MDedge ObGyn

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

Over the past decade, data have suggested that antiretroviral therapy (ART) may be associated with an increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, namely, preterm birth (PTB). But a combination of methodologic challenges, demographic gaps, and spotty clinical data has left the question unresolved, especially for pregnant women with HIV who reside in developed countries.

“Given that a lot of the emerging data has come out of resource-limited settings where patient and clinical characteristics are different from developed world settings like the United States, we felt that this was an important question to address,” Kartik Venkatesh, MD, PhD, a high-risk obstetrician and perinatal epidemiologist at the Ohio State Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, told this news organization.

In a prospective cohort study of U.S. women with or at risk for HIV, Dr. Venkatesh and his colleagues found that ART exposure (including highly active antiretroviral therapy [HAART]) was associated with as much as an 80% decline in the likelihood of PTB (defined as birth less than 34 weeks). The study was published in HIV Medicine.
 

24 years of data analyzed

Dr. Venkatesh and his team analyzed self-reported birth data of women with singleton live-born pregnancies enrolled in the ongoing, multicenter, prospective observational Women’s Interagency HIV Study (WIHS) from Oct. 1, 1995, to March 31, 2019.

“We first looked at women with HIV versus without HIV, [who were] matched on many clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and at similarly high risk of some of these obstetrical outcomes like PTB,” explained Dr. Venkatesh. “We then looked at the relative impact of antiretroviral therapy amongst women living with HIV compared to no antiretroviral therapy.”

ART regimens were classified as none, monotherapy, dual therapy, or HAART. (HAART was defined as more than three antiretrovirals, including at least one protease inhibitor [PI], nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, integrase inhibitor, or entry inhibitor.) In this cohort, for 63.5% of women receiving ART, therapy was initiated before pregnancy (mean duration of HAART, 6 years), and most were virally suppressed.

Among the 4,944 women assessed in the WIHS trial, 74% (3,646) had HIV. In total, 383 women had 488 singleton deliveries, including 218 women with HIV (272 deliveries) and 165 without HIV (216 deliveries). Sociodemographics in both cohorts were well matched. For most participants, the mean age was 40-41 years at delivery, most were non-Hispanic Black persons, and the mean pregnancy body mass index was greater than or equal to 29 kg/m2. Of the women with HIV, 33% had chronic hypertension; of those without HIV, 42.1% had chronic hypertension; 4.7% and 5.0%, respectively, had pregestational diabetes.

The findings showed that PTB risk less than 34 weeks was similar between women with (10%) and without (8%) HIV (adjusted risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-2.31). Among deliveries to women with HIV who were receiving ART, PTB risk less than 34 weeks was lower with HAART (7%), compared with not receiving ART (26%) (aRR, 0.19), as well as with monotherapy or dual therapy (3% vs. no ART) (aRR, 0.12). Notably, 67% of deliveries to women receiving HAART included a PI-containing regimen, but these women were not significantly more likely to have a PTB less than 34 weeks, compared with women taking non-PI HAART regimens (aRR, 2.61; 95% CI, 0.65-10.59). Results were similar for secondary outcomes (PTB less than 28 weeks, less than 37 weeks).
 

Filling in the gaps toward the safest regimen

“This study spans 25 years, so it covers a lot of the history of HIV in pregnancy and is reassuring around using ART in pregnancy,” Shahin Lockman, MD, told this news organization. Dr. Lockman is an associate professor of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a co-PI of the Botswana Clinical Trials Unit at the Botswana Harvard AIDS Institute Partnership. She was not involved in the study. “One of the worst things for a mother and for pregnancy outcomes, for the fetus and baby’s health and development, is uncontrolled maternal HIV,’’ she said.

Dr. Lockman also noted potential confounders that drive poor birth outcomes in Southern African women, compared with U.S. women, making comparisons between this and other observational studies difficult. Still, she said that the question is not whether women should be receiving treatment but whether or not there are differences between antiretroviral regimens.

“One of the areas that we did not go deeper into was the subtype of antiretroviral therapy, given the relatively small study numbers [did not] allow us to do a robust analysis,” Dr. Venkatesh said.

Rather, he emphasized that the findings might lend more weight to speculation that immunologic characteristics associated with HIV status and immunotherapy – such as low CD4 cell counts prior to delivery, or duration of HIV infection – may be important drivers of adverse birth outcomes among women with HIV taking ART.

And at least in this cohort, many of these characteristics were similar between the treatment groups.

Both researchers agree that the findings – while reassuring – highlight the importance of collecting robust obstetric and safety data as part of prospective databases of individuals living with HIV, not only in resource-limited settings but also among the domestic U.S. population.

“We’ve learned a lot over the last 10 years,” Dr. Lockman said. “Some regimens (like lopinavir/ritonavir or nevirapine) are associated with significantly worse birth outcomes, whereas efavirenz doesn’t seem to be, or less so, and dolutegravir seems to be associated with even better outcomes. So, I think that where we are moving is to regimens that are the safest.”

Moving forward, Dr. Venkatesh explained, not only should researchers focus on exploring which antiretrovirals are safest in this context but also if the use of preexposure prophylaxis during conception periods affects birth outcomes.

Dr. Venkatesh and Dr. Lockman report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over the past decade, data have suggested that antiretroviral therapy (ART) may be associated with an increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, namely, preterm birth (PTB). But a combination of methodologic challenges, demographic gaps, and spotty clinical data has left the question unresolved, especially for pregnant women with HIV who reside in developed countries.

“Given that a lot of the emerging data has come out of resource-limited settings where patient and clinical characteristics are different from developed world settings like the United States, we felt that this was an important question to address,” Kartik Venkatesh, MD, PhD, a high-risk obstetrician and perinatal epidemiologist at the Ohio State Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, told this news organization.

In a prospective cohort study of U.S. women with or at risk for HIV, Dr. Venkatesh and his colleagues found that ART exposure (including highly active antiretroviral therapy [HAART]) was associated with as much as an 80% decline in the likelihood of PTB (defined as birth less than 34 weeks). The study was published in HIV Medicine.
 

24 years of data analyzed

Dr. Venkatesh and his team analyzed self-reported birth data of women with singleton live-born pregnancies enrolled in the ongoing, multicenter, prospective observational Women’s Interagency HIV Study (WIHS) from Oct. 1, 1995, to March 31, 2019.

“We first looked at women with HIV versus without HIV, [who were] matched on many clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and at similarly high risk of some of these obstetrical outcomes like PTB,” explained Dr. Venkatesh. “We then looked at the relative impact of antiretroviral therapy amongst women living with HIV compared to no antiretroviral therapy.”

ART regimens were classified as none, monotherapy, dual therapy, or HAART. (HAART was defined as more than three antiretrovirals, including at least one protease inhibitor [PI], nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, integrase inhibitor, or entry inhibitor.) In this cohort, for 63.5% of women receiving ART, therapy was initiated before pregnancy (mean duration of HAART, 6 years), and most were virally suppressed.

Among the 4,944 women assessed in the WIHS trial, 74% (3,646) had HIV. In total, 383 women had 488 singleton deliveries, including 218 women with HIV (272 deliveries) and 165 without HIV (216 deliveries). Sociodemographics in both cohorts were well matched. For most participants, the mean age was 40-41 years at delivery, most were non-Hispanic Black persons, and the mean pregnancy body mass index was greater than or equal to 29 kg/m2. Of the women with HIV, 33% had chronic hypertension; of those without HIV, 42.1% had chronic hypertension; 4.7% and 5.0%, respectively, had pregestational diabetes.

The findings showed that PTB risk less than 34 weeks was similar between women with (10%) and without (8%) HIV (adjusted risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-2.31). Among deliveries to women with HIV who were receiving ART, PTB risk less than 34 weeks was lower with HAART (7%), compared with not receiving ART (26%) (aRR, 0.19), as well as with monotherapy or dual therapy (3% vs. no ART) (aRR, 0.12). Notably, 67% of deliveries to women receiving HAART included a PI-containing regimen, but these women were not significantly more likely to have a PTB less than 34 weeks, compared with women taking non-PI HAART regimens (aRR, 2.61; 95% CI, 0.65-10.59). Results were similar for secondary outcomes (PTB less than 28 weeks, less than 37 weeks).
 

Filling in the gaps toward the safest regimen

“This study spans 25 years, so it covers a lot of the history of HIV in pregnancy and is reassuring around using ART in pregnancy,” Shahin Lockman, MD, told this news organization. Dr. Lockman is an associate professor of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a co-PI of the Botswana Clinical Trials Unit at the Botswana Harvard AIDS Institute Partnership. She was not involved in the study. “One of the worst things for a mother and for pregnancy outcomes, for the fetus and baby’s health and development, is uncontrolled maternal HIV,’’ she said.

Dr. Lockman also noted potential confounders that drive poor birth outcomes in Southern African women, compared with U.S. women, making comparisons between this and other observational studies difficult. Still, she said that the question is not whether women should be receiving treatment but whether or not there are differences between antiretroviral regimens.

“One of the areas that we did not go deeper into was the subtype of antiretroviral therapy, given the relatively small study numbers [did not] allow us to do a robust analysis,” Dr. Venkatesh said.

Rather, he emphasized that the findings might lend more weight to speculation that immunologic characteristics associated with HIV status and immunotherapy – such as low CD4 cell counts prior to delivery, or duration of HIV infection – may be important drivers of adverse birth outcomes among women with HIV taking ART.

And at least in this cohort, many of these characteristics were similar between the treatment groups.

Both researchers agree that the findings – while reassuring – highlight the importance of collecting robust obstetric and safety data as part of prospective databases of individuals living with HIV, not only in resource-limited settings but also among the domestic U.S. population.

“We’ve learned a lot over the last 10 years,” Dr. Lockman said. “Some regimens (like lopinavir/ritonavir or nevirapine) are associated with significantly worse birth outcomes, whereas efavirenz doesn’t seem to be, or less so, and dolutegravir seems to be associated with even better outcomes. So, I think that where we are moving is to regimens that are the safest.”

Moving forward, Dr. Venkatesh explained, not only should researchers focus on exploring which antiretrovirals are safest in this context but also if the use of preexposure prophylaxis during conception periods affects birth outcomes.

Dr. Venkatesh and Dr. Lockman report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over the past decade, data have suggested that antiretroviral therapy (ART) may be associated with an increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, namely, preterm birth (PTB). But a combination of methodologic challenges, demographic gaps, and spotty clinical data has left the question unresolved, especially for pregnant women with HIV who reside in developed countries.

“Given that a lot of the emerging data has come out of resource-limited settings where patient and clinical characteristics are different from developed world settings like the United States, we felt that this was an important question to address,” Kartik Venkatesh, MD, PhD, a high-risk obstetrician and perinatal epidemiologist at the Ohio State Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, told this news organization.

In a prospective cohort study of U.S. women with or at risk for HIV, Dr. Venkatesh and his colleagues found that ART exposure (including highly active antiretroviral therapy [HAART]) was associated with as much as an 80% decline in the likelihood of PTB (defined as birth less than 34 weeks). The study was published in HIV Medicine.
 

24 years of data analyzed

Dr. Venkatesh and his team analyzed self-reported birth data of women with singleton live-born pregnancies enrolled in the ongoing, multicenter, prospective observational Women’s Interagency HIV Study (WIHS) from Oct. 1, 1995, to March 31, 2019.

“We first looked at women with HIV versus without HIV, [who were] matched on many clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and at similarly high risk of some of these obstetrical outcomes like PTB,” explained Dr. Venkatesh. “We then looked at the relative impact of antiretroviral therapy amongst women living with HIV compared to no antiretroviral therapy.”

ART regimens were classified as none, monotherapy, dual therapy, or HAART. (HAART was defined as more than three antiretrovirals, including at least one protease inhibitor [PI], nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, integrase inhibitor, or entry inhibitor.) In this cohort, for 63.5% of women receiving ART, therapy was initiated before pregnancy (mean duration of HAART, 6 years), and most were virally suppressed.

Among the 4,944 women assessed in the WIHS trial, 74% (3,646) had HIV. In total, 383 women had 488 singleton deliveries, including 218 women with HIV (272 deliveries) and 165 without HIV (216 deliveries). Sociodemographics in both cohorts were well matched. For most participants, the mean age was 40-41 years at delivery, most were non-Hispanic Black persons, and the mean pregnancy body mass index was greater than or equal to 29 kg/m2. Of the women with HIV, 33% had chronic hypertension; of those without HIV, 42.1% had chronic hypertension; 4.7% and 5.0%, respectively, had pregestational diabetes.

The findings showed that PTB risk less than 34 weeks was similar between women with (10%) and without (8%) HIV (adjusted risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-2.31). Among deliveries to women with HIV who were receiving ART, PTB risk less than 34 weeks was lower with HAART (7%), compared with not receiving ART (26%) (aRR, 0.19), as well as with monotherapy or dual therapy (3% vs. no ART) (aRR, 0.12). Notably, 67% of deliveries to women receiving HAART included a PI-containing regimen, but these women were not significantly more likely to have a PTB less than 34 weeks, compared with women taking non-PI HAART regimens (aRR, 2.61; 95% CI, 0.65-10.59). Results were similar for secondary outcomes (PTB less than 28 weeks, less than 37 weeks).
 

Filling in the gaps toward the safest regimen

“This study spans 25 years, so it covers a lot of the history of HIV in pregnancy and is reassuring around using ART in pregnancy,” Shahin Lockman, MD, told this news organization. Dr. Lockman is an associate professor of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a co-PI of the Botswana Clinical Trials Unit at the Botswana Harvard AIDS Institute Partnership. She was not involved in the study. “One of the worst things for a mother and for pregnancy outcomes, for the fetus and baby’s health and development, is uncontrolled maternal HIV,’’ she said.

Dr. Lockman also noted potential confounders that drive poor birth outcomes in Southern African women, compared with U.S. women, making comparisons between this and other observational studies difficult. Still, she said that the question is not whether women should be receiving treatment but whether or not there are differences between antiretroviral regimens.

“One of the areas that we did not go deeper into was the subtype of antiretroviral therapy, given the relatively small study numbers [did not] allow us to do a robust analysis,” Dr. Venkatesh said.

Rather, he emphasized that the findings might lend more weight to speculation that immunologic characteristics associated with HIV status and immunotherapy – such as low CD4 cell counts prior to delivery, or duration of HIV infection – may be important drivers of adverse birth outcomes among women with HIV taking ART.

And at least in this cohort, many of these characteristics were similar between the treatment groups.

Both researchers agree that the findings – while reassuring – highlight the importance of collecting robust obstetric and safety data as part of prospective databases of individuals living with HIV, not only in resource-limited settings but also among the domestic U.S. population.

“We’ve learned a lot over the last 10 years,” Dr. Lockman said. “Some regimens (like lopinavir/ritonavir or nevirapine) are associated with significantly worse birth outcomes, whereas efavirenz doesn’t seem to be, or less so, and dolutegravir seems to be associated with even better outcomes. So, I think that where we are moving is to regimens that are the safest.”

Moving forward, Dr. Venkatesh explained, not only should researchers focus on exploring which antiretrovirals are safest in this context but also if the use of preexposure prophylaxis during conception periods affects birth outcomes.

Dr. Venkatesh and Dr. Lockman report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Some myths never die. The idea of taking 10,000 steps a day is one of them. What started as a catchy marketing slogan has become a mantra for anyone promoting physical activity. But the 10,000-step target is arbitrary and ignores a fundamental truth of lifestyle medicine: When it comes to physical activity, anything is better than nothing.

It all began in 1965 when the Japanese company Yamasa Tokei began selling a new step-counter which they called manpo-kei (ten-thousand steps meter). They coupled the product launch with an ad campaign – “Let’s walk 10,000 steps a day!” – in a bid to encourage physical activity. The threshold was always somewhat arbitrary, but the idea of 10,000 steps cemented itself in the public consciousness from that point forward.

iStock/thinkstockphotos

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

Some myths never die. The idea of taking 10,000 steps a day is one of them. What started as a catchy marketing slogan has become a mantra for anyone promoting physical activity. But the 10,000-step target is arbitrary and ignores a fundamental truth of lifestyle medicine: When it comes to physical activity, anything is better than nothing.

It all began in 1965 when the Japanese company Yamasa Tokei began selling a new step-counter which they called manpo-kei (ten-thousand steps meter). They coupled the product launch with an ad campaign – “Let’s walk 10,000 steps a day!” – in a bid to encourage physical activity. The threshold was always somewhat arbitrary, but the idea of 10,000 steps cemented itself in the public consciousness from that point forward.

iStock/thinkstockphotos

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

Some myths never die. The idea of taking 10,000 steps a day is one of them. What started as a catchy marketing slogan has become a mantra for anyone promoting physical activity. But the 10,000-step target is arbitrary and ignores a fundamental truth of lifestyle medicine: When it comes to physical activity, anything is better than nothing.

It all began in 1965 when the Japanese company Yamasa Tokei began selling a new step-counter which they called manpo-kei (ten-thousand steps meter). They coupled the product launch with an ad campaign – “Let’s walk 10,000 steps a day!” – in a bid to encourage physical activity. The threshold was always somewhat arbitrary, but the idea of 10,000 steps cemented itself in the public consciousness from that point forward.

iStock/thinkstockphotos

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

Urologist Arnaldo Trabucco, MD, was outraged when he learned of a legal claim filed by a patient’s family blaming him for the patient’s death.

Dr. Trabucco had performed a successful laparoscopic left radical nephrectomy on Gerald Scharf, but he died 3 days later from an unrelated condition, said Dr. Trabucco, who now practices in California. The claims alleged not only wrongful death, but also that Dr. Trabucco “committed willful and malicious actions upon” the patient, eventually resulting in his death, and that Dr. Trabucco’s actions constituted “extreme and outrageous behavior.”

The accusations were levied on behalf of the patient’s family by a bankruptcy attorney who admittedly had no experience in medical malpractice litigation.

“It was a vicious allegation that I intentionally tried to kill my own patient,” said Dr. Trabucco, 66. “It’s an allegation that was outlandish. Those were fighting words.”

As the case dragged on, Dr. Trabucco filed a complaint against the Scharfs and bankruptcy attorney Jeffrey Cogan for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. In 2018, Dr. Trabucco prevailed when a jury awarded him $6,232,000 in compensatory damages and $1,768,000 in punitive damages against Mr. Cogan. (No damages were assessed against the patient’s family.)

“This was a principle issue more than anything else,” Dr. Trabucco said. “My name was tarnished and thrown through the mud. I’m very proud of my name and my reputation.”

Mr. Cogan, a bankruptcy attorney licensed in Nevada and California, disputes that his actions were malicious and disagrees with the jury’s verdict.

“I don’t think I did anything wrong with filing the lawsuit,” he said.

Despite the $8 million award, the legal fight between Dr. Trabucco and Mr. Cogan has continued – and is not over yet.
 

Not your ordinary legal journey

Dr. Trabucco completed his medical training in Rome before moving back to the United States to begin his residency in Brooklyn, New York.

He quietly practiced urology in New York for years before moving to Columbus, Ind., to work at a urology clinic. In 2005, Dr. Trabucco made headlines when the Bartholomew County, Ind., sheriff’s deputies found marijuana plants growing in his home. His medical license was suspended, and he pled guilty to a misdemeanor.

Dr. Trabucco said he was unaware that a family member was growing the plants in the home and that he was not responsible for the operation. The misdemeanor has since been expunged from his record, according to Dr. Trabucco. Bartholomew County records do not list the offense. He later moved to Arizona, where he opened a medical practice.

Before the Scharfs filed their malpractice case in 2013, Dr. Trabucco had been embroiled in a series of unrelated legal disputes, including postdivorce proceedings and a complaint against him by another physician, alleging defamation. In that case, the physician claimed Dr. Trabucco published false and defamatory communications about him, including that the physician committed intentional fraud.

Dr. Trabucco filed his own suit for defamation and infliction of emotional distress against the same physician for alleged threats and harassment and making false reports about him to several Arizona state entities. The defamation suit against Dr. Trabucco ended in a settlement, the terms of which are confidential, according to Mr. Cogan. Dr. Trabucco’s defamation case against the physician was dismissed, according to court records, but they do not specify the reason. Dr. Trabucco said he dropped the defamation case because of the other relentless litigation he was facing.

In November 2012, Dr. Trabucco filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.

Mr. Cogan was representing Dr. Trabucco’s ex-wife’s interests as a creditor in the bankruptcy proceeding and eventually represented the physician who sued Dr. Trabucco, according to court documents. In all, Mr. Cogan represented six creditors in connection to Dr. Trabucco’s bankruptcy, including the Scharfs. He also took over the Scharfs’ malpractice case in Arizona’s Mohave County Superior Court after their attorney died.

As part of a filing in Nevada bankruptcy court called a “Complaint to Determine Nondischargeabiliy of Debts,” Mr. Cogan alleged that Dr. Trabucco knew he lacked sufficient expertise regarding the laparoscopic nephrectomy, that an intraoperative complication occurred because of his error, and that Dr. Trabucco hid the complication and did not attempt to remedy the situation, among other claims.

In addition to the Mohave County filing and the bankruptcy filing, Mr. Cogan filed a similar medical malpractice case against Dr. Trabucco in Arizona district court.

“I believe, based upon the statements by [a retired medical malpractice attorney], that Dr Trabucco squeezed the abdominal aorta,” Mr. Cogan said. “When he did so, plaque from Mr Scharf blocked blood from going to his remaining his kidney, causing his death. My lawsuit said that Dr Trabucco knew he made a mistake and went home rather than fixing the mistake.”

Dr. Trabucco said the laparoscopic nephrectomy went smoothly. A few hours after the surgery, however, Mr. Scharf was transferred to a Las Vegas hospital with a diagnosis of potential occlusion of the abdominal aorta. Surgery was performed, and while the operative report noted the presence of severe atherosclerosis of the abdominal aorta, there was no indication of an intraoperative injury to the aorta from Dr. Trabucco’s surgery, according to court documents filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. An autopsy performed on Mr. Scharf reported “severe calcific aortic atherosclerosis, primarily at the aortic arch and abdominal aorta at the level of the branching of the renal arteries with small adherent thrombus.” The autopsy did not include any indication or suggestion of an intraoperative injury to the abdominal aorta.

A federal jury found unanimously in favor of Dr. Trabucco, concluding that he did nothing wrong. The original medical malpractice case in Mohave County court was ultimately dismissed and in 2014, the bankruptcy court entered an order discharging Dr. Trabucco from all prepetition debts, according to court records.

Meanwhile, as the malicious prosecution case against Mr. Cogan continued, Dr. Trabucco’s name again drew media attention. His former girlfriend was arrested for plotting to kidnap and kill an attorney who was representing Dr. Trabucco’s ex-wife in a divorce proceeding. Renee Perillo was sentenced to 27 years in prison for conspiracy to commit kidnapping and murder for hire for trying to kill Noblesville, Ind., attorney Rebecca Eimerman. Ms. Eimerman was pursuing divorce settlement money from Dr. Trabucco on behalf of his ex-wife. Ms. Perillo’s son was also charged in the crime.

No charges related to the crime were filed against Dr. Trabucco, according to the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office and federal charging records. Dr. Trabucco said he was not involved in the incident and had no knowledge of Perillo’s plans.
 

A hard fought – and still continuing – legal battle

After a 3-day trial, jurors in 2018 found that Mr. Cogan owed Dr. Trabucco $8 million for the harm caused by the unfounded claims.

“This has had a tremendous impact on my life,” Dr. Trabucco said. “It’s cost me a lot of time, money, and anguish.”

Mr. Cogan appealed the verdict. An Arizona appeals court in 2020 upheld the finding of liability for malicious prosecution against Mr. Cogan, but it vacated the finding of liability for abuse of process. Because of the partial reversal, the appellate court vacated the $8 million and sent the case back to the Superior Court in Mohave County, Ariz., for a new trial on damages.

But shortly before the December 2021 retrial, both parties agreed to settle for $8 million.

The settlement, however, is not the end of the litigation between the parties.

Late last year, Mr. Cogan filed a new case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against Dr. Trabucco alleging the Arizona court that tried the malicious prosecution case never had jurisdiction. Mr. Cogan contends that per federal case law, any damages resulting from a bankruptcy court pleading give the federal court exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.

“I believe that I will win the federal court case,” Mr. Cogan said. “If Judge Andrew P. Gordon finds for me, Dr. Trabucco’s judgment in Arizona is void as Arizona did not have subject-matter jurisdiction.”

Dr. Trabucco says the new federal case has no merit.

“The federal courts have no jurisdiction over civil matters, and this should be thrown out,” he said. “However, my attorney is fully prepared to take this to the Supreme Court [if it moves forward].”

At this article’s deadline, the judge had not yet ruled on Dr. Trabucco’s motion to dismiss the federal complaint.
 

Should a physician sue for malicious prosecution?

Dr. Trabucco’s case raises the question of whether physicians should consider suing a patient after winning their malpractice case. As many doctors know, a successful case outcome doesn’t necessarily undo the time spent, income lost, and reputation harm that often comes with a negligence lawsuit. Is suing for malicious prosecution a reasonable route to recoup some of the damages caused by the claim?

“It’s an uphill struggle to prevail,” said Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD. “Have people done it? Yes, they have. Is it easy? No.”

A physician must hit the marks of a distinct checklist to pursue a malicious prosecution case, said Dr. Segal, CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a company that aids and advises physicians on legal matters. One necessary element is that the malpractice case against the physician must have been adjudicated on the merits, he said. For example, the doctor won the case at trial or the case was dismissed on summary judgment. Summary judgment refers to a court tossing the claim because there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact and because the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

If the case was dismissed for another reason, such as a technicality, or dropped by the plaintiff, the case would not meet the threshold for a malicious prosecution claim, Dr. Segal explains.

The physician must also show that the lawsuit was instituted with “malice,” meaning with an intent to hurt the physician, and that the lawsuit was brought without “probable cause,” adds J. Richard Moore, JD, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Indianapolis.

“The courts are still pretty good at weeding out cases with no merit whatsoever, so even if a physician takes a case to trial and wins, it is exceedingly rare that a case that makes it that far, has no merit whatsoever,” Mr. Moore said.

In addition, a plaintiffs’ attorney may be protected from a malicious prosecution claim because they relied on a medical expert’s opinion that reasonable cause existed to file a lawsuit, notes William Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and attorney based in Frankfort, Ill.

Dr. Sullivan has personal experience with such a challenge. He filed a malicious prosecution claim against a plaintiffs’ attorney after being dismissed from a medical malpractice case. The claim stemmed from Dr. Sullivan inserting an emergency central line into a trauma patient who was taken to surgery and later died. The suit alleged Dr. Sullivan failed to diagnose internal bleeding and failed to perform surgery, although surgeons at the hospital knew internal bleeding was present and Dr. Sullivan had no privileges to perform surgery, he said.

However, Dr. Sullivan was unable to identify the medical expert involved in the claim. Illinois law allows a malpractice plaintiff to withhold the identity of a medical expert who certifies a malpractice lawsuit. Because Dr. Sullivan couldn’t identify the expert, he could not depose the physician, and the law firm claimed there was no malicious prosecution because it relied on the trauma surgeon’s opinion that Dr. Sullivan was liable.

The trial court agreed with the law firm’s argument and dismissed them from the case, Dr. Sullivan said. The trial court also agreed that the expert trauma surgeon should be allowed to remain anonymous in accordance with Illinois law.
 

Alternative options for doctors to recover damages

For physicians who want to recoup after a frivolous claim, but don’t want to dive into another lawsuit, there are other options, say legal experts.

One alternative is filing a motion for sanctions, Dr. Sullivan said. If an attorney files a lawsuit that does not have a reasonable basis in fact or law, that attorney could be subject to sanctions, including paying for the physician’s attorney’s fees and costs, he explained. If a motion for sanctions is granted against an opposing attorney, that fact may be reportable to the attorney’s insurance carrier and also reportable to the attorney’s state licensing board. A motion for sanctions does not require filing of a separate lawsuit and filing a motion for sanctions may allow the defendant physician or the defense attorney to depose the plaintiff attorney regarding the reasonable basis that attorney had for filing a lawsuit, Dr. Sullivan said.

Dr. Sullivan recently represented a physician who won a motion for sanctions. During the legal action against him, Dr. Sullivan presented the plaintiff’s attorney with information showing why his lawsuit did not have a reasonable basis, but the attorney repeatedly ignored the information.

“Eventually, I filed a motion to dismiss the physician from the lawsuit and that motion was granted,” he said. “I also filed a motion for sanctions so that the physician could recover the costs involved in defending the claim. The trial court granted our motion for sanctions against the plaintiff and her law firm and awarded my client more than $10,000.”

Physicians who believe a plaintiffs’ attorney is acting unprofessionally can also file a complaint with the attorney’s bar, Dr. Segal said. And expert witnesses acting in bad faith can be reported to professional societies, medical licensing boards, and/or specialty boards.

“There are a number of avenues to address the sense of justice,” he said. “But if you’re looking for a payday, the only way to do that is by going to court.”

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

Urologist Arnaldo Trabucco, MD, was outraged when he learned of a legal claim filed by a patient’s family blaming him for the patient’s death.

Dr. Trabucco had performed a successful laparoscopic left radical nephrectomy on Gerald Scharf, but he died 3 days later from an unrelated condition, said Dr. Trabucco, who now practices in California. The claims alleged not only wrongful death, but also that Dr. Trabucco “committed willful and malicious actions upon” the patient, eventually resulting in his death, and that Dr. Trabucco’s actions constituted “extreme and outrageous behavior.”

The accusations were levied on behalf of the patient’s family by a bankruptcy attorney who admittedly had no experience in medical malpractice litigation.

“It was a vicious allegation that I intentionally tried to kill my own patient,” said Dr. Trabucco, 66. “It’s an allegation that was outlandish. Those were fighting words.”

As the case dragged on, Dr. Trabucco filed a complaint against the Scharfs and bankruptcy attorney Jeffrey Cogan for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. In 2018, Dr. Trabucco prevailed when a jury awarded him $6,232,000 in compensatory damages and $1,768,000 in punitive damages against Mr. Cogan. (No damages were assessed against the patient’s family.)

“This was a principle issue more than anything else,” Dr. Trabucco said. “My name was tarnished and thrown through the mud. I’m very proud of my name and my reputation.”

Mr. Cogan, a bankruptcy attorney licensed in Nevada and California, disputes that his actions were malicious and disagrees with the jury’s verdict.

“I don’t think I did anything wrong with filing the lawsuit,” he said.

Despite the $8 million award, the legal fight between Dr. Trabucco and Mr. Cogan has continued – and is not over yet.
 

Not your ordinary legal journey

Dr. Trabucco completed his medical training in Rome before moving back to the United States to begin his residency in Brooklyn, New York.

He quietly practiced urology in New York for years before moving to Columbus, Ind., to work at a urology clinic. In 2005, Dr. Trabucco made headlines when the Bartholomew County, Ind., sheriff’s deputies found marijuana plants growing in his home. His medical license was suspended, and he pled guilty to a misdemeanor.

Dr. Trabucco said he was unaware that a family member was growing the plants in the home and that he was not responsible for the operation. The misdemeanor has since been expunged from his record, according to Dr. Trabucco. Bartholomew County records do not list the offense. He later moved to Arizona, where he opened a medical practice.

Before the Scharfs filed their malpractice case in 2013, Dr. Trabucco had been embroiled in a series of unrelated legal disputes, including postdivorce proceedings and a complaint against him by another physician, alleging defamation. In that case, the physician claimed Dr. Trabucco published false and defamatory communications about him, including that the physician committed intentional fraud.

Dr. Trabucco filed his own suit for defamation and infliction of emotional distress against the same physician for alleged threats and harassment and making false reports about him to several Arizona state entities. The defamation suit against Dr. Trabucco ended in a settlement, the terms of which are confidential, according to Mr. Cogan. Dr. Trabucco’s defamation case against the physician was dismissed, according to court records, but they do not specify the reason. Dr. Trabucco said he dropped the defamation case because of the other relentless litigation he was facing.

In November 2012, Dr. Trabucco filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.

Mr. Cogan was representing Dr. Trabucco’s ex-wife’s interests as a creditor in the bankruptcy proceeding and eventually represented the physician who sued Dr. Trabucco, according to court documents. In all, Mr. Cogan represented six creditors in connection to Dr. Trabucco’s bankruptcy, including the Scharfs. He also took over the Scharfs’ malpractice case in Arizona’s Mohave County Superior Court after their attorney died.

As part of a filing in Nevada bankruptcy court called a “Complaint to Determine Nondischargeabiliy of Debts,” Mr. Cogan alleged that Dr. Trabucco knew he lacked sufficient expertise regarding the laparoscopic nephrectomy, that an intraoperative complication occurred because of his error, and that Dr. Trabucco hid the complication and did not attempt to remedy the situation, among other claims.

In addition to the Mohave County filing and the bankruptcy filing, Mr. Cogan filed a similar medical malpractice case against Dr. Trabucco in Arizona district court.

“I believe, based upon the statements by [a retired medical malpractice attorney], that Dr Trabucco squeezed the abdominal aorta,” Mr. Cogan said. “When he did so, plaque from Mr Scharf blocked blood from going to his remaining his kidney, causing his death. My lawsuit said that Dr Trabucco knew he made a mistake and went home rather than fixing the mistake.”

Dr. Trabucco said the laparoscopic nephrectomy went smoothly. A few hours after the surgery, however, Mr. Scharf was transferred to a Las Vegas hospital with a diagnosis of potential occlusion of the abdominal aorta. Surgery was performed, and while the operative report noted the presence of severe atherosclerosis of the abdominal aorta, there was no indication of an intraoperative injury to the aorta from Dr. Trabucco’s surgery, according to court documents filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. An autopsy performed on Mr. Scharf reported “severe calcific aortic atherosclerosis, primarily at the aortic arch and abdominal aorta at the level of the branching of the renal arteries with small adherent thrombus.” The autopsy did not include any indication or suggestion of an intraoperative injury to the abdominal aorta.

A federal jury found unanimously in favor of Dr. Trabucco, concluding that he did nothing wrong. The original medical malpractice case in Mohave County court was ultimately dismissed and in 2014, the bankruptcy court entered an order discharging Dr. Trabucco from all prepetition debts, according to court records.

Meanwhile, as the malicious prosecution case against Mr. Cogan continued, Dr. Trabucco’s name again drew media attention. His former girlfriend was arrested for plotting to kidnap and kill an attorney who was representing Dr. Trabucco’s ex-wife in a divorce proceeding. Renee Perillo was sentenced to 27 years in prison for conspiracy to commit kidnapping and murder for hire for trying to kill Noblesville, Ind., attorney Rebecca Eimerman. Ms. Eimerman was pursuing divorce settlement money from Dr. Trabucco on behalf of his ex-wife. Ms. Perillo’s son was also charged in the crime.

No charges related to the crime were filed against Dr. Trabucco, according to the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office and federal charging records. Dr. Trabucco said he was not involved in the incident and had no knowledge of Perillo’s plans.
 

A hard fought – and still continuing – legal battle

After a 3-day trial, jurors in 2018 found that Mr. Cogan owed Dr. Trabucco $8 million for the harm caused by the unfounded claims.

“This has had a tremendous impact on my life,” Dr. Trabucco said. “It’s cost me a lot of time, money, and anguish.”

Mr. Cogan appealed the verdict. An Arizona appeals court in 2020 upheld the finding of liability for malicious prosecution against Mr. Cogan, but it vacated the finding of liability for abuse of process. Because of the partial reversal, the appellate court vacated the $8 million and sent the case back to the Superior Court in Mohave County, Ariz., for a new trial on damages.

But shortly before the December 2021 retrial, both parties agreed to settle for $8 million.

The settlement, however, is not the end of the litigation between the parties.

Late last year, Mr. Cogan filed a new case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against Dr. Trabucco alleging the Arizona court that tried the malicious prosecution case never had jurisdiction. Mr. Cogan contends that per federal case law, any damages resulting from a bankruptcy court pleading give the federal court exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.

“I believe that I will win the federal court case,” Mr. Cogan said. “If Judge Andrew P. Gordon finds for me, Dr. Trabucco’s judgment in Arizona is void as Arizona did not have subject-matter jurisdiction.”

Dr. Trabucco says the new federal case has no merit.

“The federal courts have no jurisdiction over civil matters, and this should be thrown out,” he said. “However, my attorney is fully prepared to take this to the Supreme Court [if it moves forward].”

At this article’s deadline, the judge had not yet ruled on Dr. Trabucco’s motion to dismiss the federal complaint.
 

Should a physician sue for malicious prosecution?

Dr. Trabucco’s case raises the question of whether physicians should consider suing a patient after winning their malpractice case. As many doctors know, a successful case outcome doesn’t necessarily undo the time spent, income lost, and reputation harm that often comes with a negligence lawsuit. Is suing for malicious prosecution a reasonable route to recoup some of the damages caused by the claim?

“It’s an uphill struggle to prevail,” said Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD. “Have people done it? Yes, they have. Is it easy? No.”

A physician must hit the marks of a distinct checklist to pursue a malicious prosecution case, said Dr. Segal, CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a company that aids and advises physicians on legal matters. One necessary element is that the malpractice case against the physician must have been adjudicated on the merits, he said. For example, the doctor won the case at trial or the case was dismissed on summary judgment. Summary judgment refers to a court tossing the claim because there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact and because the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

If the case was dismissed for another reason, such as a technicality, or dropped by the plaintiff, the case would not meet the threshold for a malicious prosecution claim, Dr. Segal explains.

The physician must also show that the lawsuit was instituted with “malice,” meaning with an intent to hurt the physician, and that the lawsuit was brought without “probable cause,” adds J. Richard Moore, JD, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Indianapolis.

“The courts are still pretty good at weeding out cases with no merit whatsoever, so even if a physician takes a case to trial and wins, it is exceedingly rare that a case that makes it that far, has no merit whatsoever,” Mr. Moore said.

In addition, a plaintiffs’ attorney may be protected from a malicious prosecution claim because they relied on a medical expert’s opinion that reasonable cause existed to file a lawsuit, notes William Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and attorney based in Frankfort, Ill.

Dr. Sullivan has personal experience with such a challenge. He filed a malicious prosecution claim against a plaintiffs’ attorney after being dismissed from a medical malpractice case. The claim stemmed from Dr. Sullivan inserting an emergency central line into a trauma patient who was taken to surgery and later died. The suit alleged Dr. Sullivan failed to diagnose internal bleeding and failed to perform surgery, although surgeons at the hospital knew internal bleeding was present and Dr. Sullivan had no privileges to perform surgery, he said.

However, Dr. Sullivan was unable to identify the medical expert involved in the claim. Illinois law allows a malpractice plaintiff to withhold the identity of a medical expert who certifies a malpractice lawsuit. Because Dr. Sullivan couldn’t identify the expert, he could not depose the physician, and the law firm claimed there was no malicious prosecution because it relied on the trauma surgeon’s opinion that Dr. Sullivan was liable.

The trial court agreed with the law firm’s argument and dismissed them from the case, Dr. Sullivan said. The trial court also agreed that the expert trauma surgeon should be allowed to remain anonymous in accordance with Illinois law.
 

Alternative options for doctors to recover damages

For physicians who want to recoup after a frivolous claim, but don’t want to dive into another lawsuit, there are other options, say legal experts.

One alternative is filing a motion for sanctions, Dr. Sullivan said. If an attorney files a lawsuit that does not have a reasonable basis in fact or law, that attorney could be subject to sanctions, including paying for the physician’s attorney’s fees and costs, he explained. If a motion for sanctions is granted against an opposing attorney, that fact may be reportable to the attorney’s insurance carrier and also reportable to the attorney’s state licensing board. A motion for sanctions does not require filing of a separate lawsuit and filing a motion for sanctions may allow the defendant physician or the defense attorney to depose the plaintiff attorney regarding the reasonable basis that attorney had for filing a lawsuit, Dr. Sullivan said.

Dr. Sullivan recently represented a physician who won a motion for sanctions. During the legal action against him, Dr. Sullivan presented the plaintiff’s attorney with information showing why his lawsuit did not have a reasonable basis, but the attorney repeatedly ignored the information.

“Eventually, I filed a motion to dismiss the physician from the lawsuit and that motion was granted,” he said. “I also filed a motion for sanctions so that the physician could recover the costs involved in defending the claim. The trial court granted our motion for sanctions against the plaintiff and her law firm and awarded my client more than $10,000.”

Physicians who believe a plaintiffs’ attorney is acting unprofessionally can also file a complaint with the attorney’s bar, Dr. Segal said. And expert witnesses acting in bad faith can be reported to professional societies, medical licensing boards, and/or specialty boards.

“There are a number of avenues to address the sense of justice,” he said. “But if you’re looking for a payday, the only way to do that is by going to court.”

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

Urologist Arnaldo Trabucco, MD, was outraged when he learned of a legal claim filed by a patient’s family blaming him for the patient’s death.

Dr. Trabucco had performed a successful laparoscopic left radical nephrectomy on Gerald Scharf, but he died 3 days later from an unrelated condition, said Dr. Trabucco, who now practices in California. The claims alleged not only wrongful death, but also that Dr. Trabucco “committed willful and malicious actions upon” the patient, eventually resulting in his death, and that Dr. Trabucco’s actions constituted “extreme and outrageous behavior.”

The accusations were levied on behalf of the patient’s family by a bankruptcy attorney who admittedly had no experience in medical malpractice litigation.

“It was a vicious allegation that I intentionally tried to kill my own patient,” said Dr. Trabucco, 66. “It’s an allegation that was outlandish. Those were fighting words.”

As the case dragged on, Dr. Trabucco filed a complaint against the Scharfs and bankruptcy attorney Jeffrey Cogan for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. In 2018, Dr. Trabucco prevailed when a jury awarded him $6,232,000 in compensatory damages and $1,768,000 in punitive damages against Mr. Cogan. (No damages were assessed against the patient’s family.)

“This was a principle issue more than anything else,” Dr. Trabucco said. “My name was tarnished and thrown through the mud. I’m very proud of my name and my reputation.”

Mr. Cogan, a bankruptcy attorney licensed in Nevada and California, disputes that his actions were malicious and disagrees with the jury’s verdict.

“I don’t think I did anything wrong with filing the lawsuit,” he said.

Despite the $8 million award, the legal fight between Dr. Trabucco and Mr. Cogan has continued – and is not over yet.
 

Not your ordinary legal journey

Dr. Trabucco completed his medical training in Rome before moving back to the United States to begin his residency in Brooklyn, New York.

He quietly practiced urology in New York for years before moving to Columbus, Ind., to work at a urology clinic. In 2005, Dr. Trabucco made headlines when the Bartholomew County, Ind., sheriff’s deputies found marijuana plants growing in his home. His medical license was suspended, and he pled guilty to a misdemeanor.

Dr. Trabucco said he was unaware that a family member was growing the plants in the home and that he was not responsible for the operation. The misdemeanor has since been expunged from his record, according to Dr. Trabucco. Bartholomew County records do not list the offense. He later moved to Arizona, where he opened a medical practice.

Before the Scharfs filed their malpractice case in 2013, Dr. Trabucco had been embroiled in a series of unrelated legal disputes, including postdivorce proceedings and a complaint against him by another physician, alleging defamation. In that case, the physician claimed Dr. Trabucco published false and defamatory communications about him, including that the physician committed intentional fraud.

Dr. Trabucco filed his own suit for defamation and infliction of emotional distress against the same physician for alleged threats and harassment and making false reports about him to several Arizona state entities. The defamation suit against Dr. Trabucco ended in a settlement, the terms of which are confidential, according to Mr. Cogan. Dr. Trabucco’s defamation case against the physician was dismissed, according to court records, but they do not specify the reason. Dr. Trabucco said he dropped the defamation case because of the other relentless litigation he was facing.

In November 2012, Dr. Trabucco filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.

Mr. Cogan was representing Dr. Trabucco’s ex-wife’s interests as a creditor in the bankruptcy proceeding and eventually represented the physician who sued Dr. Trabucco, according to court documents. In all, Mr. Cogan represented six creditors in connection to Dr. Trabucco’s bankruptcy, including the Scharfs. He also took over the Scharfs’ malpractice case in Arizona’s Mohave County Superior Court after their attorney died.

As part of a filing in Nevada bankruptcy court called a “Complaint to Determine Nondischargeabiliy of Debts,” Mr. Cogan alleged that Dr. Trabucco knew he lacked sufficient expertise regarding the laparoscopic nephrectomy, that an intraoperative complication occurred because of his error, and that Dr. Trabucco hid the complication and did not attempt to remedy the situation, among other claims.

In addition to the Mohave County filing and the bankruptcy filing, Mr. Cogan filed a similar medical malpractice case against Dr. Trabucco in Arizona district court.

“I believe, based upon the statements by [a retired medical malpractice attorney], that Dr Trabucco squeezed the abdominal aorta,” Mr. Cogan said. “When he did so, plaque from Mr Scharf blocked blood from going to his remaining his kidney, causing his death. My lawsuit said that Dr Trabucco knew he made a mistake and went home rather than fixing the mistake.”

Dr. Trabucco said the laparoscopic nephrectomy went smoothly. A few hours after the surgery, however, Mr. Scharf was transferred to a Las Vegas hospital with a diagnosis of potential occlusion of the abdominal aorta. Surgery was performed, and while the operative report noted the presence of severe atherosclerosis of the abdominal aorta, there was no indication of an intraoperative injury to the aorta from Dr. Trabucco’s surgery, according to court documents filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. An autopsy performed on Mr. Scharf reported “severe calcific aortic atherosclerosis, primarily at the aortic arch and abdominal aorta at the level of the branching of the renal arteries with small adherent thrombus.” The autopsy did not include any indication or suggestion of an intraoperative injury to the abdominal aorta.

A federal jury found unanimously in favor of Dr. Trabucco, concluding that he did nothing wrong. The original medical malpractice case in Mohave County court was ultimately dismissed and in 2014, the bankruptcy court entered an order discharging Dr. Trabucco from all prepetition debts, according to court records.

Meanwhile, as the malicious prosecution case against Mr. Cogan continued, Dr. Trabucco’s name again drew media attention. His former girlfriend was arrested for plotting to kidnap and kill an attorney who was representing Dr. Trabucco’s ex-wife in a divorce proceeding. Renee Perillo was sentenced to 27 years in prison for conspiracy to commit kidnapping and murder for hire for trying to kill Noblesville, Ind., attorney Rebecca Eimerman. Ms. Eimerman was pursuing divorce settlement money from Dr. Trabucco on behalf of his ex-wife. Ms. Perillo’s son was also charged in the crime.

No charges related to the crime were filed against Dr. Trabucco, according to the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office and federal charging records. Dr. Trabucco said he was not involved in the incident and had no knowledge of Perillo’s plans.
 

A hard fought – and still continuing – legal battle

After a 3-day trial, jurors in 2018 found that Mr. Cogan owed Dr. Trabucco $8 million for the harm caused by the unfounded claims.

“This has had a tremendous impact on my life,” Dr. Trabucco said. “It’s cost me a lot of time, money, and anguish.”

Mr. Cogan appealed the verdict. An Arizona appeals court in 2020 upheld the finding of liability for malicious prosecution against Mr. Cogan, but it vacated the finding of liability for abuse of process. Because of the partial reversal, the appellate court vacated the $8 million and sent the case back to the Superior Court in Mohave County, Ariz., for a new trial on damages.

But shortly before the December 2021 retrial, both parties agreed to settle for $8 million.

The settlement, however, is not the end of the litigation between the parties.

Late last year, Mr. Cogan filed a new case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against Dr. Trabucco alleging the Arizona court that tried the malicious prosecution case never had jurisdiction. Mr. Cogan contends that per federal case law, any damages resulting from a bankruptcy court pleading give the federal court exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.

“I believe that I will win the federal court case,” Mr. Cogan said. “If Judge Andrew P. Gordon finds for me, Dr. Trabucco’s judgment in Arizona is void as Arizona did not have subject-matter jurisdiction.”

Dr. Trabucco says the new federal case has no merit.

“The federal courts have no jurisdiction over civil matters, and this should be thrown out,” he said. “However, my attorney is fully prepared to take this to the Supreme Court [if it moves forward].”

At this article’s deadline, the judge had not yet ruled on Dr. Trabucco’s motion to dismiss the federal complaint.
 

Should a physician sue for malicious prosecution?

Dr. Trabucco’s case raises the question of whether physicians should consider suing a patient after winning their malpractice case. As many doctors know, a successful case outcome doesn’t necessarily undo the time spent, income lost, and reputation harm that often comes with a negligence lawsuit. Is suing for malicious prosecution a reasonable route to recoup some of the damages caused by the claim?

“It’s an uphill struggle to prevail,” said Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD. “Have people done it? Yes, they have. Is it easy? No.”

A physician must hit the marks of a distinct checklist to pursue a malicious prosecution case, said Dr. Segal, CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a company that aids and advises physicians on legal matters. One necessary element is that the malpractice case against the physician must have been adjudicated on the merits, he said. For example, the doctor won the case at trial or the case was dismissed on summary judgment. Summary judgment refers to a court tossing the claim because there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact and because the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

If the case was dismissed for another reason, such as a technicality, or dropped by the plaintiff, the case would not meet the threshold for a malicious prosecution claim, Dr. Segal explains.

The physician must also show that the lawsuit was instituted with “malice,” meaning with an intent to hurt the physician, and that the lawsuit was brought without “probable cause,” adds J. Richard Moore, JD, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Indianapolis.

“The courts are still pretty good at weeding out cases with no merit whatsoever, so even if a physician takes a case to trial and wins, it is exceedingly rare that a case that makes it that far, has no merit whatsoever,” Mr. Moore said.

In addition, a plaintiffs’ attorney may be protected from a malicious prosecution claim because they relied on a medical expert’s opinion that reasonable cause existed to file a lawsuit, notes William Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and attorney based in Frankfort, Ill.

Dr. Sullivan has personal experience with such a challenge. He filed a malicious prosecution claim against a plaintiffs’ attorney after being dismissed from a medical malpractice case. The claim stemmed from Dr. Sullivan inserting an emergency central line into a trauma patient who was taken to surgery and later died. The suit alleged Dr. Sullivan failed to diagnose internal bleeding and failed to perform surgery, although surgeons at the hospital knew internal bleeding was present and Dr. Sullivan had no privileges to perform surgery, he said.

However, Dr. Sullivan was unable to identify the medical expert involved in the claim. Illinois law allows a malpractice plaintiff to withhold the identity of a medical expert who certifies a malpractice lawsuit. Because Dr. Sullivan couldn’t identify the expert, he could not depose the physician, and the law firm claimed there was no malicious prosecution because it relied on the trauma surgeon’s opinion that Dr. Sullivan was liable.

The trial court agreed with the law firm’s argument and dismissed them from the case, Dr. Sullivan said. The trial court also agreed that the expert trauma surgeon should be allowed to remain anonymous in accordance with Illinois law.
 

Alternative options for doctors to recover damages

For physicians who want to recoup after a frivolous claim, but don’t want to dive into another lawsuit, there are other options, say legal experts.

One alternative is filing a motion for sanctions, Dr. Sullivan said. If an attorney files a lawsuit that does not have a reasonable basis in fact or law, that attorney could be subject to sanctions, including paying for the physician’s attorney’s fees and costs, he explained. If a motion for sanctions is granted against an opposing attorney, that fact may be reportable to the attorney’s insurance carrier and also reportable to the attorney’s state licensing board. A motion for sanctions does not require filing of a separate lawsuit and filing a motion for sanctions may allow the defendant physician or the defense attorney to depose the plaintiff attorney regarding the reasonable basis that attorney had for filing a lawsuit, Dr. Sullivan said.

Dr. Sullivan recently represented a physician who won a motion for sanctions. During the legal action against him, Dr. Sullivan presented the plaintiff’s attorney with information showing why his lawsuit did not have a reasonable basis, but the attorney repeatedly ignored the information.

“Eventually, I filed a motion to dismiss the physician from the lawsuit and that motion was granted,” he said. “I also filed a motion for sanctions so that the physician could recover the costs involved in defending the claim. The trial court granted our motion for sanctions against the plaintiff and her law firm and awarded my client more than $10,000.”

Physicians who believe a plaintiffs’ attorney is acting unprofessionally can also file a complaint with the attorney’s bar, Dr. Segal said. And expert witnesses acting in bad faith can be reported to professional societies, medical licensing boards, and/or specialty boards.

“There are a number of avenues to address the sense of justice,” he said. “But if you’re looking for a payday, the only way to do that is by going to court.”

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

A new surge in COVID-19 cases across Western Europe has led U.S. health officials to consider whether another pandemic wave will arrive soon, even as states and cities continue to lift restrictions amid low case numbers.

Infectious disease experts are watching BA.2, the Omicron subvariant that appears to be more transmissible than the original strain. BA.2 is fueling outbreaks across Europe and is growing in dominance across the United States.

“It’s picking up steam. It’s across at least 12 countries … from Finland to Greece,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told The Washington Post.

He has been following the surge and has posted recent charts of the outbreak on Twitter. Hospitalizations appear to be increasing in some places as well, he noted, despite the higher vaccination rates of many Western European countries.

“There’s no question there’s a significant wave there,” Dr. Topol said.

Germany recorded more than 260,000 new cases on March 15, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, but coronavirus restrictions are still being lifted this week. The U.K. is reporting more than 75,000 daily cases, and the Netherlands is reporting more than 60,000 daily cases, which are considered major numbers, compared to their population sizes. Meanwhile, France, Italy, and Switzerland are also reporting large increases in infections.

During the past 2 years, widespread outbreaks in Europe have been followed by similar surges in the U.S. weeks later. Most experts interviewed by the Post predicted that it’s likely to happen again.

In the United States, the BA.2 subvariant accounted for 23% of new COVID-19 cases for the week ending March 12, according to the latest estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while the original Omicron strain made up about 66% of cases. The BA.2 percentage is up from 13.7% of new cases for the week ending March 5, 7.1% the previous week, and 4.1% the week before that. In parts of the Northeast and New England, BA.2 makes up more than 38% of new cases.

At the same time, the 7 -day average of COVID-19 cases continues to drop in the United States, with about 31,000 daily cases currently, the New York Times data tracker shows. About 25,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, which has fallen 44% in the past 2 weeks, and about 1,200 deaths are being reported daily.

Several variables could affect the course of a future surge, the Post reported. Vaccination rates, coronavirus safety protocols, and access to antiviral medications could dictate how another wave unfolds across the country.

About 82% of the eligible U.S. population has received at least one vaccine dose, and 69% is fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About half of those who are eligible for booster doses have received one. In Germany, nearly 76% of people are fully vaccinated, the newspaper reported, and in the United Kingdom, about 74% are fully vaccinated.

Health experts are also considering how natural immunity from a previous infection could affect a BA.2 surge. Millions of Americans were infected with the original Omicron strain, BA.1, which could provide protection. That said, researchers aren’t quite sure whether BA.1 infection protects against BA.2.

“It’s like a weather alert. Right now, the skies are sunny and bright, and we hope they stay that way,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, told CNN.

“But we could have some bad weather by evening,” he said. “We just don’t know.”

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

A new surge in COVID-19 cases across Western Europe has led U.S. health officials to consider whether another pandemic wave will arrive soon, even as states and cities continue to lift restrictions amid low case numbers.

Infectious disease experts are watching BA.2, the Omicron subvariant that appears to be more transmissible than the original strain. BA.2 is fueling outbreaks across Europe and is growing in dominance across the United States.

“It’s picking up steam. It’s across at least 12 countries … from Finland to Greece,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told The Washington Post.

He has been following the surge and has posted recent charts of the outbreak on Twitter. Hospitalizations appear to be increasing in some places as well, he noted, despite the higher vaccination rates of many Western European countries.

“There’s no question there’s a significant wave there,” Dr. Topol said.

Germany recorded more than 260,000 new cases on March 15, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, but coronavirus restrictions are still being lifted this week. The U.K. is reporting more than 75,000 daily cases, and the Netherlands is reporting more than 60,000 daily cases, which are considered major numbers, compared to their population sizes. Meanwhile, France, Italy, and Switzerland are also reporting large increases in infections.

During the past 2 years, widespread outbreaks in Europe have been followed by similar surges in the U.S. weeks later. Most experts interviewed by the Post predicted that it’s likely to happen again.

In the United States, the BA.2 subvariant accounted for 23% of new COVID-19 cases for the week ending March 12, according to the latest estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while the original Omicron strain made up about 66% of cases. The BA.2 percentage is up from 13.7% of new cases for the week ending March 5, 7.1% the previous week, and 4.1% the week before that. In parts of the Northeast and New England, BA.2 makes up more than 38% of new cases.

At the same time, the 7 -day average of COVID-19 cases continues to drop in the United States, with about 31,000 daily cases currently, the New York Times data tracker shows. About 25,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, which has fallen 44% in the past 2 weeks, and about 1,200 deaths are being reported daily.

Several variables could affect the course of a future surge, the Post reported. Vaccination rates, coronavirus safety protocols, and access to antiviral medications could dictate how another wave unfolds across the country.

About 82% of the eligible U.S. population has received at least one vaccine dose, and 69% is fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About half of those who are eligible for booster doses have received one. In Germany, nearly 76% of people are fully vaccinated, the newspaper reported, and in the United Kingdom, about 74% are fully vaccinated.

Health experts are also considering how natural immunity from a previous infection could affect a BA.2 surge. Millions of Americans were infected with the original Omicron strain, BA.1, which could provide protection. That said, researchers aren’t quite sure whether BA.1 infection protects against BA.2.

“It’s like a weather alert. Right now, the skies are sunny and bright, and we hope they stay that way,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, told CNN.

“But we could have some bad weather by evening,” he said. “We just don’t know.”

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

A new surge in COVID-19 cases across Western Europe has led U.S. health officials to consider whether another pandemic wave will arrive soon, even as states and cities continue to lift restrictions amid low case numbers.

Infectious disease experts are watching BA.2, the Omicron subvariant that appears to be more transmissible than the original strain. BA.2 is fueling outbreaks across Europe and is growing in dominance across the United States.

“It’s picking up steam. It’s across at least 12 countries … from Finland to Greece,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told The Washington Post.

He has been following the surge and has posted recent charts of the outbreak on Twitter. Hospitalizations appear to be increasing in some places as well, he noted, despite the higher vaccination rates of many Western European countries.

“There’s no question there’s a significant wave there,” Dr. Topol said.

Germany recorded more than 260,000 new cases on March 15, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, but coronavirus restrictions are still being lifted this week. The U.K. is reporting more than 75,000 daily cases, and the Netherlands is reporting more than 60,000 daily cases, which are considered major numbers, compared to their population sizes. Meanwhile, France, Italy, and Switzerland are also reporting large increases in infections.

During the past 2 years, widespread outbreaks in Europe have been followed by similar surges in the U.S. weeks later. Most experts interviewed by the Post predicted that it’s likely to happen again.

In the United States, the BA.2 subvariant accounted for 23% of new COVID-19 cases for the week ending March 12, according to the latest estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while the original Omicron strain made up about 66% of cases. The BA.2 percentage is up from 13.7% of new cases for the week ending March 5, 7.1% the previous week, and 4.1% the week before that. In parts of the Northeast and New England, BA.2 makes up more than 38% of new cases.

At the same time, the 7 -day average of COVID-19 cases continues to drop in the United States, with about 31,000 daily cases currently, the New York Times data tracker shows. About 25,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, which has fallen 44% in the past 2 weeks, and about 1,200 deaths are being reported daily.

Several variables could affect the course of a future surge, the Post reported. Vaccination rates, coronavirus safety protocols, and access to antiviral medications could dictate how another wave unfolds across the country.

About 82% of the eligible U.S. population has received at least one vaccine dose, and 69% is fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About half of those who are eligible for booster doses have received one. In Germany, nearly 76% of people are fully vaccinated, the newspaper reported, and in the United Kingdom, about 74% are fully vaccinated.

Health experts are also considering how natural immunity from a previous infection could affect a BA.2 surge. Millions of Americans were infected with the original Omicron strain, BA.1, which could provide protection. That said, researchers aren’t quite sure whether BA.1 infection protects against BA.2.

“It’s like a weather alert. Right now, the skies are sunny and bright, and we hope they stay that way,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, told CNN.

“But we could have some bad weather by evening,” he said. “We just don’t know.”

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

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

Babies born to moms who were vaccinated against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) while pregnant appear to need fewer antimicrobial prescriptions than babies of unvaccinated moms, according to authors of a recent study.

To fight antimicrobial resistance, we need to use fewer antimicrobial drugs, the authors write in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“In this study, an RSV vaccine was administered to pregnant women to prevent infection in their infants by the transfer of protective antibody to the infant,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, a professor of pediatrics and the scientific director of the Vanderbilt vaccine research program at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Edwards was not involved in the study.

“The authors investigated the impact of the vaccine on the use of antibiotics in infants during the first 90 days of life,” Dr. Edwards added in an email. “They found that the use of antibiotics was less in infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine than in infants born to mothers who received placebo. … They suggest that reducing RSV infection in infants will reduce respiratory infections that trigger antibiotic use.”

Senior author Ramanan Laxminarayan, PhD, MPH, director and senior fellow at the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy in Washington and his colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of a double-blind, randomized controlled trial at 87 sites in 11 countries on several continents.

In the original study, which was conducted between December 2015 and May 2018, 3,005 maternal participants and 2,978 infant participants received the experimental RSV F vaccine, and 1,573 maternal participants and 1,546 infants received a placebo shot. Baseline characteristics of mothers and infants were well balanced, according to the authors.

In the current study, infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine were found to be 12.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%-23.1%) less likely to be prescribed antimicrobials during their first 3 months of life, compared with infants whose mothers received placebo. Vaccine efficacy against antimicrobial prescriptions for acute lower respiratory tract infections was 16.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-29.4%).

During the first 3 months of life, for every 100 infants born, maternal vaccination prevented 3.6 courses of antimicrobials in high-income countries (20.2% of all antimicrobial prescribing), and 5.1 courses in low- and middle-income countries (10.9% of all antimicrobial prescribing).

In addition to finding that lower respiratory tract infections accounted for 69%-73% of all antimicrobial prescribing prevented by maternal vaccination, the researchers found marked vaccine efficacy (71.3% [95% CI, 28.1%-88.6%]) against acute otitis media–associated antimicrobial prescription in infants in high-income countries.
 

RSV vaccine is ‘one of our best investments’

RSV, the authors explain, is a major cause of upper and lower respiratory tract infections that develop as a single agent or along with bacterial pathogens.

“With decreases in bacterial pneumonia following the introduction of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, a vaccine against RSV represents one of our best investments to lower the burden of respiratory infections in children,” Dr. Laxminarayan said in a press release.

“These findings are not unexpected because viral infections can trigger bacterial infections such as otitis, and reducing viral infections will reduce bacterial infections,” Dr. Edwards said. “Also, viral infections are often treated with antibiotics because the provider cannot rule out a bacterial infection.”

She acknowledged the value of investigating multiple outcomes but added that “the study was underpowered to assess the full impact of the antibiotics.”

“If a more effective RSV vaccine can be designed, the impact on reducing antibiotic use will likely be even greater,” Dr. Edwards advised. “Also, the vaccine was not highly effective in preventing RSV pneumonia. If it had been more effective, the antibiotic impact would likely have been greater.”

The authors acknowledged the study’s limitations. “Results of this post hoc secondary analysis should be viewed as hypothesis generating, as the trial was not powered for determination of effects against antimicrobial prescribing, and our analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity,” they write, and they joined Dr. Edwards in recommending further related research.

First author Joseph A. Lewnard, PhD, declares financial support from Pfizer unrelated to this research, three authors are employees of Novavax, and Dr. Laxminarayan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edwards reports funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; consultancy to BioNEt and IBM; membership on data safety and monitoring boards for Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK, Merck, X-4 Pharma, Roche, and Seqirus. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supported the study.

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

Babies born to moms who were vaccinated against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) while pregnant appear to need fewer antimicrobial prescriptions than babies of unvaccinated moms, according to authors of a recent study.

To fight antimicrobial resistance, we need to use fewer antimicrobial drugs, the authors write in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“In this study, an RSV vaccine was administered to pregnant women to prevent infection in their infants by the transfer of protective antibody to the infant,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, a professor of pediatrics and the scientific director of the Vanderbilt vaccine research program at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Edwards was not involved in the study.

“The authors investigated the impact of the vaccine on the use of antibiotics in infants during the first 90 days of life,” Dr. Edwards added in an email. “They found that the use of antibiotics was less in infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine than in infants born to mothers who received placebo. … They suggest that reducing RSV infection in infants will reduce respiratory infections that trigger antibiotic use.”

Senior author Ramanan Laxminarayan, PhD, MPH, director and senior fellow at the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy in Washington and his colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of a double-blind, randomized controlled trial at 87 sites in 11 countries on several continents.

In the original study, which was conducted between December 2015 and May 2018, 3,005 maternal participants and 2,978 infant participants received the experimental RSV F vaccine, and 1,573 maternal participants and 1,546 infants received a placebo shot. Baseline characteristics of mothers and infants were well balanced, according to the authors.

In the current study, infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine were found to be 12.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%-23.1%) less likely to be prescribed antimicrobials during their first 3 months of life, compared with infants whose mothers received placebo. Vaccine efficacy against antimicrobial prescriptions for acute lower respiratory tract infections was 16.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-29.4%).

During the first 3 months of life, for every 100 infants born, maternal vaccination prevented 3.6 courses of antimicrobials in high-income countries (20.2% of all antimicrobial prescribing), and 5.1 courses in low- and middle-income countries (10.9% of all antimicrobial prescribing).

In addition to finding that lower respiratory tract infections accounted for 69%-73% of all antimicrobial prescribing prevented by maternal vaccination, the researchers found marked vaccine efficacy (71.3% [95% CI, 28.1%-88.6%]) against acute otitis media–associated antimicrobial prescription in infants in high-income countries.
 

RSV vaccine is ‘one of our best investments’

RSV, the authors explain, is a major cause of upper and lower respiratory tract infections that develop as a single agent or along with bacterial pathogens.

“With decreases in bacterial pneumonia following the introduction of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, a vaccine against RSV represents one of our best investments to lower the burden of respiratory infections in children,” Dr. Laxminarayan said in a press release.

“These findings are not unexpected because viral infections can trigger bacterial infections such as otitis, and reducing viral infections will reduce bacterial infections,” Dr. Edwards said. “Also, viral infections are often treated with antibiotics because the provider cannot rule out a bacterial infection.”

She acknowledged the value of investigating multiple outcomes but added that “the study was underpowered to assess the full impact of the antibiotics.”

“If a more effective RSV vaccine can be designed, the impact on reducing antibiotic use will likely be even greater,” Dr. Edwards advised. “Also, the vaccine was not highly effective in preventing RSV pneumonia. If it had been more effective, the antibiotic impact would likely have been greater.”

The authors acknowledged the study’s limitations. “Results of this post hoc secondary analysis should be viewed as hypothesis generating, as the trial was not powered for determination of effects against antimicrobial prescribing, and our analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity,” they write, and they joined Dr. Edwards in recommending further related research.

First author Joseph A. Lewnard, PhD, declares financial support from Pfizer unrelated to this research, three authors are employees of Novavax, and Dr. Laxminarayan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edwards reports funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; consultancy to BioNEt and IBM; membership on data safety and monitoring boards for Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK, Merck, X-4 Pharma, Roche, and Seqirus. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supported the study.

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

Babies born to moms who were vaccinated against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) while pregnant appear to need fewer antimicrobial prescriptions than babies of unvaccinated moms, according to authors of a recent study.

To fight antimicrobial resistance, we need to use fewer antimicrobial drugs, the authors write in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“In this study, an RSV vaccine was administered to pregnant women to prevent infection in their infants by the transfer of protective antibody to the infant,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, a professor of pediatrics and the scientific director of the Vanderbilt vaccine research program at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Edwards was not involved in the study.

“The authors investigated the impact of the vaccine on the use of antibiotics in infants during the first 90 days of life,” Dr. Edwards added in an email. “They found that the use of antibiotics was less in infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine than in infants born to mothers who received placebo. … They suggest that reducing RSV infection in infants will reduce respiratory infections that trigger antibiotic use.”

Senior author Ramanan Laxminarayan, PhD, MPH, director and senior fellow at the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy in Washington and his colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of a double-blind, randomized controlled trial at 87 sites in 11 countries on several continents.

In the original study, which was conducted between December 2015 and May 2018, 3,005 maternal participants and 2,978 infant participants received the experimental RSV F vaccine, and 1,573 maternal participants and 1,546 infants received a placebo shot. Baseline characteristics of mothers and infants were well balanced, according to the authors.

In the current study, infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine were found to be 12.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%-23.1%) less likely to be prescribed antimicrobials during their first 3 months of life, compared with infants whose mothers received placebo. Vaccine efficacy against antimicrobial prescriptions for acute lower respiratory tract infections was 16.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-29.4%).

During the first 3 months of life, for every 100 infants born, maternal vaccination prevented 3.6 courses of antimicrobials in high-income countries (20.2% of all antimicrobial prescribing), and 5.1 courses in low- and middle-income countries (10.9% of all antimicrobial prescribing).

In addition to finding that lower respiratory tract infections accounted for 69%-73% of all antimicrobial prescribing prevented by maternal vaccination, the researchers found marked vaccine efficacy (71.3% [95% CI, 28.1%-88.6%]) against acute otitis media–associated antimicrobial prescription in infants in high-income countries.
 

RSV vaccine is ‘one of our best investments’

RSV, the authors explain, is a major cause of upper and lower respiratory tract infections that develop as a single agent or along with bacterial pathogens.

“With decreases in bacterial pneumonia following the introduction of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, a vaccine against RSV represents one of our best investments to lower the burden of respiratory infections in children,” Dr. Laxminarayan said in a press release.

“These findings are not unexpected because viral infections can trigger bacterial infections such as otitis, and reducing viral infections will reduce bacterial infections,” Dr. Edwards said. “Also, viral infections are often treated with antibiotics because the provider cannot rule out a bacterial infection.”

She acknowledged the value of investigating multiple outcomes but added that “the study was underpowered to assess the full impact of the antibiotics.”

“If a more effective RSV vaccine can be designed, the impact on reducing antibiotic use will likely be even greater,” Dr. Edwards advised. “Also, the vaccine was not highly effective in preventing RSV pneumonia. If it had been more effective, the antibiotic impact would likely have been greater.”

The authors acknowledged the study’s limitations. “Results of this post hoc secondary analysis should be viewed as hypothesis generating, as the trial was not powered for determination of effects against antimicrobial prescribing, and our analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity,” they write, and they joined Dr. Edwards in recommending further related research.

First author Joseph A. Lewnard, PhD, declares financial support from Pfizer unrelated to this research, three authors are employees of Novavax, and Dr. Laxminarayan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edwards reports funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; consultancy to BioNEt and IBM; membership on data safety and monitoring boards for Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK, Merck, X-4 Pharma, Roche, and Seqirus. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supported the study.

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

Should a postpartum patient with chronic hepatitis C infection be discouraged from breastfeeding her infant?

Continue to the answer...

Hepatitis C is not a contraindication to breastfeeding. Although the virus has been identified in breast milk, the risk of transmission to the infant is exceedingly low.

Should a postpartum patient with chronic hepatitis C infection be discouraged from breastfeeding her infant?

Continue to the answer...

Hepatitis C is not a contraindication to breastfeeding. Although the virus has been identified in breast milk, the risk of transmission to the infant is exceedingly low.

Should a postpartum patient with chronic hepatitis C infection be discouraged from breastfeeding her infant?

Continue to the answer...

Hepatitis C is not a contraindication to breastfeeding. Although the virus has been identified in breast milk, the risk of transmission to the infant is exceedingly low.