Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies has released clinical practice guidelines for using COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in hospital and outpatient settings.

In summarizing the practice statement, the authors write, “CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers early after symptom onset.”

The five guidelines, were published in Annals of Internal Medicine. The guidelines and strength of recommendations are:

• Nonhospitalized patients at high risk for disease progression should have CCP transfusion in addition to usual standard of care. (weak)
• CCP transfusion should not be done for unselected hospitalized patients with moderate or severe disease. This does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. (strong)
• CCP transfusion is suggested in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at admission. (weak)
• Prophylactic CCP transfusion is not recommended for uninfected people with close contact exposure to someone with COVID-19. (weak)
• The AABB suggests CCP transfusion along with standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression. (weak)

Multiple guidelines for use of CCP are similar

In an accompanying editorial, Jason V. Baker, MD, MS, and H. Clifford Lane, MD, who are part of the National Institutes of Health Treatment Guidelines Panel, say guidelines from that organization around CCP generally align with those of the AABB and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

They all note CCP’s potential for helping immunocompromised patients and they recommend against CCP in unselected, hospitalized patients.

The main difference is that the AABB also “suggests” using CCP in combination with other standard treatments for outpatients at high risk for disease progression, regardless of their immune status, write Dr. Baker, who is with Hennepin Healthcare and the department of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and Dr. Lane, who is with the National Institutes of Health.

The precise circumstance for recommending CCP remains unclear, Dr. Baker and Dr. Lane write. That’s because most available evidence has come in the absence of vaccines and antiviral agents, including nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (Paxlovid), they explain.

“At this point in the pandemic, it seems that the patient most likely to benefit from passive antibody therapy is the immunocompromised host with COVID-19 who cannot mount their own antibody response to vaccine or prior infection,” they write.

“In that setting, and in the absence of other antiviral treatments or progression despite receipt of standard treatments, high-titer CCP from a recently recovered donor is a reasonable approach,” they conclude.

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, said in an interview that “clinical guidelines like this really help practicing physicians as we navigate the explosion of research findings since the start of the pandemic.”

One strong recommendation

Dr. Barrett pointed out that four of the five recommendations are rated “weak.”

“The weak recommendations for convalescent plasma in most situations is very humbling,” she said, “particularly as we recall the earliest days of the pandemic when many hospitalized patients received this treatment when little was known about what could help.”

She highlighted the paper’s only strong recommendation, which was against convalescent plasma use for the vast majority of hospitalized patients with COVID.

“That clinical bottom line is what most clinicians will look for,” she said.

“Similarly,” she said, “the accompanying editorial is so helpful in reminding the reader that, despite some possible benefit to convalescent plasma in a smaller subgroup of patients, variant-appropriate monoclonal antibodies and antivirals are better options.”

The disclosures for lead author of the guidelines, Lise J. Estcourt, MB BChir, DPhil, with the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Department and Radcliffe department of medicine at the University of Oxford (England) and her colleagues are available at https://rmed.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M22-1079. The editorialists and Dr. Barrett declare no relevant financial relationships.

The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies has released clinical practice guidelines for using COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in hospital and outpatient settings.

In summarizing the practice statement, the authors write, “CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers early after symptom onset.”

The five guidelines, were published in Annals of Internal Medicine. The guidelines and strength of recommendations are:

• Nonhospitalized patients at high risk for disease progression should have CCP transfusion in addition to usual standard of care. (weak)
• CCP transfusion should not be done for unselected hospitalized patients with moderate or severe disease. This does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. (strong)
• CCP transfusion is suggested in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at admission. (weak)
• Prophylactic CCP transfusion is not recommended for uninfected people with close contact exposure to someone with COVID-19. (weak)
• The AABB suggests CCP transfusion along with standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression. (weak)

Multiple guidelines for use of CCP are similar

In an accompanying editorial, Jason V. Baker, MD, MS, and H. Clifford Lane, MD, who are part of the National Institutes of Health Treatment Guidelines Panel, say guidelines from that organization around CCP generally align with those of the AABB and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

They all note CCP’s potential for helping immunocompromised patients and they recommend against CCP in unselected, hospitalized patients.

The main difference is that the AABB also “suggests” using CCP in combination with other standard treatments for outpatients at high risk for disease progression, regardless of their immune status, write Dr. Baker, who is with Hennepin Healthcare and the department of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and Dr. Lane, who is with the National Institutes of Health.

The precise circumstance for recommending CCP remains unclear, Dr. Baker and Dr. Lane write. That’s because most available evidence has come in the absence of vaccines and antiviral agents, including nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (Paxlovid), they explain.

“At this point in the pandemic, it seems that the patient most likely to benefit from passive antibody therapy is the immunocompromised host with COVID-19 who cannot mount their own antibody response to vaccine or prior infection,” they write.

“In that setting, and in the absence of other antiviral treatments or progression despite receipt of standard treatments, high-titer CCP from a recently recovered donor is a reasonable approach,” they conclude.

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, said in an interview that “clinical guidelines like this really help practicing physicians as we navigate the explosion of research findings since the start of the pandemic.”

One strong recommendation

Dr. Barrett pointed out that four of the five recommendations are rated “weak.”

“The weak recommendations for convalescent plasma in most situations is very humbling,” she said, “particularly as we recall the earliest days of the pandemic when many hospitalized patients received this treatment when little was known about what could help.”

She highlighted the paper’s only strong recommendation, which was against convalescent plasma use for the vast majority of hospitalized patients with COVID.

“That clinical bottom line is what most clinicians will look for,” she said.

“Similarly,” she said, “the accompanying editorial is so helpful in reminding the reader that, despite some possible benefit to convalescent plasma in a smaller subgroup of patients, variant-appropriate monoclonal antibodies and antivirals are better options.”

The disclosures for lead author of the guidelines, Lise J. Estcourt, MB BChir, DPhil, with the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Department and Radcliffe department of medicine at the University of Oxford (England) and her colleagues are available at https://rmed.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M22-1079. The editorialists and Dr. Barrett declare no relevant financial relationships.

The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies has released clinical practice guidelines for using COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in hospital and outpatient settings.

In summarizing the practice statement, the authors write, “CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers early after symptom onset.”

The five guidelines, were published in Annals of Internal Medicine. The guidelines and strength of recommendations are:

• Nonhospitalized patients at high risk for disease progression should have CCP transfusion in addition to usual standard of care. (weak)
• CCP transfusion should not be done for unselected hospitalized patients with moderate or severe disease. This does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. (strong)
• CCP transfusion is suggested in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at admission. (weak)
• Prophylactic CCP transfusion is not recommended for uninfected people with close contact exposure to someone with COVID-19. (weak)
• The AABB suggests CCP transfusion along with standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression. (weak)

Multiple guidelines for use of CCP are similar

In an accompanying editorial, Jason V. Baker, MD, MS, and H. Clifford Lane, MD, who are part of the National Institutes of Health Treatment Guidelines Panel, say guidelines from that organization around CCP generally align with those of the AABB and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

They all note CCP’s potential for helping immunocompromised patients and they recommend against CCP in unselected, hospitalized patients.

The main difference is that the AABB also “suggests” using CCP in combination with other standard treatments for outpatients at high risk for disease progression, regardless of their immune status, write Dr. Baker, who is with Hennepin Healthcare and the department of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and Dr. Lane, who is with the National Institutes of Health.

The precise circumstance for recommending CCP remains unclear, Dr. Baker and Dr. Lane write. That’s because most available evidence has come in the absence of vaccines and antiviral agents, including nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (Paxlovid), they explain.

“At this point in the pandemic, it seems that the patient most likely to benefit from passive antibody therapy is the immunocompromised host with COVID-19 who cannot mount their own antibody response to vaccine or prior infection,” they write.

“In that setting, and in the absence of other antiviral treatments or progression despite receipt of standard treatments, high-titer CCP from a recently recovered donor is a reasonable approach,” they conclude.

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, said in an interview that “clinical guidelines like this really help practicing physicians as we navigate the explosion of research findings since the start of the pandemic.”

One strong recommendation

Dr. Barrett pointed out that four of the five recommendations are rated “weak.”

“The weak recommendations for convalescent plasma in most situations is very humbling,” she said, “particularly as we recall the earliest days of the pandemic when many hospitalized patients received this treatment when little was known about what could help.”

She highlighted the paper’s only strong recommendation, which was against convalescent plasma use for the vast majority of hospitalized patients with COVID.

“That clinical bottom line is what most clinicians will look for,” she said.

“Similarly,” she said, “the accompanying editorial is so helpful in reminding the reader that, despite some possible benefit to convalescent plasma in a smaller subgroup of patients, variant-appropriate monoclonal antibodies and antivirals are better options.”

The disclosures for lead author of the guidelines, Lise J. Estcourt, MB BChir, DPhil, with the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Department and Radcliffe department of medicine at the University of Oxford (England) and her colleagues are available at https://rmed.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M22-1079. The editorialists and Dr. Barrett declare no relevant financial relationships.

Here’s another vote for less screen time. Using a smartphone application to track blood pressure won’t lead to any greater reduction in BP than self-monitoring the old-fashioned way, a new study finds.

“By itself, standard self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) has minimal effect on BP control,” wrote lead author Mark J. Pletcher, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine. “To improve BP control, SMBP must be accompanied by patient feedback, counseling, or other cointerventions, and the BP-lowering effects of SMBP appear to be proportional to the intensity of the cointervention.”

While this is known, higher-intensity cointerventions demand both money and time, prompting development of new devices that link with smartphone apps, they continued.

In the prospective randomized trial, patients with hypertension were randomly assigned to self-measure their blood pressure using a standard device that paired with a connected smartphone application or to self-measure their blood pressure with a standard device alone. Both groups achieved about an 11 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP over 6 months, reported similar levels of satisfaction with the monitoring process, and shared their readings with their physicians with similar frequency.

Methods

Dr. Pletcher and colleagues enrolled 2,101 adults who self-reported a systolic BP greater than 145 mm Hg and expressed a commitment to reduce their BP by at least 10 points in their trial. The participants, who were generally middle-aged or older, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to monitor their BP using standard SMBP or “enhanced” SMBP. The standard group used the OMRON BP monitor alone, while the enhanced group used the same BP monitor coupled with the OMRON Connect smartphone app.

After 6 months of follow-up for each patient, mean BP reduction from baseline in the standard group was 10.6 mm Hg, compared with 10.7 mm Hg in the enhanced group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .81). While slightly more patients in the enhanced group achieved a BP lower than 140/90 mm Hg (32% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.34), this trend did not extend below the 130/80 mm Hg threshold.

Other secondary outcomes were also similar between groups. For example, 70% of participants in the enhanced group said they would recommend their SMBP process to a friend, compared with 69% of participants who followed the standard monitoring approach. The smartphone app had little impact on sharing readings with physicians, either, based on a 44% share rate in the enhanced group versus 48% in the standard group (P = .22).

“Enhanced SMBP does not provide any additional reduction in BP,” the investigators concluded.

New devices that link with smartphone apps, like the one used in this trial, “transmit BP measurements via wireless connection to the patient’s smartphone, where they are processed in a smartphone application to support tracking, visualization, interpretation, reminders to measure BP and/or take medications; recommendations for lifestyle interventions, medication adherence, or to discuss their BP with their clinician; and communications (for example, emailing a summary to a family member or clinician),” the researchers explained. While these devices are “only slightly more expensive than standard SMBP devices,” their relative efficacy over standard SMBP is “unclear.”

Findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps

Although the trial evaluated just one smartphone app, Dr. Pletcher suggested that the findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps.

“Most basic BP-tracking apps have some version or subset of the same essential functionality,” he said, in an interview. “My guess is that apps that meet this description without some substantially different technology or feature would likely show the same basic results as we did.”

Making a similar remark, Matthew Jung, MD, of Keck Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, stated that the findings can be “reasonably extrapolated” to other BP-tracking apps with similar functionality “if we put aside the study’s issues with power.”

When it comes to smartphone apps, active engagement is needed to achieve greater impacts on blood pressure, Dr. Pletcher said, but “there is so much competition for people’s attention on their phone that it is hard to maintain active engagement with any health-related app for long.”

Still, Dr. Pletcher hasn’t given up on biometric apps, noting that “with the right technology and connectivity and user experience (for both patient and clinician), they still could be game-changing for managing chronic conditions like hypertension.”

To this end, he and his colleagues are exploring technologies to passively monitor health-related measurements like BP, potentially sidestepping the pitfall of active engagement.

Dr. Jung said the study is noteworthy for several reasons, including its large size, similar level of comfort with technology reported by both groups, and representation of Black and Hispanic participants, who accounted for almost one-third of the population.
 

Study limitations

Dr. Jung pointed out several study limitations, including the lack of standardized measurement of BP, which left more than one-third of patients unevaluated via chart review, as well as gaps in usage data, such as that one-third of the participants never confirmed receipt of a device, and less than half of the enhanced group reported using the smartphone application.

These limitations “may have detracted from its ability to identify the true efficacy of an enhanced app-based BP tracking device,” he said. “In contrast, each of these issues also helped us get a better picture for how well these devices may work in the real world.”

Dr. Jung also commented on the duration of the study, noting that only 10 weeks passed, on average, from baseline to follow-up BP measurement, which “may not have been sufficient for a possible difference between enhanced and standard BP monitoring to become noticeable.”

“This may be especially important when taking into consideration the time required to mail the devices out to patients, for patients to become familiar with usage of the devices, and for them to start using the devices in a meaningful way,” he added.

The study was supported the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the American Medical Association, and the American Heart Association. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. Dr. Jung, who was not involved in the study, disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Here’s another vote for less screen time. Using a smartphone application to track blood pressure won’t lead to any greater reduction in BP than self-monitoring the old-fashioned way, a new study finds.

“By itself, standard self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) has minimal effect on BP control,” wrote lead author Mark J. Pletcher, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine. “To improve BP control, SMBP must be accompanied by patient feedback, counseling, or other cointerventions, and the BP-lowering effects of SMBP appear to be proportional to the intensity of the cointervention.”

While this is known, higher-intensity cointerventions demand both money and time, prompting development of new devices that link with smartphone apps, they continued.

In the prospective randomized trial, patients with hypertension were randomly assigned to self-measure their blood pressure using a standard device that paired with a connected smartphone application or to self-measure their blood pressure with a standard device alone. Both groups achieved about an 11 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP over 6 months, reported similar levels of satisfaction with the monitoring process, and shared their readings with their physicians with similar frequency.

Methods

Dr. Pletcher and colleagues enrolled 2,101 adults who self-reported a systolic BP greater than 145 mm Hg and expressed a commitment to reduce their BP by at least 10 points in their trial. The participants, who were generally middle-aged or older, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to monitor their BP using standard SMBP or “enhanced” SMBP. The standard group used the OMRON BP monitor alone, while the enhanced group used the same BP monitor coupled with the OMRON Connect smartphone app.

After 6 months of follow-up for each patient, mean BP reduction from baseline in the standard group was 10.6 mm Hg, compared with 10.7 mm Hg in the enhanced group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .81). While slightly more patients in the enhanced group achieved a BP lower than 140/90 mm Hg (32% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.34), this trend did not extend below the 130/80 mm Hg threshold.

Other secondary outcomes were also similar between groups. For example, 70% of participants in the enhanced group said they would recommend their SMBP process to a friend, compared with 69% of participants who followed the standard monitoring approach. The smartphone app had little impact on sharing readings with physicians, either, based on a 44% share rate in the enhanced group versus 48% in the standard group (P = .22).

“Enhanced SMBP does not provide any additional reduction in BP,” the investigators concluded.

New devices that link with smartphone apps, like the one used in this trial, “transmit BP measurements via wireless connection to the patient’s smartphone, where they are processed in a smartphone application to support tracking, visualization, interpretation, reminders to measure BP and/or take medications; recommendations for lifestyle interventions, medication adherence, or to discuss their BP with their clinician; and communications (for example, emailing a summary to a family member or clinician),” the researchers explained. While these devices are “only slightly more expensive than standard SMBP devices,” their relative efficacy over standard SMBP is “unclear.”

Findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps

Although the trial evaluated just one smartphone app, Dr. Pletcher suggested that the findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps.

“Most basic BP-tracking apps have some version or subset of the same essential functionality,” he said, in an interview. “My guess is that apps that meet this description without some substantially different technology or feature would likely show the same basic results as we did.”

Making a similar remark, Matthew Jung, MD, of Keck Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, stated that the findings can be “reasonably extrapolated” to other BP-tracking apps with similar functionality “if we put aside the study’s issues with power.”

When it comes to smartphone apps, active engagement is needed to achieve greater impacts on blood pressure, Dr. Pletcher said, but “there is so much competition for people’s attention on their phone that it is hard to maintain active engagement with any health-related app for long.”

Still, Dr. Pletcher hasn’t given up on biometric apps, noting that “with the right technology and connectivity and user experience (for both patient and clinician), they still could be game-changing for managing chronic conditions like hypertension.”

To this end, he and his colleagues are exploring technologies to passively monitor health-related measurements like BP, potentially sidestepping the pitfall of active engagement.

Dr. Jung said the study is noteworthy for several reasons, including its large size, similar level of comfort with technology reported by both groups, and representation of Black and Hispanic participants, who accounted for almost one-third of the population.
 

Study limitations

Dr. Jung pointed out several study limitations, including the lack of standardized measurement of BP, which left more than one-third of patients unevaluated via chart review, as well as gaps in usage data, such as that one-third of the participants never confirmed receipt of a device, and less than half of the enhanced group reported using the smartphone application.

These limitations “may have detracted from its ability to identify the true efficacy of an enhanced app-based BP tracking device,” he said. “In contrast, each of these issues also helped us get a better picture for how well these devices may work in the real world.”

Dr. Jung also commented on the duration of the study, noting that only 10 weeks passed, on average, from baseline to follow-up BP measurement, which “may not have been sufficient for a possible difference between enhanced and standard BP monitoring to become noticeable.”

“This may be especially important when taking into consideration the time required to mail the devices out to patients, for patients to become familiar with usage of the devices, and for them to start using the devices in a meaningful way,” he added.

The study was supported the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the American Medical Association, and the American Heart Association. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. Dr. Jung, who was not involved in the study, disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Here’s another vote for less screen time. Using a smartphone application to track blood pressure won’t lead to any greater reduction in BP than self-monitoring the old-fashioned way, a new study finds.

“By itself, standard self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) has minimal effect on BP control,” wrote lead author Mark J. Pletcher, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine. “To improve BP control, SMBP must be accompanied by patient feedback, counseling, or other cointerventions, and the BP-lowering effects of SMBP appear to be proportional to the intensity of the cointervention.”

While this is known, higher-intensity cointerventions demand both money and time, prompting development of new devices that link with smartphone apps, they continued.

In the prospective randomized trial, patients with hypertension were randomly assigned to self-measure their blood pressure using a standard device that paired with a connected smartphone application or to self-measure their blood pressure with a standard device alone. Both groups achieved about an 11 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP over 6 months, reported similar levels of satisfaction with the monitoring process, and shared their readings with their physicians with similar frequency.

Methods

Dr. Pletcher and colleagues enrolled 2,101 adults who self-reported a systolic BP greater than 145 mm Hg and expressed a commitment to reduce their BP by at least 10 points in their trial. The participants, who were generally middle-aged or older, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to monitor their BP using standard SMBP or “enhanced” SMBP. The standard group used the OMRON BP monitor alone, while the enhanced group used the same BP monitor coupled with the OMRON Connect smartphone app.

After 6 months of follow-up for each patient, mean BP reduction from baseline in the standard group was 10.6 mm Hg, compared with 10.7 mm Hg in the enhanced group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .81). While slightly more patients in the enhanced group achieved a BP lower than 140/90 mm Hg (32% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.34), this trend did not extend below the 130/80 mm Hg threshold.

Other secondary outcomes were also similar between groups. For example, 70% of participants in the enhanced group said they would recommend their SMBP process to a friend, compared with 69% of participants who followed the standard monitoring approach. The smartphone app had little impact on sharing readings with physicians, either, based on a 44% share rate in the enhanced group versus 48% in the standard group (P = .22).

“Enhanced SMBP does not provide any additional reduction in BP,” the investigators concluded.

New devices that link with smartphone apps, like the one used in this trial, “transmit BP measurements via wireless connection to the patient’s smartphone, where they are processed in a smartphone application to support tracking, visualization, interpretation, reminders to measure BP and/or take medications; recommendations for lifestyle interventions, medication adherence, or to discuss their BP with their clinician; and communications (for example, emailing a summary to a family member or clinician),” the researchers explained. While these devices are “only slightly more expensive than standard SMBP devices,” their relative efficacy over standard SMBP is “unclear.”

Findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps

Although the trial evaluated just one smartphone app, Dr. Pletcher suggested that the findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps.

“Most basic BP-tracking apps have some version or subset of the same essential functionality,” he said, in an interview. “My guess is that apps that meet this description without some substantially different technology or feature would likely show the same basic results as we did.”

Making a similar remark, Matthew Jung, MD, of Keck Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, stated that the findings can be “reasonably extrapolated” to other BP-tracking apps with similar functionality “if we put aside the study’s issues with power.”

When it comes to smartphone apps, active engagement is needed to achieve greater impacts on blood pressure, Dr. Pletcher said, but “there is so much competition for people’s attention on their phone that it is hard to maintain active engagement with any health-related app for long.”

Still, Dr. Pletcher hasn’t given up on biometric apps, noting that “with the right technology and connectivity and user experience (for both patient and clinician), they still could be game-changing for managing chronic conditions like hypertension.”

To this end, he and his colleagues are exploring technologies to passively monitor health-related measurements like BP, potentially sidestepping the pitfall of active engagement.

Dr. Jung said the study is noteworthy for several reasons, including its large size, similar level of comfort with technology reported by both groups, and representation of Black and Hispanic participants, who accounted for almost one-third of the population.
 

Study limitations

Dr. Jung pointed out several study limitations, including the lack of standardized measurement of BP, which left more than one-third of patients unevaluated via chart review, as well as gaps in usage data, such as that one-third of the participants never confirmed receipt of a device, and less than half of the enhanced group reported using the smartphone application.

These limitations “may have detracted from its ability to identify the true efficacy of an enhanced app-based BP tracking device,” he said. “In contrast, each of these issues also helped us get a better picture for how well these devices may work in the real world.”

Dr. Jung also commented on the duration of the study, noting that only 10 weeks passed, on average, from baseline to follow-up BP measurement, which “may not have been sufficient for a possible difference between enhanced and standard BP monitoring to become noticeable.”

“This may be especially important when taking into consideration the time required to mail the devices out to patients, for patients to become familiar with usage of the devices, and for them to start using the devices in a meaningful way,” he added.

The study was supported the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the American Medical Association, and the American Heart Association. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. Dr. Jung, who was not involved in the study, disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

In a case-control study, atherosclerotic risk factors were uncommon in childhood and did not appear to be associated with the pathogenesis of arterial ischemic stroke in children or in early young adulthood.

But by the fourth and fifth decades of life, these risk factors were strongly associated with a significant risk for stroke, heightening that risk almost tenfold.

“While strokes in childhood and very early adulthood are not likely caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, it does look like these risk factors increase throughout early and young adulthood and become significant risk factors for stroke in the 30s and 40s,” lead author Sharon N. Poisson, MD, MAS, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

In this study, the researchers focused on arterial ischemic stroke, not hemorrhagic stroke. “We know that high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, obesity, all of these are risk factors for ischemic stroke, but what we didn’t know is at what age do those atherosclerotic risk factors actually start to cause stroke,” Dr. Poisson said.

To find out more, she and her team did a case control study of data in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system, which had been accumulating relevant data over a period of 14 years, from Jan. 1, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2014.

The analysis included 141 children and 455 young adults with arterial ischemic stroke and 1,382 age-matched controls.

The children were divided into two age categories: ages 29 days to 9 years and ages 10-19 years.

In the younger group, there were 69 cases of arterial ischemic stroke. In the older age group, there were 72 cases.

Young adults were divided into three age categories: 20-29 years (n = 71 cases), 30-39 years (144 cases), and 40-49 years (240 cases).

Among pediatric controls, 168 children aged 29 days to 9 years (46.5%) and 196 children aged 10-19 years (53.8%) developed arterial ischemic stroke.

There were 121 cases of ischemic stroke among young adult controls aged 20-29 years, 298 cases among controls aged 30-39 years, and 599 cases in those aged 40-49 years.

Both childhood cases and controls had a low prevalence of documented diagnoses of atherosclerotic risk factors (ARFs). The odds ratio of having any ARFs on arterial ischemic stroke was 1.87 for ages 0-9 years, and 1.00 for ages 10-19.

However, cases rose with age.

The OR was 2.3 for age range 20-29 years, 3.57 for age range 30-39 years, and 4.91 for age range 40-49 years.

The analysis also showed that the OR associated with multiple ARFs was 5.29 for age range 0-9 years, 2.75 for age range 10-19 years, 7.33 for age range 20-29 years, 9.86 for age range 30-39 years, and 9.35 for age range 40-49 years.

Multiple risk factors were rare in children but became more prevalent with each decade of young adult life.

The presumed cause of arterial ischemic stroke was atherosclerosis. Evidence of atherosclerosis was present in 1.4% of those aged 10-19 years, 8.5% of those aged 20-29 years, 21.5% of those aged 30-39 years, and 42.5% of those aged 40-49 years.

“This study tells us that, while stroke in adolescence and very early adulthood may not be caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, starting to accumulate those risk factors early in life clearly increases the risk of stroke in the 30s and 40s. I hope we can get this message across, because the sooner we can treat the risk factors, the better the outcome,” Dr. Poisson said.
 

Prevention starts in childhood

Prevention of cardiovascular disease begins in childhood, which is a paradigm shift from the way cardiovascular disease was thought of a couple of decades ago, noted pediatric cardiologist Guilherme Baptista de Faia, MD, from the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.

“Our guidelines for risk factor reduction in children aim to address how or when do we screen for these risk factors, how or when do we intervene, and do these interventions impact cardiovascular outcomes later in life? This article is part of the mounting research that aims to understand the relationship between childhood cardiovascular risk factors and early cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Baptista de Faia said.

“There has been an interesting progression in our understanding of the impact of CV risk factors early in life. Large cohorts such as Bogalusa Heart Study, Risk in Young Finns Study, Muscatine Study, the Childhood Determinants of Adult Health, CARDIA, and the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohorts (i3C) have been instrumental in evaluating this question,” he said.

The knowledge that atherosclerotic risk factors in children can lead to acceleration of atherosclerosis in later life opens the door to preventive medicine, said Dr. Baptista de Faia, who was not part of the study.

“This is where preventive medicine comes in. If we can identify the children at increased risk, can we intervene to improve outcomes later in life?” he said. Familial hypercholesterolemia is “a great example of this. We can screen children early in life, there is an effective treatment, and we know from populations studies that early treatment significantly decreases the risk for cardiovascular disease later in life.”

Dr. Poisson reported that she received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of this study, which was supported by the NIH.

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

In a case-control study, atherosclerotic risk factors were uncommon in childhood and did not appear to be associated with the pathogenesis of arterial ischemic stroke in children or in early young adulthood.

But by the fourth and fifth decades of life, these risk factors were strongly associated with a significant risk for stroke, heightening that risk almost tenfold.

“While strokes in childhood and very early adulthood are not likely caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, it does look like these risk factors increase throughout early and young adulthood and become significant risk factors for stroke in the 30s and 40s,” lead author Sharon N. Poisson, MD, MAS, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

In this study, the researchers focused on arterial ischemic stroke, not hemorrhagic stroke. “We know that high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, obesity, all of these are risk factors for ischemic stroke, but what we didn’t know is at what age do those atherosclerotic risk factors actually start to cause stroke,” Dr. Poisson said.

To find out more, she and her team did a case control study of data in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system, which had been accumulating relevant data over a period of 14 years, from Jan. 1, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2014.

The analysis included 141 children and 455 young adults with arterial ischemic stroke and 1,382 age-matched controls.

The children were divided into two age categories: ages 29 days to 9 years and ages 10-19 years.

In the younger group, there were 69 cases of arterial ischemic stroke. In the older age group, there were 72 cases.

Young adults were divided into three age categories: 20-29 years (n = 71 cases), 30-39 years (144 cases), and 40-49 years (240 cases).

Among pediatric controls, 168 children aged 29 days to 9 years (46.5%) and 196 children aged 10-19 years (53.8%) developed arterial ischemic stroke.

There were 121 cases of ischemic stroke among young adult controls aged 20-29 years, 298 cases among controls aged 30-39 years, and 599 cases in those aged 40-49 years.

Both childhood cases and controls had a low prevalence of documented diagnoses of atherosclerotic risk factors (ARFs). The odds ratio of having any ARFs on arterial ischemic stroke was 1.87 for ages 0-9 years, and 1.00 for ages 10-19.

However, cases rose with age.

The OR was 2.3 for age range 20-29 years, 3.57 for age range 30-39 years, and 4.91 for age range 40-49 years.

The analysis also showed that the OR associated with multiple ARFs was 5.29 for age range 0-9 years, 2.75 for age range 10-19 years, 7.33 for age range 20-29 years, 9.86 for age range 30-39 years, and 9.35 for age range 40-49 years.

Multiple risk factors were rare in children but became more prevalent with each decade of young adult life.

The presumed cause of arterial ischemic stroke was atherosclerosis. Evidence of atherosclerosis was present in 1.4% of those aged 10-19 years, 8.5% of those aged 20-29 years, 21.5% of those aged 30-39 years, and 42.5% of those aged 40-49 years.

“This study tells us that, while stroke in adolescence and very early adulthood may not be caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, starting to accumulate those risk factors early in life clearly increases the risk of stroke in the 30s and 40s. I hope we can get this message across, because the sooner we can treat the risk factors, the better the outcome,” Dr. Poisson said.
 

Prevention starts in childhood

Prevention of cardiovascular disease begins in childhood, which is a paradigm shift from the way cardiovascular disease was thought of a couple of decades ago, noted pediatric cardiologist Guilherme Baptista de Faia, MD, from the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.

“Our guidelines for risk factor reduction in children aim to address how or when do we screen for these risk factors, how or when do we intervene, and do these interventions impact cardiovascular outcomes later in life? This article is part of the mounting research that aims to understand the relationship between childhood cardiovascular risk factors and early cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Baptista de Faia said.

“There has been an interesting progression in our understanding of the impact of CV risk factors early in life. Large cohorts such as Bogalusa Heart Study, Risk in Young Finns Study, Muscatine Study, the Childhood Determinants of Adult Health, CARDIA, and the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohorts (i3C) have been instrumental in evaluating this question,” he said.

The knowledge that atherosclerotic risk factors in children can lead to acceleration of atherosclerosis in later life opens the door to preventive medicine, said Dr. Baptista de Faia, who was not part of the study.

“This is where preventive medicine comes in. If we can identify the children at increased risk, can we intervene to improve outcomes later in life?” he said. Familial hypercholesterolemia is “a great example of this. We can screen children early in life, there is an effective treatment, and we know from populations studies that early treatment significantly decreases the risk for cardiovascular disease later in life.”

Dr. Poisson reported that she received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of this study, which was supported by the NIH.

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

In a case-control study, atherosclerotic risk factors were uncommon in childhood and did not appear to be associated with the pathogenesis of arterial ischemic stroke in children or in early young adulthood.

But by the fourth and fifth decades of life, these risk factors were strongly associated with a significant risk for stroke, heightening that risk almost tenfold.

“While strokes in childhood and very early adulthood are not likely caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, it does look like these risk factors increase throughout early and young adulthood and become significant risk factors for stroke in the 30s and 40s,” lead author Sharon N. Poisson, MD, MAS, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

In this study, the researchers focused on arterial ischemic stroke, not hemorrhagic stroke. “We know that high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, obesity, all of these are risk factors for ischemic stroke, but what we didn’t know is at what age do those atherosclerotic risk factors actually start to cause stroke,” Dr. Poisson said.

To find out more, she and her team did a case control study of data in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system, which had been accumulating relevant data over a period of 14 years, from Jan. 1, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2014.

The analysis included 141 children and 455 young adults with arterial ischemic stroke and 1,382 age-matched controls.

The children were divided into two age categories: ages 29 days to 9 years and ages 10-19 years.

In the younger group, there were 69 cases of arterial ischemic stroke. In the older age group, there were 72 cases.

Young adults were divided into three age categories: 20-29 years (n = 71 cases), 30-39 years (144 cases), and 40-49 years (240 cases).

Among pediatric controls, 168 children aged 29 days to 9 years (46.5%) and 196 children aged 10-19 years (53.8%) developed arterial ischemic stroke.

There were 121 cases of ischemic stroke among young adult controls aged 20-29 years, 298 cases among controls aged 30-39 years, and 599 cases in those aged 40-49 years.

Both childhood cases and controls had a low prevalence of documented diagnoses of atherosclerotic risk factors (ARFs). The odds ratio of having any ARFs on arterial ischemic stroke was 1.87 for ages 0-9 years, and 1.00 for ages 10-19.

However, cases rose with age.

The OR was 2.3 for age range 20-29 years, 3.57 for age range 30-39 years, and 4.91 for age range 40-49 years.

The analysis also showed that the OR associated with multiple ARFs was 5.29 for age range 0-9 years, 2.75 for age range 10-19 years, 7.33 for age range 20-29 years, 9.86 for age range 30-39 years, and 9.35 for age range 40-49 years.

Multiple risk factors were rare in children but became more prevalent with each decade of young adult life.

The presumed cause of arterial ischemic stroke was atherosclerosis. Evidence of atherosclerosis was present in 1.4% of those aged 10-19 years, 8.5% of those aged 20-29 years, 21.5% of those aged 30-39 years, and 42.5% of those aged 40-49 years.

“This study tells us that, while stroke in adolescence and very early adulthood may not be caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, starting to accumulate those risk factors early in life clearly increases the risk of stroke in the 30s and 40s. I hope we can get this message across, because the sooner we can treat the risk factors, the better the outcome,” Dr. Poisson said.
 

Prevention starts in childhood

Prevention of cardiovascular disease begins in childhood, which is a paradigm shift from the way cardiovascular disease was thought of a couple of decades ago, noted pediatric cardiologist Guilherme Baptista de Faia, MD, from the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.

“Our guidelines for risk factor reduction in children aim to address how or when do we screen for these risk factors, how or when do we intervene, and do these interventions impact cardiovascular outcomes later in life? This article is part of the mounting research that aims to understand the relationship between childhood cardiovascular risk factors and early cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Baptista de Faia said.

“There has been an interesting progression in our understanding of the impact of CV risk factors early in life. Large cohorts such as Bogalusa Heart Study, Risk in Young Finns Study, Muscatine Study, the Childhood Determinants of Adult Health, CARDIA, and the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohorts (i3C) have been instrumental in evaluating this question,” he said.

The knowledge that atherosclerotic risk factors in children can lead to acceleration of atherosclerosis in later life opens the door to preventive medicine, said Dr. Baptista de Faia, who was not part of the study.

“This is where preventive medicine comes in. If we can identify the children at increased risk, can we intervene to improve outcomes later in life?” he said. Familial hypercholesterolemia is “a great example of this. We can screen children early in life, there is an effective treatment, and we know from populations studies that early treatment significantly decreases the risk for cardiovascular disease later in life.”

Dr. Poisson reported that she received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of this study, which was supported by the NIH.

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

Gun attacks in classrooms across the nation have led principals and other school leaders to implement “active shooter” drills to try to increase the safety of their students and faculty.

The drills can range from staging lockdowns and sheltering in place to quasi dramas with mock shooters roaming the halls. Although the goals of these training exercises are important, equally important are the potential negative effects of drills on students’ mental health, according to doctors with expertise in pediatrics and mental health.

“Dramatic simulation of an active shooter event at school would be expected to provoke the same stress response as the real thing,” said Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, a pediatrician and psychiatrist, in an interview. “While ensuring their physical safety is very important, we must be intentional about making sure that we are not doing so at the expense of their psychosocial or emotional safety.”

“Children may not be able to differentiate a dramatic drill from a real event,” emphasized Dr. Loper, of the neuropsychiatry and behavioral science departments at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. “The parts of the brain responsible for our flight-fight-or-freeze response would interpret both simulated and real events identically and produce the same neurohormonal stress-response.”

Indeed, a study published in the journal Humanities & Social Sciences Communications suggested children experienced mental health problems related to participating in active shooter drills. In the large study, a team of statisticians from the Georgia Institute of Technology found that students reported a 42% increase in stress and anxiety and a 38.7% increase in depression during the 90 days following active shooter drills, compared with the 90 days before the drills.

The authors of this study, including Mai ElSherief, PhD, drew these conclusions after analyzing 54 million social media posts before and after drills in 114 schools across 33 states. The researchers analyzed the language of the social media posts by teachers, parents, and students and found increased use of the words hope, love, home, school, kids, community, support, and help after the drills. The researchers considered posting with these terms in the aftermath of the drills to be indicative of having high anxiety.

They included examples of how high stress, anxiety, and depression manifested in specific posts from parents in their report. The following is an example of a poster expressing high anxiety and stress: “are we really gonna normalize school shooter drills?! holy sh* there has to be a real way to avoid these tragedies. sh*t like this cannot be normalized. teachers injured after being shot with plastic pellets ‘execution style’ in active shooter drill.”

The authors also shared this post to serve as an example of a person who seems depressed: “and now we are revisiting the trauma on our kids, forcing them to act out school drills monthly. i don’t get why gen x parents buy into this concept wholeheartedly. things need to change.”

The published material did not include posts from students, but the researchers’ analysis of the content of posts overall showed increased concerns for health and increased concerns about death during the period after drills, compared with before drills.

The authors also conducted focus groups in communities in which drills occurred, and many teachers and parents reported anecdotal evidence of children who were nervous long after the drills were over, with some showing extreme reactions such as panic over a standard fire alarm at school. Overall, the results show that school shooter drills can negatively affect school communities over prolonged periods of time, they concluded.

According to a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, “there is a need to be cautious about the potential psychological risks and other unintended consequences of directly involving children in live exercises and drills.”

“These risks and consequences are especially a concern when children are deceived and led to believe there is an actual attack and not a drill,” wrote David Schonfeld, MD, the lead author of the statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, and colleagues.
 

Managing the fallout

Physicians can help students experiencing mental health problems from these drills, according to doctors interviewed for this piece.

It’s important for providers to know that stress will show up differently in children than in adults, said Chelsea Younghans, MD, a psychiatrist and military officer in Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“They may see children with headaches, stomach aches, or nonspecific complaints. They may also see children who have not had difficulty with sleep present with nightmares or bed wetting,” she added.

For teens and preteens, validated tools such as the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS-5) and Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) to assess PTSD in youth, may help serve as a starting point for a conversation between providers and their older child population, she noted.

Children who exhibit avoidance or withdrawal behaviors including consistent school refusal, an increase in reassurance-seeking behaviors, or somatic symptoms like vague abdominal pain or headaches that prevent school attendance after participating in a drill, may need more robust mental health services, Dr. Loper noted.

Dr. Schonfeld, who is also director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, called for health care providers to be available to help children process traumatic reactions to these exercises.

Agreeing with Dr. Schonfeld, Dr. Younghans said: “It is vital to debrief with students and staff after drills, making sure that students have a safe space and ample time to speak with trusted staff. As children will undoubtedly have questions and concerns, creating open lines of communication will help alleviate any traumatic effect these drills may have.”
 

Communicating with various stakeholders

Experts also gave recommendations for how clinicians communicate with leaders in their area’s school districts and other members of their communities about these training exercises.

“For primary care providers, it is important to establish meaningful relationships within your community and patient population as much as possible,” Dr. Younghans said. “Having a good relationship with the local schools and being part of the conversation can help increase school and community awareness on the impact these drills can have on students and staff,” she added.

For those pediatricians or other health care providers who serve as consultants to schools, Dr. Schonfeld advised they ask about policies related to exercises and drills, such as what are the limits to what children might be exposed to in a drill, and what requirements there might be at the local and state level in terms of frequency and what the drills will and will not involve.

He also noted that clinicians should encourage school leaders to consider the fact that kids may have personal histories of trauma that are completely unknown to the school when they design these exercises.

School staff and health care providers should explain the nature and reasons for drills, invite family members to express concerns, and make accommodations if necessary for some children to participate in drills in a more limited way, noted Dr. Schonfeld, who is also clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“I think health care providers should work with legislators, so that if they require a drill, it must be done in a way that is physically and emotionally safe,” he added.
 

Executing better drills for students’ mental health

Experts also advised on ways to execute these drills that will be least damaging to students.

The AAP statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, for example, advocates eliminating high-intensity drills, prohibiting deception in drills, and providing accommodations based on children’s vulnerabilities.

Dr. Schonfeld also emphasized, in an interview, that training for an attack need not be extremely realistic to be effective.

“When you are preparing for a crisis, the drills and exercises are for children to practice and develop mastery over something they don’t know how to do fully yet,” said Dr. Schonfeld.

Citing a suggestion from a 2020 report conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety on keeping schools safe from gun violence, Dr. Younghans said, “Schools should be in clear communication with communities and families regarding when drills will be happening,” and advised ensuring that the explanation of drills is developmentally appropriate to the age of the children participating.

The report also recommends conducting drills that do not simulate an actual incident, combining drills with trauma-informed approaches to address students’ well-being during and for a sustained period after the drills, and tracking data on the efficacy and effects of drills.

Dr. Loper suggested ways that clinicians and parents can help navigate the tricky territory of school safety drills.

In his view, they should not be random or unexpected, and anticipatory guidance should be given regarding any visual or auditory stimuli, such as flashing lights or sirens, alarms, or announcements.

“A preventive approach should be utilized to ensure that any child who is experiencing extreme drill-distress be excused from any future disaster drills to prevent retraumatization,” Dr. Loper said.

Physicians interviewed for this piece also provided tips on how to talk about these events with children in a way that is beneficial to their mental health.

“What we want to do is [have a] calm discussion [with kids] about what we are doing and why we are doing it” and guide them through the movements, Dr. Schonfeld said.

When teaching children how to respond to an emergency, some elements of uncertainty need to be discussed. Children need to anticipate “what you might do if you are not in the classroom if something occurs, such as being in the bathroom, or out at recess,” he continued.

Dr. Younghans recommended that parents and staff schedule time to prepare children for the drill and practice in advance, and that behavioral health providers, counselors, and/or primary care providers should be involved in the planning and execution of the drill.

The Georgia Tech study was supported through a grant from Everytown for Gun Safety.

The study authors and experts interviewed for this piece had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Gun attacks in classrooms across the nation have led principals and other school leaders to implement “active shooter” drills to try to increase the safety of their students and faculty.

The drills can range from staging lockdowns and sheltering in place to quasi dramas with mock shooters roaming the halls. Although the goals of these training exercises are important, equally important are the potential negative effects of drills on students’ mental health, according to doctors with expertise in pediatrics and mental health.

“Dramatic simulation of an active shooter event at school would be expected to provoke the same stress response as the real thing,” said Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, a pediatrician and psychiatrist, in an interview. “While ensuring their physical safety is very important, we must be intentional about making sure that we are not doing so at the expense of their psychosocial or emotional safety.”

“Children may not be able to differentiate a dramatic drill from a real event,” emphasized Dr. Loper, of the neuropsychiatry and behavioral science departments at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. “The parts of the brain responsible for our flight-fight-or-freeze response would interpret both simulated and real events identically and produce the same neurohormonal stress-response.”

Indeed, a study published in the journal Humanities & Social Sciences Communications suggested children experienced mental health problems related to participating in active shooter drills. In the large study, a team of statisticians from the Georgia Institute of Technology found that students reported a 42% increase in stress and anxiety and a 38.7% increase in depression during the 90 days following active shooter drills, compared with the 90 days before the drills.

The authors of this study, including Mai ElSherief, PhD, drew these conclusions after analyzing 54 million social media posts before and after drills in 114 schools across 33 states. The researchers analyzed the language of the social media posts by teachers, parents, and students and found increased use of the words hope, love, home, school, kids, community, support, and help after the drills. The researchers considered posting with these terms in the aftermath of the drills to be indicative of having high anxiety.

They included examples of how high stress, anxiety, and depression manifested in specific posts from parents in their report. The following is an example of a poster expressing high anxiety and stress: “are we really gonna normalize school shooter drills?! holy sh* there has to be a real way to avoid these tragedies. sh*t like this cannot be normalized. teachers injured after being shot with plastic pellets ‘execution style’ in active shooter drill.”

The authors also shared this post to serve as an example of a person who seems depressed: “and now we are revisiting the trauma on our kids, forcing them to act out school drills monthly. i don’t get why gen x parents buy into this concept wholeheartedly. things need to change.”

The published material did not include posts from students, but the researchers’ analysis of the content of posts overall showed increased concerns for health and increased concerns about death during the period after drills, compared with before drills.

The authors also conducted focus groups in communities in which drills occurred, and many teachers and parents reported anecdotal evidence of children who were nervous long after the drills were over, with some showing extreme reactions such as panic over a standard fire alarm at school. Overall, the results show that school shooter drills can negatively affect school communities over prolonged periods of time, they concluded.

According to a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, “there is a need to be cautious about the potential psychological risks and other unintended consequences of directly involving children in live exercises and drills.”

“These risks and consequences are especially a concern when children are deceived and led to believe there is an actual attack and not a drill,” wrote David Schonfeld, MD, the lead author of the statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, and colleagues.
 

Managing the fallout

Physicians can help students experiencing mental health problems from these drills, according to doctors interviewed for this piece.

It’s important for providers to know that stress will show up differently in children than in adults, said Chelsea Younghans, MD, a psychiatrist and military officer in Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“They may see children with headaches, stomach aches, or nonspecific complaints. They may also see children who have not had difficulty with sleep present with nightmares or bed wetting,” she added.

For teens and preteens, validated tools such as the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS-5) and Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) to assess PTSD in youth, may help serve as a starting point for a conversation between providers and their older child population, she noted.

Children who exhibit avoidance or withdrawal behaviors including consistent school refusal, an increase in reassurance-seeking behaviors, or somatic symptoms like vague abdominal pain or headaches that prevent school attendance after participating in a drill, may need more robust mental health services, Dr. Loper noted.

Dr. Schonfeld, who is also director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, called for health care providers to be available to help children process traumatic reactions to these exercises.

Agreeing with Dr. Schonfeld, Dr. Younghans said: “It is vital to debrief with students and staff after drills, making sure that students have a safe space and ample time to speak with trusted staff. As children will undoubtedly have questions and concerns, creating open lines of communication will help alleviate any traumatic effect these drills may have.”
 

Communicating with various stakeholders

Experts also gave recommendations for how clinicians communicate with leaders in their area’s school districts and other members of their communities about these training exercises.

“For primary care providers, it is important to establish meaningful relationships within your community and patient population as much as possible,” Dr. Younghans said. “Having a good relationship with the local schools and being part of the conversation can help increase school and community awareness on the impact these drills can have on students and staff,” she added.

For those pediatricians or other health care providers who serve as consultants to schools, Dr. Schonfeld advised they ask about policies related to exercises and drills, such as what are the limits to what children might be exposed to in a drill, and what requirements there might be at the local and state level in terms of frequency and what the drills will and will not involve.

He also noted that clinicians should encourage school leaders to consider the fact that kids may have personal histories of trauma that are completely unknown to the school when they design these exercises.

School staff and health care providers should explain the nature and reasons for drills, invite family members to express concerns, and make accommodations if necessary for some children to participate in drills in a more limited way, noted Dr. Schonfeld, who is also clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“I think health care providers should work with legislators, so that if they require a drill, it must be done in a way that is physically and emotionally safe,” he added.
 

Executing better drills for students’ mental health

Experts also advised on ways to execute these drills that will be least damaging to students.

The AAP statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, for example, advocates eliminating high-intensity drills, prohibiting deception in drills, and providing accommodations based on children’s vulnerabilities.

Dr. Schonfeld also emphasized, in an interview, that training for an attack need not be extremely realistic to be effective.

“When you are preparing for a crisis, the drills and exercises are for children to practice and develop mastery over something they don’t know how to do fully yet,” said Dr. Schonfeld.

Citing a suggestion from a 2020 report conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety on keeping schools safe from gun violence, Dr. Younghans said, “Schools should be in clear communication with communities and families regarding when drills will be happening,” and advised ensuring that the explanation of drills is developmentally appropriate to the age of the children participating.

The report also recommends conducting drills that do not simulate an actual incident, combining drills with trauma-informed approaches to address students’ well-being during and for a sustained period after the drills, and tracking data on the efficacy and effects of drills.

Dr. Loper suggested ways that clinicians and parents can help navigate the tricky territory of school safety drills.

In his view, they should not be random or unexpected, and anticipatory guidance should be given regarding any visual or auditory stimuli, such as flashing lights or sirens, alarms, or announcements.

“A preventive approach should be utilized to ensure that any child who is experiencing extreme drill-distress be excused from any future disaster drills to prevent retraumatization,” Dr. Loper said.

Physicians interviewed for this piece also provided tips on how to talk about these events with children in a way that is beneficial to their mental health.

“What we want to do is [have a] calm discussion [with kids] about what we are doing and why we are doing it” and guide them through the movements, Dr. Schonfeld said.

When teaching children how to respond to an emergency, some elements of uncertainty need to be discussed. Children need to anticipate “what you might do if you are not in the classroom if something occurs, such as being in the bathroom, or out at recess,” he continued.

Dr. Younghans recommended that parents and staff schedule time to prepare children for the drill and practice in advance, and that behavioral health providers, counselors, and/or primary care providers should be involved in the planning and execution of the drill.

The Georgia Tech study was supported through a grant from Everytown for Gun Safety.

The study authors and experts interviewed for this piece had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Gun attacks in classrooms across the nation have led principals and other school leaders to implement “active shooter” drills to try to increase the safety of their students and faculty.

The drills can range from staging lockdowns and sheltering in place to quasi dramas with mock shooters roaming the halls. Although the goals of these training exercises are important, equally important are the potential negative effects of drills on students’ mental health, according to doctors with expertise in pediatrics and mental health.

“Dramatic simulation of an active shooter event at school would be expected to provoke the same stress response as the real thing,” said Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, a pediatrician and psychiatrist, in an interview. “While ensuring their physical safety is very important, we must be intentional about making sure that we are not doing so at the expense of their psychosocial or emotional safety.”

“Children may not be able to differentiate a dramatic drill from a real event,” emphasized Dr. Loper, of the neuropsychiatry and behavioral science departments at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. “The parts of the brain responsible for our flight-fight-or-freeze response would interpret both simulated and real events identically and produce the same neurohormonal stress-response.”

Indeed, a study published in the journal Humanities & Social Sciences Communications suggested children experienced mental health problems related to participating in active shooter drills. In the large study, a team of statisticians from the Georgia Institute of Technology found that students reported a 42% increase in stress and anxiety and a 38.7% increase in depression during the 90 days following active shooter drills, compared with the 90 days before the drills.

The authors of this study, including Mai ElSherief, PhD, drew these conclusions after analyzing 54 million social media posts before and after drills in 114 schools across 33 states. The researchers analyzed the language of the social media posts by teachers, parents, and students and found increased use of the words hope, love, home, school, kids, community, support, and help after the drills. The researchers considered posting with these terms in the aftermath of the drills to be indicative of having high anxiety.

They included examples of how high stress, anxiety, and depression manifested in specific posts from parents in their report. The following is an example of a poster expressing high anxiety and stress: “are we really gonna normalize school shooter drills?! holy sh* there has to be a real way to avoid these tragedies. sh*t like this cannot be normalized. teachers injured after being shot with plastic pellets ‘execution style’ in active shooter drill.”

The authors also shared this post to serve as an example of a person who seems depressed: “and now we are revisiting the trauma on our kids, forcing them to act out school drills monthly. i don’t get why gen x parents buy into this concept wholeheartedly. things need to change.”

The published material did not include posts from students, but the researchers’ analysis of the content of posts overall showed increased concerns for health and increased concerns about death during the period after drills, compared with before drills.

The authors also conducted focus groups in communities in which drills occurred, and many teachers and parents reported anecdotal evidence of children who were nervous long after the drills were over, with some showing extreme reactions such as panic over a standard fire alarm at school. Overall, the results show that school shooter drills can negatively affect school communities over prolonged periods of time, they concluded.

According to a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, “there is a need to be cautious about the potential psychological risks and other unintended consequences of directly involving children in live exercises and drills.”

“These risks and consequences are especially a concern when children are deceived and led to believe there is an actual attack and not a drill,” wrote David Schonfeld, MD, the lead author of the statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, and colleagues.
 

Managing the fallout

Physicians can help students experiencing mental health problems from these drills, according to doctors interviewed for this piece.

It’s important for providers to know that stress will show up differently in children than in adults, said Chelsea Younghans, MD, a psychiatrist and military officer in Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“They may see children with headaches, stomach aches, or nonspecific complaints. They may also see children who have not had difficulty with sleep present with nightmares or bed wetting,” she added.

For teens and preteens, validated tools such as the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS-5) and Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) to assess PTSD in youth, may help serve as a starting point for a conversation between providers and their older child population, she noted.

Children who exhibit avoidance or withdrawal behaviors including consistent school refusal, an increase in reassurance-seeking behaviors, or somatic symptoms like vague abdominal pain or headaches that prevent school attendance after participating in a drill, may need more robust mental health services, Dr. Loper noted.

Dr. Schonfeld, who is also director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, called for health care providers to be available to help children process traumatic reactions to these exercises.

Agreeing with Dr. Schonfeld, Dr. Younghans said: “It is vital to debrief with students and staff after drills, making sure that students have a safe space and ample time to speak with trusted staff. As children will undoubtedly have questions and concerns, creating open lines of communication will help alleviate any traumatic effect these drills may have.”
 

Communicating with various stakeholders

Experts also gave recommendations for how clinicians communicate with leaders in their area’s school districts and other members of their communities about these training exercises.

“For primary care providers, it is important to establish meaningful relationships within your community and patient population as much as possible,” Dr. Younghans said. “Having a good relationship with the local schools and being part of the conversation can help increase school and community awareness on the impact these drills can have on students and staff,” she added.

For those pediatricians or other health care providers who serve as consultants to schools, Dr. Schonfeld advised they ask about policies related to exercises and drills, such as what are the limits to what children might be exposed to in a drill, and what requirements there might be at the local and state level in terms of frequency and what the drills will and will not involve.

He also noted that clinicians should encourage school leaders to consider the fact that kids may have personal histories of trauma that are completely unknown to the school when they design these exercises.

School staff and health care providers should explain the nature and reasons for drills, invite family members to express concerns, and make accommodations if necessary for some children to participate in drills in a more limited way, noted Dr. Schonfeld, who is also clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“I think health care providers should work with legislators, so that if they require a drill, it must be done in a way that is physically and emotionally safe,” he added.
 

Executing better drills for students’ mental health

Experts also advised on ways to execute these drills that will be least damaging to students.

The AAP statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, for example, advocates eliminating high-intensity drills, prohibiting deception in drills, and providing accommodations based on children’s vulnerabilities.

Dr. Schonfeld also emphasized, in an interview, that training for an attack need not be extremely realistic to be effective.

“When you are preparing for a crisis, the drills and exercises are for children to practice and develop mastery over something they don’t know how to do fully yet,” said Dr. Schonfeld.

Citing a suggestion from a 2020 report conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety on keeping schools safe from gun violence, Dr. Younghans said, “Schools should be in clear communication with communities and families regarding when drills will be happening,” and advised ensuring that the explanation of drills is developmentally appropriate to the age of the children participating.

The report also recommends conducting drills that do not simulate an actual incident, combining drills with trauma-informed approaches to address students’ well-being during and for a sustained period after the drills, and tracking data on the efficacy and effects of drills.

Dr. Loper suggested ways that clinicians and parents can help navigate the tricky territory of school safety drills.

In his view, they should not be random or unexpected, and anticipatory guidance should be given regarding any visual or auditory stimuli, such as flashing lights or sirens, alarms, or announcements.

“A preventive approach should be utilized to ensure that any child who is experiencing extreme drill-distress be excused from any future disaster drills to prevent retraumatization,” Dr. Loper said.

Physicians interviewed for this piece also provided tips on how to talk about these events with children in a way that is beneficial to their mental health.

“What we want to do is [have a] calm discussion [with kids] about what we are doing and why we are doing it” and guide them through the movements, Dr. Schonfeld said.

When teaching children how to respond to an emergency, some elements of uncertainty need to be discussed. Children need to anticipate “what you might do if you are not in the classroom if something occurs, such as being in the bathroom, or out at recess,” he continued.

Dr. Younghans recommended that parents and staff schedule time to prepare children for the drill and practice in advance, and that behavioral health providers, counselors, and/or primary care providers should be involved in the planning and execution of the drill.

The Georgia Tech study was supported through a grant from Everytown for Gun Safety.

The study authors and experts interviewed for this piece had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Two very different sets of clinical evidence have offered new twists on how nonadherence to cardiovascular medicines not only leads to suboptimal outcomes, but also complicates the data from clinical studies.

One study, a subanalysis of a major trial, outlined how taking more than the assigned therapy – that is, nonadherence by taking too much rather than too little – skewed results. The other was a trial demonstrating that early use of an invasive procedure is not a strategy to compensate for nonadherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Both studies provide a fresh reminder that nonadherence is a significant problem in cardiology overall, but also in the trial setting when we are trying to interpret study results,” explained Usam Baber, MD, director of interventional cardiology, University of Oklahoma Health, Oklahoma City, coauthor of an editorial accompanying the two published studies.

Dr. Baber was the first author of a unifying editorial that addressed the issues raised by each. In an interview, Dr. Baber said the studies had unique take-home messages but together highlight important issues of nonadherence.
 

MASTER DAPT: Too much medicine

The subanalysis was performed on data generated by MASTER DAPT, a study evaluating whether a relatively short course of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients at high risk of bleeding could preserve protection against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) while reducing risk of adverse events. The problem was that nonadherence muddied the primary message.

In MASTER DAPT, 1 month of DAPT was compared with a standard therapy of at least 2 additional months of DAPT following revascularization and placement of a biodegradable polymer stent. Enrollment in the study was restricted to those with a high risk of bleeding, the report of the primary results showed.

The major message of MASTER DAPT was that the abbreviated course of DAPT was noninferior for preventing MACE but resulted in lower rates of clinically relevant bleeding in those patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In the subgroup with an indication for OAC, there was no bleeding benefit.

However, when the results were reexamined in the context of adherence, the benefit of the shorter course was found to be underestimated. Relative to 9.4% in the standard-therapy arm, the nonadherence rate in the experimental arm was 20.2%, most of whom did not stop therapy at 1 month. They instead remained on the antiplatelet therapy, failing to adhere to the study protocol.

This form of nonadherence, taking more DAPT than assigned, was particularly common in the group with an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In this group, nearly 25% assigned to an abbreviated course remained on DAPT for more than 6 months.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between abbreviated and standard DAPT for MACE whether or not patients had an indication for OAC. In other words, the new analysis showed a reduced risk of bleeding among all patients, whether taking OAC or not after controlling for nonadherence.

In addition, this MASTER DAPT analysis found that a high proportion of patients taking OAC did not discontinue their single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after 6 months as specified.

When correcting for this failure to adhere to the MASTER DAPT protocol in a patient population at high bleeding risk, the new analysis “suggests for the first time that discontinuation of SAPT at 6 months after percutaneous intervention is associated with less bleeding without an increase in ischemic events,” Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, director of clinical research, Inselspital University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings “reinforce the importance of accounting and correcting for nonadherence” in order to reduce bias in the assessment of treatment effects, according to Dr. Valgimigli, principal investigator of MASTER DAPT and this substudy.

“The first interesting message from this study is that clinicians are reluctant to stop SAPT in these patients even in the setting of a randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Valgimigli said in an interview.

In addition, this substudy, which was prespecified in the MASTER DAPT protocol and employed “a very sophisticated methodology” to control for the effect of adherence, extends the value of a conservative approach to those who are candidates for OAC.

“The main clinical message is that SAPT needs to be discontinued after 6 months in OAC patients, and clinicians need to stop being reluctant to do so,” Dr. Valgimigli said. The data show “prolongation of SAPT increases bleeding risk without decreasing ischemic risk.”

In evaluating trial relevance, regulators prefer ITT analyses, but Dr. Baber pointed out that these can obscure the evidence of risk or benefit of a per-protocol analysis when patients take their medicine as prescribed.

“The technical message is that, when we are trying to apply results of a clinical trial to daily practice, we must understand nonadherence,” Dr. Baber said.

Dr. Baber pointed out that the lack of adherence in the case of MASTER DAPT appears to relate more to clinicians managing the patients than to the patients themselves, but it still speaks to the importance of understanding the effects of treatment in the context of the medicine rather than adherence to the medicine.

ISCHEMIA: Reconsidering adherence

In the ISCHEMIA trial, the goal was to evaluate whether an early invasive intervention might compensate to at least some degree for the persistent problem of nonadherence.

“If you are managing a patient that you know is at high risk of noncompliance, many clinicians are tempted to perform early revascularization. This was my bias. The thinking is that by offering an invasive therapy we are at least doing something to control their disease,” John A. Spertus, MD, clinical director of outcomes research, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., explained in an interview.

The study did not support the hypothesis. Patients with chronic coronary disease were randomized to a strategy of angiography and, if indicated, revascularization, or to receive GDMT alone. The health status was followed with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7).

At 12 months, patients who were adherent to GDMT had better SAQ-7 scores than those who were nonadherent, regardless of the arm to which they were randomized. Conversely, there was no difference in SAQ-7 scores between the two groups when the nonadherent subgroups in each arm were compared.

“I think these data suggest that an interventional therapy does not absolve clinicians from the responsibility of educating patients about the importance of adhering to GDMT,” Dr. Spertus said.

In ISCHEMIA, 4,480 patients were randomized. At baseline assessment 27.8% were nonadherent to GDMT. The baselines SAQ-7 scores were worse in these patients relative to those who were adherent. At 12 months, nonadherence still correlated with worse SAQ-7 scores.

“These data dispel the belief that we might be benefiting nonadherent patients by moving more quickly to invasive procedures,” Dr. Spertus said.

In cardiovascular disease, particularly heart failure, adherence to GDMT has been associated numerous times with improved quality of life, according to Dr. Baber. However, he said, the ability of invasive procedures to modify the adverse impact of poor adherence to GDMT has not been well studied. This ISCHEMIA subanalysis only reinforces the message that GDMT adherence is a meaningful predictor of improved quality of life.

However, urging clinicians to work with patients to improve adherence is not a novel idea, according to Dr. Baber. The unmet need is effective and reliable strategies.

“There are so many different reasons that patients are nonadherent, so there are limited gains by focusing on just one of the issues,” Dr. Baber said. “I think the answer is a patient-centric approach in which clinicians deal with the specific issues facing the patient in front of them. I think there are data go suggest this yields better results.”

These two very different studies also show that poor adherence is an insidious issue. While the MASTER DAPT data reveal how nonadherence confuse trial data, the ISCHEMIA trial shows that some assumptions about circumventing the effects of nonadherence might not be accurate.

According to Dr. Baber, effective strategies to reduce nonadherence are available, but the problem deserves to be addressed more proactively in clinical trials and in patient care.

Dr. Baber reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Amgen. Dr. Spertus has financial relationships with Abbott, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli has financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Terumo, which provided funding for the MASTER DAPT trial.
 

Two very different sets of clinical evidence have offered new twists on how nonadherence to cardiovascular medicines not only leads to suboptimal outcomes, but also complicates the data from clinical studies.

One study, a subanalysis of a major trial, outlined how taking more than the assigned therapy – that is, nonadherence by taking too much rather than too little – skewed results. The other was a trial demonstrating that early use of an invasive procedure is not a strategy to compensate for nonadherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Both studies provide a fresh reminder that nonadherence is a significant problem in cardiology overall, but also in the trial setting when we are trying to interpret study results,” explained Usam Baber, MD, director of interventional cardiology, University of Oklahoma Health, Oklahoma City, coauthor of an editorial accompanying the two published studies.

Dr. Baber was the first author of a unifying editorial that addressed the issues raised by each. In an interview, Dr. Baber said the studies had unique take-home messages but together highlight important issues of nonadherence.
 

MASTER DAPT: Too much medicine

The subanalysis was performed on data generated by MASTER DAPT, a study evaluating whether a relatively short course of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients at high risk of bleeding could preserve protection against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) while reducing risk of adverse events. The problem was that nonadherence muddied the primary message.

In MASTER DAPT, 1 month of DAPT was compared with a standard therapy of at least 2 additional months of DAPT following revascularization and placement of a biodegradable polymer stent. Enrollment in the study was restricted to those with a high risk of bleeding, the report of the primary results showed.

The major message of MASTER DAPT was that the abbreviated course of DAPT was noninferior for preventing MACE but resulted in lower rates of clinically relevant bleeding in those patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In the subgroup with an indication for OAC, there was no bleeding benefit.

However, when the results were reexamined in the context of adherence, the benefit of the shorter course was found to be underestimated. Relative to 9.4% in the standard-therapy arm, the nonadherence rate in the experimental arm was 20.2%, most of whom did not stop therapy at 1 month. They instead remained on the antiplatelet therapy, failing to adhere to the study protocol.

This form of nonadherence, taking more DAPT than assigned, was particularly common in the group with an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In this group, nearly 25% assigned to an abbreviated course remained on DAPT for more than 6 months.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between abbreviated and standard DAPT for MACE whether or not patients had an indication for OAC. In other words, the new analysis showed a reduced risk of bleeding among all patients, whether taking OAC or not after controlling for nonadherence.

In addition, this MASTER DAPT analysis found that a high proportion of patients taking OAC did not discontinue their single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after 6 months as specified.

When correcting for this failure to adhere to the MASTER DAPT protocol in a patient population at high bleeding risk, the new analysis “suggests for the first time that discontinuation of SAPT at 6 months after percutaneous intervention is associated with less bleeding without an increase in ischemic events,” Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, director of clinical research, Inselspital University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings “reinforce the importance of accounting and correcting for nonadherence” in order to reduce bias in the assessment of treatment effects, according to Dr. Valgimigli, principal investigator of MASTER DAPT and this substudy.

“The first interesting message from this study is that clinicians are reluctant to stop SAPT in these patients even in the setting of a randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Valgimigli said in an interview.

In addition, this substudy, which was prespecified in the MASTER DAPT protocol and employed “a very sophisticated methodology” to control for the effect of adherence, extends the value of a conservative approach to those who are candidates for OAC.

“The main clinical message is that SAPT needs to be discontinued after 6 months in OAC patients, and clinicians need to stop being reluctant to do so,” Dr. Valgimigli said. The data show “prolongation of SAPT increases bleeding risk without decreasing ischemic risk.”

In evaluating trial relevance, regulators prefer ITT analyses, but Dr. Baber pointed out that these can obscure the evidence of risk or benefit of a per-protocol analysis when patients take their medicine as prescribed.

“The technical message is that, when we are trying to apply results of a clinical trial to daily practice, we must understand nonadherence,” Dr. Baber said.

Dr. Baber pointed out that the lack of adherence in the case of MASTER DAPT appears to relate more to clinicians managing the patients than to the patients themselves, but it still speaks to the importance of understanding the effects of treatment in the context of the medicine rather than adherence to the medicine.

ISCHEMIA: Reconsidering adherence

In the ISCHEMIA trial, the goal was to evaluate whether an early invasive intervention might compensate to at least some degree for the persistent problem of nonadherence.

“If you are managing a patient that you know is at high risk of noncompliance, many clinicians are tempted to perform early revascularization. This was my bias. The thinking is that by offering an invasive therapy we are at least doing something to control their disease,” John A. Spertus, MD, clinical director of outcomes research, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., explained in an interview.

The study did not support the hypothesis. Patients with chronic coronary disease were randomized to a strategy of angiography and, if indicated, revascularization, or to receive GDMT alone. The health status was followed with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7).

At 12 months, patients who were adherent to GDMT had better SAQ-7 scores than those who were nonadherent, regardless of the arm to which they were randomized. Conversely, there was no difference in SAQ-7 scores between the two groups when the nonadherent subgroups in each arm were compared.

“I think these data suggest that an interventional therapy does not absolve clinicians from the responsibility of educating patients about the importance of adhering to GDMT,” Dr. Spertus said.

In ISCHEMIA, 4,480 patients were randomized. At baseline assessment 27.8% were nonadherent to GDMT. The baselines SAQ-7 scores were worse in these patients relative to those who were adherent. At 12 months, nonadherence still correlated with worse SAQ-7 scores.

“These data dispel the belief that we might be benefiting nonadherent patients by moving more quickly to invasive procedures,” Dr. Spertus said.

In cardiovascular disease, particularly heart failure, adherence to GDMT has been associated numerous times with improved quality of life, according to Dr. Baber. However, he said, the ability of invasive procedures to modify the adverse impact of poor adherence to GDMT has not been well studied. This ISCHEMIA subanalysis only reinforces the message that GDMT adherence is a meaningful predictor of improved quality of life.

However, urging clinicians to work with patients to improve adherence is not a novel idea, according to Dr. Baber. The unmet need is effective and reliable strategies.

“There are so many different reasons that patients are nonadherent, so there are limited gains by focusing on just one of the issues,” Dr. Baber said. “I think the answer is a patient-centric approach in which clinicians deal with the specific issues facing the patient in front of them. I think there are data go suggest this yields better results.”

These two very different studies also show that poor adherence is an insidious issue. While the MASTER DAPT data reveal how nonadherence confuse trial data, the ISCHEMIA trial shows that some assumptions about circumventing the effects of nonadherence might not be accurate.

According to Dr. Baber, effective strategies to reduce nonadherence are available, but the problem deserves to be addressed more proactively in clinical trials and in patient care.

Dr. Baber reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Amgen. Dr. Spertus has financial relationships with Abbott, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli has financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Terumo, which provided funding for the MASTER DAPT trial.
 

Two very different sets of clinical evidence have offered new twists on how nonadherence to cardiovascular medicines not only leads to suboptimal outcomes, but also complicates the data from clinical studies.

One study, a subanalysis of a major trial, outlined how taking more than the assigned therapy – that is, nonadherence by taking too much rather than too little – skewed results. The other was a trial demonstrating that early use of an invasive procedure is not a strategy to compensate for nonadherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Both studies provide a fresh reminder that nonadherence is a significant problem in cardiology overall, but also in the trial setting when we are trying to interpret study results,” explained Usam Baber, MD, director of interventional cardiology, University of Oklahoma Health, Oklahoma City, coauthor of an editorial accompanying the two published studies.

Dr. Baber was the first author of a unifying editorial that addressed the issues raised by each. In an interview, Dr. Baber said the studies had unique take-home messages but together highlight important issues of nonadherence.
 

MASTER DAPT: Too much medicine

The subanalysis was performed on data generated by MASTER DAPT, a study evaluating whether a relatively short course of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients at high risk of bleeding could preserve protection against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) while reducing risk of adverse events. The problem was that nonadherence muddied the primary message.

In MASTER DAPT, 1 month of DAPT was compared with a standard therapy of at least 2 additional months of DAPT following revascularization and placement of a biodegradable polymer stent. Enrollment in the study was restricted to those with a high risk of bleeding, the report of the primary results showed.

The major message of MASTER DAPT was that the abbreviated course of DAPT was noninferior for preventing MACE but resulted in lower rates of clinically relevant bleeding in those patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In the subgroup with an indication for OAC, there was no bleeding benefit.

However, when the results were reexamined in the context of adherence, the benefit of the shorter course was found to be underestimated. Relative to 9.4% in the standard-therapy arm, the nonadherence rate in the experimental arm was 20.2%, most of whom did not stop therapy at 1 month. They instead remained on the antiplatelet therapy, failing to adhere to the study protocol.

This form of nonadherence, taking more DAPT than assigned, was particularly common in the group with an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In this group, nearly 25% assigned to an abbreviated course remained on DAPT for more than 6 months.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between abbreviated and standard DAPT for MACE whether or not patients had an indication for OAC. In other words, the new analysis showed a reduced risk of bleeding among all patients, whether taking OAC or not after controlling for nonadherence.

In addition, this MASTER DAPT analysis found that a high proportion of patients taking OAC did not discontinue their single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after 6 months as specified.

When correcting for this failure to adhere to the MASTER DAPT protocol in a patient population at high bleeding risk, the new analysis “suggests for the first time that discontinuation of SAPT at 6 months after percutaneous intervention is associated with less bleeding without an increase in ischemic events,” Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, director of clinical research, Inselspital University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings “reinforce the importance of accounting and correcting for nonadherence” in order to reduce bias in the assessment of treatment effects, according to Dr. Valgimigli, principal investigator of MASTER DAPT and this substudy.

“The first interesting message from this study is that clinicians are reluctant to stop SAPT in these patients even in the setting of a randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Valgimigli said in an interview.

In addition, this substudy, which was prespecified in the MASTER DAPT protocol and employed “a very sophisticated methodology” to control for the effect of adherence, extends the value of a conservative approach to those who are candidates for OAC.

“The main clinical message is that SAPT needs to be discontinued after 6 months in OAC patients, and clinicians need to stop being reluctant to do so,” Dr. Valgimigli said. The data show “prolongation of SAPT increases bleeding risk without decreasing ischemic risk.”

In evaluating trial relevance, regulators prefer ITT analyses, but Dr. Baber pointed out that these can obscure the evidence of risk or benefit of a per-protocol analysis when patients take their medicine as prescribed.

“The technical message is that, when we are trying to apply results of a clinical trial to daily practice, we must understand nonadherence,” Dr. Baber said.

Dr. Baber pointed out that the lack of adherence in the case of MASTER DAPT appears to relate more to clinicians managing the patients than to the patients themselves, but it still speaks to the importance of understanding the effects of treatment in the context of the medicine rather than adherence to the medicine.

ISCHEMIA: Reconsidering adherence

In the ISCHEMIA trial, the goal was to evaluate whether an early invasive intervention might compensate to at least some degree for the persistent problem of nonadherence.

“If you are managing a patient that you know is at high risk of noncompliance, many clinicians are tempted to perform early revascularization. This was my bias. The thinking is that by offering an invasive therapy we are at least doing something to control their disease,” John A. Spertus, MD, clinical director of outcomes research, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., explained in an interview.

The study did not support the hypothesis. Patients with chronic coronary disease were randomized to a strategy of angiography and, if indicated, revascularization, or to receive GDMT alone. The health status was followed with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7).

At 12 months, patients who were adherent to GDMT had better SAQ-7 scores than those who were nonadherent, regardless of the arm to which they were randomized. Conversely, there was no difference in SAQ-7 scores between the two groups when the nonadherent subgroups in each arm were compared.

“I think these data suggest that an interventional therapy does not absolve clinicians from the responsibility of educating patients about the importance of adhering to GDMT,” Dr. Spertus said.

In ISCHEMIA, 4,480 patients were randomized. At baseline assessment 27.8% were nonadherent to GDMT. The baselines SAQ-7 scores were worse in these patients relative to those who were adherent. At 12 months, nonadherence still correlated with worse SAQ-7 scores.

“These data dispel the belief that we might be benefiting nonadherent patients by moving more quickly to invasive procedures,” Dr. Spertus said.

In cardiovascular disease, particularly heart failure, adherence to GDMT has been associated numerous times with improved quality of life, according to Dr. Baber. However, he said, the ability of invasive procedures to modify the adverse impact of poor adherence to GDMT has not been well studied. This ISCHEMIA subanalysis only reinforces the message that GDMT adherence is a meaningful predictor of improved quality of life.

However, urging clinicians to work with patients to improve adherence is not a novel idea, according to Dr. Baber. The unmet need is effective and reliable strategies.

“There are so many different reasons that patients are nonadherent, so there are limited gains by focusing on just one of the issues,” Dr. Baber said. “I think the answer is a patient-centric approach in which clinicians deal with the specific issues facing the patient in front of them. I think there are data go suggest this yields better results.”

These two very different studies also show that poor adherence is an insidious issue. While the MASTER DAPT data reveal how nonadherence confuse trial data, the ISCHEMIA trial shows that some assumptions about circumventing the effects of nonadherence might not be accurate.

According to Dr. Baber, effective strategies to reduce nonadherence are available, but the problem deserves to be addressed more proactively in clinical trials and in patient care.

Dr. Baber reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Amgen. Dr. Spertus has financial relationships with Abbott, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli has financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Terumo, which provided funding for the MASTER DAPT trial.
 

The connection between red meat and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has been well established, but newly reported findings indicate that metabolites in the gut microbiome may explain that relationship more than cholesterol and blood pressure.

“Eating more meat, especially red meat and processed meats, is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, even later in life,” co–lead study author Meng Wang, PhD, said in an interview.

The study, from a large community-based cohort of older people, included 3,931 U.S. participants aged 65 and older in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). It found that gut microbiota–generated metabolites of dietary L-carnitine, including trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), have a role in the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD.

“TMAO-related metabolites produced by our gut microbes as well as blood-glucose and insulin homeostasis and systematic inflammation appeared to explain much of the association, more so than blood cholesterol or blood pressure,” added Dr. Wang, of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston.

Dr. Wang said this study was unique because it focused specifically on older adults; the average participant age was 72.9 years. “Older adults are at the highest risk of CVD, and for them adequate intake of protein may help to offset aging-related loss of muscle mass and strength,” she said. However, the study population was largely white (88%), so, she said, the results may not be generalizable to populations that are younger or of different nationalities and races.

The researchers performed a multivariable analysis that showed that participants who had higher intakes of unprocessed red meat, total meat, and total animal source foods (ASF) had higher hazard ratios of ASCVD risk. The study had a median follow-up of 12.5 years. It divided the study population into five quintiles based on how much unprocessed red met they consumed at baseline and analyzed dietary exposure in the differences between the midpoints of the first and fifth quintiles.

Earlier studies of meat intake and CVD risk focused mostly on saturated fat and blood cholesterol, Dr. Wang added. “But our findings suggest that other components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron, might play a more important role than saturated fat,” she said.

camij/thinkstockphotos.com

Higher intake of unprocessed red meat was linked to a 15% higher incidence of ASCVD per interquintile range (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.30; P = .031). Total meat intake, defined as unprocessed plus processed red meat, was tied to a 22% higher incidence of ASCVD (HR, 1.22; CI, 1.07-1.39; P = .004).

The study found no significant association between fish, poultry, or egg intake and incident ASCVD, but found total ASF intake had an 18% higher risk (HR, 1.18; CI, 1.03–1.34; P = .016).
 

Explaining the red meat–CVD connection

“The more novel part of our study is about the mediation analysis,” Dr. Wang said. “It helps explain why meat intake was associated with a higher risk of CVD. We identified several biological pathways, including the novel one through TMAO-related metabolites produced by the gut microbiome.”

Three gut microbiota–generated metabolites of L-carnitine – TMAO, gamma-butyrobetaine, and crotonobetaine – seem to partly explain the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD, the study reported.

The study found 3.92 excess ASCVD events per 1,000 person years associated with each interquintile range of higher unprocessed red meat intake; 10.6% of them were attributed to plasma levels of the three L-carnitine metabolites (95% CI, 1.0-114.5).

In this study, neither blood cholesterol nor blood pressure levels seemed to explain the elevated risk of ASCVD associated with meat intake, but blood glucose and insulin did, with mediation proportions of 26.1% and 11.8%, respectively.

Study strengths are its size and its general population cohort with well-measured CVD risk factors, Dr. Wang pointed out. All participants were free of clinically diagnosed CVD at enrollment, which minimized selection bias and reverse causation, she said. However, she acknowledged that the use of self-reported diet intake data, along with the largely white population, constitute limitations.

“Our study findings need to be confirmed in different populations and more research efforts are needed to better understand the health effects of some of the components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron,” Dr. Wang said.

“This study is interesting in that it doesn’t just ask the question, ‘Is eating red meat associated with coronary disease and atherosclerotic disease?’ but it tells what the mechanism is,” Robert Vogel, MD, professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The association between red meat and ASCVD is “an established science,” he said. “Where this study adds to the literature is that it suggests that elevated LDL cholesterol or blood pressure, things – especially the former – that are thought to be associated with coronary disease, may or may not be the mechanism.” He cautioned, however, “this is all associative data.”

The study “produces incremental knowledge for the association between eating red met and atherosclerosis, but it does not establish causality,” Dr. Vogel added.

Dr. Wang has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Vogel is a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Center in Miami.

The connection between red meat and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has been well established, but newly reported findings indicate that metabolites in the gut microbiome may explain that relationship more than cholesterol and blood pressure.

“Eating more meat, especially red meat and processed meats, is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, even later in life,” co–lead study author Meng Wang, PhD, said in an interview.

The study, from a large community-based cohort of older people, included 3,931 U.S. participants aged 65 and older in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). It found that gut microbiota–generated metabolites of dietary L-carnitine, including trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), have a role in the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD.

“TMAO-related metabolites produced by our gut microbes as well as blood-glucose and insulin homeostasis and systematic inflammation appeared to explain much of the association, more so than blood cholesterol or blood pressure,” added Dr. Wang, of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston.

Dr. Wang said this study was unique because it focused specifically on older adults; the average participant age was 72.9 years. “Older adults are at the highest risk of CVD, and for them adequate intake of protein may help to offset aging-related loss of muscle mass and strength,” she said. However, the study population was largely white (88%), so, she said, the results may not be generalizable to populations that are younger or of different nationalities and races.

The researchers performed a multivariable analysis that showed that participants who had higher intakes of unprocessed red meat, total meat, and total animal source foods (ASF) had higher hazard ratios of ASCVD risk. The study had a median follow-up of 12.5 years. It divided the study population into five quintiles based on how much unprocessed red met they consumed at baseline and analyzed dietary exposure in the differences between the midpoints of the first and fifth quintiles.

Earlier studies of meat intake and CVD risk focused mostly on saturated fat and blood cholesterol, Dr. Wang added. “But our findings suggest that other components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron, might play a more important role than saturated fat,” she said.

camij/thinkstockphotos.com

Higher intake of unprocessed red meat was linked to a 15% higher incidence of ASCVD per interquintile range (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.30; P = .031). Total meat intake, defined as unprocessed plus processed red meat, was tied to a 22% higher incidence of ASCVD (HR, 1.22; CI, 1.07-1.39; P = .004).

The study found no significant association between fish, poultry, or egg intake and incident ASCVD, but found total ASF intake had an 18% higher risk (HR, 1.18; CI, 1.03–1.34; P = .016).
 

Explaining the red meat–CVD connection

“The more novel part of our study is about the mediation analysis,” Dr. Wang said. “It helps explain why meat intake was associated with a higher risk of CVD. We identified several biological pathways, including the novel one through TMAO-related metabolites produced by the gut microbiome.”

Three gut microbiota–generated metabolites of L-carnitine – TMAO, gamma-butyrobetaine, and crotonobetaine – seem to partly explain the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD, the study reported.

The study found 3.92 excess ASCVD events per 1,000 person years associated with each interquintile range of higher unprocessed red meat intake; 10.6% of them were attributed to plasma levels of the three L-carnitine metabolites (95% CI, 1.0-114.5).

In this study, neither blood cholesterol nor blood pressure levels seemed to explain the elevated risk of ASCVD associated with meat intake, but blood glucose and insulin did, with mediation proportions of 26.1% and 11.8%, respectively.

Study strengths are its size and its general population cohort with well-measured CVD risk factors, Dr. Wang pointed out. All participants were free of clinically diagnosed CVD at enrollment, which minimized selection bias and reverse causation, she said. However, she acknowledged that the use of self-reported diet intake data, along with the largely white population, constitute limitations.

“Our study findings need to be confirmed in different populations and more research efforts are needed to better understand the health effects of some of the components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron,” Dr. Wang said.

“This study is interesting in that it doesn’t just ask the question, ‘Is eating red meat associated with coronary disease and atherosclerotic disease?’ but it tells what the mechanism is,” Robert Vogel, MD, professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The association between red meat and ASCVD is “an established science,” he said. “Where this study adds to the literature is that it suggests that elevated LDL cholesterol or blood pressure, things – especially the former – that are thought to be associated with coronary disease, may or may not be the mechanism.” He cautioned, however, “this is all associative data.”

The study “produces incremental knowledge for the association between eating red met and atherosclerosis, but it does not establish causality,” Dr. Vogel added.

Dr. Wang has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Vogel is a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Center in Miami.

The connection between red meat and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has been well established, but newly reported findings indicate that metabolites in the gut microbiome may explain that relationship more than cholesterol and blood pressure.

“Eating more meat, especially red meat and processed meats, is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, even later in life,” co–lead study author Meng Wang, PhD, said in an interview.

The study, from a large community-based cohort of older people, included 3,931 U.S. participants aged 65 and older in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). It found that gut microbiota–generated metabolites of dietary L-carnitine, including trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), have a role in the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD.

“TMAO-related metabolites produced by our gut microbes as well as blood-glucose and insulin homeostasis and systematic inflammation appeared to explain much of the association, more so than blood cholesterol or blood pressure,” added Dr. Wang, of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston.

Dr. Wang said this study was unique because it focused specifically on older adults; the average participant age was 72.9 years. “Older adults are at the highest risk of CVD, and for them adequate intake of protein may help to offset aging-related loss of muscle mass and strength,” she said. However, the study population was largely white (88%), so, she said, the results may not be generalizable to populations that are younger or of different nationalities and races.

The researchers performed a multivariable analysis that showed that participants who had higher intakes of unprocessed red meat, total meat, and total animal source foods (ASF) had higher hazard ratios of ASCVD risk. The study had a median follow-up of 12.5 years. It divided the study population into five quintiles based on how much unprocessed red met they consumed at baseline and analyzed dietary exposure in the differences between the midpoints of the first and fifth quintiles.

Earlier studies of meat intake and CVD risk focused mostly on saturated fat and blood cholesterol, Dr. Wang added. “But our findings suggest that other components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron, might play a more important role than saturated fat,” she said.

camij/thinkstockphotos.com

Higher intake of unprocessed red meat was linked to a 15% higher incidence of ASCVD per interquintile range (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.30; P = .031). Total meat intake, defined as unprocessed plus processed red meat, was tied to a 22% higher incidence of ASCVD (HR, 1.22; CI, 1.07-1.39; P = .004).

The study found no significant association between fish, poultry, or egg intake and incident ASCVD, but found total ASF intake had an 18% higher risk (HR, 1.18; CI, 1.03–1.34; P = .016).
 

Explaining the red meat–CVD connection

“The more novel part of our study is about the mediation analysis,” Dr. Wang said. “It helps explain why meat intake was associated with a higher risk of CVD. We identified several biological pathways, including the novel one through TMAO-related metabolites produced by the gut microbiome.”

Three gut microbiota–generated metabolites of L-carnitine – TMAO, gamma-butyrobetaine, and crotonobetaine – seem to partly explain the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD, the study reported.

The study found 3.92 excess ASCVD events per 1,000 person years associated with each interquintile range of higher unprocessed red meat intake; 10.6% of them were attributed to plasma levels of the three L-carnitine metabolites (95% CI, 1.0-114.5).

In this study, neither blood cholesterol nor blood pressure levels seemed to explain the elevated risk of ASCVD associated with meat intake, but blood glucose and insulin did, with mediation proportions of 26.1% and 11.8%, respectively.

Study strengths are its size and its general population cohort with well-measured CVD risk factors, Dr. Wang pointed out. All participants were free of clinically diagnosed CVD at enrollment, which minimized selection bias and reverse causation, she said. However, she acknowledged that the use of self-reported diet intake data, along with the largely white population, constitute limitations.

“Our study findings need to be confirmed in different populations and more research efforts are needed to better understand the health effects of some of the components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron,” Dr. Wang said.

“This study is interesting in that it doesn’t just ask the question, ‘Is eating red meat associated with coronary disease and atherosclerotic disease?’ but it tells what the mechanism is,” Robert Vogel, MD, professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The association between red meat and ASCVD is “an established science,” he said. “Where this study adds to the literature is that it suggests that elevated LDL cholesterol or blood pressure, things – especially the former – that are thought to be associated with coronary disease, may or may not be the mechanism.” He cautioned, however, “this is all associative data.”

The study “produces incremental knowledge for the association between eating red met and atherosclerosis, but it does not establish causality,” Dr. Vogel added.

Dr. Wang has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Vogel is a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Center in Miami.

New York City is closing 10 city-run sites where children younger than 5 could get the COVID-19 vaccine, with three of those sites transitioning to administer the monkeypox vaccine.

The city health department said demand for children’s COVID vaccines had been on the downswing at the clinics, which opened in late June. Meanwhile, monkeypox cases have increased, with the city declaring it a public health emergency July 30.

“We always planned to transition vaccination for very young children to providers,” the city’s health department said in a statement, according to Spectrum News NY1. “Due to the ongoing monkeypox emergency, we transitioned some of these sites to administer monkeypox vaccine.”

All the COVID vaccine sites for children will close by Aug. 14, Spectrum News NY1 said. It’s unclear if the other sites will transition to monkeypox vaccine.

No appointments for children’s COVID vaccinations had to be canceled, the city said. The plan is that children now needing the COVID vaccine can go to doctors, pharmacies, or the health department clinics.

Manhattan City Councilwoman Gale Brewer urged the health department to keep the kids’ COVID vaccine sites open through the fall.

“I strongly urge you to maintain these family-friendly sites, at least until mid-September so that children who are going to day care and school can get vaccinated,” Brewer wrote. City schools open Sept. 8

Ms. Brewer noted that the city-run sites administered the Moderna vaccines, while many doctors and neighborhood health clinics use the Pfizer vaccine. That could be a problem for a child that had not finished the Moderna regimen or for families that prefer Moderna.

According to the city health department, 2,130 people in New York City had tested positive for monkeypox as of Aug. 12.

On Friday, the city announced 9,000 additional monkeypox vaccines would be made available the morning of Aug. 13.

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

New York City is closing 10 city-run sites where children younger than 5 could get the COVID-19 vaccine, with three of those sites transitioning to administer the monkeypox vaccine.

The city health department said demand for children’s COVID vaccines had been on the downswing at the clinics, which opened in late June. Meanwhile, monkeypox cases have increased, with the city declaring it a public health emergency July 30.

“We always planned to transition vaccination for very young children to providers,” the city’s health department said in a statement, according to Spectrum News NY1. “Due to the ongoing monkeypox emergency, we transitioned some of these sites to administer monkeypox vaccine.”

All the COVID vaccine sites for children will close by Aug. 14, Spectrum News NY1 said. It’s unclear if the other sites will transition to monkeypox vaccine.

No appointments for children’s COVID vaccinations had to be canceled, the city said. The plan is that children now needing the COVID vaccine can go to doctors, pharmacies, or the health department clinics.

Manhattan City Councilwoman Gale Brewer urged the health department to keep the kids’ COVID vaccine sites open through the fall.

“I strongly urge you to maintain these family-friendly sites, at least until mid-September so that children who are going to day care and school can get vaccinated,” Brewer wrote. City schools open Sept. 8

Ms. Brewer noted that the city-run sites administered the Moderna vaccines, while many doctors and neighborhood health clinics use the Pfizer vaccine. That could be a problem for a child that had not finished the Moderna regimen or for families that prefer Moderna.

According to the city health department, 2,130 people in New York City had tested positive for monkeypox as of Aug. 12.

On Friday, the city announced 9,000 additional monkeypox vaccines would be made available the morning of Aug. 13.

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

New York City is closing 10 city-run sites where children younger than 5 could get the COVID-19 vaccine, with three of those sites transitioning to administer the monkeypox vaccine.

The city health department said demand for children’s COVID vaccines had been on the downswing at the clinics, which opened in late June. Meanwhile, monkeypox cases have increased, with the city declaring it a public health emergency July 30.

“We always planned to transition vaccination for very young children to providers,” the city’s health department said in a statement, according to Spectrum News NY1. “Due to the ongoing monkeypox emergency, we transitioned some of these sites to administer monkeypox vaccine.”

All the COVID vaccine sites for children will close by Aug. 14, Spectrum News NY1 said. It’s unclear if the other sites will transition to monkeypox vaccine.

No appointments for children’s COVID vaccinations had to be canceled, the city said. The plan is that children now needing the COVID vaccine can go to doctors, pharmacies, or the health department clinics.

Manhattan City Councilwoman Gale Brewer urged the health department to keep the kids’ COVID vaccine sites open through the fall.

“I strongly urge you to maintain these family-friendly sites, at least until mid-September so that children who are going to day care and school can get vaccinated,” Brewer wrote. City schools open Sept. 8

Ms. Brewer noted that the city-run sites administered the Moderna vaccines, while many doctors and neighborhood health clinics use the Pfizer vaccine. That could be a problem for a child that had not finished the Moderna regimen or for families that prefer Moderna.

According to the city health department, 2,130 people in New York City had tested positive for monkeypox as of Aug. 12.

On Friday, the city announced 9,000 additional monkeypox vaccines would be made available the morning of Aug. 13.

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

More than 60% of Americans older than age 50, and nearly 70% of those older than 65, say they intend to roll up their sleeves to prevent COVID-19 in the fall of 2022.

That finding comes from a new poll by researchers at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who also report that when it comes to the shots, people appear to be putting more trust in their health care professionals than in public health authorities.

“When you are a doctor, you are a trusted source of medical information,” said Preeti Malani, MD, MSJ, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Michigan. “Use the ongoing conversation with your patient as an opportunity to answer their questions and counter any confusion.”

The vaccination campaign appears to be having a rub-off effect, too. More people say they’re likely to receive vaccines and boosters for other infections, such as flu, if they have already been vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19.
 

Inside the poll

Dr. Malani and her colleagues, who published their findings on the National Poll on Healthy Aging’s website, asked 1,024 adults older than 50 about their attitudes on COVID-19 vaccinations and their history of receiving the injections. The questions covered topics including whether the individual had contracted COVID, COVID vaccine doses, and the prevalence of a health care clinician’s opinion on vaccines and boosters. The poll was conducted July 21-26.

The researchers chose the age range of 50-65 years because this group is an important population for new booster shots that target specific variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

Only 19% of people aged 50-64 and 44% of those older than 65 said they had received both their first and second COVID-19 booster shots. What’s more, 17% of people said they had not received any doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The vast majority (77%) of respondents said their clinician’s recommendations were “very important” or “somewhat important” in their decision to receive the vaccine. 

Dr. Malani said that in her practice, patients have expressed hesitation about COVID-19 vaccines because of concerns about the potential side effects of the shots.

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, noted that Americans now appear to trust their physicians more than public health authorities such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when it comes to COVID-19.

“More people are trusting their providers’ opinions [more] than the CDC or other public health agencies. That speaks volumes to me,” Dr. Gandhi said.

Among the more surprising findings of the poll, according to the researchers, was the number of people who said they had yet to contract COVID-19: 50% of those aged 50-64, and 69% of those older than 65. (Another 12% of those aged 50-64 said they were unsure if they’d ever had the infection.)

Dr. Malani said she hoped future studies would explore in depth the people who remain uninfected with COVID-19.

“We focus a lot on the science of COVID,” she said. “But we need to turn our attention to the behavioral aspects and how to address them.”

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

More than 60% of Americans older than age 50, and nearly 70% of those older than 65, say they intend to roll up their sleeves to prevent COVID-19 in the fall of 2022.

That finding comes from a new poll by researchers at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who also report that when it comes to the shots, people appear to be putting more trust in their health care professionals than in public health authorities.

“When you are a doctor, you are a trusted source of medical information,” said Preeti Malani, MD, MSJ, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Michigan. “Use the ongoing conversation with your patient as an opportunity to answer their questions and counter any confusion.”

The vaccination campaign appears to be having a rub-off effect, too. More people say they’re likely to receive vaccines and boosters for other infections, such as flu, if they have already been vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19.
 

Inside the poll

Dr. Malani and her colleagues, who published their findings on the National Poll on Healthy Aging’s website, asked 1,024 adults older than 50 about their attitudes on COVID-19 vaccinations and their history of receiving the injections. The questions covered topics including whether the individual had contracted COVID, COVID vaccine doses, and the prevalence of a health care clinician’s opinion on vaccines and boosters. The poll was conducted July 21-26.

The researchers chose the age range of 50-65 years because this group is an important population for new booster shots that target specific variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

Only 19% of people aged 50-64 and 44% of those older than 65 said they had received both their first and second COVID-19 booster shots. What’s more, 17% of people said they had not received any doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The vast majority (77%) of respondents said their clinician’s recommendations were “very important” or “somewhat important” in their decision to receive the vaccine. 

Dr. Malani said that in her practice, patients have expressed hesitation about COVID-19 vaccines because of concerns about the potential side effects of the shots.

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, noted that Americans now appear to trust their physicians more than public health authorities such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when it comes to COVID-19.

“More people are trusting their providers’ opinions [more] than the CDC or other public health agencies. That speaks volumes to me,” Dr. Gandhi said.

Among the more surprising findings of the poll, according to the researchers, was the number of people who said they had yet to contract COVID-19: 50% of those aged 50-64, and 69% of those older than 65. (Another 12% of those aged 50-64 said they were unsure if they’d ever had the infection.)

Dr. Malani said she hoped future studies would explore in depth the people who remain uninfected with COVID-19.

“We focus a lot on the science of COVID,” she said. “But we need to turn our attention to the behavioral aspects and how to address them.”

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

More than 60% of Americans older than age 50, and nearly 70% of those older than 65, say they intend to roll up their sleeves to prevent COVID-19 in the fall of 2022.

That finding comes from a new poll by researchers at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who also report that when it comes to the shots, people appear to be putting more trust in their health care professionals than in public health authorities.

“When you are a doctor, you are a trusted source of medical information,” said Preeti Malani, MD, MSJ, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Michigan. “Use the ongoing conversation with your patient as an opportunity to answer their questions and counter any confusion.”

The vaccination campaign appears to be having a rub-off effect, too. More people say they’re likely to receive vaccines and boosters for other infections, such as flu, if they have already been vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19.
 

Inside the poll

Dr. Malani and her colleagues, who published their findings on the National Poll on Healthy Aging’s website, asked 1,024 adults older than 50 about their attitudes on COVID-19 vaccinations and their history of receiving the injections. The questions covered topics including whether the individual had contracted COVID, COVID vaccine doses, and the prevalence of a health care clinician’s opinion on vaccines and boosters. The poll was conducted July 21-26.

The researchers chose the age range of 50-65 years because this group is an important population for new booster shots that target specific variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

Only 19% of people aged 50-64 and 44% of those older than 65 said they had received both their first and second COVID-19 booster shots. What’s more, 17% of people said they had not received any doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The vast majority (77%) of respondents said their clinician’s recommendations were “very important” or “somewhat important” in their decision to receive the vaccine. 

Dr. Malani said that in her practice, patients have expressed hesitation about COVID-19 vaccines because of concerns about the potential side effects of the shots.

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, noted that Americans now appear to trust their physicians more than public health authorities such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when it comes to COVID-19.

“More people are trusting their providers’ opinions [more] than the CDC or other public health agencies. That speaks volumes to me,” Dr. Gandhi said.

Among the more surprising findings of the poll, according to the researchers, was the number of people who said they had yet to contract COVID-19: 50% of those aged 50-64, and 69% of those older than 65. (Another 12% of those aged 50-64 said they were unsure if they’d ever had the infection.)

Dr. Malani said she hoped future studies would explore in depth the people who remain uninfected with COVID-19.

“We focus a lot on the science of COVID,” she said. “But we need to turn our attention to the behavioral aspects and how to address them.”

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

More and more physicians are being wooed by private equity firms that want to buy their practices. The total value of private equity deals in health care in 2019 is estimated at about $120 billion, and it’s expected to grow over the coming years.

While the potential profit may seem alluring, physicians have mixed feelings as to whether this will be a boon or a disappointment.

Angelo Falcone, MD, a former emergency physician in Rockville, Md., found that a private equity investment transformed his career path.

For 19 years, Dr. Falcone was CEO of an emergency medicine group with 35 partners that staffed 10 emergency departments, mostly in Maryland. “We were a pretty small operation looking to get bigger, but to do that would require a substantial investment,” he said.

In 2015, after checking out all their options, the partners decided to sell to US Acute Care Solutions (USACS), a new private equity company founded by Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, an investment firm in New York. Private equity can be used to expand practices and pay for new equipment. Dr. Falcone, serving as a USACS board member and its operational president, helped spur the company’s astounding growth. Today, USACS has about 5,000 physicians and other clinicians operating in 30 states.

In 2019, Dr. Falcone stepped down from his management post at USACS, took training in integrative medicine, and 2 years later opened a solo integrative medicine practice in Rockville. The new practice, which operates on a concierge model, is not connected with USACS, but Dr, Falcone still sits on the USACS board.

“I had a great experience at USACS. I believe in the power of private equity to support our patients and physicians,” Dr. Falcone said. “Now, at age 58, I have a second career in integrative medicine.”
 

Private equity is still controversial

David Fleeger, MD, has a different opinion of private equity. “I get offers from private equity firms fairly often, but I’m not seriously interested,” said Dr. Fleeger, a surgeon with Central Texas Colon and Rectal Surgeons in Austin.

“We don’t want to sell to anybody; we want to control our destiny,” he said. “We don’t have to borrow money or repay loans, and we don’t expect to get a windfall for the practice. The profits in medicine are too narrow for that to be realistic. There is no free lunch.”

Some of the doctors who sign up for private equity deals become dissatisfied and want to end the arrangement, according to John Pinto, an ophthalmic practice management consultant in San Diego.

“I get calls about once a month from doctors who want to get out of a private equity deal or revise the terms,” he said. “Some complaints are that the PE firm was too tight with the budget, wouldn’t hire needed staff, mismanaged operations, or otherwise mishandled their investment in the practice.”

It’s difficult for disgruntled physicians to exit a private equity deal, Mr. Pinto said. They commonly have to give up part of the payment they had received for their practice if they leave prematurely, and depending on the jurisdiction, stiff noncompete clauses in their contract won’t allow them to practice nearby.

Disillusioned physicians – and even many physicians who had good experiences with private equity – usually don’t want to air their complaints in public. One reason most of these doctors keep silent is that they have signed nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements that are part of most private equity deals.
 

The private equity proposition

Private equity firms typically pay a great deal more for practices than hospitals or even many large private practices, according to James D. Wall, an attorney in Winston-Salem, N.C., who has handled many private equity deals. Mr. Wall said private equity often organizes physicians around one specialty. One advantage these physicians have over hospital-employed physicians is that they aren’t under pressure to refer within a network.

Private equity companies set values for practices on the basis of their earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), said Howard Bogard, an attorney with Burr & Forman in Raleigh, N.C., who has handled many deals. Mr. Bogard said the amount physicians are paid is usually between 4 and 12 times’ EBITDA, so if your practice is earning $1 million a year in EBITDA, you would get $4 million to $12 million for it.

Of the total price tag, “Doctors get a hefty immediate payment when they sell,” Mr. Bogard said. “It might be 70% of the purchase price up front, and the 30% left over is equity in the buyer. The private equity firm then sells the practice 5-7 years later, and at that time, the physician’s equity is converted to cash and equity in the new buyer, often at the same 70/30 ratio. The idea is to keep the doctor interested in staying.”

Private equity firms expand practices to receive more favorable reimbursements and achieve economies of scale, according to Jane Zhu, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who has studied the phenomenon. Dr. Zhu said these firms may enhance profits by contracting with Medicare Advantage plans, joining accountable care organizations (ACOs), having their physicians work longer hours, and using advanced-practice clinicians instead of physicians.

“They want to make a large return in the order of 20% per year over several years, but they don’t want to strip the practice of value, because they’ll need to sell it to a new investor,” Dr. Zhu said.

When doctors sell to a private equity firm, they become employees and often have to take a pay cut, but their pay may rise again as new efficiencies are instituted. This occurred for partners in Minnesota Eye Consultants (MEC), an 11-member ophthalmology practice in Bloomington, Minn., that helped found Unifeye Vision Partners (UVP), a private equity company financed by Chicago-based Waud Capital Partners.

“When we sold the practice in 2017, we expected to see a 30% cut in the partners’ personal income,” said Richard L. Lindstrom, MD, who headed MEC until he retired last year. “Now, coming into the 6th year, all of the former partners who are still working are earning 10% above presale levels, except for one doctor who wanted to work fewer hours.” These doctors aren’t working longer hours but rather are benefiting from efficiencies, such as adding scribes and improving scheduling, he said.

Private equity brought discipline to the practice, said Dr. Lindstrom, who still sits on the Unifeye board. “In an independent practice, the partners may decide on a new piece of equipment because it would be fun to have, not because they’ve done a financial analysis,” he said. “We don’t wing it anymore.”

On the other hand, according to Dr. Zhu, some private equity firms may use draconian methods to improve efficiency. “Doctors may be expected to order or perform more services or work faster or longer to reach a certain threshold,” she said.
 

Can private equity uphold your interests?

To win over doctors, a private equity firm may agree to finance projects that the doctors want. For example, Dr. Lindstrom said after his group joined Unifeye, Waud Capital agreed to finance the doctors’ plan to open a new $6 million office. Before the deal, the partners would have had to take out a $6 million loan and personally guarantee it, he said.

A private equity firm may even agree to support the selling doctors’ practice philosophy, such as serving low-income patients – as long as it has a revenue stream. Luis Benavides, MD, is part of a seven-physician family medicine practice that treats many low-income patients in Laredo, Tex. “There is a lot of poverty here,” he said. This March, the group sold to a large private equity company, whose name Dr. Benavides preferred not to reveal.
One reason they made the new arrangement, Dr. Benavides said, was to qualify for ACO REACH, a new Medicare payment program that is mostly used in underserved areas and that allows more distribution of shared savings payments. “Our goal has always been better care,” he said. “We want to know how we can best serve our community.”

Dr. Benavides acknowledges that he has less independence in the new arrangement, but “I already lost my independence when I went from solo practice to a group,” he said. “The upside of a larger organization is that other people may have better ideas than you have.”

Private equity firms often set up governance structures to give physicians some measure of control. Dr. Lindstrom said the governing board of his former practice is solely made up of physicians and deals with local issues such as what office doctors will work in and how many patients they will see. Waud Capital has control of the Unifeye board of directors, but it mainly deals with larger issues, such as acquisition of more practices, he said.

In rare instances, private equity gives doctors control. Dr. Falcone said that from the start of USACS, doctors owned 65% of the company, and in 2020, the physician partners bought out Welsh Carson. “Then we engaged the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, which lent us money for the buyout and became our capital partner, with the doctors now owning 98% of the company,” he said.

On the other hand, some private equity arrangements reportedly have little regard for doctors’ well-being, especially if they are new doctors who didn’t participate in the deal and don’t have equity in it. Dr. Zhu recalled that a new physician was recruited by a practice and was promised a partnership track, but she wasn’t told that the partners were negotiating a private equity deal. “She didn’t find out until the practice was sold months later,” Dr. Zhu said. “The chances of her getting any equity now are unclear.”

Making sure that you pick a company that has your interests at heart requires a lot of digging. Dr. Lindstrom said he and his partners took 3 years to make a decision. They hired a broker to pick the 10 best private equity firms. Then they met with those companies and hired a law firm and an accounting firm to assess them. As the partners inched toward a deal, they voted on each of five critical steps in the decision-making process, he said. He noted that each vote was unanimous.
 

Impact of private equity

“Private equity deals are changing the health care landscape,” Mr. Wall said. “They are creating large, independent practices that help physicians remain independent from hospital systems and potentially have the clout to get more favorable reimbursements.”

“There is a lot of misunderstanding and mistrust among physicians about private equity,” Dr. Benavides said. “I imagine it will take a while for it to be accepted.”

Until the COVID pandemic, the annual number of private equity deals for doctors had been rising. Will it recover that pace? Mr. Pinto said rising interest rates may dampen activity in the near future.

“The private equity firm often performs a leveraged buyout using borrowed money,” he explained. “This works better when interest rates are low, but interest rates are trending higher. Private equity firms aren’t going away, but they may have to be less generous as the cost of money rises.”

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

More and more physicians are being wooed by private equity firms that want to buy their practices. The total value of private equity deals in health care in 2019 is estimated at about $120 billion, and it’s expected to grow over the coming years.

While the potential profit may seem alluring, physicians have mixed feelings as to whether this will be a boon or a disappointment.

Angelo Falcone, MD, a former emergency physician in Rockville, Md., found that a private equity investment transformed his career path.

For 19 years, Dr. Falcone was CEO of an emergency medicine group with 35 partners that staffed 10 emergency departments, mostly in Maryland. “We were a pretty small operation looking to get bigger, but to do that would require a substantial investment,” he said.

In 2015, after checking out all their options, the partners decided to sell to US Acute Care Solutions (USACS), a new private equity company founded by Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, an investment firm in New York. Private equity can be used to expand practices and pay for new equipment. Dr. Falcone, serving as a USACS board member and its operational president, helped spur the company’s astounding growth. Today, USACS has about 5,000 physicians and other clinicians operating in 30 states.

In 2019, Dr. Falcone stepped down from his management post at USACS, took training in integrative medicine, and 2 years later opened a solo integrative medicine practice in Rockville. The new practice, which operates on a concierge model, is not connected with USACS, but Dr, Falcone still sits on the USACS board.

“I had a great experience at USACS. I believe in the power of private equity to support our patients and physicians,” Dr. Falcone said. “Now, at age 58, I have a second career in integrative medicine.”
 

Private equity is still controversial

David Fleeger, MD, has a different opinion of private equity. “I get offers from private equity firms fairly often, but I’m not seriously interested,” said Dr. Fleeger, a surgeon with Central Texas Colon and Rectal Surgeons in Austin.

“We don’t want to sell to anybody; we want to control our destiny,” he said. “We don’t have to borrow money or repay loans, and we don’t expect to get a windfall for the practice. The profits in medicine are too narrow for that to be realistic. There is no free lunch.”

Some of the doctors who sign up for private equity deals become dissatisfied and want to end the arrangement, according to John Pinto, an ophthalmic practice management consultant in San Diego.

“I get calls about once a month from doctors who want to get out of a private equity deal or revise the terms,” he said. “Some complaints are that the PE firm was too tight with the budget, wouldn’t hire needed staff, mismanaged operations, or otherwise mishandled their investment in the practice.”

It’s difficult for disgruntled physicians to exit a private equity deal, Mr. Pinto said. They commonly have to give up part of the payment they had received for their practice if they leave prematurely, and depending on the jurisdiction, stiff noncompete clauses in their contract won’t allow them to practice nearby.

Disillusioned physicians – and even many physicians who had good experiences with private equity – usually don’t want to air their complaints in public. One reason most of these doctors keep silent is that they have signed nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements that are part of most private equity deals.
 

The private equity proposition

Private equity firms typically pay a great deal more for practices than hospitals or even many large private practices, according to James D. Wall, an attorney in Winston-Salem, N.C., who has handled many private equity deals. Mr. Wall said private equity often organizes physicians around one specialty. One advantage these physicians have over hospital-employed physicians is that they aren’t under pressure to refer within a network.

Private equity companies set values for practices on the basis of their earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), said Howard Bogard, an attorney with Burr & Forman in Raleigh, N.C., who has handled many deals. Mr. Bogard said the amount physicians are paid is usually between 4 and 12 times’ EBITDA, so if your practice is earning $1 million a year in EBITDA, you would get $4 million to $12 million for it.

Of the total price tag, “Doctors get a hefty immediate payment when they sell,” Mr. Bogard said. “It might be 70% of the purchase price up front, and the 30% left over is equity in the buyer. The private equity firm then sells the practice 5-7 years later, and at that time, the physician’s equity is converted to cash and equity in the new buyer, often at the same 70/30 ratio. The idea is to keep the doctor interested in staying.”

Private equity firms expand practices to receive more favorable reimbursements and achieve economies of scale, according to Jane Zhu, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who has studied the phenomenon. Dr. Zhu said these firms may enhance profits by contracting with Medicare Advantage plans, joining accountable care organizations (ACOs), having their physicians work longer hours, and using advanced-practice clinicians instead of physicians.

“They want to make a large return in the order of 20% per year over several years, but they don’t want to strip the practice of value, because they’ll need to sell it to a new investor,” Dr. Zhu said.

When doctors sell to a private equity firm, they become employees and often have to take a pay cut, but their pay may rise again as new efficiencies are instituted. This occurred for partners in Minnesota Eye Consultants (MEC), an 11-member ophthalmology practice in Bloomington, Minn., that helped found Unifeye Vision Partners (UVP), a private equity company financed by Chicago-based Waud Capital Partners.

“When we sold the practice in 2017, we expected to see a 30% cut in the partners’ personal income,” said Richard L. Lindstrom, MD, who headed MEC until he retired last year. “Now, coming into the 6th year, all of the former partners who are still working are earning 10% above presale levels, except for one doctor who wanted to work fewer hours.” These doctors aren’t working longer hours but rather are benefiting from efficiencies, such as adding scribes and improving scheduling, he said.

Private equity brought discipline to the practice, said Dr. Lindstrom, who still sits on the Unifeye board. “In an independent practice, the partners may decide on a new piece of equipment because it would be fun to have, not because they’ve done a financial analysis,” he said. “We don’t wing it anymore.”

On the other hand, according to Dr. Zhu, some private equity firms may use draconian methods to improve efficiency. “Doctors may be expected to order or perform more services or work faster or longer to reach a certain threshold,” she said.
 

Can private equity uphold your interests?

To win over doctors, a private equity firm may agree to finance projects that the doctors want. For example, Dr. Lindstrom said after his group joined Unifeye, Waud Capital agreed to finance the doctors’ plan to open a new $6 million office. Before the deal, the partners would have had to take out a $6 million loan and personally guarantee it, he said.

A private equity firm may even agree to support the selling doctors’ practice philosophy, such as serving low-income patients – as long as it has a revenue stream. Luis Benavides, MD, is part of a seven-physician family medicine practice that treats many low-income patients in Laredo, Tex. “There is a lot of poverty here,” he said. This March, the group sold to a large private equity company, whose name Dr. Benavides preferred not to reveal.
One reason they made the new arrangement, Dr. Benavides said, was to qualify for ACO REACH, a new Medicare payment program that is mostly used in underserved areas and that allows more distribution of shared savings payments. “Our goal has always been better care,” he said. “We want to know how we can best serve our community.”

Dr. Benavides acknowledges that he has less independence in the new arrangement, but “I already lost my independence when I went from solo practice to a group,” he said. “The upside of a larger organization is that other people may have better ideas than you have.”

Private equity firms often set up governance structures to give physicians some measure of control. Dr. Lindstrom said the governing board of his former practice is solely made up of physicians and deals with local issues such as what office doctors will work in and how many patients they will see. Waud Capital has control of the Unifeye board of directors, but it mainly deals with larger issues, such as acquisition of more practices, he said.

In rare instances, private equity gives doctors control. Dr. Falcone said that from the start of USACS, doctors owned 65% of the company, and in 2020, the physician partners bought out Welsh Carson. “Then we engaged the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, which lent us money for the buyout and became our capital partner, with the doctors now owning 98% of the company,” he said.

On the other hand, some private equity arrangements reportedly have little regard for doctors’ well-being, especially if they are new doctors who didn’t participate in the deal and don’t have equity in it. Dr. Zhu recalled that a new physician was recruited by a practice and was promised a partnership track, but she wasn’t told that the partners were negotiating a private equity deal. “She didn’t find out until the practice was sold months later,” Dr. Zhu said. “The chances of her getting any equity now are unclear.”

Making sure that you pick a company that has your interests at heart requires a lot of digging. Dr. Lindstrom said he and his partners took 3 years to make a decision. They hired a broker to pick the 10 best private equity firms. Then they met with those companies and hired a law firm and an accounting firm to assess them. As the partners inched toward a deal, they voted on each of five critical steps in the decision-making process, he said. He noted that each vote was unanimous.
 

Impact of private equity

“Private equity deals are changing the health care landscape,” Mr. Wall said. “They are creating large, independent practices that help physicians remain independent from hospital systems and potentially have the clout to get more favorable reimbursements.”

“There is a lot of misunderstanding and mistrust among physicians about private equity,” Dr. Benavides said. “I imagine it will take a while for it to be accepted.”

Until the COVID pandemic, the annual number of private equity deals for doctors had been rising. Will it recover that pace? Mr. Pinto said rising interest rates may dampen activity in the near future.

“The private equity firm often performs a leveraged buyout using borrowed money,” he explained. “This works better when interest rates are low, but interest rates are trending higher. Private equity firms aren’t going away, but they may have to be less generous as the cost of money rises.”

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

More and more physicians are being wooed by private equity firms that want to buy their practices. The total value of private equity deals in health care in 2019 is estimated at about $120 billion, and it’s expected to grow over the coming years.

While the potential profit may seem alluring, physicians have mixed feelings as to whether this will be a boon or a disappointment.

Angelo Falcone, MD, a former emergency physician in Rockville, Md., found that a private equity investment transformed his career path.

For 19 years, Dr. Falcone was CEO of an emergency medicine group with 35 partners that staffed 10 emergency departments, mostly in Maryland. “We were a pretty small operation looking to get bigger, but to do that would require a substantial investment,” he said.

In 2015, after checking out all their options, the partners decided to sell to US Acute Care Solutions (USACS), a new private equity company founded by Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, an investment firm in New York. Private equity can be used to expand practices and pay for new equipment. Dr. Falcone, serving as a USACS board member and its operational president, helped spur the company’s astounding growth. Today, USACS has about 5,000 physicians and other clinicians operating in 30 states.

In 2019, Dr. Falcone stepped down from his management post at USACS, took training in integrative medicine, and 2 years later opened a solo integrative medicine practice in Rockville. The new practice, which operates on a concierge model, is not connected with USACS, but Dr, Falcone still sits on the USACS board.

“I had a great experience at USACS. I believe in the power of private equity to support our patients and physicians,” Dr. Falcone said. “Now, at age 58, I have a second career in integrative medicine.”
 

Private equity is still controversial

David Fleeger, MD, has a different opinion of private equity. “I get offers from private equity firms fairly often, but I’m not seriously interested,” said Dr. Fleeger, a surgeon with Central Texas Colon and Rectal Surgeons in Austin.

“We don’t want to sell to anybody; we want to control our destiny,” he said. “We don’t have to borrow money or repay loans, and we don’t expect to get a windfall for the practice. The profits in medicine are too narrow for that to be realistic. There is no free lunch.”

Some of the doctors who sign up for private equity deals become dissatisfied and want to end the arrangement, according to John Pinto, an ophthalmic practice management consultant in San Diego.

“I get calls about once a month from doctors who want to get out of a private equity deal or revise the terms,” he said. “Some complaints are that the PE firm was too tight with the budget, wouldn’t hire needed staff, mismanaged operations, or otherwise mishandled their investment in the practice.”

It’s difficult for disgruntled physicians to exit a private equity deal, Mr. Pinto said. They commonly have to give up part of the payment they had received for their practice if they leave prematurely, and depending on the jurisdiction, stiff noncompete clauses in their contract won’t allow them to practice nearby.

Disillusioned physicians – and even many physicians who had good experiences with private equity – usually don’t want to air their complaints in public. One reason most of these doctors keep silent is that they have signed nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements that are part of most private equity deals.
 

The private equity proposition

Private equity firms typically pay a great deal more for practices than hospitals or even many large private practices, according to James D. Wall, an attorney in Winston-Salem, N.C., who has handled many private equity deals. Mr. Wall said private equity often organizes physicians around one specialty. One advantage these physicians have over hospital-employed physicians is that they aren’t under pressure to refer within a network.

Private equity companies set values for practices on the basis of their earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), said Howard Bogard, an attorney with Burr & Forman in Raleigh, N.C., who has handled many deals. Mr. Bogard said the amount physicians are paid is usually between 4 and 12 times’ EBITDA, so if your practice is earning $1 million a year in EBITDA, you would get $4 million to $12 million for it.

Of the total price tag, “Doctors get a hefty immediate payment when they sell,” Mr. Bogard said. “It might be 70% of the purchase price up front, and the 30% left over is equity in the buyer. The private equity firm then sells the practice 5-7 years later, and at that time, the physician’s equity is converted to cash and equity in the new buyer, often at the same 70/30 ratio. The idea is to keep the doctor interested in staying.”

Private equity firms expand practices to receive more favorable reimbursements and achieve economies of scale, according to Jane Zhu, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who has studied the phenomenon. Dr. Zhu said these firms may enhance profits by contracting with Medicare Advantage plans, joining accountable care organizations (ACOs), having their physicians work longer hours, and using advanced-practice clinicians instead of physicians.

“They want to make a large return in the order of 20% per year over several years, but they don’t want to strip the practice of value, because they’ll need to sell it to a new investor,” Dr. Zhu said.

When doctors sell to a private equity firm, they become employees and often have to take a pay cut, but their pay may rise again as new efficiencies are instituted. This occurred for partners in Minnesota Eye Consultants (MEC), an 11-member ophthalmology practice in Bloomington, Minn., that helped found Unifeye Vision Partners (UVP), a private equity company financed by Chicago-based Waud Capital Partners.

“When we sold the practice in 2017, we expected to see a 30% cut in the partners’ personal income,” said Richard L. Lindstrom, MD, who headed MEC until he retired last year. “Now, coming into the 6th year, all of the former partners who are still working are earning 10% above presale levels, except for one doctor who wanted to work fewer hours.” These doctors aren’t working longer hours but rather are benefiting from efficiencies, such as adding scribes and improving scheduling, he said.

Private equity brought discipline to the practice, said Dr. Lindstrom, who still sits on the Unifeye board. “In an independent practice, the partners may decide on a new piece of equipment because it would be fun to have, not because they’ve done a financial analysis,” he said. “We don’t wing it anymore.”

On the other hand, according to Dr. Zhu, some private equity firms may use draconian methods to improve efficiency. “Doctors may be expected to order or perform more services or work faster or longer to reach a certain threshold,” she said.
 

Can private equity uphold your interests?

To win over doctors, a private equity firm may agree to finance projects that the doctors want. For example, Dr. Lindstrom said after his group joined Unifeye, Waud Capital agreed to finance the doctors’ plan to open a new $6 million office. Before the deal, the partners would have had to take out a $6 million loan and personally guarantee it, he said.

A private equity firm may even agree to support the selling doctors’ practice philosophy, such as serving low-income patients – as long as it has a revenue stream. Luis Benavides, MD, is part of a seven-physician family medicine practice that treats many low-income patients in Laredo, Tex. “There is a lot of poverty here,” he said. This March, the group sold to a large private equity company, whose name Dr. Benavides preferred not to reveal.
One reason they made the new arrangement, Dr. Benavides said, was to qualify for ACO REACH, a new Medicare payment program that is mostly used in underserved areas and that allows more distribution of shared savings payments. “Our goal has always been better care,” he said. “We want to know how we can best serve our community.”

Dr. Benavides acknowledges that he has less independence in the new arrangement, but “I already lost my independence when I went from solo practice to a group,” he said. “The upside of a larger organization is that other people may have better ideas than you have.”

Private equity firms often set up governance structures to give physicians some measure of control. Dr. Lindstrom said the governing board of his former practice is solely made up of physicians and deals with local issues such as what office doctors will work in and how many patients they will see. Waud Capital has control of the Unifeye board of directors, but it mainly deals with larger issues, such as acquisition of more practices, he said.

In rare instances, private equity gives doctors control. Dr. Falcone said that from the start of USACS, doctors owned 65% of the company, and in 2020, the physician partners bought out Welsh Carson. “Then we engaged the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, which lent us money for the buyout and became our capital partner, with the doctors now owning 98% of the company,” he said.

On the other hand, some private equity arrangements reportedly have little regard for doctors’ well-being, especially if they are new doctors who didn’t participate in the deal and don’t have equity in it. Dr. Zhu recalled that a new physician was recruited by a practice and was promised a partnership track, but she wasn’t told that the partners were negotiating a private equity deal. “She didn’t find out until the practice was sold months later,” Dr. Zhu said. “The chances of her getting any equity now are unclear.”

Making sure that you pick a company that has your interests at heart requires a lot of digging. Dr. Lindstrom said he and his partners took 3 years to make a decision. They hired a broker to pick the 10 best private equity firms. Then they met with those companies and hired a law firm and an accounting firm to assess them. As the partners inched toward a deal, they voted on each of five critical steps in the decision-making process, he said. He noted that each vote was unanimous.
 

Impact of private equity

“Private equity deals are changing the health care landscape,” Mr. Wall said. “They are creating large, independent practices that help physicians remain independent from hospital systems and potentially have the clout to get more favorable reimbursements.”

“There is a lot of misunderstanding and mistrust among physicians about private equity,” Dr. Benavides said. “I imagine it will take a while for it to be accepted.”

Until the COVID pandemic, the annual number of private equity deals for doctors had been rising. Will it recover that pace? Mr. Pinto said rising interest rates may dampen activity in the near future.

“The private equity firm often performs a leveraged buyout using borrowed money,” he explained. “This works better when interest rates are low, but interest rates are trending higher. Private equity firms aren’t going away, but they may have to be less generous as the cost of money rises.”

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