MDedge Emergency Medicine

Groundbreaking results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial did more than establish for the first time that a drug, empagliflozin, has clearly proven efficacy for treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The results also helped catalyze a paradigm shift in how heart failure thought leaders think about the role of ejection fraction for making important distinctions among patients with heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler, MDedge News

EMPEROR-Preserved may also be the final nail in the coffin for defining patients with heart failure as having HFpEF or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

This new consensus essentially throws out left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) as the key metric for matching patients to heart failure treatments. Experts have instead begun suggesting a more unified treatment approach for all heart failure patients regardless of their EF.
 

‘Forget about ejection fraction’

“We encourage you to forget about ejection fraction,” declared Milton Packer, MD, during discussion at a session of the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “We certainly encourage you to forget about an ejection fraction of less than 40%” as having special significance,” added Dr. Packer, a lead investigator for both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials (which researchers combined in a unified analysis with a total of 9,718 patients with heart failure called EMPEROR-Pooled), and a heart failure researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

“The 40% ejection fraction divide is artificial. It was created in 2003 as part of a trial design, but it has no physiological significance,” Dr. Packer explained. A much better way to distinguish systolic and diastolic heart failure is by strain assessment rather than by ejection fraction. “Strain is a measure of myocardial shortening, a measure of what the heart does. Ejection fraction is a measure of volume,” said Dr. Packer. “Sign me up to get rid of ejection fraction,” he added.

“Ejection fraction is not as valuable as we thought for distinguishing the therapeutic benefit” of heart failure drugs, agreed Marvin A. Konstam, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University and chief physician executive of the CardioVascular Center of Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston, who spoke during a different session at the meeting.

“It would easier if we didn’t spend time parsing this number,” ejection fraction, commented Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. “Wouldn’t it be easier if we said that every patient with heart failure needs to receive one agent from each of the four [pillar] drug classes, and put them in a polypill” at reduced dosages, he proposed, envisioning one potential consequence of jettisoning ejection fraction.

The four pillar drug classes, recently identified as essential for patients with HFrEF but until now not endorsed for patients with HFpEF, are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, such as empagliflozin (Jardiance); an angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor compound such as sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone.
 

An opportunity for ‘simpler and easier’ treatments

“This is an opportunity to disrupt the way we’ve been doing things and think about something that is simpler and easier,” said Dr. Yancy, who chaired some of the panels serially formed by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology to write guidelines for treating heart failure. “An approach that would be easier to implement without worrying about staggering the start of each drug class and an incessant focus on titrating individual elements and taking 6 months to get to a certain place.”

Results from EMPEROR-Preserved and the combined EMPEROR-Pooled analysis triggered these paradigm-shifting sentiments by showing clear evidence that treatment with empagliflozin exerts consistent benefit – and is consistently safe – for patients with heart failure across a spectrum of EFs, from less than 25% to 64%, though its performance in patients with HFpEF and EFs of 65% or greater in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial remains unclear.

The consequence is that clinicians should feel comfortable prescribing empagliflozin to most patients with heart failure without regard to EF, even patients with EF values in the mid-60% range.

The EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a clear signal of attenuated benefit among patients with an EF of 65% or greater “on a population basis,” stressed Dr. Packer. “But on an individual basis, ejection fraction is not that reproducible, so measuring ejection fraction will not help you determine whom to treat or not treat. “

“There is significant variability” measuring EF using the most common modality, echocardiography, noted Javed Butler, MD, an EMPEROR coinvestigator who also spoke at the meeting session. A person with a measured EF of 65% could actually have a value that may be as low as 58% or as high as about 72%, noted Dr. Butler, who is professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. The upshot is that any patient diagnosed with heart failure should receive an SGLT2 inhibitor “irrespective of their ejection fraction,” Dr. Butler advised.

“Ejection fraction is very crude, and probably not sufficient to identify a phenotype,” for treatment, said Dr. Yancy. “The real takeaway may be that we need to revisit what we call HFrEF, and then let that be the new standard for treatment.”

“Is [an EF of] 60% the new 40%?” asked Dr. Packer, implying that the answer was yes.
 

Results from several trials suggest redefining HFrEF

The idea that patients without traditionally defined HFrEF – an EF of 40% or less – could also benefit from other classes of heart failure drugs has been gestating for a while, and then rose to a new level with the August 2021 report of results from EMPEROR-Preserved. Two years ago, in September 2019, Dr. Butler, Dr. Packer, and a third colleague advanced the notion of redefining HFrEF by raising the ejection fraction ceiling in a published commentary.

They cited the experience with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the CHARM-Preserved trial, which showed a strong signal of benefit in the subgroup of patients with EFs of 41%-49%, but not in those with an EF of 50% or higher. This finding prompted Dr. Konstam to express doubts about relying on EF to define heart failure subgroups in trials and guide management in a commentary published more than 3 years ago.

Another crack in the traditional EF framework came from analysis of results from the TOPCAT trial that tested spironolactone as a treatment for patients with HFpEF, according to the 2019 opinion published by Dr. Butler and Dr. Packer. Once again a post hoc analysis, this time using data from TOPCAT, suggested a benefit from the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone in patients with heart failure and an EF of 45%-49% (45% was the minimum EF for enrollment into the study).

Recently, data from a third trial that tested sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, PARAGON-HF, showed benefit among patients with EFs below the study median of 57%. This finding led the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 to amend its initial approval for sacubitril/valsartan by removing a specific EF ceiling from the drug’s indication and instead saying that patient’s receiving the drug should have a “below normal” EF.

Writing in a recent commentary, Dr. Yancy called the FDA’s action on sacubitril/valsartan “reasonable,” and that the subgroup assessment of data from the PARAGON-HF trial creates a “new, reasonably evidence-based therapy for HFpEF.” He also predicted that guideline-writing panels will “likely align with a permissive statement of indication” for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, especially those with EFs of less than 57%.

The idea of using an SGLT2 inhibitor like empagliflozin on all heart failure patients, and also adding agents like sacubitril/valsartan and spironolactone in patients with HFpEF and EFs in the mid-50% range or lower may take some time to catch on, but it already has one influential advocate.

“If a patient has HFpEF with an EF of less than 55%, use quadruple-class therapy,” summed up Dr. Butler during the HFSA session, while also suggesting prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor to essentially all patients with heart failure regardless of their EF.

The EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced trials and the EMPEROR-Pooled analysis were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with BI and Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Konstam has served on data monitoring committees for trials funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Amgen, Luitpold, and Pfizer, and has been a consultant to Arena, LivaNova, Merck, SC Pharma, and Takeda. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Groundbreaking results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial did more than establish for the first time that a drug, empagliflozin, has clearly proven efficacy for treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The results also helped catalyze a paradigm shift in how heart failure thought leaders think about the role of ejection fraction for making important distinctions among patients with heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler, MDedge News

EMPEROR-Preserved may also be the final nail in the coffin for defining patients with heart failure as having HFpEF or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

This new consensus essentially throws out left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) as the key metric for matching patients to heart failure treatments. Experts have instead begun suggesting a more unified treatment approach for all heart failure patients regardless of their EF.
 

‘Forget about ejection fraction’

“We encourage you to forget about ejection fraction,” declared Milton Packer, MD, during discussion at a session of the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “We certainly encourage you to forget about an ejection fraction of less than 40%” as having special significance,” added Dr. Packer, a lead investigator for both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials (which researchers combined in a unified analysis with a total of 9,718 patients with heart failure called EMPEROR-Pooled), and a heart failure researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

“The 40% ejection fraction divide is artificial. It was created in 2003 as part of a trial design, but it has no physiological significance,” Dr. Packer explained. A much better way to distinguish systolic and diastolic heart failure is by strain assessment rather than by ejection fraction. “Strain is a measure of myocardial shortening, a measure of what the heart does. Ejection fraction is a measure of volume,” said Dr. Packer. “Sign me up to get rid of ejection fraction,” he added.

“Ejection fraction is not as valuable as we thought for distinguishing the therapeutic benefit” of heart failure drugs, agreed Marvin A. Konstam, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University and chief physician executive of the CardioVascular Center of Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston, who spoke during a different session at the meeting.

“It would easier if we didn’t spend time parsing this number,” ejection fraction, commented Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. “Wouldn’t it be easier if we said that every patient with heart failure needs to receive one agent from each of the four [pillar] drug classes, and put them in a polypill” at reduced dosages, he proposed, envisioning one potential consequence of jettisoning ejection fraction.

The four pillar drug classes, recently identified as essential for patients with HFrEF but until now not endorsed for patients with HFpEF, are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, such as empagliflozin (Jardiance); an angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor compound such as sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone.
 

An opportunity for ‘simpler and easier’ treatments

“This is an opportunity to disrupt the way we’ve been doing things and think about something that is simpler and easier,” said Dr. Yancy, who chaired some of the panels serially formed by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology to write guidelines for treating heart failure. “An approach that would be easier to implement without worrying about staggering the start of each drug class and an incessant focus on titrating individual elements and taking 6 months to get to a certain place.”

Results from EMPEROR-Preserved and the combined EMPEROR-Pooled analysis triggered these paradigm-shifting sentiments by showing clear evidence that treatment with empagliflozin exerts consistent benefit – and is consistently safe – for patients with heart failure across a spectrum of EFs, from less than 25% to 64%, though its performance in patients with HFpEF and EFs of 65% or greater in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial remains unclear.

The consequence is that clinicians should feel comfortable prescribing empagliflozin to most patients with heart failure without regard to EF, even patients with EF values in the mid-60% range.

The EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a clear signal of attenuated benefit among patients with an EF of 65% or greater “on a population basis,” stressed Dr. Packer. “But on an individual basis, ejection fraction is not that reproducible, so measuring ejection fraction will not help you determine whom to treat or not treat. “

“There is significant variability” measuring EF using the most common modality, echocardiography, noted Javed Butler, MD, an EMPEROR coinvestigator who also spoke at the meeting session. A person with a measured EF of 65% could actually have a value that may be as low as 58% or as high as about 72%, noted Dr. Butler, who is professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. The upshot is that any patient diagnosed with heart failure should receive an SGLT2 inhibitor “irrespective of their ejection fraction,” Dr. Butler advised.

“Ejection fraction is very crude, and probably not sufficient to identify a phenotype,” for treatment, said Dr. Yancy. “The real takeaway may be that we need to revisit what we call HFrEF, and then let that be the new standard for treatment.”

“Is [an EF of] 60% the new 40%?” asked Dr. Packer, implying that the answer was yes.
 

Results from several trials suggest redefining HFrEF

The idea that patients without traditionally defined HFrEF – an EF of 40% or less – could also benefit from other classes of heart failure drugs has been gestating for a while, and then rose to a new level with the August 2021 report of results from EMPEROR-Preserved. Two years ago, in September 2019, Dr. Butler, Dr. Packer, and a third colleague advanced the notion of redefining HFrEF by raising the ejection fraction ceiling in a published commentary.

They cited the experience with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the CHARM-Preserved trial, which showed a strong signal of benefit in the subgroup of patients with EFs of 41%-49%, but not in those with an EF of 50% or higher. This finding prompted Dr. Konstam to express doubts about relying on EF to define heart failure subgroups in trials and guide management in a commentary published more than 3 years ago.

Another crack in the traditional EF framework came from analysis of results from the TOPCAT trial that tested spironolactone as a treatment for patients with HFpEF, according to the 2019 opinion published by Dr. Butler and Dr. Packer. Once again a post hoc analysis, this time using data from TOPCAT, suggested a benefit from the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone in patients with heart failure and an EF of 45%-49% (45% was the minimum EF for enrollment into the study).

Recently, data from a third trial that tested sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, PARAGON-HF, showed benefit among patients with EFs below the study median of 57%. This finding led the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 to amend its initial approval for sacubitril/valsartan by removing a specific EF ceiling from the drug’s indication and instead saying that patient’s receiving the drug should have a “below normal” EF.

Writing in a recent commentary, Dr. Yancy called the FDA’s action on sacubitril/valsartan “reasonable,” and that the subgroup assessment of data from the PARAGON-HF trial creates a “new, reasonably evidence-based therapy for HFpEF.” He also predicted that guideline-writing panels will “likely align with a permissive statement of indication” for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, especially those with EFs of less than 57%.

The idea of using an SGLT2 inhibitor like empagliflozin on all heart failure patients, and also adding agents like sacubitril/valsartan and spironolactone in patients with HFpEF and EFs in the mid-50% range or lower may take some time to catch on, but it already has one influential advocate.

“If a patient has HFpEF with an EF of less than 55%, use quadruple-class therapy,” summed up Dr. Butler during the HFSA session, while also suggesting prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor to essentially all patients with heart failure regardless of their EF.

The EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced trials and the EMPEROR-Pooled analysis were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with BI and Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Konstam has served on data monitoring committees for trials funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Amgen, Luitpold, and Pfizer, and has been a consultant to Arena, LivaNova, Merck, SC Pharma, and Takeda. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Groundbreaking results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial did more than establish for the first time that a drug, empagliflozin, has clearly proven efficacy for treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The results also helped catalyze a paradigm shift in how heart failure thought leaders think about the role of ejection fraction for making important distinctions among patients with heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler, MDedge News

EMPEROR-Preserved may also be the final nail in the coffin for defining patients with heart failure as having HFpEF or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

This new consensus essentially throws out left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) as the key metric for matching patients to heart failure treatments. Experts have instead begun suggesting a more unified treatment approach for all heart failure patients regardless of their EF.
 

‘Forget about ejection fraction’

“We encourage you to forget about ejection fraction,” declared Milton Packer, MD, during discussion at a session of the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “We certainly encourage you to forget about an ejection fraction of less than 40%” as having special significance,” added Dr. Packer, a lead investigator for both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials (which researchers combined in a unified analysis with a total of 9,718 patients with heart failure called EMPEROR-Pooled), and a heart failure researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

“The 40% ejection fraction divide is artificial. It was created in 2003 as part of a trial design, but it has no physiological significance,” Dr. Packer explained. A much better way to distinguish systolic and diastolic heart failure is by strain assessment rather than by ejection fraction. “Strain is a measure of myocardial shortening, a measure of what the heart does. Ejection fraction is a measure of volume,” said Dr. Packer. “Sign me up to get rid of ejection fraction,” he added.

“Ejection fraction is not as valuable as we thought for distinguishing the therapeutic benefit” of heart failure drugs, agreed Marvin A. Konstam, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University and chief physician executive of the CardioVascular Center of Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston, who spoke during a different session at the meeting.

“It would easier if we didn’t spend time parsing this number,” ejection fraction, commented Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. “Wouldn’t it be easier if we said that every patient with heart failure needs to receive one agent from each of the four [pillar] drug classes, and put them in a polypill” at reduced dosages, he proposed, envisioning one potential consequence of jettisoning ejection fraction.

The four pillar drug classes, recently identified as essential for patients with HFrEF but until now not endorsed for patients with HFpEF, are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, such as empagliflozin (Jardiance); an angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor compound such as sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone.
 

An opportunity for ‘simpler and easier’ treatments

“This is an opportunity to disrupt the way we’ve been doing things and think about something that is simpler and easier,” said Dr. Yancy, who chaired some of the panels serially formed by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology to write guidelines for treating heart failure. “An approach that would be easier to implement without worrying about staggering the start of each drug class and an incessant focus on titrating individual elements and taking 6 months to get to a certain place.”

Results from EMPEROR-Preserved and the combined EMPEROR-Pooled analysis triggered these paradigm-shifting sentiments by showing clear evidence that treatment with empagliflozin exerts consistent benefit – and is consistently safe – for patients with heart failure across a spectrum of EFs, from less than 25% to 64%, though its performance in patients with HFpEF and EFs of 65% or greater in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial remains unclear.

The consequence is that clinicians should feel comfortable prescribing empagliflozin to most patients with heart failure without regard to EF, even patients with EF values in the mid-60% range.

The EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a clear signal of attenuated benefit among patients with an EF of 65% or greater “on a population basis,” stressed Dr. Packer. “But on an individual basis, ejection fraction is not that reproducible, so measuring ejection fraction will not help you determine whom to treat or not treat. “

“There is significant variability” measuring EF using the most common modality, echocardiography, noted Javed Butler, MD, an EMPEROR coinvestigator who also spoke at the meeting session. A person with a measured EF of 65% could actually have a value that may be as low as 58% or as high as about 72%, noted Dr. Butler, who is professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. The upshot is that any patient diagnosed with heart failure should receive an SGLT2 inhibitor “irrespective of their ejection fraction,” Dr. Butler advised.

“Ejection fraction is very crude, and probably not sufficient to identify a phenotype,” for treatment, said Dr. Yancy. “The real takeaway may be that we need to revisit what we call HFrEF, and then let that be the new standard for treatment.”

“Is [an EF of] 60% the new 40%?” asked Dr. Packer, implying that the answer was yes.
 

Results from several trials suggest redefining HFrEF

The idea that patients without traditionally defined HFrEF – an EF of 40% or less – could also benefit from other classes of heart failure drugs has been gestating for a while, and then rose to a new level with the August 2021 report of results from EMPEROR-Preserved. Two years ago, in September 2019, Dr. Butler, Dr. Packer, and a third colleague advanced the notion of redefining HFrEF by raising the ejection fraction ceiling in a published commentary.

They cited the experience with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the CHARM-Preserved trial, which showed a strong signal of benefit in the subgroup of patients with EFs of 41%-49%, but not in those with an EF of 50% or higher. This finding prompted Dr. Konstam to express doubts about relying on EF to define heart failure subgroups in trials and guide management in a commentary published more than 3 years ago.

Another crack in the traditional EF framework came from analysis of results from the TOPCAT trial that tested spironolactone as a treatment for patients with HFpEF, according to the 2019 opinion published by Dr. Butler and Dr. Packer. Once again a post hoc analysis, this time using data from TOPCAT, suggested a benefit from the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone in patients with heart failure and an EF of 45%-49% (45% was the minimum EF for enrollment into the study).

Recently, data from a third trial that tested sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, PARAGON-HF, showed benefit among patients with EFs below the study median of 57%. This finding led the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 to amend its initial approval for sacubitril/valsartan by removing a specific EF ceiling from the drug’s indication and instead saying that patient’s receiving the drug should have a “below normal” EF.

Writing in a recent commentary, Dr. Yancy called the FDA’s action on sacubitril/valsartan “reasonable,” and that the subgroup assessment of data from the PARAGON-HF trial creates a “new, reasonably evidence-based therapy for HFpEF.” He also predicted that guideline-writing panels will “likely align with a permissive statement of indication” for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, especially those with EFs of less than 57%.

The idea of using an SGLT2 inhibitor like empagliflozin on all heart failure patients, and also adding agents like sacubitril/valsartan and spironolactone in patients with HFpEF and EFs in the mid-50% range or lower may take some time to catch on, but it already has one influential advocate.

“If a patient has HFpEF with an EF of less than 55%, use quadruple-class therapy,” summed up Dr. Butler during the HFSA session, while also suggesting prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor to essentially all patients with heart failure regardless of their EF.

The EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced trials and the EMPEROR-Pooled analysis were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with BI and Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Konstam has served on data monitoring committees for trials funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Amgen, Luitpold, and Pfizer, and has been a consultant to Arena, LivaNova, Merck, SC Pharma, and Takeda. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A nationwide study of more than 3,600 adults found the Moderna vaccine does a better job at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations than the two other vaccines being used in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.

“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.

“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.

The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.

After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.

The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.

“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.

The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.

Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.

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

A nationwide study of more than 3,600 adults found the Moderna vaccine does a better job at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations than the two other vaccines being used in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.

“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.

“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.

The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.

After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.

The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.

“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.

The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.

Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.

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

A nationwide study of more than 3,600 adults found the Moderna vaccine does a better job at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations than the two other vaccines being used in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.

“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.

“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.

The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.

After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.

The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.

“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.

The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.

Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 vaccines = bioterrorism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Med schools distance themselves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misinformation from a physician more damaging?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 vaccines = bioterrorism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Med schools distance themselves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misinformation from a physician more damaging?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 vaccines = bioterrorism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Med schools distance themselves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misinformation from a physician more damaging?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paradoxical choices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-preservation vs. empathy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to cope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paradoxical choices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-preservation vs. empathy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to cope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paradoxical choices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-preservation vs. empathy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to cope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mistreatment in the workplace is common among residents in emergency medicine (EM), according to the results of a new study published online Aug. 19 in JAMA Network Open.

xavierarnau/Getty Images

The survey of more than 6,000 residents found that almost 1 in 2 respondents had been exposed to some form of workplace mistreatment in the previous year, including gender and racial discrimination, physical abuse, or sexual harassment.

“The last study on mistreatment in EM residency training in the United States occurred more than 25 years ago,” said Michelle D. Lall, MD, associate professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta. “These findings provide a current look. Mistreatment occurs frequently in EM residency training nationally, and it occurs more frequently in women, racial/ethnic minorities, and those who identify as LGBTQ+,” Dr. Lall added. “Additionally, we found an association between experiencing mistreatment at least a few times per month and having suicidal thoughts.”
 

Negative sequelae from workplace mistreatment

Dr. Lall explained that workplace mistreatment and institutional responses to such behaviors have been linked to hostile work environments for physicians. In previous research, workplace mistreatment has been found to negatively affect individuals’ sense of self, a phenomenon that not only hindered professional productivity but also increased a variety of other negative factors, such as stress, job dissatisfaction, negative workplace behaviors, and turnover. Perhaps not surprisingly, workplace discrimination has also been shown to have negative effects on physical and mental health.

Despite such findings, little is known about the current state of workplace mistreatment among EM residents. This led the investigators to examine the prevalence, types, and sources of such perceived treatment during their training. In addition, the researchers assessed the association between mistreatment and suicidal ideation. Insights into these problems, they say, may spur leaders in the field to develop and implement strategies to help new physicians maintain their well-being throughout their careers.

“A 2019 study by Yue-Yung Hu and associates looked at discrimination, abuse, harassment, and burnout in surgical residents, and they found that mistreatment occurs frequently among general surgery residents, especially women,” Dr. Lall said. “Our study group felt it was important to look at the rates of mistreatment among EM residents nationally in order to obtain baseline data and to use this data to identify and promote educational interventions to reduce workplace mistreatment.”
 

Emergency residents surveyed

To achieve these ends, Dr. Lall and colleagues sent a survey to all individuals enrolled in EM residencies accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education who had participated in the 2020 American Board of Emergency Medicine in-training examination. The 35-item multiple-choice survey asked residents to self-report the frequency, sources, and types of mistreatment they had experienced during their training. Suicidal thoughts were assessed by asking residents whether they had considered taking their own life.

Respondents categorized the frequency of mistreatment as never having occurred, having occurred a few times a year, a few times a month, a few times a week, or every day. The investigators created a composite indicator for the study’s primary comparisons that represented the maximum reported frequency of any single exposure. Responses were categorized according to the frequency of mistreatment exposure as either no exposure, exposures a few times per year, or exposures a few times or more per month (including a few times per week or every day).
 

Almost half report mistreatment

The survey was sent to 8,162 eligible residents in EM. Of those, 6,503 (79.7%) completed the entire survey. Respondents were primarily male (62.1%) and non-Hispanic White (64.0%); 2,620 residents (34.1%) were from other racial/ethnic groups. Of the respondents, 483 residents (6.6%) identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other (LGBTQ+); 5,951 residents (77.5%) were married or in a relationship.

It was found that 3,463 (45.1%) of participants reported having been exposed to some sort of workplace mistreatment during the most recent academic year. A common source of mistreatment was patients and/or their families. These caused a total of 1,234 events.

Gender discrimination was reported by 2,104 residents (29.5%), 1,635 of whom were women. The most common source of such discrimination was patients or patients’ family members (1,027 women; 184 men). Other sources included nurses or staff (331 women; 59 men).

Racial discrimination was common. It was reported by 1,284 residents; 907 residents were from racial/ethnic groups other than White. Among non-White racial/ethnic groups, 248 residents reported being exposed to racial discrimination at least a few times per month. The most common source of racial discrimination was patients or their family members.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity was reported by 220 residents. Once again, the majority of LGBTQ+ residents indicated that patients or their families were the primary source. More than 1,000 residents (n = 1047) reported sexual harassment; among these residents, 721 were women. Patients and/or patients’ family members were the most common source of such discrimination, followed by nurses and staff.

A total of 2,069 residents reported verbal or emotional abuse, including 806 women and 1,212 men. Patients/patients’ family members were the most common source, followed by attending physicians. Physical abuse was reported by 331 respondents. Physical abuse was primarily attributed to patients/patients’ families.

Suicidal thoughts were reported by 178 residents; the prevalence was comparable with respect to gender (2.4% men; 2.4% women) and race/ethnicity (2.4% non-Hispanic White; 2.7% other racial/ethnic groups). Adjusted models revealed that the prevalence for suicidal thoughts was greater among residents who identified as LGBTQ+ (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 99% confidence interval, 1.04-3.99). An association was found between suicidal thoughts and having experienced mistreatment at least a few times each month (OR, 5.83; 99% CI, 3.70-9.20).
 

Identifying sources key to stemming mistreatment

These findings, the researchers say, demonstrate the alarming frequency with which workplace mistreatment occurs for EM residents. The survey also found that such mistreatment was more common among residents from racial/ethnic minority populations, women, and residents who identify as LGBTQ+. Perhaps most disturbingly, the occurrence of workplace mistreatment was found to be associated with suicidal thoughts.

The researchers say that although it is likely that residents in many medical specialties experience similar mistreatment to some degree, such treatment should never be considered acceptable. Indeed, Dr. Lall said that identifying sources of mistreatment may help both institutions and individuals determine interventions necessary for improving the well-being of EM residents.

“The first step is recognizing, based on our data, that mistreatment is experienced frequently in EM training in the United States,” she said. “Future qualitative studies of residents and program leaders may help identify which systems, programs, or cultural factors were associated with lower rates of mistreatment in some institutions and higher rates in others.

“Identifying these factors and developing and promoting best practices to minimize workplace mistreatment during residency may help optimize the professional career experience and improve the personal and professional well-being of physicians throughout their lives,” Dr. Lall added.

Commenting on the findings for this article, Karl Y. Bilimoria, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that these surveys clearly lay out actionable opportunities to improve trainee mistreatment. “Given that much of the mistreatment of EM residents comes from patients and families, the solutions must be appropriately tailored to address those sources,” Dr. Bilimoria noted.

“Programs need to actively work even more to protect their trainees and faculty from this mistreatment, as it has severe effects and often leads to, or worsens, burnout,” he added.

Funding for statistical analysis was provided by the American Board of Emergency Medicine. Dr. Lall and Dr. Bilimoria reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mistreatment in the workplace is common among residents in emergency medicine (EM), according to the results of a new study published online Aug. 19 in JAMA Network Open.

xavierarnau/Getty Images

The survey of more than 6,000 residents found that almost 1 in 2 respondents had been exposed to some form of workplace mistreatment in the previous year, including gender and racial discrimination, physical abuse, or sexual harassment.

“The last study on mistreatment in EM residency training in the United States occurred more than 25 years ago,” said Michelle D. Lall, MD, associate professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta. “These findings provide a current look. Mistreatment occurs frequently in EM residency training nationally, and it occurs more frequently in women, racial/ethnic minorities, and those who identify as LGBTQ+,” Dr. Lall added. “Additionally, we found an association between experiencing mistreatment at least a few times per month and having suicidal thoughts.”
 

Negative sequelae from workplace mistreatment

Dr. Lall explained that workplace mistreatment and institutional responses to such behaviors have been linked to hostile work environments for physicians. In previous research, workplace mistreatment has been found to negatively affect individuals’ sense of self, a phenomenon that not only hindered professional productivity but also increased a variety of other negative factors, such as stress, job dissatisfaction, negative workplace behaviors, and turnover. Perhaps not surprisingly, workplace discrimination has also been shown to have negative effects on physical and mental health.

Despite such findings, little is known about the current state of workplace mistreatment among EM residents. This led the investigators to examine the prevalence, types, and sources of such perceived treatment during their training. In addition, the researchers assessed the association between mistreatment and suicidal ideation. Insights into these problems, they say, may spur leaders in the field to develop and implement strategies to help new physicians maintain their well-being throughout their careers.

“A 2019 study by Yue-Yung Hu and associates looked at discrimination, abuse, harassment, and burnout in surgical residents, and they found that mistreatment occurs frequently among general surgery residents, especially women,” Dr. Lall said. “Our study group felt it was important to look at the rates of mistreatment among EM residents nationally in order to obtain baseline data and to use this data to identify and promote educational interventions to reduce workplace mistreatment.”
 

Emergency residents surveyed

To achieve these ends, Dr. Lall and colleagues sent a survey to all individuals enrolled in EM residencies accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education who had participated in the 2020 American Board of Emergency Medicine in-training examination. The 35-item multiple-choice survey asked residents to self-report the frequency, sources, and types of mistreatment they had experienced during their training. Suicidal thoughts were assessed by asking residents whether they had considered taking their own life.

Respondents categorized the frequency of mistreatment as never having occurred, having occurred a few times a year, a few times a month, a few times a week, or every day. The investigators created a composite indicator for the study’s primary comparisons that represented the maximum reported frequency of any single exposure. Responses were categorized according to the frequency of mistreatment exposure as either no exposure, exposures a few times per year, or exposures a few times or more per month (including a few times per week or every day).
 

Almost half report mistreatment

The survey was sent to 8,162 eligible residents in EM. Of those, 6,503 (79.7%) completed the entire survey. Respondents were primarily male (62.1%) and non-Hispanic White (64.0%); 2,620 residents (34.1%) were from other racial/ethnic groups. Of the respondents, 483 residents (6.6%) identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other (LGBTQ+); 5,951 residents (77.5%) were married or in a relationship.

It was found that 3,463 (45.1%) of participants reported having been exposed to some sort of workplace mistreatment during the most recent academic year. A common source of mistreatment was patients and/or their families. These caused a total of 1,234 events.

Gender discrimination was reported by 2,104 residents (29.5%), 1,635 of whom were women. The most common source of such discrimination was patients or patients’ family members (1,027 women; 184 men). Other sources included nurses or staff (331 women; 59 men).

Racial discrimination was common. It was reported by 1,284 residents; 907 residents were from racial/ethnic groups other than White. Among non-White racial/ethnic groups, 248 residents reported being exposed to racial discrimination at least a few times per month. The most common source of racial discrimination was patients or their family members.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity was reported by 220 residents. Once again, the majority of LGBTQ+ residents indicated that patients or their families were the primary source. More than 1,000 residents (n = 1047) reported sexual harassment; among these residents, 721 were women. Patients and/or patients’ family members were the most common source of such discrimination, followed by nurses and staff.

A total of 2,069 residents reported verbal or emotional abuse, including 806 women and 1,212 men. Patients/patients’ family members were the most common source, followed by attending physicians. Physical abuse was reported by 331 respondents. Physical abuse was primarily attributed to patients/patients’ families.

Suicidal thoughts were reported by 178 residents; the prevalence was comparable with respect to gender (2.4% men; 2.4% women) and race/ethnicity (2.4% non-Hispanic White; 2.7% other racial/ethnic groups). Adjusted models revealed that the prevalence for suicidal thoughts was greater among residents who identified as LGBTQ+ (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 99% confidence interval, 1.04-3.99). An association was found between suicidal thoughts and having experienced mistreatment at least a few times each month (OR, 5.83; 99% CI, 3.70-9.20).
 

Identifying sources key to stemming mistreatment

These findings, the researchers say, demonstrate the alarming frequency with which workplace mistreatment occurs for EM residents. The survey also found that such mistreatment was more common among residents from racial/ethnic minority populations, women, and residents who identify as LGBTQ+. Perhaps most disturbingly, the occurrence of workplace mistreatment was found to be associated with suicidal thoughts.

The researchers say that although it is likely that residents in many medical specialties experience similar mistreatment to some degree, such treatment should never be considered acceptable. Indeed, Dr. Lall said that identifying sources of mistreatment may help both institutions and individuals determine interventions necessary for improving the well-being of EM residents.

“The first step is recognizing, based on our data, that mistreatment is experienced frequently in EM training in the United States,” she said. “Future qualitative studies of residents and program leaders may help identify which systems, programs, or cultural factors were associated with lower rates of mistreatment in some institutions and higher rates in others.

“Identifying these factors and developing and promoting best practices to minimize workplace mistreatment during residency may help optimize the professional career experience and improve the personal and professional well-being of physicians throughout their lives,” Dr. Lall added.

Commenting on the findings for this article, Karl Y. Bilimoria, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that these surveys clearly lay out actionable opportunities to improve trainee mistreatment. “Given that much of the mistreatment of EM residents comes from patients and families, the solutions must be appropriately tailored to address those sources,” Dr. Bilimoria noted.

“Programs need to actively work even more to protect their trainees and faculty from this mistreatment, as it has severe effects and often leads to, or worsens, burnout,” he added.

Funding for statistical analysis was provided by the American Board of Emergency Medicine. Dr. Lall and Dr. Bilimoria reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mistreatment in the workplace is common among residents in emergency medicine (EM), according to the results of a new study published online Aug. 19 in JAMA Network Open.

xavierarnau/Getty Images

The survey of more than 6,000 residents found that almost 1 in 2 respondents had been exposed to some form of workplace mistreatment in the previous year, including gender and racial discrimination, physical abuse, or sexual harassment.

“The last study on mistreatment in EM residency training in the United States occurred more than 25 years ago,” said Michelle D. Lall, MD, associate professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta. “These findings provide a current look. Mistreatment occurs frequently in EM residency training nationally, and it occurs more frequently in women, racial/ethnic minorities, and those who identify as LGBTQ+,” Dr. Lall added. “Additionally, we found an association between experiencing mistreatment at least a few times per month and having suicidal thoughts.”
 

Negative sequelae from workplace mistreatment

Dr. Lall explained that workplace mistreatment and institutional responses to such behaviors have been linked to hostile work environments for physicians. In previous research, workplace mistreatment has been found to negatively affect individuals’ sense of self, a phenomenon that not only hindered professional productivity but also increased a variety of other negative factors, such as stress, job dissatisfaction, negative workplace behaviors, and turnover. Perhaps not surprisingly, workplace discrimination has also been shown to have negative effects on physical and mental health.

Despite such findings, little is known about the current state of workplace mistreatment among EM residents. This led the investigators to examine the prevalence, types, and sources of such perceived treatment during their training. In addition, the researchers assessed the association between mistreatment and suicidal ideation. Insights into these problems, they say, may spur leaders in the field to develop and implement strategies to help new physicians maintain their well-being throughout their careers.

“A 2019 study by Yue-Yung Hu and associates looked at discrimination, abuse, harassment, and burnout in surgical residents, and they found that mistreatment occurs frequently among general surgery residents, especially women,” Dr. Lall said. “Our study group felt it was important to look at the rates of mistreatment among EM residents nationally in order to obtain baseline data and to use this data to identify and promote educational interventions to reduce workplace mistreatment.”
 

Emergency residents surveyed

To achieve these ends, Dr. Lall and colleagues sent a survey to all individuals enrolled in EM residencies accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education who had participated in the 2020 American Board of Emergency Medicine in-training examination. The 35-item multiple-choice survey asked residents to self-report the frequency, sources, and types of mistreatment they had experienced during their training. Suicidal thoughts were assessed by asking residents whether they had considered taking their own life.

Respondents categorized the frequency of mistreatment as never having occurred, having occurred a few times a year, a few times a month, a few times a week, or every day. The investigators created a composite indicator for the study’s primary comparisons that represented the maximum reported frequency of any single exposure. Responses were categorized according to the frequency of mistreatment exposure as either no exposure, exposures a few times per year, or exposures a few times or more per month (including a few times per week or every day).
 

Almost half report mistreatment

The survey was sent to 8,162 eligible residents in EM. Of those, 6,503 (79.7%) completed the entire survey. Respondents were primarily male (62.1%) and non-Hispanic White (64.0%); 2,620 residents (34.1%) were from other racial/ethnic groups. Of the respondents, 483 residents (6.6%) identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other (LGBTQ+); 5,951 residents (77.5%) were married or in a relationship.

It was found that 3,463 (45.1%) of participants reported having been exposed to some sort of workplace mistreatment during the most recent academic year. A common source of mistreatment was patients and/or their families. These caused a total of 1,234 events.

Gender discrimination was reported by 2,104 residents (29.5%), 1,635 of whom were women. The most common source of such discrimination was patients or patients’ family members (1,027 women; 184 men). Other sources included nurses or staff (331 women; 59 men).

Racial discrimination was common. It was reported by 1,284 residents; 907 residents were from racial/ethnic groups other than White. Among non-White racial/ethnic groups, 248 residents reported being exposed to racial discrimination at least a few times per month. The most common source of racial discrimination was patients or their family members.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity was reported by 220 residents. Once again, the majority of LGBTQ+ residents indicated that patients or their families were the primary source. More than 1,000 residents (n = 1047) reported sexual harassment; among these residents, 721 were women. Patients and/or patients’ family members were the most common source of such discrimination, followed by nurses and staff.

A total of 2,069 residents reported verbal or emotional abuse, including 806 women and 1,212 men. Patients/patients’ family members were the most common source, followed by attending physicians. Physical abuse was reported by 331 respondents. Physical abuse was primarily attributed to patients/patients’ families.

Suicidal thoughts were reported by 178 residents; the prevalence was comparable with respect to gender (2.4% men; 2.4% women) and race/ethnicity (2.4% non-Hispanic White; 2.7% other racial/ethnic groups). Adjusted models revealed that the prevalence for suicidal thoughts was greater among residents who identified as LGBTQ+ (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 99% confidence interval, 1.04-3.99). An association was found between suicidal thoughts and having experienced mistreatment at least a few times each month (OR, 5.83; 99% CI, 3.70-9.20).
 

Identifying sources key to stemming mistreatment

These findings, the researchers say, demonstrate the alarming frequency with which workplace mistreatment occurs for EM residents. The survey also found that such mistreatment was more common among residents from racial/ethnic minority populations, women, and residents who identify as LGBTQ+. Perhaps most disturbingly, the occurrence of workplace mistreatment was found to be associated with suicidal thoughts.

The researchers say that although it is likely that residents in many medical specialties experience similar mistreatment to some degree, such treatment should never be considered acceptable. Indeed, Dr. Lall said that identifying sources of mistreatment may help both institutions and individuals determine interventions necessary for improving the well-being of EM residents.

“The first step is recognizing, based on our data, that mistreatment is experienced frequently in EM training in the United States,” she said. “Future qualitative studies of residents and program leaders may help identify which systems, programs, or cultural factors were associated with lower rates of mistreatment in some institutions and higher rates in others.

“Identifying these factors and developing and promoting best practices to minimize workplace mistreatment during residency may help optimize the professional career experience and improve the personal and professional well-being of physicians throughout their lives,” Dr. Lall added.

Commenting on the findings for this article, Karl Y. Bilimoria, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that these surveys clearly lay out actionable opportunities to improve trainee mistreatment. “Given that much of the mistreatment of EM residents comes from patients and families, the solutions must be appropriately tailored to address those sources,” Dr. Bilimoria noted.

“Programs need to actively work even more to protect their trainees and faculty from this mistreatment, as it has severe effects and often leads to, or worsens, burnout,” he added.

Funding for statistical analysis was provided by the American Board of Emergency Medicine. Dr. Lall and Dr. Bilimoria reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) or heparin is associated with an increased risk for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) in patients with ischemic stroke who are undergoing endovascular therapy (EVT), new data show.

In this population, ASA and heparin are each associated with an approximately doubled risk for sICH when administered during EVT.

“We did not find any evidence for a beneficial effect on functional outcome,” investigator Wouter van der Steen, MD, research physician and PhD student at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told this news organization. The possibility that a positive effect would be observed if the trial were continued was considered negligible, he added.

The researchers stopped the trial for safety reasons and recommend avoiding the evaluated dosages of both medications during EVT for ischemic stroke, said Dr. van der Steen.

He presented the findings from the MR CLEAN-MED trial at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) 2021, which was held online.
 

Trial stopped for safety

Previous research has supported the safety and efficacy of EVT for ischemic stroke. Still, more than 30% of patients do not recover, despite fast and complete recanalization. Incomplete microvascular reperfusion (IMR) could explain this incomplete recovery, the researchers note.

Microthrombi, which occlude distal vessels, and neutrophil extracellular traps can cause IMR. This problem can be reduced through treatment with ASA, which has an antithrombotic effect, or with heparin, which dissolves neutrophil extracellular traps, they add. Although these drugs are associated with good clinical outcomes, they entail an increased risk for sICH.

The investigators conducted the multicenter, randomized controlled MR CLEAN-MED trial to evaluate the effect of intravenous (IV) ASA and heparin, alone or in combination, during EVT for acute ischemic stroke. Treatment was open label, but outcome assessment was blinded. Eligible participants were adults with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of greater than or equal to 2 and an anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion for whom EVT could be initiated in fewer than 6 hours.

Investigators randomly assigned patients to receive or not to receive ASA. Within each of these two treatment groups, patients were randomly assigned to receive no heparin, low-dose heparin, or moderate-dose heparin.

ASA was given in a loading dose of 300 mg. Patients who were given low-dose heparin received a loading dose of 5,000 IU followed by 500 IU/h for 6 hours. Patients who received moderate-dose heparin were given a loading dose of 5,000 IU followed by 1,250 IU/h for 6 hours.

The study’s primary outcome was Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were NIHSS score at 24 hours, NIHSS score at 5 to 7 days, and recanalization grade at 24 hours on CT angiography or MRI. The primary safety outcomes were sICH and death within 90 days.

An independent, unblinded data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) assessed the risk for the primary safety outcomes throughout the trial. The board performed interim analyses of safety and efficacy for every 300 patients.

After the fourth safety assessment, the DSMB recommended that enrollment in the moderate-dose heparin arm be discontinued for safety reasons. Enrollment in other arms continued.

After the second interim analysis, the DSMB advised that the trial steering committee be unblinded to decide whether to stop or continue the trial. The steering committee decided to stop the trial for reasons of safety.
 

Increased risk for sICH

In all, 628 patients were included in the study. The ASA groups included 310 patients, and the no-ASA groups included 318 patients. In all, 332 participants received heparin, and 296 received no heparin.

The demographic characteristics were well balanced between groups. The population’s median age was 73 years, and about 53% were men. The median baseline NIHSS score was approximately 15. About 74% of patients received IV thrombolysis. The median baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Scan score was 9.

The investigators observed a slight shift toward worse outcome in the ASA group, compared with the no-ASA group (adjusted OR, 0.91). In addition, the ASA group had a significantly increased risk for sICH, compared with the no-ASA group (14% vs. 7.2%; aOR, 1.95).

Patients in the ASA group were less likely to have good functional outcome (mRS of 0 to 2; aOR, 0.76), and the mortality rate tended to be higher.

The researchers found a nonsignificant shift toward a worse functional outcome in the heparin group, compared with the no-heparin group (aOR, 0.81). The risk for sICH was significantly higher in the heparin group, compared with the no-heparin group (13% vs. 7.4%; aOR, 2.00).

Patients in the heparin group were also less likely to have a good functional outcome (aOR, 0.78), and there was a nonsignificant increase in risk for death among those patients.

The rate of sICH was 11% in the group that received low-dose heparin; it was 26% in the group that received moderate-dose heparin (aOR, 6.05). The mortality rate was 23% in the low-dose group and 47% in the moderate-dose group (aOR, 5.45).

There was no significant interaction between ASA and heparin on the primary outcome and on sICH occurrence.
 

‘A unique trial’

“MR CLEAN-MED is a unique trial because it investigated a widely used treatment but until now without any proof of effectiveness,” said Dr. van der Steen. The researchers expect that their findings will have a strong impact on the management of patients with acute ischemic stroke. They suggest that the administration of antithrombotic agents during EVT be avoided.

“We consider it probable that the increased risk of sICH explains at least a part of the nonsignificant shift towards a worse functional outcome,” co-investigator Bob Roozenbeek, MD, PhD, a neurologist at the Erasmus Medical Center, said in an interview. “However, to make more definite statements, we will have to do more in-depth analyses.”

It remains unclear whether the periprocedural use of lower dosages of antithrombotic agents or of a single bolus of heparin could be safe and effective, said Dr. van der Steen.

To gain insight into these questions, the investigators will evaluate the effect of the medications and dosages examined in this trial on primary hemostasis and coagulation activity in the trial population. They also plan to examine the effect of primary hemostasis and coagulation activity on risk for sICH and functional outcome.

Enhancing the effectiveness of thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke continues to be an important goal for stroke therapy, said Mark Fisher, MD, professor of neurology and pathology and laboratory medicine at the University of California, Irvine, who commented on the findings for this news organization.

At least three strategies are available: The use of ancillary antithrombotic medications, neuroprotection, and modulation of the vasoconstrictive properties of the microcirculation.

“Results of MR CLEAN-MED argue against the antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Fisher. “The alternate strategies remain viable, and results of interventions using those approaches are awaited with great interest.”

The study was funded by the CONTRAST consortium, which is supported by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative and the Brain Foundation Netherlands. Funding also was provided by Stryker, Medtronic, and Cerenovus. Dr. van der Steen and Dr. Fisher have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) or heparin is associated with an increased risk for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) in patients with ischemic stroke who are undergoing endovascular therapy (EVT), new data show.

In this population, ASA and heparin are each associated with an approximately doubled risk for sICH when administered during EVT.

“We did not find any evidence for a beneficial effect on functional outcome,” investigator Wouter van der Steen, MD, research physician and PhD student at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told this news organization. The possibility that a positive effect would be observed if the trial were continued was considered negligible, he added.

The researchers stopped the trial for safety reasons and recommend avoiding the evaluated dosages of both medications during EVT for ischemic stroke, said Dr. van der Steen.

He presented the findings from the MR CLEAN-MED trial at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) 2021, which was held online.
 

Trial stopped for safety

Previous research has supported the safety and efficacy of EVT for ischemic stroke. Still, more than 30% of patients do not recover, despite fast and complete recanalization. Incomplete microvascular reperfusion (IMR) could explain this incomplete recovery, the researchers note.

Microthrombi, which occlude distal vessels, and neutrophil extracellular traps can cause IMR. This problem can be reduced through treatment with ASA, which has an antithrombotic effect, or with heparin, which dissolves neutrophil extracellular traps, they add. Although these drugs are associated with good clinical outcomes, they entail an increased risk for sICH.

The investigators conducted the multicenter, randomized controlled MR CLEAN-MED trial to evaluate the effect of intravenous (IV) ASA and heparin, alone or in combination, during EVT for acute ischemic stroke. Treatment was open label, but outcome assessment was blinded. Eligible participants were adults with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of greater than or equal to 2 and an anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion for whom EVT could be initiated in fewer than 6 hours.

Investigators randomly assigned patients to receive or not to receive ASA. Within each of these two treatment groups, patients were randomly assigned to receive no heparin, low-dose heparin, or moderate-dose heparin.

ASA was given in a loading dose of 300 mg. Patients who were given low-dose heparin received a loading dose of 5,000 IU followed by 500 IU/h for 6 hours. Patients who received moderate-dose heparin were given a loading dose of 5,000 IU followed by 1,250 IU/h for 6 hours.

The study’s primary outcome was Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were NIHSS score at 24 hours, NIHSS score at 5 to 7 days, and recanalization grade at 24 hours on CT angiography or MRI. The primary safety outcomes were sICH and death within 90 days.

An independent, unblinded data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) assessed the risk for the primary safety outcomes throughout the trial. The board performed interim analyses of safety and efficacy for every 300 patients.

After the fourth safety assessment, the DSMB recommended that enrollment in the moderate-dose heparin arm be discontinued for safety reasons. Enrollment in other arms continued.

After the second interim analysis, the DSMB advised that the trial steering committee be unblinded to decide whether to stop or continue the trial. The steering committee decided to stop the trial for reasons of safety.
 

Increased risk for sICH

In all, 628 patients were included in the study. The ASA groups included 310 patients, and the no-ASA groups included 318 patients. In all, 332 participants received heparin, and 296 received no heparin.

The demographic characteristics were well balanced between groups. The population’s median age was 73 years, and about 53% were men. The median baseline NIHSS score was approximately 15. About 74% of patients received IV thrombolysis. The median baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Scan score was 9.

The investigators observed a slight shift toward worse outcome in the ASA group, compared with the no-ASA group (adjusted OR, 0.91). In addition, the ASA group had a significantly increased risk for sICH, compared with the no-ASA group (14% vs. 7.2%; aOR, 1.95).

Patients in the ASA group were less likely to have good functional outcome (mRS of 0 to 2; aOR, 0.76), and the mortality rate tended to be higher.

The researchers found a nonsignificant shift toward a worse functional outcome in the heparin group, compared with the no-heparin group (aOR, 0.81). The risk for sICH was significantly higher in the heparin group, compared with the no-heparin group (13% vs. 7.4%; aOR, 2.00).

Patients in the heparin group were also less likely to have a good functional outcome (aOR, 0.78), and there was a nonsignificant increase in risk for death among those patients.

The rate of sICH was 11% in the group that received low-dose heparin; it was 26% in the group that received moderate-dose heparin (aOR, 6.05). The mortality rate was 23% in the low-dose group and 47% in the moderate-dose group (aOR, 5.45).

There was no significant interaction between ASA and heparin on the primary outcome and on sICH occurrence.
 

‘A unique trial’

“MR CLEAN-MED is a unique trial because it investigated a widely used treatment but until now without any proof of effectiveness,” said Dr. van der Steen. The researchers expect that their findings will have a strong impact on the management of patients with acute ischemic stroke. They suggest that the administration of antithrombotic agents during EVT be avoided.

“We consider it probable that the increased risk of sICH explains at least a part of the nonsignificant shift towards a worse functional outcome,” co-investigator Bob Roozenbeek, MD, PhD, a neurologist at the Erasmus Medical Center, said in an interview. “However, to make more definite statements, we will have to do more in-depth analyses.”

It remains unclear whether the periprocedural use of lower dosages of antithrombotic agents or of a single bolus of heparin could be safe and effective, said Dr. van der Steen.

To gain insight into these questions, the investigators will evaluate the effect of the medications and dosages examined in this trial on primary hemostasis and coagulation activity in the trial population. They also plan to examine the effect of primary hemostasis and coagulation activity on risk for sICH and functional outcome.

Enhancing the effectiveness of thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke continues to be an important goal for stroke therapy, said Mark Fisher, MD, professor of neurology and pathology and laboratory medicine at the University of California, Irvine, who commented on the findings for this news organization.

At least three strategies are available: The use of ancillary antithrombotic medications, neuroprotection, and modulation of the vasoconstrictive properties of the microcirculation.

“Results of MR CLEAN-MED argue against the antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Fisher. “The alternate strategies remain viable, and results of interventions using those approaches are awaited with great interest.”

The study was funded by the CONTRAST consortium, which is supported by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative and the Brain Foundation Netherlands. Funding also was provided by Stryker, Medtronic, and Cerenovus. Dr. van der Steen and Dr. Fisher have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) or heparin is associated with an increased risk for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) in patients with ischemic stroke who are undergoing endovascular therapy (EVT), new data show.

In this population, ASA and heparin are each associated with an approximately doubled risk for sICH when administered during EVT.

“We did not find any evidence for a beneficial effect on functional outcome,” investigator Wouter van der Steen, MD, research physician and PhD student at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told this news organization. The possibility that a positive effect would be observed if the trial were continued was considered negligible, he added.

The researchers stopped the trial for safety reasons and recommend avoiding the evaluated dosages of both medications during EVT for ischemic stroke, said Dr. van der Steen.

He presented the findings from the MR CLEAN-MED trial at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) 2021, which was held online.
 

Trial stopped for safety

Previous research has supported the safety and efficacy of EVT for ischemic stroke. Still, more than 30% of patients do not recover, despite fast and complete recanalization. Incomplete microvascular reperfusion (IMR) could explain this incomplete recovery, the researchers note.

Microthrombi, which occlude distal vessels, and neutrophil extracellular traps can cause IMR. This problem can be reduced through treatment with ASA, which has an antithrombotic effect, or with heparin, which dissolves neutrophil extracellular traps, they add. Although these drugs are associated with good clinical outcomes, they entail an increased risk for sICH.

The investigators conducted the multicenter, randomized controlled MR CLEAN-MED trial to evaluate the effect of intravenous (IV) ASA and heparin, alone or in combination, during EVT for acute ischemic stroke. Treatment was open label, but outcome assessment was blinded. Eligible participants were adults with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of greater than or equal to 2 and an anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion for whom EVT could be initiated in fewer than 6 hours.

Investigators randomly assigned patients to receive or not to receive ASA. Within each of these two treatment groups, patients were randomly assigned to receive no heparin, low-dose heparin, or moderate-dose heparin.

ASA was given in a loading dose of 300 mg. Patients who were given low-dose heparin received a loading dose of 5,000 IU followed by 500 IU/h for 6 hours. Patients who received moderate-dose heparin were given a loading dose of 5,000 IU followed by 1,250 IU/h for 6 hours.

The study’s primary outcome was Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were NIHSS score at 24 hours, NIHSS score at 5 to 7 days, and recanalization grade at 24 hours on CT angiography or MRI. The primary safety outcomes were sICH and death within 90 days.

An independent, unblinded data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) assessed the risk for the primary safety outcomes throughout the trial. The board performed interim analyses of safety and efficacy for every 300 patients.

After the fourth safety assessment, the DSMB recommended that enrollment in the moderate-dose heparin arm be discontinued for safety reasons. Enrollment in other arms continued.

After the second interim analysis, the DSMB advised that the trial steering committee be unblinded to decide whether to stop or continue the trial. The steering committee decided to stop the trial for reasons of safety.
 

Increased risk for sICH

In all, 628 patients were included in the study. The ASA groups included 310 patients, and the no-ASA groups included 318 patients. In all, 332 participants received heparin, and 296 received no heparin.

The demographic characteristics were well balanced between groups. The population’s median age was 73 years, and about 53% were men. The median baseline NIHSS score was approximately 15. About 74% of patients received IV thrombolysis. The median baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Scan score was 9.

The investigators observed a slight shift toward worse outcome in the ASA group, compared with the no-ASA group (adjusted OR, 0.91). In addition, the ASA group had a significantly increased risk for sICH, compared with the no-ASA group (14% vs. 7.2%; aOR, 1.95).

Patients in the ASA group were less likely to have good functional outcome (mRS of 0 to 2; aOR, 0.76), and the mortality rate tended to be higher.

The researchers found a nonsignificant shift toward a worse functional outcome in the heparin group, compared with the no-heparin group (aOR, 0.81). The risk for sICH was significantly higher in the heparin group, compared with the no-heparin group (13% vs. 7.4%; aOR, 2.00).

Patients in the heparin group were also less likely to have a good functional outcome (aOR, 0.78), and there was a nonsignificant increase in risk for death among those patients.

The rate of sICH was 11% in the group that received low-dose heparin; it was 26% in the group that received moderate-dose heparin (aOR, 6.05). The mortality rate was 23% in the low-dose group and 47% in the moderate-dose group (aOR, 5.45).

There was no significant interaction between ASA and heparin on the primary outcome and on sICH occurrence.
 

‘A unique trial’

“MR CLEAN-MED is a unique trial because it investigated a widely used treatment but until now without any proof of effectiveness,” said Dr. van der Steen. The researchers expect that their findings will have a strong impact on the management of patients with acute ischemic stroke. They suggest that the administration of antithrombotic agents during EVT be avoided.

“We consider it probable that the increased risk of sICH explains at least a part of the nonsignificant shift towards a worse functional outcome,” co-investigator Bob Roozenbeek, MD, PhD, a neurologist at the Erasmus Medical Center, said in an interview. “However, to make more definite statements, we will have to do more in-depth analyses.”

It remains unclear whether the periprocedural use of lower dosages of antithrombotic agents or of a single bolus of heparin could be safe and effective, said Dr. van der Steen.

To gain insight into these questions, the investigators will evaluate the effect of the medications and dosages examined in this trial on primary hemostasis and coagulation activity in the trial population. They also plan to examine the effect of primary hemostasis and coagulation activity on risk for sICH and functional outcome.

Enhancing the effectiveness of thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke continues to be an important goal for stroke therapy, said Mark Fisher, MD, professor of neurology and pathology and laboratory medicine at the University of California, Irvine, who commented on the findings for this news organization.

At least three strategies are available: The use of ancillary antithrombotic medications, neuroprotection, and modulation of the vasoconstrictive properties of the microcirculation.

“Results of MR CLEAN-MED argue against the antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Fisher. “The alternate strategies remain viable, and results of interventions using those approaches are awaited with great interest.”

The study was funded by the CONTRAST consortium, which is supported by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative and the Brain Foundation Netherlands. Funding also was provided by Stryker, Medtronic, and Cerenovus. Dr. van der Steen and Dr. Fisher have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.

Geber86/Getty Images

The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.

Participants in COVE who were immunized more recently were 36% less likely to experience a breakthrough infection, according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.  

The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).

In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020

The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.

“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.

An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.

There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.

The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.

Geber86/Getty Images

The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.

Participants in COVE who were immunized more recently were 36% less likely to experience a breakthrough infection, according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.  

The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).

In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020

The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.

“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.

An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.

There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.

The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.

Geber86/Getty Images

The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.

Participants in COVE who were immunized more recently were 36% less likely to experience a breakthrough infection, according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.  

The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).

In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020

The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.

“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.

An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.

There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.

The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

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

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

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

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

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

Physicians are bracing for upcoming changes in reimbursement that may start within a few months. As doctors gear up for another wave of COVID, payment trends may not be the top priority, but some “uh oh” announcements in the fall of 2021 could have far-reaching implications that could affect your future.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a proposed rule in the summer covering key aspects of physician payment. Although the rule contained some small bright lights, the most important changes proposed were far from welcome.

Here’s what could be in store:

1. The highly anticipated Medicare Physician Fee Schedule ruling confirmed a sweeping payment cut. The drive to maintain budget neutrality forced the federal agency to reduce Medicare payments, on average, by nearly 4%. Many physicians are outraged at the proposed cut.

2. More bad news for 2022: Sequestration will be back. Sequestration is the mandatory, pesky, negative 2% adjustment on all Medicare payments. It had been put on hold and is set to return at the beginning of 2022.

Essentially, sequestration reduces what Medicare pays its providers for health services, but Medicare beneficiaries bear no responsibility for the cost difference. To prevent further debt, CMS imposes financially on hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers.

The Health Resources and Services Administration has funds remaining to reimburse for all COVID-related testing, treatment, and vaccines provided to uninsured individuals. You can apply and be reimbursed at Medicare rates for these services when COVID is the primary diagnosis (or secondary in the case of pregnancy). Patients need not be American citizens for you to get paid.

3. Down to a nail-biter: The final ruling is expected in early November. The situation smacks of earlier days when physicians clung to a precipice, waiting in anticipation for a legislative body to save them from the dreaded income plunge. Indeed, we are slipping back to the decade-long period when Congress kept coming to the rescue simply to maintain the status quo.

Many anticipate a last-minute Congressional intervention to save the day, particularly in the midst of another COVID spike. The promises of a stable reimbursement system made possible by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act have been far from realized, and there are signs that the payment landscape is in the midst of a fundamental transformation.

Other changes proposed in the 1,747-page ruling include:
 

Positive:

• More telehealth services will be covered by Medicare, including home visits.
• Tele–mental health services got a big boost; many restrictions were removed so that now the patient’s home is considered a permissible originating site. It also allows for audio-only (no visual required) encounters; the audio-only allowance will extend to opioid use disorder treatment services. Phone treatment is covered.
• Permanent adoption of G2252: The 11- to 20-minute virtual check-in code wasn’t just a one-time payment but will be reimbursed in perpetuity.
• Boosts in reimbursement for chronic care and principal care management codes, which range on the basis of service but indicate a commitment to pay for care coordination.
• Clarification of roles and billing opportunities for split/shared visits, which occur if a physician and advanced practice provider see the same patient on a particular day. Prepare for new coding rules to include a modifier. Previously, the rules for billing were muddled, so transparency helps guide payment opportunities.
• Delay of the appropriate use criteria for advanced imaging for 1 (more) year, a welcome postponement of the ruling that carries a significant administrative burden.
• Physician assistants will be able to bill Medicare directly, and referrals to be made to medical nutrition therapy by a nontreating physician.
• A new approach to patient cost-sharing for colorectal cancer screenings will be phased in. This area has caused problems in the past when the physician identifies a need for additional services (for example, polyp removal by a gastroenterologist during routine colonoscopy).
•  

Not positive:

• Which specialties benefit and which get zapped? The anticipated impact by specialty ranges from hits to interventional radiologists (–9%) and vascular surgeons (–8%), to increases for family practitioners, hand surgeons, endocrinologists, and geriatricians, each estimated to gain a modest 2%. (The exception is portable x-ray supplier, with an estimated increase of 10%.) All other specialties fall in between.
• The proposed conversion factor for 2022 is $33.58, a 3.75% drop from the 2021 conversion factor of $34.89.

The proposed ruling also covered the Quality Payment Program, the overarching program of which the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the main track for participation. The proposal incorporates additional episode-based cost measures as well as updates to quality indicators and improvement activities.

MIPS penalties. The stakes are higher now, with 9% penalties on the table for nonparticipants. The government offers physicians the ability to officially get out of the program in 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby staving off the steep penalty. The option, which is available through the end of the year, requires a simple application that can be completed on behalf of the entire practice. If you want out, now is the time to find and fill out that application.

Exempt from technology requirements. If the proposal is accepted, small practices – defined by CMS as 15 eligible clinicians or fewer – won’t have to file an annual application to reweight the “promoting interoperability” portion of the program. If acknowledged, small practices will automatically be exempt from the program’s technology section. That’s a big plus, as one of the many chief complaints from small practices is the onus of meeting the technology requirements, which include a security risk analysis, bi-directional health information exchange, public health reporting, and patient access to health information. Meeting the requirements is no small feat. That will only affect future years, so be sure to apply in 2021 if applicable for your practice.

Changes in MIPS. MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs) are anticipated for 2023, with the government releasing details about proposed models for heart disease, rheumatology, joint repair, and more. The MVPs are slated to take over the traditional MIPS by 2027.

The program will shift to 30% of your score coming from the “cost” category, which is based on the government’s analysis of a physician’s claims – and, if attributed, the claims of the patients for whom you care. This area is tricky to manage, but recognize that the costs under scrutiny are the expenses paid by Medicare on behalf of its patients.

In essence, Medicare is measuring the cost of your patients as compared with your colleagues’ costs (in the form of specialty-based benchmarks). Therefore, if you’re referring, or ordering, a more costly set of diagnostic tests, assessments, or interventions than your peers, you’ll be dinged.

However, physicians are more likely this year to flat out reject participation in the federal payment program. Payouts have been paltry and dismal to date, and the buzz is that physicians just don’t consider it worth the effort. Of course, clearing the threshold (which is proposed at 70 points next year) is a must to avoid the penalty, but don’t go crazy to get a perfect score as it won’t count for much. 2022 is the final year that there are any monies for exceptional performance.

Considering that the payouts for exceptional performance have been less than 2% for several years now, it’s hard to justify dedicating resources to achieve perfection. Experts believe that even exceptional performance will only be worth pennies in bonus payments.

The fear of the stick, therefore, may be the only motivation. And that is subjective, as physicians weigh the effort required versus just taking the hit on the penalty. But the penalty is substantial, and so even without the incentive, it’s important to participate at least at the threshold.

Fewer cost-sharing waivers. While the federal government’s payment policies have a major impact on reimbursement, other forces may have broader implications. Commercial payers have rolled back cost-sharing waivers, bringing to light the significant financial responsibility that patients have for their health care in the form of deductibles, coinsurance, and so forth.

More than a third of Americans had trouble paying their health care bills before the pandemic; as patients catch up with services that were postponed or delayed because of the pandemic, this may expose challenges for you. Patients with unpaid bills translate into your financial burden.

Virtual-first health plans. Patients may be seeking alternatives to avoid the frustrating cycle of unpaid medical bills. This may be a factor propelling another trend: Lower-cost virtual-first health plans such as Alignment Health have taken hold in the market. As the name implies, insurance coverage features telehealth that extends to in-person services if necessary.

These disruptors may have their hands at least somewhat tied, however. The market may not be able to fully embrace telemedicine until state licensure is addressed. Despite the federal regulatory relaxations, states still control the distribution of medical care through licensure requirements. Many are rolling back their pandemic-based emergency orders and only allowing licensed physicians to see patients in their state, even over telemedicine.

While seemingly frustrating for physicians who want to see patients over state lines, the delays imposed by states may actually have a welcome effect. If licensure migrates to the federal level, there are many implications. For the purposes of this article, the competitive landscape will become incredibly aggressive. You will need to compete with Amazon Care, Walmart, Cigna, and many other well-funded national players that would love nothing more than to launch a campaign to target the entire nation. Investors are eager to capture part of the nearly quarter-trillion-dollar market, with telemedicine at 38 times prepandemic levels and no signs of abating.

Increased competition for insurers. While the proposed drop in Medicare reimbursement is frustrating, keep a pulse on the fact that your patients may soon be lured by vendors like Amazon and others eager to gain access to physician payments. Instead of analyzing Federal Registers in the future, we may be assessing stock prices.

Consider, therefore, how to ensure that your digital front door is at least available, if not wide open, in the meantime. The nature of physician payments is surely changing.

Ms. Woodcock is president of Woodcock & Associates, Atlanta. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians are bracing for upcoming changes in reimbursement that may start within a few months. As doctors gear up for another wave of COVID, payment trends may not be the top priority, but some “uh oh” announcements in the fall of 2021 could have far-reaching implications that could affect your future.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a proposed rule in the summer covering key aspects of physician payment. Although the rule contained some small bright lights, the most important changes proposed were far from welcome.

Here’s what could be in store:

1. The highly anticipated Medicare Physician Fee Schedule ruling confirmed a sweeping payment cut. The drive to maintain budget neutrality forced the federal agency to reduce Medicare payments, on average, by nearly 4%. Many physicians are outraged at the proposed cut.

2. More bad news for 2022: Sequestration will be back. Sequestration is the mandatory, pesky, negative 2% adjustment on all Medicare payments. It had been put on hold and is set to return at the beginning of 2022.

Essentially, sequestration reduces what Medicare pays its providers for health services, but Medicare beneficiaries bear no responsibility for the cost difference. To prevent further debt, CMS imposes financially on hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers.

The Health Resources and Services Administration has funds remaining to reimburse for all COVID-related testing, treatment, and vaccines provided to uninsured individuals. You can apply and be reimbursed at Medicare rates for these services when COVID is the primary diagnosis (or secondary in the case of pregnancy). Patients need not be American citizens for you to get paid.

3. Down to a nail-biter: The final ruling is expected in early November. The situation smacks of earlier days when physicians clung to a precipice, waiting in anticipation for a legislative body to save them from the dreaded income plunge. Indeed, we are slipping back to the decade-long period when Congress kept coming to the rescue simply to maintain the status quo.

Many anticipate a last-minute Congressional intervention to save the day, particularly in the midst of another COVID spike. The promises of a stable reimbursement system made possible by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act have been far from realized, and there are signs that the payment landscape is in the midst of a fundamental transformation.

Other changes proposed in the 1,747-page ruling include:
 

Positive:

• More telehealth services will be covered by Medicare, including home visits.
• Tele–mental health services got a big boost; many restrictions were removed so that now the patient’s home is considered a permissible originating site. It also allows for audio-only (no visual required) encounters; the audio-only allowance will extend to opioid use disorder treatment services. Phone treatment is covered.
• Permanent adoption of G2252: The 11- to 20-minute virtual check-in code wasn’t just a one-time payment but will be reimbursed in perpetuity.
• Boosts in reimbursement for chronic care and principal care management codes, which range on the basis of service but indicate a commitment to pay for care coordination.
• Clarification of roles and billing opportunities for split/shared visits, which occur if a physician and advanced practice provider see the same patient on a particular day. Prepare for new coding rules to include a modifier. Previously, the rules for billing were muddled, so transparency helps guide payment opportunities.
• Delay of the appropriate use criteria for advanced imaging for 1 (more) year, a welcome postponement of the ruling that carries a significant administrative burden.
• Physician assistants will be able to bill Medicare directly, and referrals to be made to medical nutrition therapy by a nontreating physician.
• A new approach to patient cost-sharing for colorectal cancer screenings will be phased in. This area has caused problems in the past when the physician identifies a need for additional services (for example, polyp removal by a gastroenterologist during routine colonoscopy).
•  

Not positive:

• Which specialties benefit and which get zapped? The anticipated impact by specialty ranges from hits to interventional radiologists (–9%) and vascular surgeons (–8%), to increases for family practitioners, hand surgeons, endocrinologists, and geriatricians, each estimated to gain a modest 2%. (The exception is portable x-ray supplier, with an estimated increase of 10%.) All other specialties fall in between.
• The proposed conversion factor for 2022 is $33.58, a 3.75% drop from the 2021 conversion factor of $34.89.

The proposed ruling also covered the Quality Payment Program, the overarching program of which the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the main track for participation. The proposal incorporates additional episode-based cost measures as well as updates to quality indicators and improvement activities.

MIPS penalties. The stakes are higher now, with 9% penalties on the table for nonparticipants. The government offers physicians the ability to officially get out of the program in 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby staving off the steep penalty. The option, which is available through the end of the year, requires a simple application that can be completed on behalf of the entire practice. If you want out, now is the time to find and fill out that application.

Exempt from technology requirements. If the proposal is accepted, small practices – defined by CMS as 15 eligible clinicians or fewer – won’t have to file an annual application to reweight the “promoting interoperability” portion of the program. If acknowledged, small practices will automatically be exempt from the program’s technology section. That’s a big plus, as one of the many chief complaints from small practices is the onus of meeting the technology requirements, which include a security risk analysis, bi-directional health information exchange, public health reporting, and patient access to health information. Meeting the requirements is no small feat. That will only affect future years, so be sure to apply in 2021 if applicable for your practice.

Changes in MIPS. MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs) are anticipated for 2023, with the government releasing details about proposed models for heart disease, rheumatology, joint repair, and more. The MVPs are slated to take over the traditional MIPS by 2027.

The program will shift to 30% of your score coming from the “cost” category, which is based on the government’s analysis of a physician’s claims – and, if attributed, the claims of the patients for whom you care. This area is tricky to manage, but recognize that the costs under scrutiny are the expenses paid by Medicare on behalf of its patients.

In essence, Medicare is measuring the cost of your patients as compared with your colleagues’ costs (in the form of specialty-based benchmarks). Therefore, if you’re referring, or ordering, a more costly set of diagnostic tests, assessments, or interventions than your peers, you’ll be dinged.

However, physicians are more likely this year to flat out reject participation in the federal payment program. Payouts have been paltry and dismal to date, and the buzz is that physicians just don’t consider it worth the effort. Of course, clearing the threshold (which is proposed at 70 points next year) is a must to avoid the penalty, but don’t go crazy to get a perfect score as it won’t count for much. 2022 is the final year that there are any monies for exceptional performance.

Considering that the payouts for exceptional performance have been less than 2% for several years now, it’s hard to justify dedicating resources to achieve perfection. Experts believe that even exceptional performance will only be worth pennies in bonus payments.

The fear of the stick, therefore, may be the only motivation. And that is subjective, as physicians weigh the effort required versus just taking the hit on the penalty. But the penalty is substantial, and so even without the incentive, it’s important to participate at least at the threshold.

Fewer cost-sharing waivers. While the federal government’s payment policies have a major impact on reimbursement, other forces may have broader implications. Commercial payers have rolled back cost-sharing waivers, bringing to light the significant financial responsibility that patients have for their health care in the form of deductibles, coinsurance, and so forth.

More than a third of Americans had trouble paying their health care bills before the pandemic; as patients catch up with services that were postponed or delayed because of the pandemic, this may expose challenges for you. Patients with unpaid bills translate into your financial burden.

Virtual-first health plans. Patients may be seeking alternatives to avoid the frustrating cycle of unpaid medical bills. This may be a factor propelling another trend: Lower-cost virtual-first health plans such as Alignment Health have taken hold in the market. As the name implies, insurance coverage features telehealth that extends to in-person services if necessary.

These disruptors may have their hands at least somewhat tied, however. The market may not be able to fully embrace telemedicine until state licensure is addressed. Despite the federal regulatory relaxations, states still control the distribution of medical care through licensure requirements. Many are rolling back their pandemic-based emergency orders and only allowing licensed physicians to see patients in their state, even over telemedicine.

While seemingly frustrating for physicians who want to see patients over state lines, the delays imposed by states may actually have a welcome effect. If licensure migrates to the federal level, there are many implications. For the purposes of this article, the competitive landscape will become incredibly aggressive. You will need to compete with Amazon Care, Walmart, Cigna, and many other well-funded national players that would love nothing more than to launch a campaign to target the entire nation. Investors are eager to capture part of the nearly quarter-trillion-dollar market, with telemedicine at 38 times prepandemic levels and no signs of abating.

Increased competition for insurers. While the proposed drop in Medicare reimbursement is frustrating, keep a pulse on the fact that your patients may soon be lured by vendors like Amazon and others eager to gain access to physician payments. Instead of analyzing Federal Registers in the future, we may be assessing stock prices.

Consider, therefore, how to ensure that your digital front door is at least available, if not wide open, in the meantime. The nature of physician payments is surely changing.

Ms. Woodcock is president of Woodcock & Associates, Atlanta. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians are bracing for upcoming changes in reimbursement that may start within a few months. As doctors gear up for another wave of COVID, payment trends may not be the top priority, but some “uh oh” announcements in the fall of 2021 could have far-reaching implications that could affect your future.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a proposed rule in the summer covering key aspects of physician payment. Although the rule contained some small bright lights, the most important changes proposed were far from welcome.

Here’s what could be in store:

1. The highly anticipated Medicare Physician Fee Schedule ruling confirmed a sweeping payment cut. The drive to maintain budget neutrality forced the federal agency to reduce Medicare payments, on average, by nearly 4%. Many physicians are outraged at the proposed cut.

2. More bad news for 2022: Sequestration will be back. Sequestration is the mandatory, pesky, negative 2% adjustment on all Medicare payments. It had been put on hold and is set to return at the beginning of 2022.

Essentially, sequestration reduces what Medicare pays its providers for health services, but Medicare beneficiaries bear no responsibility for the cost difference. To prevent further debt, CMS imposes financially on hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers.

The Health Resources and Services Administration has funds remaining to reimburse for all COVID-related testing, treatment, and vaccines provided to uninsured individuals. You can apply and be reimbursed at Medicare rates for these services when COVID is the primary diagnosis (or secondary in the case of pregnancy). Patients need not be American citizens for you to get paid.

3. Down to a nail-biter: The final ruling is expected in early November. The situation smacks of earlier days when physicians clung to a precipice, waiting in anticipation for a legislative body to save them from the dreaded income plunge. Indeed, we are slipping back to the decade-long period when Congress kept coming to the rescue simply to maintain the status quo.

Many anticipate a last-minute Congressional intervention to save the day, particularly in the midst of another COVID spike. The promises of a stable reimbursement system made possible by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act have been far from realized, and there are signs that the payment landscape is in the midst of a fundamental transformation.

Other changes proposed in the 1,747-page ruling include:
 

Positive:

• More telehealth services will be covered by Medicare, including home visits.
• Tele–mental health services got a big boost; many restrictions were removed so that now the patient’s home is considered a permissible originating site. It also allows for audio-only (no visual required) encounters; the audio-only allowance will extend to opioid use disorder treatment services. Phone treatment is covered.
• Permanent adoption of G2252: The 11- to 20-minute virtual check-in code wasn’t just a one-time payment but will be reimbursed in perpetuity.
• Boosts in reimbursement for chronic care and principal care management codes, which range on the basis of service but indicate a commitment to pay for care coordination.
• Clarification of roles and billing opportunities for split/shared visits, which occur if a physician and advanced practice provider see the same patient on a particular day. Prepare for new coding rules to include a modifier. Previously, the rules for billing were muddled, so transparency helps guide payment opportunities.
• Delay of the appropriate use criteria for advanced imaging for 1 (more) year, a welcome postponement of the ruling that carries a significant administrative burden.
• Physician assistants will be able to bill Medicare directly, and referrals to be made to medical nutrition therapy by a nontreating physician.
• A new approach to patient cost-sharing for colorectal cancer screenings will be phased in. This area has caused problems in the past when the physician identifies a need for additional services (for example, polyp removal by a gastroenterologist during routine colonoscopy).
•  

Not positive:

• Which specialties benefit and which get zapped? The anticipated impact by specialty ranges from hits to interventional radiologists (–9%) and vascular surgeons (–8%), to increases for family practitioners, hand surgeons, endocrinologists, and geriatricians, each estimated to gain a modest 2%. (The exception is portable x-ray supplier, with an estimated increase of 10%.) All other specialties fall in between.
• The proposed conversion factor for 2022 is $33.58, a 3.75% drop from the 2021 conversion factor of $34.89.

The proposed ruling also covered the Quality Payment Program, the overarching program of which the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the main track for participation. The proposal incorporates additional episode-based cost measures as well as updates to quality indicators and improvement activities.

MIPS penalties. The stakes are higher now, with 9% penalties on the table for nonparticipants. The government offers physicians the ability to officially get out of the program in 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby staving off the steep penalty. The option, which is available through the end of the year, requires a simple application that can be completed on behalf of the entire practice. If you want out, now is the time to find and fill out that application.

Exempt from technology requirements. If the proposal is accepted, small practices – defined by CMS as 15 eligible clinicians or fewer – won’t have to file an annual application to reweight the “promoting interoperability” portion of the program. If acknowledged, small practices will automatically be exempt from the program’s technology section. That’s a big plus, as one of the many chief complaints from small practices is the onus of meeting the technology requirements, which include a security risk analysis, bi-directional health information exchange, public health reporting, and patient access to health information. Meeting the requirements is no small feat. That will only affect future years, so be sure to apply in 2021 if applicable for your practice.

Changes in MIPS. MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs) are anticipated for 2023, with the government releasing details about proposed models for heart disease, rheumatology, joint repair, and more. The MVPs are slated to take over the traditional MIPS by 2027.

The program will shift to 30% of your score coming from the “cost” category, which is based on the government’s analysis of a physician’s claims – and, if attributed, the claims of the patients for whom you care. This area is tricky to manage, but recognize that the costs under scrutiny are the expenses paid by Medicare on behalf of its patients.

In essence, Medicare is measuring the cost of your patients as compared with your colleagues’ costs (in the form of specialty-based benchmarks). Therefore, if you’re referring, or ordering, a more costly set of diagnostic tests, assessments, or interventions than your peers, you’ll be dinged.

However, physicians are more likely this year to flat out reject participation in the federal payment program. Payouts have been paltry and dismal to date, and the buzz is that physicians just don’t consider it worth the effort. Of course, clearing the threshold (which is proposed at 70 points next year) is a must to avoid the penalty, but don’t go crazy to get a perfect score as it won’t count for much. 2022 is the final year that there are any monies for exceptional performance.

Considering that the payouts for exceptional performance have been less than 2% for several years now, it’s hard to justify dedicating resources to achieve perfection. Experts believe that even exceptional performance will only be worth pennies in bonus payments.

The fear of the stick, therefore, may be the only motivation. And that is subjective, as physicians weigh the effort required versus just taking the hit on the penalty. But the penalty is substantial, and so even without the incentive, it’s important to participate at least at the threshold.

Fewer cost-sharing waivers. While the federal government’s payment policies have a major impact on reimbursement, other forces may have broader implications. Commercial payers have rolled back cost-sharing waivers, bringing to light the significant financial responsibility that patients have for their health care in the form of deductibles, coinsurance, and so forth.

More than a third of Americans had trouble paying their health care bills before the pandemic; as patients catch up with services that were postponed or delayed because of the pandemic, this may expose challenges for you. Patients with unpaid bills translate into your financial burden.

Virtual-first health plans. Patients may be seeking alternatives to avoid the frustrating cycle of unpaid medical bills. This may be a factor propelling another trend: Lower-cost virtual-first health plans such as Alignment Health have taken hold in the market. As the name implies, insurance coverage features telehealth that extends to in-person services if necessary.

These disruptors may have their hands at least somewhat tied, however. The market may not be able to fully embrace telemedicine until state licensure is addressed. Despite the federal regulatory relaxations, states still control the distribution of medical care through licensure requirements. Many are rolling back their pandemic-based emergency orders and only allowing licensed physicians to see patients in their state, even over telemedicine.

While seemingly frustrating for physicians who want to see patients over state lines, the delays imposed by states may actually have a welcome effect. If licensure migrates to the federal level, there are many implications. For the purposes of this article, the competitive landscape will become incredibly aggressive. You will need to compete with Amazon Care, Walmart, Cigna, and many other well-funded national players that would love nothing more than to launch a campaign to target the entire nation. Investors are eager to capture part of the nearly quarter-trillion-dollar market, with telemedicine at 38 times prepandemic levels and no signs of abating.

Increased competition for insurers. While the proposed drop in Medicare reimbursement is frustrating, keep a pulse on the fact that your patients may soon be lured by vendors like Amazon and others eager to gain access to physician payments. Instead of analyzing Federal Registers in the future, we may be assessing stock prices.

Consider, therefore, how to ensure that your digital front door is at least available, if not wide open, in the meantime. The nature of physician payments is surely changing.

Ms. Woodcock is president of Woodcock & Associates, Atlanta. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.