Rheumatology News

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

Patients with chronic low back pain who participated in therapeutic aquatic exercise had superior improvement in function, pain, quality of life, sleep quality, and mental state, compared with those who received physical therapy, in a new study.

“This is the first study to compare the efficacy of therapeutic aquatic exercise and physical therapy modalities in the treatment of chronic low back pain,” senior coauthors Pei-Jie Chen, PhD and Xue-Qiang Wang, PhD, both of the department of sport rehabilitation, Shanghai (China) University of Sport, wrote in JAMA Network Open. “Therapeutic aquatic exercise is a safe treatment for chronic low back pain and most participants who received it were willing to recommend it to other patients with chronic low back pain.”

As compared with individuals in the physical therapy modalities arm, the therapeutic aquatic exercise experienced greater relief of disability at all time points assessed: after the 3-month intervention, at the 6-month follow-up, and at the 12-month follow-up.

Commenting on the study, Linda Girgis, MD, FAAFP, a family physician in private practice in South River, N.J., agreed that aquatic therapy is a great tool for many chronic low back patients. “It helps them get active for one and do things that may exacerbate their symptoms doing the same exercises on land,” noted Dr. Girgis, who also is a clinical assistant professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick.

She pointed out that access to a pool can be a problem. “But I have found a few physical therapy places in my area that do have access to a pool, and I refer appropriate patients there,” added Dr. Girgis, who was not involved with the study. “I have also found it works well for other types of pain, such as knee and hip pain. It is not for everyone but I have seen some patients get great benefit from it when they didn’t get any with traditional physical therapy.”
 

Aquatic therapy was more beneficial

Low back pain is a common condition, and clinical practice guidelines currently recommend therapeutic exercise and physical therapy modalities. Among the modalities that are available, therapeutic aquatic exercise is often prescribed for chronic low back pain, and it is becoming increasingly popular for treatment of chronic low back pain, the authors stated in their paper. The authors noted that water is an ideal environment for conducting an exercise program given its various properties, including buoyancy pressure, density, thermal capacity, and conductivity.

Two previously published systematic reviews have suggested that therapeutic aquatic exercise may be able to reduce the intensity of back pain and improve function in this population. But to date, evidence regarding long-term benefits in patients with chronic low back pain is very limited and there haven’t been any studies comparing the efficacy of therapeutic aquatic exercise and physical therapy modalities for chronic low back pain, according to the authors.

In this study, 113 individuals with chronic low back pain were randomized to either therapeutic aquatic exercise or to physical therapy, with an endpoint of efficacy regarding disability. This was measured using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.

Scores ranged from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating more severe disability. Secondary endpoints included pain intensity, quality of life, sleep quality, and recommendation of intervention, and these were rated using various standardized tools.

Those randomized to the therapeutic aquatic exercise group had about an hour of therapy, beginning with a 10-minute active warm-up session to enhance neuromuscular activation, then an exercise session for 40 minutes followed by a 10-minute cooldown.

The physical therapy group received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and infrared ray thermal therapy, also for 60 minutes. Both groups received these interventions twice a week for 3 months.

The overall mean age of the cohort was 31.0 years, and they were almost evenly divided by gender; 54 were men (47.8%), and 59 were women (52.2%).

As compared with the physical therapy group, individuals participating in therapeutic aquatic exercise group showed improvement in disability by an additional −1.77 points (95% confidence interval, −3.02 to −0.51) at the end of the 3-month intervention; at 6 months it was −2.42 points (95% CI, −4.13 to −0.70) and −3.61 points (95% CI, −5.63 to −1.58) at the 12-month follow-up (P < .001 for overall group x time interaction).

Functional improvement did not appear to be significantly affected by confounders that included age, sex, body mass index, low back pain duration, educational level, or pain level.

For secondary outcomes, those in the therapeutic aquatic exercise group demonstrated improvement in the most severe pain by an additional −0.79 points (95% CI, −1.31 to −0.27) after the 3-month intervention, −1.34 points (95% CI, −2.06 to −0.62) at 6 months, and −2.04 points (95% CI, −2.75 to −1.34) at the 12-month follow-up (P < .001 for overall group x time interaction), as compared with the physical therapy group. All pain scores differed significantly between the two groups at every time point.

In addition, individuals in the therapeutic aquatic exercise group showed more improvements on the 36-item Short-form Health Survey (overall group x time interaction, P = .003), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (overall group x time interaction, P = .02), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (overall group x time interaction, P < .001), and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (physical activity subscale overall group x time interaction, P = .04), as compared with the physical therapy group. These improvements were also not influenced by confounders.

Finally, at the 12-month follow-up point, those in the aquatic therapy group had significantly greater improvements in the number of participants who met the minimal clinically important difference in pain (at least a 2-point improvement on the numeric rating scale).
 

More outside experts’ takes

“The current research evidence does suggest indeed that aquatic exercise therapy is suitable and often better than land exercise, passive relaxation, or other treatments for many people with low back pain,” commented Stelios Psycharakis PhD, senior lecturer in biomechanics, Institute for Sport, Physical Education and Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh.

He also noted that since low back pain is an issue affecting about 80% of all people at some stage of their life, it is “improbable that one could identify a single type of treatment or exercise therapy that would be suitable for every person with this problem.”

Dr. Psycharakis pointed out that there are also some contraindications for aquatic therapy, such as incontinence and skin conditions. “Other than that though, clinicians should definitely consider aquatic exercise therapy when advising people with chronic low back pain,” he said.

Justin M. Lantz, DPT, agreed that the study showed therapeutic aquatic exercise appears to be safe and beneficial in some patients with chronic low back pain, but he also shared limitations of the new research.

“The study has notable limitations as it did not include patients above 65 years old, pain levels were generally low for the subjects involved, and it did not include a treatment group with land therapeutic exercise – so it is difficult to determine if the beneficial effects reported were due to active exercise or because the exercises were performed in water,” said Dr. Lantz, director of the spine physical therapy fellowship program at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and an assistant professor of clinical physical therapy.

He also pointed out that, since active exercise has been shown to be beneficial and is advocated in multiple clinical practice guidelines for chronic low back pain, “it would be helpful to determine if the true effects on pain and disability were due to the water environment or the effect of active exercise itself.”

“Due to the significant positive long-term effects and limited adverse events reported, I believe this study supports the use of therapeutic aquatic exercise in select patient populations with chronic low back pain and should be considered as a part of a rehabilitation treatment plan if accessibility is feasible,” Dr. Lantz said.

The authors of the paper, Dr. Girgis, and Dr. Psycharakis had no conflicts of interest. Justin Lantz is a physical therapy consultant to SI-Bone.

Patients with chronic low back pain who participated in therapeutic aquatic exercise had superior improvement in function, pain, quality of life, sleep quality, and mental state, compared with those who received physical therapy, in a new study.

“This is the first study to compare the efficacy of therapeutic aquatic exercise and physical therapy modalities in the treatment of chronic low back pain,” senior coauthors Pei-Jie Chen, PhD and Xue-Qiang Wang, PhD, both of the department of sport rehabilitation, Shanghai (China) University of Sport, wrote in JAMA Network Open. “Therapeutic aquatic exercise is a safe treatment for chronic low back pain and most participants who received it were willing to recommend it to other patients with chronic low back pain.”

As compared with individuals in the physical therapy modalities arm, the therapeutic aquatic exercise experienced greater relief of disability at all time points assessed: after the 3-month intervention, at the 6-month follow-up, and at the 12-month follow-up.

Commenting on the study, Linda Girgis, MD, FAAFP, a family physician in private practice in South River, N.J., agreed that aquatic therapy is a great tool for many chronic low back patients. “It helps them get active for one and do things that may exacerbate their symptoms doing the same exercises on land,” noted Dr. Girgis, who also is a clinical assistant professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick.

She pointed out that access to a pool can be a problem. “But I have found a few physical therapy places in my area that do have access to a pool, and I refer appropriate patients there,” added Dr. Girgis, who was not involved with the study. “I have also found it works well for other types of pain, such as knee and hip pain. It is not for everyone but I have seen some patients get great benefit from it when they didn’t get any with traditional physical therapy.”
 

Aquatic therapy was more beneficial

Low back pain is a common condition, and clinical practice guidelines currently recommend therapeutic exercise and physical therapy modalities. Among the modalities that are available, therapeutic aquatic exercise is often prescribed for chronic low back pain, and it is becoming increasingly popular for treatment of chronic low back pain, the authors stated in their paper. The authors noted that water is an ideal environment for conducting an exercise program given its various properties, including buoyancy pressure, density, thermal capacity, and conductivity.

Two previously published systematic reviews have suggested that therapeutic aquatic exercise may be able to reduce the intensity of back pain and improve function in this population. But to date, evidence regarding long-term benefits in patients with chronic low back pain is very limited and there haven’t been any studies comparing the efficacy of therapeutic aquatic exercise and physical therapy modalities for chronic low back pain, according to the authors.

In this study, 113 individuals with chronic low back pain were randomized to either therapeutic aquatic exercise or to physical therapy, with an endpoint of efficacy regarding disability. This was measured using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.

Scores ranged from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating more severe disability. Secondary endpoints included pain intensity, quality of life, sleep quality, and recommendation of intervention, and these were rated using various standardized tools.

Those randomized to the therapeutic aquatic exercise group had about an hour of therapy, beginning with a 10-minute active warm-up session to enhance neuromuscular activation, then an exercise session for 40 minutes followed by a 10-minute cooldown.

The physical therapy group received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and infrared ray thermal therapy, also for 60 minutes. Both groups received these interventions twice a week for 3 months.

The overall mean age of the cohort was 31.0 years, and they were almost evenly divided by gender; 54 were men (47.8%), and 59 were women (52.2%).

As compared with the physical therapy group, individuals participating in therapeutic aquatic exercise group showed improvement in disability by an additional −1.77 points (95% confidence interval, −3.02 to −0.51) at the end of the 3-month intervention; at 6 months it was −2.42 points (95% CI, −4.13 to −0.70) and −3.61 points (95% CI, −5.63 to −1.58) at the 12-month follow-up (P < .001 for overall group x time interaction).

Functional improvement did not appear to be significantly affected by confounders that included age, sex, body mass index, low back pain duration, educational level, or pain level.

For secondary outcomes, those in the therapeutic aquatic exercise group demonstrated improvement in the most severe pain by an additional −0.79 points (95% CI, −1.31 to −0.27) after the 3-month intervention, −1.34 points (95% CI, −2.06 to −0.62) at 6 months, and −2.04 points (95% CI, −2.75 to −1.34) at the 12-month follow-up (P < .001 for overall group x time interaction), as compared with the physical therapy group. All pain scores differed significantly between the two groups at every time point.

In addition, individuals in the therapeutic aquatic exercise group showed more improvements on the 36-item Short-form Health Survey (overall group x time interaction, P = .003), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (overall group x time interaction, P = .02), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (overall group x time interaction, P < .001), and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (physical activity subscale overall group x time interaction, P = .04), as compared with the physical therapy group. These improvements were also not influenced by confounders.

Finally, at the 12-month follow-up point, those in the aquatic therapy group had significantly greater improvements in the number of participants who met the minimal clinically important difference in pain (at least a 2-point improvement on the numeric rating scale).
 

More outside experts’ takes

“The current research evidence does suggest indeed that aquatic exercise therapy is suitable and often better than land exercise, passive relaxation, or other treatments for many people with low back pain,” commented Stelios Psycharakis PhD, senior lecturer in biomechanics, Institute for Sport, Physical Education and Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh.

He also noted that since low back pain is an issue affecting about 80% of all people at some stage of their life, it is “improbable that one could identify a single type of treatment or exercise therapy that would be suitable for every person with this problem.”

Dr. Psycharakis pointed out that there are also some contraindications for aquatic therapy, such as incontinence and skin conditions. “Other than that though, clinicians should definitely consider aquatic exercise therapy when advising people with chronic low back pain,” he said.

Justin M. Lantz, DPT, agreed that the study showed therapeutic aquatic exercise appears to be safe and beneficial in some patients with chronic low back pain, but he also shared limitations of the new research.

“The study has notable limitations as it did not include patients above 65 years old, pain levels were generally low for the subjects involved, and it did not include a treatment group with land therapeutic exercise – so it is difficult to determine if the beneficial effects reported were due to active exercise or because the exercises were performed in water,” said Dr. Lantz, director of the spine physical therapy fellowship program at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and an assistant professor of clinical physical therapy.

He also pointed out that, since active exercise has been shown to be beneficial and is advocated in multiple clinical practice guidelines for chronic low back pain, “it would be helpful to determine if the true effects on pain and disability were due to the water environment or the effect of active exercise itself.”

“Due to the significant positive long-term effects and limited adverse events reported, I believe this study supports the use of therapeutic aquatic exercise in select patient populations with chronic low back pain and should be considered as a part of a rehabilitation treatment plan if accessibility is feasible,” Dr. Lantz said.

The authors of the paper, Dr. Girgis, and Dr. Psycharakis had no conflicts of interest. Justin Lantz is a physical therapy consultant to SI-Bone.

Patients with chronic low back pain who participated in therapeutic aquatic exercise had superior improvement in function, pain, quality of life, sleep quality, and mental state, compared with those who received physical therapy, in a new study.

“This is the first study to compare the efficacy of therapeutic aquatic exercise and physical therapy modalities in the treatment of chronic low back pain,” senior coauthors Pei-Jie Chen, PhD and Xue-Qiang Wang, PhD, both of the department of sport rehabilitation, Shanghai (China) University of Sport, wrote in JAMA Network Open. “Therapeutic aquatic exercise is a safe treatment for chronic low back pain and most participants who received it were willing to recommend it to other patients with chronic low back pain.”

As compared with individuals in the physical therapy modalities arm, the therapeutic aquatic exercise experienced greater relief of disability at all time points assessed: after the 3-month intervention, at the 6-month follow-up, and at the 12-month follow-up.

Commenting on the study, Linda Girgis, MD, FAAFP, a family physician in private practice in South River, N.J., agreed that aquatic therapy is a great tool for many chronic low back patients. “It helps them get active for one and do things that may exacerbate their symptoms doing the same exercises on land,” noted Dr. Girgis, who also is a clinical assistant professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick.

She pointed out that access to a pool can be a problem. “But I have found a few physical therapy places in my area that do have access to a pool, and I refer appropriate patients there,” added Dr. Girgis, who was not involved with the study. “I have also found it works well for other types of pain, such as knee and hip pain. It is not for everyone but I have seen some patients get great benefit from it when they didn’t get any with traditional physical therapy.”
 

Aquatic therapy was more beneficial

Low back pain is a common condition, and clinical practice guidelines currently recommend therapeutic exercise and physical therapy modalities. Among the modalities that are available, therapeutic aquatic exercise is often prescribed for chronic low back pain, and it is becoming increasingly popular for treatment of chronic low back pain, the authors stated in their paper. The authors noted that water is an ideal environment for conducting an exercise program given its various properties, including buoyancy pressure, density, thermal capacity, and conductivity.

Two previously published systematic reviews have suggested that therapeutic aquatic exercise may be able to reduce the intensity of back pain and improve function in this population. But to date, evidence regarding long-term benefits in patients with chronic low back pain is very limited and there haven’t been any studies comparing the efficacy of therapeutic aquatic exercise and physical therapy modalities for chronic low back pain, according to the authors.

In this study, 113 individuals with chronic low back pain were randomized to either therapeutic aquatic exercise or to physical therapy, with an endpoint of efficacy regarding disability. This was measured using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.

Scores ranged from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating more severe disability. Secondary endpoints included pain intensity, quality of life, sleep quality, and recommendation of intervention, and these were rated using various standardized tools.

Those randomized to the therapeutic aquatic exercise group had about an hour of therapy, beginning with a 10-minute active warm-up session to enhance neuromuscular activation, then an exercise session for 40 minutes followed by a 10-minute cooldown.

The physical therapy group received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and infrared ray thermal therapy, also for 60 minutes. Both groups received these interventions twice a week for 3 months.

The overall mean age of the cohort was 31.0 years, and they were almost evenly divided by gender; 54 were men (47.8%), and 59 were women (52.2%).

As compared with the physical therapy group, individuals participating in therapeutic aquatic exercise group showed improvement in disability by an additional −1.77 points (95% confidence interval, −3.02 to −0.51) at the end of the 3-month intervention; at 6 months it was −2.42 points (95% CI, −4.13 to −0.70) and −3.61 points (95% CI, −5.63 to −1.58) at the 12-month follow-up (P < .001 for overall group x time interaction).

Functional improvement did not appear to be significantly affected by confounders that included age, sex, body mass index, low back pain duration, educational level, or pain level.

For secondary outcomes, those in the therapeutic aquatic exercise group demonstrated improvement in the most severe pain by an additional −0.79 points (95% CI, −1.31 to −0.27) after the 3-month intervention, −1.34 points (95% CI, −2.06 to −0.62) at 6 months, and −2.04 points (95% CI, −2.75 to −1.34) at the 12-month follow-up (P < .001 for overall group x time interaction), as compared with the physical therapy group. All pain scores differed significantly between the two groups at every time point.

In addition, individuals in the therapeutic aquatic exercise group showed more improvements on the 36-item Short-form Health Survey (overall group x time interaction, P = .003), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (overall group x time interaction, P = .02), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (overall group x time interaction, P < .001), and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (physical activity subscale overall group x time interaction, P = .04), as compared with the physical therapy group. These improvements were also not influenced by confounders.

Finally, at the 12-month follow-up point, those in the aquatic therapy group had significantly greater improvements in the number of participants who met the minimal clinically important difference in pain (at least a 2-point improvement on the numeric rating scale).
 

More outside experts’ takes

“The current research evidence does suggest indeed that aquatic exercise therapy is suitable and often better than land exercise, passive relaxation, or other treatments for many people with low back pain,” commented Stelios Psycharakis PhD, senior lecturer in biomechanics, Institute for Sport, Physical Education and Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh.

He also noted that since low back pain is an issue affecting about 80% of all people at some stage of their life, it is “improbable that one could identify a single type of treatment or exercise therapy that would be suitable for every person with this problem.”

Dr. Psycharakis pointed out that there are also some contraindications for aquatic therapy, such as incontinence and skin conditions. “Other than that though, clinicians should definitely consider aquatic exercise therapy when advising people with chronic low back pain,” he said.

Justin M. Lantz, DPT, agreed that the study showed therapeutic aquatic exercise appears to be safe and beneficial in some patients with chronic low back pain, but he also shared limitations of the new research.

“The study has notable limitations as it did not include patients above 65 years old, pain levels were generally low for the subjects involved, and it did not include a treatment group with land therapeutic exercise – so it is difficult to determine if the beneficial effects reported were due to active exercise or because the exercises were performed in water,” said Dr. Lantz, director of the spine physical therapy fellowship program at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and an assistant professor of clinical physical therapy.

He also pointed out that, since active exercise has been shown to be beneficial and is advocated in multiple clinical practice guidelines for chronic low back pain, “it would be helpful to determine if the true effects on pain and disability were due to the water environment or the effect of active exercise itself.”

“Due to the significant positive long-term effects and limited adverse events reported, I believe this study supports the use of therapeutic aquatic exercise in select patient populations with chronic low back pain and should be considered as a part of a rehabilitation treatment plan if accessibility is feasible,” Dr. Lantz said.

The authors of the paper, Dr. Girgis, and Dr. Psycharakis had no conflicts of interest. Justin Lantz is a physical therapy consultant to SI-Bone.

Best of 2021
The RA Report

A Supplement to Rhematology News

Contents: 

• Treatment responders show unique differences in gut microbiome
• Gene variant confirmed as strong predictor of interstitial lung disease
• Multiple comorbidities lower odds of disease control
• Blood-based test aims to predict nonresponse to TNF inhibitors
• Evidence grows for food as treatment
• Oral steroids plus proton pump inhibitors raise osteoporotic fracture risk
• Novel study links air pollution to increased risk of flares

Best of 2021
The RA Report

A Supplement to Rhematology News

Contents: 

• Treatment responders show unique differences in gut microbiome
• Gene variant confirmed as strong predictor of interstitial lung disease
• Multiple comorbidities lower odds of disease control
• Blood-based test aims to predict nonresponse to TNF inhibitors
• Evidence grows for food as treatment
• Oral steroids plus proton pump inhibitors raise osteoporotic fracture risk
• Novel study links air pollution to increased risk of flares

Best of 2021
The RA Report

A Supplement to Rhematology News

Contents: 

• Treatment responders show unique differences in gut microbiome
• Gene variant confirmed as strong predictor of interstitial lung disease
• Multiple comorbidities lower odds of disease control
• Blood-based test aims to predict nonresponse to TNF inhibitors
• Evidence grows for food as treatment
• Oral steroids plus proton pump inhibitors raise osteoporotic fracture risk
• Novel study links air pollution to increased risk of flares

Health authorities in California, Texas, and Kansas have reported cases of “flurona,” in which people have seasonal flu and COVID-19 at the same time.

The first known case was detected in Israel, but until the first week of January no cases had been reported in the United States.

In Los Angeles, a teenaged boy tested positive for both illnesses at a COVID testing site in Brentwood, the Los Angeles Times reported. The child’s mother tested positive for COVID the next day.

“This is the first one that we’re aware of,” Steve Farzam, chief operating officer of 911 COVID Testing, told the LA Times. “In and of itself, it’s not overly concerning; however, it is concerning and can be problematic for someone who has pre-existing medical conditions, anyone who is immunocompromised.”

The teen and his family of five had just returned from vacation in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. All said they tested negative before the trip, but they tested again when they got home because one of the children had a runny nose, Mr. Farzam said.

The boy, who had not been vaccinated for COVID or the flu, doesn’t have serious symptoms and is recovering at home.

In Houston, a 17-year-old boy, his siblings, and his father felt sick a few days before Christmas and went in for testing, TV station KTRK reported. The teen tested positive for both the flu and COVID.

“I ended up getting tested the day before Christmas for strep throat, flu and COVID,” the teenager, Alec Zierlein, told KTRK. “I didn’t think I had any of the three. It felt like a mild cold.”

Health officials reported Jan. 5 that a flurona case was detected in Hays, Kan., TV station WIBW reported. The patient was being treated in the ICU. No other details were provided. In Israel, flurona was first found in an unvaccinated pregnant woman at Rabin Medical Center in Petach Tikva, according to the Times of Israel. She tested positive for both viruses when she arrived at the medical center, and doctors double-checked to confirm her diagnosis. The woman had mild symptoms and was released in good condition, the news outlet reported.

Public health officials in Israel said they are concerned that an increase in both viruses at the same time could lead to many hospitalizations.

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

Health authorities in California, Texas, and Kansas have reported cases of “flurona,” in which people have seasonal flu and COVID-19 at the same time.

The first known case was detected in Israel, but until the first week of January no cases had been reported in the United States.

In Los Angeles, a teenaged boy tested positive for both illnesses at a COVID testing site in Brentwood, the Los Angeles Times reported. The child’s mother tested positive for COVID the next day.

“This is the first one that we’re aware of,” Steve Farzam, chief operating officer of 911 COVID Testing, told the LA Times. “In and of itself, it’s not overly concerning; however, it is concerning and can be problematic for someone who has pre-existing medical conditions, anyone who is immunocompromised.”

The teen and his family of five had just returned from vacation in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. All said they tested negative before the trip, but they tested again when they got home because one of the children had a runny nose, Mr. Farzam said.

The boy, who had not been vaccinated for COVID or the flu, doesn’t have serious symptoms and is recovering at home.

In Houston, a 17-year-old boy, his siblings, and his father felt sick a few days before Christmas and went in for testing, TV station KTRK reported. The teen tested positive for both the flu and COVID.

“I ended up getting tested the day before Christmas for strep throat, flu and COVID,” the teenager, Alec Zierlein, told KTRK. “I didn’t think I had any of the three. It felt like a mild cold.”

Health officials reported Jan. 5 that a flurona case was detected in Hays, Kan., TV station WIBW reported. The patient was being treated in the ICU. No other details were provided. In Israel, flurona was first found in an unvaccinated pregnant woman at Rabin Medical Center in Petach Tikva, according to the Times of Israel. She tested positive for both viruses when she arrived at the medical center, and doctors double-checked to confirm her diagnosis. The woman had mild symptoms and was released in good condition, the news outlet reported.

Public health officials in Israel said they are concerned that an increase in both viruses at the same time could lead to many hospitalizations.

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

Health authorities in California, Texas, and Kansas have reported cases of “flurona,” in which people have seasonal flu and COVID-19 at the same time.

The first known case was detected in Israel, but until the first week of January no cases had been reported in the United States.

In Los Angeles, a teenaged boy tested positive for both illnesses at a COVID testing site in Brentwood, the Los Angeles Times reported. The child’s mother tested positive for COVID the next day.

“This is the first one that we’re aware of,” Steve Farzam, chief operating officer of 911 COVID Testing, told the LA Times. “In and of itself, it’s not overly concerning; however, it is concerning and can be problematic for someone who has pre-existing medical conditions, anyone who is immunocompromised.”

The teen and his family of five had just returned from vacation in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. All said they tested negative before the trip, but they tested again when they got home because one of the children had a runny nose, Mr. Farzam said.

The boy, who had not been vaccinated for COVID or the flu, doesn’t have serious symptoms and is recovering at home.

In Houston, a 17-year-old boy, his siblings, and his father felt sick a few days before Christmas and went in for testing, TV station KTRK reported. The teen tested positive for both the flu and COVID.

“I ended up getting tested the day before Christmas for strep throat, flu and COVID,” the teenager, Alec Zierlein, told KTRK. “I didn’t think I had any of the three. It felt like a mild cold.”

Health officials reported Jan. 5 that a flurona case was detected in Hays, Kan., TV station WIBW reported. The patient was being treated in the ICU. No other details were provided. In Israel, flurona was first found in an unvaccinated pregnant woman at Rabin Medical Center in Petach Tikva, according to the Times of Israel. She tested positive for both viruses when she arrived at the medical center, and doctors double-checked to confirm her diagnosis. The woman had mild symptoms and was released in good condition, the news outlet reported.

Public health officials in Israel said they are concerned that an increase in both viruses at the same time could lead to many hospitalizations.

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

Ransomware attacks are driving some small practices out of business.

Michigan-based Brookside ENT and Hearing Center, a two-physician practice, closed its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack. The criminals locked their computer system and files and then demanded a $6,500 ransom to restore access. The practice took the advice of law enforcement and refused to pay. The attackers wiped the computer systems clean – destroying all patient records, appointment schedules, and financial information. Rather than rebuild the entire practice, the two doctors took early retirement.

Wood Ranch Medical, in Simi, Calif., a small primary care practice, decided to shut its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack damaged its servers and backup files, which affected more than 5,000 patient records. The criminals demanded a ransom to restore the technology and records, but the owners refused to pay. They couldn’t rebuild the system without the backup files, so they shuttered their business.

Several large practices have also been attacked by ransomware, including Imperial Health in Louisiana in 2019, that may have compromised more than 110,000 records. The practice didn’t pay the ransom and had access to its backup files and the resources to rebuild its computer systems and stay in business.

Medical practices of all sizes have experienced ransomware attacks. More than 551 health care ransomware attacks were reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights in 2021 (as of Nov. 30), and over 40 million individuals faced exposure of their protected health information.

All it takes is one employee clicking on a link or embedded file in an email to launch malware. A vicious code locks the electronic health record (EHR) system, and your practice grinds to a halt.

Cyber criminals demand a ransom in bitcoin to unlock the files. They may even threaten to post private patient data publicly or sell it on the dark web to get you to pay up.

But, is paying a ransom necessary or wise? What other steps should you take? Here’s what cyber security experts say criminals look for in targets, how they infiltrate and attack, and how you should respond and prevent future attacks.
 

How does it happen?

Email is a popular way for criminals to hack into a system. Criminals often research company websites and impersonate a company executive and send a legitimate-looking “phishing” email to employees hoping that someone will click on it and launch a malware attack.

Recently, cyber criminals found an easier way to infiltrate that doesn’t require identifying targets to gain access, said Drex DeFord, executive health care strategist at CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity technology company in Sunnyvale, Calif.

“Instead of hacking into the system, cyber criminals are just logging in. Most likely, they have acquired a user’s credentials (username/password) from another source – possibly purchasing it from the dark web, the part of the Internet that criminals use, through an ‘access broker,’ an organization that specializes in collecting and selling these kinds of credentials,” said Mr. DeFord.

After a ransomware attack last August on Eskenazi Health in Indianapolis, forensic investigators discovered that the criminals had logged into the IT system in May and had disabled security protections that could have detected their presence before they launched their cyber attack, according to a statement.
 

Responding to a ransomware attack

When employees or the IT department suspect a ransomware attack is underway, cyber experts recommend isolating the “infected” part of the network, shutting down the computer system to prevent further damage, and securing backups.

Soon afterward, cyber criminals typically communicate their ransom demands electronically with instructions for payment. One practice described seeing a “skull and bones image” on its laptops with a link to instructions to pay the ransom demand in bitcoin.

Although you never want to pay criminals, it’s ultimately a business decision that every organization that’s affected by ransomware has to make, said Kathy Hughes, chief information security officer at Northwell Health in New York. “They need to weigh the cost and impact from paying a ransom against what they are able to recover, how long will it take, and how much will it cost,” she said.

While it may be tempting to pay a small ransom, such as $5,000, cyber experts warn that it doesn’t guarantee full access to the original data. About one-third (34%) of health care organizations whose data were encrypted paid the ransom to get their data back, according to a June 2021 HHS Report on Ransomware Trends. However, only 69% of the encrypted data was restored, the report states.

Criminals may also demand another payment, called “double extortion,” by threatening to post any extracted private patient or employee data on the dark web, said Ms. Hughes.

Practices sometimes choose not to pay the ransom when they know they can restore the backup files and rebuild the system for less than the ransom amount. However, it can take weeks to rebuild a fully operational IT system; meanwhile, the organization is losing thousands of dollars in patient revenue.

Criminals may retaliate against a practice that doesn’t pay the ransom by wiping the hard drives clean or posting the extracted medical, financial, and demographic data of patients on the dark web. Patients whose information has been extracted have filed class-action lawsuits against medical practices and organizations such as Scripps Health, in San Diego, claiming that they should have done more to keep their private information safe.

Experts also advise reporting the attack to local law enforcement officials, who may have cyber security experts on staff who will come on site and investigate the nature of the attack. They may also request help from the FBI’s professional cyber security team.

Having a cyber insurance policy may help offset some of the costs of an attack. However, make sure you have a good cyber security program, advised Mr. DeFord.

He suggests that small practices partner with large health systems that can donate their cyber security technology and related services legally under the updated Stark safe harbor rules. Otherwise, they may not meet the insurer’s requirements, or they may have to pay significantly higher rates.
 

Who is an easy target?

Cyber criminals look for easy targets, said Ms. Hughes. “A lot of threat actors are not targeting a specific practice – they’re simply throwing out a net and looking for vulnerable systems on the Internet.”

Small medical practices are particularly vulnerable to ransomware attacks because they lack the resources to pay for dedicated IT or cyber security staff, said Ms. Hughes, who oversees security for more than 800 outpatient practices. They’re not replacing outdated or unsupported equipment, applying regular “patches” that fix, update, or improve operating systems, application software, and Internet browsers, or using password controls.

As large practices or health systems acquire medical practices with different EHR systems, security can be more challenging. “Our goal at Northwell is always to get them onto our standard platform, where we use best practices for technology and security controls,” Ms. Hughes said. “In the world of security, having fewer EHR systems is better so there are fewer things to watch, fewer systems to patch, and fewer servers to monitor. From our point of view, it makes sense to have a standardized and streamlined system.”

Still, some practices may feel strongly about using their EHR system, she said. When that happens, “We at least bring them up to our security standards by having them implement password controls and regular patches. We communicate and collaborate with them constantly to get them to a more secure posture.”

Cyber security lapses may have increased during the pandemic when practices had to pivot rapidly to allow administrative staff to work remotely and clinical staff to use telehealth with patients.

“In the rush to get people out of the building during the pandemic, health care organizations bent many of their own rules on remote access. As they moved quickly to new telehealth solutions, they skipped steps like auditing new vendors and cyber-testing new equipment and software. Many organizations are still cleaning up the security ‘exceptions’ they made earlier in the pandemic,” said Mr. DeFord.
 

Hackers are sophisticated criminals

“The version of a hacker a lot of us grew up with – someone in a basement hacking into your environment and possibly deploying ransomware – isn’t accurate,” said Mr. DeFord. What experts know now is that these cyber criminals operate more like companies that have hired, trained, and developed people to be stealth-like – getting inside your network without being detected.

“They are more sophisticated than the health care organizations they often target,” added Mr. DeFord. “Their developers write the encryption software; they use chatbots to make paying the ransom easy and refer to the people they ransom as clients, because it’s a lucrative business,” he said.

These groups also have specialized roles – one may come in and map your network’s vulnerabilities and sell that information to another group that is good at extracting data and that sells that information to another group that is good at setting off ransomware and negotiation, said Mr. DeFord. “By the time a ransomware attack occurs, we often find that the bad guys have owned the network for at least 6 months.”

Patient records are attractive targets because the information can be sold on the dark web, the part of the Internet that’s unavailable to search engines and requires an anonymous browser called Tor to gain access, said Ms. Hughes.

Criminals steal patient identifiers such as Social Security numbers and birth dates, payment or insurance information, as well as medical histories and prescription data. Other people buy the information for fraudulent purposes, such as filing false tax returns, obtaining medical services, and opening credit cards, said Ms. Hughes.

Lately, criminal gangs appear to be targeting the IT or EHR systems that practices rely on for clinical care and making them unavailable. By locking EHR files or databases and holding them for ransom, criminals hope practices will be more likely to pay, said Ms. Hughes.

They also don’t want to get caught, and this tactic “gets them in and out faster” than extracting and posting patient data, although criminals may use that as a threat to extort a ransom payment, she said.
 

Fines for lax privacy/security

Breaches of patient records have consequences that include being investigated by federal or state authorities for potential HIPAA privacy and security violations and fines. Recently, the HHS announced a $1.5 million settlement – the largest to date – with Athens Orthopedic Clinic, PA, in Georgia, for not complying with the HIPAA rules.

When breaches of 500 or more patient records occur, medical groups are required to notify the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) within 60 days, as well as all the affected patients and the media. Some organizations offer free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services to their patients.

Information about the breaches, including company names and the number of affected individuals, is posted publicly on what cyber experts often call “OCR’s wall of shame.”
 

Strengthen your defenses

The FBI and the HHS warned health care professionals and organizations in 2020 about the threat of increasing cyber attacks and urged them to take precautions to protect their networks.

Here are five actions you can take:

• Back-up your files to the cloud or off-site services and test that the restoration works.
• Implement user training with simulated phishing attacks so the staff will recognize suspicious emails and avoid actions that could launch malware attacks.
• Ensure strong password controls and that systems are regularly patched.
• Require multifactor authentication for remote access to IT networks.
• Set anti-virus/anti-malware programs to conduct regular scans of IT network assets using up-to-date signatures.

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

Ransomware attacks are driving some small practices out of business.

Michigan-based Brookside ENT and Hearing Center, a two-physician practice, closed its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack. The criminals locked their computer system and files and then demanded a $6,500 ransom to restore access. The practice took the advice of law enforcement and refused to pay. The attackers wiped the computer systems clean – destroying all patient records, appointment schedules, and financial information. Rather than rebuild the entire practice, the two doctors took early retirement.

Wood Ranch Medical, in Simi, Calif., a small primary care practice, decided to shut its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack damaged its servers and backup files, which affected more than 5,000 patient records. The criminals demanded a ransom to restore the technology and records, but the owners refused to pay. They couldn’t rebuild the system without the backup files, so they shuttered their business.

Several large practices have also been attacked by ransomware, including Imperial Health in Louisiana in 2019, that may have compromised more than 110,000 records. The practice didn’t pay the ransom and had access to its backup files and the resources to rebuild its computer systems and stay in business.

Medical practices of all sizes have experienced ransomware attacks. More than 551 health care ransomware attacks were reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights in 2021 (as of Nov. 30), and over 40 million individuals faced exposure of their protected health information.

All it takes is one employee clicking on a link or embedded file in an email to launch malware. A vicious code locks the electronic health record (EHR) system, and your practice grinds to a halt.

Cyber criminals demand a ransom in bitcoin to unlock the files. They may even threaten to post private patient data publicly or sell it on the dark web to get you to pay up.

But, is paying a ransom necessary or wise? What other steps should you take? Here’s what cyber security experts say criminals look for in targets, how they infiltrate and attack, and how you should respond and prevent future attacks.
 

How does it happen?

Email is a popular way for criminals to hack into a system. Criminals often research company websites and impersonate a company executive and send a legitimate-looking “phishing” email to employees hoping that someone will click on it and launch a malware attack.

Recently, cyber criminals found an easier way to infiltrate that doesn’t require identifying targets to gain access, said Drex DeFord, executive health care strategist at CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity technology company in Sunnyvale, Calif.

“Instead of hacking into the system, cyber criminals are just logging in. Most likely, they have acquired a user’s credentials (username/password) from another source – possibly purchasing it from the dark web, the part of the Internet that criminals use, through an ‘access broker,’ an organization that specializes in collecting and selling these kinds of credentials,” said Mr. DeFord.

After a ransomware attack last August on Eskenazi Health in Indianapolis, forensic investigators discovered that the criminals had logged into the IT system in May and had disabled security protections that could have detected their presence before they launched their cyber attack, according to a statement.
 

Responding to a ransomware attack

When employees or the IT department suspect a ransomware attack is underway, cyber experts recommend isolating the “infected” part of the network, shutting down the computer system to prevent further damage, and securing backups.

Soon afterward, cyber criminals typically communicate their ransom demands electronically with instructions for payment. One practice described seeing a “skull and bones image” on its laptops with a link to instructions to pay the ransom demand in bitcoin.

Although you never want to pay criminals, it’s ultimately a business decision that every organization that’s affected by ransomware has to make, said Kathy Hughes, chief information security officer at Northwell Health in New York. “They need to weigh the cost and impact from paying a ransom against what they are able to recover, how long will it take, and how much will it cost,” she said.

While it may be tempting to pay a small ransom, such as $5,000, cyber experts warn that it doesn’t guarantee full access to the original data. About one-third (34%) of health care organizations whose data were encrypted paid the ransom to get their data back, according to a June 2021 HHS Report on Ransomware Trends. However, only 69% of the encrypted data was restored, the report states.

Criminals may also demand another payment, called “double extortion,” by threatening to post any extracted private patient or employee data on the dark web, said Ms. Hughes.

Practices sometimes choose not to pay the ransom when they know they can restore the backup files and rebuild the system for less than the ransom amount. However, it can take weeks to rebuild a fully operational IT system; meanwhile, the organization is losing thousands of dollars in patient revenue.

Criminals may retaliate against a practice that doesn’t pay the ransom by wiping the hard drives clean or posting the extracted medical, financial, and demographic data of patients on the dark web. Patients whose information has been extracted have filed class-action lawsuits against medical practices and organizations such as Scripps Health, in San Diego, claiming that they should have done more to keep their private information safe.

Experts also advise reporting the attack to local law enforcement officials, who may have cyber security experts on staff who will come on site and investigate the nature of the attack. They may also request help from the FBI’s professional cyber security team.

Having a cyber insurance policy may help offset some of the costs of an attack. However, make sure you have a good cyber security program, advised Mr. DeFord.

He suggests that small practices partner with large health systems that can donate their cyber security technology and related services legally under the updated Stark safe harbor rules. Otherwise, they may not meet the insurer’s requirements, or they may have to pay significantly higher rates.
 

Who is an easy target?

Cyber criminals look for easy targets, said Ms. Hughes. “A lot of threat actors are not targeting a specific practice – they’re simply throwing out a net and looking for vulnerable systems on the Internet.”

Small medical practices are particularly vulnerable to ransomware attacks because they lack the resources to pay for dedicated IT or cyber security staff, said Ms. Hughes, who oversees security for more than 800 outpatient practices. They’re not replacing outdated or unsupported equipment, applying regular “patches” that fix, update, or improve operating systems, application software, and Internet browsers, or using password controls.

As large practices or health systems acquire medical practices with different EHR systems, security can be more challenging. “Our goal at Northwell is always to get them onto our standard platform, where we use best practices for technology and security controls,” Ms. Hughes said. “In the world of security, having fewer EHR systems is better so there are fewer things to watch, fewer systems to patch, and fewer servers to monitor. From our point of view, it makes sense to have a standardized and streamlined system.”

Still, some practices may feel strongly about using their EHR system, she said. When that happens, “We at least bring them up to our security standards by having them implement password controls and regular patches. We communicate and collaborate with them constantly to get them to a more secure posture.”

Cyber security lapses may have increased during the pandemic when practices had to pivot rapidly to allow administrative staff to work remotely and clinical staff to use telehealth with patients.

“In the rush to get people out of the building during the pandemic, health care organizations bent many of their own rules on remote access. As they moved quickly to new telehealth solutions, they skipped steps like auditing new vendors and cyber-testing new equipment and software. Many organizations are still cleaning up the security ‘exceptions’ they made earlier in the pandemic,” said Mr. DeFord.
 

Hackers are sophisticated criminals

“The version of a hacker a lot of us grew up with – someone in a basement hacking into your environment and possibly deploying ransomware – isn’t accurate,” said Mr. DeFord. What experts know now is that these cyber criminals operate more like companies that have hired, trained, and developed people to be stealth-like – getting inside your network without being detected.

“They are more sophisticated than the health care organizations they often target,” added Mr. DeFord. “Their developers write the encryption software; they use chatbots to make paying the ransom easy and refer to the people they ransom as clients, because it’s a lucrative business,” he said.

These groups also have specialized roles – one may come in and map your network’s vulnerabilities and sell that information to another group that is good at extracting data and that sells that information to another group that is good at setting off ransomware and negotiation, said Mr. DeFord. “By the time a ransomware attack occurs, we often find that the bad guys have owned the network for at least 6 months.”

Patient records are attractive targets because the information can be sold on the dark web, the part of the Internet that’s unavailable to search engines and requires an anonymous browser called Tor to gain access, said Ms. Hughes.

Criminals steal patient identifiers such as Social Security numbers and birth dates, payment or insurance information, as well as medical histories and prescription data. Other people buy the information for fraudulent purposes, such as filing false tax returns, obtaining medical services, and opening credit cards, said Ms. Hughes.

Lately, criminal gangs appear to be targeting the IT or EHR systems that practices rely on for clinical care and making them unavailable. By locking EHR files or databases and holding them for ransom, criminals hope practices will be more likely to pay, said Ms. Hughes.

They also don’t want to get caught, and this tactic “gets them in and out faster” than extracting and posting patient data, although criminals may use that as a threat to extort a ransom payment, she said.
 

Fines for lax privacy/security

Breaches of patient records have consequences that include being investigated by federal or state authorities for potential HIPAA privacy and security violations and fines. Recently, the HHS announced a $1.5 million settlement – the largest to date – with Athens Orthopedic Clinic, PA, in Georgia, for not complying with the HIPAA rules.

When breaches of 500 or more patient records occur, medical groups are required to notify the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) within 60 days, as well as all the affected patients and the media. Some organizations offer free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services to their patients.

Information about the breaches, including company names and the number of affected individuals, is posted publicly on what cyber experts often call “OCR’s wall of shame.”
 

Strengthen your defenses

The FBI and the HHS warned health care professionals and organizations in 2020 about the threat of increasing cyber attacks and urged them to take precautions to protect their networks.

Here are five actions you can take:

• Back-up your files to the cloud or off-site services and test that the restoration works.
• Implement user training with simulated phishing attacks so the staff will recognize suspicious emails and avoid actions that could launch malware attacks.
• Ensure strong password controls and that systems are regularly patched.
• Require multifactor authentication for remote access to IT networks.
• Set anti-virus/anti-malware programs to conduct regular scans of IT network assets using up-to-date signatures.

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

Ransomware attacks are driving some small practices out of business.

Michigan-based Brookside ENT and Hearing Center, a two-physician practice, closed its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack. The criminals locked their computer system and files and then demanded a $6,500 ransom to restore access. The practice took the advice of law enforcement and refused to pay. The attackers wiped the computer systems clean – destroying all patient records, appointment schedules, and financial information. Rather than rebuild the entire practice, the two doctors took early retirement.

Wood Ranch Medical, in Simi, Calif., a small primary care practice, decided to shut its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack damaged its servers and backup files, which affected more than 5,000 patient records. The criminals demanded a ransom to restore the technology and records, but the owners refused to pay. They couldn’t rebuild the system without the backup files, so they shuttered their business.

Several large practices have also been attacked by ransomware, including Imperial Health in Louisiana in 2019, that may have compromised more than 110,000 records. The practice didn’t pay the ransom and had access to its backup files and the resources to rebuild its computer systems and stay in business.

Medical practices of all sizes have experienced ransomware attacks. More than 551 health care ransomware attacks were reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights in 2021 (as of Nov. 30), and over 40 million individuals faced exposure of their protected health information.

All it takes is one employee clicking on a link or embedded file in an email to launch malware. A vicious code locks the electronic health record (EHR) system, and your practice grinds to a halt.

Cyber criminals demand a ransom in bitcoin to unlock the files. They may even threaten to post private patient data publicly or sell it on the dark web to get you to pay up.

But, is paying a ransom necessary or wise? What other steps should you take? Here’s what cyber security experts say criminals look for in targets, how they infiltrate and attack, and how you should respond and prevent future attacks.
 

How does it happen?

Email is a popular way for criminals to hack into a system. Criminals often research company websites and impersonate a company executive and send a legitimate-looking “phishing” email to employees hoping that someone will click on it and launch a malware attack.

Recently, cyber criminals found an easier way to infiltrate that doesn’t require identifying targets to gain access, said Drex DeFord, executive health care strategist at CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity technology company in Sunnyvale, Calif.

“Instead of hacking into the system, cyber criminals are just logging in. Most likely, they have acquired a user’s credentials (username/password) from another source – possibly purchasing it from the dark web, the part of the Internet that criminals use, through an ‘access broker,’ an organization that specializes in collecting and selling these kinds of credentials,” said Mr. DeFord.

After a ransomware attack last August on Eskenazi Health in Indianapolis, forensic investigators discovered that the criminals had logged into the IT system in May and had disabled security protections that could have detected their presence before they launched their cyber attack, according to a statement.
 

Responding to a ransomware attack

When employees or the IT department suspect a ransomware attack is underway, cyber experts recommend isolating the “infected” part of the network, shutting down the computer system to prevent further damage, and securing backups.

Soon afterward, cyber criminals typically communicate their ransom demands electronically with instructions for payment. One practice described seeing a “skull and bones image” on its laptops with a link to instructions to pay the ransom demand in bitcoin.

Although you never want to pay criminals, it’s ultimately a business decision that every organization that’s affected by ransomware has to make, said Kathy Hughes, chief information security officer at Northwell Health in New York. “They need to weigh the cost and impact from paying a ransom against what they are able to recover, how long will it take, and how much will it cost,” she said.

While it may be tempting to pay a small ransom, such as $5,000, cyber experts warn that it doesn’t guarantee full access to the original data. About one-third (34%) of health care organizations whose data were encrypted paid the ransom to get their data back, according to a June 2021 HHS Report on Ransomware Trends. However, only 69% of the encrypted data was restored, the report states.

Criminals may also demand another payment, called “double extortion,” by threatening to post any extracted private patient or employee data on the dark web, said Ms. Hughes.

Practices sometimes choose not to pay the ransom when they know they can restore the backup files and rebuild the system for less than the ransom amount. However, it can take weeks to rebuild a fully operational IT system; meanwhile, the organization is losing thousands of dollars in patient revenue.

Criminals may retaliate against a practice that doesn’t pay the ransom by wiping the hard drives clean or posting the extracted medical, financial, and demographic data of patients on the dark web. Patients whose information has been extracted have filed class-action lawsuits against medical practices and organizations such as Scripps Health, in San Diego, claiming that they should have done more to keep their private information safe.

Experts also advise reporting the attack to local law enforcement officials, who may have cyber security experts on staff who will come on site and investigate the nature of the attack. They may also request help from the FBI’s professional cyber security team.

Having a cyber insurance policy may help offset some of the costs of an attack. However, make sure you have a good cyber security program, advised Mr. DeFord.

He suggests that small practices partner with large health systems that can donate their cyber security technology and related services legally under the updated Stark safe harbor rules. Otherwise, they may not meet the insurer’s requirements, or they may have to pay significantly higher rates.
 

Who is an easy target?

Cyber criminals look for easy targets, said Ms. Hughes. “A lot of threat actors are not targeting a specific practice – they’re simply throwing out a net and looking for vulnerable systems on the Internet.”

Small medical practices are particularly vulnerable to ransomware attacks because they lack the resources to pay for dedicated IT or cyber security staff, said Ms. Hughes, who oversees security for more than 800 outpatient practices. They’re not replacing outdated or unsupported equipment, applying regular “patches” that fix, update, or improve operating systems, application software, and Internet browsers, or using password controls.

As large practices or health systems acquire medical practices with different EHR systems, security can be more challenging. “Our goal at Northwell is always to get them onto our standard platform, where we use best practices for technology and security controls,” Ms. Hughes said. “In the world of security, having fewer EHR systems is better so there are fewer things to watch, fewer systems to patch, and fewer servers to monitor. From our point of view, it makes sense to have a standardized and streamlined system.”

Still, some practices may feel strongly about using their EHR system, she said. When that happens, “We at least bring them up to our security standards by having them implement password controls and regular patches. We communicate and collaborate with them constantly to get them to a more secure posture.”

Cyber security lapses may have increased during the pandemic when practices had to pivot rapidly to allow administrative staff to work remotely and clinical staff to use telehealth with patients.

“In the rush to get people out of the building during the pandemic, health care organizations bent many of their own rules on remote access. As they moved quickly to new telehealth solutions, they skipped steps like auditing new vendors and cyber-testing new equipment and software. Many organizations are still cleaning up the security ‘exceptions’ they made earlier in the pandemic,” said Mr. DeFord.
 

Hackers are sophisticated criminals

“The version of a hacker a lot of us grew up with – someone in a basement hacking into your environment and possibly deploying ransomware – isn’t accurate,” said Mr. DeFord. What experts know now is that these cyber criminals operate more like companies that have hired, trained, and developed people to be stealth-like – getting inside your network without being detected.

“They are more sophisticated than the health care organizations they often target,” added Mr. DeFord. “Their developers write the encryption software; they use chatbots to make paying the ransom easy and refer to the people they ransom as clients, because it’s a lucrative business,” he said.

These groups also have specialized roles – one may come in and map your network’s vulnerabilities and sell that information to another group that is good at extracting data and that sells that information to another group that is good at setting off ransomware and negotiation, said Mr. DeFord. “By the time a ransomware attack occurs, we often find that the bad guys have owned the network for at least 6 months.”

Patient records are attractive targets because the information can be sold on the dark web, the part of the Internet that’s unavailable to search engines and requires an anonymous browser called Tor to gain access, said Ms. Hughes.

Criminals steal patient identifiers such as Social Security numbers and birth dates, payment or insurance information, as well as medical histories and prescription data. Other people buy the information for fraudulent purposes, such as filing false tax returns, obtaining medical services, and opening credit cards, said Ms. Hughes.

Lately, criminal gangs appear to be targeting the IT or EHR systems that practices rely on for clinical care and making them unavailable. By locking EHR files or databases and holding them for ransom, criminals hope practices will be more likely to pay, said Ms. Hughes.

They also don’t want to get caught, and this tactic “gets them in and out faster” than extracting and posting patient data, although criminals may use that as a threat to extort a ransom payment, she said.
 

Fines for lax privacy/security

Breaches of patient records have consequences that include being investigated by federal or state authorities for potential HIPAA privacy and security violations and fines. Recently, the HHS announced a $1.5 million settlement – the largest to date – with Athens Orthopedic Clinic, PA, in Georgia, for not complying with the HIPAA rules.

When breaches of 500 or more patient records occur, medical groups are required to notify the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) within 60 days, as well as all the affected patients and the media. Some organizations offer free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services to their patients.

Information about the breaches, including company names and the number of affected individuals, is posted publicly on what cyber experts often call “OCR’s wall of shame.”
 

Strengthen your defenses

The FBI and the HHS warned health care professionals and organizations in 2020 about the threat of increasing cyber attacks and urged them to take precautions to protect their networks.

Here are five actions you can take:

• Back-up your files to the cloud or off-site services and test that the restoration works.
• Implement user training with simulated phishing attacks so the staff will recognize suspicious emails and avoid actions that could launch malware attacks.
• Ensure strong password controls and that systems are regularly patched.
• Require multifactor authentication for remote access to IT networks.
• Set anti-virus/anti-malware programs to conduct regular scans of IT network assets using up-to-date signatures.

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

The record-setting surge in COVID-19 cases nationwide – including more than one million new infections reported on Jan. 3 – raises questions about whether the higher Omicron variant transmissibility will accelerate a transition from pandemic to endemic disease.

Furthermore, does the steep increase in number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 mean the United States could finally be achieving a meaningful level of “herd immunity”?

Infectious disease experts weigh in on these possibilities.
 

An endemic eventuality?

Whether the current surge will mean the predicted switch to endemic COVID-19 will come sooner “is very hard to predict,” Michael Lin, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“It’s an open question,” he said, “if another highly transmissible variant will emerge.”

On a positive note, “at this point many more people have received their vaccinations or been infected. And over time, repeated infections have led to milder symptoms,” added Dr. Lin, hospital epidemiologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

“It could end up being a seasonal variant,” he said.

COVID-19 going endemic is “a real possibility, but unfortunately ... it doesn’t seem necessarily that we’re going to have the same predictable pattern we have with the flu,” said Eleftherios Mylonakis, MD, PhD, chief of infectious diseases for Lifespan and its affiliates at Rhode Island Hospital and Miriam Hospital in Providence.

“We have a number of other viruses that don’t follow the same annual pattern,” he said.  

Unknowns include how long individuals’ immune responses, including T-cell defenses, will last going forward.

A transition from pandemic to endemic is “not a light switch, and there are no metrics associated with what endemic means for COVID-19,” said Syra Madad, DHSc., MSc, MCP, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Boston.

“Instead, we should continue to focus on decreasing transmission rates and preventing our hospitals from getting overwhelmed,” she said.
 

A hastening to herd immunity?

“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Lin said when asked if the increased transmissibility and increased cases linked to the Omicron surge could get the U.S. closer to herd immunity.

“The twist in this whole story,” he said, “is the virus mutated enough to escape first-line immune defenses, specifically antibodies. That is why we are seeing breakthrough infections, even in highly vaccinated populations.”

Dr. Mylonakis was more skeptical regarding herd immunity.

“The concept of herd immunity with a rapidly evolving virus is very difficult” to address, he said.

One reason is the number of unknown factors, Dr. Mylonakis said. He predicted a clearer picture will emerge after the Omicrons surge subsides. Also, with so many people infected by the Omicron variant, immune protection should peak.

“People will have boosted immunity. Not everybody, unfortunately, because there are people who cannot really mount [a full immune response] because of age, because of immunosuppression, etc.,” said Dr. Mylonakis, who is also professor of infectious diseases at Brown University.

“But the majority of the population will be exposed and will mount some degree of immunity.”

Dr. Madad agreed. “The omicron variant will add much more immunity into our population by both the preferred pathway – which is through vaccination – as well as through those that are unvaccinated and get infected with omicron,” she said.

“The pathway to gain immunity from vaccination is the safest option, and already over 1 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are going into arms per day – this includes first, second, and additional doses like boosters,” added Dr. Madad, who is also senior director of the System-wide Special Pathogens Program at New York City Health and Hospitals.
 

A shorter, more intense surge?

The United Kingdom’s experience with COVID-19 has often served as a bellwether of what is likely to happen in the U.S. If that is the case with the Omicron surge, the peak should last about 4 weeks, Dr. Mylonakis said.

In other words, the accelerated spread of Omicron could mean this surge passes more quickly than Delta.

Furthermore, some evidence suggests neutralizing antibodies produced by Omicron infection remain effective against the Delta variant – thereby reducing the risk of Delta reinfections over time.

The ability to neutralize the Delta variant increased more than fourfold after a median 14 days, according to data from a preprint study posted Dec. 27 on MedRxiv.

At the same time, neutralization of the Omicron variant increased 14-fold as participants mounted an antibody response. The study was conducted in vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected by Omicron in South Africa shortly after symptoms started. It has yet to be peer reviewed.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, described the results as “especially good news” in a tweet.

The current surge could also mean enhanced protection in the future.

“As we look at getting to the other side of this Omicron wave, we will end up with more immunity,” Dr. Madad said. “And with more immunity means we’ll be better guarded against the next emerging variant.”

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

The record-setting surge in COVID-19 cases nationwide – including more than one million new infections reported on Jan. 3 – raises questions about whether the higher Omicron variant transmissibility will accelerate a transition from pandemic to endemic disease.

Furthermore, does the steep increase in number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 mean the United States could finally be achieving a meaningful level of “herd immunity”?

Infectious disease experts weigh in on these possibilities.
 

An endemic eventuality?

Whether the current surge will mean the predicted switch to endemic COVID-19 will come sooner “is very hard to predict,” Michael Lin, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“It’s an open question,” he said, “if another highly transmissible variant will emerge.”

On a positive note, “at this point many more people have received their vaccinations or been infected. And over time, repeated infections have led to milder symptoms,” added Dr. Lin, hospital epidemiologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

“It could end up being a seasonal variant,” he said.

COVID-19 going endemic is “a real possibility, but unfortunately ... it doesn’t seem necessarily that we’re going to have the same predictable pattern we have with the flu,” said Eleftherios Mylonakis, MD, PhD, chief of infectious diseases for Lifespan and its affiliates at Rhode Island Hospital and Miriam Hospital in Providence.

“We have a number of other viruses that don’t follow the same annual pattern,” he said.  

Unknowns include how long individuals’ immune responses, including T-cell defenses, will last going forward.

A transition from pandemic to endemic is “not a light switch, and there are no metrics associated with what endemic means for COVID-19,” said Syra Madad, DHSc., MSc, MCP, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Boston.

“Instead, we should continue to focus on decreasing transmission rates and preventing our hospitals from getting overwhelmed,” she said.
 

A hastening to herd immunity?

“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Lin said when asked if the increased transmissibility and increased cases linked to the Omicron surge could get the U.S. closer to herd immunity.

“The twist in this whole story,” he said, “is the virus mutated enough to escape first-line immune defenses, specifically antibodies. That is why we are seeing breakthrough infections, even in highly vaccinated populations.”

Dr. Mylonakis was more skeptical regarding herd immunity.

“The concept of herd immunity with a rapidly evolving virus is very difficult” to address, he said.

One reason is the number of unknown factors, Dr. Mylonakis said. He predicted a clearer picture will emerge after the Omicrons surge subsides. Also, with so many people infected by the Omicron variant, immune protection should peak.

“People will have boosted immunity. Not everybody, unfortunately, because there are people who cannot really mount [a full immune response] because of age, because of immunosuppression, etc.,” said Dr. Mylonakis, who is also professor of infectious diseases at Brown University.

“But the majority of the population will be exposed and will mount some degree of immunity.”

Dr. Madad agreed. “The omicron variant will add much more immunity into our population by both the preferred pathway – which is through vaccination – as well as through those that are unvaccinated and get infected with omicron,” she said.

“The pathway to gain immunity from vaccination is the safest option, and already over 1 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are going into arms per day – this includes first, second, and additional doses like boosters,” added Dr. Madad, who is also senior director of the System-wide Special Pathogens Program at New York City Health and Hospitals.
 

A shorter, more intense surge?

The United Kingdom’s experience with COVID-19 has often served as a bellwether of what is likely to happen in the U.S. If that is the case with the Omicron surge, the peak should last about 4 weeks, Dr. Mylonakis said.

In other words, the accelerated spread of Omicron could mean this surge passes more quickly than Delta.

Furthermore, some evidence suggests neutralizing antibodies produced by Omicron infection remain effective against the Delta variant – thereby reducing the risk of Delta reinfections over time.

The ability to neutralize the Delta variant increased more than fourfold after a median 14 days, according to data from a preprint study posted Dec. 27 on MedRxiv.

At the same time, neutralization of the Omicron variant increased 14-fold as participants mounted an antibody response. The study was conducted in vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected by Omicron in South Africa shortly after symptoms started. It has yet to be peer reviewed.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, described the results as “especially good news” in a tweet.

The current surge could also mean enhanced protection in the future.

“As we look at getting to the other side of this Omicron wave, we will end up with more immunity,” Dr. Madad said. “And with more immunity means we’ll be better guarded against the next emerging variant.”

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

The record-setting surge in COVID-19 cases nationwide – including more than one million new infections reported on Jan. 3 – raises questions about whether the higher Omicron variant transmissibility will accelerate a transition from pandemic to endemic disease.

Furthermore, does the steep increase in number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 mean the United States could finally be achieving a meaningful level of “herd immunity”?

Infectious disease experts weigh in on these possibilities.
 

An endemic eventuality?

Whether the current surge will mean the predicted switch to endemic COVID-19 will come sooner “is very hard to predict,” Michael Lin, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“It’s an open question,” he said, “if another highly transmissible variant will emerge.”

On a positive note, “at this point many more people have received their vaccinations or been infected. And over time, repeated infections have led to milder symptoms,” added Dr. Lin, hospital epidemiologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

“It could end up being a seasonal variant,” he said.

COVID-19 going endemic is “a real possibility, but unfortunately ... it doesn’t seem necessarily that we’re going to have the same predictable pattern we have with the flu,” said Eleftherios Mylonakis, MD, PhD, chief of infectious diseases for Lifespan and its affiliates at Rhode Island Hospital and Miriam Hospital in Providence.

“We have a number of other viruses that don’t follow the same annual pattern,” he said.  

Unknowns include how long individuals’ immune responses, including T-cell defenses, will last going forward.

A transition from pandemic to endemic is “not a light switch, and there are no metrics associated with what endemic means for COVID-19,” said Syra Madad, DHSc., MSc, MCP, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Boston.

“Instead, we should continue to focus on decreasing transmission rates and preventing our hospitals from getting overwhelmed,” she said.
 

A hastening to herd immunity?

“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Lin said when asked if the increased transmissibility and increased cases linked to the Omicron surge could get the U.S. closer to herd immunity.

“The twist in this whole story,” he said, “is the virus mutated enough to escape first-line immune defenses, specifically antibodies. That is why we are seeing breakthrough infections, even in highly vaccinated populations.”

Dr. Mylonakis was more skeptical regarding herd immunity.

“The concept of herd immunity with a rapidly evolving virus is very difficult” to address, he said.

One reason is the number of unknown factors, Dr. Mylonakis said. He predicted a clearer picture will emerge after the Omicrons surge subsides. Also, with so many people infected by the Omicron variant, immune protection should peak.

“People will have boosted immunity. Not everybody, unfortunately, because there are people who cannot really mount [a full immune response] because of age, because of immunosuppression, etc.,” said Dr. Mylonakis, who is also professor of infectious diseases at Brown University.

“But the majority of the population will be exposed and will mount some degree of immunity.”

Dr. Madad agreed. “The omicron variant will add much more immunity into our population by both the preferred pathway – which is through vaccination – as well as through those that are unvaccinated and get infected with omicron,” she said.

“The pathway to gain immunity from vaccination is the safest option, and already over 1 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are going into arms per day – this includes first, second, and additional doses like boosters,” added Dr. Madad, who is also senior director of the System-wide Special Pathogens Program at New York City Health and Hospitals.
 

A shorter, more intense surge?

The United Kingdom’s experience with COVID-19 has often served as a bellwether of what is likely to happen in the U.S. If that is the case with the Omicron surge, the peak should last about 4 weeks, Dr. Mylonakis said.

In other words, the accelerated spread of Omicron could mean this surge passes more quickly than Delta.

Furthermore, some evidence suggests neutralizing antibodies produced by Omicron infection remain effective against the Delta variant – thereby reducing the risk of Delta reinfections over time.

The ability to neutralize the Delta variant increased more than fourfold after a median 14 days, according to data from a preprint study posted Dec. 27 on MedRxiv.

At the same time, neutralization of the Omicron variant increased 14-fold as participants mounted an antibody response. The study was conducted in vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected by Omicron in South Africa shortly after symptoms started. It has yet to be peer reviewed.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, described the results as “especially good news” in a tweet.

The current surge could also mean enhanced protection in the future.

“As we look at getting to the other side of this Omicron wave, we will end up with more immunity,” Dr. Madad said. “And with more immunity means we’ll be better guarded against the next emerging variant.”

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