Clinical Psychiatry News

Substance use disorders can be a thorny topic in residency because of our role as gatekeepers of mental hospitals during our training. Intoxicated patients often get dismissed as a burden and distraction, malingering their way into a comfortable place to regain sobriety. This is extremely prevalent, often constituting the majority of patients seen during an emergency department call.

A typical interview may elicit any or all symptoms in the DSM yet be best explained by substance use intoxication or withdrawal. Alcohol and other CNS depressants commonly cause feelings of sadness and/or suicidality. Methamphetamine and other CNS stimulants commonly cause symptoms of psychosis or mania, followed by feelings of sadness and/or suicidality.

Different EDs have different degrees of patience for individuals in the process of becoming sober. Some departments will pressure clinicians into quickly discarding those patients and often frown upon any attempt at providing solace by raising the concern of reinforcing maladaptive behavior. A mystery-meat sandwich of admirable blandness may be the extent of help offered. Some more fortunate patients also receive a juice box or even a taxi voucher in an especially generous ED. This is always against our better judgment, of course, as we are told those gestures encourage abuse.

Other EDs will permit patients to remain until sober, allowing for another evaluation without the influence of controlled substances. We are reminded of many conversations with patients with substance use disorders, where topics discussed included: 1. Recommendation to seek substance use services, which are often nonexistent or with wait lists spanning months; 2. Education on the role of mental health hospitals and how patients’ despair in the context of intoxication does not meet some scriptural criteria; 3. Pep talks aided by such previously described sandwiches and juice boxes to encourage a sobering patient to leave the facility of their own will.

Methamphetamine, heroin, and alcohol are rarely one-and-done endeavors. We sparingly see our patients for their very first ED visit while intoxicated or crashing. They know how the system runs and which ED will more readily allow them an overnight stay. The number of times they have been recommended for substance use treatment is beyond counting – they may have been on a wait list a handful of times. They are aware of our reluctance to provide inpatient psychiatric treatment for substance use, but it is worth a shot trying, anyway – sometimes they get lucky. Usually it is the pep talk, relief from hunger pangs, and daylight that get them out the doors – until next time.

It is under this context that many trainees become psychiatrists, a process that solidifies the separation between drug use and mental illness. Many graduate from residency practically equating substance use disorder with malingering or futility. This can take on a surreal quality as many localities have recently adopted particular forms or requirements like the dispensation of naloxone syringes to all patients with substance use disorders. While the desire and effort are noble, it may suggest to a patient presenting for help that society’s main interest is to avoid seeing them die rather than help with available resources for maintaining sobriety.

Therein lies the conundrum, a conundrum that spans psychiatry to society. The conundrum is our ambivalence between punishing the choice of drug use or healing the substance use disorder. Should we discharge the intoxicated patient as soon as they are safe to walk out, or should we make every effort possible to find long-term solutions? Where someone decides to draw the line often seems quite arbitrary.
 

The calculation becomes more complex

A defining moment appears to have been society’s reconsideration of its stance on substance use disorders when affluent White teenagers started dying in the suburbs from pain pills overdoses. Suddenly, those children needed and deserved treatment, not punishment. We find ourselves far away from a time when the loudest societal commentary on substance use entailed mothers advocating for harsher sentences against drunk drivers.

More recently, as psychiatry and large contingents of society have decided to take up the mantle of equity and social justice, we have begun to make progress in decriminalizing substance use in an effort to reverse systemic discrimination toward minority groups. This has taken many shapes, including drug legalization, criminal justice reform, and even the provision of clean substance use paraphernalia for safer use of IV drugs. Police reform has led to reluctance to arrest or press charges for nonviolent crimes and reduced police presence in minority neighborhoods. The “rich White teenager” approach is now recommended in all neighborhoods.

Society’s attempt at decriminalizing drug use has run parallel with psychiatry’s recent attempts at reduced pathologizing of behaviors more prevalent in underprivileged groups and cultures. This runs the gamut, from avoiding the use of the term “agitated” because of its racial connotations, to advocating for reduced rates of schizophrenia diagnoses in Black males.¹ A diagnosis of substance use disorder carries with it similar troublesome societal implications. Decriminalization, legalization, provision of substances to the population, normalization, and other societal reforms will likely have an impact on the prevalence of substance use disorder diagnoses, which involve many criteria dependent on societal context.

It would be expected that criteria such as hazardous use, social problems, and attempts to quit will decrease as social acceptance increases. How might this affect access to substance use treatment, an already extremely limited resource?

Now, as forensic psychiatrists, we find ourselves adjudicating on the role of drugs at a time when society is wrestling with its attitude on the breadth of responsibility possessed by people who use drugs. In California, as in many other states, insanity laws exclude those who were insane as a result of drug use, as a testament to or possibly a remnant of how society feels about the role of choice and responsibility in the use of drugs. Yet another defendant who admits to drug use may on the contrary receive a much more lenient plea deal if willing to commit to sobriety. But in a never-ending maze of differing judgments and opinions, a less understanding district attorney may argue that the additional risk posed by the use of drugs and resulting impulsivity may actually warrant a heavier sentence.

In a recent attempt at atonement for our past punitive stance on drug users, we have found a desire to protect those who use drugs by punishing those who sell, at times forgetting that these populations are deeply intertwined. A recent law permits the federal charge of distribution of fentanyl resulting in death, which carries the mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison. Yet, if the user whom we are trying to protect by this law is also the one selling, what are we left with?

Fentanyl has been a particularly tragic development in the history of mankind and drug use. Substance use has rarely been so easily linked to accidental death. While many physicians can easily explain the safety of fentanyl when used as prescribed and in controlled settings, this is certainly not the case in the community. Measuring micrograms of fentanyl is outside the knowledge and capabilities of most drug dealers, who are not equipped with pharmacy-grade scales. Yet, as a result, they sell and customers buy quantities of fentanyl that range from homeopathically low to lethally high because of a mixture of negligence and deliberate indifference.

Another effort at atonement has been attempts at decriminalizing drug use and releasing many nonviolent offenders. This can, however, encourage bystanders to report more acts as crime rather than public intoxication, to ensure a police response when confronted by intoxicated people. Whereas previously an inebriated person who is homeless may have been called for and asked to seek shelter, they now get called on, and subsequently charged for, allegedly mumbling a threat by a frustrated bystander.

The release of offenders has its limits. Many placements on probation require sobriety and result in longer sentences for the use of substances that are otherwise decriminalized. The decriminalization and reexamination of substance use by society should widen the scope from simply considering crime to examining the use of drugs throughout the legal system and even beyond.

The DSM and psychiatry are not intended or equipped to adjudicate disputes on where the lines should be drawn between determinism and free will. We are knowledgeable of patients with substance use disorders, the effect of intoxicating substances, and the capacity of patients with substance use disorders to act in law-abiding ways. Our field can inform without simply advocating whether our patients should be punished. While society is currently struggling with how to apportion blame, psychiatry should resist the urge to impose medical solutions to social problems. Our solutions would almost certainly be grossly limited as we are still struggling to repent for lobotomizing “uppity” young women² and using electroshock therapy to disrupt perverse impulses in homosexual males.³ Social norms and political zeitgeists change over time while the psychological and physiological principles underlying our understanding of mental illness should, in theory, stay relatively constant. Psychiatry’s answers for societal ills do not usually improve with time but rather have a tendency to be humbling.
 

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com.

Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research.

References

1.Medlock MM et al., eds. “Racism and Psychiatry: Contemporary Issues and Interventions” (New York: Springer, 2018).

2. Tone A and Koziol M. CMAJ. 2018:190(20):e624-5.

3. McGuire RJ and Vallance M. BMJ. 1964;1(5376):151-3.

Substance use disorders can be a thorny topic in residency because of our role as gatekeepers of mental hospitals during our training. Intoxicated patients often get dismissed as a burden and distraction, malingering their way into a comfortable place to regain sobriety. This is extremely prevalent, often constituting the majority of patients seen during an emergency department call.

A typical interview may elicit any or all symptoms in the DSM yet be best explained by substance use intoxication or withdrawal. Alcohol and other CNS depressants commonly cause feelings of sadness and/or suicidality. Methamphetamine and other CNS stimulants commonly cause symptoms of psychosis or mania, followed by feelings of sadness and/or suicidality.

Different EDs have different degrees of patience for individuals in the process of becoming sober. Some departments will pressure clinicians into quickly discarding those patients and often frown upon any attempt at providing solace by raising the concern of reinforcing maladaptive behavior. A mystery-meat sandwich of admirable blandness may be the extent of help offered. Some more fortunate patients also receive a juice box or even a taxi voucher in an especially generous ED. This is always against our better judgment, of course, as we are told those gestures encourage abuse.

Other EDs will permit patients to remain until sober, allowing for another evaluation without the influence of controlled substances. We are reminded of many conversations with patients with substance use disorders, where topics discussed included: 1. Recommendation to seek substance use services, which are often nonexistent or with wait lists spanning months; 2. Education on the role of mental health hospitals and how patients’ despair in the context of intoxication does not meet some scriptural criteria; 3. Pep talks aided by such previously described sandwiches and juice boxes to encourage a sobering patient to leave the facility of their own will.

Methamphetamine, heroin, and alcohol are rarely one-and-done endeavors. We sparingly see our patients for their very first ED visit while intoxicated or crashing. They know how the system runs and which ED will more readily allow them an overnight stay. The number of times they have been recommended for substance use treatment is beyond counting – they may have been on a wait list a handful of times. They are aware of our reluctance to provide inpatient psychiatric treatment for substance use, but it is worth a shot trying, anyway – sometimes they get lucky. Usually it is the pep talk, relief from hunger pangs, and daylight that get them out the doors – until next time.

It is under this context that many trainees become psychiatrists, a process that solidifies the separation between drug use and mental illness. Many graduate from residency practically equating substance use disorder with malingering or futility. This can take on a surreal quality as many localities have recently adopted particular forms or requirements like the dispensation of naloxone syringes to all patients with substance use disorders. While the desire and effort are noble, it may suggest to a patient presenting for help that society’s main interest is to avoid seeing them die rather than help with available resources for maintaining sobriety.

Therein lies the conundrum, a conundrum that spans psychiatry to society. The conundrum is our ambivalence between punishing the choice of drug use or healing the substance use disorder. Should we discharge the intoxicated patient as soon as they are safe to walk out, or should we make every effort possible to find long-term solutions? Where someone decides to draw the line often seems quite arbitrary.
 

The calculation becomes more complex

A defining moment appears to have been society’s reconsideration of its stance on substance use disorders when affluent White teenagers started dying in the suburbs from pain pills overdoses. Suddenly, those children needed and deserved treatment, not punishment. We find ourselves far away from a time when the loudest societal commentary on substance use entailed mothers advocating for harsher sentences against drunk drivers.

More recently, as psychiatry and large contingents of society have decided to take up the mantle of equity and social justice, we have begun to make progress in decriminalizing substance use in an effort to reverse systemic discrimination toward minority groups. This has taken many shapes, including drug legalization, criminal justice reform, and even the provision of clean substance use paraphernalia for safer use of IV drugs. Police reform has led to reluctance to arrest or press charges for nonviolent crimes and reduced police presence in minority neighborhoods. The “rich White teenager” approach is now recommended in all neighborhoods.

Society’s attempt at decriminalizing drug use has run parallel with psychiatry’s recent attempts at reduced pathologizing of behaviors more prevalent in underprivileged groups and cultures. This runs the gamut, from avoiding the use of the term “agitated” because of its racial connotations, to advocating for reduced rates of schizophrenia diagnoses in Black males.¹ A diagnosis of substance use disorder carries with it similar troublesome societal implications. Decriminalization, legalization, provision of substances to the population, normalization, and other societal reforms will likely have an impact on the prevalence of substance use disorder diagnoses, which involve many criteria dependent on societal context.

It would be expected that criteria such as hazardous use, social problems, and attempts to quit will decrease as social acceptance increases. How might this affect access to substance use treatment, an already extremely limited resource?

Now, as forensic psychiatrists, we find ourselves adjudicating on the role of drugs at a time when society is wrestling with its attitude on the breadth of responsibility possessed by people who use drugs. In California, as in many other states, insanity laws exclude those who were insane as a result of drug use, as a testament to or possibly a remnant of how society feels about the role of choice and responsibility in the use of drugs. Yet another defendant who admits to drug use may on the contrary receive a much more lenient plea deal if willing to commit to sobriety. But in a never-ending maze of differing judgments and opinions, a less understanding district attorney may argue that the additional risk posed by the use of drugs and resulting impulsivity may actually warrant a heavier sentence.

In a recent attempt at atonement for our past punitive stance on drug users, we have found a desire to protect those who use drugs by punishing those who sell, at times forgetting that these populations are deeply intertwined. A recent law permits the federal charge of distribution of fentanyl resulting in death, which carries the mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison. Yet, if the user whom we are trying to protect by this law is also the one selling, what are we left with?

Fentanyl has been a particularly tragic development in the history of mankind and drug use. Substance use has rarely been so easily linked to accidental death. While many physicians can easily explain the safety of fentanyl when used as prescribed and in controlled settings, this is certainly not the case in the community. Measuring micrograms of fentanyl is outside the knowledge and capabilities of most drug dealers, who are not equipped with pharmacy-grade scales. Yet, as a result, they sell and customers buy quantities of fentanyl that range from homeopathically low to lethally high because of a mixture of negligence and deliberate indifference.

Another effort at atonement has been attempts at decriminalizing drug use and releasing many nonviolent offenders. This can, however, encourage bystanders to report more acts as crime rather than public intoxication, to ensure a police response when confronted by intoxicated people. Whereas previously an inebriated person who is homeless may have been called for and asked to seek shelter, they now get called on, and subsequently charged for, allegedly mumbling a threat by a frustrated bystander.

The release of offenders has its limits. Many placements on probation require sobriety and result in longer sentences for the use of substances that are otherwise decriminalized. The decriminalization and reexamination of substance use by society should widen the scope from simply considering crime to examining the use of drugs throughout the legal system and even beyond.

The DSM and psychiatry are not intended or equipped to adjudicate disputes on where the lines should be drawn between determinism and free will. We are knowledgeable of patients with substance use disorders, the effect of intoxicating substances, and the capacity of patients with substance use disorders to act in law-abiding ways. Our field can inform without simply advocating whether our patients should be punished. While society is currently struggling with how to apportion blame, psychiatry should resist the urge to impose medical solutions to social problems. Our solutions would almost certainly be grossly limited as we are still struggling to repent for lobotomizing “uppity” young women² and using electroshock therapy to disrupt perverse impulses in homosexual males.³ Social norms and political zeitgeists change over time while the psychological and physiological principles underlying our understanding of mental illness should, in theory, stay relatively constant. Psychiatry’s answers for societal ills do not usually improve with time but rather have a tendency to be humbling.
 

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com.

Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research.

References

1.Medlock MM et al., eds. “Racism and Psychiatry: Contemporary Issues and Interventions” (New York: Springer, 2018).

2. Tone A and Koziol M. CMAJ. 2018:190(20):e624-5.

3. McGuire RJ and Vallance M. BMJ. 1964;1(5376):151-3.

Substance use disorders can be a thorny topic in residency because of our role as gatekeepers of mental hospitals during our training. Intoxicated patients often get dismissed as a burden and distraction, malingering their way into a comfortable place to regain sobriety. This is extremely prevalent, often constituting the majority of patients seen during an emergency department call.

A typical interview may elicit any or all symptoms in the DSM yet be best explained by substance use intoxication or withdrawal. Alcohol and other CNS depressants commonly cause feelings of sadness and/or suicidality. Methamphetamine and other CNS stimulants commonly cause symptoms of psychosis or mania, followed by feelings of sadness and/or suicidality.

Different EDs have different degrees of patience for individuals in the process of becoming sober. Some departments will pressure clinicians into quickly discarding those patients and often frown upon any attempt at providing solace by raising the concern of reinforcing maladaptive behavior. A mystery-meat sandwich of admirable blandness may be the extent of help offered. Some more fortunate patients also receive a juice box or even a taxi voucher in an especially generous ED. This is always against our better judgment, of course, as we are told those gestures encourage abuse.

Other EDs will permit patients to remain until sober, allowing for another evaluation without the influence of controlled substances. We are reminded of many conversations with patients with substance use disorders, where topics discussed included: 1. Recommendation to seek substance use services, which are often nonexistent or with wait lists spanning months; 2. Education on the role of mental health hospitals and how patients’ despair in the context of intoxication does not meet some scriptural criteria; 3. Pep talks aided by such previously described sandwiches and juice boxes to encourage a sobering patient to leave the facility of their own will.

Methamphetamine, heroin, and alcohol are rarely one-and-done endeavors. We sparingly see our patients for their very first ED visit while intoxicated or crashing. They know how the system runs and which ED will more readily allow them an overnight stay. The number of times they have been recommended for substance use treatment is beyond counting – they may have been on a wait list a handful of times. They are aware of our reluctance to provide inpatient psychiatric treatment for substance use, but it is worth a shot trying, anyway – sometimes they get lucky. Usually it is the pep talk, relief from hunger pangs, and daylight that get them out the doors – until next time.

It is under this context that many trainees become psychiatrists, a process that solidifies the separation between drug use and mental illness. Many graduate from residency practically equating substance use disorder with malingering or futility. This can take on a surreal quality as many localities have recently adopted particular forms or requirements like the dispensation of naloxone syringes to all patients with substance use disorders. While the desire and effort are noble, it may suggest to a patient presenting for help that society’s main interest is to avoid seeing them die rather than help with available resources for maintaining sobriety.

Therein lies the conundrum, a conundrum that spans psychiatry to society. The conundrum is our ambivalence between punishing the choice of drug use or healing the substance use disorder. Should we discharge the intoxicated patient as soon as they are safe to walk out, or should we make every effort possible to find long-term solutions? Where someone decides to draw the line often seems quite arbitrary.
 

The calculation becomes more complex

A defining moment appears to have been society’s reconsideration of its stance on substance use disorders when affluent White teenagers started dying in the suburbs from pain pills overdoses. Suddenly, those children needed and deserved treatment, not punishment. We find ourselves far away from a time when the loudest societal commentary on substance use entailed mothers advocating for harsher sentences against drunk drivers.

More recently, as psychiatry and large contingents of society have decided to take up the mantle of equity and social justice, we have begun to make progress in decriminalizing substance use in an effort to reverse systemic discrimination toward minority groups. This has taken many shapes, including drug legalization, criminal justice reform, and even the provision of clean substance use paraphernalia for safer use of IV drugs. Police reform has led to reluctance to arrest or press charges for nonviolent crimes and reduced police presence in minority neighborhoods. The “rich White teenager” approach is now recommended in all neighborhoods.

Society’s attempt at decriminalizing drug use has run parallel with psychiatry’s recent attempts at reduced pathologizing of behaviors more prevalent in underprivileged groups and cultures. This runs the gamut, from avoiding the use of the term “agitated” because of its racial connotations, to advocating for reduced rates of schizophrenia diagnoses in Black males.¹ A diagnosis of substance use disorder carries with it similar troublesome societal implications. Decriminalization, legalization, provision of substances to the population, normalization, and other societal reforms will likely have an impact on the prevalence of substance use disorder diagnoses, which involve many criteria dependent on societal context.

It would be expected that criteria such as hazardous use, social problems, and attempts to quit will decrease as social acceptance increases. How might this affect access to substance use treatment, an already extremely limited resource?

Now, as forensic psychiatrists, we find ourselves adjudicating on the role of drugs at a time when society is wrestling with its attitude on the breadth of responsibility possessed by people who use drugs. In California, as in many other states, insanity laws exclude those who were insane as a result of drug use, as a testament to or possibly a remnant of how society feels about the role of choice and responsibility in the use of drugs. Yet another defendant who admits to drug use may on the contrary receive a much more lenient plea deal if willing to commit to sobriety. But in a never-ending maze of differing judgments and opinions, a less understanding district attorney may argue that the additional risk posed by the use of drugs and resulting impulsivity may actually warrant a heavier sentence.

In a recent attempt at atonement for our past punitive stance on drug users, we have found a desire to protect those who use drugs by punishing those who sell, at times forgetting that these populations are deeply intertwined. A recent law permits the federal charge of distribution of fentanyl resulting in death, which carries the mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison. Yet, if the user whom we are trying to protect by this law is also the one selling, what are we left with?

Fentanyl has been a particularly tragic development in the history of mankind and drug use. Substance use has rarely been so easily linked to accidental death. While many physicians can easily explain the safety of fentanyl when used as prescribed and in controlled settings, this is certainly not the case in the community. Measuring micrograms of fentanyl is outside the knowledge and capabilities of most drug dealers, who are not equipped with pharmacy-grade scales. Yet, as a result, they sell and customers buy quantities of fentanyl that range from homeopathically low to lethally high because of a mixture of negligence and deliberate indifference.

Another effort at atonement has been attempts at decriminalizing drug use and releasing many nonviolent offenders. This can, however, encourage bystanders to report more acts as crime rather than public intoxication, to ensure a police response when confronted by intoxicated people. Whereas previously an inebriated person who is homeless may have been called for and asked to seek shelter, they now get called on, and subsequently charged for, allegedly mumbling a threat by a frustrated bystander.

The release of offenders has its limits. Many placements on probation require sobriety and result in longer sentences for the use of substances that are otherwise decriminalized. The decriminalization and reexamination of substance use by society should widen the scope from simply considering crime to examining the use of drugs throughout the legal system and even beyond.

The DSM and psychiatry are not intended or equipped to adjudicate disputes on where the lines should be drawn between determinism and free will. We are knowledgeable of patients with substance use disorders, the effect of intoxicating substances, and the capacity of patients with substance use disorders to act in law-abiding ways. Our field can inform without simply advocating whether our patients should be punished. While society is currently struggling with how to apportion blame, psychiatry should resist the urge to impose medical solutions to social problems. Our solutions would almost certainly be grossly limited as we are still struggling to repent for lobotomizing “uppity” young women² and using electroshock therapy to disrupt perverse impulses in homosexual males.³ Social norms and political zeitgeists change over time while the psychological and physiological principles underlying our understanding of mental illness should, in theory, stay relatively constant. Psychiatry’s answers for societal ills do not usually improve with time but rather have a tendency to be humbling.
 

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com.

Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research.

References

1.Medlock MM et al., eds. “Racism and Psychiatry: Contemporary Issues and Interventions” (New York: Springer, 2018).

2. Tone A and Koziol M. CMAJ. 2018:190(20):e624-5.

3. McGuire RJ and Vallance M. BMJ. 1964;1(5376):151-3.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a high-dose naloxone injection product for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

ZIMHI from Adamis Pharmaceuticals is administered using a single-dose, prefilled syringe that delivers 5 mg of naloxone hydrochloride solution through intramuscular or subcutaneous injection.

Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that works by blocking or reversing the effects of the opioid, including extreme drowsiness, slowed breathing, or loss of consciousness.

Opioid-related overdose deaths — driven partly by prescription drug overdoses — remain a leading cause of death in the United States.

ZIMHI “provides an additional option in the treatment of opioid overdoses,” the FDA said in a statement announcing approval.

In a statement from Adamis Pharmaceuticals, Jeffrey Galinkin, MD, an anesthesiologist and former member of the FDA advisory committee for analgesics and addiction products, said he is “pleased to see this much-needed, high-dose naloxone product will become part of the treatment tool kit as a countermeasure to the continued surge in fentanyl related deaths.”

“The higher intramuscular doses of naloxone in ZIMHI should result in more rapid and higher levels of naloxone in the systemic circulation, which in turn, should result in more successful resuscitations,” Dr. Galinkin said.

Last spring the FDA approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

The FDA approved ZIMHI (and Kloxxado) through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

The company plans to launch ZIMHI in the first quarter of 2022.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a high-dose naloxone injection product for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

ZIMHI from Adamis Pharmaceuticals is administered using a single-dose, prefilled syringe that delivers 5 mg of naloxone hydrochloride solution through intramuscular or subcutaneous injection.

Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that works by blocking or reversing the effects of the opioid, including extreme drowsiness, slowed breathing, or loss of consciousness.

Opioid-related overdose deaths — driven partly by prescription drug overdoses — remain a leading cause of death in the United States.

ZIMHI “provides an additional option in the treatment of opioid overdoses,” the FDA said in a statement announcing approval.

In a statement from Adamis Pharmaceuticals, Jeffrey Galinkin, MD, an anesthesiologist and former member of the FDA advisory committee for analgesics and addiction products, said he is “pleased to see this much-needed, high-dose naloxone product will become part of the treatment tool kit as a countermeasure to the continued surge in fentanyl related deaths.”

“The higher intramuscular doses of naloxone in ZIMHI should result in more rapid and higher levels of naloxone in the systemic circulation, which in turn, should result in more successful resuscitations,” Dr. Galinkin said.

Last spring the FDA approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

The FDA approved ZIMHI (and Kloxxado) through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

The company plans to launch ZIMHI in the first quarter of 2022.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a high-dose naloxone injection product for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

ZIMHI from Adamis Pharmaceuticals is administered using a single-dose, prefilled syringe that delivers 5 mg of naloxone hydrochloride solution through intramuscular or subcutaneous injection.

Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that works by blocking or reversing the effects of the opioid, including extreme drowsiness, slowed breathing, or loss of consciousness.

Opioid-related overdose deaths — driven partly by prescription drug overdoses — remain a leading cause of death in the United States.

ZIMHI “provides an additional option in the treatment of opioid overdoses,” the FDA said in a statement announcing approval.

In a statement from Adamis Pharmaceuticals, Jeffrey Galinkin, MD, an anesthesiologist and former member of the FDA advisory committee for analgesics and addiction products, said he is “pleased to see this much-needed, high-dose naloxone product will become part of the treatment tool kit as a countermeasure to the continued surge in fentanyl related deaths.”

“The higher intramuscular doses of naloxone in ZIMHI should result in more rapid and higher levels of naloxone in the systemic circulation, which in turn, should result in more successful resuscitations,” Dr. Galinkin said.

Last spring the FDA approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

The FDA approved ZIMHI (and Kloxxado) through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

The company plans to launch ZIMHI in the first quarter of 2022.

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

Physician employment contracts include some new dangers. This includes physicians taking a new job, but it also includes already-employed doctors who are being asked to resign a new contract that contains new conditions. A number of these new clauses have arisen because of COVID-19. When the pandemic dramatically reduced patient flow, many employers didn’t have enough money to pay doctors and didn’t always have physicians in the right location or practice setting.

Vowing this would never happen again, some employers have rewritten their physician contracts to make it easier to reassign and terminate physicians.

Here are 12 potential land mines in a physician employment contract, some of which were added as a result of the pandemic.
 

You could be immediately terminated without notice

One outcome of the pandemic is the growing use of “force majeure” clauses, which give the employer the right to reduce your compensation or even terminate you due to a natural disaster, which could include COVID.

“COVID made employers aware of the potential impact of disasters on their operations,” said Dan Shay, a health law attorney at Alice Gosfield & Associates in Philadelphia. “Therefore, even as the threat of COVID abates in many places, employers are continuing to put this provision in the contract.”

What can you do? “One way to get some protection is to rule out a termination without cause in the first year,” said Michael A. Cassidy, a physician contract attorney at Tucker Arensberg in Pittsburgh.

The force majeure clause is less likely to affect salary, but could impact bonus and incentive tied to performance. It’s wise to try to specifically limit how much the force majeure could reduce pay tied to performance, and to be prepared to negotiate that aspect of your contract.
 

No protections if you’re let go through no fault of your own

You could lose your job if your employer could not generate enough business and has to let some doctors go. This happened quite often in the early days of the COVID pandemic.

In these situations, the doctor has not done anything wrong to prompt the termination, but the restrictive covenant may still apply, meaning that the doctor would have to leave the area to find work.

What can you do? You’re in a good position to get this changed, said Christopher L. Nuland, a solo physician contract attorney in Jacksonville, Fla. “Many employers recognize that it would be draconian to require a restrictive covenant in this case, and they will agree to modify this provision.”

Similarly, the employer may not cover your tail insurance even if you were let go from your work through no fault of your own. Most malpractice policies for employer physicians require buying an extra policy, called a tail, if you leave. In some cases, the employer won’t provide a tail and will make the departing doctor buy it.

In these cases, “try for a compromise, such as stipulating that the party that caused the termination should pay for the tail,” Mr. Nuland said. “The employer may not agree to anything more than that because they want to set up a disincentive against you leaving.”
 

Employer could unilaterally alter your compensation

Many recent contracts give the employer the option to unilaterally modify compensation, such as changing the base salary or raising the target required for meeting the productivity bonus, said Ericka L. Adler, a physician contract attorney at Roetzel & Andress in Chicago.

Ms. Adler thought this change could have been prompted by employers’ financial problems during the pandemic. In the early months of COVID, many physicians were not making much money for the employer but still had to be paid. So employers added a clause saying they could reduce compensation at any time, she said.

What can you do? Harsh provisions like this often come up in contracts with private equity firms, Mr. Cassidy said. “The contract might say the employer can adjust compensation or even terminate physicians based on productivity or their profitability. And it may say that if they reassign you to a new location and you refuse, they can terminate you.”

“If you can’t get these clauses removed, try to reduce the impact of a termination by providing longer notice periods or by inserting a severance agreement,” Mr. Cassidy said.
 

Accelerating notice for without-cause terminations

Physicians who are convicted of a felony or other moral issue can usually be terminated immediately. But if you are terminated for other reasons – that is, “without cause” – you are given notice at a certain number of days before you have to leave (typically 60-90 days), so that you have time to find a new job.

Some recent contracts, however, allow for very little notice in without-cause terminations, which allows the employer to fire you in as little as 0 days after providing notice, Ms. Adler said.

“This means that, even if 90 days’ notice is provided in the contract, the employer can decide that your last day will be an earlier date,” she said.

Why is this happening? Ms. Adler said employers want to begin reallocating resources and patients as soon as possible. The problem came to employers’ attention during the COVID pandemic, when they were contractually forced to pay doctors for doing little or nothing during the notice period.

What can you do? Possibly not much, other than attempt to negotiate. “Large employers typically don’t want to drop this provision, but at the least, the doctor needs to understand the risk it creates for them,” she said.
 

You could be assigned to far-off locations

As patient care needs changed dramatically during the pandemic, employers needed to reassign doctors to new locations.

Some new contracts allow employers to simply inform the doctor that they are changing the work location. However, “you don’t want to be assigned to a new work location that is 50 miles away,” Mr. Nuland said.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended adding new language saying that, if the new assignment is more than 20 miles away, both parties would have to approve it.

You could end up working too many off-hours

“Most employers won’t issue a specific work schedule,” Mr. Nuland said. “They want the flexibility to assign evening or weekend work, and it would be difficult for a young doctor to change this.”

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended trying to set some limits. “You can try to limit off-hours work to two times a month or something like that,” she said. And if you need to have a special schedule, such as not working on Fridays, Adler advises that this should be put into the contract.

If you can’t get anything changed in the contract, Mr. Nuland said the next-best thing is to ask employers to tell you specifically what they plan to do with you. “Most employers will give you an informal idea of what’s expected – maybe not an exact schedule, but it’s quite likely they will honor it.”
 

You wouldn’t be able to work nearby if you left the job

Most contracts have a noncompete clause, also known as a “restrictive covenant,” which prevents employed physicians from working in the area if they left the job.

“Almost every doctor I represent has told me that they’re not concerned about the noncompete clause because, they believe, it is not enforceable anyway,” Ms. Adler said. “This is incorrect.”

Mr. Nuland said the faster pace of job-changing during the pandemic makes it all the more likely that doctors have to deal with a restrictive covenant. At the same time, some employers have been expanding the restriction – either by enlarging the radius where the restriction applies or by making the restriction apply to each of their sites, so that each one has a restricted radius around it.

For example, one contract Mr. Nuland is currently reviewing has a 20-mile radius that in effect becomes a 120-mile radius because the employer is counting four offices.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland advised trying to reduce the impact of the noncompete – for instance, making it apply only to the offices where you worked, or trading more time for less distance. “If you have a 2-year, 20-mile restriction, ask for a 3-year, 10-mile restriction, where the radius could be easier to deal with,” he said.
 

You might end up with too much call

Contracts rarely detail your call schedule because employers want flexibility to expand call as patient care needs change, but you can try adding some specificity, said Sanja Ord, a physician contract attorney at Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale in St. Louis.

Contracts often use wide-open language to describe call, such as simply making it “subject to the house call policies,” Mr. Cassidy said. Language that is more beneficial to the physician would say that call must be “equal” among “similarly situated” physicians.

But Ms. Ord said even provisions for equal call can turn out to be onerous if there are too few doctors in the call roster, so it’s a good idea to find out just how many doctors will be participating in call.

Still, Adler said even that strategy can’t remove all risk. What happens, she asked, if several physicians participating in call decide to leave? Then you might end up with call every other night.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy recommends specifying a maximum amount of call – for example, no more frequent than one in four nights.
 

Physician must pay for reimbursement claw-backs by payers

When auditors for Medicare or other payers find overpayments after the fact, called a ‘claw-back,’ the provider must pay them back. But which provider has to do that – you or your employer?

In many cases, your employer’s billing office may have introduced the error, but there may be a clause in the contract stating that the physician is solely responsible for all claw-backs. That could be costly.

What can you do? Mr. Shay said the clause should state that you have to pay only when it is the result of your own error or omission, and also not when it was made at the direction of the employer.
 

Some work may be outside of your subspecialty

In some cases, the employer may assign subspecialized doctors to work outside their subspecialty, Mr. Nuland said.

For example, he said he represented an endocrinologist who expected to see only diabetes patients but was assigned to some general internal medicine work as well, and an otolaryngologist client of his who completed a fellowship on facial plastic surgery was expected to do liposuction in a cosmetic surgery group.

What can you do? To prevent this from happening, Mr. Nuland recommends a clause stating that your work will be restricted to your subspecialty.

What the employer promised isn’t in the contract

“Beware of promises that are not in the contract,” Mr. Shay said. “You might feel you can really trust your new boss and what he tells you, but what if that person resigns, or the organization gets a new owner who doesn’t honor unwritten agreements?”

Many contracts have an integration clause, which specifies that the contract constitutes the complete agreement between the two parties, and it nullifies any other oral or written promises made to the physician.

For example, the employer might have promised a relocation bonus and a sign-on bonus, but for some reason it didn’t get into the contract, Ms. Ord said. In those cases, the employer is under no obligation to honor the promise.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy said it is possible to hold the employer to a commitment made outside the contract. The alternative document, such as an offer letter, has to specifically state that the commitment is protected from the integration clause in the contract, he said, adding: “It is still better to have the commitment put into the contract.”
 

Contract is simply accepted as is

“Generally, the bigger the employer, the less likely they will alter an agreement just to make you happy,” Mr. Shay said.

But even in these contracts, he said there is still opportunity to fix errors and ambiguities that could harm you later – or even alter a provision if you can’t remove it outright.

The back-and-forth is important, Ms. Adler said. “Negotiation means trying to have some control over your job and your life.”

Mr. Cassidy said a big part of contract review is facing up to the possibility that you may have to resign or be let go.

“Many physicians don’t like to think about leaving when they’re just starting a job, but they need to,” he said. “You need to begin with the end in mind. Think about what would happen if this job didn’t work out.”

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

Physician employment contracts include some new dangers. This includes physicians taking a new job, but it also includes already-employed doctors who are being asked to resign a new contract that contains new conditions. A number of these new clauses have arisen because of COVID-19. When the pandemic dramatically reduced patient flow, many employers didn’t have enough money to pay doctors and didn’t always have physicians in the right location or practice setting.

Vowing this would never happen again, some employers have rewritten their physician contracts to make it easier to reassign and terminate physicians.

Here are 12 potential land mines in a physician employment contract, some of which were added as a result of the pandemic.
 

You could be immediately terminated without notice

One outcome of the pandemic is the growing use of “force majeure” clauses, which give the employer the right to reduce your compensation or even terminate you due to a natural disaster, which could include COVID.

“COVID made employers aware of the potential impact of disasters on their operations,” said Dan Shay, a health law attorney at Alice Gosfield & Associates in Philadelphia. “Therefore, even as the threat of COVID abates in many places, employers are continuing to put this provision in the contract.”

What can you do? “One way to get some protection is to rule out a termination without cause in the first year,” said Michael A. Cassidy, a physician contract attorney at Tucker Arensberg in Pittsburgh.

The force majeure clause is less likely to affect salary, but could impact bonus and incentive tied to performance. It’s wise to try to specifically limit how much the force majeure could reduce pay tied to performance, and to be prepared to negotiate that aspect of your contract.
 

No protections if you’re let go through no fault of your own

You could lose your job if your employer could not generate enough business and has to let some doctors go. This happened quite often in the early days of the COVID pandemic.

In these situations, the doctor has not done anything wrong to prompt the termination, but the restrictive covenant may still apply, meaning that the doctor would have to leave the area to find work.

What can you do? You’re in a good position to get this changed, said Christopher L. Nuland, a solo physician contract attorney in Jacksonville, Fla. “Many employers recognize that it would be draconian to require a restrictive covenant in this case, and they will agree to modify this provision.”

Similarly, the employer may not cover your tail insurance even if you were let go from your work through no fault of your own. Most malpractice policies for employer physicians require buying an extra policy, called a tail, if you leave. In some cases, the employer won’t provide a tail and will make the departing doctor buy it.

In these cases, “try for a compromise, such as stipulating that the party that caused the termination should pay for the tail,” Mr. Nuland said. “The employer may not agree to anything more than that because they want to set up a disincentive against you leaving.”
 

Employer could unilaterally alter your compensation

Many recent contracts give the employer the option to unilaterally modify compensation, such as changing the base salary or raising the target required for meeting the productivity bonus, said Ericka L. Adler, a physician contract attorney at Roetzel & Andress in Chicago.

Ms. Adler thought this change could have been prompted by employers’ financial problems during the pandemic. In the early months of COVID, many physicians were not making much money for the employer but still had to be paid. So employers added a clause saying they could reduce compensation at any time, she said.

What can you do? Harsh provisions like this often come up in contracts with private equity firms, Mr. Cassidy said. “The contract might say the employer can adjust compensation or even terminate physicians based on productivity or their profitability. And it may say that if they reassign you to a new location and you refuse, they can terminate you.”

“If you can’t get these clauses removed, try to reduce the impact of a termination by providing longer notice periods or by inserting a severance agreement,” Mr. Cassidy said.
 

Accelerating notice for without-cause terminations

Physicians who are convicted of a felony or other moral issue can usually be terminated immediately. But if you are terminated for other reasons – that is, “without cause” – you are given notice at a certain number of days before you have to leave (typically 60-90 days), so that you have time to find a new job.

Some recent contracts, however, allow for very little notice in without-cause terminations, which allows the employer to fire you in as little as 0 days after providing notice, Ms. Adler said.

“This means that, even if 90 days’ notice is provided in the contract, the employer can decide that your last day will be an earlier date,” she said.

Why is this happening? Ms. Adler said employers want to begin reallocating resources and patients as soon as possible. The problem came to employers’ attention during the COVID pandemic, when they were contractually forced to pay doctors for doing little or nothing during the notice period.

What can you do? Possibly not much, other than attempt to negotiate. “Large employers typically don’t want to drop this provision, but at the least, the doctor needs to understand the risk it creates for them,” she said.
 

You could be assigned to far-off locations

As patient care needs changed dramatically during the pandemic, employers needed to reassign doctors to new locations.

Some new contracts allow employers to simply inform the doctor that they are changing the work location. However, “you don’t want to be assigned to a new work location that is 50 miles away,” Mr. Nuland said.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended adding new language saying that, if the new assignment is more than 20 miles away, both parties would have to approve it.

You could end up working too many off-hours

“Most employers won’t issue a specific work schedule,” Mr. Nuland said. “They want the flexibility to assign evening or weekend work, and it would be difficult for a young doctor to change this.”

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended trying to set some limits. “You can try to limit off-hours work to two times a month or something like that,” she said. And if you need to have a special schedule, such as not working on Fridays, Adler advises that this should be put into the contract.

If you can’t get anything changed in the contract, Mr. Nuland said the next-best thing is to ask employers to tell you specifically what they plan to do with you. “Most employers will give you an informal idea of what’s expected – maybe not an exact schedule, but it’s quite likely they will honor it.”
 

You wouldn’t be able to work nearby if you left the job

Most contracts have a noncompete clause, also known as a “restrictive covenant,” which prevents employed physicians from working in the area if they left the job.

“Almost every doctor I represent has told me that they’re not concerned about the noncompete clause because, they believe, it is not enforceable anyway,” Ms. Adler said. “This is incorrect.”

Mr. Nuland said the faster pace of job-changing during the pandemic makes it all the more likely that doctors have to deal with a restrictive covenant. At the same time, some employers have been expanding the restriction – either by enlarging the radius where the restriction applies or by making the restriction apply to each of their sites, so that each one has a restricted radius around it.

For example, one contract Mr. Nuland is currently reviewing has a 20-mile radius that in effect becomes a 120-mile radius because the employer is counting four offices.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland advised trying to reduce the impact of the noncompete – for instance, making it apply only to the offices where you worked, or trading more time for less distance. “If you have a 2-year, 20-mile restriction, ask for a 3-year, 10-mile restriction, where the radius could be easier to deal with,” he said.
 

You might end up with too much call

Contracts rarely detail your call schedule because employers want flexibility to expand call as patient care needs change, but you can try adding some specificity, said Sanja Ord, a physician contract attorney at Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale in St. Louis.

Contracts often use wide-open language to describe call, such as simply making it “subject to the house call policies,” Mr. Cassidy said. Language that is more beneficial to the physician would say that call must be “equal” among “similarly situated” physicians.

But Ms. Ord said even provisions for equal call can turn out to be onerous if there are too few doctors in the call roster, so it’s a good idea to find out just how many doctors will be participating in call.

Still, Adler said even that strategy can’t remove all risk. What happens, she asked, if several physicians participating in call decide to leave? Then you might end up with call every other night.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy recommends specifying a maximum amount of call – for example, no more frequent than one in four nights.
 

Physician must pay for reimbursement claw-backs by payers

When auditors for Medicare or other payers find overpayments after the fact, called a ‘claw-back,’ the provider must pay them back. But which provider has to do that – you or your employer?

In many cases, your employer’s billing office may have introduced the error, but there may be a clause in the contract stating that the physician is solely responsible for all claw-backs. That could be costly.

What can you do? Mr. Shay said the clause should state that you have to pay only when it is the result of your own error or omission, and also not when it was made at the direction of the employer.
 

Some work may be outside of your subspecialty

In some cases, the employer may assign subspecialized doctors to work outside their subspecialty, Mr. Nuland said.

For example, he said he represented an endocrinologist who expected to see only diabetes patients but was assigned to some general internal medicine work as well, and an otolaryngologist client of his who completed a fellowship on facial plastic surgery was expected to do liposuction in a cosmetic surgery group.

What can you do? To prevent this from happening, Mr. Nuland recommends a clause stating that your work will be restricted to your subspecialty.

What the employer promised isn’t in the contract

“Beware of promises that are not in the contract,” Mr. Shay said. “You might feel you can really trust your new boss and what he tells you, but what if that person resigns, or the organization gets a new owner who doesn’t honor unwritten agreements?”

Many contracts have an integration clause, which specifies that the contract constitutes the complete agreement between the two parties, and it nullifies any other oral or written promises made to the physician.

For example, the employer might have promised a relocation bonus and a sign-on bonus, but for some reason it didn’t get into the contract, Ms. Ord said. In those cases, the employer is under no obligation to honor the promise.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy said it is possible to hold the employer to a commitment made outside the contract. The alternative document, such as an offer letter, has to specifically state that the commitment is protected from the integration clause in the contract, he said, adding: “It is still better to have the commitment put into the contract.”
 

Contract is simply accepted as is

“Generally, the bigger the employer, the less likely they will alter an agreement just to make you happy,” Mr. Shay said.

But even in these contracts, he said there is still opportunity to fix errors and ambiguities that could harm you later – or even alter a provision if you can’t remove it outright.

The back-and-forth is important, Ms. Adler said. “Negotiation means trying to have some control over your job and your life.”

Mr. Cassidy said a big part of contract review is facing up to the possibility that you may have to resign or be let go.

“Many physicians don’t like to think about leaving when they’re just starting a job, but they need to,” he said. “You need to begin with the end in mind. Think about what would happen if this job didn’t work out.”

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

Physician employment contracts include some new dangers. This includes physicians taking a new job, but it also includes already-employed doctors who are being asked to resign a new contract that contains new conditions. A number of these new clauses have arisen because of COVID-19. When the pandemic dramatically reduced patient flow, many employers didn’t have enough money to pay doctors and didn’t always have physicians in the right location or practice setting.

Vowing this would never happen again, some employers have rewritten their physician contracts to make it easier to reassign and terminate physicians.

Here are 12 potential land mines in a physician employment contract, some of which were added as a result of the pandemic.
 

You could be immediately terminated without notice

One outcome of the pandemic is the growing use of “force majeure” clauses, which give the employer the right to reduce your compensation or even terminate you due to a natural disaster, which could include COVID.

“COVID made employers aware of the potential impact of disasters on their operations,” said Dan Shay, a health law attorney at Alice Gosfield & Associates in Philadelphia. “Therefore, even as the threat of COVID abates in many places, employers are continuing to put this provision in the contract.”

What can you do? “One way to get some protection is to rule out a termination without cause in the first year,” said Michael A. Cassidy, a physician contract attorney at Tucker Arensberg in Pittsburgh.

The force majeure clause is less likely to affect salary, but could impact bonus and incentive tied to performance. It’s wise to try to specifically limit how much the force majeure could reduce pay tied to performance, and to be prepared to negotiate that aspect of your contract.
 

No protections if you’re let go through no fault of your own

You could lose your job if your employer could not generate enough business and has to let some doctors go. This happened quite often in the early days of the COVID pandemic.

In these situations, the doctor has not done anything wrong to prompt the termination, but the restrictive covenant may still apply, meaning that the doctor would have to leave the area to find work.

What can you do? You’re in a good position to get this changed, said Christopher L. Nuland, a solo physician contract attorney in Jacksonville, Fla. “Many employers recognize that it would be draconian to require a restrictive covenant in this case, and they will agree to modify this provision.”

Similarly, the employer may not cover your tail insurance even if you were let go from your work through no fault of your own. Most malpractice policies for employer physicians require buying an extra policy, called a tail, if you leave. In some cases, the employer won’t provide a tail and will make the departing doctor buy it.

In these cases, “try for a compromise, such as stipulating that the party that caused the termination should pay for the tail,” Mr. Nuland said. “The employer may not agree to anything more than that because they want to set up a disincentive against you leaving.”
 

Employer could unilaterally alter your compensation

Many recent contracts give the employer the option to unilaterally modify compensation, such as changing the base salary or raising the target required for meeting the productivity bonus, said Ericka L. Adler, a physician contract attorney at Roetzel & Andress in Chicago.

Ms. Adler thought this change could have been prompted by employers’ financial problems during the pandemic. In the early months of COVID, many physicians were not making much money for the employer but still had to be paid. So employers added a clause saying they could reduce compensation at any time, she said.

What can you do? Harsh provisions like this often come up in contracts with private equity firms, Mr. Cassidy said. “The contract might say the employer can adjust compensation or even terminate physicians based on productivity or their profitability. And it may say that if they reassign you to a new location and you refuse, they can terminate you.”

“If you can’t get these clauses removed, try to reduce the impact of a termination by providing longer notice periods or by inserting a severance agreement,” Mr. Cassidy said.
 

Accelerating notice for without-cause terminations

Physicians who are convicted of a felony or other moral issue can usually be terminated immediately. But if you are terminated for other reasons – that is, “without cause” – you are given notice at a certain number of days before you have to leave (typically 60-90 days), so that you have time to find a new job.

Some recent contracts, however, allow for very little notice in without-cause terminations, which allows the employer to fire you in as little as 0 days after providing notice, Ms. Adler said.

“This means that, even if 90 days’ notice is provided in the contract, the employer can decide that your last day will be an earlier date,” she said.

Why is this happening? Ms. Adler said employers want to begin reallocating resources and patients as soon as possible. The problem came to employers’ attention during the COVID pandemic, when they were contractually forced to pay doctors for doing little or nothing during the notice period.

What can you do? Possibly not much, other than attempt to negotiate. “Large employers typically don’t want to drop this provision, but at the least, the doctor needs to understand the risk it creates for them,” she said.
 

You could be assigned to far-off locations

As patient care needs changed dramatically during the pandemic, employers needed to reassign doctors to new locations.

Some new contracts allow employers to simply inform the doctor that they are changing the work location. However, “you don’t want to be assigned to a new work location that is 50 miles away,” Mr. Nuland said.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended adding new language saying that, if the new assignment is more than 20 miles away, both parties would have to approve it.

You could end up working too many off-hours

“Most employers won’t issue a specific work schedule,” Mr. Nuland said. “They want the flexibility to assign evening or weekend work, and it would be difficult for a young doctor to change this.”

What can you do? Mr. Nuland recommended trying to set some limits. “You can try to limit off-hours work to two times a month or something like that,” she said. And if you need to have a special schedule, such as not working on Fridays, Adler advises that this should be put into the contract.

If you can’t get anything changed in the contract, Mr. Nuland said the next-best thing is to ask employers to tell you specifically what they plan to do with you. “Most employers will give you an informal idea of what’s expected – maybe not an exact schedule, but it’s quite likely they will honor it.”
 

You wouldn’t be able to work nearby if you left the job

Most contracts have a noncompete clause, also known as a “restrictive covenant,” which prevents employed physicians from working in the area if they left the job.

“Almost every doctor I represent has told me that they’re not concerned about the noncompete clause because, they believe, it is not enforceable anyway,” Ms. Adler said. “This is incorrect.”

Mr. Nuland said the faster pace of job-changing during the pandemic makes it all the more likely that doctors have to deal with a restrictive covenant. At the same time, some employers have been expanding the restriction – either by enlarging the radius where the restriction applies or by making the restriction apply to each of their sites, so that each one has a restricted radius around it.

For example, one contract Mr. Nuland is currently reviewing has a 20-mile radius that in effect becomes a 120-mile radius because the employer is counting four offices.

What can you do? Mr. Nuland advised trying to reduce the impact of the noncompete – for instance, making it apply only to the offices where you worked, or trading more time for less distance. “If you have a 2-year, 20-mile restriction, ask for a 3-year, 10-mile restriction, where the radius could be easier to deal with,” he said.
 

You might end up with too much call

Contracts rarely detail your call schedule because employers want flexibility to expand call as patient care needs change, but you can try adding some specificity, said Sanja Ord, a physician contract attorney at Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale in St. Louis.

Contracts often use wide-open language to describe call, such as simply making it “subject to the house call policies,” Mr. Cassidy said. Language that is more beneficial to the physician would say that call must be “equal” among “similarly situated” physicians.

But Ms. Ord said even provisions for equal call can turn out to be onerous if there are too few doctors in the call roster, so it’s a good idea to find out just how many doctors will be participating in call.

Still, Adler said even that strategy can’t remove all risk. What happens, she asked, if several physicians participating in call decide to leave? Then you might end up with call every other night.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy recommends specifying a maximum amount of call – for example, no more frequent than one in four nights.
 

Physician must pay for reimbursement claw-backs by payers

When auditors for Medicare or other payers find overpayments after the fact, called a ‘claw-back,’ the provider must pay them back. But which provider has to do that – you or your employer?

In many cases, your employer’s billing office may have introduced the error, but there may be a clause in the contract stating that the physician is solely responsible for all claw-backs. That could be costly.

What can you do? Mr. Shay said the clause should state that you have to pay only when it is the result of your own error or omission, and also not when it was made at the direction of the employer.
 

Some work may be outside of your subspecialty

In some cases, the employer may assign subspecialized doctors to work outside their subspecialty, Mr. Nuland said.

For example, he said he represented an endocrinologist who expected to see only diabetes patients but was assigned to some general internal medicine work as well, and an otolaryngologist client of his who completed a fellowship on facial plastic surgery was expected to do liposuction in a cosmetic surgery group.

What can you do? To prevent this from happening, Mr. Nuland recommends a clause stating that your work will be restricted to your subspecialty.

What the employer promised isn’t in the contract

“Beware of promises that are not in the contract,” Mr. Shay said. “You might feel you can really trust your new boss and what he tells you, but what if that person resigns, or the organization gets a new owner who doesn’t honor unwritten agreements?”

Many contracts have an integration clause, which specifies that the contract constitutes the complete agreement between the two parties, and it nullifies any other oral or written promises made to the physician.

For example, the employer might have promised a relocation bonus and a sign-on bonus, but for some reason it didn’t get into the contract, Ms. Ord said. In those cases, the employer is under no obligation to honor the promise.

What can you do? Mr. Cassidy said it is possible to hold the employer to a commitment made outside the contract. The alternative document, such as an offer letter, has to specifically state that the commitment is protected from the integration clause in the contract, he said, adding: “It is still better to have the commitment put into the contract.”
 

Contract is simply accepted as is

“Generally, the bigger the employer, the less likely they will alter an agreement just to make you happy,” Mr. Shay said.

But even in these contracts, he said there is still opportunity to fix errors and ambiguities that could harm you later – or even alter a provision if you can’t remove it outright.

The back-and-forth is important, Ms. Adler said. “Negotiation means trying to have some control over your job and your life.”

Mr. Cassidy said a big part of contract review is facing up to the possibility that you may have to resign or be let go.

“Many physicians don’t like to think about leaving when they’re just starting a job, but they need to,” he said. “You need to begin with the end in mind. Think about what would happen if this job didn’t work out.”

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

New classes of antimigraine drugs demonstrate efficacy and improved tolerability for patients with chronic migraine, a new systematic review and meta-analysis finds.

“[T]he lack of cardiovascular risks of these new classes of migraine-specific treatments may provide alternative treatment options for individuals for whom currently available acute treatments have failed or for those with cardiovascular contraindications,” write lead author Chun-Pai Yang, MD, PhD, of Taichung (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital and colleagues, in the paper, published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Methods

The new study compared the outcomes for acute migraine management using the ditan, lasmiditan (a 5-hydroxytryptamine [5HT]1F–receptor agonist), and the two gepants, rimegepant, and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene–related peptide [CGRP] antagonists), with standard triptan (selective 5-HT1B/1D–receptor agonist) therapy.

The researchers evaluated 64 double-blind randomized clinical trials which included 46,442 patients, the majority of whom (74%-87%) were women with an age range of 36-43 years.

The primary outcome evaluated was the odds ratio for freedom from pain at 2 hours after a single dose and secondary outcomes were the OR for pain relief at 2 hours following a dose, as well as any adverse events.
 

Results

Dr. Yang and colleagues found that virtually all medications with widespread clinical use, regardless of class, were associated with higher ORs for pain freedom when compared with placebo.

Compared to ditan and gepant agents, however, triptans were associated with significantly higher ORs for pain freedom. The odds ratio ranges were 1.72-3.40 for lasmiditan, 1.58-3.13 for rimegepant, and 1.54-3.05 for ubrogepant.

With respect to pain relief at 2 hours, while all medications were more effective than placebo, triptans were associated with higher ORs when compared with the other drug classes: lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.96 to OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 2.41-4.55), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76 to OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 2.33-3.88), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.88 to OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.35-4.15)

When assessing tolerability, the researchers found that overall, triptans were associated with the higher ORs for any adverse events (AE) with a trend of dose-response relationship. Lasmiditan (in the ditan class) was associated with the highest risk for AEs among all treatments. Most of the AEs were mild to moderate and included chest pain, tightness, heaviness, and pressure.

Dr. Yang and colleagues note that, “although these two new classes of antimigraine drugs may not be as efficacious as triptans, these novel abortive agents without cardiovascular risks might offer an alternative to current specific migraine treatments for patients at risk of cardiovascular disease.”
 

Balancing efficacy and tolerability

“When choosing an acute medication for a patient there is always a balance between efficacy and tolerability,” headache specialist and associate director of North Shore Headache and Spine Lauren Natbony, MD, said in an interview.

“A medication can only be effective if a patient is able to tolerate it and will actually use it,” Dr. Natbony said.

With respect to the current review, Dr. Natbony pointed out, “response to acute therapy can differ between migraine attacks and may be based on variables not controlled for, such as how early in an attack the medication was taken, associated symptoms such as nausea that may make oral medications less efficacious, etc.”

The authors acknowledge that the focus on short-term responses and AEs after a single dose is a limitation of the study. They also pointed out what they considered to be a strength of the study, which was its network meta-analysis design. According to the authors, this design allowed for “multiple direct and indirect comparisons, ranking the efficacy and safety of individual pharmacologic interventions and providing more precise estimates than those of RCTs and traditional meta-analysis.”

Funding for this study was provided through grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan; the Brain Research Center; and National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.

Dr. Yang has received personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grants from the Taiwan Ministry of Technology and Science, the Brain Research Center, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, and Taipei Veterans General Hospital outside the submitted work. The other authors and Dr. Natbony disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

New classes of antimigraine drugs demonstrate efficacy and improved tolerability for patients with chronic migraine, a new systematic review and meta-analysis finds.

“[T]he lack of cardiovascular risks of these new classes of migraine-specific treatments may provide alternative treatment options for individuals for whom currently available acute treatments have failed or for those with cardiovascular contraindications,” write lead author Chun-Pai Yang, MD, PhD, of Taichung (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital and colleagues, in the paper, published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Methods

The new study compared the outcomes for acute migraine management using the ditan, lasmiditan (a 5-hydroxytryptamine [5HT]1F–receptor agonist), and the two gepants, rimegepant, and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene–related peptide [CGRP] antagonists), with standard triptan (selective 5-HT1B/1D–receptor agonist) therapy.

The researchers evaluated 64 double-blind randomized clinical trials which included 46,442 patients, the majority of whom (74%-87%) were women with an age range of 36-43 years.

The primary outcome evaluated was the odds ratio for freedom from pain at 2 hours after a single dose and secondary outcomes were the OR for pain relief at 2 hours following a dose, as well as any adverse events.
 

Results

Dr. Yang and colleagues found that virtually all medications with widespread clinical use, regardless of class, were associated with higher ORs for pain freedom when compared with placebo.

Compared to ditan and gepant agents, however, triptans were associated with significantly higher ORs for pain freedom. The odds ratio ranges were 1.72-3.40 for lasmiditan, 1.58-3.13 for rimegepant, and 1.54-3.05 for ubrogepant.

With respect to pain relief at 2 hours, while all medications were more effective than placebo, triptans were associated with higher ORs when compared with the other drug classes: lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.96 to OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 2.41-4.55), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76 to OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 2.33-3.88), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.88 to OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.35-4.15)

When assessing tolerability, the researchers found that overall, triptans were associated with the higher ORs for any adverse events (AE) with a trend of dose-response relationship. Lasmiditan (in the ditan class) was associated with the highest risk for AEs among all treatments. Most of the AEs were mild to moderate and included chest pain, tightness, heaviness, and pressure.

Dr. Yang and colleagues note that, “although these two new classes of antimigraine drugs may not be as efficacious as triptans, these novel abortive agents without cardiovascular risks might offer an alternative to current specific migraine treatments for patients at risk of cardiovascular disease.”
 

Balancing efficacy and tolerability

“When choosing an acute medication for a patient there is always a balance between efficacy and tolerability,” headache specialist and associate director of North Shore Headache and Spine Lauren Natbony, MD, said in an interview.

“A medication can only be effective if a patient is able to tolerate it and will actually use it,” Dr. Natbony said.

With respect to the current review, Dr. Natbony pointed out, “response to acute therapy can differ between migraine attacks and may be based on variables not controlled for, such as how early in an attack the medication was taken, associated symptoms such as nausea that may make oral medications less efficacious, etc.”

The authors acknowledge that the focus on short-term responses and AEs after a single dose is a limitation of the study. They also pointed out what they considered to be a strength of the study, which was its network meta-analysis design. According to the authors, this design allowed for “multiple direct and indirect comparisons, ranking the efficacy and safety of individual pharmacologic interventions and providing more precise estimates than those of RCTs and traditional meta-analysis.”

Funding for this study was provided through grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan; the Brain Research Center; and National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.

Dr. Yang has received personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grants from the Taiwan Ministry of Technology and Science, the Brain Research Center, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, and Taipei Veterans General Hospital outside the submitted work. The other authors and Dr. Natbony disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

New classes of antimigraine drugs demonstrate efficacy and improved tolerability for patients with chronic migraine, a new systematic review and meta-analysis finds.

“[T]he lack of cardiovascular risks of these new classes of migraine-specific treatments may provide alternative treatment options for individuals for whom currently available acute treatments have failed or for those with cardiovascular contraindications,” write lead author Chun-Pai Yang, MD, PhD, of Taichung (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital and colleagues, in the paper, published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Methods

The new study compared the outcomes for acute migraine management using the ditan, lasmiditan (a 5-hydroxytryptamine [5HT]1F–receptor agonist), and the two gepants, rimegepant, and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene–related peptide [CGRP] antagonists), with standard triptan (selective 5-HT1B/1D–receptor agonist) therapy.

The researchers evaluated 64 double-blind randomized clinical trials which included 46,442 patients, the majority of whom (74%-87%) were women with an age range of 36-43 years.

The primary outcome evaluated was the odds ratio for freedom from pain at 2 hours after a single dose and secondary outcomes were the OR for pain relief at 2 hours following a dose, as well as any adverse events.
 

Results

Dr. Yang and colleagues found that virtually all medications with widespread clinical use, regardless of class, were associated with higher ORs for pain freedom when compared with placebo.

Compared to ditan and gepant agents, however, triptans were associated with significantly higher ORs for pain freedom. The odds ratio ranges were 1.72-3.40 for lasmiditan, 1.58-3.13 for rimegepant, and 1.54-3.05 for ubrogepant.

With respect to pain relief at 2 hours, while all medications were more effective than placebo, triptans were associated with higher ORs when compared with the other drug classes: lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.96 to OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 2.41-4.55), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76 to OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 2.33-3.88), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.88 to OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.35-4.15)

When assessing tolerability, the researchers found that overall, triptans were associated with the higher ORs for any adverse events (AE) with a trend of dose-response relationship. Lasmiditan (in the ditan class) was associated with the highest risk for AEs among all treatments. Most of the AEs were mild to moderate and included chest pain, tightness, heaviness, and pressure.

Dr. Yang and colleagues note that, “although these two new classes of antimigraine drugs may not be as efficacious as triptans, these novel abortive agents without cardiovascular risks might offer an alternative to current specific migraine treatments for patients at risk of cardiovascular disease.”
 

Balancing efficacy and tolerability

“When choosing an acute medication for a patient there is always a balance between efficacy and tolerability,” headache specialist and associate director of North Shore Headache and Spine Lauren Natbony, MD, said in an interview.

“A medication can only be effective if a patient is able to tolerate it and will actually use it,” Dr. Natbony said.

With respect to the current review, Dr. Natbony pointed out, “response to acute therapy can differ between migraine attacks and may be based on variables not controlled for, such as how early in an attack the medication was taken, associated symptoms such as nausea that may make oral medications less efficacious, etc.”

The authors acknowledge that the focus on short-term responses and AEs after a single dose is a limitation of the study. They also pointed out what they considered to be a strength of the study, which was its network meta-analysis design. According to the authors, this design allowed for “multiple direct and indirect comparisons, ranking the efficacy and safety of individual pharmacologic interventions and providing more precise estimates than those of RCTs and traditional meta-analysis.”

Funding for this study was provided through grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan; the Brain Research Center; and National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.

Dr. Yang has received personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grants from the Taiwan Ministry of Technology and Science, the Brain Research Center, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, and Taipei Veterans General Hospital outside the submitted work. The other authors and Dr. Natbony disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee on Oct. 15 voted 19-0 to authorize second doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost immunity. It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
 

Johnson & Johnson

In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.

It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.

Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.

In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.

This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
 

Limited data

The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.

These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.

But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.

Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.

“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”

“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.

She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.

But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.

“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.

Who needs a second dose?

On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.

COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.

The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.

Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.

The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.

“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
 

Trying to avoid confusion

Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.

“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.

Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.

Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.

“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.

Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.

“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
 

This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee on Oct. 15 voted 19-0 to authorize second doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost immunity. It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
 

Johnson & Johnson

In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.

It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.

Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.

In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.

This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
 

Limited data

The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.

These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.

But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.

Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.

“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”

“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.

She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.

But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.

“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.

Who needs a second dose?

On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.

COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.

The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.

Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.

The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.

“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
 

Trying to avoid confusion

Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.

“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.

Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.

Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.

“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.

Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.

“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
 

This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee on Oct. 15 voted 19-0 to authorize second doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost immunity. It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
 

Johnson & Johnson

In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.

It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.

Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.

In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.

This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
 

Limited data

The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.

These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.

But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.

Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.

“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”

“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.

She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.

But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.

“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.

Who needs a second dose?

On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.

COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.

The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.

Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.

The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.

“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
 

Trying to avoid confusion

Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.

“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.

Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.

Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.

“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.

Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.

“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
 

This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) have a twofold increased risk for COVID-related hospitalization and death even after vaccination, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data on over 10,000 vaccinated individuals with various SUDs and almost 600,000 vaccinated individuals without an SUD. They found about twice as many individuals with an SUD had a breakthrough COVID-19 infection as their counterparts without an SUD, at 7% versus 3.6%, respectively.

Worrisome phase

SUDs are “often associated with multiple comorbid conditions that are known risk factors for severe outcome of COVID-19 infection,” the investigators note.

Research published early in the pandemic showed patients with SUDs, including alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, opioid, and tobacco use disorders, were “at increased risk for COVID-19 infection and associated severe outcomes, especially among African Americans,” they add.

To date, no research has focused on the potential risk for COVID in individuals with SUDs following vaccination. In addition, although vaccines are “very effective,” breakthrough infections have been recorded, “highlighting the need to identify populations that might be most vulnerable, as we have entered a worrisome new phase of the pandemic,” the authors write.

For the study, researchers used a data analytics platform that included de-identified information from 63 health care organizations across the U.S. to estimate the risk for breakthrough COVID-19 among vaccinated patients with SUD (n = 30,183; mean age 59.3, 51.4% male, 63.2% White, 26.2% African American), compared with vaccinated individuals without SUDs (n = 549,189; mean age 54.7, 43.2% male, 63.4% White, 14.3% African American) between December 2020 and August 2021.

They also conducted statistical analyses to examine how the rate of breakthrough cases changed over that timeframe.

The cohorts were matched by demographics, adverse socioeconomic determinants of health, lifetime medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and vaccine type.

Among vaccinated SUD patients, three-quarters received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, one-fifth received the Moderna vaccine, and 3.3% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

In contrast, among the vaccinated non-SUD population, almost all (88.2%) received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 10% received Moderna, and only 1.2% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
 

Underlying drivers

The prevalence of adverse socioeconomic determinants of health was higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (7.9% vs. 1.2%, respectively). Moreover, vaccinated patients with SUD had a higher lifetime prevalence of all comorbidities as well as transplants (all Ps < .001).

The risk for breakthrough infection was significantly higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (all Ps < .001).

After controlling for adverse socioeconomic determinants of health and comorbid medical conditions, the risk for breakthrough infection “no longer differed in SUD compared to non-SUD cohorts, except for patients with cannabis use disorder, who remained at significantly increased risk,” the authors report.

In both populations, the rate of breakthrough infections “steadily increased” between January and August 2021.

The risk for hospitalization and death was higher among those with breakthrough infections, compared with those in the matched cohort without breakthrough infections, but the risk for hospitalization and death were higher in the SUD compared with the non-SUD population.

In the SUD patients, after matching an array of demographic, socioeconomic, and medical factors as well as vaccine type, only cannabis use disorder was associated with a higher risk in African Americans, compared with matched Caucasians (HR = 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.51).

“When we adjusted the data to account for comorbidities and for socioeconomic background, we no longer saw a difference between those with substance use disorders and those without – the only exception to this was for people with cannabis use disorder,” said Dr. Volkow.

“This suggests that these factors, which are often associated with substance use disorders, are likely the underlying drivers for the increased risk,” she continued.

She added that it is important for other studies to investigate why individuals with cannabis use disorder had a higher risk for breakthrough infections.
 

Good news, bad news

Commenting for this news organization, Anna Lembke, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said the study is important and contains good news and bad news.

The good news, she said, “is that, after controlling for comorbidities and socioeconomic variables, patients with SUDs are no more likely than patients without SUDs to get COVID after getting vaccinated, and the bad news is that if vaccinated patients with SUDs do get COVID, they’re more likely to end up hospitalized or die from it,” said Dr. Lembke, who was not involved with the study.

“The take-home message for clinicians is that if your vaccinated patient with an SUD gets COVID, be on the alert for a more complicated medical outcome and a higher risk of death,” warned Dr. Lembke.

This study was supported by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse, the U.S. National Institute of Aging, and the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative (CTSC) of Cleveland. No disclosures were listed on the original study. Dr. Lembke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) have a twofold increased risk for COVID-related hospitalization and death even after vaccination, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data on over 10,000 vaccinated individuals with various SUDs and almost 600,000 vaccinated individuals without an SUD. They found about twice as many individuals with an SUD had a breakthrough COVID-19 infection as their counterparts without an SUD, at 7% versus 3.6%, respectively.

Worrisome phase

SUDs are “often associated with multiple comorbid conditions that are known risk factors for severe outcome of COVID-19 infection,” the investigators note.

Research published early in the pandemic showed patients with SUDs, including alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, opioid, and tobacco use disorders, were “at increased risk for COVID-19 infection and associated severe outcomes, especially among African Americans,” they add.

To date, no research has focused on the potential risk for COVID in individuals with SUDs following vaccination. In addition, although vaccines are “very effective,” breakthrough infections have been recorded, “highlighting the need to identify populations that might be most vulnerable, as we have entered a worrisome new phase of the pandemic,” the authors write.

For the study, researchers used a data analytics platform that included de-identified information from 63 health care organizations across the U.S. to estimate the risk for breakthrough COVID-19 among vaccinated patients with SUD (n = 30,183; mean age 59.3, 51.4% male, 63.2% White, 26.2% African American), compared with vaccinated individuals without SUDs (n = 549,189; mean age 54.7, 43.2% male, 63.4% White, 14.3% African American) between December 2020 and August 2021.

They also conducted statistical analyses to examine how the rate of breakthrough cases changed over that timeframe.

The cohorts were matched by demographics, adverse socioeconomic determinants of health, lifetime medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and vaccine type.

Among vaccinated SUD patients, three-quarters received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, one-fifth received the Moderna vaccine, and 3.3% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

In contrast, among the vaccinated non-SUD population, almost all (88.2%) received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 10% received Moderna, and only 1.2% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
 

Underlying drivers

The prevalence of adverse socioeconomic determinants of health was higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (7.9% vs. 1.2%, respectively). Moreover, vaccinated patients with SUD had a higher lifetime prevalence of all comorbidities as well as transplants (all Ps < .001).

The risk for breakthrough infection was significantly higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (all Ps < .001).

After controlling for adverse socioeconomic determinants of health and comorbid medical conditions, the risk for breakthrough infection “no longer differed in SUD compared to non-SUD cohorts, except for patients with cannabis use disorder, who remained at significantly increased risk,” the authors report.

In both populations, the rate of breakthrough infections “steadily increased” between January and August 2021.

The risk for hospitalization and death was higher among those with breakthrough infections, compared with those in the matched cohort without breakthrough infections, but the risk for hospitalization and death were higher in the SUD compared with the non-SUD population.

In the SUD patients, after matching an array of demographic, socioeconomic, and medical factors as well as vaccine type, only cannabis use disorder was associated with a higher risk in African Americans, compared with matched Caucasians (HR = 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.51).

“When we adjusted the data to account for comorbidities and for socioeconomic background, we no longer saw a difference between those with substance use disorders and those without – the only exception to this was for people with cannabis use disorder,” said Dr. Volkow.

“This suggests that these factors, which are often associated with substance use disorders, are likely the underlying drivers for the increased risk,” she continued.

She added that it is important for other studies to investigate why individuals with cannabis use disorder had a higher risk for breakthrough infections.
 

Good news, bad news

Commenting for this news organization, Anna Lembke, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said the study is important and contains good news and bad news.

The good news, she said, “is that, after controlling for comorbidities and socioeconomic variables, patients with SUDs are no more likely than patients without SUDs to get COVID after getting vaccinated, and the bad news is that if vaccinated patients with SUDs do get COVID, they’re more likely to end up hospitalized or die from it,” said Dr. Lembke, who was not involved with the study.

“The take-home message for clinicians is that if your vaccinated patient with an SUD gets COVID, be on the alert for a more complicated medical outcome and a higher risk of death,” warned Dr. Lembke.

This study was supported by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse, the U.S. National Institute of Aging, and the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative (CTSC) of Cleveland. No disclosures were listed on the original study. Dr. Lembke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) have a twofold increased risk for COVID-related hospitalization and death even after vaccination, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data on over 10,000 vaccinated individuals with various SUDs and almost 600,000 vaccinated individuals without an SUD. They found about twice as many individuals with an SUD had a breakthrough COVID-19 infection as their counterparts without an SUD, at 7% versus 3.6%, respectively.

Worrisome phase

SUDs are “often associated with multiple comorbid conditions that are known risk factors for severe outcome of COVID-19 infection,” the investigators note.

Research published early in the pandemic showed patients with SUDs, including alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, opioid, and tobacco use disorders, were “at increased risk for COVID-19 infection and associated severe outcomes, especially among African Americans,” they add.

To date, no research has focused on the potential risk for COVID in individuals with SUDs following vaccination. In addition, although vaccines are “very effective,” breakthrough infections have been recorded, “highlighting the need to identify populations that might be most vulnerable, as we have entered a worrisome new phase of the pandemic,” the authors write.

For the study, researchers used a data analytics platform that included de-identified information from 63 health care organizations across the U.S. to estimate the risk for breakthrough COVID-19 among vaccinated patients with SUD (n = 30,183; mean age 59.3, 51.4% male, 63.2% White, 26.2% African American), compared with vaccinated individuals without SUDs (n = 549,189; mean age 54.7, 43.2% male, 63.4% White, 14.3% African American) between December 2020 and August 2021.

They also conducted statistical analyses to examine how the rate of breakthrough cases changed over that timeframe.

The cohorts were matched by demographics, adverse socioeconomic determinants of health, lifetime medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and vaccine type.

Among vaccinated SUD patients, three-quarters received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, one-fifth received the Moderna vaccine, and 3.3% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

In contrast, among the vaccinated non-SUD population, almost all (88.2%) received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 10% received Moderna, and only 1.2% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
 

Underlying drivers

The prevalence of adverse socioeconomic determinants of health was higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (7.9% vs. 1.2%, respectively). Moreover, vaccinated patients with SUD had a higher lifetime prevalence of all comorbidities as well as transplants (all Ps < .001).

The risk for breakthrough infection was significantly higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (all Ps < .001).

After controlling for adverse socioeconomic determinants of health and comorbid medical conditions, the risk for breakthrough infection “no longer differed in SUD compared to non-SUD cohorts, except for patients with cannabis use disorder, who remained at significantly increased risk,” the authors report.

In both populations, the rate of breakthrough infections “steadily increased” between January and August 2021.

The risk for hospitalization and death was higher among those with breakthrough infections, compared with those in the matched cohort without breakthrough infections, but the risk for hospitalization and death were higher in the SUD compared with the non-SUD population.

In the SUD patients, after matching an array of demographic, socioeconomic, and medical factors as well as vaccine type, only cannabis use disorder was associated with a higher risk in African Americans, compared with matched Caucasians (HR = 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.51).

“When we adjusted the data to account for comorbidities and for socioeconomic background, we no longer saw a difference between those with substance use disorders and those without – the only exception to this was for people with cannabis use disorder,” said Dr. Volkow.

“This suggests that these factors, which are often associated with substance use disorders, are likely the underlying drivers for the increased risk,” she continued.

She added that it is important for other studies to investigate why individuals with cannabis use disorder had a higher risk for breakthrough infections.
 

Good news, bad news

Commenting for this news organization, Anna Lembke, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said the study is important and contains good news and bad news.

The good news, she said, “is that, after controlling for comorbidities and socioeconomic variables, patients with SUDs are no more likely than patients without SUDs to get COVID after getting vaccinated, and the bad news is that if vaccinated patients with SUDs do get COVID, they’re more likely to end up hospitalized or die from it,” said Dr. Lembke, who was not involved with the study.

“The take-home message for clinicians is that if your vaccinated patient with an SUD gets COVID, be on the alert for a more complicated medical outcome and a higher risk of death,” warned Dr. Lembke.

This study was supported by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse, the U.S. National Institute of Aging, and the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative (CTSC) of Cleveland. No disclosures were listed on the original study. Dr. Lembke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with functional neurological disorders demonstrate higher levels of depression and alexithymia – in addition to signs of an avoidant attachment style – compared with those with other neurological disorders and healthy controls, investigators report.

The pathological mechanism of functional neurological disorders (FND) remains poorly understood, but current models include both psychological and environmental factors, Sofia Cuoco, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Previous studies have suggested a relationship between attachment styles (AS) and psychiatric symptoms in FND patients but most have been limited to the FND population, noted Dr. Cuoco, of the University of Salerno, Italy, and colleagues. In FND, “it is unclear to what extent psychiatric features are explained by AS per se or are part of the FND spectrum,” they said.

To conduct the study, the investigators recruited 46 patients with FND, 34 patients with neurological disorders (ND) and 30 healthy controls. Demographic characteristics, including age, education, and gender, were similar among the groups. Overall, depression and alexithymia were significantly more prevalent in the FND group, compared with the other groups. Anxiety was more common in the FND group, compared with healthy controls, but similar compared with the ND group. Patients in the FND group reported significantly lower quality of life, compared with those in the other groups.

In a multivariate analysis aimed at examining AS and psychiatric features, the researchers found that the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire avoidance, Beck Depression Inventory, Somatic Affective, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale (TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings) were significant predictors of FND and accounted for about half of the variance.

The researchers also compared FND to functional seizures, and found that the TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale–Anxiety, and female gender were significant predictors of functional seizures.

The results were mainly in line with those from previous studies, the researchers said. However, “one of the novelties of this study is the inclusion of patients with other ND, whereby we demonstrated that FND patients were more depressed, anxious, and alexithymic than ND, which might suggest that these psychiatric features would not be merely reactive to physical symptoms,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of systematic interviews for personality disorders or traits, monitoring psychotropic medications, and conducting formal psychiatric assessments, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the heterogenous study population and absence of data on symptom severity, history of trauma, or other factors that might contributed to FND, they said.

However, the results suggest that avoidant AS might play an important role in the occurrence of psychiatric features in FND patients and should be considered in managing these conditions. More research is needed to explore the impact of attachment on pathophysiology with more complex instruments, such as the Adult Attachment Interview, Dr. Cuoco and colleagues said.

The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

Patients with functional neurological disorders demonstrate higher levels of depression and alexithymia – in addition to signs of an avoidant attachment style – compared with those with other neurological disorders and healthy controls, investigators report.

The pathological mechanism of functional neurological disorders (FND) remains poorly understood, but current models include both psychological and environmental factors, Sofia Cuoco, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Previous studies have suggested a relationship between attachment styles (AS) and psychiatric symptoms in FND patients but most have been limited to the FND population, noted Dr. Cuoco, of the University of Salerno, Italy, and colleagues. In FND, “it is unclear to what extent psychiatric features are explained by AS per se or are part of the FND spectrum,” they said.

To conduct the study, the investigators recruited 46 patients with FND, 34 patients with neurological disorders (ND) and 30 healthy controls. Demographic characteristics, including age, education, and gender, were similar among the groups. Overall, depression and alexithymia were significantly more prevalent in the FND group, compared with the other groups. Anxiety was more common in the FND group, compared with healthy controls, but similar compared with the ND group. Patients in the FND group reported significantly lower quality of life, compared with those in the other groups.

In a multivariate analysis aimed at examining AS and psychiatric features, the researchers found that the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire avoidance, Beck Depression Inventory, Somatic Affective, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale (TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings) were significant predictors of FND and accounted for about half of the variance.

The researchers also compared FND to functional seizures, and found that the TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale–Anxiety, and female gender were significant predictors of functional seizures.

The results were mainly in line with those from previous studies, the researchers said. However, “one of the novelties of this study is the inclusion of patients with other ND, whereby we demonstrated that FND patients were more depressed, anxious, and alexithymic than ND, which might suggest that these psychiatric features would not be merely reactive to physical symptoms,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of systematic interviews for personality disorders or traits, monitoring psychotropic medications, and conducting formal psychiatric assessments, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the heterogenous study population and absence of data on symptom severity, history of trauma, or other factors that might contributed to FND, they said.

However, the results suggest that avoidant AS might play an important role in the occurrence of psychiatric features in FND patients and should be considered in managing these conditions. More research is needed to explore the impact of attachment on pathophysiology with more complex instruments, such as the Adult Attachment Interview, Dr. Cuoco and colleagues said.

The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

Patients with functional neurological disorders demonstrate higher levels of depression and alexithymia – in addition to signs of an avoidant attachment style – compared with those with other neurological disorders and healthy controls, investigators report.

The pathological mechanism of functional neurological disorders (FND) remains poorly understood, but current models include both psychological and environmental factors, Sofia Cuoco, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Previous studies have suggested a relationship between attachment styles (AS) and psychiatric symptoms in FND patients but most have been limited to the FND population, noted Dr. Cuoco, of the University of Salerno, Italy, and colleagues. In FND, “it is unclear to what extent psychiatric features are explained by AS per se or are part of the FND spectrum,” they said.

To conduct the study, the investigators recruited 46 patients with FND, 34 patients with neurological disorders (ND) and 30 healthy controls. Demographic characteristics, including age, education, and gender, were similar among the groups. Overall, depression and alexithymia were significantly more prevalent in the FND group, compared with the other groups. Anxiety was more common in the FND group, compared with healthy controls, but similar compared with the ND group. Patients in the FND group reported significantly lower quality of life, compared with those in the other groups.

In a multivariate analysis aimed at examining AS and psychiatric features, the researchers found that the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire avoidance, Beck Depression Inventory, Somatic Affective, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale (TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings) were significant predictors of FND and accounted for about half of the variance.

The researchers also compared FND to functional seizures, and found that the TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale–Anxiety, and female gender were significant predictors of functional seizures.

The results were mainly in line with those from previous studies, the researchers said. However, “one of the novelties of this study is the inclusion of patients with other ND, whereby we demonstrated that FND patients were more depressed, anxious, and alexithymic than ND, which might suggest that these psychiatric features would not be merely reactive to physical symptoms,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of systematic interviews for personality disorders or traits, monitoring psychotropic medications, and conducting formal psychiatric assessments, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the heterogenous study population and absence of data on symptom severity, history of trauma, or other factors that might contributed to FND, they said.

However, the results suggest that avoidant AS might play an important role in the occurrence of psychiatric features in FND patients and should be considered in managing these conditions. More research is needed to explore the impact of attachment on pathophysiology with more complex instruments, such as the Adult Attachment Interview, Dr. Cuoco and colleagues said.

The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

COVID-19 has killed Native Americans at twice the rate of White Americans, underscoring the health inequities and deep-rooted distrust tribal nations have of federal government entities.

And yet, Native Americans have the highest vaccination rates of any major racial or ethnic group in the United States. Like many other tribal nations, the Navajo had to embrace Western science to reclaim its social customs and ceremonies. “We’re a very social culture, so having to isolate really impacted our mental health,” said Mary Hasbah Roessel, MD, DLFAPA, a Navajo psychiatrist who is affiliated with Santa Fe Indian Hospital in New Mexico.

The Navajo nation occupies the largest Native American reservation in the United States, spanning New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. As of mid-October, the nation had reported more than 34,000 COVID-19 cases and 1,400 deaths in its jurisdiction.

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Roessel described the partnerships that mobilized a nation of more than 250,000 individuals to get vaccinated.

Question: Why has the death rate been so high in the Navajo nation?

Answer: A lot of health disparities before the pandemic were blatantly revealed during COVID. Only 40% of people on the reservation had running water. Having to stay home and isolate led to food insecurity. Further insecurity issues affected our ability to stay healthy, such as having good sanitation. There’s a lot of poverty, a high unemployment rate. Some people had to go to work off reservation and were potentially bringing the virus home. A lot of generations live in the same household. Elders were vulnerable to getting the infection, and there was little ability to isolate if someone wasn’t having symptoms. Hospitals nearby didn’t have ICUs.

Therefore, the rate of cases skyrocketed early on. We were disproportionately affected. The Navajo nation per capita had the highest rate of cases in any state.
 

Q: What changes took place within the Navajo nation to get people vaccinated? What role did the federal Indian Health Service have in promoting this?

A: There had to be a shift in acceptance of the vaccinations. I think what particularly helped the Navajo nation was seeing the IHS rise up and provide access for treatments and vaccinations early on.

With the IHS, we went into a disaster response mode with all-hands-on deck meetings. We had to figure out how we could access mass vaccination clinics. Partnering with the Navajo Department of Health, we did that right away with hospitals and small clinics across the Navajo nation. Casinos owned by tribal entities that closed during COVID reopened and were used as vaccination clinics.

Vaccinations were sent to us fairly quickly. I ended up getting vaccinated in December 2020, when it was first rolled out.

Native and Navajo individuals have been reluctant to rely on government services. Because IHS came through with the vaccines, COVID reduced that stigma to access its services. Even the Navajo Department of Health partnered with the Indian Health Service to provide culturally relevant campaigns that explain why the vaccine is valuable.

I think because people were so impacted, they saw something valuable with the vaccine. Given the education and access, people were ready to get vaccinated. They realized if a whole household got vaccinated, they could see early on that they could be social again.
 

Q: What cultural factors have been contributing to this positive development?

A: In our Navajo culture, we’ve dealt with monsters before. We talk about that in terms of how we teach our young people to be strong and resilient. We talked about this virus as being another monster we had to tackle and control. The teaching was along those lines. We’ve dealt with this before, and we can handle it. We’re resilient. Our culture is very strong in that way. So how do we do it? We have to partner; we have to embrace Western medicine to return back to the ceremonies we want to have again and be social again. We focus on positive things, so if we see something as potentially positive, such as the vaccine, we see that and know that’s something to help us come into our life again.

Q: I would expect that protecting elders in the tribe would be a big incentive in taking the vaccine.

A: Yes, we didn’t want to lose our language and culture, and we wanted to protect our elders. Having a way to do that was very important as well. They were among the first to get vaccinated.

Q: What is the current vaccination rate in the Navajo nation?

A: I think it’s in the upper 80th percentile. It’s very high.

Q: What have been the biggest takeaways so far, and what are your hopes for the future?

A: Even though the Navajo Nation has been impacted and devastated with the loss of elders and knowledge keepers, we still have our culture and ceremonies intact to the point that we know we can be resilient get through this difficult time.

Through collaborations with the federal and state governments and the clinics, we see that things are different now. Going forward, my hope is these partnerships will continue, that we’ll build those relationships and not be so siloed in our care. When the New Mexico Department of Health rolled out its first vaccination clinic, for example, we jumped on and saw how they did it. We were then able to do our own, collaborating with the state.

We also saw how important our culture was, how it helped our Navajo people through these difficult times.

Dr. Roessel, a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, has special expertise in cultural psychiatry. Her childhood was spent growing up in the Navajo nation with her grandfather, who was a Navajo medicine man. Her psychiatric practice focuses on integrating Indigenous knowledge and principles.

References

American Public Media Research Lab. “The Color of Coronavirus: COVID-19 Deaths by Race and Ethnicity in the U.S.” 2021 Mar 5.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Demographic Characteristics of People Receiving COVID-19 Vaccinations in the United States.” Data as of 2021 Oct 14.

Navajo Nation. Indian Health Service. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

The Navajo Nation’s Office of the President and Vice President. “11 New Cases, 32,735 Recoveries, and Six Recent Deaths Related to COVID-19.” 2021 Oct 13.

Navajo Nation Government web page.

COVID-19 has killed Native Americans at twice the rate of White Americans, underscoring the health inequities and deep-rooted distrust tribal nations have of federal government entities.

And yet, Native Americans have the highest vaccination rates of any major racial or ethnic group in the United States. Like many other tribal nations, the Navajo had to embrace Western science to reclaim its social customs and ceremonies. “We’re a very social culture, so having to isolate really impacted our mental health,” said Mary Hasbah Roessel, MD, DLFAPA, a Navajo psychiatrist who is affiliated with Santa Fe Indian Hospital in New Mexico.

The Navajo nation occupies the largest Native American reservation in the United States, spanning New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. As of mid-October, the nation had reported more than 34,000 COVID-19 cases and 1,400 deaths in its jurisdiction.

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Roessel described the partnerships that mobilized a nation of more than 250,000 individuals to get vaccinated.

Question: Why has the death rate been so high in the Navajo nation?

Answer: A lot of health disparities before the pandemic were blatantly revealed during COVID. Only 40% of people on the reservation had running water. Having to stay home and isolate led to food insecurity. Further insecurity issues affected our ability to stay healthy, such as having good sanitation. There’s a lot of poverty, a high unemployment rate. Some people had to go to work off reservation and were potentially bringing the virus home. A lot of generations live in the same household. Elders were vulnerable to getting the infection, and there was little ability to isolate if someone wasn’t having symptoms. Hospitals nearby didn’t have ICUs.

Therefore, the rate of cases skyrocketed early on. We were disproportionately affected. The Navajo nation per capita had the highest rate of cases in any state.
 

Q: What changes took place within the Navajo nation to get people vaccinated? What role did the federal Indian Health Service have in promoting this?

A: There had to be a shift in acceptance of the vaccinations. I think what particularly helped the Navajo nation was seeing the IHS rise up and provide access for treatments and vaccinations early on.

With the IHS, we went into a disaster response mode with all-hands-on deck meetings. We had to figure out how we could access mass vaccination clinics. Partnering with the Navajo Department of Health, we did that right away with hospitals and small clinics across the Navajo nation. Casinos owned by tribal entities that closed during COVID reopened and were used as vaccination clinics.

Vaccinations were sent to us fairly quickly. I ended up getting vaccinated in December 2020, when it was first rolled out.

Native and Navajo individuals have been reluctant to rely on government services. Because IHS came through with the vaccines, COVID reduced that stigma to access its services. Even the Navajo Department of Health partnered with the Indian Health Service to provide culturally relevant campaigns that explain why the vaccine is valuable.

I think because people were so impacted, they saw something valuable with the vaccine. Given the education and access, people were ready to get vaccinated. They realized if a whole household got vaccinated, they could see early on that they could be social again.
 

Q: What cultural factors have been contributing to this positive development?

A: In our Navajo culture, we’ve dealt with monsters before. We talk about that in terms of how we teach our young people to be strong and resilient. We talked about this virus as being another monster we had to tackle and control. The teaching was along those lines. We’ve dealt with this before, and we can handle it. We’re resilient. Our culture is very strong in that way. So how do we do it? We have to partner; we have to embrace Western medicine to return back to the ceremonies we want to have again and be social again. We focus on positive things, so if we see something as potentially positive, such as the vaccine, we see that and know that’s something to help us come into our life again.

Q: I would expect that protecting elders in the tribe would be a big incentive in taking the vaccine.

A: Yes, we didn’t want to lose our language and culture, and we wanted to protect our elders. Having a way to do that was very important as well. They were among the first to get vaccinated.

Q: What is the current vaccination rate in the Navajo nation?

A: I think it’s in the upper 80th percentile. It’s very high.

Q: What have been the biggest takeaways so far, and what are your hopes for the future?

A: Even though the Navajo Nation has been impacted and devastated with the loss of elders and knowledge keepers, we still have our culture and ceremonies intact to the point that we know we can be resilient get through this difficult time.

Through collaborations with the federal and state governments and the clinics, we see that things are different now. Going forward, my hope is these partnerships will continue, that we’ll build those relationships and not be so siloed in our care. When the New Mexico Department of Health rolled out its first vaccination clinic, for example, we jumped on and saw how they did it. We were then able to do our own, collaborating with the state.

We also saw how important our culture was, how it helped our Navajo people through these difficult times.

Dr. Roessel, a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, has special expertise in cultural psychiatry. Her childhood was spent growing up in the Navajo nation with her grandfather, who was a Navajo medicine man. Her psychiatric practice focuses on integrating Indigenous knowledge and principles.

References

American Public Media Research Lab. “The Color of Coronavirus: COVID-19 Deaths by Race and Ethnicity in the U.S.” 2021 Mar 5.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Demographic Characteristics of People Receiving COVID-19 Vaccinations in the United States.” Data as of 2021 Oct 14.

Navajo Nation. Indian Health Service. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

The Navajo Nation’s Office of the President and Vice President. “11 New Cases, 32,735 Recoveries, and Six Recent Deaths Related to COVID-19.” 2021 Oct 13.

Navajo Nation Government web page.

COVID-19 has killed Native Americans at twice the rate of White Americans, underscoring the health inequities and deep-rooted distrust tribal nations have of federal government entities.

And yet, Native Americans have the highest vaccination rates of any major racial or ethnic group in the United States. Like many other tribal nations, the Navajo had to embrace Western science to reclaim its social customs and ceremonies. “We’re a very social culture, so having to isolate really impacted our mental health,” said Mary Hasbah Roessel, MD, DLFAPA, a Navajo psychiatrist who is affiliated with Santa Fe Indian Hospital in New Mexico.

The Navajo nation occupies the largest Native American reservation in the United States, spanning New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. As of mid-October, the nation had reported more than 34,000 COVID-19 cases and 1,400 deaths in its jurisdiction.

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Roessel described the partnerships that mobilized a nation of more than 250,000 individuals to get vaccinated.

Question: Why has the death rate been so high in the Navajo nation?

Answer: A lot of health disparities before the pandemic were blatantly revealed during COVID. Only 40% of people on the reservation had running water. Having to stay home and isolate led to food insecurity. Further insecurity issues affected our ability to stay healthy, such as having good sanitation. There’s a lot of poverty, a high unemployment rate. Some people had to go to work off reservation and were potentially bringing the virus home. A lot of generations live in the same household. Elders were vulnerable to getting the infection, and there was little ability to isolate if someone wasn’t having symptoms. Hospitals nearby didn’t have ICUs.

Therefore, the rate of cases skyrocketed early on. We were disproportionately affected. The Navajo nation per capita had the highest rate of cases in any state.
 

Q: What changes took place within the Navajo nation to get people vaccinated? What role did the federal Indian Health Service have in promoting this?

A: There had to be a shift in acceptance of the vaccinations. I think what particularly helped the Navajo nation was seeing the IHS rise up and provide access for treatments and vaccinations early on.

With the IHS, we went into a disaster response mode with all-hands-on deck meetings. We had to figure out how we could access mass vaccination clinics. Partnering with the Navajo Department of Health, we did that right away with hospitals and small clinics across the Navajo nation. Casinos owned by tribal entities that closed during COVID reopened and were used as vaccination clinics.

Vaccinations were sent to us fairly quickly. I ended up getting vaccinated in December 2020, when it was first rolled out.

Native and Navajo individuals have been reluctant to rely on government services. Because IHS came through with the vaccines, COVID reduced that stigma to access its services. Even the Navajo Department of Health partnered with the Indian Health Service to provide culturally relevant campaigns that explain why the vaccine is valuable.

I think because people were so impacted, they saw something valuable with the vaccine. Given the education and access, people were ready to get vaccinated. They realized if a whole household got vaccinated, they could see early on that they could be social again.
 

Q: What cultural factors have been contributing to this positive development?

A: In our Navajo culture, we’ve dealt with monsters before. We talk about that in terms of how we teach our young people to be strong and resilient. We talked about this virus as being another monster we had to tackle and control. The teaching was along those lines. We’ve dealt with this before, and we can handle it. We’re resilient. Our culture is very strong in that way. So how do we do it? We have to partner; we have to embrace Western medicine to return back to the ceremonies we want to have again and be social again. We focus on positive things, so if we see something as potentially positive, such as the vaccine, we see that and know that’s something to help us come into our life again.

Q: I would expect that protecting elders in the tribe would be a big incentive in taking the vaccine.

A: Yes, we didn’t want to lose our language and culture, and we wanted to protect our elders. Having a way to do that was very important as well. They were among the first to get vaccinated.

Q: What is the current vaccination rate in the Navajo nation?

A: I think it’s in the upper 80th percentile. It’s very high.

Q: What have been the biggest takeaways so far, and what are your hopes for the future?

A: Even though the Navajo Nation has been impacted and devastated with the loss of elders and knowledge keepers, we still have our culture and ceremonies intact to the point that we know we can be resilient get through this difficult time.

Through collaborations with the federal and state governments and the clinics, we see that things are different now. Going forward, my hope is these partnerships will continue, that we’ll build those relationships and not be so siloed in our care. When the New Mexico Department of Health rolled out its first vaccination clinic, for example, we jumped on and saw how they did it. We were then able to do our own, collaborating with the state.

We also saw how important our culture was, how it helped our Navajo people through these difficult times.

Dr. Roessel, a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, has special expertise in cultural psychiatry. Her childhood was spent growing up in the Navajo nation with her grandfather, who was a Navajo medicine man. Her psychiatric practice focuses on integrating Indigenous knowledge and principles.

References

American Public Media Research Lab. “The Color of Coronavirus: COVID-19 Deaths by Race and Ethnicity in the U.S.” 2021 Mar 5.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Demographic Characteristics of People Receiving COVID-19 Vaccinations in the United States.” Data as of 2021 Oct 14.

Navajo Nation. Indian Health Service. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

The Navajo Nation’s Office of the President and Vice President. “11 New Cases, 32,735 Recoveries, and Six Recent Deaths Related to COVID-19.” 2021 Oct 13.

Navajo Nation Government web page.

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

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

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

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

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

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

A new U.S. government study shows it isn’t risky and may even be a good idea to mix, rather than match, COVID-19 vaccines when getting a booster dose.

The study also shows mixing different kinds of vaccines appears to spur the body to make higher levels of virus-blocking antibodies than they would have gotten by boosting with a dose of the vaccine the person already had.

If regulators endorse the study findings, it should make getting a COVID-19 booster as easy as getting a yearly influenza vaccine.

“Currently when you go to do your flu shot nobody asks you what kind you had last year. Nobody cares what you had last year. And we were hoping that that was the same — that we would be able to boost regardless of what you had [previously],” said the study’s senior author, John Beigel, MD, who is associate director for clinical research in the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

“But we needed to have the data,” he said.

Studies have suggested that higher antibody levels translate into better protection against disease, though the exact level that confers protection is not yet known.

“The antibody responses are so much higher [with mix and match], it’s really impressive,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Shaffner said if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sign off on the approach, he would especially recommend that people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine follow up with a dose of an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna.

“It is a broader stimulation of the immune system, and I think that broader stimulation is advantageous,” he said.

Minimal side effects

The preprint study was published late Oct. 13 in medRxiv ahead of peer review, just before a slate of meetings involving vaccine experts that advise the FDA and CDC. 

These experts are tasked with trying to figure out whether additional shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are safe and effective for boosting immunity against COVID-19.

The FDA’s panel is the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), and the CDC’s panel is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). 

During the pandemic, they have been meeting almost in lock step to tackle important vaccine-related questions.

“We got this data out because we knew VRBPAC was coming and we knew ACIP was going to grapple with these issues,” Dr. Beigel said.

He noted that these are just the first results. The study will continue for a year, and the researchers aim to deeply characterize the breadth and depth of the immune response to all nine of the different vaccine combinations included in the study.

The study included 458 participants at 10 study sites around the country who had been fully vaccinated with one of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer-BioNTech. 

About 150 study participants were recruited from each group. Everyone in the study had finished their primary series at least 12 weeks before starting the study. None had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

About 50 participants from each vaccine group were randomly assigned to get a third (booster) dose of either the same vaccine as the one they had already received, or a different vaccine, creating nine possible combinations of shots.

About half of study participants reported mild side effects — including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle aches.

Two study participants had serious medical problems during the study, but they were judged to be unrelated to vaccination. One study participant experienced kidney failure after their muscles broke down following a fall. The other experienced cholecystitis, or an inflamed gallbladder. 

Up to 1 month after the booster shots, no other serious adverse events were seen.

The study didn’t look at whether people got COVID-19, so it’s not possible to say that they were better protected against disease after their boosters.

Increase in antibodies

But all the groups saw substantial increases in their antibody levels, which is thought to indicate that they were better protected.

Overall, groups that got the same vaccine as their primary series saw 4 to 20-fold increases in their antibody levels. Groups that got different shots than the ones in their primary series got 6 to 76 fold increases in their antibody levels.

People who had originally gotten a Johnson & Johnson vaccine saw far bigger increases in antibodies, and were more likely to see a protective rise in antibodies if they got a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner noted that European countries had already been mixing the vaccine doses this way, giving people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is similar to the Johnson & Johnson shot, another dose of an mRNA vaccine.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel received a Moderna vaccine for her second dose after an initial shot of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, for example.

No safety signals related to mixing vaccines has been seen in countries that routinely use the approach for their initial series.

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

A new U.S. government study shows it isn’t risky and may even be a good idea to mix, rather than match, COVID-19 vaccines when getting a booster dose.

The study also shows mixing different kinds of vaccines appears to spur the body to make higher levels of virus-blocking antibodies than they would have gotten by boosting with a dose of the vaccine the person already had.

If regulators endorse the study findings, it should make getting a COVID-19 booster as easy as getting a yearly influenza vaccine.

“Currently when you go to do your flu shot nobody asks you what kind you had last year. Nobody cares what you had last year. And we were hoping that that was the same — that we would be able to boost regardless of what you had [previously],” said the study’s senior author, John Beigel, MD, who is associate director for clinical research in the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

“But we needed to have the data,” he said.

Studies have suggested that higher antibody levels translate into better protection against disease, though the exact level that confers protection is not yet known.

“The antibody responses are so much higher [with mix and match], it’s really impressive,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Shaffner said if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sign off on the approach, he would especially recommend that people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine follow up with a dose of an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna.

“It is a broader stimulation of the immune system, and I think that broader stimulation is advantageous,” he said.

Minimal side effects

The preprint study was published late Oct. 13 in medRxiv ahead of peer review, just before a slate of meetings involving vaccine experts that advise the FDA and CDC. 

These experts are tasked with trying to figure out whether additional shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are safe and effective for boosting immunity against COVID-19.

The FDA’s panel is the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), and the CDC’s panel is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). 

During the pandemic, they have been meeting almost in lock step to tackle important vaccine-related questions.

“We got this data out because we knew VRBPAC was coming and we knew ACIP was going to grapple with these issues,” Dr. Beigel said.

He noted that these are just the first results. The study will continue for a year, and the researchers aim to deeply characterize the breadth and depth of the immune response to all nine of the different vaccine combinations included in the study.

The study included 458 participants at 10 study sites around the country who had been fully vaccinated with one of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer-BioNTech. 

About 150 study participants were recruited from each group. Everyone in the study had finished their primary series at least 12 weeks before starting the study. None had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

About 50 participants from each vaccine group were randomly assigned to get a third (booster) dose of either the same vaccine as the one they had already received, or a different vaccine, creating nine possible combinations of shots.

About half of study participants reported mild side effects — including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle aches.

Two study participants had serious medical problems during the study, but they were judged to be unrelated to vaccination. One study participant experienced kidney failure after their muscles broke down following a fall. The other experienced cholecystitis, or an inflamed gallbladder. 

Up to 1 month after the booster shots, no other serious adverse events were seen.

The study didn’t look at whether people got COVID-19, so it’s not possible to say that they were better protected against disease after their boosters.

Increase in antibodies

But all the groups saw substantial increases in their antibody levels, which is thought to indicate that they were better protected.

Overall, groups that got the same vaccine as their primary series saw 4 to 20-fold increases in their antibody levels. Groups that got different shots than the ones in their primary series got 6 to 76 fold increases in their antibody levels.

People who had originally gotten a Johnson & Johnson vaccine saw far bigger increases in antibodies, and were more likely to see a protective rise in antibodies if they got a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner noted that European countries had already been mixing the vaccine doses this way, giving people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is similar to the Johnson & Johnson shot, another dose of an mRNA vaccine.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel received a Moderna vaccine for her second dose after an initial shot of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, for example.

No safety signals related to mixing vaccines has been seen in countries that routinely use the approach for their initial series.

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

A new U.S. government study shows it isn’t risky and may even be a good idea to mix, rather than match, COVID-19 vaccines when getting a booster dose.

The study also shows mixing different kinds of vaccines appears to spur the body to make higher levels of virus-blocking antibodies than they would have gotten by boosting with a dose of the vaccine the person already had.

If regulators endorse the study findings, it should make getting a COVID-19 booster as easy as getting a yearly influenza vaccine.

“Currently when you go to do your flu shot nobody asks you what kind you had last year. Nobody cares what you had last year. And we were hoping that that was the same — that we would be able to boost regardless of what you had [previously],” said the study’s senior author, John Beigel, MD, who is associate director for clinical research in the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

“But we needed to have the data,” he said.

Studies have suggested that higher antibody levels translate into better protection against disease, though the exact level that confers protection is not yet known.

“The antibody responses are so much higher [with mix and match], it’s really impressive,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Shaffner said if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sign off on the approach, he would especially recommend that people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine follow up with a dose of an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna.

“It is a broader stimulation of the immune system, and I think that broader stimulation is advantageous,” he said.

Minimal side effects

The preprint study was published late Oct. 13 in medRxiv ahead of peer review, just before a slate of meetings involving vaccine experts that advise the FDA and CDC. 

These experts are tasked with trying to figure out whether additional shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are safe and effective for boosting immunity against COVID-19.

The FDA’s panel is the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), and the CDC’s panel is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). 

During the pandemic, they have been meeting almost in lock step to tackle important vaccine-related questions.

“We got this data out because we knew VRBPAC was coming and we knew ACIP was going to grapple with these issues,” Dr. Beigel said.

He noted that these are just the first results. The study will continue for a year, and the researchers aim to deeply characterize the breadth and depth of the immune response to all nine of the different vaccine combinations included in the study.

The study included 458 participants at 10 study sites around the country who had been fully vaccinated with one of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer-BioNTech. 

About 150 study participants were recruited from each group. Everyone in the study had finished their primary series at least 12 weeks before starting the study. None had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

About 50 participants from each vaccine group were randomly assigned to get a third (booster) dose of either the same vaccine as the one they had already received, or a different vaccine, creating nine possible combinations of shots.

About half of study participants reported mild side effects — including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle aches.

Two study participants had serious medical problems during the study, but they were judged to be unrelated to vaccination. One study participant experienced kidney failure after their muscles broke down following a fall. The other experienced cholecystitis, or an inflamed gallbladder. 

Up to 1 month after the booster shots, no other serious adverse events were seen.

The study didn’t look at whether people got COVID-19, so it’s not possible to say that they were better protected against disease after their boosters.

Increase in antibodies

But all the groups saw substantial increases in their antibody levels, which is thought to indicate that they were better protected.

Overall, groups that got the same vaccine as their primary series saw 4 to 20-fold increases in their antibody levels. Groups that got different shots than the ones in their primary series got 6 to 76 fold increases in their antibody levels.

People who had originally gotten a Johnson & Johnson vaccine saw far bigger increases in antibodies, and were more likely to see a protective rise in antibodies if they got a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner noted that European countries had already been mixing the vaccine doses this way, giving people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is similar to the Johnson & Johnson shot, another dose of an mRNA vaccine.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel received a Moderna vaccine for her second dose after an initial shot of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, for example.

No safety signals related to mixing vaccines has been seen in countries that routinely use the approach for their initial series.

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