean of the College of Engineering at the University of California, Davis, said that education is lacking on the subject and indoor air quality is taught as a class in only a few universities, including his own.

He suggested starting the education even much earlier, in high school biology, chemistry, and physics courses.

Relative to other fields, he said, research and funding for indoor air quality “has been anemic.”

Work on outdoor air quality has seen dramatic improvements over the years because of the 52-year-old Clean Air Act, he noted.

“We need something akin to the Clean Air Act for indoor air quality,” Dr. Corsi said.

The speakers declared no relevant financial relationships.

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