Rheumatology News

As the pandemic shows no signs of ending, primary care doctors may be reassured that delivering care via video teleconferencing can be as effective as usual in-person consultation for several common health conditions.

This was a finding of a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine involving a review of literature on video teleconferencing (VTC) visits, which was authored by Jordan Albritton, PhD, MPH and his colleagues.

The authors found generally comparable patient outcomes as well as no differences in health care use, patient satisfaction, and quality of life when visits conducted using VTC were compared with usual care.

While VTC may work best for monitoring patients with chronic conditions, it can also be effective for acute care, said Dr. Albritton, who is a research public health analyst at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., in an interview.

The investigators analyzed 20 randomized controlled trials of at least 50 patients and acceptable risk of bias in which VTC was used either for main or adjunct care delivery. Published from 2013 to 2019, these studies looked at care for diabetes and pain management, as well as some respiratory, neurologic, and cardiovascular conditions. Studies comparing VTC with usual care that did not involve any added in-person care were more likely to favor the VTC group, the investigators found.

“We excluded conditions such as substance use disorders, maternal care, and weight management for which there was sufficient prior evidence of the benefit of VTC,” Dr. Albritton said in an interview. “But I don’t think our results would have been substantially different if we had included these other diseases. We found general evidence in the literature that VTC is effective for a broader range of conditions.”

In some cases, such as if changes in a patient’s condition triggered an automatic virtual visit, the author said he thinks VTC may lead to even greater effectiveness.

“The doctor and patient could figure out on the spot what’s going on and perhaps change the medication,” Dr. Albritton explained.

In general agreement is Julia L. Frydman, MD, assistant professor in the Brookdale Department of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who was not involved in the RTI research.

“Telemedicine has promise across many medical subspecialties, and what we need now are more studies to understand the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and clinicians as well as the impact of telemedicine on health outcomes and healthcare utilization.”

In acknowledgment of their utility, video visits are on the rise in the United States. A 2020 survey found that 22% of patients and 80% of physicians reported having participated in a video visit, three times the rate of the previous year. The authors noted that policy changes enacted to support telehealth strategies during the pandemic are expected to remain in place, and although patients are returning to in-person care, the virtual visit market will likely continue growing.
 

Increased telemedicine use by older adults

“We’ve seen an exciting expansion of telemedicine use among older adults, and we need to focus on continuing to meet their needs,” Dr. Frydman said.

In a recent study of televisits during the pandemic, Dr. Frydman’s group found a fivefold greater uptake of remote consultations by seniors – from 5% to 25%. Although in-person visits were far more common among older adults.

A specific advantage of video-based over audio-only telehealth, noted Dr. Albritton, is that physicians can directly observe patients in their home environment. Sharing that view is Deepa Iyengar, MBBS/MD,MPH, professor of family medicine at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, where, she said, “the pandemic has put VTC use into overdrive.”

According to Dr. Iyengar, who was not involved in the RTI research, the video component definitely represents value-added over phone calls. “You can pick up visual cues on video that you might not see if the patient came in and you can see what the home environment is like – whether there are a lot of loose rugs on the floor or broken or missing light bulbs,” she said in an interview.
 

‘VTC is here to stay’

In other parts of the country, doctors are finding virtual care useful – and more common. “VTC is here to stay, for sure – the horse is out of the barn,” said Cheryl L. Wilkes, MD, an internist at Northwestern Medicine and assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “The RTI study shows no harm from VTC and also shows it may even improve clinical outcomes.”

Video visits can also save patients high parking fees at clinics and spare the sick or elderly from having to hire caregivers to bring them into the office or from having to walk blocks in dangerous weather conditions, she added. “And I can do a virtual visit on the fly or at night when a relative or caregiver is home from work to be there with the patient.”

In addition to being beneficial for following up with patients with chronic diseases such as hypertension or diabetes, VTC may be able to replace some visits that have traditionally required hands-on care, said Dr. Wilkes.

She said she knows a cardiologist who has refined a process whereby a patient – say, one who may have edema – is asked to perform a maneuver via VTC and then display the result to the doctor: The doctor says, “put your leg up and press on it hard for 10 seconds and then show me what it looks like,” according to Dr. Wilkes.

The key now is to identify the best persons across specialties from neurology to rheumatology to videotape ways they’ve created to help their patients participate virtually in consults traditionally done at the office, Dr. Wilkes noted.

But some conditions will always require palpation and the use of a stethoscope, according Dr. Iyengar.

“If someone has an ulcer, I have to be able to feel it,” she said.

And while some maternity care can be given virtually – for instance, if a mother-to be develops a bad cold – hands-on obstetrical care to check the position and health of the baby obviously has to be done in person. “So VTC is definitely going to be a welcome addition but not a replacement,” Dr. Iyengar said.

Gaps in research on VTC visits

Many questions remain regarding the overall usefulness of VTC visits for certain patient groups, according to the authors.

They highlighted, for example, the dearth of data on subgroups or on underserved and vulnerable populations, with no head-to-head studies identified in their review. In addition, they found no studies examining VTC versus usual care for patients with concurrent conditions or on its effect on health equity and disparities.

“It’s now our job to understand the ongoing barriers to telemedicine access, including the digital divide and the usability of telemedicine platforms, and design interventions that overcome them,” Dr. Frydman said. “At the same time, we need to make sure we’re understanding and respecting the preferences of older adults in terms of how they access health care.”

This study was supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Dr. Albritton is employed by RTI International, the contractor responsible for conducting the research and developing the manuscript. Several coauthors disclosed support from or contracts with PCORI. One coauthor’s spouse holds stock in private health companies. Dr. Frydman, Dr. Iyengar, and Dr. Wilkes disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

As the pandemic shows no signs of ending, primary care doctors may be reassured that delivering care via video teleconferencing can be as effective as usual in-person consultation for several common health conditions.

This was a finding of a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine involving a review of literature on video teleconferencing (VTC) visits, which was authored by Jordan Albritton, PhD, MPH and his colleagues.

The authors found generally comparable patient outcomes as well as no differences in health care use, patient satisfaction, and quality of life when visits conducted using VTC were compared with usual care.

While VTC may work best for monitoring patients with chronic conditions, it can also be effective for acute care, said Dr. Albritton, who is a research public health analyst at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., in an interview.

The investigators analyzed 20 randomized controlled trials of at least 50 patients and acceptable risk of bias in which VTC was used either for main or adjunct care delivery. Published from 2013 to 2019, these studies looked at care for diabetes and pain management, as well as some respiratory, neurologic, and cardiovascular conditions. Studies comparing VTC with usual care that did not involve any added in-person care were more likely to favor the VTC group, the investigators found.

“We excluded conditions such as substance use disorders, maternal care, and weight management for which there was sufficient prior evidence of the benefit of VTC,” Dr. Albritton said in an interview. “But I don’t think our results would have been substantially different if we had included these other diseases. We found general evidence in the literature that VTC is effective for a broader range of conditions.”

In some cases, such as if changes in a patient’s condition triggered an automatic virtual visit, the author said he thinks VTC may lead to even greater effectiveness.

“The doctor and patient could figure out on the spot what’s going on and perhaps change the medication,” Dr. Albritton explained.

In general agreement is Julia L. Frydman, MD, assistant professor in the Brookdale Department of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who was not involved in the RTI research.

“Telemedicine has promise across many medical subspecialties, and what we need now are more studies to understand the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and clinicians as well as the impact of telemedicine on health outcomes and healthcare utilization.”

In acknowledgment of their utility, video visits are on the rise in the United States. A 2020 survey found that 22% of patients and 80% of physicians reported having participated in a video visit, three times the rate of the previous year. The authors noted that policy changes enacted to support telehealth strategies during the pandemic are expected to remain in place, and although patients are returning to in-person care, the virtual visit market will likely continue growing.
 

Increased telemedicine use by older adults

“We’ve seen an exciting expansion of telemedicine use among older adults, and we need to focus on continuing to meet their needs,” Dr. Frydman said.

In a recent study of televisits during the pandemic, Dr. Frydman’s group found a fivefold greater uptake of remote consultations by seniors – from 5% to 25%. Although in-person visits were far more common among older adults.

A specific advantage of video-based over audio-only telehealth, noted Dr. Albritton, is that physicians can directly observe patients in their home environment. Sharing that view is Deepa Iyengar, MBBS/MD,MPH, professor of family medicine at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, where, she said, “the pandemic has put VTC use into overdrive.”

According to Dr. Iyengar, who was not involved in the RTI research, the video component definitely represents value-added over phone calls. “You can pick up visual cues on video that you might not see if the patient came in and you can see what the home environment is like – whether there are a lot of loose rugs on the floor or broken or missing light bulbs,” she said in an interview.
 

‘VTC is here to stay’

In other parts of the country, doctors are finding virtual care useful – and more common. “VTC is here to stay, for sure – the horse is out of the barn,” said Cheryl L. Wilkes, MD, an internist at Northwestern Medicine and assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “The RTI study shows no harm from VTC and also shows it may even improve clinical outcomes.”

Video visits can also save patients high parking fees at clinics and spare the sick or elderly from having to hire caregivers to bring them into the office or from having to walk blocks in dangerous weather conditions, she added. “And I can do a virtual visit on the fly or at night when a relative or caregiver is home from work to be there with the patient.”

In addition to being beneficial for following up with patients with chronic diseases such as hypertension or diabetes, VTC may be able to replace some visits that have traditionally required hands-on care, said Dr. Wilkes.

She said she knows a cardiologist who has refined a process whereby a patient – say, one who may have edema – is asked to perform a maneuver via VTC and then display the result to the doctor: The doctor says, “put your leg up and press on it hard for 10 seconds and then show me what it looks like,” according to Dr. Wilkes.

The key now is to identify the best persons across specialties from neurology to rheumatology to videotape ways they’ve created to help their patients participate virtually in consults traditionally done at the office, Dr. Wilkes noted.

But some conditions will always require palpation and the use of a stethoscope, according Dr. Iyengar.

“If someone has an ulcer, I have to be able to feel it,” she said.

And while some maternity care can be given virtually – for instance, if a mother-to be develops a bad cold – hands-on obstetrical care to check the position and health of the baby obviously has to be done in person. “So VTC is definitely going to be a welcome addition but not a replacement,” Dr. Iyengar said.

Gaps in research on VTC visits

Many questions remain regarding the overall usefulness of VTC visits for certain patient groups, according to the authors.

They highlighted, for example, the dearth of data on subgroups or on underserved and vulnerable populations, with no head-to-head studies identified in their review. In addition, they found no studies examining VTC versus usual care for patients with concurrent conditions or on its effect on health equity and disparities.

“It’s now our job to understand the ongoing barriers to telemedicine access, including the digital divide and the usability of telemedicine platforms, and design interventions that overcome them,” Dr. Frydman said. “At the same time, we need to make sure we’re understanding and respecting the preferences of older adults in terms of how they access health care.”

This study was supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Dr. Albritton is employed by RTI International, the contractor responsible for conducting the research and developing the manuscript. Several coauthors disclosed support from or contracts with PCORI. One coauthor’s spouse holds stock in private health companies. Dr. Frydman, Dr. Iyengar, and Dr. Wilkes disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

As the pandemic shows no signs of ending, primary care doctors may be reassured that delivering care via video teleconferencing can be as effective as usual in-person consultation for several common health conditions.

This was a finding of a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine involving a review of literature on video teleconferencing (VTC) visits, which was authored by Jordan Albritton, PhD, MPH and his colleagues.

The authors found generally comparable patient outcomes as well as no differences in health care use, patient satisfaction, and quality of life when visits conducted using VTC were compared with usual care.

While VTC may work best for monitoring patients with chronic conditions, it can also be effective for acute care, said Dr. Albritton, who is a research public health analyst at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., in an interview.

The investigators analyzed 20 randomized controlled trials of at least 50 patients and acceptable risk of bias in which VTC was used either for main or adjunct care delivery. Published from 2013 to 2019, these studies looked at care for diabetes and pain management, as well as some respiratory, neurologic, and cardiovascular conditions. Studies comparing VTC with usual care that did not involve any added in-person care were more likely to favor the VTC group, the investigators found.

“We excluded conditions such as substance use disorders, maternal care, and weight management for which there was sufficient prior evidence of the benefit of VTC,” Dr. Albritton said in an interview. “But I don’t think our results would have been substantially different if we had included these other diseases. We found general evidence in the literature that VTC is effective for a broader range of conditions.”

In some cases, such as if changes in a patient’s condition triggered an automatic virtual visit, the author said he thinks VTC may lead to even greater effectiveness.

“The doctor and patient could figure out on the spot what’s going on and perhaps change the medication,” Dr. Albritton explained.

In general agreement is Julia L. Frydman, MD, assistant professor in the Brookdale Department of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who was not involved in the RTI research.

“Telemedicine has promise across many medical subspecialties, and what we need now are more studies to understand the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and clinicians as well as the impact of telemedicine on health outcomes and healthcare utilization.”

In acknowledgment of their utility, video visits are on the rise in the United States. A 2020 survey found that 22% of patients and 80% of physicians reported having participated in a video visit, three times the rate of the previous year. The authors noted that policy changes enacted to support telehealth strategies during the pandemic are expected to remain in place, and although patients are returning to in-person care, the virtual visit market will likely continue growing.
 

Increased telemedicine use by older adults

“We’ve seen an exciting expansion of telemedicine use among older adults, and we need to focus on continuing to meet their needs,” Dr. Frydman said.

In a recent study of televisits during the pandemic, Dr. Frydman’s group found a fivefold greater uptake of remote consultations by seniors – from 5% to 25%. Although in-person visits were far more common among older adults.

A specific advantage of video-based over audio-only telehealth, noted Dr. Albritton, is that physicians can directly observe patients in their home environment. Sharing that view is Deepa Iyengar, MBBS/MD,MPH, professor of family medicine at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, where, she said, “the pandemic has put VTC use into overdrive.”

According to Dr. Iyengar, who was not involved in the RTI research, the video component definitely represents value-added over phone calls. “You can pick up visual cues on video that you might not see if the patient came in and you can see what the home environment is like – whether there are a lot of loose rugs on the floor or broken or missing light bulbs,” she said in an interview.
 

‘VTC is here to stay’

In other parts of the country, doctors are finding virtual care useful – and more common. “VTC is here to stay, for sure – the horse is out of the barn,” said Cheryl L. Wilkes, MD, an internist at Northwestern Medicine and assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “The RTI study shows no harm from VTC and also shows it may even improve clinical outcomes.”

Video visits can also save patients high parking fees at clinics and spare the sick or elderly from having to hire caregivers to bring them into the office or from having to walk blocks in dangerous weather conditions, she added. “And I can do a virtual visit on the fly or at night when a relative or caregiver is home from work to be there with the patient.”

In addition to being beneficial for following up with patients with chronic diseases such as hypertension or diabetes, VTC may be able to replace some visits that have traditionally required hands-on care, said Dr. Wilkes.

She said she knows a cardiologist who has refined a process whereby a patient – say, one who may have edema – is asked to perform a maneuver via VTC and then display the result to the doctor: The doctor says, “put your leg up and press on it hard for 10 seconds and then show me what it looks like,” according to Dr. Wilkes.

The key now is to identify the best persons across specialties from neurology to rheumatology to videotape ways they’ve created to help their patients participate virtually in consults traditionally done at the office, Dr. Wilkes noted.

But some conditions will always require palpation and the use of a stethoscope, according Dr. Iyengar.

“If someone has an ulcer, I have to be able to feel it,” she said.

And while some maternity care can be given virtually – for instance, if a mother-to be develops a bad cold – hands-on obstetrical care to check the position and health of the baby obviously has to be done in person. “So VTC is definitely going to be a welcome addition but not a replacement,” Dr. Iyengar said.

Gaps in research on VTC visits

Many questions remain regarding the overall usefulness of VTC visits for certain patient groups, according to the authors.

They highlighted, for example, the dearth of data on subgroups or on underserved and vulnerable populations, with no head-to-head studies identified in their review. In addition, they found no studies examining VTC versus usual care for patients with concurrent conditions or on its effect on health equity and disparities.

“It’s now our job to understand the ongoing barriers to telemedicine access, including the digital divide and the usability of telemedicine platforms, and design interventions that overcome them,” Dr. Frydman said. “At the same time, we need to make sure we’re understanding and respecting the preferences of older adults in terms of how they access health care.”

This study was supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Dr. Albritton is employed by RTI International, the contractor responsible for conducting the research and developing the manuscript. Several coauthors disclosed support from or contracts with PCORI. One coauthor’s spouse holds stock in private health companies. Dr. Frydman, Dr. Iyengar, and Dr. Wilkes disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

As more indoor venues require proof of vaccination for entrance and with winter — as well as omicron, a new COVID variant — looming, scientists and public health officials are debating when it will be time to change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include a booster shot.

It’s been more than six months since many Americans finished their vaccination course against COVID; statistically, their immunity is waning.

At the same time, cases of infections with the Omicron variant have been reported in at least 17 states, as of Dec. 6. Omicron is distinguished by at least 50 mutations, some of which appear to be associated with increased transmissibility. The World Health Organization dubbed it a variant of concern on Nov. 26.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone 18 and older get a COVID booster shot, revising its narrower guidance that only people 50 and up “should” get a shot while younger adults could choose whether or not to do so. Scientists assume the additional shots will offer significant protection from the new variant, though they do not know for certain how much.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, during a White House press briefing was unequivocal in advising the public. “Get boosted now,” Dr. Fauci said, adding urgency to the current federal guidance. About a quarter of U.S. adults have received additional vaccine doses.

“The definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ has not changed. That’s, you know, after your second dose of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, after your single dose of a Johnson & Johnson vaccine,” said the CDC’s director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, during a Nov. 30 White House briefing on COVID. “We are absolutely encouraging those who are eligible for a boost six months after those mRNA doses to get your boost. But we are not changing the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ right now.” A booster is recommended two months after receiving the J&J shot.

But that, she noted, could change: “As that science evolves, we will look at whether we need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated.’”

Still, the Democratic governors of Connecticut and New Mexico are sending a different signal in their states, as are some countries — such as Israel, which arguably has been the most aggressive nation in its approach. Some scientists point out that many vaccines involve three doses over six months for robust long-term protection, such as the shot against hepatitis. So “fully vaccinated” may need to include shot No. 3 to be considered a full course.

“In my view, if you were vaccinated more than six months ago, you’re not fully vaccinated,” Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont said Nov. 18 during a press briefing. He was encouraging everyone to get boosted at that time, even before the federal government authorized extra shots for everyone.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham had a similar response in mid-November, saying she defined “fully vaccinated” as receiving three shots of the mRNA type. She also opened up booster eligibility to all of her state residents before the CDC and Food and Drug Administration did.

What do the varying views on the evolving science mean for vaccine requirements imposed on travelers, or by schools or workplaces? And what about businesses that have required patrons to provide proof of vaccination?

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania, said the CDC’s stronger recommendation for everyone to get boosted signals to him that a booster is now part of the vaccine regimen. Yet Dr. Offit, who is also a member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, wrote a joint op-ed this week in which he and two other scientists argued that boosters were not yet needed for everyone and that healthy young people should wait to see whether an Omicron-specific booster might be needed.

“I think when the CDC said they are recommending a third dose, they just made the statement that this is a three-dose vaccine series,” Dr. Offit told KHN. “And, frankly, I think it’s going to throw a wrench into mandates.”

Yet to be determined is whether restaurants or other places of business will look more closely at vaccine cards for the booster.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said it’s too early to say. “For now, businesses should stay focused on current guidelines,” he said.

Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, in Washington, said the question of whether you are fully vaccinated with just two doses or need a booster is a question of semantics. COVID immunity level is the more important issue.

Dr. Siegel said he thinks more suitable terminology would be to call someone “appropriately” or “adequately” vaccinated against COVID rather than “fully” vaccinated, since it’s possible that more boosters could be needed in the future — making “full vaccination” a moving target.

But, as with so many aspects of the pandemic, ambiguity prevails — both in federal guidance on the definition of “fully vaccinated” and in entrance policies, which vary by state, school and business.

Right now, businesses don’t appear to be checking for boosters, but that could change. So, it may be wise to first check the requirements — lest patrons present a two-shot vaccine passport, only to be turned away as inadequately protected.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

As more indoor venues require proof of vaccination for entrance and with winter — as well as omicron, a new COVID variant — looming, scientists and public health officials are debating when it will be time to change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include a booster shot.

It’s been more than six months since many Americans finished their vaccination course against COVID; statistically, their immunity is waning.

At the same time, cases of infections with the Omicron variant have been reported in at least 17 states, as of Dec. 6. Omicron is distinguished by at least 50 mutations, some of which appear to be associated with increased transmissibility. The World Health Organization dubbed it a variant of concern on Nov. 26.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone 18 and older get a COVID booster shot, revising its narrower guidance that only people 50 and up “should” get a shot while younger adults could choose whether or not to do so. Scientists assume the additional shots will offer significant protection from the new variant, though they do not know for certain how much.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, during a White House press briefing was unequivocal in advising the public. “Get boosted now,” Dr. Fauci said, adding urgency to the current federal guidance. About a quarter of U.S. adults have received additional vaccine doses.

“The definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ has not changed. That’s, you know, after your second dose of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, after your single dose of a Johnson & Johnson vaccine,” said the CDC’s director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, during a Nov. 30 White House briefing on COVID. “We are absolutely encouraging those who are eligible for a boost six months after those mRNA doses to get your boost. But we are not changing the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ right now.” A booster is recommended two months after receiving the J&J shot.

But that, she noted, could change: “As that science evolves, we will look at whether we need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated.’”

Still, the Democratic governors of Connecticut and New Mexico are sending a different signal in their states, as are some countries — such as Israel, which arguably has been the most aggressive nation in its approach. Some scientists point out that many vaccines involve three doses over six months for robust long-term protection, such as the shot against hepatitis. So “fully vaccinated” may need to include shot No. 3 to be considered a full course.

“In my view, if you were vaccinated more than six months ago, you’re not fully vaccinated,” Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont said Nov. 18 during a press briefing. He was encouraging everyone to get boosted at that time, even before the federal government authorized extra shots for everyone.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham had a similar response in mid-November, saying she defined “fully vaccinated” as receiving three shots of the mRNA type. She also opened up booster eligibility to all of her state residents before the CDC and Food and Drug Administration did.

What do the varying views on the evolving science mean for vaccine requirements imposed on travelers, or by schools or workplaces? And what about businesses that have required patrons to provide proof of vaccination?

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania, said the CDC’s stronger recommendation for everyone to get boosted signals to him that a booster is now part of the vaccine regimen. Yet Dr. Offit, who is also a member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, wrote a joint op-ed this week in which he and two other scientists argued that boosters were not yet needed for everyone and that healthy young people should wait to see whether an Omicron-specific booster might be needed.

“I think when the CDC said they are recommending a third dose, they just made the statement that this is a three-dose vaccine series,” Dr. Offit told KHN. “And, frankly, I think it’s going to throw a wrench into mandates.”

Yet to be determined is whether restaurants or other places of business will look more closely at vaccine cards for the booster.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said it’s too early to say. “For now, businesses should stay focused on current guidelines,” he said.

Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, in Washington, said the question of whether you are fully vaccinated with just two doses or need a booster is a question of semantics. COVID immunity level is the more important issue.

Dr. Siegel said he thinks more suitable terminology would be to call someone “appropriately” or “adequately” vaccinated against COVID rather than “fully” vaccinated, since it’s possible that more boosters could be needed in the future — making “full vaccination” a moving target.

But, as with so many aspects of the pandemic, ambiguity prevails — both in federal guidance on the definition of “fully vaccinated” and in entrance policies, which vary by state, school and business.

Right now, businesses don’t appear to be checking for boosters, but that could change. So, it may be wise to first check the requirements — lest patrons present a two-shot vaccine passport, only to be turned away as inadequately protected.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

As more indoor venues require proof of vaccination for entrance and with winter — as well as omicron, a new COVID variant — looming, scientists and public health officials are debating when it will be time to change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include a booster shot.

It’s been more than six months since many Americans finished their vaccination course against COVID; statistically, their immunity is waning.

At the same time, cases of infections with the Omicron variant have been reported in at least 17 states, as of Dec. 6. Omicron is distinguished by at least 50 mutations, some of which appear to be associated with increased transmissibility. The World Health Organization dubbed it a variant of concern on Nov. 26.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone 18 and older get a COVID booster shot, revising its narrower guidance that only people 50 and up “should” get a shot while younger adults could choose whether or not to do so. Scientists assume the additional shots will offer significant protection from the new variant, though they do not know for certain how much.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, during a White House press briefing was unequivocal in advising the public. “Get boosted now,” Dr. Fauci said, adding urgency to the current federal guidance. About a quarter of U.S. adults have received additional vaccine doses.

“The definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ has not changed. That’s, you know, after your second dose of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, after your single dose of a Johnson & Johnson vaccine,” said the CDC’s director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, during a Nov. 30 White House briefing on COVID. “We are absolutely encouraging those who are eligible for a boost six months after those mRNA doses to get your boost. But we are not changing the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ right now.” A booster is recommended two months after receiving the J&J shot.

But that, she noted, could change: “As that science evolves, we will look at whether we need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated.’”

Still, the Democratic governors of Connecticut and New Mexico are sending a different signal in their states, as are some countries — such as Israel, which arguably has been the most aggressive nation in its approach. Some scientists point out that many vaccines involve three doses over six months for robust long-term protection, such as the shot against hepatitis. So “fully vaccinated” may need to include shot No. 3 to be considered a full course.

“In my view, if you were vaccinated more than six months ago, you’re not fully vaccinated,” Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont said Nov. 18 during a press briefing. He was encouraging everyone to get boosted at that time, even before the federal government authorized extra shots for everyone.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham had a similar response in mid-November, saying she defined “fully vaccinated” as receiving three shots of the mRNA type. She also opened up booster eligibility to all of her state residents before the CDC and Food and Drug Administration did.

What do the varying views on the evolving science mean for vaccine requirements imposed on travelers, or by schools or workplaces? And what about businesses that have required patrons to provide proof of vaccination?

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania, said the CDC’s stronger recommendation for everyone to get boosted signals to him that a booster is now part of the vaccine regimen. Yet Dr. Offit, who is also a member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, wrote a joint op-ed this week in which he and two other scientists argued that boosters were not yet needed for everyone and that healthy young people should wait to see whether an Omicron-specific booster might be needed.

“I think when the CDC said they are recommending a third dose, they just made the statement that this is a three-dose vaccine series,” Dr. Offit told KHN. “And, frankly, I think it’s going to throw a wrench into mandates.”

Yet to be determined is whether restaurants or other places of business will look more closely at vaccine cards for the booster.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said it’s too early to say. “For now, businesses should stay focused on current guidelines,” he said.

Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, in Washington, said the question of whether you are fully vaccinated with just two doses or need a booster is a question of semantics. COVID immunity level is the more important issue.

Dr. Siegel said he thinks more suitable terminology would be to call someone “appropriately” or “adequately” vaccinated against COVID rather than “fully” vaccinated, since it’s possible that more boosters could be needed in the future — making “full vaccination” a moving target.

But, as with so many aspects of the pandemic, ambiguity prevails — both in federal guidance on the definition of “fully vaccinated” and in entrance policies, which vary by state, school and business.

Right now, businesses don’t appear to be checking for boosters, but that could change. So, it may be wise to first check the requirements — lest patrons present a two-shot vaccine passport, only to be turned away as inadequately protected.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The emergence of COVID-19 has given the medical world a bewildering array of prevention and treatment protocols. Some physicians are advocating treatments that have not been validated by sound scientific studies. This has already led to licensing issues and other disciplinary actions being taken against physicians, pharmacies, and other health care providers across the country.

Kuzma/istockphoto

Medical professionals try their very best to give sound advice to patients. A medical license does not, however, confer immunity from being misled.

The supporting “science” for alternative prevention and treatments may look legitimate, but these claims are often based on anecdotal evidence. Some studies involve small populations, some are meta-analyses of several small or single-case studies, and others are not properly designed, interpreted, or executed in line with U.S. research and requirements. Yet others have been conducted only in nonhuman analogues, such as frogs or mice.

Many people are refusing a vaccine that has been proven to be relatively safe and effective in numerous repeated and validated studies in the best medical centers across the globe – all in favor of less validated alternatives. Well-intentioned medical professionals may be tempted to promote the information and products featured on websites that advocate for unproven products and protocols. This can have serious legal consequences.
 

The crux of the issue

This is not a question of a physician’s first amendment rights. Nor is it a question of advocating for a scientifically valid minority medical opinion. The point of this article is that promoting unproven products, preventives, treatments, and cures can have dire consequences for licensed medical professionals.

On July 29, 2021, the Federation of State Medical Boards’ Board of Directors released a statement in response to a dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other health care professionals on social media platforms, online, and in the media. The statement reads as follows:

“Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession, and puts all patients at risk.”

 

What are the legal consequences?

Medical malpractice

The first consequence to consider is professional liability or medical malpractice. This applies if a patient claims harm as a result of the health care practitioner’s recommendation of an unproven treatment, product, or protocol. For example, strongly discouraging vaccination can result in a wrongful death claim if the patient follows the doctor’s advice, chooses not to vaccinate, contracts COVID-19, and does not recover. Recommending or providing unproven approaches and unapproved treatments is arguably a violation of the standard of care.

The standard of care is grounded in evidence-based medicine: It is commonly defined as the degree of care and skill that would be used by the average physician, who is practicing in his or her relevant specialty, under the same or similar circumstances, given the generally accepted medical knowledge at the time in question.

By way of example, one can see why inhaling peroxide, drinking bleach, or even taking Food and Drug Administration–approved medications that have little or no proven efficacy in treating or preventing COVID-19 is not what the average physician would advocate for under the same or similar circumstances, considering available and commonly accepted medical knowledge. Recommending or providing such treatments can be a breach of the standard of care and can form the basis of a medical malpractice action if, in fact, compensable harm has occurred.

In addition, recommending unproven and unapproved COVID-19 preventives and treatments without appropriate informed consent from patients is arguably also a breach of the standard of care. The claim would be that the patient has not been appropriately informed of the all the known benefits, risks, costs, and other legally required information such as proven efficacy and reasonably available alternatives.

In any event, physicians can rest assured that if a patient is harmed as a result of any of these situations, they’ll probably be answering to someone in the legal system.
 

Professional licensing action

Regardless of whether there is a medical malpractice action, there is still the potential for a patient complaint to be filed with the state licensing authority on the basis of the same facts and grounds. This can result in an investigation or an administrative complaint against the license of the health care provider.

This is not a mere potential risk. Licensing investigations are underway across the country. Disciplinary licensing actions have already taken place. For example, a Washington Medical Commission panel suspended the license of a physician assistant (PA) on Oct. 12, 2021, after an allegation that his treatment of COVID-19 patients fell below the standard of care. The PA allegedly began a public campaign promoting ivermectin as a curative agent for COVID-19 and prescribed it without adequate examination to at least one person, with no evidence from reliable clinical studies that establish its efficacy in preventing or treating COVID-19.

In licensing claims, alleged violations of failing to comply with the standard of care are usually asserted. These claims may also cite violations of other state statutes that encompass such concepts as negligence; breach of the duty of due care; incompetence; lack of good moral character; and lack of ability to serve the public in a fair, honest, and open manner. A licensing complaint may include alleged violations of statutes that address prescribing protocols, reckless endangerment, failure to supervise, and other issues.

The filing of an administrative complaint is a different animal from a medical malpractice action – they are not even in the same system or branch of government. The focus is not just about what happened to the one patient who complained; it is about protection of the public.

The states’ power to put a clinician on probation, condition, limit, suspend, or revoke the clinician’s license, as well as issue other sanctions such as physician monitoring and fines), is profound. The discipline imposed can upend a clinician’s career and potentially end it entirely.

Administrative discipline determinations are usually available to the public and are required to be reported to all employers (current and future). These discipline determinations are also sent to the National Practitioner Data Bank, other professional clearinghouse organizations (such as the Federation of State Medical Boards), state offices, professional liability insurers, payers with whom the clinician contracts, accreditation and certification organizations, and the clinician’s patients.

Discipline determinations must be promptly reported to licensing agencies in other states where the clinician holds a license, and often results in “sister state” actions because discipline was issued against the clinician in another state. It must be disclosed every time a clinician applies for hospital privileges or new employment. It can result in de-participation from health care insurance programs and can affect board certification, recertification, or accreditation for care programs in which the clinician participates.

In sum, licensing actions can be much worse than medical malpractice judgments and can have longer-term consequences.
 

Peer review and affected privileges

Recommending, promoting, and providing unapproved or unproven treatments, cures, or preventives to patients may violate hospital/health system, practice group, or surgical center bylaws. This can trigger the peer review process, which serves to improve patient safety and the quality of care.

The peer review process may be commenced because of a concern about the clinician’s compliance with the standard of care; potential patient safety issues; ethical issues; and the clinician’s stability, credibility, or professional competence. Any hospital disciplinary penalty is generally reported to state licensing authorities, which can trigger a licensing investigation. If clinical privileges are affected for a period of more than 30 days, the organization must report the situation to the National Practitioner Data Bank.
 

Criminal charges

Depending on the facts, a physician or other health care professional could be charged with reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, or manslaughter. If the clinician was assisting someone else who profited from that clinician’s actions, then we can look to a variety of potential federal and state fraud charges as well.

Conviction of a fraud-related felony may also lead to federal health care program and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) exclusion for several years, and then CMS preclusion that can be imposed for years beyond the conclusion of the statutorily required exclusion.
 

Breach of contract

Some practice groups or other organizational employers have provisions in employment contracts that treat discipline for this type of conduct as a breach of contract. Because of this, the clinician committing breach may be subject to liquidated damages clauses, forfeiture of monies (such as bonuses or other incentives or rewards), termination of employment, forced withdrawal from ownership status, and being sued for breach of contract to recover damages.

Reputation/credibility damage and the attendant consequences

In regard to hospitals and health care system practice groups, another risk is the loss of referrals and revenue. Local media may air or publish exposés. Such stories may widely publicize the media’s version of the facts – true or not. This can cause immediate reputation and credibility damage within the community and may adversely affect a clinician’s patient base. Any information that is publicly broadcast might attract the attention of licensing and law enforcement authorities and taint potential jurors.

Hospitals and health care systems may pull privileges; post on websites; make official statements about the termination of affiliation; or denounce the clinician’s behavior, conduct, and beliefs as being inconsistent with quality care and patient safety. This causes further damage to a physician’s reputation and credibility.

In a group practice, accusations of this sort, licensing discipline, medical malpractice liability, investigations, loss of privileges, and the other sequelae of this conduct can force the withdrawal of the clinician as a member or shareholder in multiprovider groups. Adverse effects on the financial bottom line, patient referrals, and patient volume and bad press are often the basis for voting a clinician out.
 

Violation of the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act of 2020

For the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FTC COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act makes it unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation (as those terms are defined broadly in the act) to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID-19 or a government benefit related to COVID-19.

The first enforcement action authorized by this act took place in April 2021 against a chiropractor who promised vitamin treatments and cures for COVID-19. The act provides that such a violation shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under the FTC Act.

Under the act, the FTC is authorized to prescribe “rules that define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Deceptive practices are defined as involving a material representation, omission, or practice that is “likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.” An act or practice is unfair if it “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”

After an investigation, the FTC may initiate an enforcement action using either an administrative or judicial process if it has “reason to believe” that the law has been violated. Violations of some laws may result in injunctive relief or civil monetary penalties, which are adjusted annually for inflation.

In addition, many states have deceptive and unfair trade laws that can be enforced in regard to the recommendation, sale, or provision of unproven or unapproved COVID-19 treatments, cures, and preventives as well.
 

Conclusion

It is difficult even for intelligent, well-intentioned physicians to know precisely what to believe and what to advocate for in the middle of a pandemic. It seems as though new reports and recommendations for preventing and treating COVID-19 are surfacing on a weekly basis. By far, the safest approach for any medical clinician to take is to advocate for positions that are generally accepted in the medical and scientific community at the time advice is given.

Mr. Whitelaw disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Janeway disclosed various associations with the Michigan Association for Healthcare Quality and the Greater Houston Society for Healthcare Risk Management. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The emergence of COVID-19 has given the medical world a bewildering array of prevention and treatment protocols. Some physicians are advocating treatments that have not been validated by sound scientific studies. This has already led to licensing issues and other disciplinary actions being taken against physicians, pharmacies, and other health care providers across the country.

Kuzma/istockphoto

Medical professionals try their very best to give sound advice to patients. A medical license does not, however, confer immunity from being misled.

The supporting “science” for alternative prevention and treatments may look legitimate, but these claims are often based on anecdotal evidence. Some studies involve small populations, some are meta-analyses of several small or single-case studies, and others are not properly designed, interpreted, or executed in line with U.S. research and requirements. Yet others have been conducted only in nonhuman analogues, such as frogs or mice.

Many people are refusing a vaccine that has been proven to be relatively safe and effective in numerous repeated and validated studies in the best medical centers across the globe – all in favor of less validated alternatives. Well-intentioned medical professionals may be tempted to promote the information and products featured on websites that advocate for unproven products and protocols. This can have serious legal consequences.
 

The crux of the issue

This is not a question of a physician’s first amendment rights. Nor is it a question of advocating for a scientifically valid minority medical opinion. The point of this article is that promoting unproven products, preventives, treatments, and cures can have dire consequences for licensed medical professionals.

On July 29, 2021, the Federation of State Medical Boards’ Board of Directors released a statement in response to a dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other health care professionals on social media platforms, online, and in the media. The statement reads as follows:

“Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession, and puts all patients at risk.”

 

What are the legal consequences?

Medical malpractice

The first consequence to consider is professional liability or medical malpractice. This applies if a patient claims harm as a result of the health care practitioner’s recommendation of an unproven treatment, product, or protocol. For example, strongly discouraging vaccination can result in a wrongful death claim if the patient follows the doctor’s advice, chooses not to vaccinate, contracts COVID-19, and does not recover. Recommending or providing unproven approaches and unapproved treatments is arguably a violation of the standard of care.

The standard of care is grounded in evidence-based medicine: It is commonly defined as the degree of care and skill that would be used by the average physician, who is practicing in his or her relevant specialty, under the same or similar circumstances, given the generally accepted medical knowledge at the time in question.

By way of example, one can see why inhaling peroxide, drinking bleach, or even taking Food and Drug Administration–approved medications that have little or no proven efficacy in treating or preventing COVID-19 is not what the average physician would advocate for under the same or similar circumstances, considering available and commonly accepted medical knowledge. Recommending or providing such treatments can be a breach of the standard of care and can form the basis of a medical malpractice action if, in fact, compensable harm has occurred.

In addition, recommending unproven and unapproved COVID-19 preventives and treatments without appropriate informed consent from patients is arguably also a breach of the standard of care. The claim would be that the patient has not been appropriately informed of the all the known benefits, risks, costs, and other legally required information such as proven efficacy and reasonably available alternatives.

In any event, physicians can rest assured that if a patient is harmed as a result of any of these situations, they’ll probably be answering to someone in the legal system.
 

Professional licensing action

Regardless of whether there is a medical malpractice action, there is still the potential for a patient complaint to be filed with the state licensing authority on the basis of the same facts and grounds. This can result in an investigation or an administrative complaint against the license of the health care provider.

This is not a mere potential risk. Licensing investigations are underway across the country. Disciplinary licensing actions have already taken place. For example, a Washington Medical Commission panel suspended the license of a physician assistant (PA) on Oct. 12, 2021, after an allegation that his treatment of COVID-19 patients fell below the standard of care. The PA allegedly began a public campaign promoting ivermectin as a curative agent for COVID-19 and prescribed it without adequate examination to at least one person, with no evidence from reliable clinical studies that establish its efficacy in preventing or treating COVID-19.

In licensing claims, alleged violations of failing to comply with the standard of care are usually asserted. These claims may also cite violations of other state statutes that encompass such concepts as negligence; breach of the duty of due care; incompetence; lack of good moral character; and lack of ability to serve the public in a fair, honest, and open manner. A licensing complaint may include alleged violations of statutes that address prescribing protocols, reckless endangerment, failure to supervise, and other issues.

The filing of an administrative complaint is a different animal from a medical malpractice action – they are not even in the same system or branch of government. The focus is not just about what happened to the one patient who complained; it is about protection of the public.

The states’ power to put a clinician on probation, condition, limit, suspend, or revoke the clinician’s license, as well as issue other sanctions such as physician monitoring and fines), is profound. The discipline imposed can upend a clinician’s career and potentially end it entirely.

Administrative discipline determinations are usually available to the public and are required to be reported to all employers (current and future). These discipline determinations are also sent to the National Practitioner Data Bank, other professional clearinghouse organizations (such as the Federation of State Medical Boards), state offices, professional liability insurers, payers with whom the clinician contracts, accreditation and certification organizations, and the clinician’s patients.

Discipline determinations must be promptly reported to licensing agencies in other states where the clinician holds a license, and often results in “sister state” actions because discipline was issued against the clinician in another state. It must be disclosed every time a clinician applies for hospital privileges or new employment. It can result in de-participation from health care insurance programs and can affect board certification, recertification, or accreditation for care programs in which the clinician participates.

In sum, licensing actions can be much worse than medical malpractice judgments and can have longer-term consequences.
 

Peer review and affected privileges

Recommending, promoting, and providing unapproved or unproven treatments, cures, or preventives to patients may violate hospital/health system, practice group, or surgical center bylaws. This can trigger the peer review process, which serves to improve patient safety and the quality of care.

The peer review process may be commenced because of a concern about the clinician’s compliance with the standard of care; potential patient safety issues; ethical issues; and the clinician’s stability, credibility, or professional competence. Any hospital disciplinary penalty is generally reported to state licensing authorities, which can trigger a licensing investigation. If clinical privileges are affected for a period of more than 30 days, the organization must report the situation to the National Practitioner Data Bank.
 

Criminal charges

Depending on the facts, a physician or other health care professional could be charged with reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, or manslaughter. If the clinician was assisting someone else who profited from that clinician’s actions, then we can look to a variety of potential federal and state fraud charges as well.

Conviction of a fraud-related felony may also lead to federal health care program and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) exclusion for several years, and then CMS preclusion that can be imposed for years beyond the conclusion of the statutorily required exclusion.
 

Breach of contract

Some practice groups or other organizational employers have provisions in employment contracts that treat discipline for this type of conduct as a breach of contract. Because of this, the clinician committing breach may be subject to liquidated damages clauses, forfeiture of monies (such as bonuses or other incentives or rewards), termination of employment, forced withdrawal from ownership status, and being sued for breach of contract to recover damages.

Reputation/credibility damage and the attendant consequences

In regard to hospitals and health care system practice groups, another risk is the loss of referrals and revenue. Local media may air or publish exposés. Such stories may widely publicize the media’s version of the facts – true or not. This can cause immediate reputation and credibility damage within the community and may adversely affect a clinician’s patient base. Any information that is publicly broadcast might attract the attention of licensing and law enforcement authorities and taint potential jurors.

Hospitals and health care systems may pull privileges; post on websites; make official statements about the termination of affiliation; or denounce the clinician’s behavior, conduct, and beliefs as being inconsistent with quality care and patient safety. This causes further damage to a physician’s reputation and credibility.

In a group practice, accusations of this sort, licensing discipline, medical malpractice liability, investigations, loss of privileges, and the other sequelae of this conduct can force the withdrawal of the clinician as a member or shareholder in multiprovider groups. Adverse effects on the financial bottom line, patient referrals, and patient volume and bad press are often the basis for voting a clinician out.
 

Violation of the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act of 2020

For the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FTC COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act makes it unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation (as those terms are defined broadly in the act) to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID-19 or a government benefit related to COVID-19.

The first enforcement action authorized by this act took place in April 2021 against a chiropractor who promised vitamin treatments and cures for COVID-19. The act provides that such a violation shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under the FTC Act.

Under the act, the FTC is authorized to prescribe “rules that define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Deceptive practices are defined as involving a material representation, omission, or practice that is “likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.” An act or practice is unfair if it “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”

After an investigation, the FTC may initiate an enforcement action using either an administrative or judicial process if it has “reason to believe” that the law has been violated. Violations of some laws may result in injunctive relief or civil monetary penalties, which are adjusted annually for inflation.

In addition, many states have deceptive and unfair trade laws that can be enforced in regard to the recommendation, sale, or provision of unproven or unapproved COVID-19 treatments, cures, and preventives as well.
 

Conclusion

It is difficult even for intelligent, well-intentioned physicians to know precisely what to believe and what to advocate for in the middle of a pandemic. It seems as though new reports and recommendations for preventing and treating COVID-19 are surfacing on a weekly basis. By far, the safest approach for any medical clinician to take is to advocate for positions that are generally accepted in the medical and scientific community at the time advice is given.

Mr. Whitelaw disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Janeway disclosed various associations with the Michigan Association for Healthcare Quality and the Greater Houston Society for Healthcare Risk Management. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The emergence of COVID-19 has given the medical world a bewildering array of prevention and treatment protocols. Some physicians are advocating treatments that have not been validated by sound scientific studies. This has already led to licensing issues and other disciplinary actions being taken against physicians, pharmacies, and other health care providers across the country.

Kuzma/istockphoto

Medical professionals try their very best to give sound advice to patients. A medical license does not, however, confer immunity from being misled.

The supporting “science” for alternative prevention and treatments may look legitimate, but these claims are often based on anecdotal evidence. Some studies involve small populations, some are meta-analyses of several small or single-case studies, and others are not properly designed, interpreted, or executed in line with U.S. research and requirements. Yet others have been conducted only in nonhuman analogues, such as frogs or mice.

Many people are refusing a vaccine that has been proven to be relatively safe and effective in numerous repeated and validated studies in the best medical centers across the globe – all in favor of less validated alternatives. Well-intentioned medical professionals may be tempted to promote the information and products featured on websites that advocate for unproven products and protocols. This can have serious legal consequences.
 

The crux of the issue

This is not a question of a physician’s first amendment rights. Nor is it a question of advocating for a scientifically valid minority medical opinion. The point of this article is that promoting unproven products, preventives, treatments, and cures can have dire consequences for licensed medical professionals.

On July 29, 2021, the Federation of State Medical Boards’ Board of Directors released a statement in response to a dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians and other health care professionals on social media platforms, online, and in the media. The statement reads as follows:

“Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility, threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession, and puts all patients at risk.”

 

What are the legal consequences?

Medical malpractice

The first consequence to consider is professional liability or medical malpractice. This applies if a patient claims harm as a result of the health care practitioner’s recommendation of an unproven treatment, product, or protocol. For example, strongly discouraging vaccination can result in a wrongful death claim if the patient follows the doctor’s advice, chooses not to vaccinate, contracts COVID-19, and does not recover. Recommending or providing unproven approaches and unapproved treatments is arguably a violation of the standard of care.

The standard of care is grounded in evidence-based medicine: It is commonly defined as the degree of care and skill that would be used by the average physician, who is practicing in his or her relevant specialty, under the same or similar circumstances, given the generally accepted medical knowledge at the time in question.

By way of example, one can see why inhaling peroxide, drinking bleach, or even taking Food and Drug Administration–approved medications that have little or no proven efficacy in treating or preventing COVID-19 is not what the average physician would advocate for under the same or similar circumstances, considering available and commonly accepted medical knowledge. Recommending or providing such treatments can be a breach of the standard of care and can form the basis of a medical malpractice action if, in fact, compensable harm has occurred.

In addition, recommending unproven and unapproved COVID-19 preventives and treatments without appropriate informed consent from patients is arguably also a breach of the standard of care. The claim would be that the patient has not been appropriately informed of the all the known benefits, risks, costs, and other legally required information such as proven efficacy and reasonably available alternatives.

In any event, physicians can rest assured that if a patient is harmed as a result of any of these situations, they’ll probably be answering to someone in the legal system.
 

Professional licensing action

Regardless of whether there is a medical malpractice action, there is still the potential for a patient complaint to be filed with the state licensing authority on the basis of the same facts and grounds. This can result in an investigation or an administrative complaint against the license of the health care provider.

This is not a mere potential risk. Licensing investigations are underway across the country. Disciplinary licensing actions have already taken place. For example, a Washington Medical Commission panel suspended the license of a physician assistant (PA) on Oct. 12, 2021, after an allegation that his treatment of COVID-19 patients fell below the standard of care. The PA allegedly began a public campaign promoting ivermectin as a curative agent for COVID-19 and prescribed it without adequate examination to at least one person, with no evidence from reliable clinical studies that establish its efficacy in preventing or treating COVID-19.

In licensing claims, alleged violations of failing to comply with the standard of care are usually asserted. These claims may also cite violations of other state statutes that encompass such concepts as negligence; breach of the duty of due care; incompetence; lack of good moral character; and lack of ability to serve the public in a fair, honest, and open manner. A licensing complaint may include alleged violations of statutes that address prescribing protocols, reckless endangerment, failure to supervise, and other issues.

The filing of an administrative complaint is a different animal from a medical malpractice action – they are not even in the same system or branch of government. The focus is not just about what happened to the one patient who complained; it is about protection of the public.

The states’ power to put a clinician on probation, condition, limit, suspend, or revoke the clinician’s license, as well as issue other sanctions such as physician monitoring and fines), is profound. The discipline imposed can upend a clinician’s career and potentially end it entirely.

Administrative discipline determinations are usually available to the public and are required to be reported to all employers (current and future). These discipline determinations are also sent to the National Practitioner Data Bank, other professional clearinghouse organizations (such as the Federation of State Medical Boards), state offices, professional liability insurers, payers with whom the clinician contracts, accreditation and certification organizations, and the clinician’s patients.

Discipline determinations must be promptly reported to licensing agencies in other states where the clinician holds a license, and often results in “sister state” actions because discipline was issued against the clinician in another state. It must be disclosed every time a clinician applies for hospital privileges or new employment. It can result in de-participation from health care insurance programs and can affect board certification, recertification, or accreditation for care programs in which the clinician participates.

In sum, licensing actions can be much worse than medical malpractice judgments and can have longer-term consequences.
 

Peer review and affected privileges

Recommending, promoting, and providing unapproved or unproven treatments, cures, or preventives to patients may violate hospital/health system, practice group, or surgical center bylaws. This can trigger the peer review process, which serves to improve patient safety and the quality of care.

The peer review process may be commenced because of a concern about the clinician’s compliance with the standard of care; potential patient safety issues; ethical issues; and the clinician’s stability, credibility, or professional competence. Any hospital disciplinary penalty is generally reported to state licensing authorities, which can trigger a licensing investigation. If clinical privileges are affected for a period of more than 30 days, the organization must report the situation to the National Practitioner Data Bank.
 

Criminal charges

Depending on the facts, a physician or other health care professional could be charged with reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, or manslaughter. If the clinician was assisting someone else who profited from that clinician’s actions, then we can look to a variety of potential federal and state fraud charges as well.

Conviction of a fraud-related felony may also lead to federal health care program and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) exclusion for several years, and then CMS preclusion that can be imposed for years beyond the conclusion of the statutorily required exclusion.
 

Breach of contract

Some practice groups or other organizational employers have provisions in employment contracts that treat discipline for this type of conduct as a breach of contract. Because of this, the clinician committing breach may be subject to liquidated damages clauses, forfeiture of monies (such as bonuses or other incentives or rewards), termination of employment, forced withdrawal from ownership status, and being sued for breach of contract to recover damages.

Reputation/credibility damage and the attendant consequences

In regard to hospitals and health care system practice groups, another risk is the loss of referrals and revenue. Local media may air or publish exposés. Such stories may widely publicize the media’s version of the facts – true or not. This can cause immediate reputation and credibility damage within the community and may adversely affect a clinician’s patient base. Any information that is publicly broadcast might attract the attention of licensing and law enforcement authorities and taint potential jurors.

Hospitals and health care systems may pull privileges; post on websites; make official statements about the termination of affiliation; or denounce the clinician’s behavior, conduct, and beliefs as being inconsistent with quality care and patient safety. This causes further damage to a physician’s reputation and credibility.

In a group practice, accusations of this sort, licensing discipline, medical malpractice liability, investigations, loss of privileges, and the other sequelae of this conduct can force the withdrawal of the clinician as a member or shareholder in multiprovider groups. Adverse effects on the financial bottom line, patient referrals, and patient volume and bad press are often the basis for voting a clinician out.
 

Violation of the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act of 2020

For the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FTC COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act makes it unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation (as those terms are defined broadly in the act) to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID-19 or a government benefit related to COVID-19.

The first enforcement action authorized by this act took place in April 2021 against a chiropractor who promised vitamin treatments and cures for COVID-19. The act provides that such a violation shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under the FTC Act.

Under the act, the FTC is authorized to prescribe “rules that define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Deceptive practices are defined as involving a material representation, omission, or practice that is “likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.” An act or practice is unfair if it “causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”

After an investigation, the FTC may initiate an enforcement action using either an administrative or judicial process if it has “reason to believe” that the law has been violated. Violations of some laws may result in injunctive relief or civil monetary penalties, which are adjusted annually for inflation.

In addition, many states have deceptive and unfair trade laws that can be enforced in regard to the recommendation, sale, or provision of unproven or unapproved COVID-19 treatments, cures, and preventives as well.
 

Conclusion

It is difficult even for intelligent, well-intentioned physicians to know precisely what to believe and what to advocate for in the middle of a pandemic. It seems as though new reports and recommendations for preventing and treating COVID-19 are surfacing on a weekly basis. By far, the safest approach for any medical clinician to take is to advocate for positions that are generally accepted in the medical and scientific community at the time advice is given.

Mr. Whitelaw disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Janeway disclosed various associations with the Michigan Association for Healthcare Quality and the Greater Houston Society for Healthcare Risk Management. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In March 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed a 1% pay rise for National Health Service (NHS) workers in the United Kingdom — a move many deemed inadequate after a full year of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. The next day, James Cowe, a 23-year-old healthcare assistant who had been working in dementia care for 6 years, decided to create a profile on the content subscription site OnlyFans.

The London-based site allows subscribers, or “fans,” to request content, making its name distributing nude pictures, videos, and other sexually explicit content. It garnered mainstream attention in 2020 when housebound individuals and even celebrities began using it to generate income. Back in August, OnlyFans released a statement stating that it would ban “sexually explicit” content beginning in October. Days later, the company recanted the statement after uproar from creators.

“Because of the one-percent pay rise, I’ve started OnlyFans and I’m making more money in three days than I make in a month at work,” Mr. Cowe said in a now-deleted TikTok post. “Sorry Boris, but I’m done with healthcare and now I’m an online whore.”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans.

Mr. Cowe is one of many healthcare workers in the United Kingdom who have supplemented or replaced their health work with sex work. Stories like his have multiplied during the pandemic, at a time when healthcare professionals have been particularly overworked and particularly essential. Meanwhile, the pandemic has exacerbated challenges for many sex workers across the globe.

“[There have been] many, many reports over history that transactional sex is used as a sort of emergency livelihood strategy in all kinds of emergencies,” says Joanne Csete, PhD, associate professor of population and family health at Columbia University, New York, “and I suppose this is an emergency in that sense, like any other.”
 

The relationship between sex work and healthcare

A 2015 study by Leeds University found that 70% of sex workers in the United Kingdom previously worked in healthcare, charities, or education and that more than a third held university degrees.

The relationship between sex workers and healthcare workers has historically been disconnected. Sex workers are at higher risk of experiencing violence, sexually transmitted infections, and substance abuse and mental health problems than the general population, as noted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. But according to the UN Population Fund, 63% of sex workers will not seek health services alone because they are distrustful and fearful of healthcare workers. A 2014 study by UNAIDS found that stigmatization also makes sex workers less likely to seek assistance from social services.

“I think it’s almost universally hard for sex workers to get respectful healthcare without judgment, and in some cases actual hostility, because of the stigma of their work,” Dr. Csete says. “Health workers are not always trained to see sex work as anything but either a criminal act or an immoral act.”

In August 2021, U.K. medical students called for the British Medical Association to protect students from being penalized by or expelled from their universities for engaging in sex work. BMA Medical Students Committee chair Becky Bates cited high medical school fees and a lack of financial support as motivations for student sex workers. She told this news organization that sex work often allows for flexible hours that might make it easier for students to balance the demands of medical school than other part-time jobs would.

At the annual BMA conference in September, two thirds of the association’s doctors voted in favor of the motion, while others criticized it as potential encouragement for students to get involved in sex work. “The motion isn’t about the morality of sex work,” Ms. Bates said. “[It’s] about the fact that it’s happening and what we can do to support students.”
 

Healthcare workers on OnlyFans

The rising pressures placed on individuals in the health field have coincided with the rise of online platforms that host pornographic content. During the pandemic, professionals worn down by their healthcare work have embraced sites like OnlyFans as lower-risk, lower-stress, and potentially higher-paying additions or alternatives.

“It’s quite exploitative to work for such low pay in harsh conditions,” Mr. Cowe told this news organizaation of his experience as a dementia care assistant. “It’s soul-destroying. You feel like, ‘It doesn’t matter how many hours I work, it doesn’t matter what I do, I’m still going to be in this same financial position.’ ”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans. Within 8 months, he had earned £150,000, or approximately $205,000.

As an emergency medical services (EMS) worker in New York City, 23-year-old Lauren Kwei lifted obese bariatric patients, administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation to unresponsive recipients, and transported elderly patients and children with terminal illnesses to hospice. She earned $25 an hour, which she says was insufficient for life in one of the world’s most expensive cities. So, in addition to her paramedic work, Ms. Kwei posted photos and videos on OnlyFans to help pay for rent and groceries during the pandemic.

Ms. Kwei started her OnlyFans as a means of paying for necessities like rent and groceries, which her wage as an emergency medical services worker couldn’t cover entirely.

In December 2020, Ms. Kwei got a call from a New York Post reporter who informed her he was writing an article outing her OnlyFans side gig. Ms. Kwei immediately deleted her account on the site for fear of being penalized by her employer, SeniorCare.

“Leave her alone,” U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter in response to the New York Post article. “The actual scandalous headline here is ‘Medics in the United States need two jobs to survive.’ ”

The article quoted an anonymous male paramedic who said Ms. Kwei should have been “pulling extra shifts, instead of pulling off [her] clothes” to earn more money. Ms. Kwei says such advice fails to acknowledge the intensity of the job. “Why would I pick up overtime shifts doing manual labor,” she says, “when I could be doing [OnlyFans] from the comfort of my own home?”
 

The future of the healthcare/sex work relationship

Ms. Kwei is young enough to receive health insurance through her parents, and Mr. Cowe has access to free healthcare through the NHS. But many sex workers — particularly full-service sex workers, who carry out their work in person — have limited access to services such as healthcare and unemployment benefits. Pandemic restrictions have concurrently driven full-service sex work further underground and therefore deepened the health and safety risks associated with its criminalization.

As health workers become increasingly involved in sex work, advocates in both fields are pushing for healthcare systems to involve sex workers.

“Just as we would do with supporting any group, it’s about understanding any specific barriers or specific problems that they’re encountering, and understanding what they think would help, and working together on that solution,” Ms. Bates says of supporting medical students who engage in sex work.

Tlaleng Mofokeng, MD, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, says it is crucial for healthcare organizations to partner with sex worker organizations when it comes to planning the resourcing and budgeting of the public health system in order to meet sex workers’ needs. “While we wait for national policy to change and while we wait for decriminalization,” she says, “tangible things can be done to ensure the provision of equitable services that are aligned with the respect of [sex workers’] rights and the restoration of their dignity.”

Today, healthcare professionals can expect to work with classmates, colleagues, and patients who are involved in sex work and who do not fit the socioeconomic stereotypes associated with sex workers. The number of medical students and healthcare workers engaging in sex work is likely to continue to rise as these individuals struggle to find financial and emotional support within the health sector. Ultimately, many health workers and sex workers share a common goal: to be involved in healthcare systems that respect their work and meet their basic needs.

Mr. Cowe doubts he will ever return to the healthcare industry, owing in part to the stigma against sex workers. “I would feel quite unwelcome,” he says. “[The publicity I received] probably made it not possible for me to go back, but even so, I wouldn’t have a desire to because I was just so burnt out in the end.”

Ms. Kwei is taking a break from her EMS work because of the emotional and financial toll it took, but she plans to return in the future. In the meantime, she is back on OnlyFans and advocating for higher wages for EMS workers as a member of the Emergency Medical Services Public Advocacy Council (EMSPAC). “In order to be a good paramedic, my mental health needs to be on point,” she says. “Hopefully down the line, when I decide to pick up EMS [work] again, I can find a job that pays me enough.”

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

In March 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed a 1% pay rise for National Health Service (NHS) workers in the United Kingdom — a move many deemed inadequate after a full year of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. The next day, James Cowe, a 23-year-old healthcare assistant who had been working in dementia care for 6 years, decided to create a profile on the content subscription site OnlyFans.

The London-based site allows subscribers, or “fans,” to request content, making its name distributing nude pictures, videos, and other sexually explicit content. It garnered mainstream attention in 2020 when housebound individuals and even celebrities began using it to generate income. Back in August, OnlyFans released a statement stating that it would ban “sexually explicit” content beginning in October. Days later, the company recanted the statement after uproar from creators.

“Because of the one-percent pay rise, I’ve started OnlyFans and I’m making more money in three days than I make in a month at work,” Mr. Cowe said in a now-deleted TikTok post. “Sorry Boris, but I’m done with healthcare and now I’m an online whore.”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans.

Mr. Cowe is one of many healthcare workers in the United Kingdom who have supplemented or replaced their health work with sex work. Stories like his have multiplied during the pandemic, at a time when healthcare professionals have been particularly overworked and particularly essential. Meanwhile, the pandemic has exacerbated challenges for many sex workers across the globe.

“[There have been] many, many reports over history that transactional sex is used as a sort of emergency livelihood strategy in all kinds of emergencies,” says Joanne Csete, PhD, associate professor of population and family health at Columbia University, New York, “and I suppose this is an emergency in that sense, like any other.”
 

The relationship between sex work and healthcare

A 2015 study by Leeds University found that 70% of sex workers in the United Kingdom previously worked in healthcare, charities, or education and that more than a third held university degrees.

The relationship between sex workers and healthcare workers has historically been disconnected. Sex workers are at higher risk of experiencing violence, sexually transmitted infections, and substance abuse and mental health problems than the general population, as noted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. But according to the UN Population Fund, 63% of sex workers will not seek health services alone because they are distrustful and fearful of healthcare workers. A 2014 study by UNAIDS found that stigmatization also makes sex workers less likely to seek assistance from social services.

“I think it’s almost universally hard for sex workers to get respectful healthcare without judgment, and in some cases actual hostility, because of the stigma of their work,” Dr. Csete says. “Health workers are not always trained to see sex work as anything but either a criminal act or an immoral act.”

In August 2021, U.K. medical students called for the British Medical Association to protect students from being penalized by or expelled from their universities for engaging in sex work. BMA Medical Students Committee chair Becky Bates cited high medical school fees and a lack of financial support as motivations for student sex workers. She told this news organization that sex work often allows for flexible hours that might make it easier for students to balance the demands of medical school than other part-time jobs would.

At the annual BMA conference in September, two thirds of the association’s doctors voted in favor of the motion, while others criticized it as potential encouragement for students to get involved in sex work. “The motion isn’t about the morality of sex work,” Ms. Bates said. “[It’s] about the fact that it’s happening and what we can do to support students.”
 

Healthcare workers on OnlyFans

The rising pressures placed on individuals in the health field have coincided with the rise of online platforms that host pornographic content. During the pandemic, professionals worn down by their healthcare work have embraced sites like OnlyFans as lower-risk, lower-stress, and potentially higher-paying additions or alternatives.

“It’s quite exploitative to work for such low pay in harsh conditions,” Mr. Cowe told this news organizaation of his experience as a dementia care assistant. “It’s soul-destroying. You feel like, ‘It doesn’t matter how many hours I work, it doesn’t matter what I do, I’m still going to be in this same financial position.’ ”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans. Within 8 months, he had earned £150,000, or approximately $205,000.

As an emergency medical services (EMS) worker in New York City, 23-year-old Lauren Kwei lifted obese bariatric patients, administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation to unresponsive recipients, and transported elderly patients and children with terminal illnesses to hospice. She earned $25 an hour, which she says was insufficient for life in one of the world’s most expensive cities. So, in addition to her paramedic work, Ms. Kwei posted photos and videos on OnlyFans to help pay for rent and groceries during the pandemic.

Ms. Kwei started her OnlyFans as a means of paying for necessities like rent and groceries, which her wage as an emergency medical services worker couldn’t cover entirely.

In December 2020, Ms. Kwei got a call from a New York Post reporter who informed her he was writing an article outing her OnlyFans side gig. Ms. Kwei immediately deleted her account on the site for fear of being penalized by her employer, SeniorCare.

“Leave her alone,” U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter in response to the New York Post article. “The actual scandalous headline here is ‘Medics in the United States need two jobs to survive.’ ”

The article quoted an anonymous male paramedic who said Ms. Kwei should have been “pulling extra shifts, instead of pulling off [her] clothes” to earn more money. Ms. Kwei says such advice fails to acknowledge the intensity of the job. “Why would I pick up overtime shifts doing manual labor,” she says, “when I could be doing [OnlyFans] from the comfort of my own home?”
 

The future of the healthcare/sex work relationship

Ms. Kwei is young enough to receive health insurance through her parents, and Mr. Cowe has access to free healthcare through the NHS. But many sex workers — particularly full-service sex workers, who carry out their work in person — have limited access to services such as healthcare and unemployment benefits. Pandemic restrictions have concurrently driven full-service sex work further underground and therefore deepened the health and safety risks associated with its criminalization.

As health workers become increasingly involved in sex work, advocates in both fields are pushing for healthcare systems to involve sex workers.

“Just as we would do with supporting any group, it’s about understanding any specific barriers or specific problems that they’re encountering, and understanding what they think would help, and working together on that solution,” Ms. Bates says of supporting medical students who engage in sex work.

Tlaleng Mofokeng, MD, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, says it is crucial for healthcare organizations to partner with sex worker organizations when it comes to planning the resourcing and budgeting of the public health system in order to meet sex workers’ needs. “While we wait for national policy to change and while we wait for decriminalization,” she says, “tangible things can be done to ensure the provision of equitable services that are aligned with the respect of [sex workers’] rights and the restoration of their dignity.”

Today, healthcare professionals can expect to work with classmates, colleagues, and patients who are involved in sex work and who do not fit the socioeconomic stereotypes associated with sex workers. The number of medical students and healthcare workers engaging in sex work is likely to continue to rise as these individuals struggle to find financial and emotional support within the health sector. Ultimately, many health workers and sex workers share a common goal: to be involved in healthcare systems that respect their work and meet their basic needs.

Mr. Cowe doubts he will ever return to the healthcare industry, owing in part to the stigma against sex workers. “I would feel quite unwelcome,” he says. “[The publicity I received] probably made it not possible for me to go back, but even so, I wouldn’t have a desire to because I was just so burnt out in the end.”

Ms. Kwei is taking a break from her EMS work because of the emotional and financial toll it took, but she plans to return in the future. In the meantime, she is back on OnlyFans and advocating for higher wages for EMS workers as a member of the Emergency Medical Services Public Advocacy Council (EMSPAC). “In order to be a good paramedic, my mental health needs to be on point,” she says. “Hopefully down the line, when I decide to pick up EMS [work] again, I can find a job that pays me enough.”

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

In March 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed a 1% pay rise for National Health Service (NHS) workers in the United Kingdom — a move many deemed inadequate after a full year of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. The next day, James Cowe, a 23-year-old healthcare assistant who had been working in dementia care for 6 years, decided to create a profile on the content subscription site OnlyFans.

The London-based site allows subscribers, or “fans,” to request content, making its name distributing nude pictures, videos, and other sexually explicit content. It garnered mainstream attention in 2020 when housebound individuals and even celebrities began using it to generate income. Back in August, OnlyFans released a statement stating that it would ban “sexually explicit” content beginning in October. Days later, the company recanted the statement after uproar from creators.

“Because of the one-percent pay rise, I’ve started OnlyFans and I’m making more money in three days than I make in a month at work,” Mr. Cowe said in a now-deleted TikTok post. “Sorry Boris, but I’m done with healthcare and now I’m an online whore.”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans.

Mr. Cowe is one of many healthcare workers in the United Kingdom who have supplemented or replaced their health work with sex work. Stories like his have multiplied during the pandemic, at a time when healthcare professionals have been particularly overworked and particularly essential. Meanwhile, the pandemic has exacerbated challenges for many sex workers across the globe.

“[There have been] many, many reports over history that transactional sex is used as a sort of emergency livelihood strategy in all kinds of emergencies,” says Joanne Csete, PhD, associate professor of population and family health at Columbia University, New York, “and I suppose this is an emergency in that sense, like any other.”
 

The relationship between sex work and healthcare

A 2015 study by Leeds University found that 70% of sex workers in the United Kingdom previously worked in healthcare, charities, or education and that more than a third held university degrees.

The relationship between sex workers and healthcare workers has historically been disconnected. Sex workers are at higher risk of experiencing violence, sexually transmitted infections, and substance abuse and mental health problems than the general population, as noted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. But according to the UN Population Fund, 63% of sex workers will not seek health services alone because they are distrustful and fearful of healthcare workers. A 2014 study by UNAIDS found that stigmatization also makes sex workers less likely to seek assistance from social services.

“I think it’s almost universally hard for sex workers to get respectful healthcare without judgment, and in some cases actual hostility, because of the stigma of their work,” Dr. Csete says. “Health workers are not always trained to see sex work as anything but either a criminal act or an immoral act.”

In August 2021, U.K. medical students called for the British Medical Association to protect students from being penalized by or expelled from their universities for engaging in sex work. BMA Medical Students Committee chair Becky Bates cited high medical school fees and a lack of financial support as motivations for student sex workers. She told this news organization that sex work often allows for flexible hours that might make it easier for students to balance the demands of medical school than other part-time jobs would.

At the annual BMA conference in September, two thirds of the association’s doctors voted in favor of the motion, while others criticized it as potential encouragement for students to get involved in sex work. “The motion isn’t about the morality of sex work,” Ms. Bates said. “[It’s] about the fact that it’s happening and what we can do to support students.”
 

Healthcare workers on OnlyFans

The rising pressures placed on individuals in the health field have coincided with the rise of online platforms that host pornographic content. During the pandemic, professionals worn down by their healthcare work have embraced sites like OnlyFans as lower-risk, lower-stress, and potentially higher-paying additions or alternatives.

“It’s quite exploitative to work for such low pay in harsh conditions,” Mr. Cowe told this news organizaation of his experience as a dementia care assistant. “It’s soul-destroying. You feel like, ‘It doesn’t matter how many hours I work, it doesn’t matter what I do, I’m still going to be in this same financial position.’ ”

Mr. Cowe earned the equivalent of a year’s salary from his healthcare assistant job in his first 22 days on OnlyFans. Within 8 months, he had earned £150,000, or approximately $205,000.

As an emergency medical services (EMS) worker in New York City, 23-year-old Lauren Kwei lifted obese bariatric patients, administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation to unresponsive recipients, and transported elderly patients and children with terminal illnesses to hospice. She earned $25 an hour, which she says was insufficient for life in one of the world’s most expensive cities. So, in addition to her paramedic work, Ms. Kwei posted photos and videos on OnlyFans to help pay for rent and groceries during the pandemic.

Ms. Kwei started her OnlyFans as a means of paying for necessities like rent and groceries, which her wage as an emergency medical services worker couldn’t cover entirely.

In December 2020, Ms. Kwei got a call from a New York Post reporter who informed her he was writing an article outing her OnlyFans side gig. Ms. Kwei immediately deleted her account on the site for fear of being penalized by her employer, SeniorCare.

“Leave her alone,” U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter in response to the New York Post article. “The actual scandalous headline here is ‘Medics in the United States need two jobs to survive.’ ”

The article quoted an anonymous male paramedic who said Ms. Kwei should have been “pulling extra shifts, instead of pulling off [her] clothes” to earn more money. Ms. Kwei says such advice fails to acknowledge the intensity of the job. “Why would I pick up overtime shifts doing manual labor,” she says, “when I could be doing [OnlyFans] from the comfort of my own home?”
 

The future of the healthcare/sex work relationship

Ms. Kwei is young enough to receive health insurance through her parents, and Mr. Cowe has access to free healthcare through the NHS. But many sex workers — particularly full-service sex workers, who carry out their work in person — have limited access to services such as healthcare and unemployment benefits. Pandemic restrictions have concurrently driven full-service sex work further underground and therefore deepened the health and safety risks associated with its criminalization.

As health workers become increasingly involved in sex work, advocates in both fields are pushing for healthcare systems to involve sex workers.

“Just as we would do with supporting any group, it’s about understanding any specific barriers or specific problems that they’re encountering, and understanding what they think would help, and working together on that solution,” Ms. Bates says of supporting medical students who engage in sex work.

Tlaleng Mofokeng, MD, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, says it is crucial for healthcare organizations to partner with sex worker organizations when it comes to planning the resourcing and budgeting of the public health system in order to meet sex workers’ needs. “While we wait for national policy to change and while we wait for decriminalization,” she says, “tangible things can be done to ensure the provision of equitable services that are aligned with the respect of [sex workers’] rights and the restoration of their dignity.”

Today, healthcare professionals can expect to work with classmates, colleagues, and patients who are involved in sex work and who do not fit the socioeconomic stereotypes associated with sex workers. The number of medical students and healthcare workers engaging in sex work is likely to continue to rise as these individuals struggle to find financial and emotional support within the health sector. Ultimately, many health workers and sex workers share a common goal: to be involved in healthcare systems that respect their work and meet their basic needs.

Mr. Cowe doubts he will ever return to the healthcare industry, owing in part to the stigma against sex workers. “I would feel quite unwelcome,” he says. “[The publicity I received] probably made it not possible for me to go back, but even so, I wouldn’t have a desire to because I was just so burnt out in the end.”

Ms. Kwei is taking a break from her EMS work because of the emotional and financial toll it took, but she plans to return in the future. In the meantime, she is back on OnlyFans and advocating for higher wages for EMS workers as a member of the Emergency Medical Services Public Advocacy Council (EMSPAC). “In order to be a good paramedic, my mental health needs to be on point,” she says. “Hopefully down the line, when I decide to pick up EMS [work] again, I can find a job that pays me enough.”

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

A new study has established guselkumab (Tremfya) as both a safe and effective treatment option for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who had previously responded poorly to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis).

“While the positive guselkumab benefit-risk profile observed through week 24 was maintained through 1 year, real-world evidence will further inform long-term guselkumab persistence in TNFi-inadequate response patients,” writes Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England), and her coauthors. The study was published in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Previous studies indicated that the anti–interleukin-23p19 monoclonal antibody improved outcomes in patients with PsA, even after 1 year, but some uncertainty remained regarding the surprisingly similar level of effectiveness in biologic-naive and TNFi-treated patients. Guselkumab is approved for treatment of adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and adults with active psoriatic arthritis.

Clarity on guselkumab’s effectiveness in certain patients

“In previous studies that cemented guselkumab as a treatment option for PsA, what was odd was that the results were pretty comparable,” Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview. “We didn’t really have a sense of how well it worked in patients who had failed other biologics, which is where you might expect a drug with a new mechanism to be used when it comes into a particular disease category.

“Not surprisingly, in this study, the overall response rate was a little less than the response rate in the other two trials,” said Dr. Ruderman, who was not involved in the study. “You can’t really compare across studies, but it does fit with what we might expect: People who’ve previously failed a TNF inhibitor might be a little less likely to respond to guselkumab, compared to someone who hasn’t seen a TNF inhibitor.”

When asked about potential follow-up studies, Dr. Ruderman noted that “the missing piece of the puzzle is that we still really have no way to compare this to other biologics. The next step would be to ask, in a single trial, what happens if you give some people TNF inhibitors and some people guselkumab? Just to try to give us context. Is this equivalent? Is it less effective? More effective? Where does it fit? Without that information, rheumatologists may struggle to figure out who is the right person for this drug and how often should they use it.”

Study details

To assess the efficacy and safety of guselkumab in patients who had previously taken TNFis but stopped because of inefficacy or intolerance, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind study called COSMOS at 84 European sites from March 2019 to November 2020. The study’s 285 patients – 52% of whom were women, with an average overall age of 49 – were assigned to two groups: guselkumab (n = 189) or placebo (n = 96). A total of 88% of all patients had used one TNFi prior; 12% had used two.

The guselkumab group received 100-mg injections at week 0, week 4, and then every 8 weeks through week 44; the placebo group received injections at weeks 0, 4, 12, and 20, followed by 100 mg of guselkumab at weeks 24, 28, 36, and 44. Patients with less than 5% improvement from baseline in both tender and swollen joint counts at week 16 qualified for early escape to “initiate or increase the dose of one permitted concomitant medication up to the maximum allowed dose at the physician’s discretion.” Ultimately, 88% of patients in the guselkumab arm and 83% of the placebo arm completed the study.

At 24 weeks, more than 44% of the guselkumab group achieved a 20% or greater improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20), compared with just under 20% of the placebo group, a difference of nearly 25% (95% confidence interval, 14.1%-35.2%; multiplicity-adjusted P < .001). At 48 weeks, nearly 58% of the guselkumab group had achieved ACR20; of the 51 patients in the placebo arm who started taking guselkumab at week 24, 55% achieved ACR20 by week 48.

Through 24 weeks, 80 patients in the guselkumab group (42%) and 46 patients in the placebo group (48%) experienced adverse events; only 3.7% and 3.1% developed serious adverse events, respectively. The most common adverse events in the guselkumab group at that point included nasopharyngitis (5%) and upper respiratory tract infection (4%), which occurred at a similar frequency (5% and 3%) in the placebo group.

The authors acknowledge their study’s limitations, including imbalances in baseline characteristics such as gender and weight, as well as the COSMOS study being restricted to European patients and thus potentially limiting diversity. In addition, while the COVID-19 pandemic may have increased major protocol deviations near the end of the study, the authors note that “most were related to timing of study visits and did not impact efficacy.”

The study was funded by Janssen, and six authors reported being employees of the company. The authors also acknowledge numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees and research grants from various pharmaceutical companies, including Janssen. Dr. Ruderman is a consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Janssen and served on the data safety monitoring committee for two other phase 3 guselkumab trials.

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

A new study has established guselkumab (Tremfya) as both a safe and effective treatment option for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who had previously responded poorly to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis).

“While the positive guselkumab benefit-risk profile observed through week 24 was maintained through 1 year, real-world evidence will further inform long-term guselkumab persistence in TNFi-inadequate response patients,” writes Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England), and her coauthors. The study was published in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Previous studies indicated that the anti–interleukin-23p19 monoclonal antibody improved outcomes in patients with PsA, even after 1 year, but some uncertainty remained regarding the surprisingly similar level of effectiveness in biologic-naive and TNFi-treated patients. Guselkumab is approved for treatment of adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and adults with active psoriatic arthritis.

Clarity on guselkumab’s effectiveness in certain patients

“In previous studies that cemented guselkumab as a treatment option for PsA, what was odd was that the results were pretty comparable,” Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview. “We didn’t really have a sense of how well it worked in patients who had failed other biologics, which is where you might expect a drug with a new mechanism to be used when it comes into a particular disease category.

“Not surprisingly, in this study, the overall response rate was a little less than the response rate in the other two trials,” said Dr. Ruderman, who was not involved in the study. “You can’t really compare across studies, but it does fit with what we might expect: People who’ve previously failed a TNF inhibitor might be a little less likely to respond to guselkumab, compared to someone who hasn’t seen a TNF inhibitor.”

When asked about potential follow-up studies, Dr. Ruderman noted that “the missing piece of the puzzle is that we still really have no way to compare this to other biologics. The next step would be to ask, in a single trial, what happens if you give some people TNF inhibitors and some people guselkumab? Just to try to give us context. Is this equivalent? Is it less effective? More effective? Where does it fit? Without that information, rheumatologists may struggle to figure out who is the right person for this drug and how often should they use it.”

Study details

To assess the efficacy and safety of guselkumab in patients who had previously taken TNFis but stopped because of inefficacy or intolerance, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind study called COSMOS at 84 European sites from March 2019 to November 2020. The study’s 285 patients – 52% of whom were women, with an average overall age of 49 – were assigned to two groups: guselkumab (n = 189) or placebo (n = 96). A total of 88% of all patients had used one TNFi prior; 12% had used two.

The guselkumab group received 100-mg injections at week 0, week 4, and then every 8 weeks through week 44; the placebo group received injections at weeks 0, 4, 12, and 20, followed by 100 mg of guselkumab at weeks 24, 28, 36, and 44. Patients with less than 5% improvement from baseline in both tender and swollen joint counts at week 16 qualified for early escape to “initiate or increase the dose of one permitted concomitant medication up to the maximum allowed dose at the physician’s discretion.” Ultimately, 88% of patients in the guselkumab arm and 83% of the placebo arm completed the study.

At 24 weeks, more than 44% of the guselkumab group achieved a 20% or greater improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20), compared with just under 20% of the placebo group, a difference of nearly 25% (95% confidence interval, 14.1%-35.2%; multiplicity-adjusted P < .001). At 48 weeks, nearly 58% of the guselkumab group had achieved ACR20; of the 51 patients in the placebo arm who started taking guselkumab at week 24, 55% achieved ACR20 by week 48.

Through 24 weeks, 80 patients in the guselkumab group (42%) and 46 patients in the placebo group (48%) experienced adverse events; only 3.7% and 3.1% developed serious adverse events, respectively. The most common adverse events in the guselkumab group at that point included nasopharyngitis (5%) and upper respiratory tract infection (4%), which occurred at a similar frequency (5% and 3%) in the placebo group.

The authors acknowledge their study’s limitations, including imbalances in baseline characteristics such as gender and weight, as well as the COSMOS study being restricted to European patients and thus potentially limiting diversity. In addition, while the COVID-19 pandemic may have increased major protocol deviations near the end of the study, the authors note that “most were related to timing of study visits and did not impact efficacy.”

The study was funded by Janssen, and six authors reported being employees of the company. The authors also acknowledge numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees and research grants from various pharmaceutical companies, including Janssen. Dr. Ruderman is a consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Janssen and served on the data safety monitoring committee for two other phase 3 guselkumab trials.

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

A new study has established guselkumab (Tremfya) as both a safe and effective treatment option for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who had previously responded poorly to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis).

“While the positive guselkumab benefit-risk profile observed through week 24 was maintained through 1 year, real-world evidence will further inform long-term guselkumab persistence in TNFi-inadequate response patients,” writes Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England), and her coauthors. The study was published in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Previous studies indicated that the anti–interleukin-23p19 monoclonal antibody improved outcomes in patients with PsA, even after 1 year, but some uncertainty remained regarding the surprisingly similar level of effectiveness in biologic-naive and TNFi-treated patients. Guselkumab is approved for treatment of adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and adults with active psoriatic arthritis.

Clarity on guselkumab’s effectiveness in certain patients

“In previous studies that cemented guselkumab as a treatment option for PsA, what was odd was that the results were pretty comparable,” Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview. “We didn’t really have a sense of how well it worked in patients who had failed other biologics, which is where you might expect a drug with a new mechanism to be used when it comes into a particular disease category.

“Not surprisingly, in this study, the overall response rate was a little less than the response rate in the other two trials,” said Dr. Ruderman, who was not involved in the study. “You can’t really compare across studies, but it does fit with what we might expect: People who’ve previously failed a TNF inhibitor might be a little less likely to respond to guselkumab, compared to someone who hasn’t seen a TNF inhibitor.”

When asked about potential follow-up studies, Dr. Ruderman noted that “the missing piece of the puzzle is that we still really have no way to compare this to other biologics. The next step would be to ask, in a single trial, what happens if you give some people TNF inhibitors and some people guselkumab? Just to try to give us context. Is this equivalent? Is it less effective? More effective? Where does it fit? Without that information, rheumatologists may struggle to figure out who is the right person for this drug and how often should they use it.”

Study details

To assess the efficacy and safety of guselkumab in patients who had previously taken TNFis but stopped because of inefficacy or intolerance, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind study called COSMOS at 84 European sites from March 2019 to November 2020. The study’s 285 patients – 52% of whom were women, with an average overall age of 49 – were assigned to two groups: guselkumab (n = 189) or placebo (n = 96). A total of 88% of all patients had used one TNFi prior; 12% had used two.

The guselkumab group received 100-mg injections at week 0, week 4, and then every 8 weeks through week 44; the placebo group received injections at weeks 0, 4, 12, and 20, followed by 100 mg of guselkumab at weeks 24, 28, 36, and 44. Patients with less than 5% improvement from baseline in both tender and swollen joint counts at week 16 qualified for early escape to “initiate or increase the dose of one permitted concomitant medication up to the maximum allowed dose at the physician’s discretion.” Ultimately, 88% of patients in the guselkumab arm and 83% of the placebo arm completed the study.

At 24 weeks, more than 44% of the guselkumab group achieved a 20% or greater improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20), compared with just under 20% of the placebo group, a difference of nearly 25% (95% confidence interval, 14.1%-35.2%; multiplicity-adjusted P < .001). At 48 weeks, nearly 58% of the guselkumab group had achieved ACR20; of the 51 patients in the placebo arm who started taking guselkumab at week 24, 55% achieved ACR20 by week 48.

Through 24 weeks, 80 patients in the guselkumab group (42%) and 46 patients in the placebo group (48%) experienced adverse events; only 3.7% and 3.1% developed serious adverse events, respectively. The most common adverse events in the guselkumab group at that point included nasopharyngitis (5%) and upper respiratory tract infection (4%), which occurred at a similar frequency (5% and 3%) in the placebo group.

The authors acknowledge their study’s limitations, including imbalances in baseline characteristics such as gender and weight, as well as the COSMOS study being restricted to European patients and thus potentially limiting diversity. In addition, while the COVID-19 pandemic may have increased major protocol deviations near the end of the study, the authors note that “most were related to timing of study visits and did not impact efficacy.”

The study was funded by Janssen, and six authors reported being employees of the company. The authors also acknowledge numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees and research grants from various pharmaceutical companies, including Janssen. Dr. Ruderman is a consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Janssen and served on the data safety monitoring committee for two other phase 3 guselkumab trials.

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

A French population-based study provides further evidence that the BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine does not increase the short-term risk for serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people.

The study showed no increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or pulmonary embolism (PE) following vaccination in adults aged 75 years or older in the 14 days following vaccination.

“These findings regarding the BNT162b2 vaccine’s short-term cardiovascular safety profile in older people are reassuring. They should be taken into account by doctors when considering implementing a third dose of the vaccine in older people,” Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, with the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, Saint-Denis, France, said in an interview.

Ridofranz/Getty Images

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

A French population-based study provides further evidence that the BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine does not increase the short-term risk for serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people.

The study showed no increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or pulmonary embolism (PE) following vaccination in adults aged 75 years or older in the 14 days following vaccination.

“These findings regarding the BNT162b2 vaccine’s short-term cardiovascular safety profile in older people are reassuring. They should be taken into account by doctors when considering implementing a third dose of the vaccine in older people,” Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, with the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, Saint-Denis, France, said in an interview.

Ridofranz/Getty Images

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

A French population-based study provides further evidence that the BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine does not increase the short-term risk for serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people.

The study showed no increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or pulmonary embolism (PE) following vaccination in adults aged 75 years or older in the 14 days following vaccination.

“These findings regarding the BNT162b2 vaccine’s short-term cardiovascular safety profile in older people are reassuring. They should be taken into account by doctors when considering implementing a third dose of the vaccine in older people,” Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, with the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, Saint-Denis, France, said in an interview.

Ridofranz/Getty Images

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

Early lab studies show that a COVID-19 antibody treatment developed by GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology could be effective against the Omicron variant.

The companies said Dec. 2 that they tested the drug, called sotrovimab, against individual mutations found in the Omicron variant, according to The Wall Street Journal. The preliminary findings haven’t yet been peer-reviewed, and the drug will need to be tested against the whole spike protein on the virus to confirm results.

GlaxoSmithKline and Vir have previously tested sotrovimab against mutations on other variants, the newspaper reported. When the Omicron variant was identified, the companies looked at earlier research to find the tests they had done against mutations that are also found in Omicron.

Sotrovimab targets a spot on the spike protein that is found in other coronaviruses and is thought to be less likely to mutate, according to the newspaper. Omicron has at least two mutations that overlap with the drug’s target site, but researchers at the companies don’t think the mutations will affect the treatment’s ability to bind to the spike protein.

GlaxoSmithKline expects to see results from testing the drug against the full mutated spike protein in the next 2 to 3 weeks, the Journal reported.

Sotrovimab has been authorized in about a dozen countries, including the United States, which paid about $1 billion for hundreds of thousands of doses.

Other companies have also been testing their antibody treatments against the Omicron variant.

Regeneron announced Nov. 30 that its drug could be less effective, and it said further analyses will determine how much less effective by using the actual Omicron genetic sequence, according to Reuters.

Outside scientists have also said the antibody drug from Eli Lilly & Co. isn’t as effective against Omicron. The company told Reuters that it is still testing the treatment against the variant.

Another experimental antibody therapy developed by Adagio Therapeutics appears to work well against the new variant, the Journal reported, but the treatment is in late-stage clinical trials and isn’t yet authorized.

Antiviral drugs could also help prevent hospitalization and may be less vulnerable to new variants because they target a different part of the virus, the newspaper reported. Merck and Pfizer have developed antiviral pills, which still require FDA approval.

In addition, Gilead believes its approved IV therapy, called remdesivir, will continue to be effective against the variant, Reuters reported.

The FDA said Nov. 30 that it is looking at the effect that authorized COVID-19 vaccines can have on Omicron and expects to have more information in coming weeks, Reuters reported.

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

Early lab studies show that a COVID-19 antibody treatment developed by GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology could be effective against the Omicron variant.

The companies said Dec. 2 that they tested the drug, called sotrovimab, against individual mutations found in the Omicron variant, according to The Wall Street Journal. The preliminary findings haven’t yet been peer-reviewed, and the drug will need to be tested against the whole spike protein on the virus to confirm results.

GlaxoSmithKline and Vir have previously tested sotrovimab against mutations on other variants, the newspaper reported. When the Omicron variant was identified, the companies looked at earlier research to find the tests they had done against mutations that are also found in Omicron.

Sotrovimab targets a spot on the spike protein that is found in other coronaviruses and is thought to be less likely to mutate, according to the newspaper. Omicron has at least two mutations that overlap with the drug’s target site, but researchers at the companies don’t think the mutations will affect the treatment’s ability to bind to the spike protein.

GlaxoSmithKline expects to see results from testing the drug against the full mutated spike protein in the next 2 to 3 weeks, the Journal reported.

Sotrovimab has been authorized in about a dozen countries, including the United States, which paid about $1 billion for hundreds of thousands of doses.

Other companies have also been testing their antibody treatments against the Omicron variant.

Regeneron announced Nov. 30 that its drug could be less effective, and it said further analyses will determine how much less effective by using the actual Omicron genetic sequence, according to Reuters.

Outside scientists have also said the antibody drug from Eli Lilly & Co. isn’t as effective against Omicron. The company told Reuters that it is still testing the treatment against the variant.

Another experimental antibody therapy developed by Adagio Therapeutics appears to work well against the new variant, the Journal reported, but the treatment is in late-stage clinical trials and isn’t yet authorized.

Antiviral drugs could also help prevent hospitalization and may be less vulnerable to new variants because they target a different part of the virus, the newspaper reported. Merck and Pfizer have developed antiviral pills, which still require FDA approval.

In addition, Gilead believes its approved IV therapy, called remdesivir, will continue to be effective against the variant, Reuters reported.

The FDA said Nov. 30 that it is looking at the effect that authorized COVID-19 vaccines can have on Omicron and expects to have more information in coming weeks, Reuters reported.

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

Early lab studies show that a COVID-19 antibody treatment developed by GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology could be effective against the Omicron variant.

The companies said Dec. 2 that they tested the drug, called sotrovimab, against individual mutations found in the Omicron variant, according to The Wall Street Journal. The preliminary findings haven’t yet been peer-reviewed, and the drug will need to be tested against the whole spike protein on the virus to confirm results.

GlaxoSmithKline and Vir have previously tested sotrovimab against mutations on other variants, the newspaper reported. When the Omicron variant was identified, the companies looked at earlier research to find the tests they had done against mutations that are also found in Omicron.

Sotrovimab targets a spot on the spike protein that is found in other coronaviruses and is thought to be less likely to mutate, according to the newspaper. Omicron has at least two mutations that overlap with the drug’s target site, but researchers at the companies don’t think the mutations will affect the treatment’s ability to bind to the spike protein.

GlaxoSmithKline expects to see results from testing the drug against the full mutated spike protein in the next 2 to 3 weeks, the Journal reported.

Sotrovimab has been authorized in about a dozen countries, including the United States, which paid about $1 billion for hundreds of thousands of doses.

Other companies have also been testing their antibody treatments against the Omicron variant.

Regeneron announced Nov. 30 that its drug could be less effective, and it said further analyses will determine how much less effective by using the actual Omicron genetic sequence, according to Reuters.

Outside scientists have also said the antibody drug from Eli Lilly & Co. isn’t as effective against Omicron. The company told Reuters that it is still testing the treatment against the variant.

Another experimental antibody therapy developed by Adagio Therapeutics appears to work well against the new variant, the Journal reported, but the treatment is in late-stage clinical trials and isn’t yet authorized.

Antiviral drugs could also help prevent hospitalization and may be less vulnerable to new variants because they target a different part of the virus, the newspaper reported. Merck and Pfizer have developed antiviral pills, which still require FDA approval.

In addition, Gilead believes its approved IV therapy, called remdesivir, will continue to be effective against the variant, Reuters reported.

The FDA said Nov. 30 that it is looking at the effect that authorized COVID-19 vaccines can have on Omicron and expects to have more information in coming weeks, Reuters reported.

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