MDedge Surgery

The CDC is preparing to update its COVID-19 mask recommendations to emphasize the use of N95 and KN95 masks that better filter the virus, Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.

“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.

While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.

“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.

“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.

WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve. 

The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection. 

The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected. 

“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing. 

The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.

But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.

But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing. 

The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate. 

The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.

Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.

But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.

In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.

But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.

“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”

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

The CDC is preparing to update its COVID-19 mask recommendations to emphasize the use of N95 and KN95 masks that better filter the virus, Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.

“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.

While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.

“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.

“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.

WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve. 

The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection. 

The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected. 

“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing. 

The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.

But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.

But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing. 

The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate. 

The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.

Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.

But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.

In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.

But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.

“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”

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

The CDC is preparing to update its COVID-19 mask recommendations to emphasize the use of N95 and KN95 masks that better filter the virus, Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.

“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.

While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.

“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.

“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.

WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve. 

The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection. 

The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected. 

“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing. 

The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.

But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.

But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing. 

The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate. 

The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.

Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.

But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.

In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.

But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.

“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”

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

Urine for a new vaccine alternative

Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.

Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.

EM80/Pixabay

Vaccine or beer? You must now choose

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.

As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.

John Margolies/rawpixel

And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.

Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.

All I need is the polyester that I breathe

When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.

monkeybusinessimages / Getty Images

That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.

The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!

Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.

Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.

Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
 

It’s always in the last place you look

At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”

Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”

We will explain ... again.

When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.

Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.

What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.

And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.

But not all at the same time, thank goodness.

Urine for a new vaccine alternative

Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.

Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.

EM80/Pixabay

Vaccine or beer? You must now choose

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.

As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.

John Margolies/rawpixel

And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.

Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.

All I need is the polyester that I breathe

When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.

monkeybusinessimages / Getty Images

That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.

The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!

Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.

Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.

Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
 

It’s always in the last place you look

At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”

Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”

We will explain ... again.

When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.

Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.

What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.

And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.

But not all at the same time, thank goodness.

Urine for a new vaccine alternative

Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.

Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.

EM80/Pixabay

Vaccine or beer? You must now choose

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.

As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.

John Margolies/rawpixel

And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.

Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.

All I need is the polyester that I breathe

When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.

monkeybusinessimages / Getty Images

That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.

The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!

Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.

Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.

Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
 

It’s always in the last place you look

At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”

Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”

We will explain ... again.

When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.

Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.

What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.

And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.

But not all at the same time, thank goodness.

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

The United States reported 1.35 million new COVID-19 cases on Jan. 10, logging the highest daily total for any country in the world during the pandemic.

The United States set the previous record of 1 million cases on Jan. 3. (A large number of cases are reported on Mondays, since many states don’t provide updates over the weekend, according to Reuters.)

Still, the 7-day average for new cases has surpassed 700,000, tripling in 2 weeks as the contagious Omicron variant continues to spread across the country.

The daily record of new cases came a day after the United States crossed the grim milestone of 60 million COVID-19 cases during the pandemic, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University. More than 11 million new cases were reported in the past 28 days, with 5 million reported since Jan. 2.

Globally, more than 310 million cases have been reported, resulting in nearly 5.5 million COVID-19 deaths. Almost 40 million cases have been confirmed worldwide during the past month, with the United States accounting for 28% of those.

Texas became the second state to report more than 5 million cases since the pandemic began, behind California’s total of 6 million cases. Florida has reported more than 4.6 million, while New York has reported more than 4.1 million.

The United States has also hit an all-time high for hospitalizations, with nearly 146,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The previous record was 142,000 hospitalizations in January 2021.

Jan. 11’s hospitalizations are more than twice as many as 2 weeks ago, according to CNN. About 78% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, and 21% are being used for COVID-19 patients.

Deaths are averaging about 1,700 per day, Reuters reported, which is up from 1,400 in recent days but not much higher than earlier this winter. The peak average was 3,400 daily deaths in mid-January 2021.

The surging numbers of cases and hospitalizations across the country are straining hospitals. On Jan. 10, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency after the number of intensive care unit hospitalizations more than doubled since Dec. 1, CNN reported. The order allows hospitals to expand bed capacity, use telehealth options, and be more flexible with staffing.

Texas is hiring at least 2,700 medical staff to help with the surge, CNN reported, and Kentucky has mobilized the National Guard to provide support.

“Omicron continues to burn through the commonwealth, growing at levels we have never seen before. Omicron is significantly more contagious than even the Delta variant,” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said during a news briefing Jan. 10.

Kentucky reported its highest weekly total of cases last week and has its highest rate of positive tests, at 26%. Mr. Beshear said the state is down to 134 available adult ICU beds.

“If it spreads at the rate we are seeing, it is certainly going to fill up our hospitals,” he said.

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

The United States reported 1.35 million new COVID-19 cases on Jan. 10, logging the highest daily total for any country in the world during the pandemic.

The United States set the previous record of 1 million cases on Jan. 3. (A large number of cases are reported on Mondays, since many states don’t provide updates over the weekend, according to Reuters.)

Still, the 7-day average for new cases has surpassed 700,000, tripling in 2 weeks as the contagious Omicron variant continues to spread across the country.

The daily record of new cases came a day after the United States crossed the grim milestone of 60 million COVID-19 cases during the pandemic, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University. More than 11 million new cases were reported in the past 28 days, with 5 million reported since Jan. 2.

Globally, more than 310 million cases have been reported, resulting in nearly 5.5 million COVID-19 deaths. Almost 40 million cases have been confirmed worldwide during the past month, with the United States accounting for 28% of those.

Texas became the second state to report more than 5 million cases since the pandemic began, behind California’s total of 6 million cases. Florida has reported more than 4.6 million, while New York has reported more than 4.1 million.

The United States has also hit an all-time high for hospitalizations, with nearly 146,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The previous record was 142,000 hospitalizations in January 2021.

Jan. 11’s hospitalizations are more than twice as many as 2 weeks ago, according to CNN. About 78% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, and 21% are being used for COVID-19 patients.

Deaths are averaging about 1,700 per day, Reuters reported, which is up from 1,400 in recent days but not much higher than earlier this winter. The peak average was 3,400 daily deaths in mid-January 2021.

The surging numbers of cases and hospitalizations across the country are straining hospitals. On Jan. 10, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency after the number of intensive care unit hospitalizations more than doubled since Dec. 1, CNN reported. The order allows hospitals to expand bed capacity, use telehealth options, and be more flexible with staffing.

Texas is hiring at least 2,700 medical staff to help with the surge, CNN reported, and Kentucky has mobilized the National Guard to provide support.

“Omicron continues to burn through the commonwealth, growing at levels we have never seen before. Omicron is significantly more contagious than even the Delta variant,” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said during a news briefing Jan. 10.

Kentucky reported its highest weekly total of cases last week and has its highest rate of positive tests, at 26%. Mr. Beshear said the state is down to 134 available adult ICU beds.

“If it spreads at the rate we are seeing, it is certainly going to fill up our hospitals,” he said.

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

The United States reported 1.35 million new COVID-19 cases on Jan. 10, logging the highest daily total for any country in the world during the pandemic.

The United States set the previous record of 1 million cases on Jan. 3. (A large number of cases are reported on Mondays, since many states don’t provide updates over the weekend, according to Reuters.)

Still, the 7-day average for new cases has surpassed 700,000, tripling in 2 weeks as the contagious Omicron variant continues to spread across the country.

The daily record of new cases came a day after the United States crossed the grim milestone of 60 million COVID-19 cases during the pandemic, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University. More than 11 million new cases were reported in the past 28 days, with 5 million reported since Jan. 2.

Globally, more than 310 million cases have been reported, resulting in nearly 5.5 million COVID-19 deaths. Almost 40 million cases have been confirmed worldwide during the past month, with the United States accounting for 28% of those.

Texas became the second state to report more than 5 million cases since the pandemic began, behind California’s total of 6 million cases. Florida has reported more than 4.6 million, while New York has reported more than 4.1 million.

The United States has also hit an all-time high for hospitalizations, with nearly 146,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The previous record was 142,000 hospitalizations in January 2021.

Jan. 11’s hospitalizations are more than twice as many as 2 weeks ago, according to CNN. About 78% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, and 21% are being used for COVID-19 patients.

Deaths are averaging about 1,700 per day, Reuters reported, which is up from 1,400 in recent days but not much higher than earlier this winter. The peak average was 3,400 daily deaths in mid-January 2021.

The surging numbers of cases and hospitalizations across the country are straining hospitals. On Jan. 10, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency after the number of intensive care unit hospitalizations more than doubled since Dec. 1, CNN reported. The order allows hospitals to expand bed capacity, use telehealth options, and be more flexible with staffing.

Texas is hiring at least 2,700 medical staff to help with the surge, CNN reported, and Kentucky has mobilized the National Guard to provide support.

“Omicron continues to burn through the commonwealth, growing at levels we have never seen before. Omicron is significantly more contagious than even the Delta variant,” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said during a news briefing Jan. 10.

Kentucky reported its highest weekly total of cases last week and has its highest rate of positive tests, at 26%. Mr. Beshear said the state is down to 134 available adult ICU beds.

“If it spreads at the rate we are seeing, it is certainly going to fill up our hospitals,” he said.

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

A genetically modified pig heart has been successfully transplanted into a 57-year-old man who had no other treatment options but is “doing well” 3 days after the procedure, officials at the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC), Baltimore, announced Jan. 10.

“This organ transplant demonstrated for the first time that a genetically modified animal heart can function like a human heart without immediate rejection by the body,” they said.

Three genes associated with antibody-mediated rejection had been knocked out in the pig supplying the transplanted heart, and six human genes associated with immune acceptance of the organ had been inserted into the pig’s genome, notes a UMMC press release.

University of Maryland Medical Center

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

A genetically modified pig heart has been successfully transplanted into a 57-year-old man who had no other treatment options but is “doing well” 3 days after the procedure, officials at the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC), Baltimore, announced Jan. 10.

“This organ transplant demonstrated for the first time that a genetically modified animal heart can function like a human heart without immediate rejection by the body,” they said.

Three genes associated with antibody-mediated rejection had been knocked out in the pig supplying the transplanted heart, and six human genes associated with immune acceptance of the organ had been inserted into the pig’s genome, notes a UMMC press release.

University of Maryland Medical Center

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

A genetically modified pig heart has been successfully transplanted into a 57-year-old man who had no other treatment options but is “doing well” 3 days after the procedure, officials at the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC), Baltimore, announced Jan. 10.

“This organ transplant demonstrated for the first time that a genetically modified animal heart can function like a human heart without immediate rejection by the body,” they said.

Three genes associated with antibody-mediated rejection had been knocked out in the pig supplying the transplanted heart, and six human genes associated with immune acceptance of the organ had been inserted into the pig’s genome, notes a UMMC press release.

University of Maryland Medical Center

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coverage mandates and payment parity

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

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

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

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

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

Telemedicine across state lines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coverage mandates and payment parity

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

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

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

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

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

Telemedicine across state lines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coverage mandates and payment parity

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

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

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

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

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

Telemedicine across state lines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2014, when the Food and Drug Administration found serious problems with a life-sustaining heart pump, its warning letter to the manufacturer threatened to notify other federal health agencies about the inspection’s findings.

But for years, no such alert ever went out. Instead, the agency added the warning letter to an online database alongside thousands of others, following its typical procedures, an FDA spokesperson said.

Agencies such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs went on paying to implant the HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, or HVAD, in new patients even though federal inspectors had found problems with the device linked to patient deaths and injuries.

Taxpayer dollars continued to flow to the original device maker, HeartWare, and then to the company that acquired it in 2016, Medtronic, for 7 years while the issues raised in the warning letter remained unresolved.

If crucial safety information in FDA warning letters doesn’t make it to other arms of the government responsible for deciding which medical devices to pay for, experts said patients are the ones put at risk.

“It’s clearly a breakdown of communication,” said Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who researches medical device safety and regulation. “It’s not just the money, obviously. It’s people’s lives.”

The FDA acknowledged that it doesn’t directly notify other agencies when it issues warning letters, pointing instead to its online database, which is accessible to both government officials and the public. “The FDA’s decisions are intended to be patient-centric with the health and safety of device users as our highest priority,” the agency spokesperson said in an email.

The HeartWare letter was removed from the public database about 2 years ago, even though the problems remained unresolved and patients were still receiving implants. The database clears out letters that are more than 5 years old.

CMS, which oversees the Medicare and Medicaid programs, would not say why it continued paying for a device that didn’t meet government standards. It directed questions about the HeartWare warning letter to the FDA. “CMS does not have oversight of the manufacturing and related safety assessments of a medical device manufacturer,” a spokesperson said in an email.

The spokesperson noted that CMS requires heart pump patients to have specialized medical teams managing their care, which should monitor FDA communications regarding safety of devices.

CMS doesn’t track data on devices by manufacturer, so it’s essentially impossible to calculate its total spending on HVADs. One 2018 medical journal study found that Medicare and Medicaid paid for more than half the cost of all heart pump implants from 2009 to 2014. If that rate of spending continued, CMS may have spent more than $400 million on implanting HVADs since 2014.

A spokesperson for the VA said his agency was never notified about the HeartWare warning letter. The VA paid HeartWare and Medtronic more than $3 million after the FDA issued the letter in 2014. It offered this explanation for why: “It’s important to note that FDA Warning Letters are notifications issued to manufacturers found to be in significant violation of federal regulations. They are not product recalls.”

In the case of the HVAD, the FDA’s failure to make sure its warning reached beyond the manufacturer may have had life-and-death consequences.

In August, ProPublica reported that federal inspectors continued finding problems at the HVAD’s manufacturing plant for years. Meanwhile, the FDA received thousands of reports of suspicious deaths and injuries and more than a dozen high-risk safety alerts from the manufacturer.

The documents detailed one horrifying device failure after another. A father of four died after his device suddenly failed and his teenage daughter couldn’t resuscitate him. Another patient’s heart tissue was charred after a pump short-circuited and overheated. A teenager died after vomiting blood as his mother struggled to restart a defective pump.

In June, Medtronic ended sales and implants of the device, citing new data that showed patients with HVADs had a higher rate of deaths and strokes than those with a competing heart pump.

Medtronic declined to comment for this story. It has previously said it believed that after the 2014 warning letter the benefits of the HVAD still outweighed the risks for patients with severe heart failure.

Experts said the lack of communication between federal agencies when serious device problems are found is baffling but not surprising. It fits a broader trend of device regulators focusing more on evaluating new products than monitoring the ones already on the market.

“The priority is to get more medical devices out there, paid for and getting used,” said Dr. Joseph Ross, a professor of medicine and public health at Yale University who studies medical device regulation.

Other U.S. health care regulators move more forcefully when providers and suppliers don’t meet the government’s minimum safety requirements for an extended period, putting patients at risk.

Take hospitals. When inspectors find a facility is not meeting safety standards, CMS can issue an immediate jeopardy citation and, if problems aren’t fixed, move to withhold federal payments, which make up substantial portions of most hospitals’ revenues. In the rare cases when hospitals don’t take sufficient action, CMS follows through and revokes funding.

Redberg, the UCSF cardiologist, said the lack of similar action for medical devices offers a clear “opportunity for improvement.” At minimum, the FDA could establish processes to directly inform other agencies when it issues warning letters and finds serious problems with devices being sold in the United States.

“If the agency’s mission is to protect public health, they would want to do these things and move quickly,” she said.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In 2014, when the Food and Drug Administration found serious problems with a life-sustaining heart pump, its warning letter to the manufacturer threatened to notify other federal health agencies about the inspection’s findings.

But for years, no such alert ever went out. Instead, the agency added the warning letter to an online database alongside thousands of others, following its typical procedures, an FDA spokesperson said.

Agencies such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs went on paying to implant the HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, or HVAD, in new patients even though federal inspectors had found problems with the device linked to patient deaths and injuries.

Taxpayer dollars continued to flow to the original device maker, HeartWare, and then to the company that acquired it in 2016, Medtronic, for 7 years while the issues raised in the warning letter remained unresolved.

If crucial safety information in FDA warning letters doesn’t make it to other arms of the government responsible for deciding which medical devices to pay for, experts said patients are the ones put at risk.

“It’s clearly a breakdown of communication,” said Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who researches medical device safety and regulation. “It’s not just the money, obviously. It’s people’s lives.”

The FDA acknowledged that it doesn’t directly notify other agencies when it issues warning letters, pointing instead to its online database, which is accessible to both government officials and the public. “The FDA’s decisions are intended to be patient-centric with the health and safety of device users as our highest priority,” the agency spokesperson said in an email.

The HeartWare letter was removed from the public database about 2 years ago, even though the problems remained unresolved and patients were still receiving implants. The database clears out letters that are more than 5 years old.

CMS, which oversees the Medicare and Medicaid programs, would not say why it continued paying for a device that didn’t meet government standards. It directed questions about the HeartWare warning letter to the FDA. “CMS does not have oversight of the manufacturing and related safety assessments of a medical device manufacturer,” a spokesperson said in an email.

The spokesperson noted that CMS requires heart pump patients to have specialized medical teams managing their care, which should monitor FDA communications regarding safety of devices.

CMS doesn’t track data on devices by manufacturer, so it’s essentially impossible to calculate its total spending on HVADs. One 2018 medical journal study found that Medicare and Medicaid paid for more than half the cost of all heart pump implants from 2009 to 2014. If that rate of spending continued, CMS may have spent more than $400 million on implanting HVADs since 2014.

A spokesperson for the VA said his agency was never notified about the HeartWare warning letter. The VA paid HeartWare and Medtronic more than $3 million after the FDA issued the letter in 2014. It offered this explanation for why: “It’s important to note that FDA Warning Letters are notifications issued to manufacturers found to be in significant violation of federal regulations. They are not product recalls.”

In the case of the HVAD, the FDA’s failure to make sure its warning reached beyond the manufacturer may have had life-and-death consequences.

In August, ProPublica reported that federal inspectors continued finding problems at the HVAD’s manufacturing plant for years. Meanwhile, the FDA received thousands of reports of suspicious deaths and injuries and more than a dozen high-risk safety alerts from the manufacturer.

The documents detailed one horrifying device failure after another. A father of four died after his device suddenly failed and his teenage daughter couldn’t resuscitate him. Another patient’s heart tissue was charred after a pump short-circuited and overheated. A teenager died after vomiting blood as his mother struggled to restart a defective pump.

In June, Medtronic ended sales and implants of the device, citing new data that showed patients with HVADs had a higher rate of deaths and strokes than those with a competing heart pump.

Medtronic declined to comment for this story. It has previously said it believed that after the 2014 warning letter the benefits of the HVAD still outweighed the risks for patients with severe heart failure.

Experts said the lack of communication between federal agencies when serious device problems are found is baffling but not surprising. It fits a broader trend of device regulators focusing more on evaluating new products than monitoring the ones already on the market.

“The priority is to get more medical devices out there, paid for and getting used,” said Dr. Joseph Ross, a professor of medicine and public health at Yale University who studies medical device regulation.

Other U.S. health care regulators move more forcefully when providers and suppliers don’t meet the government’s minimum safety requirements for an extended period, putting patients at risk.

Take hospitals. When inspectors find a facility is not meeting safety standards, CMS can issue an immediate jeopardy citation and, if problems aren’t fixed, move to withhold federal payments, which make up substantial portions of most hospitals’ revenues. In the rare cases when hospitals don’t take sufficient action, CMS follows through and revokes funding.

Redberg, the UCSF cardiologist, said the lack of similar action for medical devices offers a clear “opportunity for improvement.” At minimum, the FDA could establish processes to directly inform other agencies when it issues warning letters and finds serious problems with devices being sold in the United States.

“If the agency’s mission is to protect public health, they would want to do these things and move quickly,” she said.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In 2014, when the Food and Drug Administration found serious problems with a life-sustaining heart pump, its warning letter to the manufacturer threatened to notify other federal health agencies about the inspection’s findings.

But for years, no such alert ever went out. Instead, the agency added the warning letter to an online database alongside thousands of others, following its typical procedures, an FDA spokesperson said.

Agencies such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs went on paying to implant the HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, or HVAD, in new patients even though federal inspectors had found problems with the device linked to patient deaths and injuries.

Taxpayer dollars continued to flow to the original device maker, HeartWare, and then to the company that acquired it in 2016, Medtronic, for 7 years while the issues raised in the warning letter remained unresolved.

If crucial safety information in FDA warning letters doesn’t make it to other arms of the government responsible for deciding which medical devices to pay for, experts said patients are the ones put at risk.

“It’s clearly a breakdown of communication,” said Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who researches medical device safety and regulation. “It’s not just the money, obviously. It’s people’s lives.”

The FDA acknowledged that it doesn’t directly notify other agencies when it issues warning letters, pointing instead to its online database, which is accessible to both government officials and the public. “The FDA’s decisions are intended to be patient-centric with the health and safety of device users as our highest priority,” the agency spokesperson said in an email.

The HeartWare letter was removed from the public database about 2 years ago, even though the problems remained unresolved and patients were still receiving implants. The database clears out letters that are more than 5 years old.

CMS, which oversees the Medicare and Medicaid programs, would not say why it continued paying for a device that didn’t meet government standards. It directed questions about the HeartWare warning letter to the FDA. “CMS does not have oversight of the manufacturing and related safety assessments of a medical device manufacturer,” a spokesperson said in an email.

The spokesperson noted that CMS requires heart pump patients to have specialized medical teams managing their care, which should monitor FDA communications regarding safety of devices.

CMS doesn’t track data on devices by manufacturer, so it’s essentially impossible to calculate its total spending on HVADs. One 2018 medical journal study found that Medicare and Medicaid paid for more than half the cost of all heart pump implants from 2009 to 2014. If that rate of spending continued, CMS may have spent more than $400 million on implanting HVADs since 2014.

A spokesperson for the VA said his agency was never notified about the HeartWare warning letter. The VA paid HeartWare and Medtronic more than $3 million after the FDA issued the letter in 2014. It offered this explanation for why: “It’s important to note that FDA Warning Letters are notifications issued to manufacturers found to be in significant violation of federal regulations. They are not product recalls.”

In the case of the HVAD, the FDA’s failure to make sure its warning reached beyond the manufacturer may have had life-and-death consequences.

In August, ProPublica reported that federal inspectors continued finding problems at the HVAD’s manufacturing plant for years. Meanwhile, the FDA received thousands of reports of suspicious deaths and injuries and more than a dozen high-risk safety alerts from the manufacturer.

The documents detailed one horrifying device failure after another. A father of four died after his device suddenly failed and his teenage daughter couldn’t resuscitate him. Another patient’s heart tissue was charred after a pump short-circuited and overheated. A teenager died after vomiting blood as his mother struggled to restart a defective pump.

In June, Medtronic ended sales and implants of the device, citing new data that showed patients with HVADs had a higher rate of deaths and strokes than those with a competing heart pump.

Medtronic declined to comment for this story. It has previously said it believed that after the 2014 warning letter the benefits of the HVAD still outweighed the risks for patients with severe heart failure.

Experts said the lack of communication between federal agencies when serious device problems are found is baffling but not surprising. It fits a broader trend of device regulators focusing more on evaluating new products than monitoring the ones already on the market.

“The priority is to get more medical devices out there, paid for and getting used,” said Dr. Joseph Ross, a professor of medicine and public health at Yale University who studies medical device regulation.

Other U.S. health care regulators move more forcefully when providers and suppliers don’t meet the government’s minimum safety requirements for an extended period, putting patients at risk.

Take hospitals. When inspectors find a facility is not meeting safety standards, CMS can issue an immediate jeopardy citation and, if problems aren’t fixed, move to withhold federal payments, which make up substantial portions of most hospitals’ revenues. In the rare cases when hospitals don’t take sufficient action, CMS follows through and revokes funding.

Redberg, the UCSF cardiologist, said the lack of similar action for medical devices offers a clear “opportunity for improvement.” At minimum, the FDA could establish processes to directly inform other agencies when it issues warning letters and finds serious problems with devices being sold in the United States.

“If the agency’s mission is to protect public health, they would want to do these things and move quickly,” she said.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

The damage to the heart caused by a myocardial infarction is not just a result of ischemia caused by the blocked artery but is also brought about by bleeding in the myocardium after the artery has been opened, a new study suggests.

This observation is leading to new approaches to limiting infarct size and treating MI.

“In MI treatment, we have always focused on opening up the artery as quickly as possible to limit the myocardial damage caused by ischemia,” the study’s senior author, Rohan Dharmakumar, PhD, Indiana University, Indianapolis, told this news organization.

“We are pursuing a completely new approach focusing on limiting the damage after revascularization,” he said. “We are totally rethinking what a myocardial infarction is – what causes the injury and the time course of the injury – our results suggest that it’s not just ischemic damage and a lot of the harm is caused by hemorrhage after reperfusion.”

It has been known for many years that hemorrhage is often seen in the myocardium in large MIs, but it has not been established before now whether it contributes to the injury or not, Dr. Dharmakumar explained.

“This study was done to look at that – and we found that the hemorrhage drives a second layer of injury on top of the ischemia.”

Dr. Dharmakumar said this hemorrhage is part of the phenomenon known as reperfusion injury. “This has been known to exist for many years, but we haven’t fully understood all the factors contributing to it. Our results suggest that hemorrhage is a major component of reperfusion injury – probably the dominant factor,” he said.  

The researchers are now working on therapeutic approaches to try to prevent this hemorrhage and/or to minimize its effect.

“We are studying how hemorrhage drives damage and how to block these biological processes,” Dr. Dharmakumar said. “Our studies suggest that hemorrhage could account for up to half of the damage caused by a myocardial infarction. If we can limit that, we should be able to reduce the size of the infarct and this should translate into better long-term outcomes.

“I’m very excited about these results,” he added. “We are already seeing a remarkable improvement in animal models with some of the potential therapeutic approaches we are working on.”

The current study is published in the January 2022 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC).

The authors explain that it is now recognized that reperfusion injury can contribute to increasing infarct size, which they refer to as “infarct surge.” Previous studies have also shown that reperfusion injury can contribute to as much as 50% of the final infarct size, but the factors contributing to the observed variability are not known, and previous attempts to limit infarct surge from reperfusion injury have failed.

They noted that after reperfusion, microvessels can remain obstructed, resulting in intramyocardial hemorrhage. They conducted the current study to investigate whether such hemorrhage causes expansion of the infarct.

They studied 70 patients with ST-segment elevation MI who were categorized with cardiovascular MRI to have intramyocardial hemorrhage or not following primary PCI, and for whom serial cardiac troponin measures were used to assess infarct size.

Results showed that while troponin levels were not different before reperfusion, patients with intramyocardial hemorrhage had significantly higher cardiac troponin levels after reperfusion and these levels peaked earlier than in patients without hemorrhage.

In animal models, those with intramyocardial hemorrhage had a more rapid expansion of myocardial necrosis than did those without hemorrhage, and within 72 hours of reperfusion, a fourfold greater loss in salvageable myocardium was evident in hemorrhagic MIs.

“We have shown that damage to the heart continues after revascularization as measured by rapidly increasing troponin levels in the hearts that have had a hemorrhage,” Dr. Dharmakumar said.

“Hemorrhage in the myocardium was associated with larger infarctions, and in infarcts causing the same area of myocardium to be at risk, those with hemorrhage after revascularization lost a lot more of the salvageable myocardium than those without hemorrhage,” he added.

Dr. Dharmakumar estimates that such hemorrhage occurs in about half of MIs after revascularization, with risk factors including male gender, anterior wall MIs, and smoking.

He pointed out that previous attempts to treat or prevent reperfusion injury have not been successful, probably because they have not been addressing the key mechanism. “We have not been looking at hemorrhage in this regard until now. This is because it is only recently that we have had the tools to be able to identify hemorrhage in the heart with the use of cardiac MRI.” 
 

Final frontier

In an accompanying editorial, Colin Berry, MBChB, University of Glasgow, and Borja Ibáñez, MD, Jiménez Díaz Foundation University Hospital, Madrid, said they applaud the investigators for providing new, mechanistic insights into a difficult clinical problem that has an unmet therapeutic need.

But they pointed out that it is difficult to completely dissect the impact of hemorrhage versus MI size on adverse remodeling, noting that it might be the case that more severe ischemia/reperfusion events are associated with large MI sizes and higher degree of hemorrhage.

However, they concluded that: “Intramyocardial hemorrhage represents the final frontier for preventing heart failure post-MI. It is readily detected using CMR, and clinical research of novel therapeutic approaches merits prioritization.”

This work was supported by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Dharmakumar and coauthor Robert Finney, PhD, have ownership interest in Cardiotheranostics. Dr. Berry is employed by the University of Glasgow, which holds consultancy and research agreements for his work with Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Causeway Therapeutics, Coroventis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, HeartFlow, Menarini, Neovasc, Siemens Healthcare, and Valo Health.

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

The damage to the heart caused by a myocardial infarction is not just a result of ischemia caused by the blocked artery but is also brought about by bleeding in the myocardium after the artery has been opened, a new study suggests.

This observation is leading to new approaches to limiting infarct size and treating MI.

“In MI treatment, we have always focused on opening up the artery as quickly as possible to limit the myocardial damage caused by ischemia,” the study’s senior author, Rohan Dharmakumar, PhD, Indiana University, Indianapolis, told this news organization.

“We are pursuing a completely new approach focusing on limiting the damage after revascularization,” he said. “We are totally rethinking what a myocardial infarction is – what causes the injury and the time course of the injury – our results suggest that it’s not just ischemic damage and a lot of the harm is caused by hemorrhage after reperfusion.”

It has been known for many years that hemorrhage is often seen in the myocardium in large MIs, but it has not been established before now whether it contributes to the injury or not, Dr. Dharmakumar explained.

“This study was done to look at that – and we found that the hemorrhage drives a second layer of injury on top of the ischemia.”

Dr. Dharmakumar said this hemorrhage is part of the phenomenon known as reperfusion injury. “This has been known to exist for many years, but we haven’t fully understood all the factors contributing to it. Our results suggest that hemorrhage is a major component of reperfusion injury – probably the dominant factor,” he said.  

The researchers are now working on therapeutic approaches to try to prevent this hemorrhage and/or to minimize its effect.

“We are studying how hemorrhage drives damage and how to block these biological processes,” Dr. Dharmakumar said. “Our studies suggest that hemorrhage could account for up to half of the damage caused by a myocardial infarction. If we can limit that, we should be able to reduce the size of the infarct and this should translate into better long-term outcomes.

“I’m very excited about these results,” he added. “We are already seeing a remarkable improvement in animal models with some of the potential therapeutic approaches we are working on.”

The current study is published in the January 2022 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC).

The authors explain that it is now recognized that reperfusion injury can contribute to increasing infarct size, which they refer to as “infarct surge.” Previous studies have also shown that reperfusion injury can contribute to as much as 50% of the final infarct size, but the factors contributing to the observed variability are not known, and previous attempts to limit infarct surge from reperfusion injury have failed.

They noted that after reperfusion, microvessels can remain obstructed, resulting in intramyocardial hemorrhage. They conducted the current study to investigate whether such hemorrhage causes expansion of the infarct.

They studied 70 patients with ST-segment elevation MI who were categorized with cardiovascular MRI to have intramyocardial hemorrhage or not following primary PCI, and for whom serial cardiac troponin measures were used to assess infarct size.

Results showed that while troponin levels were not different before reperfusion, patients with intramyocardial hemorrhage had significantly higher cardiac troponin levels after reperfusion and these levels peaked earlier than in patients without hemorrhage.

In animal models, those with intramyocardial hemorrhage had a more rapid expansion of myocardial necrosis than did those without hemorrhage, and within 72 hours of reperfusion, a fourfold greater loss in salvageable myocardium was evident in hemorrhagic MIs.

“We have shown that damage to the heart continues after revascularization as measured by rapidly increasing troponin levels in the hearts that have had a hemorrhage,” Dr. Dharmakumar said.

“Hemorrhage in the myocardium was associated with larger infarctions, and in infarcts causing the same area of myocardium to be at risk, those with hemorrhage after revascularization lost a lot more of the salvageable myocardium than those without hemorrhage,” he added.

Dr. Dharmakumar estimates that such hemorrhage occurs in about half of MIs after revascularization, with risk factors including male gender, anterior wall MIs, and smoking.

He pointed out that previous attempts to treat or prevent reperfusion injury have not been successful, probably because they have not been addressing the key mechanism. “We have not been looking at hemorrhage in this regard until now. This is because it is only recently that we have had the tools to be able to identify hemorrhage in the heart with the use of cardiac MRI.” 
 

Final frontier

In an accompanying editorial, Colin Berry, MBChB, University of Glasgow, and Borja Ibáñez, MD, Jiménez Díaz Foundation University Hospital, Madrid, said they applaud the investigators for providing new, mechanistic insights into a difficult clinical problem that has an unmet therapeutic need.

But they pointed out that it is difficult to completely dissect the impact of hemorrhage versus MI size on adverse remodeling, noting that it might be the case that more severe ischemia/reperfusion events are associated with large MI sizes and higher degree of hemorrhage.

However, they concluded that: “Intramyocardial hemorrhage represents the final frontier for preventing heart failure post-MI. It is readily detected using CMR, and clinical research of novel therapeutic approaches merits prioritization.”

This work was supported by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Dharmakumar and coauthor Robert Finney, PhD, have ownership interest in Cardiotheranostics. Dr. Berry is employed by the University of Glasgow, which holds consultancy and research agreements for his work with Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Causeway Therapeutics, Coroventis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, HeartFlow, Menarini, Neovasc, Siemens Healthcare, and Valo Health.

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

The damage to the heart caused by a myocardial infarction is not just a result of ischemia caused by the blocked artery but is also brought about by bleeding in the myocardium after the artery has been opened, a new study suggests.

This observation is leading to new approaches to limiting infarct size and treating MI.

“In MI treatment, we have always focused on opening up the artery as quickly as possible to limit the myocardial damage caused by ischemia,” the study’s senior author, Rohan Dharmakumar, PhD, Indiana University, Indianapolis, told this news organization.

“We are pursuing a completely new approach focusing on limiting the damage after revascularization,” he said. “We are totally rethinking what a myocardial infarction is – what causes the injury and the time course of the injury – our results suggest that it’s not just ischemic damage and a lot of the harm is caused by hemorrhage after reperfusion.”

It has been known for many years that hemorrhage is often seen in the myocardium in large MIs, but it has not been established before now whether it contributes to the injury or not, Dr. Dharmakumar explained.

“This study was done to look at that – and we found that the hemorrhage drives a second layer of injury on top of the ischemia.”

Dr. Dharmakumar said this hemorrhage is part of the phenomenon known as reperfusion injury. “This has been known to exist for many years, but we haven’t fully understood all the factors contributing to it. Our results suggest that hemorrhage is a major component of reperfusion injury – probably the dominant factor,” he said.  

The researchers are now working on therapeutic approaches to try to prevent this hemorrhage and/or to minimize its effect.

“We are studying how hemorrhage drives damage and how to block these biological processes,” Dr. Dharmakumar said. “Our studies suggest that hemorrhage could account for up to half of the damage caused by a myocardial infarction. If we can limit that, we should be able to reduce the size of the infarct and this should translate into better long-term outcomes.

“I’m very excited about these results,” he added. “We are already seeing a remarkable improvement in animal models with some of the potential therapeutic approaches we are working on.”

The current study is published in the January 2022 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC).

The authors explain that it is now recognized that reperfusion injury can contribute to increasing infarct size, which they refer to as “infarct surge.” Previous studies have also shown that reperfusion injury can contribute to as much as 50% of the final infarct size, but the factors contributing to the observed variability are not known, and previous attempts to limit infarct surge from reperfusion injury have failed.

They noted that after reperfusion, microvessels can remain obstructed, resulting in intramyocardial hemorrhage. They conducted the current study to investigate whether such hemorrhage causes expansion of the infarct.

They studied 70 patients with ST-segment elevation MI who were categorized with cardiovascular MRI to have intramyocardial hemorrhage or not following primary PCI, and for whom serial cardiac troponin measures were used to assess infarct size.

Results showed that while troponin levels were not different before reperfusion, patients with intramyocardial hemorrhage had significantly higher cardiac troponin levels after reperfusion and these levels peaked earlier than in patients without hemorrhage.

In animal models, those with intramyocardial hemorrhage had a more rapid expansion of myocardial necrosis than did those without hemorrhage, and within 72 hours of reperfusion, a fourfold greater loss in salvageable myocardium was evident in hemorrhagic MIs.

“We have shown that damage to the heart continues after revascularization as measured by rapidly increasing troponin levels in the hearts that have had a hemorrhage,” Dr. Dharmakumar said.

“Hemorrhage in the myocardium was associated with larger infarctions, and in infarcts causing the same area of myocardium to be at risk, those with hemorrhage after revascularization lost a lot more of the salvageable myocardium than those without hemorrhage,” he added.

Dr. Dharmakumar estimates that such hemorrhage occurs in about half of MIs after revascularization, with risk factors including male gender, anterior wall MIs, and smoking.

He pointed out that previous attempts to treat or prevent reperfusion injury have not been successful, probably because they have not been addressing the key mechanism. “We have not been looking at hemorrhage in this regard until now. This is because it is only recently that we have had the tools to be able to identify hemorrhage in the heart with the use of cardiac MRI.” 
 

Final frontier

In an accompanying editorial, Colin Berry, MBChB, University of Glasgow, and Borja Ibáñez, MD, Jiménez Díaz Foundation University Hospital, Madrid, said they applaud the investigators for providing new, mechanistic insights into a difficult clinical problem that has an unmet therapeutic need.

But they pointed out that it is difficult to completely dissect the impact of hemorrhage versus MI size on adverse remodeling, noting that it might be the case that more severe ischemia/reperfusion events are associated with large MI sizes and higher degree of hemorrhage.

However, they concluded that: “Intramyocardial hemorrhage represents the final frontier for preventing heart failure post-MI. It is readily detected using CMR, and clinical research of novel therapeutic approaches merits prioritization.”

This work was supported by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Dharmakumar and coauthor Robert Finney, PhD, have ownership interest in Cardiotheranostics. Dr. Berry is employed by the University of Glasgow, which holds consultancy and research agreements for his work with Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Causeway Therapeutics, Coroventis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, HeartFlow, Menarini, Neovasc, Siemens Healthcare, and Valo Health.

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

Patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) – either three-vessel disease and/or left main disease – who also had heavy coronary artery calcification (CAC) had greater all-cause mortality 10 years after revascularization, compared with those without such lesions.

However, perhaps unexpectedly, patients with heavily calcified lesions (HCLs) had similar 10-year survival whether they had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

These findings from a post hoc analysis of the SYNTAX Extended Survival (SYNTAXES) study led by Hideyuki Kawashima, MD, PhD, National University of Ireland, Galway, and the University of Amsterdam, were published online Dec. 29, 2021, in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“There was an apparent lack of benefit at very long-term with CABG versus PCI in the presence of HCL,” Dr. Kawashima and corresponding author Patrick W. Serruys, MD, PhD, National University of Ireland and Imperial College London, summarized in a joint email to this news organization.

“Since HCLs – the final status of atherosclerosis and inflammation – reflect the aging process, complexity, and extensiveness of CAD, and comorbidity, it is possible that the currently available revascularization methods do not provide benefit in the prevention of long-term [10-year] mortality,” they suggested.  

In an accompanying editorial, Usman Baber, MD, commented that this study provides a “novel insight.”

Specifically, while patients without HCLs had significantly lower 10-year mortality with CABG versus PCI (18.8% vs. 26.0%; P = .003), an opposite trend was observed among those with HCLs (39.0% vs. 34.0%; P = .26; P int = .005).

The patients with HCLs had higher SYNTAX scores (30.8 vs. 22.4; P < .001) and more complex CAD, so their lack of 10-year mortality benefit with CABG “is somewhat unexpected and warrants further scrutiny,” added Dr. Baber, from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City.

Dr. Serruys and Dr. Kawashima agreed that “this study highlights the need for further research on this topic focusing on this specific population with HCLs,” which were 30% of the patients with complex lesions who participated in SYNTAXES.
 

Consider factors beyond coronary anatomy

The current findings reinforce “the importance of considering not just coronary anatomy, but patient age and other comorbid factors when evaluating mode of revascularization,” said Dr. Baber.

“Coronary calcification is a strong factor in deciding between CABG versus PCI, as multiple studies have shown that CAC increases risk after PCI, even with contemporary safe stent platforms,” he explained in an email.

The current study suggests the adverse prognosis associated with CAC also persists for patients treated with CABG.

Dr. Baber said that, “for patients in whom PCI may not be feasible due to extensive and bulky coronary calcification, it is important to emphasize that the benefits of CABG (versus PCI) may not be as significant or durable.”

“The lack of benefit with CABG,” he added, “is likely due to comorbid factors that tend to increase in prevalence with vascular calcification (older age, peripheral arterial disease, renal impairment, etc).”

This study reinforces “the importance of not just considering coronary complexity, but also additional noncoronary factors that influence long-term prognosis in patients with advanced multivessel CAD,” Dr. Baber stressed.

More aggressive lipid-lowering or antithrombotic therapy may improve the prognosis for such patients, he suggested.

“In general,” Dr. Serruys and Dr. Kawashima similarly noted, “for short-/mid-term outcomes, CABG is preferred to PCI in patients with HCLs because of a higher rate of complete revascularization and less need for repeat revascularization.”

“Our findings at 10 years are in line with the general findings preferring CABG in mid and long term, whereas the benefit of very long-term follow-up might be more complex to capture and comprehend,” they concluded. “Whether HCLs require special consideration when deciding the mode of revascularization beyond their contribution to the SYNTAX score deserves further evaluation.

“Newer PCI technology or CABG methods may become a game-changer in the future,” they speculated.
 

Worse clinical outcomes

Heavy coronary calcification is associated with worse clinical outcomes after PCI or CABG, but to date, no trial has compared 10-year outcomes after PCI or CABG in patients with complex CAD with versus without HCLs.

To look at this, Dr. Kawashima and colleagues performed a subanalysis of patients in the SYNTAXES study. The original SYNTAX trial had randomized 1,800 patients with complex CAD who were eligible for either PCI or CABG 1:1 to these two treatments, with a 5-year follow-up, and SYNTAXES extended the follow-up to 10 years.  

Of the 1,800 patients, 532 (29.6%) had at least one HCL and the rest (70.4%) did not.

The median follow-up in SYNTAXES was 11.2 years overall and 11.9 years in survivors.

At baseline, compared with other patients, those with HCLs were older and had a lower body mass index and higher rates of insulin-treated diabetes, hypertension, previous cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.

After adjusting for multiple variables, having a HCL was an independent predictor of greater risk of 10-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.69; P = .006).

In patients without HCLs, mortality was significantly higher after PCI than CABG (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.14-1.83; P = .003), whereas in those with HCLs, there was no significant difference (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.13; P = .264).

The location of the HCL did not have any impact on 10-year mortality regardless of the assigned treatment.

Among patients with at least one HCL who underwent CABG, those with at least two HCLs had greater 10-year all-cause mortality than those with one HCL; this difference was not seen among patients with at least one HCL who underwent PCI.

The researchers acknowledge study limitations include that it was a post hoc analysis, so it should be considered hypothesis generating.

In addition, SYNTAX was conducted between 2005 and 2007, when PCI mainly used first-generation paclitaxel drug-eluting stents, so the findings may not be generalizable to current practice.

SYNTAXES was supported by the German Foundation of Heart Research. SYNTAX, during 0- to 5-year follow-up, was funded by Boston Scientific. Dr. Serruys reported receiving personal fees from SMT, Philips/Volcano, Xeltis, Novartis, and Meril Life. Dr. Kawashima reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Baber reported receiving honoraria and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Biotronik, and Amgen.

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

Patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) – either three-vessel disease and/or left main disease – who also had heavy coronary artery calcification (CAC) had greater all-cause mortality 10 years after revascularization, compared with those without such lesions.

However, perhaps unexpectedly, patients with heavily calcified lesions (HCLs) had similar 10-year survival whether they had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

These findings from a post hoc analysis of the SYNTAX Extended Survival (SYNTAXES) study led by Hideyuki Kawashima, MD, PhD, National University of Ireland, Galway, and the University of Amsterdam, were published online Dec. 29, 2021, in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“There was an apparent lack of benefit at very long-term with CABG versus PCI in the presence of HCL,” Dr. Kawashima and corresponding author Patrick W. Serruys, MD, PhD, National University of Ireland and Imperial College London, summarized in a joint email to this news organization.

“Since HCLs – the final status of atherosclerosis and inflammation – reflect the aging process, complexity, and extensiveness of CAD, and comorbidity, it is possible that the currently available revascularization methods do not provide benefit in the prevention of long-term [10-year] mortality,” they suggested.  

In an accompanying editorial, Usman Baber, MD, commented that this study provides a “novel insight.”

Specifically, while patients without HCLs had significantly lower 10-year mortality with CABG versus PCI (18.8% vs. 26.0%; P = .003), an opposite trend was observed among those with HCLs (39.0% vs. 34.0%; P = .26; P int = .005).

The patients with HCLs had higher SYNTAX scores (30.8 vs. 22.4; P < .001) and more complex CAD, so their lack of 10-year mortality benefit with CABG “is somewhat unexpected and warrants further scrutiny,” added Dr. Baber, from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City.

Dr. Serruys and Dr. Kawashima agreed that “this study highlights the need for further research on this topic focusing on this specific population with HCLs,” which were 30% of the patients with complex lesions who participated in SYNTAXES.
 

Consider factors beyond coronary anatomy

The current findings reinforce “the importance of considering not just coronary anatomy, but patient age and other comorbid factors when evaluating mode of revascularization,” said Dr. Baber.

“Coronary calcification is a strong factor in deciding between CABG versus PCI, as multiple studies have shown that CAC increases risk after PCI, even with contemporary safe stent platforms,” he explained in an email.

The current study suggests the adverse prognosis associated with CAC also persists for patients treated with CABG.

Dr. Baber said that, “for patients in whom PCI may not be feasible due to extensive and bulky coronary calcification, it is important to emphasize that the benefits of CABG (versus PCI) may not be as significant or durable.”

“The lack of benefit with CABG,” he added, “is likely due to comorbid factors that tend to increase in prevalence with vascular calcification (older age, peripheral arterial disease, renal impairment, etc).”

This study reinforces “the importance of not just considering coronary complexity, but also additional noncoronary factors that influence long-term prognosis in patients with advanced multivessel CAD,” Dr. Baber stressed.

More aggressive lipid-lowering or antithrombotic therapy may improve the prognosis for such patients, he suggested.

“In general,” Dr. Serruys and Dr. Kawashima similarly noted, “for short-/mid-term outcomes, CABG is preferred to PCI in patients with HCLs because of a higher rate of complete revascularization and less need for repeat revascularization.”

“Our findings at 10 years are in line with the general findings preferring CABG in mid and long term, whereas the benefit of very long-term follow-up might be more complex to capture and comprehend,” they concluded. “Whether HCLs require special consideration when deciding the mode of revascularization beyond their contribution to the SYNTAX score deserves further evaluation.

“Newer PCI technology or CABG methods may become a game-changer in the future,” they speculated.
 

Worse clinical outcomes

Heavy coronary calcification is associated with worse clinical outcomes after PCI or CABG, but to date, no trial has compared 10-year outcomes after PCI or CABG in patients with complex CAD with versus without HCLs.

To look at this, Dr. Kawashima and colleagues performed a subanalysis of patients in the SYNTAXES study. The original SYNTAX trial had randomized 1,800 patients with complex CAD who were eligible for either PCI or CABG 1:1 to these two treatments, with a 5-year follow-up, and SYNTAXES extended the follow-up to 10 years.  

Of the 1,800 patients, 532 (29.6%) had at least one HCL and the rest (70.4%) did not.

The median follow-up in SYNTAXES was 11.2 years overall and 11.9 years in survivors.

At baseline, compared with other patients, those with HCLs were older and had a lower body mass index and higher rates of insulin-treated diabetes, hypertension, previous cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.

After adjusting for multiple variables, having a HCL was an independent predictor of greater risk of 10-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.69; P = .006).

In patients without HCLs, mortality was significantly higher after PCI than CABG (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.14-1.83; P = .003), whereas in those with HCLs, there was no significant difference (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.13; P = .264).

The location of the HCL did not have any impact on 10-year mortality regardless of the assigned treatment.

Among patients with at least one HCL who underwent CABG, those with at least two HCLs had greater 10-year all-cause mortality than those with one HCL; this difference was not seen among patients with at least one HCL who underwent PCI.

The researchers acknowledge study limitations include that it was a post hoc analysis, so it should be considered hypothesis generating.

In addition, SYNTAX was conducted between 2005 and 2007, when PCI mainly used first-generation paclitaxel drug-eluting stents, so the findings may not be generalizable to current practice.

SYNTAXES was supported by the German Foundation of Heart Research. SYNTAX, during 0- to 5-year follow-up, was funded by Boston Scientific. Dr. Serruys reported receiving personal fees from SMT, Philips/Volcano, Xeltis, Novartis, and Meril Life. Dr. Kawashima reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Baber reported receiving honoraria and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Biotronik, and Amgen.

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

Patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) – either three-vessel disease and/or left main disease – who also had heavy coronary artery calcification (CAC) had greater all-cause mortality 10 years after revascularization, compared with those without such lesions.

However, perhaps unexpectedly, patients with heavily calcified lesions (HCLs) had similar 10-year survival whether they had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

These findings from a post hoc analysis of the SYNTAX Extended Survival (SYNTAXES) study led by Hideyuki Kawashima, MD, PhD, National University of Ireland, Galway, and the University of Amsterdam, were published online Dec. 29, 2021, in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“There was an apparent lack of benefit at very long-term with CABG versus PCI in the presence of HCL,” Dr. Kawashima and corresponding author Patrick W. Serruys, MD, PhD, National University of Ireland and Imperial College London, summarized in a joint email to this news organization.

“Since HCLs – the final status of atherosclerosis and inflammation – reflect the aging process, complexity, and extensiveness of CAD, and comorbidity, it is possible that the currently available revascularization methods do not provide benefit in the prevention of long-term [10-year] mortality,” they suggested.  

In an accompanying editorial, Usman Baber, MD, commented that this study provides a “novel insight.”

Specifically, while patients without HCLs had significantly lower 10-year mortality with CABG versus PCI (18.8% vs. 26.0%; P = .003), an opposite trend was observed among those with HCLs (39.0% vs. 34.0%; P = .26; P int = .005).

The patients with HCLs had higher SYNTAX scores (30.8 vs. 22.4; P < .001) and more complex CAD, so their lack of 10-year mortality benefit with CABG “is somewhat unexpected and warrants further scrutiny,” added Dr. Baber, from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City.

Dr. Serruys and Dr. Kawashima agreed that “this study highlights the need for further research on this topic focusing on this specific population with HCLs,” which were 30% of the patients with complex lesions who participated in SYNTAXES.
 

Consider factors beyond coronary anatomy

The current findings reinforce “the importance of considering not just coronary anatomy, but patient age and other comorbid factors when evaluating mode of revascularization,” said Dr. Baber.

“Coronary calcification is a strong factor in deciding between CABG versus PCI, as multiple studies have shown that CAC increases risk after PCI, even with contemporary safe stent platforms,” he explained in an email.

The current study suggests the adverse prognosis associated with CAC also persists for patients treated with CABG.

Dr. Baber said that, “for patients in whom PCI may not be feasible due to extensive and bulky coronary calcification, it is important to emphasize that the benefits of CABG (versus PCI) may not be as significant or durable.”

“The lack of benefit with CABG,” he added, “is likely due to comorbid factors that tend to increase in prevalence with vascular calcification (older age, peripheral arterial disease, renal impairment, etc).”

This study reinforces “the importance of not just considering coronary complexity, but also additional noncoronary factors that influence long-term prognosis in patients with advanced multivessel CAD,” Dr. Baber stressed.

More aggressive lipid-lowering or antithrombotic therapy may improve the prognosis for such patients, he suggested.

“In general,” Dr. Serruys and Dr. Kawashima similarly noted, “for short-/mid-term outcomes, CABG is preferred to PCI in patients with HCLs because of a higher rate of complete revascularization and less need for repeat revascularization.”

“Our findings at 10 years are in line with the general findings preferring CABG in mid and long term, whereas the benefit of very long-term follow-up might be more complex to capture and comprehend,” they concluded. “Whether HCLs require special consideration when deciding the mode of revascularization beyond their contribution to the SYNTAX score deserves further evaluation.

“Newer PCI technology or CABG methods may become a game-changer in the future,” they speculated.
 

Worse clinical outcomes

Heavy coronary calcification is associated with worse clinical outcomes after PCI or CABG, but to date, no trial has compared 10-year outcomes after PCI or CABG in patients with complex CAD with versus without HCLs.

To look at this, Dr. Kawashima and colleagues performed a subanalysis of patients in the SYNTAXES study. The original SYNTAX trial had randomized 1,800 patients with complex CAD who were eligible for either PCI or CABG 1:1 to these two treatments, with a 5-year follow-up, and SYNTAXES extended the follow-up to 10 years.  

Of the 1,800 patients, 532 (29.6%) had at least one HCL and the rest (70.4%) did not.

The median follow-up in SYNTAXES was 11.2 years overall and 11.9 years in survivors.

At baseline, compared with other patients, those with HCLs were older and had a lower body mass index and higher rates of insulin-treated diabetes, hypertension, previous cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.

After adjusting for multiple variables, having a HCL was an independent predictor of greater risk of 10-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.69; P = .006).

In patients without HCLs, mortality was significantly higher after PCI than CABG (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.14-1.83; P = .003), whereas in those with HCLs, there was no significant difference (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.13; P = .264).

The location of the HCL did not have any impact on 10-year mortality regardless of the assigned treatment.

Among patients with at least one HCL who underwent CABG, those with at least two HCLs had greater 10-year all-cause mortality than those with one HCL; this difference was not seen among patients with at least one HCL who underwent PCI.

The researchers acknowledge study limitations include that it was a post hoc analysis, so it should be considered hypothesis generating.

In addition, SYNTAX was conducted between 2005 and 2007, when PCI mainly used first-generation paclitaxel drug-eluting stents, so the findings may not be generalizable to current practice.

SYNTAXES was supported by the German Foundation of Heart Research. SYNTAX, during 0- to 5-year follow-up, was funded by Boston Scientific. Dr. Serruys reported receiving personal fees from SMT, Philips/Volcano, Xeltis, Novartis, and Meril Life. Dr. Kawashima reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Baber reported receiving honoraria and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Biotronik, and Amgen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aquatic therapy was more beneficial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More outside experts’ takes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aquatic therapy was more beneficial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More outside experts’ takes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aquatic therapy was more beneficial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More outside experts’ takes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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