Opioid-related drug overdose deaths in the United States exploded to an estimated record high of 69,031 people in 2020, topping the 49,860 deaths logged in 2019, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most of the deaths involved synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

President Joe Biden has pledged more than $10 billion to expand access to prevention, treatment, and recovery services. The money is important as people receiving treatment for opioid use disorder have a high risk for relapse, and that means a high risk for opioid overdose.

Now, researchers are studying a possible bridge to successful recovery: A vaccine that could blunt the drugs’ ability to cause harm.

The first such vaccines are now entering clinical trials, raising hopes of adding another tool to the antiaddiction armamentarium. But even if the vaccines prove safe and effective, their success could generate some new problems to solve.

An advantage of vaccines is that their effects can last for several months, said trial investigator Sandra Comer, PhD, professor of neurobiology and psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York. Dropout rates for existing medical therapies for opioid use disorder are as high as 50% at 6 months, and a vaccine could protect people from overdose and give them time to re-enter treatment.

“It serves as a bit of a safety net,” she said.

The first vaccine to enter a trial targets oxycodone. Volunteers are being recruited who have a diagnosis of opioid use disorder but are not being medically treated and are still using opioids. A third of them will receive a placebo vaccine, a third will receive a low-dose injection of vaccine, and the other third will receive a high-dose vaccine.
 

A shot against oxycodone

Researchers are primarily tracking the safety of the shot, but they’re also looking at whether vaccination prevents the euphoria that opioids usually produce. They expect to enroll 24 people initially but expand to 45 if results look promising.

In response to the shot, the body produces antibodies, proteins that tag oxycodone and keep it from reaching the brain. If the drug can’t reach brain cells, it can’t produce euphoria. And more important for lifesaving effects, it can’t block the brain’s signals to the body to breathe. The vaccine has already performed well in animal studies.

Previous trials of vaccines for cocaine and nicotine failed. Those vaccines made it to the last clinical trial stage, but didn’t prove effective overall. So this time, investigators plan to track antibody levels in participants, examining blood samples for signs of a good immune response to the vaccine.

But even though earlier cocaine and nicotine vaccines didn’t work for everybody, there were some people they seemed to help. This is why investigators involved in opioid vaccine trials want to track immune responses, said Marco Pravetoni, PhD, associate professor of pharmacology and medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, whose team will be assessing the blood samples. Ultimately, a doctor might even be able to use this information to tailor vaccine selection to a specific person.

Dr. Pravetoni also said that oxycodone is one of three vaccine targets – the other two are heroin and fentanyl – that researchers hope to combine into a single shot. Recipients might need to have one shot a month for the first 3 to 4 months and then receive annual boosters.
 

Stopping the pain

The vaccines also raise some issues that need attention, said Cody Wenthur, PharmD, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacy at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who is not involved in the vaccine trials.

“If you’re vaccinated against oxycodone, you might not have access to adequate pain control if you get into a car accident, for example,” he said.

Clinicians could use other opioids for pain management, but limiting the opioids that the vaccine targets is a “double-edged sword,” said Dr. Wenthur, because vaccinated people could just switch their opioid of choice to one that a vaccine does not inhibit.

Although these issues need to be addressed, vaccines, if successful, will have an important role. Dr. Wenthur noted a survey of pharmacists and pharmacy students that he and his group conducted showing that respondents “overwhelmingly” viewed a potential vaccine as helpful.

If the vaccines do become available, their application could extend beyond people who have opioid use disorder, said Dr. Pravetoni. He mentioned the 2002 incident when terrorists took over a theater in Moscow and Russian special forces are thought to have used an aerosolized form of fentanyl to incapacitate everyone in the room. More than 100 of the hostages died, and the episode raised the specter of opioids being used in chemical attacks.

Dr. Pravetoni said vaccination could offer protection for first responders, law enforcement or other people whose professions place them at risk for inhalation, either accidentally or through such attacks.

These or other real-world applications for people at risk for exposure are several years away. Dr. Pravetoni said it took 10 years to get to this phase and estimates that, in about 5 years, a vaccine that targets multiple opioid drugs might enter the first clinical trial.

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

Opioid-related drug overdose deaths in the United States exploded to an estimated record high of 69,031 people in 2020, topping the 49,860 deaths logged in 2019, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most of the deaths involved synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

President Joe Biden has pledged more than $10 billion to expand access to prevention, treatment, and recovery services. The money is important as people receiving treatment for opioid use disorder have a high risk for relapse, and that means a high risk for opioid overdose.

Now, researchers are studying a possible bridge to successful recovery: A vaccine that could blunt the drugs’ ability to cause harm.

The first such vaccines are now entering clinical trials, raising hopes of adding another tool to the antiaddiction armamentarium. But even if the vaccines prove safe and effective, their success could generate some new problems to solve.

An advantage of vaccines is that their effects can last for several months, said trial investigator Sandra Comer, PhD, professor of neurobiology and psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York. Dropout rates for existing medical therapies for opioid use disorder are as high as 50% at 6 months, and a vaccine could protect people from overdose and give them time to re-enter treatment.

“It serves as a bit of a safety net,” she said.

The first vaccine to enter a trial targets oxycodone. Volunteers are being recruited who have a diagnosis of opioid use disorder but are not being medically treated and are still using opioids. A third of them will receive a placebo vaccine, a third will receive a low-dose injection of vaccine, and the other third will receive a high-dose vaccine.
 

A shot against oxycodone

Researchers are primarily tracking the safety of the shot, but they’re also looking at whether vaccination prevents the euphoria that opioids usually produce. They expect to enroll 24 people initially but expand to 45 if results look promising.

In response to the shot, the body produces antibodies, proteins that tag oxycodone and keep it from reaching the brain. If the drug can’t reach brain cells, it can’t produce euphoria. And more important for lifesaving effects, it can’t block the brain’s signals to the body to breathe. The vaccine has already performed well in animal studies.

Previous trials of vaccines for cocaine and nicotine failed. Those vaccines made it to the last clinical trial stage, but didn’t prove effective overall. So this time, investigators plan to track antibody levels in participants, examining blood samples for signs of a good immune response to the vaccine.

But even though earlier cocaine and nicotine vaccines didn’t work for everybody, there were some people they seemed to help. This is why investigators involved in opioid vaccine trials want to track immune responses, said Marco Pravetoni, PhD, associate professor of pharmacology and medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, whose team will be assessing the blood samples. Ultimately, a doctor might even be able to use this information to tailor vaccine selection to a specific person.

Dr. Pravetoni also said that oxycodone is one of three vaccine targets – the other two are heroin and fentanyl – that researchers hope to combine into a single shot. Recipients might need to have one shot a month for the first 3 to 4 months and then receive annual boosters.
 

Stopping the pain

The vaccines also raise some issues that need attention, said Cody Wenthur, PharmD, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacy at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who is not involved in the vaccine trials.

“If you’re vaccinated against oxycodone, you might not have access to adequate pain control if you get into a car accident, for example,” he said.

Clinicians could use other opioids for pain management, but limiting the opioids that the vaccine targets is a “double-edged sword,” said Dr. Wenthur, because vaccinated people could just switch their opioid of choice to one that a vaccine does not inhibit.

Although these issues need to be addressed, vaccines, if successful, will have an important role. Dr. Wenthur noted a survey of pharmacists and pharmacy students that he and his group conducted showing that respondents “overwhelmingly” viewed a potential vaccine as helpful.

If the vaccines do become available, their application could extend beyond people who have opioid use disorder, said Dr. Pravetoni. He mentioned the 2002 incident when terrorists took over a theater in Moscow and Russian special forces are thought to have used an aerosolized form of fentanyl to incapacitate everyone in the room. More than 100 of the hostages died, and the episode raised the specter of opioids being used in chemical attacks.

Dr. Pravetoni said vaccination could offer protection for first responders, law enforcement or other people whose professions place them at risk for inhalation, either accidentally or through such attacks.

These or other real-world applications for people at risk for exposure are several years away. Dr. Pravetoni said it took 10 years to get to this phase and estimates that, in about 5 years, a vaccine that targets multiple opioid drugs might enter the first clinical trial.

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

Opioid-related drug overdose deaths in the United States exploded to an estimated record high of 69,031 people in 2020, topping the 49,860 deaths logged in 2019, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most of the deaths involved synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

President Joe Biden has pledged more than $10 billion to expand access to prevention, treatment, and recovery services. The money is important as people receiving treatment for opioid use disorder have a high risk for relapse, and that means a high risk for opioid overdose.

Now, researchers are studying a possible bridge to successful recovery: A vaccine that could blunt the drugs’ ability to cause harm.

The first such vaccines are now entering clinical trials, raising hopes of adding another tool to the antiaddiction armamentarium. But even if the vaccines prove safe and effective, their success could generate some new problems to solve.

An advantage of vaccines is that their effects can last for several months, said trial investigator Sandra Comer, PhD, professor of neurobiology and psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York. Dropout rates for existing medical therapies for opioid use disorder are as high as 50% at 6 months, and a vaccine could protect people from overdose and give them time to re-enter treatment.

“It serves as a bit of a safety net,” she said.

The first vaccine to enter a trial targets oxycodone. Volunteers are being recruited who have a diagnosis of opioid use disorder but are not being medically treated and are still using opioids. A third of them will receive a placebo vaccine, a third will receive a low-dose injection of vaccine, and the other third will receive a high-dose vaccine.
 

A shot against oxycodone

Researchers are primarily tracking the safety of the shot, but they’re also looking at whether vaccination prevents the euphoria that opioids usually produce. They expect to enroll 24 people initially but expand to 45 if results look promising.

In response to the shot, the body produces antibodies, proteins that tag oxycodone and keep it from reaching the brain. If the drug can’t reach brain cells, it can’t produce euphoria. And more important for lifesaving effects, it can’t block the brain’s signals to the body to breathe. The vaccine has already performed well in animal studies.

Previous trials of vaccines for cocaine and nicotine failed. Those vaccines made it to the last clinical trial stage, but didn’t prove effective overall. So this time, investigators plan to track antibody levels in participants, examining blood samples for signs of a good immune response to the vaccine.

But even though earlier cocaine and nicotine vaccines didn’t work for everybody, there were some people they seemed to help. This is why investigators involved in opioid vaccine trials want to track immune responses, said Marco Pravetoni, PhD, associate professor of pharmacology and medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, whose team will be assessing the blood samples. Ultimately, a doctor might even be able to use this information to tailor vaccine selection to a specific person.

Dr. Pravetoni also said that oxycodone is one of three vaccine targets – the other two are heroin and fentanyl – that researchers hope to combine into a single shot. Recipients might need to have one shot a month for the first 3 to 4 months and then receive annual boosters.
 

Stopping the pain

The vaccines also raise some issues that need attention, said Cody Wenthur, PharmD, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacy at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who is not involved in the vaccine trials.

“If you’re vaccinated against oxycodone, you might not have access to adequate pain control if you get into a car accident, for example,” he said.

Clinicians could use other opioids for pain management, but limiting the opioids that the vaccine targets is a “double-edged sword,” said Dr. Wenthur, because vaccinated people could just switch their opioid of choice to one that a vaccine does not inhibit.

Although these issues need to be addressed, vaccines, if successful, will have an important role. Dr. Wenthur noted a survey of pharmacists and pharmacy students that he and his group conducted showing that respondents “overwhelmingly” viewed a potential vaccine as helpful.

If the vaccines do become available, their application could extend beyond people who have opioid use disorder, said Dr. Pravetoni. He mentioned the 2002 incident when terrorists took over a theater in Moscow and Russian special forces are thought to have used an aerosolized form of fentanyl to incapacitate everyone in the room. More than 100 of the hostages died, and the episode raised the specter of opioids being used in chemical attacks.

Dr. Pravetoni said vaccination could offer protection for first responders, law enforcement or other people whose professions place them at risk for inhalation, either accidentally or through such attacks.

These or other real-world applications for people at risk for exposure are several years away. Dr. Pravetoni said it took 10 years to get to this phase and estimates that, in about 5 years, a vaccine that targets multiple opioid drugs might enter the first clinical trial.

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

Prescribing higher doses of vitamin D may not provide any additional benefits to children’s brain development, a new study suggests.

New research published online in JAMA found that there were no differences in children’s developmental milestones or social-emotional problems when given a higher daily dose of 1,200 IU of vitamin D versus the standard dose of 400 IU.

Although past studies have looked into the relationship between vitamin D and neurodevelopment in children, the findings were inconsistent. A 2019 study published in Psychoneuroendocrinology found that vitamin D deficiency could be a biological risk factor for psychiatric disorders and that vitamin D acts as a neurosteroid with direct effect on brain development. However, a 2021 study published in Global Pediatric Health found no significant association between vitamin D levels and neurodevelopmental status in children at 2 years old.

Researchers of the current study said they expected to find a positive association between higher vitamin D levels and neurodevelopment.

“Our results highlight that the current recommendations, set forth mainly on the basis of bone health, also support healthy brain development,” said study author Kati Heinonen, PhD, associate professor of psychology and welfare sciences at Tampere (Finland) University. “Our results also point out that higher than currently recommended levels do not add to the benefits received from the vitamin D supplements.”

For the study, Dr. Heinonen and colleagues analyzed data from a double-blind, randomized clinical trial involving healthy infants born full-term between Jan. 1, 2013, and June 30, 2014, at a maternity hospital in Helsinki. They got follow-up information on 404 infants who were randomized to receive 400 IU of oral vitamin D supplements daily and 397 infants who received 1,200 IU of vitamin D supplements from 2 weeks to 24 months of age.

Researchers found no differences between the 400-IU group and the 1,200-IU group in the mean adjusted Ages and Stages Questionnaire total score at 12 months, a questionnaire that’s used to measure communication, problem solving, gross motor skills, fine motor skills, and personal and social skills. However, they did find that children receiving 1,200 IU of vitamin D supplementation had better developmental milestone scores in communication and problem-solving skills at 12 months.

Furthermore, they also found that higher vitamin D concentrations were associated with fewer sleeping problems at 24 months.

The researcher’s findings did not surprise Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD, a clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, who was not involved in the study. “This study reveals that more is not always better,” Dr. Rushton said in an interview.

Dr. Rushton, who is also the medical director of the Quality Through Innovation in Pediatrics network, said other ways to enhance early brain development include initiatives like infant home visitation and language enrichment programs like Reach Out and Read.

Dr. Heinonen noted that the study’s findings might be different if it had been conducted on infants from a different country.

“We have to remember that the participants were from northern European countries where several food products are also fortified by vitamin D,” Dr. Heinonen explained. “Thus, direct recommendations of the amount of the supplementation given for children from 2 weeks to 2 years in other countries should not be done on the basis of our study.”

Researchers also observed that the children receiving 1,200 IU of vitamin D supplementation had a risk of scoring higher on the externalizing symptoms scale at 24 months, meaning these infants are more likely to lose their temper and become physically aggressive.

“We could not fully exclude potential disadvantageous effects of higher doses. Even if minimal, the potential nonbeneficial effects of higher than standard doses warrant further studies,” she said.

Researchers said more studies are needed that follow children up to school age and adolescence, when higher cognitive abilities develop, to understand the long-term outcomes of early vitamin D supplementation.

Prescribing higher doses of vitamin D may not provide any additional benefits to children’s brain development, a new study suggests.

New research published online in JAMA found that there were no differences in children’s developmental milestones or social-emotional problems when given a higher daily dose of 1,200 IU of vitamin D versus the standard dose of 400 IU.

Although past studies have looked into the relationship between vitamin D and neurodevelopment in children, the findings were inconsistent. A 2019 study published in Psychoneuroendocrinology found that vitamin D deficiency could be a biological risk factor for psychiatric disorders and that vitamin D acts as a neurosteroid with direct effect on brain development. However, a 2021 study published in Global Pediatric Health found no significant association between vitamin D levels and neurodevelopmental status in children at 2 years old.

Researchers of the current study said they expected to find a positive association between higher vitamin D levels and neurodevelopment.

“Our results highlight that the current recommendations, set forth mainly on the basis of bone health, also support healthy brain development,” said study author Kati Heinonen, PhD, associate professor of psychology and welfare sciences at Tampere (Finland) University. “Our results also point out that higher than currently recommended levels do not add to the benefits received from the vitamin D supplements.”

For the study, Dr. Heinonen and colleagues analyzed data from a double-blind, randomized clinical trial involving healthy infants born full-term between Jan. 1, 2013, and June 30, 2014, at a maternity hospital in Helsinki. They got follow-up information on 404 infants who were randomized to receive 400 IU of oral vitamin D supplements daily and 397 infants who received 1,200 IU of vitamin D supplements from 2 weeks to 24 months of age.

Researchers found no differences between the 400-IU group and the 1,200-IU group in the mean adjusted Ages and Stages Questionnaire total score at 12 months, a questionnaire that’s used to measure communication, problem solving, gross motor skills, fine motor skills, and personal and social skills. However, they did find that children receiving 1,200 IU of vitamin D supplementation had better developmental milestone scores in communication and problem-solving skills at 12 months.

Furthermore, they also found that higher vitamin D concentrations were associated with fewer sleeping problems at 24 months.

The researcher’s findings did not surprise Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD, a clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, who was not involved in the study. “This study reveals that more is not always better,” Dr. Rushton said in an interview.

Dr. Rushton, who is also the medical director of the Quality Through Innovation in Pediatrics network, said other ways to enhance early brain development include initiatives like infant home visitation and language enrichment programs like Reach Out and Read.

Dr. Heinonen noted that the study’s findings might be different if it had been conducted on infants from a different country.

“We have to remember that the participants were from northern European countries where several food products are also fortified by vitamin D,” Dr. Heinonen explained. “Thus, direct recommendations of the amount of the supplementation given for children from 2 weeks to 2 years in other countries should not be done on the basis of our study.”

Researchers also observed that the children receiving 1,200 IU of vitamin D supplementation had a risk of scoring higher on the externalizing symptoms scale at 24 months, meaning these infants are more likely to lose their temper and become physically aggressive.

“We could not fully exclude potential disadvantageous effects of higher doses. Even if minimal, the potential nonbeneficial effects of higher than standard doses warrant further studies,” she said.

Researchers said more studies are needed that follow children up to school age and adolescence, when higher cognitive abilities develop, to understand the long-term outcomes of early vitamin D supplementation.

Prescribing higher doses of vitamin D may not provide any additional benefits to children’s brain development, a new study suggests.

New research published online in JAMA found that there were no differences in children’s developmental milestones or social-emotional problems when given a higher daily dose of 1,200 IU of vitamin D versus the standard dose of 400 IU.

Although past studies have looked into the relationship between vitamin D and neurodevelopment in children, the findings were inconsistent. A 2019 study published in Psychoneuroendocrinology found that vitamin D deficiency could be a biological risk factor for psychiatric disorders and that vitamin D acts as a neurosteroid with direct effect on brain development. However, a 2021 study published in Global Pediatric Health found no significant association between vitamin D levels and neurodevelopmental status in children at 2 years old.

Researchers of the current study said they expected to find a positive association between higher vitamin D levels and neurodevelopment.

“Our results highlight that the current recommendations, set forth mainly on the basis of bone health, also support healthy brain development,” said study author Kati Heinonen, PhD, associate professor of psychology and welfare sciences at Tampere (Finland) University. “Our results also point out that higher than currently recommended levels do not add to the benefits received from the vitamin D supplements.”

For the study, Dr. Heinonen and colleagues analyzed data from a double-blind, randomized clinical trial involving healthy infants born full-term between Jan. 1, 2013, and June 30, 2014, at a maternity hospital in Helsinki. They got follow-up information on 404 infants who were randomized to receive 400 IU of oral vitamin D supplements daily and 397 infants who received 1,200 IU of vitamin D supplements from 2 weeks to 24 months of age.

Researchers found no differences between the 400-IU group and the 1,200-IU group in the mean adjusted Ages and Stages Questionnaire total score at 12 months, a questionnaire that’s used to measure communication, problem solving, gross motor skills, fine motor skills, and personal and social skills. However, they did find that children receiving 1,200 IU of vitamin D supplementation had better developmental milestone scores in communication and problem-solving skills at 12 months.

Furthermore, they also found that higher vitamin D concentrations were associated with fewer sleeping problems at 24 months.

The researcher’s findings did not surprise Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD, a clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, who was not involved in the study. “This study reveals that more is not always better,” Dr. Rushton said in an interview.

Dr. Rushton, who is also the medical director of the Quality Through Innovation in Pediatrics network, said other ways to enhance early brain development include initiatives like infant home visitation and language enrichment programs like Reach Out and Read.

Dr. Heinonen noted that the study’s findings might be different if it had been conducted on infants from a different country.

“We have to remember that the participants were from northern European countries where several food products are also fortified by vitamin D,” Dr. Heinonen explained. “Thus, direct recommendations of the amount of the supplementation given for children from 2 weeks to 2 years in other countries should not be done on the basis of our study.”

Researchers also observed that the children receiving 1,200 IU of vitamin D supplementation had a risk of scoring higher on the externalizing symptoms scale at 24 months, meaning these infants are more likely to lose their temper and become physically aggressive.

“We could not fully exclude potential disadvantageous effects of higher doses. Even if minimal, the potential nonbeneficial effects of higher than standard doses warrant further studies,” she said.

Researchers said more studies are needed that follow children up to school age and adolescence, when higher cognitive abilities develop, to understand the long-term outcomes of early vitamin D supplementation.

The largest nonprofit health system in Texas has secured a temporary restraining order against cardiologist Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, a COVID-19 vaccine skeptic who allegedly continued to claim an affiliation with Baylor Scott & White Health months after he entered into a confidential separation agreement in which he agreed to stop mentioning his prior leadership and academic appointments.

Baylor was the first institution to cut ties with Dr. McCullough, who has promoted the use of therapies seen as unproven for the treatment of COVID-19 and has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. Since the Baylor suit, the Texas A&M College of Medicine, and the Texas Christian University (TCU) and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) School of Medicine have both removed Dr. McCullough from their faculties.

Granted by the 191st District Court in Dallas County, Tex., the Baylor restraining order – which is in effect at least until a hearing on the case on September 30 – was sought as part of Baylor Scott & White’s breach of contract suit against McCullough, who had previously been known as a well-respected expert in cardiorenal issues. The suit is seeking $1 million in damages, as well as attorneys’ fees.

The suit seeks to “enforce the terms” of the confidential employment separation agreement signed by Dr. McCullough in February and prevent Dr. McCullough from continuing “improper use of titles and claimed affiliations that have already confused the media, the medical community and the public,” it reads.

“This ongoing confusion regarding [Dr.] McCullough’s affiliations, and whether Plaintiffs support his opinions, is exactly what Plaintiffs bargained to avoid in the Separation Agreement,” and is likely to cause “irreparable reputational and business harm that is incapable of remedy by money damages alone,” the suit states.

One of Dr. McCullough’s attorneys, Clinton Mikel, maintains that all the times the physician was identified in the “thousands of hours of media interviews and countless publications since his departure from Baylor” were “said/printed by a third party with no encouragement from Dr. McCullough,” and that the doctor “does not and cannot control third parties.”

Mr. Mikel said in a statement emailed to this news organization by Dr. McCullough that the suit is “a politically motivated attempt to silence Dr. McCullough,” because it was filed on the same day the organization mandated COVID-19 vaccination for employees.

Dr. McCullough “intends to vigorously defend against Baylor’s unfounded lawsuit,” will seek to dissolve the restraining order, and recover “all payments due him from Baylor under the terms of the settlement agreement,” wrote Mr. Mikel.

The cardiologist’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the suit on Aug. 9, essentially arguing that Baylor Scott & White’s action restricted Dr. McCullough’s right to free speech under the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act.
 

COVID-19 vaccines = bioterrorism?

Dr. McCullough accumulated a following in 2020 by promoting early at-home multidrug treatment of COVID-19 in interviews with conservative websites and at a U.S. Senate hearing in November.

Although Dr. McCullough does not appear to have any personal social media accounts, his broadcast and podcast interviews are tweeted by thousands daily around the world and featured on Facebook pages like “Pandemic Debate.”

Some Facebook posts with Dr. McCullough’s pronouncements have been labeled as misinformation or removed. Some of his videos remain on YouTube, where they are posted by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a group that believes Dr. McCullough is “under fierce attack for speaking out about COVID-19 early treatment and vaccine safety.”

Dr. McCullough’s March 2021 testimony to the Texas Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee – in which he claimed that COVID-19 patients are being denied what he called proven treatments like hydroxychloroquine – has been viewed more than 3.7 million times on YouTube. The appearance has also been tweeted repeatedly.

Most of Dr. McCullough’s interviews and presentations are aggregated on Rumble, an alternative to YouTube.

In interviews, Dr. McCullough promotes the use of zinc, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, doxycycline, favipiravir, prednisone, and ivermectin as COVID-19 treatments – based on an outpatient treatment algorithm published in August 2020 in the American Journal of Medicine. The cardiologist was the lead author of that paper, which proposed treating people with COVID-like symptoms whether or not they had confirmed infection.

Dr. McCullough and colleagues published a follow-up paper that added colchicine to the mix in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. Dr. McCullough is editor-in-chief of the journal, but this was not noted in the disclosures.

Similarly, Dr. McCullough has not disclosed in his COVID-19 publications or any interviews that he has received consulting fees from a host of pharmaceutical manufacturers that produce COVID-19 drugs and vaccines, including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Open Payments database, Dr. McCullough was paid about $300,000 annually by drug companies from 2014 to 2019, mostly for consulting on cardiovascular and diabetes medications. His payments dropped to $169,406.06 in 2020.

Dr. McCullough appeared on “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox News in December 2020, claiming that sequential, early treatment with “anti-infectives, corticosteroids, and then antithrombotics” could “reduce [COVID-19] hospitalizations by 85% and cut mortality in half.”

He repeated the claim on the Ingraham show in July and agreed with host Laura Ingraham that the vast majority of healthy people would do fine if they got COVID. He also made the claim that 84% of the COVID-19 cases in Israel were in people who had been vaccinated. “So it’s clear, we can’t vaccinate our way out of this,” he said. An Associated Press “fact check” report has pushed back on similar assertions about vaccine data from Israel. 

In a separate interview posted in June, Dr. McCullough called the pandemic the first phase of a bioterrorism event, which was “all about keeping the population in fear and in isolation and preparing them to accept the vaccine, which appears to be phase two of a bioterrorism operation.”

In addition, he said, “good doctors are doing unthinkable things like injecting biologically active messenger RNA that produces this pathogenic spike protein into pregnant women.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the vaccines teach the body to produce the spike protein, which then triggers an immune response that creates antibodies that will attack the virus.

A PolitiFact review debunks the notion that the mRNA vaccines are toxic, cytotoxic, or introduce live, active virus proteins into the body.

FactCheck.org also disputed Dr. McCullough’s claim in a July 13 Ingraham Angle appearance that the mRNA vaccines are ineffective against the Delta variant.

In the FactCheck article, Frederic Bushman, codirector of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Research on Coronaviruses and Other Emerging Pathogens, said that people were much better off being vaccinated than not,” adding, “the Delta variant may reduce the effectiveness [of the vaccines] a little, but still, they’re so effective that you get a lot of benefit.”

“The vaccines are failing,” Dr. McCullough asserted in an Aug. 3 video interview posted on Odysee. “As we sit here today, we have 11,000 Americans that the CDC has certified have died after the vaccine,” he said, citing two analyses – one by Jessica Rose, PhD, and another by British researchers.

Similar figures reportedly based on cases reported to the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) were forwarded to this news organization by Dr. McCullough.  

The CDC website notes that the agency has received reports of 7,653 deaths in people who received a vaccine as of Sept. 13 (0.0020% of vaccine doses given since Dec. 14, 2020), but it cautions that those deaths do not mean the vaccine was the cause.

Dr. McCullough repeatedly claimed in the Aug. 3 interview that the government has not been transparent on vaccine safety. Since June 2020, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has held 16 public meetings on the COVID-19 vaccines.

To date, the agency has advised clinicians to monitor for rare side effects including Guillain-Barré syndrome and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and myocarditis after mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) vaccines.
 

Med schools distance themselves

According to the Baylor Scott & White suit, Dr. McCullough agreed on Feb. 24 in a confidential separation agreement that he would no longer use his academic or leadership titles nor hold himself out to be affiliated with Baylor University Medical Center, Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute, the Baylor Research Institute, or any other related institutions.

However, as of August, according to a Baylor spokesperson, McCullough continued to have privileges at Baylor University Medical Center and Baylor Scott & White Heart and Vascular Hospital, Dallas.

The lawsuit points to three interviews posted in June and July where Dr. McCullough is identified as a “vice chief of medicine” or a “vice chief of internal medicine,” both at Baylor University. It also cites a profile at the Cardiometabolic Health Congress website – which this news organization had also viewed – that was still active in late July with a similar title. The profile was later scrubbed from the site.

Social media posts and other media continue to refer to Dr. McCullough’s Baylor credentials. An episode of the Faith and Freedom podcast posted on Aug. 2 identified McCullough as a “professor of medicine at Baylor University Medical Center.”

As of Sept. 16, Dr. McCullough’s bio page at his current practice, Heart Place, lists him as a professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine. A spokesperson for Texas A&M told this news organization that McCullough is no longer affiliated with the school.

Dr. McCullough acknowledged in the Aug. 3 interview that his Texas A&M title had been “stripped away” at “around the same time this lawsuit was filed.”

He was still a professor of medicine at the TCU and UNTHSC School of Medicine in Fort Worth, but a school spokesperson notified this news organization on Aug. 19 that Dr. McCullough was no longer with the school.

Dr. McCullough has portrayed himself as both a victim and a truth-teller, a “concerned physician” warning the world about the dangers of COVID-19 vaccines. The Baylor Scott & White lawsuit “is really a strong-armed tactic,” he said in the Aug. 3 interview. “I’m just a little guy, so I have to hire my legal teams, and in a sense be drained dry on legal fees,” he said.

But Dr. McCullough apparently has a plan for helping to defray his legal costs. In the Aug. 3 interview, he said a foundation he helped start, Truth for Health, has a “donation side to it,” adding “some of that may be used for legal expense.”  

Cheryl Jones, an attorney with PK Law in Towson, Md., said that might draw interest from the Internal Revenue Service. “I would expect IRS scrutiny if contributions to the Medical Censorship Defense Fund are used to defend Dr McCullough in his personal breach of contract lawsuit,” she told this news organization.

The IRS generally recognizes defending “human and civil rights secured by law” as a legitimate charitable purpose for a legal defense fund, she said, adding that such a fund “must serve only public, rather than private, interests.”
 

Misinformation from a physician more damaging?

Some in the medical field have refuted Dr. McCullough’s pronouncements on how to treat COVID-19, including two infectious disease specialists with Monash University, Melbourne, who responded to the cardiologist’s original paper in the American Journal of Medicine.

Tony Korman, MBBS, a professor at the Centre for Inflammatory Diseases at Monash, told this news organization, “we had concerns that reputable medical journals would accept and publish papers proposing treatment of COVID-19 which was not supported by evidence.”

The website Healthfeedback.org has also challenged McCullough’s and his supporters’ claims, including that the American Journal of Medicine endorsed the use of hydroxychloroquine and that the COVID-19 vaccines have caused thousands of deaths.

David Broniatowski, PhD, associate director for the Institute for Data, Democracy and Politics at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview that Dr. McCullough’s casting himself as a “rebel doctor” is a well-known trope in the vaccine misinformation universe.

Although he was not familiar with Dr. McCullough, Dr. Broniatowski said the cardiologist’s claims are not unique – they’ve been circulating among antivaccine and conspiracy-oriented groups for months.

For instance, Dr. McCullough has claimed in interviews that a whistleblower within the CDC knows of 50,000 vaccine-related deaths. Using data from the supposed whistleblower, the group America’s Frontline Doctors sued the federal government in July to stop the administration of COVID-19 vaccines to those under 18, people who have already had COVID, and individuals who the group said have not been adequately informed about the risks.

The idea of a whistleblower inside the CDC is recycled from antivaccine claims from decades ago, Dr. Broniatowski said.

But, he added, “somebody who speaks with the credibility of a major institution will be more likely to be listened to by some people.” That vulnerable group is “being taken advantage of by a relatively small number of disinformation purveyors, who, in some cases, profit from that disinformation,” said Dr. Broniatowski.

“We rely on our doctors because we trust them,” he said. “And we trust them because we believe that as physicians, their value system places the patient’s best interests first. That’s why it’s so much of a disappointment when you have a physician that appears to be exercising this sort of bad judgment.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also said that he was not familiar with Dr. McCullough. But apprised of his claims, Dr. Offit told this news organization, “Peter McCullough is a friend of the virus.”

“The kind of information he promotes allows the virus to continue to spread, continue to do an enormous amount of harm, and continue to mutate and create variants that have become more contagious and more resistant to vaccine-induced immunity,” said Dr. Offit, the Maurice R. Hilleman professor of vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Offit added that the war should be against SARS-CoV-2, but “because this virus has so many supporters, the war in essence becomes a war against ourselves, which is much harder.”

Dr. McCullough maintains he is doing a service to his patients. “I’m just giving and trying to help America understand the pandemic,” he told Ms. Ingraham on Fox News on July 29.

But he acknowledged concern about the Federation of State Medical Board’s announcement that physicians who spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation risk suspension or revocation of their license.

“I have to tell you I’m worried – that no matter what I do and how careful I am to cite the scientific studies, I’m still gonna be hunted down for quote, misinformation,” he said in the Aug. 3 interview.

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

The largest nonprofit health system in Texas has secured a temporary restraining order against cardiologist Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, a COVID-19 vaccine skeptic who allegedly continued to claim an affiliation with Baylor Scott & White Health months after he entered into a confidential separation agreement in which he agreed to stop mentioning his prior leadership and academic appointments.

Baylor was the first institution to cut ties with Dr. McCullough, who has promoted the use of therapies seen as unproven for the treatment of COVID-19 and has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. Since the Baylor suit, the Texas A&M College of Medicine, and the Texas Christian University (TCU) and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) School of Medicine have both removed Dr. McCullough from their faculties.

Granted by the 191st District Court in Dallas County, Tex., the Baylor restraining order – which is in effect at least until a hearing on the case on September 30 – was sought as part of Baylor Scott & White’s breach of contract suit against McCullough, who had previously been known as a well-respected expert in cardiorenal issues. The suit is seeking $1 million in damages, as well as attorneys’ fees.

The suit seeks to “enforce the terms” of the confidential employment separation agreement signed by Dr. McCullough in February and prevent Dr. McCullough from continuing “improper use of titles and claimed affiliations that have already confused the media, the medical community and the public,” it reads.

“This ongoing confusion regarding [Dr.] McCullough’s affiliations, and whether Plaintiffs support his opinions, is exactly what Plaintiffs bargained to avoid in the Separation Agreement,” and is likely to cause “irreparable reputational and business harm that is incapable of remedy by money damages alone,” the suit states.

One of Dr. McCullough’s attorneys, Clinton Mikel, maintains that all the times the physician was identified in the “thousands of hours of media interviews and countless publications since his departure from Baylor” were “said/printed by a third party with no encouragement from Dr. McCullough,” and that the doctor “does not and cannot control third parties.”

Mr. Mikel said in a statement emailed to this news organization by Dr. McCullough that the suit is “a politically motivated attempt to silence Dr. McCullough,” because it was filed on the same day the organization mandated COVID-19 vaccination for employees.

Dr. McCullough “intends to vigorously defend against Baylor’s unfounded lawsuit,” will seek to dissolve the restraining order, and recover “all payments due him from Baylor under the terms of the settlement agreement,” wrote Mr. Mikel.

The cardiologist’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the suit on Aug. 9, essentially arguing that Baylor Scott & White’s action restricted Dr. McCullough’s right to free speech under the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act.
 

COVID-19 vaccines = bioterrorism?

Dr. McCullough accumulated a following in 2020 by promoting early at-home multidrug treatment of COVID-19 in interviews with conservative websites and at a U.S. Senate hearing in November.

Although Dr. McCullough does not appear to have any personal social media accounts, his broadcast and podcast interviews are tweeted by thousands daily around the world and featured on Facebook pages like “Pandemic Debate.”

Some Facebook posts with Dr. McCullough’s pronouncements have been labeled as misinformation or removed. Some of his videos remain on YouTube, where they are posted by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a group that believes Dr. McCullough is “under fierce attack for speaking out about COVID-19 early treatment and vaccine safety.”

Dr. McCullough’s March 2021 testimony to the Texas Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee – in which he claimed that COVID-19 patients are being denied what he called proven treatments like hydroxychloroquine – has been viewed more than 3.7 million times on YouTube. The appearance has also been tweeted repeatedly.

Most of Dr. McCullough’s interviews and presentations are aggregated on Rumble, an alternative to YouTube.

In interviews, Dr. McCullough promotes the use of zinc, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, doxycycline, favipiravir, prednisone, and ivermectin as COVID-19 treatments – based on an outpatient treatment algorithm published in August 2020 in the American Journal of Medicine. The cardiologist was the lead author of that paper, which proposed treating people with COVID-like symptoms whether or not they had confirmed infection.

Dr. McCullough and colleagues published a follow-up paper that added colchicine to the mix in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. Dr. McCullough is editor-in-chief of the journal, but this was not noted in the disclosures.

Similarly, Dr. McCullough has not disclosed in his COVID-19 publications or any interviews that he has received consulting fees from a host of pharmaceutical manufacturers that produce COVID-19 drugs and vaccines, including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Open Payments database, Dr. McCullough was paid about $300,000 annually by drug companies from 2014 to 2019, mostly for consulting on cardiovascular and diabetes medications. His payments dropped to $169,406.06 in 2020.

Dr. McCullough appeared on “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox News in December 2020, claiming that sequential, early treatment with “anti-infectives, corticosteroids, and then antithrombotics” could “reduce [COVID-19] hospitalizations by 85% and cut mortality in half.”

He repeated the claim on the Ingraham show in July and agreed with host Laura Ingraham that the vast majority of healthy people would do fine if they got COVID. He also made the claim that 84% of the COVID-19 cases in Israel were in people who had been vaccinated. “So it’s clear, we can’t vaccinate our way out of this,” he said. An Associated Press “fact check” report has pushed back on similar assertions about vaccine data from Israel. 

In a separate interview posted in June, Dr. McCullough called the pandemic the first phase of a bioterrorism event, which was “all about keeping the population in fear and in isolation and preparing them to accept the vaccine, which appears to be phase two of a bioterrorism operation.”

In addition, he said, “good doctors are doing unthinkable things like injecting biologically active messenger RNA that produces this pathogenic spike protein into pregnant women.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the vaccines teach the body to produce the spike protein, which then triggers an immune response that creates antibodies that will attack the virus.

A PolitiFact review debunks the notion that the mRNA vaccines are toxic, cytotoxic, or introduce live, active virus proteins into the body.

FactCheck.org also disputed Dr. McCullough’s claim in a July 13 Ingraham Angle appearance that the mRNA vaccines are ineffective against the Delta variant.

In the FactCheck article, Frederic Bushman, codirector of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Research on Coronaviruses and Other Emerging Pathogens, said that people were much better off being vaccinated than not,” adding, “the Delta variant may reduce the effectiveness [of the vaccines] a little, but still, they’re so effective that you get a lot of benefit.”

“The vaccines are failing,” Dr. McCullough asserted in an Aug. 3 video interview posted on Odysee. “As we sit here today, we have 11,000 Americans that the CDC has certified have died after the vaccine,” he said, citing two analyses – one by Jessica Rose, PhD, and another by British researchers.

Similar figures reportedly based on cases reported to the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) were forwarded to this news organization by Dr. McCullough.  

The CDC website notes that the agency has received reports of 7,653 deaths in people who received a vaccine as of Sept. 13 (0.0020% of vaccine doses given since Dec. 14, 2020), but it cautions that those deaths do not mean the vaccine was the cause.

Dr. McCullough repeatedly claimed in the Aug. 3 interview that the government has not been transparent on vaccine safety. Since June 2020, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has held 16 public meetings on the COVID-19 vaccines.

To date, the agency has advised clinicians to monitor for rare side effects including Guillain-Barré syndrome and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and myocarditis after mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) vaccines.
 

Med schools distance themselves

According to the Baylor Scott & White suit, Dr. McCullough agreed on Feb. 24 in a confidential separation agreement that he would no longer use his academic or leadership titles nor hold himself out to be affiliated with Baylor University Medical Center, Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute, the Baylor Research Institute, or any other related institutions.

However, as of August, according to a Baylor spokesperson, McCullough continued to have privileges at Baylor University Medical Center and Baylor Scott & White Heart and Vascular Hospital, Dallas.

The lawsuit points to three interviews posted in June and July where Dr. McCullough is identified as a “vice chief of medicine” or a “vice chief of internal medicine,” both at Baylor University. It also cites a profile at the Cardiometabolic Health Congress website – which this news organization had also viewed – that was still active in late July with a similar title. The profile was later scrubbed from the site.

Social media posts and other media continue to refer to Dr. McCullough’s Baylor credentials. An episode of the Faith and Freedom podcast posted on Aug. 2 identified McCullough as a “professor of medicine at Baylor University Medical Center.”

As of Sept. 16, Dr. McCullough’s bio page at his current practice, Heart Place, lists him as a professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine. A spokesperson for Texas A&M told this news organization that McCullough is no longer affiliated with the school.

Dr. McCullough acknowledged in the Aug. 3 interview that his Texas A&M title had been “stripped away” at “around the same time this lawsuit was filed.”

He was still a professor of medicine at the TCU and UNTHSC School of Medicine in Fort Worth, but a school spokesperson notified this news organization on Aug. 19 that Dr. McCullough was no longer with the school.

Dr. McCullough has portrayed himself as both a victim and a truth-teller, a “concerned physician” warning the world about the dangers of COVID-19 vaccines. The Baylor Scott & White lawsuit “is really a strong-armed tactic,” he said in the Aug. 3 interview. “I’m just a little guy, so I have to hire my legal teams, and in a sense be drained dry on legal fees,” he said.

But Dr. McCullough apparently has a plan for helping to defray his legal costs. In the Aug. 3 interview, he said a foundation he helped start, Truth for Health, has a “donation side to it,” adding “some of that may be used for legal expense.”  

Cheryl Jones, an attorney with PK Law in Towson, Md., said that might draw interest from the Internal Revenue Service. “I would expect IRS scrutiny if contributions to the Medical Censorship Defense Fund are used to defend Dr McCullough in his personal breach of contract lawsuit,” she told this news organization.

The IRS generally recognizes defending “human and civil rights secured by law” as a legitimate charitable purpose for a legal defense fund, she said, adding that such a fund “must serve only public, rather than private, interests.”
 

Misinformation from a physician more damaging?

Some in the medical field have refuted Dr. McCullough’s pronouncements on how to treat COVID-19, including two infectious disease specialists with Monash University, Melbourne, who responded to the cardiologist’s original paper in the American Journal of Medicine.

Tony Korman, MBBS, a professor at the Centre for Inflammatory Diseases at Monash, told this news organization, “we had concerns that reputable medical journals would accept and publish papers proposing treatment of COVID-19 which was not supported by evidence.”

The website Healthfeedback.org has also challenged McCullough’s and his supporters’ claims, including that the American Journal of Medicine endorsed the use of hydroxychloroquine and that the COVID-19 vaccines have caused thousands of deaths.

David Broniatowski, PhD, associate director for the Institute for Data, Democracy and Politics at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview that Dr. McCullough’s casting himself as a “rebel doctor” is a well-known trope in the vaccine misinformation universe.

Although he was not familiar with Dr. McCullough, Dr. Broniatowski said the cardiologist’s claims are not unique – they’ve been circulating among antivaccine and conspiracy-oriented groups for months.

For instance, Dr. McCullough has claimed in interviews that a whistleblower within the CDC knows of 50,000 vaccine-related deaths. Using data from the supposed whistleblower, the group America’s Frontline Doctors sued the federal government in July to stop the administration of COVID-19 vaccines to those under 18, people who have already had COVID, and individuals who the group said have not been adequately informed about the risks.

The idea of a whistleblower inside the CDC is recycled from antivaccine claims from decades ago, Dr. Broniatowski said.

But, he added, “somebody who speaks with the credibility of a major institution will be more likely to be listened to by some people.” That vulnerable group is “being taken advantage of by a relatively small number of disinformation purveyors, who, in some cases, profit from that disinformation,” said Dr. Broniatowski.

“We rely on our doctors because we trust them,” he said. “And we trust them because we believe that as physicians, their value system places the patient’s best interests first. That’s why it’s so much of a disappointment when you have a physician that appears to be exercising this sort of bad judgment.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also said that he was not familiar with Dr. McCullough. But apprised of his claims, Dr. Offit told this news organization, “Peter McCullough is a friend of the virus.”

“The kind of information he promotes allows the virus to continue to spread, continue to do an enormous amount of harm, and continue to mutate and create variants that have become more contagious and more resistant to vaccine-induced immunity,” said Dr. Offit, the Maurice R. Hilleman professor of vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Offit added that the war should be against SARS-CoV-2, but “because this virus has so many supporters, the war in essence becomes a war against ourselves, which is much harder.”

Dr. McCullough maintains he is doing a service to his patients. “I’m just giving and trying to help America understand the pandemic,” he told Ms. Ingraham on Fox News on July 29.

But he acknowledged concern about the Federation of State Medical Board’s announcement that physicians who spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation risk suspension or revocation of their license.

“I have to tell you I’m worried – that no matter what I do and how careful I am to cite the scientific studies, I’m still gonna be hunted down for quote, misinformation,” he said in the Aug. 3 interview.

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

The largest nonprofit health system in Texas has secured a temporary restraining order against cardiologist Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, a COVID-19 vaccine skeptic who allegedly continued to claim an affiliation with Baylor Scott & White Health months after he entered into a confidential separation agreement in which he agreed to stop mentioning his prior leadership and academic appointments.

Baylor was the first institution to cut ties with Dr. McCullough, who has promoted the use of therapies seen as unproven for the treatment of COVID-19 and has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. Since the Baylor suit, the Texas A&M College of Medicine, and the Texas Christian University (TCU) and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) School of Medicine have both removed Dr. McCullough from their faculties.

Granted by the 191st District Court in Dallas County, Tex., the Baylor restraining order – which is in effect at least until a hearing on the case on September 30 – was sought as part of Baylor Scott & White’s breach of contract suit against McCullough, who had previously been known as a well-respected expert in cardiorenal issues. The suit is seeking $1 million in damages, as well as attorneys’ fees.

The suit seeks to “enforce the terms” of the confidential employment separation agreement signed by Dr. McCullough in February and prevent Dr. McCullough from continuing “improper use of titles and claimed affiliations that have already confused the media, the medical community and the public,” it reads.

“This ongoing confusion regarding [Dr.] McCullough’s affiliations, and whether Plaintiffs support his opinions, is exactly what Plaintiffs bargained to avoid in the Separation Agreement,” and is likely to cause “irreparable reputational and business harm that is incapable of remedy by money damages alone,” the suit states.

One of Dr. McCullough’s attorneys, Clinton Mikel, maintains that all the times the physician was identified in the “thousands of hours of media interviews and countless publications since his departure from Baylor” were “said/printed by a third party with no encouragement from Dr. McCullough,” and that the doctor “does not and cannot control third parties.”

Mr. Mikel said in a statement emailed to this news organization by Dr. McCullough that the suit is “a politically motivated attempt to silence Dr. McCullough,” because it was filed on the same day the organization mandated COVID-19 vaccination for employees.

Dr. McCullough “intends to vigorously defend against Baylor’s unfounded lawsuit,” will seek to dissolve the restraining order, and recover “all payments due him from Baylor under the terms of the settlement agreement,” wrote Mr. Mikel.

The cardiologist’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the suit on Aug. 9, essentially arguing that Baylor Scott & White’s action restricted Dr. McCullough’s right to free speech under the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act.
 

COVID-19 vaccines = bioterrorism?

Dr. McCullough accumulated a following in 2020 by promoting early at-home multidrug treatment of COVID-19 in interviews with conservative websites and at a U.S. Senate hearing in November.

Although Dr. McCullough does not appear to have any personal social media accounts, his broadcast and podcast interviews are tweeted by thousands daily around the world and featured on Facebook pages like “Pandemic Debate.”

Some Facebook posts with Dr. McCullough’s pronouncements have been labeled as misinformation or removed. Some of his videos remain on YouTube, where they are posted by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a group that believes Dr. McCullough is “under fierce attack for speaking out about COVID-19 early treatment and vaccine safety.”

Dr. McCullough’s March 2021 testimony to the Texas Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee – in which he claimed that COVID-19 patients are being denied what he called proven treatments like hydroxychloroquine – has been viewed more than 3.7 million times on YouTube. The appearance has also been tweeted repeatedly.

Most of Dr. McCullough’s interviews and presentations are aggregated on Rumble, an alternative to YouTube.

In interviews, Dr. McCullough promotes the use of zinc, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, doxycycline, favipiravir, prednisone, and ivermectin as COVID-19 treatments – based on an outpatient treatment algorithm published in August 2020 in the American Journal of Medicine. The cardiologist was the lead author of that paper, which proposed treating people with COVID-like symptoms whether or not they had confirmed infection.

Dr. McCullough and colleagues published a follow-up paper that added colchicine to the mix in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. Dr. McCullough is editor-in-chief of the journal, but this was not noted in the disclosures.

Similarly, Dr. McCullough has not disclosed in his COVID-19 publications or any interviews that he has received consulting fees from a host of pharmaceutical manufacturers that produce COVID-19 drugs and vaccines, including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Open Payments database, Dr. McCullough was paid about $300,000 annually by drug companies from 2014 to 2019, mostly for consulting on cardiovascular and diabetes medications. His payments dropped to $169,406.06 in 2020.

Dr. McCullough appeared on “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox News in December 2020, claiming that sequential, early treatment with “anti-infectives, corticosteroids, and then antithrombotics” could “reduce [COVID-19] hospitalizations by 85% and cut mortality in half.”

He repeated the claim on the Ingraham show in July and agreed with host Laura Ingraham that the vast majority of healthy people would do fine if they got COVID. He also made the claim that 84% of the COVID-19 cases in Israel were in people who had been vaccinated. “So it’s clear, we can’t vaccinate our way out of this,” he said. An Associated Press “fact check” report has pushed back on similar assertions about vaccine data from Israel. 

In a separate interview posted in June, Dr. McCullough called the pandemic the first phase of a bioterrorism event, which was “all about keeping the population in fear and in isolation and preparing them to accept the vaccine, which appears to be phase two of a bioterrorism operation.”

In addition, he said, “good doctors are doing unthinkable things like injecting biologically active messenger RNA that produces this pathogenic spike protein into pregnant women.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the vaccines teach the body to produce the spike protein, which then triggers an immune response that creates antibodies that will attack the virus.

A PolitiFact review debunks the notion that the mRNA vaccines are toxic, cytotoxic, or introduce live, active virus proteins into the body.

FactCheck.org also disputed Dr. McCullough’s claim in a July 13 Ingraham Angle appearance that the mRNA vaccines are ineffective against the Delta variant.

In the FactCheck article, Frederic Bushman, codirector of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Research on Coronaviruses and Other Emerging Pathogens, said that people were much better off being vaccinated than not,” adding, “the Delta variant may reduce the effectiveness [of the vaccines] a little, but still, they’re so effective that you get a lot of benefit.”

“The vaccines are failing,” Dr. McCullough asserted in an Aug. 3 video interview posted on Odysee. “As we sit here today, we have 11,000 Americans that the CDC has certified have died after the vaccine,” he said, citing two analyses – one by Jessica Rose, PhD, and another by British researchers.

Similar figures reportedly based on cases reported to the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) were forwarded to this news organization by Dr. McCullough.  

The CDC website notes that the agency has received reports of 7,653 deaths in people who received a vaccine as of Sept. 13 (0.0020% of vaccine doses given since Dec. 14, 2020), but it cautions that those deaths do not mean the vaccine was the cause.

Dr. McCullough repeatedly claimed in the Aug. 3 interview that the government has not been transparent on vaccine safety. Since June 2020, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has held 16 public meetings on the COVID-19 vaccines.

To date, the agency has advised clinicians to monitor for rare side effects including Guillain-Barré syndrome and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and myocarditis after mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) vaccines.
 

Med schools distance themselves

According to the Baylor Scott & White suit, Dr. McCullough agreed on Feb. 24 in a confidential separation agreement that he would no longer use his academic or leadership titles nor hold himself out to be affiliated with Baylor University Medical Center, Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute, the Baylor Research Institute, or any other related institutions.

However, as of August, according to a Baylor spokesperson, McCullough continued to have privileges at Baylor University Medical Center and Baylor Scott & White Heart and Vascular Hospital, Dallas.

The lawsuit points to three interviews posted in June and July where Dr. McCullough is identified as a “vice chief of medicine” or a “vice chief of internal medicine,” both at Baylor University. It also cites a profile at the Cardiometabolic Health Congress website – which this news organization had also viewed – that was still active in late July with a similar title. The profile was later scrubbed from the site.

Social media posts and other media continue to refer to Dr. McCullough’s Baylor credentials. An episode of the Faith and Freedom podcast posted on Aug. 2 identified McCullough as a “professor of medicine at Baylor University Medical Center.”

As of Sept. 16, Dr. McCullough’s bio page at his current practice, Heart Place, lists him as a professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine. A spokesperson for Texas A&M told this news organization that McCullough is no longer affiliated with the school.

Dr. McCullough acknowledged in the Aug. 3 interview that his Texas A&M title had been “stripped away” at “around the same time this lawsuit was filed.”

He was still a professor of medicine at the TCU and UNTHSC School of Medicine in Fort Worth, but a school spokesperson notified this news organization on Aug. 19 that Dr. McCullough was no longer with the school.

Dr. McCullough has portrayed himself as both a victim and a truth-teller, a “concerned physician” warning the world about the dangers of COVID-19 vaccines. The Baylor Scott & White lawsuit “is really a strong-armed tactic,” he said in the Aug. 3 interview. “I’m just a little guy, so I have to hire my legal teams, and in a sense be drained dry on legal fees,” he said.

But Dr. McCullough apparently has a plan for helping to defray his legal costs. In the Aug. 3 interview, he said a foundation he helped start, Truth for Health, has a “donation side to it,” adding “some of that may be used for legal expense.”  

Cheryl Jones, an attorney with PK Law in Towson, Md., said that might draw interest from the Internal Revenue Service. “I would expect IRS scrutiny if contributions to the Medical Censorship Defense Fund are used to defend Dr McCullough in his personal breach of contract lawsuit,” she told this news organization.

The IRS generally recognizes defending “human and civil rights secured by law” as a legitimate charitable purpose for a legal defense fund, she said, adding that such a fund “must serve only public, rather than private, interests.”
 

Misinformation from a physician more damaging?

Some in the medical field have refuted Dr. McCullough’s pronouncements on how to treat COVID-19, including two infectious disease specialists with Monash University, Melbourne, who responded to the cardiologist’s original paper in the American Journal of Medicine.

Tony Korman, MBBS, a professor at the Centre for Inflammatory Diseases at Monash, told this news organization, “we had concerns that reputable medical journals would accept and publish papers proposing treatment of COVID-19 which was not supported by evidence.”

The website Healthfeedback.org has also challenged McCullough’s and his supporters’ claims, including that the American Journal of Medicine endorsed the use of hydroxychloroquine and that the COVID-19 vaccines have caused thousands of deaths.

David Broniatowski, PhD, associate director for the Institute for Data, Democracy and Politics at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview that Dr. McCullough’s casting himself as a “rebel doctor” is a well-known trope in the vaccine misinformation universe.

Although he was not familiar with Dr. McCullough, Dr. Broniatowski said the cardiologist’s claims are not unique – they’ve been circulating among antivaccine and conspiracy-oriented groups for months.

For instance, Dr. McCullough has claimed in interviews that a whistleblower within the CDC knows of 50,000 vaccine-related deaths. Using data from the supposed whistleblower, the group America’s Frontline Doctors sued the federal government in July to stop the administration of COVID-19 vaccines to those under 18, people who have already had COVID, and individuals who the group said have not been adequately informed about the risks.

The idea of a whistleblower inside the CDC is recycled from antivaccine claims from decades ago, Dr. Broniatowski said.

But, he added, “somebody who speaks with the credibility of a major institution will be more likely to be listened to by some people.” That vulnerable group is “being taken advantage of by a relatively small number of disinformation purveyors, who, in some cases, profit from that disinformation,” said Dr. Broniatowski.

“We rely on our doctors because we trust them,” he said. “And we trust them because we believe that as physicians, their value system places the patient’s best interests first. That’s why it’s so much of a disappointment when you have a physician that appears to be exercising this sort of bad judgment.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also said that he was not familiar with Dr. McCullough. But apprised of his claims, Dr. Offit told this news organization, “Peter McCullough is a friend of the virus.”

“The kind of information he promotes allows the virus to continue to spread, continue to do an enormous amount of harm, and continue to mutate and create variants that have become more contagious and more resistant to vaccine-induced immunity,” said Dr. Offit, the Maurice R. Hilleman professor of vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Offit added that the war should be against SARS-CoV-2, but “because this virus has so many supporters, the war in essence becomes a war against ourselves, which is much harder.”

Dr. McCullough maintains he is doing a service to his patients. “I’m just giving and trying to help America understand the pandemic,” he told Ms. Ingraham on Fox News on July 29.

But he acknowledged concern about the Federation of State Medical Board’s announcement that physicians who spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation risk suspension or revocation of their license.

“I have to tell you I’m worried – that no matter what I do and how careful I am to cite the scientific studies, I’m still gonna be hunted down for quote, misinformation,” he said in the Aug. 3 interview.

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

An important ingredient in the contemporary perfume and cosmetics industries, vetiver, is the only grass cultivated throughout the world to retain its essential oil, which contains sesquiterpene alcohols and hydrocarbons.^1-3 Field and glasshouse studies have revealed that vetiver grass can tolerate extreme variations in climate well, including protracted drought, floods, submergence, temperature, and soils high in acidity, alkalinity, and various heavy metals. Its heartiness may explain its continuing or even increasing use in fragrances and other products pertinent to skin health as humanity strives to adapt to climate change.⁴ In a 2017 review of various commercial essential oils as antimicrobial therapy for cutaneous disorders, Orchard and van Vuuren identified vetiver as warranting particular attention for its capacity to confer broad benefits to the skin in addressing acne, cuts, eczema, oiliness, sores, wounds, and aging skin.⁵ The focus of this column will be the dermatologic potential of vetiver.

Naomi Morris/EyeEm/EyeEm

Chemical constituents

Vetiver is thought to be one of the most complex of the essential oils owing to the hundreds of sesquiterpene derivatives with large structural diversity that contribute to its composition. ³

In a 2012 analysis of the components of South Indian vetiver oils, Mallavarapu et al. found an abundance of sesquiterpenes and oxygenated sesquiterpenes with cedrane, bisabolane, eudesmane, eremophilane, and zizaane skeletons. The primary constituents identified in the four oils evaluated included eudesma-4,6-diene (delta-selinene) + beta-vetispirene (3.9%-6.1%), beta-vetivenene (0.9%-9.4%), 13-nor-trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-11-one + amorph-4-en-10-ol (5.0%-6.4%), trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-12-ol (vetiselinenol) + (E)-opposita-4(15),7(11)-dien-12-ol (3.7%-5.9%), eremophila-1 (10),11-dien-2alpha-ol (nootkatol) + ziza-6(13)-en-12-ol (khusimol) (16.1%-19.2%), and eremophila-1(10),7(11)-dien-2alpha-ol (isonootkatol) + (E)-eremophila-1(10),7(11)-12-ol (isovalencenol) (5.6%-6.9%).⁶

Antimicrobial activity

In 2012, Saikia et al. assessed the antimycobacterial activity of Vetiveria zizanioides against Mycobacterium tuberculosis H(37)Rv and H(37)Ra strains. Their results showed that ethanolic extracts and hexane fractions displayed robust antimycobacterial properties, buttressing the traditional medical uses of the plant, as well as consideration of this agent as a modern antituberculosis agent.⁷

Two years later, Dos Santos et al. showed that Vetiveria zizanioides roots grown in Brazil exhibited notable antimicrobial effects against various pathogenic organisms.⁸In 2017, Burger et al. showed that vetiver essential oil primarily contributes its scent to cosmetic formulations but also displayed antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive bacterial strains, as well as one strain of Candida glabrata. They suggest that vetiver should be considered for its antimicrobial capacity as an added bonus to cosmetic formulations.²

In a 2018 study to ascertain the antimicrobial activity of 247 essential oil combinations against five reference strains of wound pathogens, Orchard et al. found that 26 combinations exhibited extensive antimicrobial activity. Sandalwood and vetiver were found to contribute most to antimicrobial function when used in combination. The investigators concluded that such combinations warrant consideration for wound therapy.⁹

Antiacne activity

In 2018, Orchard et al. conducted another study of the efficacy of commercial essential oil combinations against the two pathogens responsible for acne, Propionibacterium acnes and Staphlyococcus epidermidis. They investigated 408 combinations, of which 167 exhibited notable antimicrobial activity. They observed that the combination with the lowest minimum inhibitory concentration value against P. acnes and S. epidermidis was vetiver and cinnamon bark.¹⁰ This usage points to the potential of vetiver use as an antiacne ingredient.
 

Safety

The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) offered a final opinion on the safety of the fragrance ingredient acetylated vetiver oil in 2019, declaring its use with 1% alpha-tocopherol in cosmetic leave-on and rinse-off products safe at proposed concentration levels. They noted that acetylated vetiver oil has been used for several years without provoking contact allergies.¹1
 

Conclusion

Vetiver is an important ingredient in modern perfumery. It also has potential to impart benefits to the skin in topical formulations. Much more research is necessary to determine just what kind of a role this perfumery powerhouse can play in dermatology.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Del Giudice L et al. Environ Microbiol. 2008 Oct;10(10):2824-41.

2. Burger P et al. Medicines (Basel). 2017 Jun 16;4(2):41.

3. Belhassen E et al. Chem Biodivers. 2014 Nov;11(11):1821–42.

4. Danh LT et al. Int J Phytoremediation. 2009 Oct-Dec;11(8):664–91.

5. Orchard A and van Vuuren S. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2017;2017:4517971.

6. Mallavarapu GR et al. Nat Prod Commun. 2012 Feb;7(2):223–5.

7. Saikia D et al. Complement Ther Med. 2012 Dec;20(6):434–6.

8. Dos Santos DS et al. Acta Pharm. 2014 Dec;64(4):495-501.

9. Orchard A et al. Chem Biodivers. 2018 Dec;15(12):e1800405.

10. Orchard A et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2018 Mar 24. [Epub ahead of print].

11. SCCS members & External experts. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019 Oct;107:104389.

An important ingredient in the contemporary perfume and cosmetics industries, vetiver, is the only grass cultivated throughout the world to retain its essential oil, which contains sesquiterpene alcohols and hydrocarbons.^1-3 Field and glasshouse studies have revealed that vetiver grass can tolerate extreme variations in climate well, including protracted drought, floods, submergence, temperature, and soils high in acidity, alkalinity, and various heavy metals. Its heartiness may explain its continuing or even increasing use in fragrances and other products pertinent to skin health as humanity strives to adapt to climate change.⁴ In a 2017 review of various commercial essential oils as antimicrobial therapy for cutaneous disorders, Orchard and van Vuuren identified vetiver as warranting particular attention for its capacity to confer broad benefits to the skin in addressing acne, cuts, eczema, oiliness, sores, wounds, and aging skin.⁵ The focus of this column will be the dermatologic potential of vetiver.

Naomi Morris/EyeEm/EyeEm

Chemical constituents

Vetiver is thought to be one of the most complex of the essential oils owing to the hundreds of sesquiterpene derivatives with large structural diversity that contribute to its composition. ³

In a 2012 analysis of the components of South Indian vetiver oils, Mallavarapu et al. found an abundance of sesquiterpenes and oxygenated sesquiterpenes with cedrane, bisabolane, eudesmane, eremophilane, and zizaane skeletons. The primary constituents identified in the four oils evaluated included eudesma-4,6-diene (delta-selinene) + beta-vetispirene (3.9%-6.1%), beta-vetivenene (0.9%-9.4%), 13-nor-trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-11-one + amorph-4-en-10-ol (5.0%-6.4%), trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-12-ol (vetiselinenol) + (E)-opposita-4(15),7(11)-dien-12-ol (3.7%-5.9%), eremophila-1 (10),11-dien-2alpha-ol (nootkatol) + ziza-6(13)-en-12-ol (khusimol) (16.1%-19.2%), and eremophila-1(10),7(11)-dien-2alpha-ol (isonootkatol) + (E)-eremophila-1(10),7(11)-12-ol (isovalencenol) (5.6%-6.9%).⁶

Antimicrobial activity

In 2012, Saikia et al. assessed the antimycobacterial activity of Vetiveria zizanioides against Mycobacterium tuberculosis H(37)Rv and H(37)Ra strains. Their results showed that ethanolic extracts and hexane fractions displayed robust antimycobacterial properties, buttressing the traditional medical uses of the plant, as well as consideration of this agent as a modern antituberculosis agent.⁷

Two years later, Dos Santos et al. showed that Vetiveria zizanioides roots grown in Brazil exhibited notable antimicrobial effects against various pathogenic organisms.⁸In 2017, Burger et al. showed that vetiver essential oil primarily contributes its scent to cosmetic formulations but also displayed antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive bacterial strains, as well as one strain of Candida glabrata. They suggest that vetiver should be considered for its antimicrobial capacity as an added bonus to cosmetic formulations.²

In a 2018 study to ascertain the antimicrobial activity of 247 essential oil combinations against five reference strains of wound pathogens, Orchard et al. found that 26 combinations exhibited extensive antimicrobial activity. Sandalwood and vetiver were found to contribute most to antimicrobial function when used in combination. The investigators concluded that such combinations warrant consideration for wound therapy.⁹

Antiacne activity

In 2018, Orchard et al. conducted another study of the efficacy of commercial essential oil combinations against the two pathogens responsible for acne, Propionibacterium acnes and Staphlyococcus epidermidis. They investigated 408 combinations, of which 167 exhibited notable antimicrobial activity. They observed that the combination with the lowest minimum inhibitory concentration value against P. acnes and S. epidermidis was vetiver and cinnamon bark.¹⁰ This usage points to the potential of vetiver use as an antiacne ingredient.
 

Safety

The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) offered a final opinion on the safety of the fragrance ingredient acetylated vetiver oil in 2019, declaring its use with 1% alpha-tocopherol in cosmetic leave-on and rinse-off products safe at proposed concentration levels. They noted that acetylated vetiver oil has been used for several years without provoking contact allergies.¹1
 

Conclusion

Vetiver is an important ingredient in modern perfumery. It also has potential to impart benefits to the skin in topical formulations. Much more research is necessary to determine just what kind of a role this perfumery powerhouse can play in dermatology.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Del Giudice L et al. Environ Microbiol. 2008 Oct;10(10):2824-41.

2. Burger P et al. Medicines (Basel). 2017 Jun 16;4(2):41.

3. Belhassen E et al. Chem Biodivers. 2014 Nov;11(11):1821–42.

4. Danh LT et al. Int J Phytoremediation. 2009 Oct-Dec;11(8):664–91.

5. Orchard A and van Vuuren S. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2017;2017:4517971.

6. Mallavarapu GR et al. Nat Prod Commun. 2012 Feb;7(2):223–5.

7. Saikia D et al. Complement Ther Med. 2012 Dec;20(6):434–6.

8. Dos Santos DS et al. Acta Pharm. 2014 Dec;64(4):495-501.

9. Orchard A et al. Chem Biodivers. 2018 Dec;15(12):e1800405.

10. Orchard A et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2018 Mar 24. [Epub ahead of print].

11. SCCS members & External experts. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019 Oct;107:104389.

An important ingredient in the contemporary perfume and cosmetics industries, vetiver, is the only grass cultivated throughout the world to retain its essential oil, which contains sesquiterpene alcohols and hydrocarbons.^1-3 Field and glasshouse studies have revealed that vetiver grass can tolerate extreme variations in climate well, including protracted drought, floods, submergence, temperature, and soils high in acidity, alkalinity, and various heavy metals. Its heartiness may explain its continuing or even increasing use in fragrances and other products pertinent to skin health as humanity strives to adapt to climate change.⁴ In a 2017 review of various commercial essential oils as antimicrobial therapy for cutaneous disorders, Orchard and van Vuuren identified vetiver as warranting particular attention for its capacity to confer broad benefits to the skin in addressing acne, cuts, eczema, oiliness, sores, wounds, and aging skin.⁵ The focus of this column will be the dermatologic potential of vetiver.

Naomi Morris/EyeEm/EyeEm

Chemical constituents

Vetiver is thought to be one of the most complex of the essential oils owing to the hundreds of sesquiterpene derivatives with large structural diversity that contribute to its composition. ³

In a 2012 analysis of the components of South Indian vetiver oils, Mallavarapu et al. found an abundance of sesquiterpenes and oxygenated sesquiterpenes with cedrane, bisabolane, eudesmane, eremophilane, and zizaane skeletons. The primary constituents identified in the four oils evaluated included eudesma-4,6-diene (delta-selinene) + beta-vetispirene (3.9%-6.1%), beta-vetivenene (0.9%-9.4%), 13-nor-trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-11-one + amorph-4-en-10-ol (5.0%-6.4%), trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-12-ol (vetiselinenol) + (E)-opposita-4(15),7(11)-dien-12-ol (3.7%-5.9%), eremophila-1 (10),11-dien-2alpha-ol (nootkatol) + ziza-6(13)-en-12-ol (khusimol) (16.1%-19.2%), and eremophila-1(10),7(11)-dien-2alpha-ol (isonootkatol) + (E)-eremophila-1(10),7(11)-12-ol (isovalencenol) (5.6%-6.9%).⁶

Antimicrobial activity

In 2012, Saikia et al. assessed the antimycobacterial activity of Vetiveria zizanioides against Mycobacterium tuberculosis H(37)Rv and H(37)Ra strains. Their results showed that ethanolic extracts and hexane fractions displayed robust antimycobacterial properties, buttressing the traditional medical uses of the plant, as well as consideration of this agent as a modern antituberculosis agent.⁷

Two years later, Dos Santos et al. showed that Vetiveria zizanioides roots grown in Brazil exhibited notable antimicrobial effects against various pathogenic organisms.⁸In 2017, Burger et al. showed that vetiver essential oil primarily contributes its scent to cosmetic formulations but also displayed antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive bacterial strains, as well as one strain of Candida glabrata. They suggest that vetiver should be considered for its antimicrobial capacity as an added bonus to cosmetic formulations.²

In a 2018 study to ascertain the antimicrobial activity of 247 essential oil combinations against five reference strains of wound pathogens, Orchard et al. found that 26 combinations exhibited extensive antimicrobial activity. Sandalwood and vetiver were found to contribute most to antimicrobial function when used in combination. The investigators concluded that such combinations warrant consideration for wound therapy.⁹

Antiacne activity

In 2018, Orchard et al. conducted another study of the efficacy of commercial essential oil combinations against the two pathogens responsible for acne, Propionibacterium acnes and Staphlyococcus epidermidis. They investigated 408 combinations, of which 167 exhibited notable antimicrobial activity. They observed that the combination with the lowest minimum inhibitory concentration value against P. acnes and S. epidermidis was vetiver and cinnamon bark.¹⁰ This usage points to the potential of vetiver use as an antiacne ingredient.
 

Safety

The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) offered a final opinion on the safety of the fragrance ingredient acetylated vetiver oil in 2019, declaring its use with 1% alpha-tocopherol in cosmetic leave-on and rinse-off products safe at proposed concentration levels. They noted that acetylated vetiver oil has been used for several years without provoking contact allergies.¹1
 

Conclusion

Vetiver is an important ingredient in modern perfumery. It also has potential to impart benefits to the skin in topical formulations. Much more research is necessary to determine just what kind of a role this perfumery powerhouse can play in dermatology.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Del Giudice L et al. Environ Microbiol. 2008 Oct;10(10):2824-41.

2. Burger P et al. Medicines (Basel). 2017 Jun 16;4(2):41.

3. Belhassen E et al. Chem Biodivers. 2014 Nov;11(11):1821–42.

4. Danh LT et al. Int J Phytoremediation. 2009 Oct-Dec;11(8):664–91.

5. Orchard A and van Vuuren S. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2017;2017:4517971.

6. Mallavarapu GR et al. Nat Prod Commun. 2012 Feb;7(2):223–5.

7. Saikia D et al. Complement Ther Med. 2012 Dec;20(6):434–6.

8. Dos Santos DS et al. Acta Pharm. 2014 Dec;64(4):495-501.

9. Orchard A et al. Chem Biodivers. 2018 Dec;15(12):e1800405.

10. Orchard A et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2018 Mar 24. [Epub ahead of print].

11. SCCS members & External experts. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019 Oct;107:104389.

Heidi Erickson, MD, is tired. As a pulmonary and critical care physician at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, she has been providing care for patients with COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

It was exhausting from the beginning, as she and her colleagues scrambled to understand how to deal with this new disease. But lately, she has noticed a different kind of exhaustion arising from the knowledge that with vaccines widely available, the latest surge was preventable.

Her intensive care unit is currently as full as it has ever been with COVID-19 patients, many of them young adults and most of them unvaccinated. After the recent death of one patient, an unvaccinated man with teenage children, she had to face his family’s questions about why ivermectin, an antiparasitic medication that was falsely promoted as a COVID-19 treatment, was not administered.

“I’m fatigued because I’m working more than ever, but more people don’t have to die,” Dr. Erickson said in an interview . “It’s been very hard physically, mentally, emotionally.”

Amid yet another surge in COVID-19 cases around the United States, clinicians are speaking out about their growing frustration with this preventable crisis.

Some are using the terms “empathy fatigue” and “compassion fatigue” – a sense that they are losing empathy for unvaccinated individuals who are fueling the pandemic.

Dr. Erickson says she is frustrated not by individual patients but by a system that has allowed disinformation to proliferate. Experts say these types of feelings fit into a widespread pattern of physician burnout that has taken a new turn at this stage of the pandemic.

Paradoxical choices

Empathy is a cornerstone of what clinicians do, and the ability to understand and share a patient’s feelings is an essential skill for providing effective care, says Kaz Nelson, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Practitioners face paradoxical situations all the time, she notes. These include individuals who break bones and go skydiving again, people who have high cholesterol but continue to eat fried foods, and those with advanced lung cancer who continue to smoke.

To treat patients with compassion, practitioners learn to set aside judgment by acknowledging the complexity of human behavior. They may lament the addictive nature of nicotine and advertising that targets children, for example, while still listening and caring.

Empathy requires high-level brain function, but as stress levels rise, brain function that drives empathy tends to shut down. It’s a survival mechanism, Dr. Nelson says.

When health care workers feel overwhelmed, trapped, or threatened by patients demanding unproven treatments or by ICUs with more patients than ventilators, they may experience a fight-or-flight response that makes them defensive, frustrated, angry, or uncaring, notes Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder of Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline for doctors.

Some clinicians have taken to Twitter and other social media platforms to post about these types of experiences.

These feelings, which have been brewing for months, have been exacerbated by the complexity of the current situation. Clinicians see a disconnect between what is and what could be, Dr. Nelson notes.

“Prior to vaccines, there weren’t other options, and so we had toxic stress and we had fatigue, but we could still maintain little bits of empathy by saying, ‘You know, people didn’t choose to get infected, and we are in a pandemic.’ We could kind of hate the virus. Now with access to vaccines, that last connection to empathy is removed for many people,” she says.

Self-preservation vs. empathy

Compassion fatigue or empathy fatigue is just one reaction to feeling completely maxed out and overstressed, Dr. Nelson says. Anger at society, such as what Dr. Erickson experienced, is another response.

Practitioners may also feel as if they are just going through the motions of their job, or they might disassociate, ceasing to feel that their patients are human. Plenty of doctors and nurses have cried in their cars after shifts and have posted tearful videos on social media.

Early in the pandemic, Dr. Masood says, physicians who called the support hotline expressed sadness and grief. Now, she had her colleagues hear frustration and anger, along with guilt and shame for having feelings they believe they shouldn’t be having, especially toward patients. They may feel unprofessional or worse – unworthy of being physicians, she says.

One recent caller to the hotline was a long-time ICU physician who had been told so many times by patients that ivermectin was the only medicine that would cure them that he began to doubt himself, says Dr. Masood. This caller needed to be reassured by another physician that he was doing the right thing.

Another emergency department physician told Dr. Masood about a young child who had arrived at the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. When asked whether the family had been exposed to anyone with COVID-19, the child’s parent lied so that they could be triaged faster.

The physician, who needed to step away from the situation, reached out to Dr. Masood to express her frustration so that she wouldn’t “let it out” on the patient.

“It’s hard to have empathy for people who, for all intents and purposes, are very self-centered,” Dr. Masood says. “We’re at a place where we’re having to choose between self-preservation and empathy.”
 

How to cope

To help practitioners cope, Dr. Masood offers words that describe what they’re experiencing. She often hears clinicians say things such as, “This is a type of burnout that I feel to my bones,” or “This makes me want to quit,” or “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.”

She encourages them to consider the terms “empathy fatigue,” and “moral injury” in order to reconcile how their sense of responsibility to take care of people is compromised by factors outside of their control.

It is not shameful to acknowledge that they experience emotions, including difficult ones such as frustration, anger, sadness, and anxiety, Dr. Masood adds.

Being frustrated with a patient doesn’t make someone a bad doctor, and admitting those emotions is the first step toward dealing with them, she says.

Dr. Nelson adds that taking breaks from work can help. She also recommends setting boundaries, seeking therapy, and acknowledging feelings early before they cause a sense of callousness or other consequences that become harder to heal from as time goes on.

“We’re trained to just go, go, go and sometimes not pause and check in,” she says. Clinicians who open up are likely to find they are not the only ones feeling tired or frustrated right now, she adds.

“Connect with peers and colleagues, because chances are, they can relate,” Dr. Nelson says.

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

Heidi Erickson, MD, is tired. As a pulmonary and critical care physician at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, she has been providing care for patients with COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

It was exhausting from the beginning, as she and her colleagues scrambled to understand how to deal with this new disease. But lately, she has noticed a different kind of exhaustion arising from the knowledge that with vaccines widely available, the latest surge was preventable.

Her intensive care unit is currently as full as it has ever been with COVID-19 patients, many of them young adults and most of them unvaccinated. After the recent death of one patient, an unvaccinated man with teenage children, she had to face his family’s questions about why ivermectin, an antiparasitic medication that was falsely promoted as a COVID-19 treatment, was not administered.

“I’m fatigued because I’m working more than ever, but more people don’t have to die,” Dr. Erickson said in an interview . “It’s been very hard physically, mentally, emotionally.”

Amid yet another surge in COVID-19 cases around the United States, clinicians are speaking out about their growing frustration with this preventable crisis.

Some are using the terms “empathy fatigue” and “compassion fatigue” – a sense that they are losing empathy for unvaccinated individuals who are fueling the pandemic.

Dr. Erickson says she is frustrated not by individual patients but by a system that has allowed disinformation to proliferate. Experts say these types of feelings fit into a widespread pattern of physician burnout that has taken a new turn at this stage of the pandemic.

Paradoxical choices

Empathy is a cornerstone of what clinicians do, and the ability to understand and share a patient’s feelings is an essential skill for providing effective care, says Kaz Nelson, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Practitioners face paradoxical situations all the time, she notes. These include individuals who break bones and go skydiving again, people who have high cholesterol but continue to eat fried foods, and those with advanced lung cancer who continue to smoke.

To treat patients with compassion, practitioners learn to set aside judgment by acknowledging the complexity of human behavior. They may lament the addictive nature of nicotine and advertising that targets children, for example, while still listening and caring.

Empathy requires high-level brain function, but as stress levels rise, brain function that drives empathy tends to shut down. It’s a survival mechanism, Dr. Nelson says.

When health care workers feel overwhelmed, trapped, or threatened by patients demanding unproven treatments or by ICUs with more patients than ventilators, they may experience a fight-or-flight response that makes them defensive, frustrated, angry, or uncaring, notes Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder of Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline for doctors.

Some clinicians have taken to Twitter and other social media platforms to post about these types of experiences.

These feelings, which have been brewing for months, have been exacerbated by the complexity of the current situation. Clinicians see a disconnect between what is and what could be, Dr. Nelson notes.

“Prior to vaccines, there weren’t other options, and so we had toxic stress and we had fatigue, but we could still maintain little bits of empathy by saying, ‘You know, people didn’t choose to get infected, and we are in a pandemic.’ We could kind of hate the virus. Now with access to vaccines, that last connection to empathy is removed for many people,” she says.

Self-preservation vs. empathy

Compassion fatigue or empathy fatigue is just one reaction to feeling completely maxed out and overstressed, Dr. Nelson says. Anger at society, such as what Dr. Erickson experienced, is another response.

Practitioners may also feel as if they are just going through the motions of their job, or they might disassociate, ceasing to feel that their patients are human. Plenty of doctors and nurses have cried in their cars after shifts and have posted tearful videos on social media.

Early in the pandemic, Dr. Masood says, physicians who called the support hotline expressed sadness and grief. Now, she had her colleagues hear frustration and anger, along with guilt and shame for having feelings they believe they shouldn’t be having, especially toward patients. They may feel unprofessional or worse – unworthy of being physicians, she says.

One recent caller to the hotline was a long-time ICU physician who had been told so many times by patients that ivermectin was the only medicine that would cure them that he began to doubt himself, says Dr. Masood. This caller needed to be reassured by another physician that he was doing the right thing.

Another emergency department physician told Dr. Masood about a young child who had arrived at the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. When asked whether the family had been exposed to anyone with COVID-19, the child’s parent lied so that they could be triaged faster.

The physician, who needed to step away from the situation, reached out to Dr. Masood to express her frustration so that she wouldn’t “let it out” on the patient.

“It’s hard to have empathy for people who, for all intents and purposes, are very self-centered,” Dr. Masood says. “We’re at a place where we’re having to choose between self-preservation and empathy.”
 

How to cope

To help practitioners cope, Dr. Masood offers words that describe what they’re experiencing. She often hears clinicians say things such as, “This is a type of burnout that I feel to my bones,” or “This makes me want to quit,” or “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.”

She encourages them to consider the terms “empathy fatigue,” and “moral injury” in order to reconcile how their sense of responsibility to take care of people is compromised by factors outside of their control.

It is not shameful to acknowledge that they experience emotions, including difficult ones such as frustration, anger, sadness, and anxiety, Dr. Masood adds.

Being frustrated with a patient doesn’t make someone a bad doctor, and admitting those emotions is the first step toward dealing with them, she says.

Dr. Nelson adds that taking breaks from work can help. She also recommends setting boundaries, seeking therapy, and acknowledging feelings early before they cause a sense of callousness or other consequences that become harder to heal from as time goes on.

“We’re trained to just go, go, go and sometimes not pause and check in,” she says. Clinicians who open up are likely to find they are not the only ones feeling tired or frustrated right now, she adds.

“Connect with peers and colleagues, because chances are, they can relate,” Dr. Nelson says.

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

Heidi Erickson, MD, is tired. As a pulmonary and critical care physician at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, she has been providing care for patients with COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

It was exhausting from the beginning, as she and her colleagues scrambled to understand how to deal with this new disease. But lately, she has noticed a different kind of exhaustion arising from the knowledge that with vaccines widely available, the latest surge was preventable.

Her intensive care unit is currently as full as it has ever been with COVID-19 patients, many of them young adults and most of them unvaccinated. After the recent death of one patient, an unvaccinated man with teenage children, she had to face his family’s questions about why ivermectin, an antiparasitic medication that was falsely promoted as a COVID-19 treatment, was not administered.

“I’m fatigued because I’m working more than ever, but more people don’t have to die,” Dr. Erickson said in an interview . “It’s been very hard physically, mentally, emotionally.”

Amid yet another surge in COVID-19 cases around the United States, clinicians are speaking out about their growing frustration with this preventable crisis.

Some are using the terms “empathy fatigue” and “compassion fatigue” – a sense that they are losing empathy for unvaccinated individuals who are fueling the pandemic.

Dr. Erickson says she is frustrated not by individual patients but by a system that has allowed disinformation to proliferate. Experts say these types of feelings fit into a widespread pattern of physician burnout that has taken a new turn at this stage of the pandemic.

Paradoxical choices

Empathy is a cornerstone of what clinicians do, and the ability to understand and share a patient’s feelings is an essential skill for providing effective care, says Kaz Nelson, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Practitioners face paradoxical situations all the time, she notes. These include individuals who break bones and go skydiving again, people who have high cholesterol but continue to eat fried foods, and those with advanced lung cancer who continue to smoke.

To treat patients with compassion, practitioners learn to set aside judgment by acknowledging the complexity of human behavior. They may lament the addictive nature of nicotine and advertising that targets children, for example, while still listening and caring.

Empathy requires high-level brain function, but as stress levels rise, brain function that drives empathy tends to shut down. It’s a survival mechanism, Dr. Nelson says.

When health care workers feel overwhelmed, trapped, or threatened by patients demanding unproven treatments or by ICUs with more patients than ventilators, they may experience a fight-or-flight response that makes them defensive, frustrated, angry, or uncaring, notes Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder of Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline for doctors.

Some clinicians have taken to Twitter and other social media platforms to post about these types of experiences.

These feelings, which have been brewing for months, have been exacerbated by the complexity of the current situation. Clinicians see a disconnect between what is and what could be, Dr. Nelson notes.

“Prior to vaccines, there weren’t other options, and so we had toxic stress and we had fatigue, but we could still maintain little bits of empathy by saying, ‘You know, people didn’t choose to get infected, and we are in a pandemic.’ We could kind of hate the virus. Now with access to vaccines, that last connection to empathy is removed for many people,” she says.

Self-preservation vs. empathy

Compassion fatigue or empathy fatigue is just one reaction to feeling completely maxed out and overstressed, Dr. Nelson says. Anger at society, such as what Dr. Erickson experienced, is another response.

Practitioners may also feel as if they are just going through the motions of their job, or they might disassociate, ceasing to feel that their patients are human. Plenty of doctors and nurses have cried in their cars after shifts and have posted tearful videos on social media.

Early in the pandemic, Dr. Masood says, physicians who called the support hotline expressed sadness and grief. Now, she had her colleagues hear frustration and anger, along with guilt and shame for having feelings they believe they shouldn’t be having, especially toward patients. They may feel unprofessional or worse – unworthy of being physicians, she says.

One recent caller to the hotline was a long-time ICU physician who had been told so many times by patients that ivermectin was the only medicine that would cure them that he began to doubt himself, says Dr. Masood. This caller needed to be reassured by another physician that he was doing the right thing.

Another emergency department physician told Dr. Masood about a young child who had arrived at the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. When asked whether the family had been exposed to anyone with COVID-19, the child’s parent lied so that they could be triaged faster.

The physician, who needed to step away from the situation, reached out to Dr. Masood to express her frustration so that she wouldn’t “let it out” on the patient.

“It’s hard to have empathy for people who, for all intents and purposes, are very self-centered,” Dr. Masood says. “We’re at a place where we’re having to choose between self-preservation and empathy.”
 

How to cope

To help practitioners cope, Dr. Masood offers words that describe what they’re experiencing. She often hears clinicians say things such as, “This is a type of burnout that I feel to my bones,” or “This makes me want to quit,” or “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.”

She encourages them to consider the terms “empathy fatigue,” and “moral injury” in order to reconcile how their sense of responsibility to take care of people is compromised by factors outside of their control.

It is not shameful to acknowledge that they experience emotions, including difficult ones such as frustration, anger, sadness, and anxiety, Dr. Masood adds.

Being frustrated with a patient doesn’t make someone a bad doctor, and admitting those emotions is the first step toward dealing with them, she says.

Dr. Nelson adds that taking breaks from work can help. She also recommends setting boundaries, seeking therapy, and acknowledging feelings early before they cause a sense of callousness or other consequences that become harder to heal from as time goes on.

“We’re trained to just go, go, go and sometimes not pause and check in,” she says. Clinicians who open up are likely to find they are not the only ones feeling tired or frustrated right now, she adds.

“Connect with peers and colleagues, because chances are, they can relate,” Dr. Nelson says.

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

In August I shared with you my observations on two opposing op-ed pieces from two major newspapers, one was in favor of masking mandates for public schools, the other against. (Masking in school: A battle of the op-eds. MDedge Pediatrics. Letters from Maine, 2021 Aug 12). Neither group of authors could offer us evidence from controlled studies to support their views. However, both agreed that returning children to school deserves a high priority. But neither the authors nor I treaded into the uncharted waters of exactly how masking fits into our national goals for managing the pandemic because ... no one in this country has articulated what these goals should be. A third op-ed appearing 3 weeks later suggests why we are floundering in this goal-deficient limbo.

Writing in the New York Times, two epidemiologists in Boston ask the simple question: “What are we actually trying to achieve in the United States?” when it comes to the pandemic. (Allen AG and Jenkins H. The Hard Covid-19 Questions We’re Not Asking. 2021 Aug 30). Is our goal zero infections? Is it hammering on the virus until we can treat it like the seasonal flu? We do seem to agree that not having kids in school has been a disaster economically, educationally, and psychologically. But, where does the goal of getting them back in school fit into a larger and as yet undefined national goal? Without that target we have little idea of what compromises and risks we should be willing to accept.

How much serious pediatric disease is acceptable? It appears that the number of fatal complications in the pediatric population is very small in comparison with other demographic groups. Although few in number, there have been and there will continue to be pediatric deaths because of COVID. Is our goal zero pediatric deaths? If it is then this dictates a level of response that ripples back upstream to every child in every classroom and could threaten our overarching goal of returning children to school. Because none of us likes the thought of a child dying, some of us may be hesitant to even consider a strategy that doesn’t include zero pediatric deaths as a goal.

Are we looking to have zero serious pediatric infections? Achieving this goal is unlikely. Even if we develop a pediatric vaccine in the near future it probably won’t be in the arms of enough children by the end of this school year to make a significant dent in the number of serious pediatric infections. Waiting until an optimal number of children are immunized doesn’t feel like it will achieve a primary goal of getting kids back in school if we continue to focus on driving the level of serious pediatric infections to zero. We have already endured a year in which many communities made decisions that seemed to have prioritized an unstated goal of no school exposure–related educator deaths. Again, a goal based on little if any evidence.

The problem we face in this country is that our response to the pandemic has been nonuniform. Here in Brunswick, Maine, 99% of the eligible adults have been vaccinated. Even with the recent surge, we may be ready for a strategy that avoids wholesale quarantining. A targeted and robust antibody testing system might work for us and make an unproven and unpopular masking mandate unnecessary. Britain seems to be moving in a similar direction to meet its goal of keeping children in school.

However, there are large population groups in regions of this country that have stumbled at taking the initial steps to get the pandemic under control. Articulating a national goal that covers both communities where the response to the pandemic has been less thoughtful and robust along with states that have been more successful is going to be difficult. But it must be done.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In August I shared with you my observations on two opposing op-ed pieces from two major newspapers, one was in favor of masking mandates for public schools, the other against. (Masking in school: A battle of the op-eds. MDedge Pediatrics. Letters from Maine, 2021 Aug 12). Neither group of authors could offer us evidence from controlled studies to support their views. However, both agreed that returning children to school deserves a high priority. But neither the authors nor I treaded into the uncharted waters of exactly how masking fits into our national goals for managing the pandemic because ... no one in this country has articulated what these goals should be. A third op-ed appearing 3 weeks later suggests why we are floundering in this goal-deficient limbo.

Writing in the New York Times, two epidemiologists in Boston ask the simple question: “What are we actually trying to achieve in the United States?” when it comes to the pandemic. (Allen AG and Jenkins H. The Hard Covid-19 Questions We’re Not Asking. 2021 Aug 30). Is our goal zero infections? Is it hammering on the virus until we can treat it like the seasonal flu? We do seem to agree that not having kids in school has been a disaster economically, educationally, and psychologically. But, where does the goal of getting them back in school fit into a larger and as yet undefined national goal? Without that target we have little idea of what compromises and risks we should be willing to accept.

How much serious pediatric disease is acceptable? It appears that the number of fatal complications in the pediatric population is very small in comparison with other demographic groups. Although few in number, there have been and there will continue to be pediatric deaths because of COVID. Is our goal zero pediatric deaths? If it is then this dictates a level of response that ripples back upstream to every child in every classroom and could threaten our overarching goal of returning children to school. Because none of us likes the thought of a child dying, some of us may be hesitant to even consider a strategy that doesn’t include zero pediatric deaths as a goal.

Are we looking to have zero serious pediatric infections? Achieving this goal is unlikely. Even if we develop a pediatric vaccine in the near future it probably won’t be in the arms of enough children by the end of this school year to make a significant dent in the number of serious pediatric infections. Waiting until an optimal number of children are immunized doesn’t feel like it will achieve a primary goal of getting kids back in school if we continue to focus on driving the level of serious pediatric infections to zero. We have already endured a year in which many communities made decisions that seemed to have prioritized an unstated goal of no school exposure–related educator deaths. Again, a goal based on little if any evidence.

The problem we face in this country is that our response to the pandemic has been nonuniform. Here in Brunswick, Maine, 99% of the eligible adults have been vaccinated. Even with the recent surge, we may be ready for a strategy that avoids wholesale quarantining. A targeted and robust antibody testing system might work for us and make an unproven and unpopular masking mandate unnecessary. Britain seems to be moving in a similar direction to meet its goal of keeping children in school.

However, there are large population groups in regions of this country that have stumbled at taking the initial steps to get the pandemic under control. Articulating a national goal that covers both communities where the response to the pandemic has been less thoughtful and robust along with states that have been more successful is going to be difficult. But it must be done.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In August I shared with you my observations on two opposing op-ed pieces from two major newspapers, one was in favor of masking mandates for public schools, the other against. (Masking in school: A battle of the op-eds. MDedge Pediatrics. Letters from Maine, 2021 Aug 12). Neither group of authors could offer us evidence from controlled studies to support their views. However, both agreed that returning children to school deserves a high priority. But neither the authors nor I treaded into the uncharted waters of exactly how masking fits into our national goals for managing the pandemic because ... no one in this country has articulated what these goals should be. A third op-ed appearing 3 weeks later suggests why we are floundering in this goal-deficient limbo.

Writing in the New York Times, two epidemiologists in Boston ask the simple question: “What are we actually trying to achieve in the United States?” when it comes to the pandemic. (Allen AG and Jenkins H. The Hard Covid-19 Questions We’re Not Asking. 2021 Aug 30). Is our goal zero infections? Is it hammering on the virus until we can treat it like the seasonal flu? We do seem to agree that not having kids in school has been a disaster economically, educationally, and psychologically. But, where does the goal of getting them back in school fit into a larger and as yet undefined national goal? Without that target we have little idea of what compromises and risks we should be willing to accept.

How much serious pediatric disease is acceptable? It appears that the number of fatal complications in the pediatric population is very small in comparison with other demographic groups. Although few in number, there have been and there will continue to be pediatric deaths because of COVID. Is our goal zero pediatric deaths? If it is then this dictates a level of response that ripples back upstream to every child in every classroom and could threaten our overarching goal of returning children to school. Because none of us likes the thought of a child dying, some of us may be hesitant to even consider a strategy that doesn’t include zero pediatric deaths as a goal.

Are we looking to have zero serious pediatric infections? Achieving this goal is unlikely. Even if we develop a pediatric vaccine in the near future it probably won’t be in the arms of enough children by the end of this school year to make a significant dent in the number of serious pediatric infections. Waiting until an optimal number of children are immunized doesn’t feel like it will achieve a primary goal of getting kids back in school if we continue to focus on driving the level of serious pediatric infections to zero. We have already endured a year in which many communities made decisions that seemed to have prioritized an unstated goal of no school exposure–related educator deaths. Again, a goal based on little if any evidence.

The problem we face in this country is that our response to the pandemic has been nonuniform. Here in Brunswick, Maine, 99% of the eligible adults have been vaccinated. Even with the recent surge, we may be ready for a strategy that avoids wholesale quarantining. A targeted and robust antibody testing system might work for us and make an unproven and unpopular masking mandate unnecessary. Britain seems to be moving in a similar direction to meet its goal of keeping children in school.

However, there are large population groups in regions of this country that have stumbled at taking the initial steps to get the pandemic under control. Articulating a national goal that covers both communities where the response to the pandemic has been less thoughtful and robust along with states that have been more successful is going to be difficult. But it must be done.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

As private practices try to recover and rebuild in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have faced an unexpected challenge: a paucity of employees.

My own office is prime example: I have had job listings for both front- and back-office positions posted on all the major job boards and other employment portals for months, with a disappointing response. Of the few who do respond, many, incredibly, do not show up for their interviews!

It turns out that this is a widespread problem, and not just in medicine. A recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business found that 42% of business owners, in all walks of life, had job openings that could not be filled, a record high. Over 90% of those hiring reported few or no qualified applicants and an increase in interview no-shows.

Clearly, this is a huge obstacle to growth – and even to conducting normal operations – for my practice and many others.

Reasons for the situation vary, but a big one has been the unfortunate fact that many open job positions actually pay less than the expanded unemployment benefits that many people have received under the March 2020 CARES Act. By one estimate, almost 70% of unemployed workers have been collecting more on unemployment than they earned while working. The CARES benefits expired in early September, but many potential workers continue to receive payments through a newer FEMA program, and some states have their own ongoing benefit programs.

Other reasons have been offered: Some candidates are unvaccinated (an immediate deal-breaker in my office), and some working parents continue to face a lack of childcare or in-person schooling for their children. Some applicants – regardless of vaccination status – have said they are hesitant to work in a medical office setting and risk getting COVID-19, despite all the precautions we have in place. Others have said they are waiting until the job market improves.

There are no easy solutions to this complicated problem, but here are a few suggestions culled from my research and conversations with HR professionals and others.

One obvious option is to offer higher wages, and perhaps even signing bonuses. “Whenever anyone says they can’t find the workers they need,” a consultant told me, “they are really saying they can’t find them at the wages they want to pay.” There are limits to the wages and benefits a private office with a very finite salary budget can offer, of course – but a few higher-paid employees may be preferable to no new workers at all.

For job candidates who fear COVID-19 exposure, assure them that their health and safety is a priority by spelling out the procedures your office is following (social distancing, reduced patient capacity, interaction barriers, face masks, avoidance of handshakes, enhanced cleaning procedures, symptom questionnaires, temperature checks, etc.) to minimize the risk of exposure.

You also may need to rework your interview process. In the Zoom era, most preliminary interviews can be conducted remotely. For on-site interviews, explain how you’re maintaining a safe interview environment by applying the same office safety policies to interactions with interviewees.

If a promising candidate doesn’t show up for an interview, the applicant could be making a token effort to obtain a job in order to perpetuate unemployment payments, but don’t jump to that conclusion. There may be extenuating circumstances, such as an emergency, illness, or traffic issues. Also, consider the possibility that it was your fault. If you waited too long to schedule the interview, another office could have lured them away. Or you may not have adequately explained your COVID-19 exposure safeguards. At the very least, a drawn-out process or a lack of transparency can make applicants apprehensive about accepting a job with you, particularly if other employers are pursuing them.

To counter the shortsighted appeal of collecting unemployment benefits, it may help to highlight the long-term growth opportunities available at your office. Consider outlining typical career tracks, or providing specific examples of how people have advanced their careers at your facility. I frequently cite the example of my current office manager, who began as an assistant receptionist almost 30 years ago.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As private practices try to recover and rebuild in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have faced an unexpected challenge: a paucity of employees.

My own office is prime example: I have had job listings for both front- and back-office positions posted on all the major job boards and other employment portals for months, with a disappointing response. Of the few who do respond, many, incredibly, do not show up for their interviews!

It turns out that this is a widespread problem, and not just in medicine. A recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business found that 42% of business owners, in all walks of life, had job openings that could not be filled, a record high. Over 90% of those hiring reported few or no qualified applicants and an increase in interview no-shows.

Clearly, this is a huge obstacle to growth – and even to conducting normal operations – for my practice and many others.

Reasons for the situation vary, but a big one has been the unfortunate fact that many open job positions actually pay less than the expanded unemployment benefits that many people have received under the March 2020 CARES Act. By one estimate, almost 70% of unemployed workers have been collecting more on unemployment than they earned while working. The CARES benefits expired in early September, but many potential workers continue to receive payments through a newer FEMA program, and some states have their own ongoing benefit programs.

Other reasons have been offered: Some candidates are unvaccinated (an immediate deal-breaker in my office), and some working parents continue to face a lack of childcare or in-person schooling for their children. Some applicants – regardless of vaccination status – have said they are hesitant to work in a medical office setting and risk getting COVID-19, despite all the precautions we have in place. Others have said they are waiting until the job market improves.

There are no easy solutions to this complicated problem, but here are a few suggestions culled from my research and conversations with HR professionals and others.

One obvious option is to offer higher wages, and perhaps even signing bonuses. “Whenever anyone says they can’t find the workers they need,” a consultant told me, “they are really saying they can’t find them at the wages they want to pay.” There are limits to the wages and benefits a private office with a very finite salary budget can offer, of course – but a few higher-paid employees may be preferable to no new workers at all.

For job candidates who fear COVID-19 exposure, assure them that their health and safety is a priority by spelling out the procedures your office is following (social distancing, reduced patient capacity, interaction barriers, face masks, avoidance of handshakes, enhanced cleaning procedures, symptom questionnaires, temperature checks, etc.) to minimize the risk of exposure.

You also may need to rework your interview process. In the Zoom era, most preliminary interviews can be conducted remotely. For on-site interviews, explain how you’re maintaining a safe interview environment by applying the same office safety policies to interactions with interviewees.

If a promising candidate doesn’t show up for an interview, the applicant could be making a token effort to obtain a job in order to perpetuate unemployment payments, but don’t jump to that conclusion. There may be extenuating circumstances, such as an emergency, illness, or traffic issues. Also, consider the possibility that it was your fault. If you waited too long to schedule the interview, another office could have lured them away. Or you may not have adequately explained your COVID-19 exposure safeguards. At the very least, a drawn-out process or a lack of transparency can make applicants apprehensive about accepting a job with you, particularly if other employers are pursuing them.

To counter the shortsighted appeal of collecting unemployment benefits, it may help to highlight the long-term growth opportunities available at your office. Consider outlining typical career tracks, or providing specific examples of how people have advanced their careers at your facility. I frequently cite the example of my current office manager, who began as an assistant receptionist almost 30 years ago.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As private practices try to recover and rebuild in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have faced an unexpected challenge: a paucity of employees.

My own office is prime example: I have had job listings for both front- and back-office positions posted on all the major job boards and other employment portals for months, with a disappointing response. Of the few who do respond, many, incredibly, do not show up for their interviews!

It turns out that this is a widespread problem, and not just in medicine. A recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business found that 42% of business owners, in all walks of life, had job openings that could not be filled, a record high. Over 90% of those hiring reported few or no qualified applicants and an increase in interview no-shows.

Clearly, this is a huge obstacle to growth – and even to conducting normal operations – for my practice and many others.

Reasons for the situation vary, but a big one has been the unfortunate fact that many open job positions actually pay less than the expanded unemployment benefits that many people have received under the March 2020 CARES Act. By one estimate, almost 70% of unemployed workers have been collecting more on unemployment than they earned while working. The CARES benefits expired in early September, but many potential workers continue to receive payments through a newer FEMA program, and some states have their own ongoing benefit programs.

Other reasons have been offered: Some candidates are unvaccinated (an immediate deal-breaker in my office), and some working parents continue to face a lack of childcare or in-person schooling for their children. Some applicants – regardless of vaccination status – have said they are hesitant to work in a medical office setting and risk getting COVID-19, despite all the precautions we have in place. Others have said they are waiting until the job market improves.

There are no easy solutions to this complicated problem, but here are a few suggestions culled from my research and conversations with HR professionals and others.

One obvious option is to offer higher wages, and perhaps even signing bonuses. “Whenever anyone says they can’t find the workers they need,” a consultant told me, “they are really saying they can’t find them at the wages they want to pay.” There are limits to the wages and benefits a private office with a very finite salary budget can offer, of course – but a few higher-paid employees may be preferable to no new workers at all.

For job candidates who fear COVID-19 exposure, assure them that their health and safety is a priority by spelling out the procedures your office is following (social distancing, reduced patient capacity, interaction barriers, face masks, avoidance of handshakes, enhanced cleaning procedures, symptom questionnaires, temperature checks, etc.) to minimize the risk of exposure.

You also may need to rework your interview process. In the Zoom era, most preliminary interviews can be conducted remotely. For on-site interviews, explain how you’re maintaining a safe interview environment by applying the same office safety policies to interactions with interviewees.

If a promising candidate doesn’t show up for an interview, the applicant could be making a token effort to obtain a job in order to perpetuate unemployment payments, but don’t jump to that conclusion. There may be extenuating circumstances, such as an emergency, illness, or traffic issues. Also, consider the possibility that it was your fault. If you waited too long to schedule the interview, another office could have lured them away. Or you may not have adequately explained your COVID-19 exposure safeguards. At the very least, a drawn-out process or a lack of transparency can make applicants apprehensive about accepting a job with you, particularly if other employers are pursuing them.

To counter the shortsighted appeal of collecting unemployment benefits, it may help to highlight the long-term growth opportunities available at your office. Consider outlining typical career tracks, or providing specific examples of how people have advanced their careers at your facility. I frequently cite the example of my current office manager, who began as an assistant receptionist almost 30 years ago.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and HPV 18 during a pregnancy may be associated with an increased risk of premature birth.

Findings published online in JAMA Network Open found that 15.9% of individuals who had a persistent HPV 16 or 18 infection during the first and third trimesters of their pregnancy gave birth prematurely, compared with 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection at all.

The findings prompted the question of “the pathophysiology of HPV in pregnancy and how the virus is affecting the placenta,” said Lisette Davidson Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study.

Researchers said the findings are the first to show the association between preterm birth and HPV, which is an incurable virus that most sexually active individuals will get at some point in their lives, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The results of this study are very important in helping us understand the burden caused by HPV in pregnancy,” study author Helen Trottier, MSc, PhD, researcher at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine, said in an interview. “We may have just pinpointed an important cause of preterm birth that has so far been unexplained.”

Dr. Trottier and colleagues examined data from 1,052 pregnant women from three university-affiliated health care centers in Montreal between Nov. 8, 2010, and Oct. 16, 2016.

Only 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection had a premature birth, compared with 6.9% of those who tested positive for any HPV infection in the first trimester.

When looking at the first trimester, researchers found 12% of those diagnosed with HPV 16 and 18 had a preterm birth, compared to 4.9% of those who had a high-risk HPV infection other than HPV 16/18. When looking at the third trimester, researchers found that 15.9% of those with HPV 16/18 had an increased risk of giving birth prematurely, compared to those who had other high-risk HPV infections.

When researchers looked at the persistence of these HPV infections, they found that most HPV infections detected in the first trimester persist to the third trimester. The findings also revealed that persistent vaginal HPV 16/18 detection was significantly associated with all preterm births and spontaneous preterm births. This association was also found among those who had HPV infections detected in their placentas.

Meanwhile, 5.8% of those who had an HPV infection only during the first trimester experienced a preterm birth.

The researchers also found that HPV infections were frequent in pregnancy even among populations “considered to be at low risk based on sociodemographic and sexual history characteristics,” they wrote. Dr. Trottier said she hopes the findings will strengthen support for HPV vaccination.

Dr. Trottier’s study adds to a growing body of research regarding the adverse effects of HPV, according to Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is already well known that HPV is associated with a number of anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers,” Dr. Tanner said in an interview. “The potential association with preterm birth only adds weight to the recommendations to screen for and prevent HPV infection.”

HPV 16 and 18 are high-risk types that cause about 70% of cervical cancers and precancerous cervical lesions, according to the World Health Organization. However, there are three HPV vaccines – 9-valent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil®, 4vHPV), and bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix) – that help protect against HPV 16/18.

The findings strengthen the benefits of HPV vaccination, Dr. Trottier explained. “There is no cure when the HPV infection is present,” Dr. Trottier said. “If the link [between preterm birth and HPV infections] is indeed causal, we can expect a greater risk of preterm delivery in these women. The effective tool we have is the HPV vaccination, but it should ideally be received before the start of sexual activity in order to prevent future infections that could occur in women.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends HPV vaccination for girls and women between the ages of 11 and 26 years old. However, Dr. Tanner said, women aged 27-45 who were previously unvaccinated may still receive benefit from the vaccine. 

“Despite the known efficacy of the vaccine, only 50% of patients are up to date with their HPV vaccination,” Dr. Tanner explained. “This study further highlights the need to educate and encourage patients to be vaccinated.”

The researchers said future studies should investigate the association of HPV vaccination and vaccination programs with the risk of preterm birth.

The experts disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and HPV 18 during a pregnancy may be associated with an increased risk of premature birth.

Findings published online in JAMA Network Open found that 15.9% of individuals who had a persistent HPV 16 or 18 infection during the first and third trimesters of their pregnancy gave birth prematurely, compared with 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection at all.

The findings prompted the question of “the pathophysiology of HPV in pregnancy and how the virus is affecting the placenta,” said Lisette Davidson Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study.

Researchers said the findings are the first to show the association between preterm birth and HPV, which is an incurable virus that most sexually active individuals will get at some point in their lives, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The results of this study are very important in helping us understand the burden caused by HPV in pregnancy,” study author Helen Trottier, MSc, PhD, researcher at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine, said in an interview. “We may have just pinpointed an important cause of preterm birth that has so far been unexplained.”

Dr. Trottier and colleagues examined data from 1,052 pregnant women from three university-affiliated health care centers in Montreal between Nov. 8, 2010, and Oct. 16, 2016.

Only 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection had a premature birth, compared with 6.9% of those who tested positive for any HPV infection in the first trimester.

When looking at the first trimester, researchers found 12% of those diagnosed with HPV 16 and 18 had a preterm birth, compared to 4.9% of those who had a high-risk HPV infection other than HPV 16/18. When looking at the third trimester, researchers found that 15.9% of those with HPV 16/18 had an increased risk of giving birth prematurely, compared to those who had other high-risk HPV infections.

When researchers looked at the persistence of these HPV infections, they found that most HPV infections detected in the first trimester persist to the third trimester. The findings also revealed that persistent vaginal HPV 16/18 detection was significantly associated with all preterm births and spontaneous preterm births. This association was also found among those who had HPV infections detected in their placentas.

Meanwhile, 5.8% of those who had an HPV infection only during the first trimester experienced a preterm birth.

The researchers also found that HPV infections were frequent in pregnancy even among populations “considered to be at low risk based on sociodemographic and sexual history characteristics,” they wrote. Dr. Trottier said she hopes the findings will strengthen support for HPV vaccination.

Dr. Trottier’s study adds to a growing body of research regarding the adverse effects of HPV, according to Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is already well known that HPV is associated with a number of anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers,” Dr. Tanner said in an interview. “The potential association with preterm birth only adds weight to the recommendations to screen for and prevent HPV infection.”

HPV 16 and 18 are high-risk types that cause about 70% of cervical cancers and precancerous cervical lesions, according to the World Health Organization. However, there are three HPV vaccines – 9-valent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil®, 4vHPV), and bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix) – that help protect against HPV 16/18.

The findings strengthen the benefits of HPV vaccination, Dr. Trottier explained. “There is no cure when the HPV infection is present,” Dr. Trottier said. “If the link [between preterm birth and HPV infections] is indeed causal, we can expect a greater risk of preterm delivery in these women. The effective tool we have is the HPV vaccination, but it should ideally be received before the start of sexual activity in order to prevent future infections that could occur in women.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends HPV vaccination for girls and women between the ages of 11 and 26 years old. However, Dr. Tanner said, women aged 27-45 who were previously unvaccinated may still receive benefit from the vaccine. 

“Despite the known efficacy of the vaccine, only 50% of patients are up to date with their HPV vaccination,” Dr. Tanner explained. “This study further highlights the need to educate and encourage patients to be vaccinated.”

The researchers said future studies should investigate the association of HPV vaccination and vaccination programs with the risk of preterm birth.

The experts disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and HPV 18 during a pregnancy may be associated with an increased risk of premature birth.

Findings published online in JAMA Network Open found that 15.9% of individuals who had a persistent HPV 16 or 18 infection during the first and third trimesters of their pregnancy gave birth prematurely, compared with 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection at all.

The findings prompted the question of “the pathophysiology of HPV in pregnancy and how the virus is affecting the placenta,” said Lisette Davidson Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study.

Researchers said the findings are the first to show the association between preterm birth and HPV, which is an incurable virus that most sexually active individuals will get at some point in their lives, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The results of this study are very important in helping us understand the burden caused by HPV in pregnancy,” study author Helen Trottier, MSc, PhD, researcher at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine, said in an interview. “We may have just pinpointed an important cause of preterm birth that has so far been unexplained.”

Dr. Trottier and colleagues examined data from 1,052 pregnant women from three university-affiliated health care centers in Montreal between Nov. 8, 2010, and Oct. 16, 2016.

Only 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection had a premature birth, compared with 6.9% of those who tested positive for any HPV infection in the first trimester.

When looking at the first trimester, researchers found 12% of those diagnosed with HPV 16 and 18 had a preterm birth, compared to 4.9% of those who had a high-risk HPV infection other than HPV 16/18. When looking at the third trimester, researchers found that 15.9% of those with HPV 16/18 had an increased risk of giving birth prematurely, compared to those who had other high-risk HPV infections.

When researchers looked at the persistence of these HPV infections, they found that most HPV infections detected in the first trimester persist to the third trimester. The findings also revealed that persistent vaginal HPV 16/18 detection was significantly associated with all preterm births and spontaneous preterm births. This association was also found among those who had HPV infections detected in their placentas.

Meanwhile, 5.8% of those who had an HPV infection only during the first trimester experienced a preterm birth.

The researchers also found that HPV infections were frequent in pregnancy even among populations “considered to be at low risk based on sociodemographic and sexual history characteristics,” they wrote. Dr. Trottier said she hopes the findings will strengthen support for HPV vaccination.

Dr. Trottier’s study adds to a growing body of research regarding the adverse effects of HPV, according to Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is already well known that HPV is associated with a number of anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers,” Dr. Tanner said in an interview. “The potential association with preterm birth only adds weight to the recommendations to screen for and prevent HPV infection.”

HPV 16 and 18 are high-risk types that cause about 70% of cervical cancers and precancerous cervical lesions, according to the World Health Organization. However, there are three HPV vaccines – 9-valent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil®, 4vHPV), and bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix) – that help protect against HPV 16/18.

The findings strengthen the benefits of HPV vaccination, Dr. Trottier explained. “There is no cure when the HPV infection is present,” Dr. Trottier said. “If the link [between preterm birth and HPV infections] is indeed causal, we can expect a greater risk of preterm delivery in these women. The effective tool we have is the HPV vaccination, but it should ideally be received before the start of sexual activity in order to prevent future infections that could occur in women.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends HPV vaccination for girls and women between the ages of 11 and 26 years old. However, Dr. Tanner said, women aged 27-45 who were previously unvaccinated may still receive benefit from the vaccine. 

“Despite the known efficacy of the vaccine, only 50% of patients are up to date with their HPV vaccination,” Dr. Tanner explained. “This study further highlights the need to educate and encourage patients to be vaccinated.”

The researchers said future studies should investigate the association of HPV vaccination and vaccination programs with the risk of preterm birth.

The experts disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Breast density in women aged 65 years and older may confer an increased risk of invasive breast cancer, much as it does in women aged 40-65 years, a large prospective cohort study suggests.

The findings, based on an analysis of Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data from Jan. 1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2012, have potential implications for screening mammography decisions in older women – particularly those aged 75 years and older, for whom screening guidance is limited by a paucity of data, Dejana Braithwaite, PhD, of the University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.

The investigators analyzed 221,714 screening mammograms from 193,787 women aged 65 and older in the United States. About 65% of the mammograms were from women aged 65-74 years and about 35% were from women aged 75 years and older, who comprised 38% of the study population.

During a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 5,069 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed, the authors noted.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer increased in tandem with increasing breast density among those aged 65-74 years and among those aged 75 and older: The cumulative incidence per 1,000 women aged 65-74 years was 11.3 for those with almost entirely fatty breasts, 17.2 for those with scattered fibroglandular densities, and 23.7 for those with extremely or heterogeneously dense breasts. The cumulative incidence rates for those aged 75 years and older were 13.5, 18.4, and 22.5 per 1,000 women, respectively, they found.

Extreme or heterogeneous breast density was associated with increased risk of breast cancer, compared with scattered fibroglandular breast density, in both age categories (hazard ratios, 1.39 and 1.23 for those aged 65-74 years and 75 years and older, respectively), whereas the risk of invasive breast cancer was about 30% lower among women with almost entirely fatty breasts, compared with women with scattered fibroglandular breast density (HRs, 0.66 and 0.73 for the 65-74 and 75-plus age groups, respectively).

The associations between breast density and breast cancer were statistically significant after adjustment for body mass index (BMI) and other risk factors.

However, no significant differences were seen between breast density and breast cancer risk based on BMI, noted the authors, who investigated this potential association as part of their effort to identify subpopulations of older women who might benefit from screening, “especially because the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force guidelines state that the current evidence is considered insufficient to recommend routine breast cancer screening for women aged 75 years or older,” they wrote.

Further, although breast density is important in risk assessment and could be evaluated in older women, some risk prediction models exclude women aged 75 or older in risk assessments, they noted, adding that this is concerning given “the aging of the population in the U.S. and worldwide.”

“The positive associations found in this study between breast density and breast cancer among women aged 75 years or older suggest that breast density and life expectancy should be considered together when discussing the potential benefits and harms of continued screening mammography in this population,” they concluded.

The new findings supplement those from prior studies and highlight “the intersection of ... two subjects that have garnered considerable lay public, healthy policy, and academic interest” in recent years: screening mammography in older women and the risk of breast cancer caused by breast density in older women, Catherine M. Tuite, MD, of ChristianaCare Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, Newark, Del., wrote in a commentary published with the study.

“Although there is a linear association between age and mammographic density, age is not a perfect surrogate for the latter, and there are meaningful numbers of older women with mammographically dense breast tissue,” she said, noting that a 75-year-old woman in the United States has a life expectancy of 12-14 additional years, and that “continuation of screening mammography in healthy women aged 75 years or older may offer a substantial opportunity to avoid morbidity and mortality from breast cancer in this age group.”

However, overdiagnosis also remains a concern, she said.

“Breast density and age are only a few of the many factors currently under investigation in the drive toward risk-based or personalized breast cancer screening,” she wrote. “We must remain cautious in the application of restrictive screening for women of any age with supposedly lower than average risk ... ultimately, the decision of when to stop screening is personal, and each woman deserves the agency to weigh her own wishes, values, and life experiences with an accurate and unbiased discussion of risks and benefits of screening mammography in making that decision.”

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Cancer and vital status data collection was supported in part by several state public health departments and cancer registries. Dr. Advani and Dr. Tuite each reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

Breast density in women aged 65 years and older may confer an increased risk of invasive breast cancer, much as it does in women aged 40-65 years, a large prospective cohort study suggests.

The findings, based on an analysis of Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data from Jan. 1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2012, have potential implications for screening mammography decisions in older women – particularly those aged 75 years and older, for whom screening guidance is limited by a paucity of data, Dejana Braithwaite, PhD, of the University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.

The investigators analyzed 221,714 screening mammograms from 193,787 women aged 65 and older in the United States. About 65% of the mammograms were from women aged 65-74 years and about 35% were from women aged 75 years and older, who comprised 38% of the study population.

During a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 5,069 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed, the authors noted.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer increased in tandem with increasing breast density among those aged 65-74 years and among those aged 75 and older: The cumulative incidence per 1,000 women aged 65-74 years was 11.3 for those with almost entirely fatty breasts, 17.2 for those with scattered fibroglandular densities, and 23.7 for those with extremely or heterogeneously dense breasts. The cumulative incidence rates for those aged 75 years and older were 13.5, 18.4, and 22.5 per 1,000 women, respectively, they found.

Extreme or heterogeneous breast density was associated with increased risk of breast cancer, compared with scattered fibroglandular breast density, in both age categories (hazard ratios, 1.39 and 1.23 for those aged 65-74 years and 75 years and older, respectively), whereas the risk of invasive breast cancer was about 30% lower among women with almost entirely fatty breasts, compared with women with scattered fibroglandular breast density (HRs, 0.66 and 0.73 for the 65-74 and 75-plus age groups, respectively).

The associations between breast density and breast cancer were statistically significant after adjustment for body mass index (BMI) and other risk factors.

However, no significant differences were seen between breast density and breast cancer risk based on BMI, noted the authors, who investigated this potential association as part of their effort to identify subpopulations of older women who might benefit from screening, “especially because the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force guidelines state that the current evidence is considered insufficient to recommend routine breast cancer screening for women aged 75 years or older,” they wrote.

Further, although breast density is important in risk assessment and could be evaluated in older women, some risk prediction models exclude women aged 75 or older in risk assessments, they noted, adding that this is concerning given “the aging of the population in the U.S. and worldwide.”

“The positive associations found in this study between breast density and breast cancer among women aged 75 years or older suggest that breast density and life expectancy should be considered together when discussing the potential benefits and harms of continued screening mammography in this population,” they concluded.

The new findings supplement those from prior studies and highlight “the intersection of ... two subjects that have garnered considerable lay public, healthy policy, and academic interest” in recent years: screening mammography in older women and the risk of breast cancer caused by breast density in older women, Catherine M. Tuite, MD, of ChristianaCare Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, Newark, Del., wrote in a commentary published with the study.

“Although there is a linear association between age and mammographic density, age is not a perfect surrogate for the latter, and there are meaningful numbers of older women with mammographically dense breast tissue,” she said, noting that a 75-year-old woman in the United States has a life expectancy of 12-14 additional years, and that “continuation of screening mammography in healthy women aged 75 years or older may offer a substantial opportunity to avoid morbidity and mortality from breast cancer in this age group.”

However, overdiagnosis also remains a concern, she said.

“Breast density and age are only a few of the many factors currently under investigation in the drive toward risk-based or personalized breast cancer screening,” she wrote. “We must remain cautious in the application of restrictive screening for women of any age with supposedly lower than average risk ... ultimately, the decision of when to stop screening is personal, and each woman deserves the agency to weigh her own wishes, values, and life experiences with an accurate and unbiased discussion of risks and benefits of screening mammography in making that decision.”

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Cancer and vital status data collection was supported in part by several state public health departments and cancer registries. Dr. Advani and Dr. Tuite each reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

Breast density in women aged 65 years and older may confer an increased risk of invasive breast cancer, much as it does in women aged 40-65 years, a large prospective cohort study suggests.

The findings, based on an analysis of Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data from Jan. 1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2012, have potential implications for screening mammography decisions in older women – particularly those aged 75 years and older, for whom screening guidance is limited by a paucity of data, Dejana Braithwaite, PhD, of the University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.

The investigators analyzed 221,714 screening mammograms from 193,787 women aged 65 and older in the United States. About 65% of the mammograms were from women aged 65-74 years and about 35% were from women aged 75 years and older, who comprised 38% of the study population.

During a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 5,069 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed, the authors noted.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer increased in tandem with increasing breast density among those aged 65-74 years and among those aged 75 and older: The cumulative incidence per 1,000 women aged 65-74 years was 11.3 for those with almost entirely fatty breasts, 17.2 for those with scattered fibroglandular densities, and 23.7 for those with extremely or heterogeneously dense breasts. The cumulative incidence rates for those aged 75 years and older were 13.5, 18.4, and 22.5 per 1,000 women, respectively, they found.

Extreme or heterogeneous breast density was associated with increased risk of breast cancer, compared with scattered fibroglandular breast density, in both age categories (hazard ratios, 1.39 and 1.23 for those aged 65-74 years and 75 years and older, respectively), whereas the risk of invasive breast cancer was about 30% lower among women with almost entirely fatty breasts, compared with women with scattered fibroglandular breast density (HRs, 0.66 and 0.73 for the 65-74 and 75-plus age groups, respectively).

The associations between breast density and breast cancer were statistically significant after adjustment for body mass index (BMI) and other risk factors.

However, no significant differences were seen between breast density and breast cancer risk based on BMI, noted the authors, who investigated this potential association as part of their effort to identify subpopulations of older women who might benefit from screening, “especially because the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force guidelines state that the current evidence is considered insufficient to recommend routine breast cancer screening for women aged 75 years or older,” they wrote.

Further, although breast density is important in risk assessment and could be evaluated in older women, some risk prediction models exclude women aged 75 or older in risk assessments, they noted, adding that this is concerning given “the aging of the population in the U.S. and worldwide.”

“The positive associations found in this study between breast density and breast cancer among women aged 75 years or older suggest that breast density and life expectancy should be considered together when discussing the potential benefits and harms of continued screening mammography in this population,” they concluded.

The new findings supplement those from prior studies and highlight “the intersection of ... two subjects that have garnered considerable lay public, healthy policy, and academic interest” in recent years: screening mammography in older women and the risk of breast cancer caused by breast density in older women, Catherine M. Tuite, MD, of ChristianaCare Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, Newark, Del., wrote in a commentary published with the study.

“Although there is a linear association between age and mammographic density, age is not a perfect surrogate for the latter, and there are meaningful numbers of older women with mammographically dense breast tissue,” she said, noting that a 75-year-old woman in the United States has a life expectancy of 12-14 additional years, and that “continuation of screening mammography in healthy women aged 75 years or older may offer a substantial opportunity to avoid morbidity and mortality from breast cancer in this age group.”

However, overdiagnosis also remains a concern, she said.

“Breast density and age are only a few of the many factors currently under investigation in the drive toward risk-based or personalized breast cancer screening,” she wrote. “We must remain cautious in the application of restrictive screening for women of any age with supposedly lower than average risk ... ultimately, the decision of when to stop screening is personal, and each woman deserves the agency to weigh her own wishes, values, and life experiences with an accurate and unbiased discussion of risks and benefits of screening mammography in making that decision.”

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Cancer and vital status data collection was supported in part by several state public health departments and cancer registries. Dr. Advani and Dr. Tuite each reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

If you haven’t noticed yet, there has been an explosion of new online companies specializing in slicing off some little sliver of health care and leaving traditional medicine to take care of the rest of the patient. Lately, many of these startups involve mental health care, traditionally a difficult area to make profitable unless one caters just to the wealthy. Many pediatricians have been unsure exactly what to make of these new efforts. Are these the rescuers we’ve been waiting for to fill what seems like an enormous and growing unmet need? Are they just another means to extract money from desperate people and leave the real work to someone else? Something in-between? This article outlines some points to consider when evaluating this new frontier.

Case vignette

A 12-year-old girl presents with her parents for an annual exam. She has been struggling with her mood and anxiety over the past 2 years along with occasional superficial cutting. You have started treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and have recommended that she see a mental health professional but the parents report that one attempt with a therapist was a poor fit and nobody in the area seems to be accepting new patients. The parents state that they saw an advertisement on TV for a company that offers online psychotherapy by video appointments or text. They think this might be an option to pursue but are a little skeptical of the whole idea. They look for your opinion on this topic.

Most of these companies operate by having subscribers pay a monthly fee for different levels of services such as videoconference therapy sessions, supportive text messages, or even some psychopharmacological care. Many also offer the ability to switch rapidly between clinicians if you don’t like the one you have.

These arrangements sound great as the world grows increasingly comfortable with online communication and the mental health needs of children and adolescents increase with the seemingly endless COVID pandemic. Further, research generally finds that online mental health treatment is just as effective as services delivered in person, although the data on therapy by text are less robust.

Nevertheless, a lot of skepticism remains about online mental health treatment, particularly among those involved in more traditionally delivered mental health care. Some of the concerns that often get brought up include the following:
 

• Cost. Most of these online groups, especially the big national companies, don’t interact directly with insurance companies, leaving a lot of out-of-pocket expenses or the need for families to work things out directly with their insurance provider.
• Care fragmentation. In many ways, the online mental health care surge seems at odds with the growing “integrated care” movement that is trying to embed more behavioral care within primary care practices. From this lens, outsourcing someone’s mental health treatment to a therapist across the country that the patient has never actually met seems like a step in the wrong direction. Further, concerns arise about how much these folks will know about local resources in the community.
• The corporate model in mental health care. While being able to shop for a therapist like you would for a pillow sounds great on the surface, there are many times where a patient may need to be supportively confronted by their therapist or told no when asking about things like certain medications. The “customer is always right” principle often falls short when it comes to good mental health treatment.
• Depth and type of treatment. It is probably fair to say that most online therapy could be described as supportive psychotherapy. This type of therapy can be quite helpful for many but may lack the depth or specific techniques that some people need. For youth, some of the most effective types of psychotherapy, like cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), can be harder to find, and implement, online.
• Emergencies. While many online companies claim to offer round-the-clock support for paying customers, they can quickly punt to “call your doctor” or even “call 911” if there is any real mental health crisis.

Balancing these potential benefits and pitfalls of online therapy, here are a few questions your patients may want to consider before signing onto a long-term contract with an online therapy company.

• Would the online clinician have any knowledge of my community? In some cases, this may not matter that much, while for others it could be quite important.
• What happens in an emergency? Would the regular online therapist be available to help through a crisis or would things revert back to local resources?
• What about privacy and collaboration? Effective communication between a patient’s primary care clinician and their therapist can be crucial to good care, and asking the patient always to be the intermediary can be fraught with difficulty.
• How long is the contract? Just like those gym memberships, these companies bank on individuals who sign up but then don’t really use the service.
• What kind of training do the therapists at the site have? Is it possible to receive specific types of therapy, like CBT or parent training? Otherwise, pediatricians might be quite likely to hear back from the family wondering about medications after therapy “isn’t helping.”

Overall, mental health treatment delivered by telehealth is here to stay whether we like it or not. For some families, it is likely to provide new access to services not easily obtainable locally, while for others it could end up being a costly and ineffective enterprise. For families who use these services, a key challenge for pediatricians that may be important to overcome is finding a way for these clinicians to integrate into the overall medical team rather than being a detached island unto themselves.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood” (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021). Email him at [email protected].

If you haven’t noticed yet, there has been an explosion of new online companies specializing in slicing off some little sliver of health care and leaving traditional medicine to take care of the rest of the patient. Lately, many of these startups involve mental health care, traditionally a difficult area to make profitable unless one caters just to the wealthy. Many pediatricians have been unsure exactly what to make of these new efforts. Are these the rescuers we’ve been waiting for to fill what seems like an enormous and growing unmet need? Are they just another means to extract money from desperate people and leave the real work to someone else? Something in-between? This article outlines some points to consider when evaluating this new frontier.

Case vignette

A 12-year-old girl presents with her parents for an annual exam. She has been struggling with her mood and anxiety over the past 2 years along with occasional superficial cutting. You have started treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and have recommended that she see a mental health professional but the parents report that one attempt with a therapist was a poor fit and nobody in the area seems to be accepting new patients. The parents state that they saw an advertisement on TV for a company that offers online psychotherapy by video appointments or text. They think this might be an option to pursue but are a little skeptical of the whole idea. They look for your opinion on this topic.

Most of these companies operate by having subscribers pay a monthly fee for different levels of services such as videoconference therapy sessions, supportive text messages, or even some psychopharmacological care. Many also offer the ability to switch rapidly between clinicians if you don’t like the one you have.

These arrangements sound great as the world grows increasingly comfortable with online communication and the mental health needs of children and adolescents increase with the seemingly endless COVID pandemic. Further, research generally finds that online mental health treatment is just as effective as services delivered in person, although the data on therapy by text are less robust.

Nevertheless, a lot of skepticism remains about online mental health treatment, particularly among those involved in more traditionally delivered mental health care. Some of the concerns that often get brought up include the following:
 

• Cost. Most of these online groups, especially the big national companies, don’t interact directly with insurance companies, leaving a lot of out-of-pocket expenses or the need for families to work things out directly with their insurance provider.
• Care fragmentation. In many ways, the online mental health care surge seems at odds with the growing “integrated care” movement that is trying to embed more behavioral care within primary care practices. From this lens, outsourcing someone’s mental health treatment to a therapist across the country that the patient has never actually met seems like a step in the wrong direction. Further, concerns arise about how much these folks will know about local resources in the community.
• The corporate model in mental health care. While being able to shop for a therapist like you would for a pillow sounds great on the surface, there are many times where a patient may need to be supportively confronted by their therapist or told no when asking about things like certain medications. The “customer is always right” principle often falls short when it comes to good mental health treatment.
• Depth and type of treatment. It is probably fair to say that most online therapy could be described as supportive psychotherapy. This type of therapy can be quite helpful for many but may lack the depth or specific techniques that some people need. For youth, some of the most effective types of psychotherapy, like cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), can be harder to find, and implement, online.
• Emergencies. While many online companies claim to offer round-the-clock support for paying customers, they can quickly punt to “call your doctor” or even “call 911” if there is any real mental health crisis.

Balancing these potential benefits and pitfalls of online therapy, here are a few questions your patients may want to consider before signing onto a long-term contract with an online therapy company.

• Would the online clinician have any knowledge of my community? In some cases, this may not matter that much, while for others it could be quite important.
• What happens in an emergency? Would the regular online therapist be available to help through a crisis or would things revert back to local resources?
• What about privacy and collaboration? Effective communication between a patient’s primary care clinician and their therapist can be crucial to good care, and asking the patient always to be the intermediary can be fraught with difficulty.
• How long is the contract? Just like those gym memberships, these companies bank on individuals who sign up but then don’t really use the service.
• What kind of training do the therapists at the site have? Is it possible to receive specific types of therapy, like CBT or parent training? Otherwise, pediatricians might be quite likely to hear back from the family wondering about medications after therapy “isn’t helping.”

Overall, mental health treatment delivered by telehealth is here to stay whether we like it or not. For some families, it is likely to provide new access to services not easily obtainable locally, while for others it could end up being a costly and ineffective enterprise. For families who use these services, a key challenge for pediatricians that may be important to overcome is finding a way for these clinicians to integrate into the overall medical team rather than being a detached island unto themselves.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood” (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021). Email him at [email protected].

If you haven’t noticed yet, there has been an explosion of new online companies specializing in slicing off some little sliver of health care and leaving traditional medicine to take care of the rest of the patient. Lately, many of these startups involve mental health care, traditionally a difficult area to make profitable unless one caters just to the wealthy. Many pediatricians have been unsure exactly what to make of these new efforts. Are these the rescuers we’ve been waiting for to fill what seems like an enormous and growing unmet need? Are they just another means to extract money from desperate people and leave the real work to someone else? Something in-between? This article outlines some points to consider when evaluating this new frontier.

Case vignette

A 12-year-old girl presents with her parents for an annual exam. She has been struggling with her mood and anxiety over the past 2 years along with occasional superficial cutting. You have started treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and have recommended that she see a mental health professional but the parents report that one attempt with a therapist was a poor fit and nobody in the area seems to be accepting new patients. The parents state that they saw an advertisement on TV for a company that offers online psychotherapy by video appointments or text. They think this might be an option to pursue but are a little skeptical of the whole idea. They look for your opinion on this topic.

Most of these companies operate by having subscribers pay a monthly fee for different levels of services such as videoconference therapy sessions, supportive text messages, or even some psychopharmacological care. Many also offer the ability to switch rapidly between clinicians if you don’t like the one you have.

These arrangements sound great as the world grows increasingly comfortable with online communication and the mental health needs of children and adolescents increase with the seemingly endless COVID pandemic. Further, research generally finds that online mental health treatment is just as effective as services delivered in person, although the data on therapy by text are less robust.

Nevertheless, a lot of skepticism remains about online mental health treatment, particularly among those involved in more traditionally delivered mental health care. Some of the concerns that often get brought up include the following:
 

• Cost. Most of these online groups, especially the big national companies, don’t interact directly with insurance companies, leaving a lot of out-of-pocket expenses or the need for families to work things out directly with their insurance provider.
• Care fragmentation. In many ways, the online mental health care surge seems at odds with the growing “integrated care” movement that is trying to embed more behavioral care within primary care practices. From this lens, outsourcing someone’s mental health treatment to a therapist across the country that the patient has never actually met seems like a step in the wrong direction. Further, concerns arise about how much these folks will know about local resources in the community.
• The corporate model in mental health care. While being able to shop for a therapist like you would for a pillow sounds great on the surface, there are many times where a patient may need to be supportively confronted by their therapist or told no when asking about things like certain medications. The “customer is always right” principle often falls short when it comes to good mental health treatment.
• Depth and type of treatment. It is probably fair to say that most online therapy could be described as supportive psychotherapy. This type of therapy can be quite helpful for many but may lack the depth or specific techniques that some people need. For youth, some of the most effective types of psychotherapy, like cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), can be harder to find, and implement, online.
• Emergencies. While many online companies claim to offer round-the-clock support for paying customers, they can quickly punt to “call your doctor” or even “call 911” if there is any real mental health crisis.

Balancing these potential benefits and pitfalls of online therapy, here are a few questions your patients may want to consider before signing onto a long-term contract with an online therapy company.

• Would the online clinician have any knowledge of my community? In some cases, this may not matter that much, while for others it could be quite important.
• What happens in an emergency? Would the regular online therapist be available to help through a crisis or would things revert back to local resources?
• What about privacy and collaboration? Effective communication between a patient’s primary care clinician and their therapist can be crucial to good care, and asking the patient always to be the intermediary can be fraught with difficulty.
• How long is the contract? Just like those gym memberships, these companies bank on individuals who sign up but then don’t really use the service.
• What kind of training do the therapists at the site have? Is it possible to receive specific types of therapy, like CBT or parent training? Otherwise, pediatricians might be quite likely to hear back from the family wondering about medications after therapy “isn’t helping.”

Overall, mental health treatment delivered by telehealth is here to stay whether we like it or not. For some families, it is likely to provide new access to services not easily obtainable locally, while for others it could end up being a costly and ineffective enterprise. For families who use these services, a key challenge for pediatricians that may be important to overcome is finding a way for these clinicians to integrate into the overall medical team rather than being a detached island unto themselves.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood” (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021). Email him at [email protected].