MDedge Emergency Medicine

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has officially signed off on a recommendation by an independent panel of 11 experts to allow people with weakened immune function to get a third dose of certain COVID-19 vaccines.

The decision follows a unanimous vote by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which in turn came hours after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.

About 7 million adults in the United States have moderately to severely impaired immune function because of a medical condition they live with or a medication they take to manage a health condition.

People who fall into this category are at higher risk of being hospitalized or dying if they get COVID-19. They are also more likely to transmit the infection. About 40% of vaccinated patients who are hospitalized with breakthrough cases are immunocompromised.

Recent studies have shown that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised people who didn’t develop antibodies after two doses of a vaccine do get some level of protection after a third dose.

Even then, however, the protection immunocompromised people get from vaccines is not as robust as someone who has healthy immune function, and some panel members were concerned that a third dose might come with a false sense of security.

“My only concern with adding a third dose for the immunocompromised is the impression that our immunocompromised population [will] then be safe,” said ACIP member Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

“I think the reality is they’ll be safer but still at incredibly high risk for severe disease and death,” she said.

In updating its EUA, the FDA stressed that, even after a third dose, people who are immunocompromised will still need to wear a mask indoors, socially distance, and avoid large crowds. In addition, family members and other close contacts should be fully vaccinated to protect these vulnerable individuals.
 

Johnson & Johnson not in the mix

The boosters will be available to children as young as 12 years of age who’ve had a Pfizer vaccine or those ages 18 and older who’ve gotten the Moderna vaccine.

For now, people who’ve had the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine have not been cleared to get a second dose of any vaccine.

FDA experts acknowledged the gap but said that people who had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine represented a small slice of vaccinated Americans, and said they couldn’t act before the FDA had updated its authorization for that vaccine, which the agency is actively exploring.

“We had to do what we’re doing based on the data we have in hand,” said Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, the division of the agency that regulates vaccines.

“We think at least there is a solution here for the very large majority of immunocompromised individuals, and we believe we will probably have a solution for the remainder in the not-too-distant future,” Dr. Marks said.

In its updated EUA, the FDA said that the third shots were intended for people who had undergone solid organ transplants or have an “equivalent level of immunocompromise.”
 

The details

Clinical experts on the CDC panel spent a good deal of time trying to suss out exactly what conditions might fall under the FDA’s umbrella for a third dose.

In a presentation to the committee, Neela Goswami, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, stressed that the shots are intended for patients who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, in close consultation with their doctors, but that people who should qualify would include those:

• Receiving treatment for solid tumors or blood cancers
• Taking immunosuppressing medications after a solid organ transplant
• Within 2 years of receiving CAR-T therapy or a stem cell transplant
• Who have primary immunodeficiencies – rare genetic disorders that prevent the immune system from working properly
• With advanced or untreated 
• Taking high-dose corticosteroids (more than 20 milligrams of  or its equivalent daily), alkylating agents, antimetabolites, chemotherapy, TNF blockers, or other immunomodulating or immunosuppressing biologics
• With certain chronic medical conditions, such as  or asplenia – living without a spleen
• Receiving dialysis

In discussion, CDC experts clarified that these third doses were not intended for people whose immune function had waned with age, such as elderly residents of long-term care facilities or people with chronic diseases like diabetes.

The idea is to try to get a third dose of the vaccine they’ve already had – Moderna or Pfizer – but if that’s not feasible, it’s fine for the third dose to be different from what someone has had before. The third dose should be given at least 28 days after a second dose, and, ideally, before the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Participants in the meeting said that the CDC would post updated materials on its website to help guide physicians on exactly who should receive third doses.

Ultimately, however, the extra doses will be given on an honor system; no prescriptions or other kinds of clinical documentation will be required for people to get a third dose of these shots.

Tests to measure neutralizing antibodies are also not recommended before the shots are given because of differences in the types of tests used to measure these antibodies and the difficulty in interpreting them. It’s unclear right now what level of neutralizing antibodies is needed for protection.
 

‘Peace of mind’

In public testimony, Heather Braaten, a 44-year-old being treated for ovarian cancer, said she was grateful to have gotten two shots of the Pfizer vaccine last winter, in between rounds of chemotherapy, but she knew she was probably not well protected. She said she’d become obsessive over the past few months reading medical studies and trying to understand her risk.

“I have felt distraught over the situation. My prognosis is poor. I most likely have about two to three years left to live, so everything counts,” Ms. Braaten said.

She said her life ambitions were humble. She wants to visit with friends and family and not have to worry that she’ll be a breakthrough case. She wants to go grocery shopping again and “not panic and leave the store after five minutes.” She’d love to feel free to travel, she said.

“While I understand I still need to be cautious, I am hopeful for the peace of mind and greater freedom a third shot can provide,” Ms. Braaten said.
 

More boosters on the way?

In the second half of the meeting, the CDC also signaled that it was considering the use of boosters for people whose immunity might have waned in the months since they had completed their vaccine series, particularly seniors. About 75% of people hospitalized with vaccine breakthrough cases are over age 65, according to CDC data.

Those considerations are becoming more urgent as the Delta variant continues to pummel less vaccinated states and counties.

In its presentation to the ACIP, Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID Response Team, highlighted data from Canada, Israel, Qatar, and the United Kingdom showing that, while the Pfizer vaccine was still highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and death, it’s far less likely when faced with Delta to prevent an infection that causes symptoms.

In Israel, Pfizer’s vaccine prevented symptoms an average of 41% of the time. In Qatar, which is also using the Moderna vaccine, Pfizer’s prevented symptomatic infections with Delta about 54% of the time compared with 85% with Moderna’s.

Dr. Scobie noted that Pfizer’s waning efficacy may have something to do with the fact that it uses a lower dosage than Moderna’s. Pfizer’s recommended dosing interval is also shorter – 3 weeks compared with 4 weeks for Moderna’s. Stretching the time between shots has been shown to boost vaccine effectiveness, she said.

New data from the Mayo clinic, published ahead of peer review, also suggest that Pfizer’s protection may be fading more quickly than Moderna’s. 

In February, both shots were nearly 100% effective at preventing the SARS-CoV-2 infection, but by July, against Delta, Pfizer’s efficacy had dropped to somewhere between 13% and 62%, while Moderna’s was still effective at preventing infection between 58% and 87% of the time.

In July, Pfizer’s was between 24% and 94% effective at preventing hospitalization with a COVID-19 infection and Moderna’s was between 33% and 96% effective at preventing hospitalization.

While that may sound like cause for concern, Dr. Scobie noted that, as of August 2, severe COVD-19 outcomes after vaccination are still very rare. Among 164 million fully vaccinated people in the United States there have been about 7,000 hospitalizations and 1,500 deaths; nearly three out of four of these have been in people over the age of 65.

The ACIP will next meet on August 24 to focus solely on the COVID-19 vaccines.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has officially signed off on a recommendation by an independent panel of 11 experts to allow people with weakened immune function to get a third dose of certain COVID-19 vaccines.

The decision follows a unanimous vote by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which in turn came hours after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.

About 7 million adults in the United States have moderately to severely impaired immune function because of a medical condition they live with or a medication they take to manage a health condition.

People who fall into this category are at higher risk of being hospitalized or dying if they get COVID-19. They are also more likely to transmit the infection. About 40% of vaccinated patients who are hospitalized with breakthrough cases are immunocompromised.

Recent studies have shown that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised people who didn’t develop antibodies after two doses of a vaccine do get some level of protection after a third dose.

Even then, however, the protection immunocompromised people get from vaccines is not as robust as someone who has healthy immune function, and some panel members were concerned that a third dose might come with a false sense of security.

“My only concern with adding a third dose for the immunocompromised is the impression that our immunocompromised population [will] then be safe,” said ACIP member Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

“I think the reality is they’ll be safer but still at incredibly high risk for severe disease and death,” she said.

In updating its EUA, the FDA stressed that, even after a third dose, people who are immunocompromised will still need to wear a mask indoors, socially distance, and avoid large crowds. In addition, family members and other close contacts should be fully vaccinated to protect these vulnerable individuals.
 

Johnson & Johnson not in the mix

The boosters will be available to children as young as 12 years of age who’ve had a Pfizer vaccine or those ages 18 and older who’ve gotten the Moderna vaccine.

For now, people who’ve had the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine have not been cleared to get a second dose of any vaccine.

FDA experts acknowledged the gap but said that people who had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine represented a small slice of vaccinated Americans, and said they couldn’t act before the FDA had updated its authorization for that vaccine, which the agency is actively exploring.

“We had to do what we’re doing based on the data we have in hand,” said Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, the division of the agency that regulates vaccines.

“We think at least there is a solution here for the very large majority of immunocompromised individuals, and we believe we will probably have a solution for the remainder in the not-too-distant future,” Dr. Marks said.

In its updated EUA, the FDA said that the third shots were intended for people who had undergone solid organ transplants or have an “equivalent level of immunocompromise.”
 

The details

Clinical experts on the CDC panel spent a good deal of time trying to suss out exactly what conditions might fall under the FDA’s umbrella for a third dose.

In a presentation to the committee, Neela Goswami, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, stressed that the shots are intended for patients who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, in close consultation with their doctors, but that people who should qualify would include those:

• Receiving treatment for solid tumors or blood cancers
• Taking immunosuppressing medications after a solid organ transplant
• Within 2 years of receiving CAR-T therapy or a stem cell transplant
• Who have primary immunodeficiencies – rare genetic disorders that prevent the immune system from working properly
• With advanced or untreated 
• Taking high-dose corticosteroids (more than 20 milligrams of  or its equivalent daily), alkylating agents, antimetabolites, chemotherapy, TNF blockers, or other immunomodulating or immunosuppressing biologics
• With certain chronic medical conditions, such as  or asplenia – living without a spleen
• Receiving dialysis

In discussion, CDC experts clarified that these third doses were not intended for people whose immune function had waned with age, such as elderly residents of long-term care facilities or people with chronic diseases like diabetes.

The idea is to try to get a third dose of the vaccine they’ve already had – Moderna or Pfizer – but if that’s not feasible, it’s fine for the third dose to be different from what someone has had before. The third dose should be given at least 28 days after a second dose, and, ideally, before the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Participants in the meeting said that the CDC would post updated materials on its website to help guide physicians on exactly who should receive third doses.

Ultimately, however, the extra doses will be given on an honor system; no prescriptions or other kinds of clinical documentation will be required for people to get a third dose of these shots.

Tests to measure neutralizing antibodies are also not recommended before the shots are given because of differences in the types of tests used to measure these antibodies and the difficulty in interpreting them. It’s unclear right now what level of neutralizing antibodies is needed for protection.
 

‘Peace of mind’

In public testimony, Heather Braaten, a 44-year-old being treated for ovarian cancer, said she was grateful to have gotten two shots of the Pfizer vaccine last winter, in between rounds of chemotherapy, but she knew she was probably not well protected. She said she’d become obsessive over the past few months reading medical studies and trying to understand her risk.

“I have felt distraught over the situation. My prognosis is poor. I most likely have about two to three years left to live, so everything counts,” Ms. Braaten said.

She said her life ambitions were humble. She wants to visit with friends and family and not have to worry that she’ll be a breakthrough case. She wants to go grocery shopping again and “not panic and leave the store after five minutes.” She’d love to feel free to travel, she said.

“While I understand I still need to be cautious, I am hopeful for the peace of mind and greater freedom a third shot can provide,” Ms. Braaten said.
 

More boosters on the way?

In the second half of the meeting, the CDC also signaled that it was considering the use of boosters for people whose immunity might have waned in the months since they had completed their vaccine series, particularly seniors. About 75% of people hospitalized with vaccine breakthrough cases are over age 65, according to CDC data.

Those considerations are becoming more urgent as the Delta variant continues to pummel less vaccinated states and counties.

In its presentation to the ACIP, Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID Response Team, highlighted data from Canada, Israel, Qatar, and the United Kingdom showing that, while the Pfizer vaccine was still highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and death, it’s far less likely when faced with Delta to prevent an infection that causes symptoms.

In Israel, Pfizer’s vaccine prevented symptoms an average of 41% of the time. In Qatar, which is also using the Moderna vaccine, Pfizer’s prevented symptomatic infections with Delta about 54% of the time compared with 85% with Moderna’s.

Dr. Scobie noted that Pfizer’s waning efficacy may have something to do with the fact that it uses a lower dosage than Moderna’s. Pfizer’s recommended dosing interval is also shorter – 3 weeks compared with 4 weeks for Moderna’s. Stretching the time between shots has been shown to boost vaccine effectiveness, she said.

New data from the Mayo clinic, published ahead of peer review, also suggest that Pfizer’s protection may be fading more quickly than Moderna’s. 

In February, both shots were nearly 100% effective at preventing the SARS-CoV-2 infection, but by July, against Delta, Pfizer’s efficacy had dropped to somewhere between 13% and 62%, while Moderna’s was still effective at preventing infection between 58% and 87% of the time.

In July, Pfizer’s was between 24% and 94% effective at preventing hospitalization with a COVID-19 infection and Moderna’s was between 33% and 96% effective at preventing hospitalization.

While that may sound like cause for concern, Dr. Scobie noted that, as of August 2, severe COVD-19 outcomes after vaccination are still very rare. Among 164 million fully vaccinated people in the United States there have been about 7,000 hospitalizations and 1,500 deaths; nearly three out of four of these have been in people over the age of 65.

The ACIP will next meet on August 24 to focus solely on the COVID-19 vaccines.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has officially signed off on a recommendation by an independent panel of 11 experts to allow people with weakened immune function to get a third dose of certain COVID-19 vaccines.

The decision follows a unanimous vote by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which in turn came hours after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.

About 7 million adults in the United States have moderately to severely impaired immune function because of a medical condition they live with or a medication they take to manage a health condition.

People who fall into this category are at higher risk of being hospitalized or dying if they get COVID-19. They are also more likely to transmit the infection. About 40% of vaccinated patients who are hospitalized with breakthrough cases are immunocompromised.

Recent studies have shown that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised people who didn’t develop antibodies after two doses of a vaccine do get some level of protection after a third dose.

Even then, however, the protection immunocompromised people get from vaccines is not as robust as someone who has healthy immune function, and some panel members were concerned that a third dose might come with a false sense of security.

“My only concern with adding a third dose for the immunocompromised is the impression that our immunocompromised population [will] then be safe,” said ACIP member Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

“I think the reality is they’ll be safer but still at incredibly high risk for severe disease and death,” she said.

In updating its EUA, the FDA stressed that, even after a third dose, people who are immunocompromised will still need to wear a mask indoors, socially distance, and avoid large crowds. In addition, family members and other close contacts should be fully vaccinated to protect these vulnerable individuals.
 

Johnson & Johnson not in the mix

The boosters will be available to children as young as 12 years of age who’ve had a Pfizer vaccine or those ages 18 and older who’ve gotten the Moderna vaccine.

For now, people who’ve had the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine have not been cleared to get a second dose of any vaccine.

FDA experts acknowledged the gap but said that people who had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine represented a small slice of vaccinated Americans, and said they couldn’t act before the FDA had updated its authorization for that vaccine, which the agency is actively exploring.

“We had to do what we’re doing based on the data we have in hand,” said Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, the division of the agency that regulates vaccines.

“We think at least there is a solution here for the very large majority of immunocompromised individuals, and we believe we will probably have a solution for the remainder in the not-too-distant future,” Dr. Marks said.

In its updated EUA, the FDA said that the third shots were intended for people who had undergone solid organ transplants or have an “equivalent level of immunocompromise.”
 

The details

Clinical experts on the CDC panel spent a good deal of time trying to suss out exactly what conditions might fall under the FDA’s umbrella for a third dose.

In a presentation to the committee, Neela Goswami, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, stressed that the shots are intended for patients who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, in close consultation with their doctors, but that people who should qualify would include those:

• Receiving treatment for solid tumors or blood cancers
• Taking immunosuppressing medications after a solid organ transplant
• Within 2 years of receiving CAR-T therapy or a stem cell transplant
• Who have primary immunodeficiencies – rare genetic disorders that prevent the immune system from working properly
• With advanced or untreated 
• Taking high-dose corticosteroids (more than 20 milligrams of  or its equivalent daily), alkylating agents, antimetabolites, chemotherapy, TNF blockers, or other immunomodulating or immunosuppressing biologics
• With certain chronic medical conditions, such as  or asplenia – living without a spleen
• Receiving dialysis

In discussion, CDC experts clarified that these third doses were not intended for people whose immune function had waned with age, such as elderly residents of long-term care facilities or people with chronic diseases like diabetes.

The idea is to try to get a third dose of the vaccine they’ve already had – Moderna or Pfizer – but if that’s not feasible, it’s fine for the third dose to be different from what someone has had before. The third dose should be given at least 28 days after a second dose, and, ideally, before the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Participants in the meeting said that the CDC would post updated materials on its website to help guide physicians on exactly who should receive third doses.

Ultimately, however, the extra doses will be given on an honor system; no prescriptions or other kinds of clinical documentation will be required for people to get a third dose of these shots.

Tests to measure neutralizing antibodies are also not recommended before the shots are given because of differences in the types of tests used to measure these antibodies and the difficulty in interpreting them. It’s unclear right now what level of neutralizing antibodies is needed for protection.
 

‘Peace of mind’

In public testimony, Heather Braaten, a 44-year-old being treated for ovarian cancer, said she was grateful to have gotten two shots of the Pfizer vaccine last winter, in between rounds of chemotherapy, but she knew she was probably not well protected. She said she’d become obsessive over the past few months reading medical studies and trying to understand her risk.

“I have felt distraught over the situation. My prognosis is poor. I most likely have about two to three years left to live, so everything counts,” Ms. Braaten said.

She said her life ambitions were humble. She wants to visit with friends and family and not have to worry that she’ll be a breakthrough case. She wants to go grocery shopping again and “not panic and leave the store after five minutes.” She’d love to feel free to travel, she said.

“While I understand I still need to be cautious, I am hopeful for the peace of mind and greater freedom a third shot can provide,” Ms. Braaten said.
 

More boosters on the way?

In the second half of the meeting, the CDC also signaled that it was considering the use of boosters for people whose immunity might have waned in the months since they had completed their vaccine series, particularly seniors. About 75% of people hospitalized with vaccine breakthrough cases are over age 65, according to CDC data.

Those considerations are becoming more urgent as the Delta variant continues to pummel less vaccinated states and counties.

In its presentation to the ACIP, Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID Response Team, highlighted data from Canada, Israel, Qatar, and the United Kingdom showing that, while the Pfizer vaccine was still highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and death, it’s far less likely when faced with Delta to prevent an infection that causes symptoms.

In Israel, Pfizer’s vaccine prevented symptoms an average of 41% of the time. In Qatar, which is also using the Moderna vaccine, Pfizer’s prevented symptomatic infections with Delta about 54% of the time compared with 85% with Moderna’s.

Dr. Scobie noted that Pfizer’s waning efficacy may have something to do with the fact that it uses a lower dosage than Moderna’s. Pfizer’s recommended dosing interval is also shorter – 3 weeks compared with 4 weeks for Moderna’s. Stretching the time between shots has been shown to boost vaccine effectiveness, she said.

New data from the Mayo clinic, published ahead of peer review, also suggest that Pfizer’s protection may be fading more quickly than Moderna’s. 

In February, both shots were nearly 100% effective at preventing the SARS-CoV-2 infection, but by July, against Delta, Pfizer’s efficacy had dropped to somewhere between 13% and 62%, while Moderna’s was still effective at preventing infection between 58% and 87% of the time.

In July, Pfizer’s was between 24% and 94% effective at preventing hospitalization with a COVID-19 infection and Moderna’s was between 33% and 96% effective at preventing hospitalization.

While that may sound like cause for concern, Dr. Scobie noted that, as of August 2, severe COVD-19 outcomes after vaccination are still very rare. Among 164 million fully vaccinated people in the United States there have been about 7,000 hospitalizations and 1,500 deaths; nearly three out of four of these have been in people over the age of 65.

The ACIP will next meet on August 24 to focus solely on the COVID-19 vaccines.

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

Women have more in-hospital complications than men and double the risk for major adverse events after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Watchman device, according to new National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) LAAO Registry data.

In-hospital mortality was also twofold higher among women than men and hospital stay was longer. Even after adjustment for potential confounders, these relationships still exist, Douglas Darden, MD, University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported online in JAMA Cardiology.

“I think this article certainly highlights – specific to a procedure that has gained more popularity and will become more commonplace in cardiovascular practice – that operators and patients need to pay more attention [to the fact] that women may be at more risk for adverse events and mortality,” senior author Jonathan Hsu, MD, also from UCSD, told this news organization.

Possible explanations for the disparities include anatomic differences between the sexes, such as smaller vessel diameter, thinner myocardial wall, and a more friable LLA in women; increased frailty; and clinician inexperience, the authors suggest.

“It could be something as simple or as specific as thinness of tissue or friability of tissue that may predispose women more than men to perforation or other risks that may put them at risk for adverse events specifically,” Dr. Hsu said.

Commenting further, he said, “I think we would be remiss not to mention the fact that part of this association may unfortunately be a disparity in care that women as a specific sex may receive,” he said.

Indeed, postimplantation women had higher adjusted odds of receiving a direct oral anticoagulant only (odds ratio, 1.07, P = .02) and warfarin only (OR, 1.12; P < .001), and lower odds of receiving clinical trial-recommended combined oral anticoagulants plus single antiplatelet therapy (OR, 0.91; P < .001).

“This article highlights the fact that in all aspects we need to pay attention that women receive as high-level, guideline-driven care as men,” Dr. Hsu said.

First author Dr. Darden pointed out in an email that women suffer disproportionately from atrial fibrillation (AFib), compared with men, with worse quality of life and higher risk for stroke. So “it’s only natural to seek further treatment in order to decrease that risk, specifically LAAO with Watchman.”

Despite the fact that women are known to be at greater risk for adverse events after invasive procedures, including AFib ablation and TAVR, little is known about sex differences with LAAO, as the LAAO clinical trials only included about 30% women, he said.

Two 2021 papers zeroing in on these sex differences produced mixed results. An American report in roughly 9,200 patients reported a higher risk for major in-hospital events in women after receipt of Watchman implants, whereas a German report found similar safety and efficacy among 387 consecutive patients, regardless of sex.

The present study involved 20,388 women and 28,969 men implanted with the Watchman device between January 2016 and June 2019 in the NCDR registry, the largest LAAO registry with adjudicated events with participation mandated for Medicare coverage.

The women were older (mean age, 76.5 vs. 75.8 years), had a higher mean CHA2DS2-VASc score (5.3 vs. 4.5), and were more likely to have a high fall risk as an indication for LAAO (39.8% vs. 33.5%).

Furthermore, women were more likely than men to have paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and uncontrolled hypertension, but less likely to have congestive heart failure, diabetes, and coronary artery disease.

After multivariable adjustment, all but one of the primary outcomes was significantly worse in women versus men:

• Aborted or canceled procedure: 3.0% vs. 2.9% (OR, 1.01; P = .87)
• Any adverse event: 6.3% vs. 3.9% (OR, 1.63; P < .001)
• Major adverse event: 4.1% vs. 2.0% (OR, 2.06; P < .001)
• Hospital stay more than 1 day: 16.0% vs. 11.6% (OR, 1.46; P < .001)
• Death: 58/0.3% vs. 37/0.1% (OR, 2.01; P = .001).

The authors point out that device-related adverse events are lower than in the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL clinical trials of the Watchman, with 0.8% of patients developing a pericardial effusion requiring drainage and 1.2% having major bleeding, down from highs of 4.8% and 3.5%, respectively, in PROTECT-AF.

Although promising overall, adverse events among women were driven by higher rates of both pericardial effusion requiring draining (1.2% vs. 0.5%; P < .001) and major bleeding (1.7% vs. 0.8%; P < .001).

Commenting for this news organization John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, expressed concern that despite its increasing popularity, the rate of serious complications appears to be increasing for the preventive procedure. “That’s peculiar because you’d expect increased experience and device iterations to decrease complications. And the NCDR data surely undercounts the real rate of adverse events because it only includes in-hospital complications.”

Based on the current data, he observed that there’s a 3% chance for a major complication overall, with the typical female Watchman patient facing a 6% chance of any adverse event and 4% risk for a major adverse event during her hospital stay alone.

“The striking difference in complications in women is a super important observation because higher upfront risk has an even more negative effect on the harm-benefit calculus of this procedure,” Dr. Mandrola said.

“Some of the increased harm in women may have been due to the slightly higher rate of comorbid conditions, but that is real-life,” he said. “Registry data like this is extremely valuable because, unlike the carefully selected randomized trial, registries reflect what is actually being done in practice.”

Dr. Hsu agreed that the absolute numbers are concerning. Nevertheless, “it doesn’t necessarily sound an alarm that our adverse events are worse in contemporary practice or that adverse events continue to increase. But, in general, it just points to the fact that there is this inherent larger risk in women, compared with men, and that we need to, first, figure out why, and second, we need to figure out how to improve.”

Strategies to mitigate procedural risk included ultrasound-guided venous access, preprocedural imaging, improved proficiency with LAAO devices, and continued development of safer devices, they note.

Despite the more generalizable nature of registry data, “the results of this study should not result in differing sex-based thresholds for LAAO implant,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation’s NCDR. Dr. Hsu reports financial relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Biotronik, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Biosense Webster, Altathera Pharmaceuticals, and Zoll Medical and holding equity interest in Acutus Medical and Vektor Medical outside the submitted work. Dr. Darden reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mandrola is a regular contributor to Medscape Cardiology.

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

Women have more in-hospital complications than men and double the risk for major adverse events after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Watchman device, according to new National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) LAAO Registry data.

In-hospital mortality was also twofold higher among women than men and hospital stay was longer. Even after adjustment for potential confounders, these relationships still exist, Douglas Darden, MD, University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported online in JAMA Cardiology.

“I think this article certainly highlights – specific to a procedure that has gained more popularity and will become more commonplace in cardiovascular practice – that operators and patients need to pay more attention [to the fact] that women may be at more risk for adverse events and mortality,” senior author Jonathan Hsu, MD, also from UCSD, told this news organization.

Possible explanations for the disparities include anatomic differences between the sexes, such as smaller vessel diameter, thinner myocardial wall, and a more friable LLA in women; increased frailty; and clinician inexperience, the authors suggest.

“It could be something as simple or as specific as thinness of tissue or friability of tissue that may predispose women more than men to perforation or other risks that may put them at risk for adverse events specifically,” Dr. Hsu said.

Commenting further, he said, “I think we would be remiss not to mention the fact that part of this association may unfortunately be a disparity in care that women as a specific sex may receive,” he said.

Indeed, postimplantation women had higher adjusted odds of receiving a direct oral anticoagulant only (odds ratio, 1.07, P = .02) and warfarin only (OR, 1.12; P < .001), and lower odds of receiving clinical trial-recommended combined oral anticoagulants plus single antiplatelet therapy (OR, 0.91; P < .001).

“This article highlights the fact that in all aspects we need to pay attention that women receive as high-level, guideline-driven care as men,” Dr. Hsu said.

First author Dr. Darden pointed out in an email that women suffer disproportionately from atrial fibrillation (AFib), compared with men, with worse quality of life and higher risk for stroke. So “it’s only natural to seek further treatment in order to decrease that risk, specifically LAAO with Watchman.”

Despite the fact that women are known to be at greater risk for adverse events after invasive procedures, including AFib ablation and TAVR, little is known about sex differences with LAAO, as the LAAO clinical trials only included about 30% women, he said.

Two 2021 papers zeroing in on these sex differences produced mixed results. An American report in roughly 9,200 patients reported a higher risk for major in-hospital events in women after receipt of Watchman implants, whereas a German report found similar safety and efficacy among 387 consecutive patients, regardless of sex.

The present study involved 20,388 women and 28,969 men implanted with the Watchman device between January 2016 and June 2019 in the NCDR registry, the largest LAAO registry with adjudicated events with participation mandated for Medicare coverage.

The women were older (mean age, 76.5 vs. 75.8 years), had a higher mean CHA2DS2-VASc score (5.3 vs. 4.5), and were more likely to have a high fall risk as an indication for LAAO (39.8% vs. 33.5%).

Furthermore, women were more likely than men to have paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and uncontrolled hypertension, but less likely to have congestive heart failure, diabetes, and coronary artery disease.

After multivariable adjustment, all but one of the primary outcomes was significantly worse in women versus men:

• Aborted or canceled procedure: 3.0% vs. 2.9% (OR, 1.01; P = .87)
• Any adverse event: 6.3% vs. 3.9% (OR, 1.63; P < .001)
• Major adverse event: 4.1% vs. 2.0% (OR, 2.06; P < .001)
• Hospital stay more than 1 day: 16.0% vs. 11.6% (OR, 1.46; P < .001)
• Death: 58/0.3% vs. 37/0.1% (OR, 2.01; P = .001).

The authors point out that device-related adverse events are lower than in the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL clinical trials of the Watchman, with 0.8% of patients developing a pericardial effusion requiring drainage and 1.2% having major bleeding, down from highs of 4.8% and 3.5%, respectively, in PROTECT-AF.

Although promising overall, adverse events among women were driven by higher rates of both pericardial effusion requiring draining (1.2% vs. 0.5%; P < .001) and major bleeding (1.7% vs. 0.8%; P < .001).

Commenting for this news organization John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, expressed concern that despite its increasing popularity, the rate of serious complications appears to be increasing for the preventive procedure. “That’s peculiar because you’d expect increased experience and device iterations to decrease complications. And the NCDR data surely undercounts the real rate of adverse events because it only includes in-hospital complications.”

Based on the current data, he observed that there’s a 3% chance for a major complication overall, with the typical female Watchman patient facing a 6% chance of any adverse event and 4% risk for a major adverse event during her hospital stay alone.

“The striking difference in complications in women is a super important observation because higher upfront risk has an even more negative effect on the harm-benefit calculus of this procedure,” Dr. Mandrola said.

“Some of the increased harm in women may have been due to the slightly higher rate of comorbid conditions, but that is real-life,” he said. “Registry data like this is extremely valuable because, unlike the carefully selected randomized trial, registries reflect what is actually being done in practice.”

Dr. Hsu agreed that the absolute numbers are concerning. Nevertheless, “it doesn’t necessarily sound an alarm that our adverse events are worse in contemporary practice or that adverse events continue to increase. But, in general, it just points to the fact that there is this inherent larger risk in women, compared with men, and that we need to, first, figure out why, and second, we need to figure out how to improve.”

Strategies to mitigate procedural risk included ultrasound-guided venous access, preprocedural imaging, improved proficiency with LAAO devices, and continued development of safer devices, they note.

Despite the more generalizable nature of registry data, “the results of this study should not result in differing sex-based thresholds for LAAO implant,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation’s NCDR. Dr. Hsu reports financial relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Biotronik, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Biosense Webster, Altathera Pharmaceuticals, and Zoll Medical and holding equity interest in Acutus Medical and Vektor Medical outside the submitted work. Dr. Darden reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mandrola is a regular contributor to Medscape Cardiology.

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

Women have more in-hospital complications than men and double the risk for major adverse events after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Watchman device, according to new National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) LAAO Registry data.

In-hospital mortality was also twofold higher among women than men and hospital stay was longer. Even after adjustment for potential confounders, these relationships still exist, Douglas Darden, MD, University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported online in JAMA Cardiology.

“I think this article certainly highlights – specific to a procedure that has gained more popularity and will become more commonplace in cardiovascular practice – that operators and patients need to pay more attention [to the fact] that women may be at more risk for adverse events and mortality,” senior author Jonathan Hsu, MD, also from UCSD, told this news organization.

Possible explanations for the disparities include anatomic differences between the sexes, such as smaller vessel diameter, thinner myocardial wall, and a more friable LLA in women; increased frailty; and clinician inexperience, the authors suggest.

“It could be something as simple or as specific as thinness of tissue or friability of tissue that may predispose women more than men to perforation or other risks that may put them at risk for adverse events specifically,” Dr. Hsu said.

Commenting further, he said, “I think we would be remiss not to mention the fact that part of this association may unfortunately be a disparity in care that women as a specific sex may receive,” he said.

Indeed, postimplantation women had higher adjusted odds of receiving a direct oral anticoagulant only (odds ratio, 1.07, P = .02) and warfarin only (OR, 1.12; P < .001), and lower odds of receiving clinical trial-recommended combined oral anticoagulants plus single antiplatelet therapy (OR, 0.91; P < .001).

“This article highlights the fact that in all aspects we need to pay attention that women receive as high-level, guideline-driven care as men,” Dr. Hsu said.

First author Dr. Darden pointed out in an email that women suffer disproportionately from atrial fibrillation (AFib), compared with men, with worse quality of life and higher risk for stroke. So “it’s only natural to seek further treatment in order to decrease that risk, specifically LAAO with Watchman.”

Despite the fact that women are known to be at greater risk for adverse events after invasive procedures, including AFib ablation and TAVR, little is known about sex differences with LAAO, as the LAAO clinical trials only included about 30% women, he said.

Two 2021 papers zeroing in on these sex differences produced mixed results. An American report in roughly 9,200 patients reported a higher risk for major in-hospital events in women after receipt of Watchman implants, whereas a German report found similar safety and efficacy among 387 consecutive patients, regardless of sex.

The present study involved 20,388 women and 28,969 men implanted with the Watchman device between January 2016 and June 2019 in the NCDR registry, the largest LAAO registry with adjudicated events with participation mandated for Medicare coverage.

The women were older (mean age, 76.5 vs. 75.8 years), had a higher mean CHA2DS2-VASc score (5.3 vs. 4.5), and were more likely to have a high fall risk as an indication for LAAO (39.8% vs. 33.5%).

Furthermore, women were more likely than men to have paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and uncontrolled hypertension, but less likely to have congestive heart failure, diabetes, and coronary artery disease.

After multivariable adjustment, all but one of the primary outcomes was significantly worse in women versus men:

• Aborted or canceled procedure: 3.0% vs. 2.9% (OR, 1.01; P = .87)
• Any adverse event: 6.3% vs. 3.9% (OR, 1.63; P < .001)
• Major adverse event: 4.1% vs. 2.0% (OR, 2.06; P < .001)
• Hospital stay more than 1 day: 16.0% vs. 11.6% (OR, 1.46; P < .001)
• Death: 58/0.3% vs. 37/0.1% (OR, 2.01; P = .001).

The authors point out that device-related adverse events are lower than in the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL clinical trials of the Watchman, with 0.8% of patients developing a pericardial effusion requiring drainage and 1.2% having major bleeding, down from highs of 4.8% and 3.5%, respectively, in PROTECT-AF.

Although promising overall, adverse events among women were driven by higher rates of both pericardial effusion requiring draining (1.2% vs. 0.5%; P < .001) and major bleeding (1.7% vs. 0.8%; P < .001).

Commenting for this news organization John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, expressed concern that despite its increasing popularity, the rate of serious complications appears to be increasing for the preventive procedure. “That’s peculiar because you’d expect increased experience and device iterations to decrease complications. And the NCDR data surely undercounts the real rate of adverse events because it only includes in-hospital complications.”

Based on the current data, he observed that there’s a 3% chance for a major complication overall, with the typical female Watchman patient facing a 6% chance of any adverse event and 4% risk for a major adverse event during her hospital stay alone.

“The striking difference in complications in women is a super important observation because higher upfront risk has an even more negative effect on the harm-benefit calculus of this procedure,” Dr. Mandrola said.

“Some of the increased harm in women may have been due to the slightly higher rate of comorbid conditions, but that is real-life,” he said. “Registry data like this is extremely valuable because, unlike the carefully selected randomized trial, registries reflect what is actually being done in practice.”

Dr. Hsu agreed that the absolute numbers are concerning. Nevertheless, “it doesn’t necessarily sound an alarm that our adverse events are worse in contemporary practice or that adverse events continue to increase. But, in general, it just points to the fact that there is this inherent larger risk in women, compared with men, and that we need to, first, figure out why, and second, we need to figure out how to improve.”

Strategies to mitigate procedural risk included ultrasound-guided venous access, preprocedural imaging, improved proficiency with LAAO devices, and continued development of safer devices, they note.

Despite the more generalizable nature of registry data, “the results of this study should not result in differing sex-based thresholds for LAAO implant,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation’s NCDR. Dr. Hsu reports financial relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Biotronik, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Biosense Webster, Altathera Pharmaceuticals, and Zoll Medical and holding equity interest in Acutus Medical and Vektor Medical outside the submitted work. Dr. Darden reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mandrola is a regular contributor to Medscape Cardiology.

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

Therapeutic levels of heparin can have widely varying effects on COVID-19 patients depending on the severity of their disease, according to a multiplatform clinical trial that analyzed patient data from three international trials.

NYU Langone Health

COVID-19 patients in the ICU, or at least receiving ICU-level care, derived no benefit from anticoagulation with heparin, while non–critically ill COVID-19 patients – those who were hospitalized but not receiving ICU-level care – on the same anticoagulation were less likely to progress to need respiratory or cardiovascular organ support despite a slightly heightened risk of bleeding events.

Reporting in two articles published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, authors of three international trials combined their data into one multiplatform trial that makes a strong case for prescribing therapeutic levels of heparin in hospitalized patients not receiving ICU-level care were non–critically ill and critically ill.

“I think this is going to be a game changer,” said Jeffrey S. Berger, MD, ACTIV-4a co–principal investigator and co–first author of the study of non–critically ill patients. “I think that using therapeutic-dose anticoagulation should improve outcomes in the tens of thousands of patients worldwide. I hope our data can have a global impact.”
 

Outcomes based on disease severity

The multiplatform trial analyzed data from the Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC); A Multicenter, Adaptive, Randomized Controlled Platform Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Antithrombotic Strategies in Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 (ACTIV-4a); and Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP).

The trial evaluated 2,219 non–critically ill hospitalized patients, 1,181 of whom were randomized to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation; and 1,098 critically ill patients, 534 of whom were prescribed therapeutic levels of heparin.

In the critically ill patients, those on heparin were no more likely to get discharged or spend fewer days on respiratory or CV organ support – oxygen, mechanical ventilation, life support, vasopressors or inotropes – than were those on usual-care thromboprophylaxis. The investigators stopped the trial in both patient populations: in critically ill patients when it became obvious therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was having no impact; and in moderately ill patients when the trial met the prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation.

ICU patients on therapeutic-level heparin spent an average of 1 day free of organ support vs. 4 for patients on usual-care prophylactic antithrombotic drugs. The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the therapeutic-level and usual-care critically ill patients: 62.7% and 64.5%, respectively. Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% and 2.8%, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between both patient groups.

However, in non–critically ill patients, therapeutic levels of heparin resulted in a marked improvement in outcomes. The researchers estimated that, for every 1,000 hospitalized patients with what they labeled moderate disease, an initial treatment with therapeutic-dose heparin resulted in 40 additional patients surviving compared to usual-care thromboprophylaxis.

The percentages of patients not needing organ support before hospital discharge was 80.2% on therapeutic-dose heparin and 76.4% on usual-care therapy. In terms of adjusted odds ratio, the anticoagulation group had a 27% improved chance of not needing daily organ support.

Those improvements came with an additional seven major bleeding events per 1,000 patients. That broke down to a rate of 1.9% in the therapeutic-dose and 0.9% in the usual-care patients.

As the Delta variant of COVID-19 spreads, Patrick R. Lawler, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the ATTACC trial, said there’s no reason these findings shouldn’t apply for all variants of the disease.

University of Toronto

Dr. Lawler, a physician-scientist at Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at Toronto General Hospital, noted that the multiplatform study did not account for disease variant. “Ongoing clinical trials are tracking the variant patients have or the variants that are most prevalent in an area at that time,” he said. “It may be easier in future trials to look at that question.”
 

Explaining heparin’s varying effects

The study did not specifically sort out why moderately ill patients fared better on heparin than their critically ill counterparts, but Dr. Lawler speculated on possible reasons. “One might be that the extent of illness severity is too extreme in the ICU-level population for heparin to have a beneficial extent,” he said.

He acknowledged that higher rates of macrovascular thrombosis, such as venous thromboembolism, in ICU patients would suggest that heparin would have a greater beneficial effect, but, he added, “it may also suggest how advanced that process is, and perhaps heparin is not adequate to reverse the course at that point given relatively extensive thrombosis and associate organ failure.”

As clinicians have gained experience dealing with COVID-19, they’ve learned that infected patients carry a high burden of macro- and microthrombosis, Dr. Berger said, which may explain why critically ill patients didn’t respond as well to therapeutic levels of heparin. “I think the cat is out of the bag; patients who are severe are too ill to benefit,” he said. “I would think there’s too much microthrombosis that is already in their bodies.”

However, this doesn’t completely rule out therapeutic levels of heparin in critically ill COVID-19 patients. There are some scenarios where it’s needed, said Dr. Berger, associate professor of medicine and surgery and director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at New York University Langone Health. “Anyone who has a known clot already, like a known macrothrombosis in their leg or lung, needs to be on full-dose heparin,” he said.

That rationale can help reconcile the different outcomes in the critically and non–critically ill COVID-19 patients, wrote Hugo ten Cate, MD, PhD, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, wrote in an accompanying editorial. But differences in the study populations may also explain the divergent outcomes, Dr. ten Cate noted.

The studies suggest that critically ill patients may need hon-heparin antithrombotic approaches “or even profibrinolytic strategies,” Dr. Cate wrote, and that the safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis “remains an important question.” Nonetheless, he added, treating physicians must deal with the bleeding risk when using heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin in moderately ill COVID-19 patients.

Deepak L. Bhatt MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview that reconciling the two studies was “a bit challenging,” because effective therapies tend to have a greater impact in sicker patients.

“Of course, with antithrombotic therapies, bleeding side effects can sometimes overwhelm benefits in patients who are at high risk of both bleeding and ischemic complications, though that does not seem to be the explanation here,” Dr. Bhatt said. “I do think we need more data to clarify exactly which COVID patients benefit from various antithrombotic regimens, and fortunately, there are other ongoing studies, some of which will report relatively soon.”

He concurred with Dr. Berger that patients who need anticoagulation should receive it “apart from their COVID status,” Dr. Bhatt said. “Sick, hospitalized patients with or without COVID should receive appropriate prophylactic doses of anticoagulation.” However, he added, “Whether we should routinely go beyond that in COVID-positive inpatients, I think we need more data.”

The ATTACC platform received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and several other research foundations. The ACTIV-4a platform received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. REMAP-CAP received funding from the European Union and several international research foundations, as well as Amgen and Eisai.

Dr. Lawler had no relationships to disclose. Dr. Berger disclosed receiving grants from the NHLBI, and financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. ten Cate reported relationships with Alveron, Coagulation Profile, Portola/Alexion, Bayer, Pfizer, Stago, Leo Pharma, Daiichi, and Gilead/Galapagos. Dr. Bhatt is chair of the data safety and monitoring board of the FREEDOM COVID anticoagulation clinical trial.

Therapeutic levels of heparin can have widely varying effects on COVID-19 patients depending on the severity of their disease, according to a multiplatform clinical trial that analyzed patient data from three international trials.

NYU Langone Health

COVID-19 patients in the ICU, or at least receiving ICU-level care, derived no benefit from anticoagulation with heparin, while non–critically ill COVID-19 patients – those who were hospitalized but not receiving ICU-level care – on the same anticoagulation were less likely to progress to need respiratory or cardiovascular organ support despite a slightly heightened risk of bleeding events.

Reporting in two articles published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, authors of three international trials combined their data into one multiplatform trial that makes a strong case for prescribing therapeutic levels of heparin in hospitalized patients not receiving ICU-level care were non–critically ill and critically ill.

“I think this is going to be a game changer,” said Jeffrey S. Berger, MD, ACTIV-4a co–principal investigator and co–first author of the study of non–critically ill patients. “I think that using therapeutic-dose anticoagulation should improve outcomes in the tens of thousands of patients worldwide. I hope our data can have a global impact.”
 

Outcomes based on disease severity

The multiplatform trial analyzed data from the Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC); A Multicenter, Adaptive, Randomized Controlled Platform Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Antithrombotic Strategies in Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 (ACTIV-4a); and Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP).

The trial evaluated 2,219 non–critically ill hospitalized patients, 1,181 of whom were randomized to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation; and 1,098 critically ill patients, 534 of whom were prescribed therapeutic levels of heparin.

In the critically ill patients, those on heparin were no more likely to get discharged or spend fewer days on respiratory or CV organ support – oxygen, mechanical ventilation, life support, vasopressors or inotropes – than were those on usual-care thromboprophylaxis. The investigators stopped the trial in both patient populations: in critically ill patients when it became obvious therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was having no impact; and in moderately ill patients when the trial met the prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation.

ICU patients on therapeutic-level heparin spent an average of 1 day free of organ support vs. 4 for patients on usual-care prophylactic antithrombotic drugs. The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the therapeutic-level and usual-care critically ill patients: 62.7% and 64.5%, respectively. Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% and 2.8%, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between both patient groups.

However, in non–critically ill patients, therapeutic levels of heparin resulted in a marked improvement in outcomes. The researchers estimated that, for every 1,000 hospitalized patients with what they labeled moderate disease, an initial treatment with therapeutic-dose heparin resulted in 40 additional patients surviving compared to usual-care thromboprophylaxis.

The percentages of patients not needing organ support before hospital discharge was 80.2% on therapeutic-dose heparin and 76.4% on usual-care therapy. In terms of adjusted odds ratio, the anticoagulation group had a 27% improved chance of not needing daily organ support.

Those improvements came with an additional seven major bleeding events per 1,000 patients. That broke down to a rate of 1.9% in the therapeutic-dose and 0.9% in the usual-care patients.

As the Delta variant of COVID-19 spreads, Patrick R. Lawler, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the ATTACC trial, said there’s no reason these findings shouldn’t apply for all variants of the disease.

University of Toronto

Dr. Lawler, a physician-scientist at Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at Toronto General Hospital, noted that the multiplatform study did not account for disease variant. “Ongoing clinical trials are tracking the variant patients have or the variants that are most prevalent in an area at that time,” he said. “It may be easier in future trials to look at that question.”
 

Explaining heparin’s varying effects

The study did not specifically sort out why moderately ill patients fared better on heparin than their critically ill counterparts, but Dr. Lawler speculated on possible reasons. “One might be that the extent of illness severity is too extreme in the ICU-level population for heparin to have a beneficial extent,” he said.

He acknowledged that higher rates of macrovascular thrombosis, such as venous thromboembolism, in ICU patients would suggest that heparin would have a greater beneficial effect, but, he added, “it may also suggest how advanced that process is, and perhaps heparin is not adequate to reverse the course at that point given relatively extensive thrombosis and associate organ failure.”

As clinicians have gained experience dealing with COVID-19, they’ve learned that infected patients carry a high burden of macro- and microthrombosis, Dr. Berger said, which may explain why critically ill patients didn’t respond as well to therapeutic levels of heparin. “I think the cat is out of the bag; patients who are severe are too ill to benefit,” he said. “I would think there’s too much microthrombosis that is already in their bodies.”

However, this doesn’t completely rule out therapeutic levels of heparin in critically ill COVID-19 patients. There are some scenarios where it’s needed, said Dr. Berger, associate professor of medicine and surgery and director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at New York University Langone Health. “Anyone who has a known clot already, like a known macrothrombosis in their leg or lung, needs to be on full-dose heparin,” he said.

That rationale can help reconcile the different outcomes in the critically and non–critically ill COVID-19 patients, wrote Hugo ten Cate, MD, PhD, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, wrote in an accompanying editorial. But differences in the study populations may also explain the divergent outcomes, Dr. ten Cate noted.

The studies suggest that critically ill patients may need hon-heparin antithrombotic approaches “or even profibrinolytic strategies,” Dr. Cate wrote, and that the safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis “remains an important question.” Nonetheless, he added, treating physicians must deal with the bleeding risk when using heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin in moderately ill COVID-19 patients.

Deepak L. Bhatt MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview that reconciling the two studies was “a bit challenging,” because effective therapies tend to have a greater impact in sicker patients.

“Of course, with antithrombotic therapies, bleeding side effects can sometimes overwhelm benefits in patients who are at high risk of both bleeding and ischemic complications, though that does not seem to be the explanation here,” Dr. Bhatt said. “I do think we need more data to clarify exactly which COVID patients benefit from various antithrombotic regimens, and fortunately, there are other ongoing studies, some of which will report relatively soon.”

He concurred with Dr. Berger that patients who need anticoagulation should receive it “apart from their COVID status,” Dr. Bhatt said. “Sick, hospitalized patients with or without COVID should receive appropriate prophylactic doses of anticoagulation.” However, he added, “Whether we should routinely go beyond that in COVID-positive inpatients, I think we need more data.”

The ATTACC platform received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and several other research foundations. The ACTIV-4a platform received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. REMAP-CAP received funding from the European Union and several international research foundations, as well as Amgen and Eisai.

Dr. Lawler had no relationships to disclose. Dr. Berger disclosed receiving grants from the NHLBI, and financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. ten Cate reported relationships with Alveron, Coagulation Profile, Portola/Alexion, Bayer, Pfizer, Stago, Leo Pharma, Daiichi, and Gilead/Galapagos. Dr. Bhatt is chair of the data safety and monitoring board of the FREEDOM COVID anticoagulation clinical trial.

Therapeutic levels of heparin can have widely varying effects on COVID-19 patients depending on the severity of their disease, according to a multiplatform clinical trial that analyzed patient data from three international trials.

NYU Langone Health

COVID-19 patients in the ICU, or at least receiving ICU-level care, derived no benefit from anticoagulation with heparin, while non–critically ill COVID-19 patients – those who were hospitalized but not receiving ICU-level care – on the same anticoagulation were less likely to progress to need respiratory or cardiovascular organ support despite a slightly heightened risk of bleeding events.

Reporting in two articles published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, authors of three international trials combined their data into one multiplatform trial that makes a strong case for prescribing therapeutic levels of heparin in hospitalized patients not receiving ICU-level care were non–critically ill and critically ill.

“I think this is going to be a game changer,” said Jeffrey S. Berger, MD, ACTIV-4a co–principal investigator and co–first author of the study of non–critically ill patients. “I think that using therapeutic-dose anticoagulation should improve outcomes in the tens of thousands of patients worldwide. I hope our data can have a global impact.”
 

Outcomes based on disease severity

The multiplatform trial analyzed data from the Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC); A Multicenter, Adaptive, Randomized Controlled Platform Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Antithrombotic Strategies in Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 (ACTIV-4a); and Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP).

The trial evaluated 2,219 non–critically ill hospitalized patients, 1,181 of whom were randomized to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation; and 1,098 critically ill patients, 534 of whom were prescribed therapeutic levels of heparin.

In the critically ill patients, those on heparin were no more likely to get discharged or spend fewer days on respiratory or CV organ support – oxygen, mechanical ventilation, life support, vasopressors or inotropes – than were those on usual-care thromboprophylaxis. The investigators stopped the trial in both patient populations: in critically ill patients when it became obvious therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was having no impact; and in moderately ill patients when the trial met the prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation.

ICU patients on therapeutic-level heparin spent an average of 1 day free of organ support vs. 4 for patients on usual-care prophylactic antithrombotic drugs. The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the therapeutic-level and usual-care critically ill patients: 62.7% and 64.5%, respectively. Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% and 2.8%, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between both patient groups.

However, in non–critically ill patients, therapeutic levels of heparin resulted in a marked improvement in outcomes. The researchers estimated that, for every 1,000 hospitalized patients with what they labeled moderate disease, an initial treatment with therapeutic-dose heparin resulted in 40 additional patients surviving compared to usual-care thromboprophylaxis.

The percentages of patients not needing organ support before hospital discharge was 80.2% on therapeutic-dose heparin and 76.4% on usual-care therapy. In terms of adjusted odds ratio, the anticoagulation group had a 27% improved chance of not needing daily organ support.

Those improvements came with an additional seven major bleeding events per 1,000 patients. That broke down to a rate of 1.9% in the therapeutic-dose and 0.9% in the usual-care patients.

As the Delta variant of COVID-19 spreads, Patrick R. Lawler, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the ATTACC trial, said there’s no reason these findings shouldn’t apply for all variants of the disease.

University of Toronto

Dr. Lawler, a physician-scientist at Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at Toronto General Hospital, noted that the multiplatform study did not account for disease variant. “Ongoing clinical trials are tracking the variant patients have or the variants that are most prevalent in an area at that time,” he said. “It may be easier in future trials to look at that question.”
 

Explaining heparin’s varying effects

The study did not specifically sort out why moderately ill patients fared better on heparin than their critically ill counterparts, but Dr. Lawler speculated on possible reasons. “One might be that the extent of illness severity is too extreme in the ICU-level population for heparin to have a beneficial extent,” he said.

He acknowledged that higher rates of macrovascular thrombosis, such as venous thromboembolism, in ICU patients would suggest that heparin would have a greater beneficial effect, but, he added, “it may also suggest how advanced that process is, and perhaps heparin is not adequate to reverse the course at that point given relatively extensive thrombosis and associate organ failure.”

As clinicians have gained experience dealing with COVID-19, they’ve learned that infected patients carry a high burden of macro- and microthrombosis, Dr. Berger said, which may explain why critically ill patients didn’t respond as well to therapeutic levels of heparin. “I think the cat is out of the bag; patients who are severe are too ill to benefit,” he said. “I would think there’s too much microthrombosis that is already in their bodies.”

However, this doesn’t completely rule out therapeutic levels of heparin in critically ill COVID-19 patients. There are some scenarios where it’s needed, said Dr. Berger, associate professor of medicine and surgery and director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at New York University Langone Health. “Anyone who has a known clot already, like a known macrothrombosis in their leg or lung, needs to be on full-dose heparin,” he said.

That rationale can help reconcile the different outcomes in the critically and non–critically ill COVID-19 patients, wrote Hugo ten Cate, MD, PhD, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, wrote in an accompanying editorial. But differences in the study populations may also explain the divergent outcomes, Dr. ten Cate noted.

The studies suggest that critically ill patients may need hon-heparin antithrombotic approaches “or even profibrinolytic strategies,” Dr. Cate wrote, and that the safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis “remains an important question.” Nonetheless, he added, treating physicians must deal with the bleeding risk when using heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin in moderately ill COVID-19 patients.

Deepak L. Bhatt MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview that reconciling the two studies was “a bit challenging,” because effective therapies tend to have a greater impact in sicker patients.

“Of course, with antithrombotic therapies, bleeding side effects can sometimes overwhelm benefits in patients who are at high risk of both bleeding and ischemic complications, though that does not seem to be the explanation here,” Dr. Bhatt said. “I do think we need more data to clarify exactly which COVID patients benefit from various antithrombotic regimens, and fortunately, there are other ongoing studies, some of which will report relatively soon.”

He concurred with Dr. Berger that patients who need anticoagulation should receive it “apart from their COVID status,” Dr. Bhatt said. “Sick, hospitalized patients with or without COVID should receive appropriate prophylactic doses of anticoagulation.” However, he added, “Whether we should routinely go beyond that in COVID-positive inpatients, I think we need more data.”

The ATTACC platform received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and several other research foundations. The ACTIV-4a platform received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. REMAP-CAP received funding from the European Union and several international research foundations, as well as Amgen and Eisai.

Dr. Lawler had no relationships to disclose. Dr. Berger disclosed receiving grants from the NHLBI, and financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. ten Cate reported relationships with Alveron, Coagulation Profile, Portola/Alexion, Bayer, Pfizer, Stago, Leo Pharma, Daiichi, and Gilead/Galapagos. Dr. Bhatt is chair of the data safety and monitoring board of the FREEDOM COVID anticoagulation clinical trial.

Tachycardia is commonly reported in patients with post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS), also known as long COVID, authors report in a new article. The researchers say tachycardia syndrome should be considered a distinct phenotype.

The study by Marcus Ståhlberg, MD, PhD, of Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Ståhlberg told this news organization that although much attention has been paid to cases of clotting and perimyocarditis in patients after COVID, relatively little attention has been paid to tachycardia, despite case reports that show that palpitations are a common complaint.

“We have diagnosed a large number of patients with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome [POTS] and other forms of COVID-related tachycardia at our post-COVID outpatient clinic at Karolinska University Hospital and wanted to highlight this phenomenon,” he said.

Between 25% and 50% of patients at the clinic report tachycardia and/or palpitations that last 12 weeks or longer, the authors report.

“Systematic investigations suggest that 9% of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome patients report palpitations at six months,” the authors write.

The findings also shed light on potential tests and treatments, he said.

“Physicians should be liberal in performing a basic cardiological workup, including an ECG [electrocardiogram], echocardiography, and Holter ECG monitoring in patients complaining of palpitations and/or chest pain,” Dr. Ståhlberg said.

“If orthostatic intolerance is also reported – such as vertigo, nausea, dyspnea – suspicion of POTS should be raised and a head-up tilt test or at least an active standing test should be performed,” he said.

If POTS is confirmed, he said, patients should be offered a heart rate–lowering drug, such as low-dose propranolol or ivabradine. Compression garments, increased fluid intake, and a structured rehabilitation program also help.

“According to our clinical experience, ivabradine can also reduce symptoms in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia and post-COVID,” Dr. Ståhlberg said. “Another finding on Holter-ECG to look out for is frequent premature extrasystoles, which could indicate myocarditis and should warrant a cardiac MRI.”

Dr. Ståhlberg said the researchers think the mechanism underlying the tachycardia is autoimmune and that primary SARS-CoV-2 infections trigger an autoimmune response with formation of autoantibodies that can activate receptors regulating blood pressure and heart rate.

Long-lasting symptoms from COVID are prevalent, the authors note, especially in patients who experienced severe forms of the disease.

In the longest follow-up study to date of patients hospitalized with COVID, more than 60% experienced fatigue or muscle weakness 6 months after hospitalization.

PACS should not be considered a single syndrome; the term denotes an array of subsyndromes and phenotypes, the authors write. Typical symptoms include headache, fatigue, dyspnea, and mental fog but can involve multiple organs and systems.

Tachycardia can also be used as a marker to help gauge the severity of long COVID, the authors write.

“[T]achycardia can be considered a universal and easily obtainable quantitative marker of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and its severity rather than patient-reported symptoms, blood testing, and thoracic CT-scans,” they write.

An underrecognized complication

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, director of women’s cardiovascular health and associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview that she has seen many similar symptoms in the long-COVID patients referred to her practice.

Dr. Michos, who is also an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology, said she’s been receiving a “huge number” of referrals of long-COVID patients with postural tachycardia, inappropriate sinus tachycardia, and POTS.

“I think this is all in the spectrum of autonomic dysfunction that has been recognized a lot since COVID. POTS has been thought to have [a potentially] viral cause that triggers an autoimmune response. Even before COVID, many patients had POTS triggered by a viral infection. The question is whether COVID-related POTS for long COVID is different from other kinds of POTS.”

She says she treats long-COVID patients who complain of elevated heart rates with many of the cardiac workup procedures the authors list and that she treats them in a way similar to the way she treats patients with POTS.

She recommends checking resting oxygen levels and having patients walk the halls and measure their oxygen levels after walking, because their elevated heart rate may be related to ongoing lung injury from COVID.

Eric Adler, MD, a cardiologist with University of San Diego Health, told this news organization that the findings by Dr. Ståhlberg and colleagues are consistent with what he’s seeing in his clinical practice.

Dr. Adler agrees with the authors that tachycardia is an underrecognized complication of long COVID.

He said the article represents further proof that though people may survive COVID, the threat of long-term symptoms, such as heart palpitations, is real and supports the case for vaccinations.

The authors, Dr. Michos, and Dr. Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Tachycardia is commonly reported in patients with post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS), also known as long COVID, authors report in a new article. The researchers say tachycardia syndrome should be considered a distinct phenotype.

The study by Marcus Ståhlberg, MD, PhD, of Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Ståhlberg told this news organization that although much attention has been paid to cases of clotting and perimyocarditis in patients after COVID, relatively little attention has been paid to tachycardia, despite case reports that show that palpitations are a common complaint.

“We have diagnosed a large number of patients with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome [POTS] and other forms of COVID-related tachycardia at our post-COVID outpatient clinic at Karolinska University Hospital and wanted to highlight this phenomenon,” he said.

Between 25% and 50% of patients at the clinic report tachycardia and/or palpitations that last 12 weeks or longer, the authors report.

“Systematic investigations suggest that 9% of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome patients report palpitations at six months,” the authors write.

The findings also shed light on potential tests and treatments, he said.

“Physicians should be liberal in performing a basic cardiological workup, including an ECG [electrocardiogram], echocardiography, and Holter ECG monitoring in patients complaining of palpitations and/or chest pain,” Dr. Ståhlberg said.

“If orthostatic intolerance is also reported – such as vertigo, nausea, dyspnea – suspicion of POTS should be raised and a head-up tilt test or at least an active standing test should be performed,” he said.

If POTS is confirmed, he said, patients should be offered a heart rate–lowering drug, such as low-dose propranolol or ivabradine. Compression garments, increased fluid intake, and a structured rehabilitation program also help.

“According to our clinical experience, ivabradine can also reduce symptoms in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia and post-COVID,” Dr. Ståhlberg said. “Another finding on Holter-ECG to look out for is frequent premature extrasystoles, which could indicate myocarditis and should warrant a cardiac MRI.”

Dr. Ståhlberg said the researchers think the mechanism underlying the tachycardia is autoimmune and that primary SARS-CoV-2 infections trigger an autoimmune response with formation of autoantibodies that can activate receptors regulating blood pressure and heart rate.

Long-lasting symptoms from COVID are prevalent, the authors note, especially in patients who experienced severe forms of the disease.

In the longest follow-up study to date of patients hospitalized with COVID, more than 60% experienced fatigue or muscle weakness 6 months after hospitalization.

PACS should not be considered a single syndrome; the term denotes an array of subsyndromes and phenotypes, the authors write. Typical symptoms include headache, fatigue, dyspnea, and mental fog but can involve multiple organs and systems.

Tachycardia can also be used as a marker to help gauge the severity of long COVID, the authors write.

“[T]achycardia can be considered a universal and easily obtainable quantitative marker of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and its severity rather than patient-reported symptoms, blood testing, and thoracic CT-scans,” they write.

An underrecognized complication

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, director of women’s cardiovascular health and associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview that she has seen many similar symptoms in the long-COVID patients referred to her practice.

Dr. Michos, who is also an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology, said she’s been receiving a “huge number” of referrals of long-COVID patients with postural tachycardia, inappropriate sinus tachycardia, and POTS.

“I think this is all in the spectrum of autonomic dysfunction that has been recognized a lot since COVID. POTS has been thought to have [a potentially] viral cause that triggers an autoimmune response. Even before COVID, many patients had POTS triggered by a viral infection. The question is whether COVID-related POTS for long COVID is different from other kinds of POTS.”

She says she treats long-COVID patients who complain of elevated heart rates with many of the cardiac workup procedures the authors list and that she treats them in a way similar to the way she treats patients with POTS.

She recommends checking resting oxygen levels and having patients walk the halls and measure their oxygen levels after walking, because their elevated heart rate may be related to ongoing lung injury from COVID.

Eric Adler, MD, a cardiologist with University of San Diego Health, told this news organization that the findings by Dr. Ståhlberg and colleagues are consistent with what he’s seeing in his clinical practice.

Dr. Adler agrees with the authors that tachycardia is an underrecognized complication of long COVID.

He said the article represents further proof that though people may survive COVID, the threat of long-term symptoms, such as heart palpitations, is real and supports the case for vaccinations.

The authors, Dr. Michos, and Dr. Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Tachycardia is commonly reported in patients with post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS), also known as long COVID, authors report in a new article. The researchers say tachycardia syndrome should be considered a distinct phenotype.

The study by Marcus Ståhlberg, MD, PhD, of Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Ståhlberg told this news organization that although much attention has been paid to cases of clotting and perimyocarditis in patients after COVID, relatively little attention has been paid to tachycardia, despite case reports that show that palpitations are a common complaint.

“We have diagnosed a large number of patients with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome [POTS] and other forms of COVID-related tachycardia at our post-COVID outpatient clinic at Karolinska University Hospital and wanted to highlight this phenomenon,” he said.

Between 25% and 50% of patients at the clinic report tachycardia and/or palpitations that last 12 weeks or longer, the authors report.

“Systematic investigations suggest that 9% of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome patients report palpitations at six months,” the authors write.

The findings also shed light on potential tests and treatments, he said.

“Physicians should be liberal in performing a basic cardiological workup, including an ECG [electrocardiogram], echocardiography, and Holter ECG monitoring in patients complaining of palpitations and/or chest pain,” Dr. Ståhlberg said.

“If orthostatic intolerance is also reported – such as vertigo, nausea, dyspnea – suspicion of POTS should be raised and a head-up tilt test or at least an active standing test should be performed,” he said.

If POTS is confirmed, he said, patients should be offered a heart rate–lowering drug, such as low-dose propranolol or ivabradine. Compression garments, increased fluid intake, and a structured rehabilitation program also help.

“According to our clinical experience, ivabradine can also reduce symptoms in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia and post-COVID,” Dr. Ståhlberg said. “Another finding on Holter-ECG to look out for is frequent premature extrasystoles, which could indicate myocarditis and should warrant a cardiac MRI.”

Dr. Ståhlberg said the researchers think the mechanism underlying the tachycardia is autoimmune and that primary SARS-CoV-2 infections trigger an autoimmune response with formation of autoantibodies that can activate receptors regulating blood pressure and heart rate.

Long-lasting symptoms from COVID are prevalent, the authors note, especially in patients who experienced severe forms of the disease.

In the longest follow-up study to date of patients hospitalized with COVID, more than 60% experienced fatigue or muscle weakness 6 months after hospitalization.

PACS should not be considered a single syndrome; the term denotes an array of subsyndromes and phenotypes, the authors write. Typical symptoms include headache, fatigue, dyspnea, and mental fog but can involve multiple organs and systems.

Tachycardia can also be used as a marker to help gauge the severity of long COVID, the authors write.

“[T]achycardia can be considered a universal and easily obtainable quantitative marker of Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and its severity rather than patient-reported symptoms, blood testing, and thoracic CT-scans,” they write.

An underrecognized complication

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, director of women’s cardiovascular health and associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview that she has seen many similar symptoms in the long-COVID patients referred to her practice.

Dr. Michos, who is also an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology, said she’s been receiving a “huge number” of referrals of long-COVID patients with postural tachycardia, inappropriate sinus tachycardia, and POTS.

“I think this is all in the spectrum of autonomic dysfunction that has been recognized a lot since COVID. POTS has been thought to have [a potentially] viral cause that triggers an autoimmune response. Even before COVID, many patients had POTS triggered by a viral infection. The question is whether COVID-related POTS for long COVID is different from other kinds of POTS.”

She says she treats long-COVID patients who complain of elevated heart rates with many of the cardiac workup procedures the authors list and that she treats them in a way similar to the way she treats patients with POTS.

She recommends checking resting oxygen levels and having patients walk the halls and measure their oxygen levels after walking, because their elevated heart rate may be related to ongoing lung injury from COVID.

Eric Adler, MD, a cardiologist with University of San Diego Health, told this news organization that the findings by Dr. Ståhlberg and colleagues are consistent with what he’s seeing in his clinical practice.

Dr. Adler agrees with the authors that tachycardia is an underrecognized complication of long COVID.

He said the article represents further proof that though people may survive COVID, the threat of long-term symptoms, such as heart palpitations, is real and supports the case for vaccinations.

The authors, Dr. Michos, and Dr. Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The FDA has authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems.

The decision, which came late on Aug. 12, was not unexpected and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel meeting Aug. 13 is expected to approve directions to doctors and health care providers on who should receive the booster shot.

“The country has entered yet another wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the FDA is especially cognizant that immunocompromised people are particularly at risk for severe disease. After a thorough review of the available data, the FDA determined that this small, vulnerable group may benefit from a third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna Vaccines,” acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a statement.

Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems.

Meanwhile, White House officials said Aug. 12 they “have supply and are prepared” to give all U.S. residents COVID-19 boosters -- which, as of now, are likely to be authorized first only for immunocompromised people.

“We believe sooner or later you will need a booster,” Anthony Fauci, MD, said at a news briefing Aug. 12. “Right now, we are evaluating this on a day-by-day, week-by-week, month-by-month basis.”

He added: “Right at this moment, apart from the immunocompromised -- elderly or not elderly -- people do not need a booster.” But, he said, “We’re preparing for the eventuality of doing that.”

White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said officials “have supply and are prepared” to at some point provide widespread access to boosters.

The immunocompromised population is very small -- less than 3% of adults, said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 rates continue to rise. Dr. Walensky reported that the 7-day average of daily cases is 132,384 -- an increase of 24% from the previous week. Average daily hospitalizations are up 31%, at 9,700, and deaths are up to 452 -- an increase of 22%.

In the past week, Florida has had more COVID-19 cases than the 30 states with the lowest case rates combined, Mr. Zients said. Florida and Texas alone have accounted for nearly 40% of new hospitalizations across the country.


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

The FDA has authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems.

The decision, which came late on Aug. 12, was not unexpected and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel meeting Aug. 13 is expected to approve directions to doctors and health care providers on who should receive the booster shot.

“The country has entered yet another wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the FDA is especially cognizant that immunocompromised people are particularly at risk for severe disease. After a thorough review of the available data, the FDA determined that this small, vulnerable group may benefit from a third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna Vaccines,” acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a statement.

Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems.

Meanwhile, White House officials said Aug. 12 they “have supply and are prepared” to give all U.S. residents COVID-19 boosters -- which, as of now, are likely to be authorized first only for immunocompromised people.

“We believe sooner or later you will need a booster,” Anthony Fauci, MD, said at a news briefing Aug. 12. “Right now, we are evaluating this on a day-by-day, week-by-week, month-by-month basis.”

He added: “Right at this moment, apart from the immunocompromised -- elderly or not elderly -- people do not need a booster.” But, he said, “We’re preparing for the eventuality of doing that.”

White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said officials “have supply and are prepared” to at some point provide widespread access to boosters.

The immunocompromised population is very small -- less than 3% of adults, said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 rates continue to rise. Dr. Walensky reported that the 7-day average of daily cases is 132,384 -- an increase of 24% from the previous week. Average daily hospitalizations are up 31%, at 9,700, and deaths are up to 452 -- an increase of 22%.

In the past week, Florida has had more COVID-19 cases than the 30 states with the lowest case rates combined, Mr. Zients said. Florida and Texas alone have accounted for nearly 40% of new hospitalizations across the country.


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

The FDA has authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people with compromised immune systems.

The decision, which came late on Aug. 12, was not unexpected and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel meeting Aug. 13 is expected to approve directions to doctors and health care providers on who should receive the booster shot.

“The country has entered yet another wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the FDA is especially cognizant that immunocompromised people are particularly at risk for severe disease. After a thorough review of the available data, the FDA determined that this small, vulnerable group may benefit from a third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna Vaccines,” acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a statement.

Those eligible for a third dose include solid organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems.

Meanwhile, White House officials said Aug. 12 they “have supply and are prepared” to give all U.S. residents COVID-19 boosters -- which, as of now, are likely to be authorized first only for immunocompromised people.

“We believe sooner or later you will need a booster,” Anthony Fauci, MD, said at a news briefing Aug. 12. “Right now, we are evaluating this on a day-by-day, week-by-week, month-by-month basis.”

He added: “Right at this moment, apart from the immunocompromised -- elderly or not elderly -- people do not need a booster.” But, he said, “We’re preparing for the eventuality of doing that.”

White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said officials “have supply and are prepared” to at some point provide widespread access to boosters.

The immunocompromised population is very small -- less than 3% of adults, said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 rates continue to rise. Dr. Walensky reported that the 7-day average of daily cases is 132,384 -- an increase of 24% from the previous week. Average daily hospitalizations are up 31%, at 9,700, and deaths are up to 452 -- an increase of 22%.

In the past week, Florida has had more COVID-19 cases than the 30 states with the lowest case rates combined, Mr. Zients said. Florida and Texas alone have accounted for nearly 40% of new hospitalizations across the country.


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

About one in six patients with heart failure in the United States are skipping doctors’ appointments, not taking their medications as directed, or forgoing some other type of care, and their recalcitrance actually ends up costing the health care system 20%-30% more per patient.

That’s according to a cross-sectional study using data from a large public database reported in JACC: Heart Failure on Aug. 11.

The investigators pooled data on 2,050 patients with HF enrolled in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a public database sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, from 2004 to 2015. Some 339 of those HF patients were classified in the forgone or delayed (F/D) care group. This is the first study to describe the cost impact of missed care in heart failure, lead author Alexander Thomas, MD, and colleagues wrote.

“I think we make a pretty strong case linking forgone care to higher cost,” Dr. Thomas said in an interview. “Obviously this is a prospective study, so causality is not made based on this study, but there’s a strong association, it appears.” He acknowledged that prospective studies would need to confirm these findings, but added, “I think even this is enough to give us cause to look at the somewhat granular reasons as to why patients are forgoing care.”

Average annual total costs for adults who skipped care were $8,027 higher than for those heart failure patients who kept up with their regimen (P = .02). However, for people 65 and older, the cost differential was even higher: $10,581 (P = .02), which translates into a 50% premium over average costs for compliant elderly patients, noted Dr. Thomas, a cardiovascular medicine fellow at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

In the nonelderly F/D group, average per-patient costs were $27,000 annually; in the elderly, it was a little over $30,000.

However, nonelderly patients were more likely to forgo care. While 16% of all patients in the study were considered F/D, 27% of nonelderly patients were classified as such vs. 10% of the elderly.
 

Elderly forgoing care drives cost

But, Dr. Thomas said, elderly patients forgoing care drive higher costs because they’re more fragile, have more comorbidities and more advanced heart failure, and tend to decompensate more quickly. “For them, missing one appointment or missing some medications is not nearly as well tolerated as it is in the younger population,” he said. In these elderly patients, inpatient costs accounted for 75% of the increased expense, Dr. Thomas added.

Reasons for forgoing care range from the obvious, such as cost or insurance issues – 191 individuals cited the former, 69 the latter – to more granular reasons, such as transportation issues or lack of time.

The study also found a number of demographic features that were associated with forgone or delayed care: non-Hispanic Black race; lack of insurance; low-income; and worse cardiovascular risk factor profiles.

The study’s call to action is for further research and policy changes aimed at better understanding barriers to care and improving access. “It’s a really great driver for policy interventions to attack this problem and to have the financial backing also to put money and resources into fixing this problem – which is probably not only going to decrease costs and allow more cost-effective care, but lead to better outcomes in this population as well,” Dr. Thomas said.

The sentiment for policy changes was echoed in an accompanying editorial by Khadijah Breathett, MD, MS, a heart failure/transplant cardiologist at the Sarver Heart Center, University of Arizona, Tucson. But she also noted the study exposed insufficiencies with Medicare. In an interview, she expanded on that. 

“Our system is failing this population,” she said of the elderly with heart failure who have forgone care. “I think that’s because of the complexity of our system: One person’s Medicare is different from another’s. There are multiple parts to Medicare that provide different forms of care – hospital care, prescription care, and so forth – and everyone does not necessarily have the same parts.” Also, many Medicare beneficiaries are still working, and “they’re still trying to figure out how to make ends meet,” Dr. Breathett added.

The study also showed that the pre-Medicare population requires the attention of policymakers. “How do we help the younger population so that they don’t develop the comorbidities that worsen their quality of life and contribute to rising hospital costs?” Dr. Breathett said.

Dr. Thomas had no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Breathett has received grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

About one in six patients with heart failure in the United States are skipping doctors’ appointments, not taking their medications as directed, or forgoing some other type of care, and their recalcitrance actually ends up costing the health care system 20%-30% more per patient.

That’s according to a cross-sectional study using data from a large public database reported in JACC: Heart Failure on Aug. 11.

The investigators pooled data on 2,050 patients with HF enrolled in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a public database sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, from 2004 to 2015. Some 339 of those HF patients were classified in the forgone or delayed (F/D) care group. This is the first study to describe the cost impact of missed care in heart failure, lead author Alexander Thomas, MD, and colleagues wrote.

“I think we make a pretty strong case linking forgone care to higher cost,” Dr. Thomas said in an interview. “Obviously this is a prospective study, so causality is not made based on this study, but there’s a strong association, it appears.” He acknowledged that prospective studies would need to confirm these findings, but added, “I think even this is enough to give us cause to look at the somewhat granular reasons as to why patients are forgoing care.”

Average annual total costs for adults who skipped care were $8,027 higher than for those heart failure patients who kept up with their regimen (P = .02). However, for people 65 and older, the cost differential was even higher: $10,581 (P = .02), which translates into a 50% premium over average costs for compliant elderly patients, noted Dr. Thomas, a cardiovascular medicine fellow at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

In the nonelderly F/D group, average per-patient costs were $27,000 annually; in the elderly, it was a little over $30,000.

However, nonelderly patients were more likely to forgo care. While 16% of all patients in the study were considered F/D, 27% of nonelderly patients were classified as such vs. 10% of the elderly.
 

Elderly forgoing care drives cost

But, Dr. Thomas said, elderly patients forgoing care drive higher costs because they’re more fragile, have more comorbidities and more advanced heart failure, and tend to decompensate more quickly. “For them, missing one appointment or missing some medications is not nearly as well tolerated as it is in the younger population,” he said. In these elderly patients, inpatient costs accounted for 75% of the increased expense, Dr. Thomas added.

Reasons for forgoing care range from the obvious, such as cost or insurance issues – 191 individuals cited the former, 69 the latter – to more granular reasons, such as transportation issues or lack of time.

The study also found a number of demographic features that were associated with forgone or delayed care: non-Hispanic Black race; lack of insurance; low-income; and worse cardiovascular risk factor profiles.

The study’s call to action is for further research and policy changes aimed at better understanding barriers to care and improving access. “It’s a really great driver for policy interventions to attack this problem and to have the financial backing also to put money and resources into fixing this problem – which is probably not only going to decrease costs and allow more cost-effective care, but lead to better outcomes in this population as well,” Dr. Thomas said.

The sentiment for policy changes was echoed in an accompanying editorial by Khadijah Breathett, MD, MS, a heart failure/transplant cardiologist at the Sarver Heart Center, University of Arizona, Tucson. But she also noted the study exposed insufficiencies with Medicare. In an interview, she expanded on that. 

“Our system is failing this population,” she said of the elderly with heart failure who have forgone care. “I think that’s because of the complexity of our system: One person’s Medicare is different from another’s. There are multiple parts to Medicare that provide different forms of care – hospital care, prescription care, and so forth – and everyone does not necessarily have the same parts.” Also, many Medicare beneficiaries are still working, and “they’re still trying to figure out how to make ends meet,” Dr. Breathett added.

The study also showed that the pre-Medicare population requires the attention of policymakers. “How do we help the younger population so that they don’t develop the comorbidities that worsen their quality of life and contribute to rising hospital costs?” Dr. Breathett said.

Dr. Thomas had no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Breathett has received grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

About one in six patients with heart failure in the United States are skipping doctors’ appointments, not taking their medications as directed, or forgoing some other type of care, and their recalcitrance actually ends up costing the health care system 20%-30% more per patient.

That’s according to a cross-sectional study using data from a large public database reported in JACC: Heart Failure on Aug. 11.

The investigators pooled data on 2,050 patients with HF enrolled in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a public database sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, from 2004 to 2015. Some 339 of those HF patients were classified in the forgone or delayed (F/D) care group. This is the first study to describe the cost impact of missed care in heart failure, lead author Alexander Thomas, MD, and colleagues wrote.

“I think we make a pretty strong case linking forgone care to higher cost,” Dr. Thomas said in an interview. “Obviously this is a prospective study, so causality is not made based on this study, but there’s a strong association, it appears.” He acknowledged that prospective studies would need to confirm these findings, but added, “I think even this is enough to give us cause to look at the somewhat granular reasons as to why patients are forgoing care.”

Average annual total costs for adults who skipped care were $8,027 higher than for those heart failure patients who kept up with their regimen (P = .02). However, for people 65 and older, the cost differential was even higher: $10,581 (P = .02), which translates into a 50% premium over average costs for compliant elderly patients, noted Dr. Thomas, a cardiovascular medicine fellow at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

In the nonelderly F/D group, average per-patient costs were $27,000 annually; in the elderly, it was a little over $30,000.

However, nonelderly patients were more likely to forgo care. While 16% of all patients in the study were considered F/D, 27% of nonelderly patients were classified as such vs. 10% of the elderly.
 

Elderly forgoing care drives cost

But, Dr. Thomas said, elderly patients forgoing care drive higher costs because they’re more fragile, have more comorbidities and more advanced heart failure, and tend to decompensate more quickly. “For them, missing one appointment or missing some medications is not nearly as well tolerated as it is in the younger population,” he said. In these elderly patients, inpatient costs accounted for 75% of the increased expense, Dr. Thomas added.

Reasons for forgoing care range from the obvious, such as cost or insurance issues – 191 individuals cited the former, 69 the latter – to more granular reasons, such as transportation issues or lack of time.

The study also found a number of demographic features that were associated with forgone or delayed care: non-Hispanic Black race; lack of insurance; low-income; and worse cardiovascular risk factor profiles.

The study’s call to action is for further research and policy changes aimed at better understanding barriers to care and improving access. “It’s a really great driver for policy interventions to attack this problem and to have the financial backing also to put money and resources into fixing this problem – which is probably not only going to decrease costs and allow more cost-effective care, but lead to better outcomes in this population as well,” Dr. Thomas said.

The sentiment for policy changes was echoed in an accompanying editorial by Khadijah Breathett, MD, MS, a heart failure/transplant cardiologist at the Sarver Heart Center, University of Arizona, Tucson. But she also noted the study exposed insufficiencies with Medicare. In an interview, she expanded on that. 

“Our system is failing this population,” she said of the elderly with heart failure who have forgone care. “I think that’s because of the complexity of our system: One person’s Medicare is different from another’s. There are multiple parts to Medicare that provide different forms of care – hospital care, prescription care, and so forth – and everyone does not necessarily have the same parts.” Also, many Medicare beneficiaries are still working, and “they’re still trying to figure out how to make ends meet,” Dr. Breathett added.

The study also showed that the pre-Medicare population requires the attention of policymakers. “How do we help the younger population so that they don’t develop the comorbidities that worsen their quality of life and contribute to rising hospital costs?” Dr. Breathett said.

Dr. Thomas had no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Breathett has received grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

The state of Mississippi is out of intensive care unit beds. The University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson – the state’s largest health system – is converting part of a parking garage into a field hospital to make more room.

Andriy Onufriyenko

“Hospitals are full from Memphis to Gulfport, Natchez to Meridian. Everything’s full,” said Alan Jones, MD, the hospital’s COVID-19 response leader, in a press briefing Aug. 11.

The state has requested the help of a federal disaster medical assistance team of physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and paramedics to staff the extra beds. The goal is to open the field hospital on Aug. 13.

Arkansas hospitals have as little as eight ICU beds left to serve a population of 3 million people. Alabama isn’t far behind.

As of Aug. 10, several large metro Atlanta hospitals were diverting patients because they were full.

Hospitals in Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas are canceling elective surgeries, as they are flooded with COVID patients.  

Florida has ordered more ventilators from the federal government. Some hospitals in that state have so many patients on high-flow medical oxygen that it is taxing the building supply lines.

“Most hospitals were not designed for this type of volume distribution in their facilities,” said Mary Mayhew, president of the Florida Hospital Association.

That’s when they can get it. Oxygen deliveries have been disrupted because of a shortage of drivers who are trained to transport it.

“Any disruption in the timing of a delivery can be hugely problematic because of the volume of oxygen they’re going through,” Ms. Mayhew said.
 

Hospitals ‘under great stress’

In a setting where most Americans now have access to safe and highly effective vaccines, hospitals in the Southeast are once again under siege from COVID-19.

Over the month of June, the number of COVID patients in Florida hospitals soared from 2,000 to 10,000. Ms. Mayhew says it took twice as long during the last surge for the state to reach those numbers. And they’re still climbing. The state had 15,000 hospitalized COVID patients as of Aug. 11.

COVID hospitalizations tripled in 3 weeks in South Carolina, said state epidemiologist Linda Bell, MD, in a news conference Aug. 11.

“These hospitals are under great stress,” says Eric Toner, MD, a senior scientist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore

The Delta variant has swept through the unvaccinated South with such veracity that hospitals in the region are unable to keep up. Patients with non-COVID health conditions are in jeopardy too.

Lee Owens, age 56, said he was supposed to have triple bypass surgery on Aug. 12 at St. Thomas West Hospital in Nashville, Tenn. Three of the arteries around his heart are 100%, 90%, and 70% blocked. Mr. Owens said the hospital called him Aug. 10 to postpone his surgery because they’ve cut back elective procedures to just one each day because the ICU beds there are full.

“I’m okay with having to wait a few days (my family isn’t!), especially if there are people worse than me, but so much anger at the reason,” he said. “These idiots that refused health care are now taking up my slot for heart surgery. It’s really aggravating.”

Anjali Bright, a spokesperson for St. Thomas West, provided a statement to this news organization saying they are not suspending elective procedures, but they are reviewing those “requiring an inpatient stay on a case-by-case basis.”

She emphasized, though, that “we will never delay care if the patient’s status changes to ‘urgent.’ ”

“Because of how infectious this variant is, this has the potential to be so much worse than what we saw in January,” said Donald Williamson, MD, president of the Alabama Hospital Association.

Dr. Williamson said they have modeled three possible scenarios for spread in the state, which ranks dead last in the United States for vaccination, with just 35% of its population fully protected. If the Delta variant spreads as it did in the United Kingdom, Alabama could see it hospitalize up to 3,000 people. 

“That’s the best scenario,” he said.

If it sweeps through the state as it did in India, Alabama is looking at up to 4,500 patients hospitalized, a number that would require more beds and more staff to care for patients.

Then, there is what Dr. Williamson calls his “nightmare scenario.” If the entire state begins to see transmission rates as high as they’re currently seeing in coastal Mobile and Baldwin counties, that could mean up to 8,000 people in the hospital.

“If we see R-naughts of 5-8 statewide, we’re in real trouble,” he said. The R-naught is the basic rate of reproduction, and it means that each infected person would go on to infect 5-8 others. Dr. Williamson said the federal government would have to send them more staff to handle that kind of a surge.
 

‘Sense of betrayal’

Unlike the surges of last winter and spring, which sent hospitals scrambling for beds and supplies, the biggest pain point for hospitals now is staffing.

In Mississippi, where 200 patients are parked in emergency departments waiting for available and staffed ICU beds, the state is facing Delta with 2,000 fewer registered nurses than it had during its winter surge. 

Some have left because of stress and burnout. Others have taken higher-paying jobs with travel nursing companies. To stop the exodus, hospitals are offering better pay, easier schedules, and sign-on and stay-on bonuses.

Doctors say the incentives are nice, but they don’t help with the anguish and anger many feel after months of battling COVID.

“There’s a big sense of betrayal,” said Sarah Nafziger, MD, vice president of clinical support services at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital. “Our staff and health care workers, in general, feel like we’ve been betrayed by the community.”

“We have a vaccine, which is the key to ending this pandemic and people just refuse to take it, and so I think we’re very frustrated. We feel that our communities have let us down by not taking advantage of the vaccine,” Dr. Nafziger said. “It’s just baffling to me and it’s broken my heart every single day.”

Dr. Nafziger said she met with several surgeons at UAB on Aug. 11 and began making decisions about which surgeries would need to be canceled the following week. “We’re talking about cancer surgery. We’re talking about heart surgery. We’re talking about things that are critical to people.”

Compounding the staffing problems, about half of hospital workers in Alabama are still unvaccinated. Dr. Williamson says they’re now starting to see these unvaccinated health care workers come down with COVID too. He says that will exacerbate their surge even further as health care workers become too sick to help care for patients and some will end up needing hospital beds themselves.

At the University of Mississippi Medical Center, 70 hospital employees and another 20 clinic employees are now being quarantined or have COVID, Dr. Jones said.

“The situation is bleak for Mississippi hospitals,” said Timothy Moore, president and CEO of the Mississippi Hospital Association. He said he doesn’t expect it to get better anytime soon.

Mississippi has more patients hospitalized now than at any other point in the pandemic, said Thomas Dobbs, MD, MPH, the state epidemiologist.

“If we look at the rapidity of this rise, it’s really kind of terrifying and awe-inspiring,” Dr. Dobbs said in a news conference Aug. 11.

Schools are just starting back, and, in many parts of the South, districts are operating under a patchwork of policies – some require masks, while others have made them voluntary. Physicians say they are bracing for what these half measures could mean for pediatric cases and community transmission.

The only sure way for people to help themselves and their hospitals and schools, experts said, is vaccination.

“State data show that in this latest COVID surge, 97% of new COVID-19 infections, 89% of hospitalizations, and 82% of deaths occur in unvaccinated residents,” Mr. Moore said.

“To relieve pressure on hospitals, we need Mississippians – even those who have previously had COVID – to get vaccinated and wear a mask in public. The Delta variant is highly contagious and we need to do all we can to stop the spread,” he said.

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

The state of Mississippi is out of intensive care unit beds. The University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson – the state’s largest health system – is converting part of a parking garage into a field hospital to make more room.

Andriy Onufriyenko

“Hospitals are full from Memphis to Gulfport, Natchez to Meridian. Everything’s full,” said Alan Jones, MD, the hospital’s COVID-19 response leader, in a press briefing Aug. 11.

The state has requested the help of a federal disaster medical assistance team of physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and paramedics to staff the extra beds. The goal is to open the field hospital on Aug. 13.

Arkansas hospitals have as little as eight ICU beds left to serve a population of 3 million people. Alabama isn’t far behind.

As of Aug. 10, several large metro Atlanta hospitals were diverting patients because they were full.

Hospitals in Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas are canceling elective surgeries, as they are flooded with COVID patients.  

Florida has ordered more ventilators from the federal government. Some hospitals in that state have so many patients on high-flow medical oxygen that it is taxing the building supply lines.

“Most hospitals were not designed for this type of volume distribution in their facilities,” said Mary Mayhew, president of the Florida Hospital Association.

That’s when they can get it. Oxygen deliveries have been disrupted because of a shortage of drivers who are trained to transport it.

“Any disruption in the timing of a delivery can be hugely problematic because of the volume of oxygen they’re going through,” Ms. Mayhew said.
 

Hospitals ‘under great stress’

In a setting where most Americans now have access to safe and highly effective vaccines, hospitals in the Southeast are once again under siege from COVID-19.

Over the month of June, the number of COVID patients in Florida hospitals soared from 2,000 to 10,000. Ms. Mayhew says it took twice as long during the last surge for the state to reach those numbers. And they’re still climbing. The state had 15,000 hospitalized COVID patients as of Aug. 11.

COVID hospitalizations tripled in 3 weeks in South Carolina, said state epidemiologist Linda Bell, MD, in a news conference Aug. 11.

“These hospitals are under great stress,” says Eric Toner, MD, a senior scientist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore

The Delta variant has swept through the unvaccinated South with such veracity that hospitals in the region are unable to keep up. Patients with non-COVID health conditions are in jeopardy too.

Lee Owens, age 56, said he was supposed to have triple bypass surgery on Aug. 12 at St. Thomas West Hospital in Nashville, Tenn. Three of the arteries around his heart are 100%, 90%, and 70% blocked. Mr. Owens said the hospital called him Aug. 10 to postpone his surgery because they’ve cut back elective procedures to just one each day because the ICU beds there are full.

“I’m okay with having to wait a few days (my family isn’t!), especially if there are people worse than me, but so much anger at the reason,” he said. “These idiots that refused health care are now taking up my slot for heart surgery. It’s really aggravating.”

Anjali Bright, a spokesperson for St. Thomas West, provided a statement to this news organization saying they are not suspending elective procedures, but they are reviewing those “requiring an inpatient stay on a case-by-case basis.”

She emphasized, though, that “we will never delay care if the patient’s status changes to ‘urgent.’ ”

“Because of how infectious this variant is, this has the potential to be so much worse than what we saw in January,” said Donald Williamson, MD, president of the Alabama Hospital Association.

Dr. Williamson said they have modeled three possible scenarios for spread in the state, which ranks dead last in the United States for vaccination, with just 35% of its population fully protected. If the Delta variant spreads as it did in the United Kingdom, Alabama could see it hospitalize up to 3,000 people. 

“That’s the best scenario,” he said.

If it sweeps through the state as it did in India, Alabama is looking at up to 4,500 patients hospitalized, a number that would require more beds and more staff to care for patients.

Then, there is what Dr. Williamson calls his “nightmare scenario.” If the entire state begins to see transmission rates as high as they’re currently seeing in coastal Mobile and Baldwin counties, that could mean up to 8,000 people in the hospital.

“If we see R-naughts of 5-8 statewide, we’re in real trouble,” he said. The R-naught is the basic rate of reproduction, and it means that each infected person would go on to infect 5-8 others. Dr. Williamson said the federal government would have to send them more staff to handle that kind of a surge.
 

‘Sense of betrayal’

Unlike the surges of last winter and spring, which sent hospitals scrambling for beds and supplies, the biggest pain point for hospitals now is staffing.

In Mississippi, where 200 patients are parked in emergency departments waiting for available and staffed ICU beds, the state is facing Delta with 2,000 fewer registered nurses than it had during its winter surge. 

Some have left because of stress and burnout. Others have taken higher-paying jobs with travel nursing companies. To stop the exodus, hospitals are offering better pay, easier schedules, and sign-on and stay-on bonuses.

Doctors say the incentives are nice, but they don’t help with the anguish and anger many feel after months of battling COVID.

“There’s a big sense of betrayal,” said Sarah Nafziger, MD, vice president of clinical support services at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital. “Our staff and health care workers, in general, feel like we’ve been betrayed by the community.”

“We have a vaccine, which is the key to ending this pandemic and people just refuse to take it, and so I think we’re very frustrated. We feel that our communities have let us down by not taking advantage of the vaccine,” Dr. Nafziger said. “It’s just baffling to me and it’s broken my heart every single day.”

Dr. Nafziger said she met with several surgeons at UAB on Aug. 11 and began making decisions about which surgeries would need to be canceled the following week. “We’re talking about cancer surgery. We’re talking about heart surgery. We’re talking about things that are critical to people.”

Compounding the staffing problems, about half of hospital workers in Alabama are still unvaccinated. Dr. Williamson says they’re now starting to see these unvaccinated health care workers come down with COVID too. He says that will exacerbate their surge even further as health care workers become too sick to help care for patients and some will end up needing hospital beds themselves.

At the University of Mississippi Medical Center, 70 hospital employees and another 20 clinic employees are now being quarantined or have COVID, Dr. Jones said.

“The situation is bleak for Mississippi hospitals,” said Timothy Moore, president and CEO of the Mississippi Hospital Association. He said he doesn’t expect it to get better anytime soon.

Mississippi has more patients hospitalized now than at any other point in the pandemic, said Thomas Dobbs, MD, MPH, the state epidemiologist.

“If we look at the rapidity of this rise, it’s really kind of terrifying and awe-inspiring,” Dr. Dobbs said in a news conference Aug. 11.

Schools are just starting back, and, in many parts of the South, districts are operating under a patchwork of policies – some require masks, while others have made them voluntary. Physicians say they are bracing for what these half measures could mean for pediatric cases and community transmission.

The only sure way for people to help themselves and their hospitals and schools, experts said, is vaccination.

“State data show that in this latest COVID surge, 97% of new COVID-19 infections, 89% of hospitalizations, and 82% of deaths occur in unvaccinated residents,” Mr. Moore said.

“To relieve pressure on hospitals, we need Mississippians – even those who have previously had COVID – to get vaccinated and wear a mask in public. The Delta variant is highly contagious and we need to do all we can to stop the spread,” he said.

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

The state of Mississippi is out of intensive care unit beds. The University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson – the state’s largest health system – is converting part of a parking garage into a field hospital to make more room.

Andriy Onufriyenko

“Hospitals are full from Memphis to Gulfport, Natchez to Meridian. Everything’s full,” said Alan Jones, MD, the hospital’s COVID-19 response leader, in a press briefing Aug. 11.

The state has requested the help of a federal disaster medical assistance team of physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and paramedics to staff the extra beds. The goal is to open the field hospital on Aug. 13.

Arkansas hospitals have as little as eight ICU beds left to serve a population of 3 million people. Alabama isn’t far behind.

As of Aug. 10, several large metro Atlanta hospitals were diverting patients because they were full.

Hospitals in Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas are canceling elective surgeries, as they are flooded with COVID patients.  

Florida has ordered more ventilators from the federal government. Some hospitals in that state have so many patients on high-flow medical oxygen that it is taxing the building supply lines.

“Most hospitals were not designed for this type of volume distribution in their facilities,” said Mary Mayhew, president of the Florida Hospital Association.

That’s when they can get it. Oxygen deliveries have been disrupted because of a shortage of drivers who are trained to transport it.

“Any disruption in the timing of a delivery can be hugely problematic because of the volume of oxygen they’re going through,” Ms. Mayhew said.
 

Hospitals ‘under great stress’

In a setting where most Americans now have access to safe and highly effective vaccines, hospitals in the Southeast are once again under siege from COVID-19.

Over the month of June, the number of COVID patients in Florida hospitals soared from 2,000 to 10,000. Ms. Mayhew says it took twice as long during the last surge for the state to reach those numbers. And they’re still climbing. The state had 15,000 hospitalized COVID patients as of Aug. 11.

COVID hospitalizations tripled in 3 weeks in South Carolina, said state epidemiologist Linda Bell, MD, in a news conference Aug. 11.

“These hospitals are under great stress,” says Eric Toner, MD, a senior scientist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore

The Delta variant has swept through the unvaccinated South with such veracity that hospitals in the region are unable to keep up. Patients with non-COVID health conditions are in jeopardy too.

Lee Owens, age 56, said he was supposed to have triple bypass surgery on Aug. 12 at St. Thomas West Hospital in Nashville, Tenn. Three of the arteries around his heart are 100%, 90%, and 70% blocked. Mr. Owens said the hospital called him Aug. 10 to postpone his surgery because they’ve cut back elective procedures to just one each day because the ICU beds there are full.

“I’m okay with having to wait a few days (my family isn’t!), especially if there are people worse than me, but so much anger at the reason,” he said. “These idiots that refused health care are now taking up my slot for heart surgery. It’s really aggravating.”

Anjali Bright, a spokesperson for St. Thomas West, provided a statement to this news organization saying they are not suspending elective procedures, but they are reviewing those “requiring an inpatient stay on a case-by-case basis.”

She emphasized, though, that “we will never delay care if the patient’s status changes to ‘urgent.’ ”

“Because of how infectious this variant is, this has the potential to be so much worse than what we saw in January,” said Donald Williamson, MD, president of the Alabama Hospital Association.

Dr. Williamson said they have modeled three possible scenarios for spread in the state, which ranks dead last in the United States for vaccination, with just 35% of its population fully protected. If the Delta variant spreads as it did in the United Kingdom, Alabama could see it hospitalize up to 3,000 people. 

“That’s the best scenario,” he said.

If it sweeps through the state as it did in India, Alabama is looking at up to 4,500 patients hospitalized, a number that would require more beds and more staff to care for patients.

Then, there is what Dr. Williamson calls his “nightmare scenario.” If the entire state begins to see transmission rates as high as they’re currently seeing in coastal Mobile and Baldwin counties, that could mean up to 8,000 people in the hospital.

“If we see R-naughts of 5-8 statewide, we’re in real trouble,” he said. The R-naught is the basic rate of reproduction, and it means that each infected person would go on to infect 5-8 others. Dr. Williamson said the federal government would have to send them more staff to handle that kind of a surge.
 

‘Sense of betrayal’

Unlike the surges of last winter and spring, which sent hospitals scrambling for beds and supplies, the biggest pain point for hospitals now is staffing.

In Mississippi, where 200 patients are parked in emergency departments waiting for available and staffed ICU beds, the state is facing Delta with 2,000 fewer registered nurses than it had during its winter surge. 

Some have left because of stress and burnout. Others have taken higher-paying jobs with travel nursing companies. To stop the exodus, hospitals are offering better pay, easier schedules, and sign-on and stay-on bonuses.

Doctors say the incentives are nice, but they don’t help with the anguish and anger many feel after months of battling COVID.

“There’s a big sense of betrayal,” said Sarah Nafziger, MD, vice president of clinical support services at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital. “Our staff and health care workers, in general, feel like we’ve been betrayed by the community.”

“We have a vaccine, which is the key to ending this pandemic and people just refuse to take it, and so I think we’re very frustrated. We feel that our communities have let us down by not taking advantage of the vaccine,” Dr. Nafziger said. “It’s just baffling to me and it’s broken my heart every single day.”

Dr. Nafziger said she met with several surgeons at UAB on Aug. 11 and began making decisions about which surgeries would need to be canceled the following week. “We’re talking about cancer surgery. We’re talking about heart surgery. We’re talking about things that are critical to people.”

Compounding the staffing problems, about half of hospital workers in Alabama are still unvaccinated. Dr. Williamson says they’re now starting to see these unvaccinated health care workers come down with COVID too. He says that will exacerbate their surge even further as health care workers become too sick to help care for patients and some will end up needing hospital beds themselves.

At the University of Mississippi Medical Center, 70 hospital employees and another 20 clinic employees are now being quarantined or have COVID, Dr. Jones said.

“The situation is bleak for Mississippi hospitals,” said Timothy Moore, president and CEO of the Mississippi Hospital Association. He said he doesn’t expect it to get better anytime soon.

Mississippi has more patients hospitalized now than at any other point in the pandemic, said Thomas Dobbs, MD, MPH, the state epidemiologist.

“If we look at the rapidity of this rise, it’s really kind of terrifying and awe-inspiring,” Dr. Dobbs said in a news conference Aug. 11.

Schools are just starting back, and, in many parts of the South, districts are operating under a patchwork of policies – some require masks, while others have made them voluntary. Physicians say they are bracing for what these half measures could mean for pediatric cases and community transmission.

The only sure way for people to help themselves and their hospitals and schools, experts said, is vaccination.

“State data show that in this latest COVID surge, 97% of new COVID-19 infections, 89% of hospitalizations, and 82% of deaths occur in unvaccinated residents,” Mr. Moore said.

“To relieve pressure on hospitals, we need Mississippians – even those who have previously had COVID – to get vaccinated and wear a mask in public. The Delta variant is highly contagious and we need to do all we can to stop the spread,” he said.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has fueled a growing demand for nurse practitioners (NPs), while demand for primary care physicians has cooled, according to Merritt Hawkins’ annual review of physician and advanced practitioner recruiting trends.

This marks the first time in the review’s 28-year history that NPs have topped the list of the most recruited practitioners, according to the medical search firm. In the 27 prior years, physicians held the top spot. For the previous 14 years, the No. 1 position was held by family physicians.

“COVID-19 and other market forces are changing the dynamics of physician and advanced practitioner recruiting. NPs are coming into their own in a market that puts a premium on easy access to care and cost containment,” Tom Florence, president of Merritt Hawkins, said in a statement.
 

Primary care ‘recruiting frenzy’ over

Mr. Florence said primary care physicians remain a “vital part of team-based care and will be increasingly responsible for coordinating the care of older patients with multiple chronic conditions. But the recruiting frenzy in primary care is over.”

Merritt Hawkins says that overall COVID-19 has had a “severely inhibiting” effect on demand for physicians. The number of searches the company conducted dropped 25%, compared with 2020, and many hospitals and medical groups shut down or lost money during the pandemic.

But the drop-off in demand for physicians is likely to be temporary because the underlying dynamics driving physician supply and demand remain in place, according to the report. These include a growing and aging population, a limited supply of newly trained physicians, and an aging physician workforce.

COVID-19 will not permanently change these market conditions, and demand for physicians already is rebounding, the company said.

The 2021 review of physician and advanced practitioner recruiting is based on a representative sample of 2,458 permanent search engagements that Merritt Hawkins/AMN Healthcare’s physician staffing companies conducted or were in the process of conducting during the 12-month period from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021.

Among the key findings:

• 18% of Merritt Hawkins’ recruiting searches were for advanced practitioners, including NPs, physician assistants (PAs), and certified registered nurse anesthetists, up from 13% in the 2020 review. This represents the highest percentage in the 28 years the review has been conducted.
• About two-thirds (64%) of Merritt Hawkins’ search engagements were for physician specialists, including radiologists, psychiatrists, gastroenterologists, and others, “highlighting the robust demand for specialty physicians.”
• In 2021, 18% of Merritt Hawkins’ search engagements were for primary care physicians, down from 20% in 2020 and 22% in 2019, “signaling a relative decline in demand for primary care doctors.”
• Psychiatrists placed fourth on the list of most requested search engagements, a sign of continued strong demand for mental health professionals that is likely to accelerate because of COVID-19.

Starting salaries take a pandemic hit

Owing to the reduced demand for practitioners, starting salaries decreased for many types of health care professions, with the exception of NPs and PAs.

Average starting salaries for NPs showed strong growth, increasing 12% year over year, from $125,000 to $140,000. The average starting salaries for PAs also showed strong growth, increasing by 14% year over year, from $112,000 to $128,000.

Among physicians, interventional cardiologists were offered the highest average starting salaries, at $611,000, followed by orthopedic surgeons, at $546,000. Pediatricians were offered the lowest average starting salaries, at $236,000.

Merritt Hawkins said only 3% of their search engagements were for solo practice or partnership settings, “underscoring the decline of physician private practice.”

Roughly two-thirds (67%) of Merritt Hawkins’ search engagements were in communities of 100,000 people or more, indicating that demand for physicians and advanced practitioners is not limited to small or rural communities.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has fueled a growing demand for nurse practitioners (NPs), while demand for primary care physicians has cooled, according to Merritt Hawkins’ annual review of physician and advanced practitioner recruiting trends.

This marks the first time in the review’s 28-year history that NPs have topped the list of the most recruited practitioners, according to the medical search firm. In the 27 prior years, physicians held the top spot. For the previous 14 years, the No. 1 position was held by family physicians.

“COVID-19 and other market forces are changing the dynamics of physician and advanced practitioner recruiting. NPs are coming into their own in a market that puts a premium on easy access to care and cost containment,” Tom Florence, president of Merritt Hawkins, said in a statement.
 

Primary care ‘recruiting frenzy’ over

Mr. Florence said primary care physicians remain a “vital part of team-based care and will be increasingly responsible for coordinating the care of older patients with multiple chronic conditions. But the recruiting frenzy in primary care is over.”

Merritt Hawkins says that overall COVID-19 has had a “severely inhibiting” effect on demand for physicians. The number of searches the company conducted dropped 25%, compared with 2020, and many hospitals and medical groups shut down or lost money during the pandemic.

But the drop-off in demand for physicians is likely to be temporary because the underlying dynamics driving physician supply and demand remain in place, according to the report. These include a growing and aging population, a limited supply of newly trained physicians, and an aging physician workforce.

COVID-19 will not permanently change these market conditions, and demand for physicians already is rebounding, the company said.

The 2021 review of physician and advanced practitioner recruiting is based on a representative sample of 2,458 permanent search engagements that Merritt Hawkins/AMN Healthcare’s physician staffing companies conducted or were in the process of conducting during the 12-month period from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021.

Among the key findings:

• 18% of Merritt Hawkins’ recruiting searches were for advanced practitioners, including NPs, physician assistants (PAs), and certified registered nurse anesthetists, up from 13% in the 2020 review. This represents the highest percentage in the 28 years the review has been conducted.
• About two-thirds (64%) of Merritt Hawkins’ search engagements were for physician specialists, including radiologists, psychiatrists, gastroenterologists, and others, “highlighting the robust demand for specialty physicians.”
• In 2021, 18% of Merritt Hawkins’ search engagements were for primary care physicians, down from 20% in 2020 and 22% in 2019, “signaling a relative decline in demand for primary care doctors.”
• Psychiatrists placed fourth on the list of most requested search engagements, a sign of continued strong demand for mental health professionals that is likely to accelerate because of COVID-19.

Starting salaries take a pandemic hit

Owing to the reduced demand for practitioners, starting salaries decreased for many types of health care professions, with the exception of NPs and PAs.

Average starting salaries for NPs showed strong growth, increasing 12% year over year, from $125,000 to $140,000. The average starting salaries for PAs also showed strong growth, increasing by 14% year over year, from $112,000 to $128,000.

Among physicians, interventional cardiologists were offered the highest average starting salaries, at $611,000, followed by orthopedic surgeons, at $546,000. Pediatricians were offered the lowest average starting salaries, at $236,000.

Merritt Hawkins said only 3% of their search engagements were for solo practice or partnership settings, “underscoring the decline of physician private practice.”

Roughly two-thirds (67%) of Merritt Hawkins’ search engagements were in communities of 100,000 people or more, indicating that demand for physicians and advanced practitioners is not limited to small or rural communities.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has fueled a growing demand for nurse practitioners (NPs), while demand for primary care physicians has cooled, according to Merritt Hawkins’ annual review of physician and advanced practitioner recruiting trends.

This marks the first time in the review’s 28-year history that NPs have topped the list of the most recruited practitioners, according to the medical search firm. In the 27 prior years, physicians held the top spot. For the previous 14 years, the No. 1 position was held by family physicians.

“COVID-19 and other market forces are changing the dynamics of physician and advanced practitioner recruiting. NPs are coming into their own in a market that puts a premium on easy access to care and cost containment,” Tom Florence, president of Merritt Hawkins, said in a statement.
 

Primary care ‘recruiting frenzy’ over

Mr. Florence said primary care physicians remain a “vital part of team-based care and will be increasingly responsible for coordinating the care of older patients with multiple chronic conditions. But the recruiting frenzy in primary care is over.”

Merritt Hawkins says that overall COVID-19 has had a “severely inhibiting” effect on demand for physicians. The number of searches the company conducted dropped 25%, compared with 2020, and many hospitals and medical groups shut down or lost money during the pandemic.

But the drop-off in demand for physicians is likely to be temporary because the underlying dynamics driving physician supply and demand remain in place, according to the report. These include a growing and aging population, a limited supply of newly trained physicians, and an aging physician workforce.

COVID-19 will not permanently change these market conditions, and demand for physicians already is rebounding, the company said.

The 2021 review of physician and advanced practitioner recruiting is based on a representative sample of 2,458 permanent search engagements that Merritt Hawkins/AMN Healthcare’s physician staffing companies conducted or were in the process of conducting during the 12-month period from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021.

Among the key findings:

• 18% of Merritt Hawkins’ recruiting searches were for advanced practitioners, including NPs, physician assistants (PAs), and certified registered nurse anesthetists, up from 13% in the 2020 review. This represents the highest percentage in the 28 years the review has been conducted.
• About two-thirds (64%) of Merritt Hawkins’ search engagements were for physician specialists, including radiologists, psychiatrists, gastroenterologists, and others, “highlighting the robust demand for specialty physicians.”
• In 2021, 18% of Merritt Hawkins’ search engagements were for primary care physicians, down from 20% in 2020 and 22% in 2019, “signaling a relative decline in demand for primary care doctors.”
• Psychiatrists placed fourth on the list of most requested search engagements, a sign of continued strong demand for mental health professionals that is likely to accelerate because of COVID-19.

Starting salaries take a pandemic hit

Owing to the reduced demand for practitioners, starting salaries decreased for many types of health care professions, with the exception of NPs and PAs.

Average starting salaries for NPs showed strong growth, increasing 12% year over year, from $125,000 to $140,000. The average starting salaries for PAs also showed strong growth, increasing by 14% year over year, from $112,000 to $128,000.

Among physicians, interventional cardiologists were offered the highest average starting salaries, at $611,000, followed by orthopedic surgeons, at $546,000. Pediatricians were offered the lowest average starting salaries, at $236,000.

Merritt Hawkins said only 3% of their search engagements were for solo practice or partnership settings, “underscoring the decline of physician private practice.”

Roughly two-thirds (67%) of Merritt Hawkins’ search engagements were in communities of 100,000 people or more, indicating that demand for physicians and advanced practitioners is not limited to small or rural communities.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could green-light a booster dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for people with weakened immune systems within the next two days, according to multiple media reports.

The agency, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health, is working through the details of how booster doses for this population would work, and could authorize a third dose of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as early as Aug. 12, Politico reports.

About 2.7% of adults in the United States are immunocompromised, according to the CDC. This group includes people who have cancer, have received solid organ or stem cell transplants, have genetic conditions that weaken the immune function, have HIV, or are people with health conditions that require treatment with medications that turn down immune function, such as rheumatoid arthritis. 

Immune function also wanes with age, so the FDA could consider boosters for the elderly.

New research shows that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised patients who didn’t develop detectable levels of virus-fighting antibodies after two doses of a COVID vaccine will respond to a third dose. 

A committee of independent experts that advises the CDC on the use of vaccines in the United States had previously signaled its support for giving boosters to those who are immunocompromised, but noted that it couldn’t officially recommend the strategy until the FDA had updated its emergency-use authorization for the shots or granted them a full biologics license, or “full approval.”

It’s unclear which mechanism the FDA might use, or exactly who will be eligible for the shots.

The United States would follow other nations such as Israel, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany in planning for or authorizing boosters for some vulnerable individuals.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has voiced strong opposition to the use of boosters in wealthy countries while much of the world still doesn’t have access to these lifesaving therapies. The WHO has asked wealthy nations to hold off on giving boosters until at least the end of September to give more people the opportunity to get a first dose.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meets again on Aug. 13 and is expected to discuss booster doses for this population of patients. The ACIP officially makes recommendations on the use of vaccines to the nation’s doctors.

The committee’s recommendation ensures that a vaccine will be covered by public and private insurers. Statutory vaccination requirements are also made based on the ACIP’s recommendations.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could green-light a booster dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for people with weakened immune systems within the next two days, according to multiple media reports.

The agency, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health, is working through the details of how booster doses for this population would work, and could authorize a third dose of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as early as Aug. 12, Politico reports.

About 2.7% of adults in the United States are immunocompromised, according to the CDC. This group includes people who have cancer, have received solid organ or stem cell transplants, have genetic conditions that weaken the immune function, have HIV, or are people with health conditions that require treatment with medications that turn down immune function, such as rheumatoid arthritis. 

Immune function also wanes with age, so the FDA could consider boosters for the elderly.

New research shows that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised patients who didn’t develop detectable levels of virus-fighting antibodies after two doses of a COVID vaccine will respond to a third dose. 

A committee of independent experts that advises the CDC on the use of vaccines in the United States had previously signaled its support for giving boosters to those who are immunocompromised, but noted that it couldn’t officially recommend the strategy until the FDA had updated its emergency-use authorization for the shots or granted them a full biologics license, or “full approval.”

It’s unclear which mechanism the FDA might use, or exactly who will be eligible for the shots.

The United States would follow other nations such as Israel, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany in planning for or authorizing boosters for some vulnerable individuals.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has voiced strong opposition to the use of boosters in wealthy countries while much of the world still doesn’t have access to these lifesaving therapies. The WHO has asked wealthy nations to hold off on giving boosters until at least the end of September to give more people the opportunity to get a first dose.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meets again on Aug. 13 and is expected to discuss booster doses for this population of patients. The ACIP officially makes recommendations on the use of vaccines to the nation’s doctors.

The committee’s recommendation ensures that a vaccine will be covered by public and private insurers. Statutory vaccination requirements are also made based on the ACIP’s recommendations.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could green-light a booster dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for people with weakened immune systems within the next two days, according to multiple media reports.

The agency, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health, is working through the details of how booster doses for this population would work, and could authorize a third dose of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as early as Aug. 12, Politico reports.

About 2.7% of adults in the United States are immunocompromised, according to the CDC. This group includes people who have cancer, have received solid organ or stem cell transplants, have genetic conditions that weaken the immune function, have HIV, or are people with health conditions that require treatment with medications that turn down immune function, such as rheumatoid arthritis. 

Immune function also wanes with age, so the FDA could consider boosters for the elderly.

New research shows that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised patients who didn’t develop detectable levels of virus-fighting antibodies after two doses of a COVID vaccine will respond to a third dose. 

A committee of independent experts that advises the CDC on the use of vaccines in the United States had previously signaled its support for giving boosters to those who are immunocompromised, but noted that it couldn’t officially recommend the strategy until the FDA had updated its emergency-use authorization for the shots or granted them a full biologics license, or “full approval.”

It’s unclear which mechanism the FDA might use, or exactly who will be eligible for the shots.

The United States would follow other nations such as Israel, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany in planning for or authorizing boosters for some vulnerable individuals.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has voiced strong opposition to the use of boosters in wealthy countries while much of the world still doesn’t have access to these lifesaving therapies. The WHO has asked wealthy nations to hold off on giving boosters until at least the end of September to give more people the opportunity to get a first dose.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meets again on Aug. 13 and is expected to discuss booster doses for this population of patients. The ACIP officially makes recommendations on the use of vaccines to the nation’s doctors.

The committee’s recommendation ensures that a vaccine will be covered by public and private insurers. Statutory vaccination requirements are also made based on the ACIP’s recommendations.

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

The current pandemic is forcing changes throughout the health care industry. Telehealth is witnessing a surge. Hospitals are struggling without elective care, and remarkably, physicians are being laid off during a time of crisis. While some states have a surplus work force, other states go begging, and they lock the system up with delays in the processing of applications.

Considering the prevalence of noncompete clauses and a schism in state-to-state processing of complaints, patients are suffering and dying under an antiquated system. The Federation of State Medical Boards doesn’t seem to add to the solution, but instead confounds the problem with new directives. The time is nigh for the federal government to eliminate state medical licensure and replace it with a national medical license for all physicians and health care professionals.

Because physicians’ training requirements don’t vary from state to state, it makes sense. We must take national standardized exams to qualify. Locum tenens physicians must maintain licensure in as many states as they practice; this creates an unnecessary burden and expense, when there is a better alternative. Some states have arranged reciprocity licensure with other states. This is commendable but doesn’t go far enough to manage national shortages in rural areas.

Under a national licensing system, physicians and other health care professionals would not only be free to travel anywhere in the United States to practice, they can count on consistent and equal management of their license. The federal government can track regional overages and shortages and redirect physicians and other medical professionals with incentives to areas in need.

The FSMB claims that there is interstate continuity among state medical boards, but the data don’t support this.

Why is this the case? Each medical board fails to manage their charges equally. Often, action taken by one state board when reported to another state board can cause a review and readjudication. This occasionally results in the overturning of a reprimand or suspension because of differences in legislation.

Yet the physician or health care professional must bear the burden of the notification against their license. Once again, the FSMB claims there is interstate continuity in disciplinary actions, but the data do not support this.

Once someone brings a complaint against a health professional, which in this health care climate is inevitable, the medical board must institute an investigation. Even if it has no merit, the process must go forward. Under a national system, a consistent approach to dismiss and investigate issues and complaints might expedite the process. This eliminates inefficiency and delays in clearance of charges.

A report in 2006 identified fragmentation and discontinuities in the way each state medical board manages a physician or other health care personnel’s complaints. The number of hands involved in the process varies and is often onerous and redundant. Several sources may request the same information, tying it up as it moves through an inefficient and uncooperative system. With the increase in internal politics since then, this only compounds rather than improves the problem.

Yet the benefit of national licensure is not just for the health care personnel but also for insurance companies that must register and screen physicians as they move from region to region. In each state, the physician must repeat the accreditation process, delaying reimbursements and denying care. Hospitals also must repeat the credentialing task as well. This, although the physician or health care worker has a clean record with the same company or the same hospital system in their original state.

Perhaps data from one insurance group or hospital in another state get lost or altered in transfer, but under national licensing, this would not be possible. Furthermore, the current system limits the individual professional’s input. By nationalizing, record corrections would go through a federal database rather than state data banks that don’t sync.

This already partially exists with the National Practitioner Identifier. But we can take it one step further. Through nationalization, we could institute a fairer system of reporting where both the professional’s and the complainant’s summary is included. One might argue the National Physician Data Bank performs this function, but in fact, it merely reflects state assessments – which again vary.

The infrastructure is already in place to transition from a state to national system with facilities and records kept in each state’s medical board. It would simply be a matter of replacing state personnel with federal employees who all work from the same script. A national medical license simply makes sense for all parties. It reduces discontinuity and increases efficiency. A national medical license empowers the individual rather than institutions, yet benefits both.

The time is nigh to nationally certify and set physicians free, reduce paperwork and needless fees, and eliminate state supremacy.  


Dr. Raymond is an emergency physician based in Hickory, N.C., and Muckendorf an der Donau, Austria.

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

The current pandemic is forcing changes throughout the health care industry. Telehealth is witnessing a surge. Hospitals are struggling without elective care, and remarkably, physicians are being laid off during a time of crisis. While some states have a surplus work force, other states go begging, and they lock the system up with delays in the processing of applications.

Considering the prevalence of noncompete clauses and a schism in state-to-state processing of complaints, patients are suffering and dying under an antiquated system. The Federation of State Medical Boards doesn’t seem to add to the solution, but instead confounds the problem with new directives. The time is nigh for the federal government to eliminate state medical licensure and replace it with a national medical license for all physicians and health care professionals.

Because physicians’ training requirements don’t vary from state to state, it makes sense. We must take national standardized exams to qualify. Locum tenens physicians must maintain licensure in as many states as they practice; this creates an unnecessary burden and expense, when there is a better alternative. Some states have arranged reciprocity licensure with other states. This is commendable but doesn’t go far enough to manage national shortages in rural areas.

Under a national licensing system, physicians and other health care professionals would not only be free to travel anywhere in the United States to practice, they can count on consistent and equal management of their license. The federal government can track regional overages and shortages and redirect physicians and other medical professionals with incentives to areas in need.

The FSMB claims that there is interstate continuity among state medical boards, but the data don’t support this.

Why is this the case? Each medical board fails to manage their charges equally. Often, action taken by one state board when reported to another state board can cause a review and readjudication. This occasionally results in the overturning of a reprimand or suspension because of differences in legislation.

Yet the physician or health care professional must bear the burden of the notification against their license. Once again, the FSMB claims there is interstate continuity in disciplinary actions, but the data do not support this.

Once someone brings a complaint against a health professional, which in this health care climate is inevitable, the medical board must institute an investigation. Even if it has no merit, the process must go forward. Under a national system, a consistent approach to dismiss and investigate issues and complaints might expedite the process. This eliminates inefficiency and delays in clearance of charges.

A report in 2006 identified fragmentation and discontinuities in the way each state medical board manages a physician or other health care personnel’s complaints. The number of hands involved in the process varies and is often onerous and redundant. Several sources may request the same information, tying it up as it moves through an inefficient and uncooperative system. With the increase in internal politics since then, this only compounds rather than improves the problem.

Yet the benefit of national licensure is not just for the health care personnel but also for insurance companies that must register and screen physicians as they move from region to region. In each state, the physician must repeat the accreditation process, delaying reimbursements and denying care. Hospitals also must repeat the credentialing task as well. This, although the physician or health care worker has a clean record with the same company or the same hospital system in their original state.

Perhaps data from one insurance group or hospital in another state get lost or altered in transfer, but under national licensing, this would not be possible. Furthermore, the current system limits the individual professional’s input. By nationalizing, record corrections would go through a federal database rather than state data banks that don’t sync.

This already partially exists with the National Practitioner Identifier. But we can take it one step further. Through nationalization, we could institute a fairer system of reporting where both the professional’s and the complainant’s summary is included. One might argue the National Physician Data Bank performs this function, but in fact, it merely reflects state assessments – which again vary.

The infrastructure is already in place to transition from a state to national system with facilities and records kept in each state’s medical board. It would simply be a matter of replacing state personnel with federal employees who all work from the same script. A national medical license simply makes sense for all parties. It reduces discontinuity and increases efficiency. A national medical license empowers the individual rather than institutions, yet benefits both.

The time is nigh to nationally certify and set physicians free, reduce paperwork and needless fees, and eliminate state supremacy.  


Dr. Raymond is an emergency physician based in Hickory, N.C., and Muckendorf an der Donau, Austria.

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

The current pandemic is forcing changes throughout the health care industry. Telehealth is witnessing a surge. Hospitals are struggling without elective care, and remarkably, physicians are being laid off during a time of crisis. While some states have a surplus work force, other states go begging, and they lock the system up with delays in the processing of applications.

Considering the prevalence of noncompete clauses and a schism in state-to-state processing of complaints, patients are suffering and dying under an antiquated system. The Federation of State Medical Boards doesn’t seem to add to the solution, but instead confounds the problem with new directives. The time is nigh for the federal government to eliminate state medical licensure and replace it with a national medical license for all physicians and health care professionals.

Because physicians’ training requirements don’t vary from state to state, it makes sense. We must take national standardized exams to qualify. Locum tenens physicians must maintain licensure in as many states as they practice; this creates an unnecessary burden and expense, when there is a better alternative. Some states have arranged reciprocity licensure with other states. This is commendable but doesn’t go far enough to manage national shortages in rural areas.

Under a national licensing system, physicians and other health care professionals would not only be free to travel anywhere in the United States to practice, they can count on consistent and equal management of their license. The federal government can track regional overages and shortages and redirect physicians and other medical professionals with incentives to areas in need.

The FSMB claims that there is interstate continuity among state medical boards, but the data don’t support this.

Why is this the case? Each medical board fails to manage their charges equally. Often, action taken by one state board when reported to another state board can cause a review and readjudication. This occasionally results in the overturning of a reprimand or suspension because of differences in legislation.

Yet the physician or health care professional must bear the burden of the notification against their license. Once again, the FSMB claims there is interstate continuity in disciplinary actions, but the data do not support this.

Once someone brings a complaint against a health professional, which in this health care climate is inevitable, the medical board must institute an investigation. Even if it has no merit, the process must go forward. Under a national system, a consistent approach to dismiss and investigate issues and complaints might expedite the process. This eliminates inefficiency and delays in clearance of charges.

A report in 2006 identified fragmentation and discontinuities in the way each state medical board manages a physician or other health care personnel’s complaints. The number of hands involved in the process varies and is often onerous and redundant. Several sources may request the same information, tying it up as it moves through an inefficient and uncooperative system. With the increase in internal politics since then, this only compounds rather than improves the problem.

Yet the benefit of national licensure is not just for the health care personnel but also for insurance companies that must register and screen physicians as they move from region to region. In each state, the physician must repeat the accreditation process, delaying reimbursements and denying care. Hospitals also must repeat the credentialing task as well. This, although the physician or health care worker has a clean record with the same company or the same hospital system in their original state.

Perhaps data from one insurance group or hospital in another state get lost or altered in transfer, but under national licensing, this would not be possible. Furthermore, the current system limits the individual professional’s input. By nationalizing, record corrections would go through a federal database rather than state data banks that don’t sync.

This already partially exists with the National Practitioner Identifier. But we can take it one step further. Through nationalization, we could institute a fairer system of reporting where both the professional’s and the complainant’s summary is included. One might argue the National Physician Data Bank performs this function, but in fact, it merely reflects state assessments – which again vary.

The infrastructure is already in place to transition from a state to national system with facilities and records kept in each state’s medical board. It would simply be a matter of replacing state personnel with federal employees who all work from the same script. A national medical license simply makes sense for all parties. It reduces discontinuity and increases efficiency. A national medical license empowers the individual rather than institutions, yet benefits both.

The time is nigh to nationally certify and set physicians free, reduce paperwork and needless fees, and eliminate state supremacy.  


Dr. Raymond is an emergency physician based in Hickory, N.C., and Muckendorf an der Donau, Austria.

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