Clinical Endocrinology News

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is at the center of a row with an international group of doctors who question whether hormone treatment is the most appropriate way to treat adolescents with gender dysphoria.

After initially accepting the application and payment from the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) for the organization to have an information booth at the AAP annual meeting in October, the AAP did a U-turn earlier this month and canceled the registration, with no explanation as to why.

“Just days earlier,” says SEGM in a statement on its website, “over 80% of AAP members” had indicated they wanted more discussion on the topic of “addressing alternatives to the use of hormone therapies for gender dysphoric youth.”

“This rejection sends a strong signal that the AAP does not want to see any debate on what constitutes evidence-based care for gender-diverse youth,” they add.

Asked for an explanation as to why it accepted but later rescinded SEGM’s application for a booth, the AAP has given no response to date.

A Wall Street Journal article on the furor, published last week, has clocked up 785 comments to date.  

There has been an exponential increase in the number of adolescents who identify as transgender – reporting discomfort with their birth sex – in Western countries, and the debate has been covered in detail, having intensified worldwide in the last 12 months, regarding how best to treat youth with gender dysphoria.

Although “affirmative” medical care, defined as treatment with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to transition to the opposite sex, is supported by the AAP and other medical organizations, there is growing concern among many doctors and other health care professionals as to whether this is, in fact, the best way to proceed, given that there are a number of irreversible changes associated with treatment. There is also a growing number of “detransitioners” – mostly young people who transitioned and then changed their minds, and “detransitioned” back to their birth sex.

“Because of the low quality of the available evidence and the marked change in the presentation of gender dysphoria in youth in the last several years (many more adolescents with recently emerging transgender identities and significant mental health comorbidities are presenting for care), what constitutes good health care for this patient group is far from clear,” notes SEGM.

“Quelling the debate will not help America’s pediatricians guide patients and their families based on best available evidence. The politicization of the field of gender medicine must end, if we care about gender-variant youth and their long-term health,” they conclude.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is at the center of a row with an international group of doctors who question whether hormone treatment is the most appropriate way to treat adolescents with gender dysphoria.

After initially accepting the application and payment from the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) for the organization to have an information booth at the AAP annual meeting in October, the AAP did a U-turn earlier this month and canceled the registration, with no explanation as to why.

“Just days earlier,” says SEGM in a statement on its website, “over 80% of AAP members” had indicated they wanted more discussion on the topic of “addressing alternatives to the use of hormone therapies for gender dysphoric youth.”

“This rejection sends a strong signal that the AAP does not want to see any debate on what constitutes evidence-based care for gender-diverse youth,” they add.

Asked for an explanation as to why it accepted but later rescinded SEGM’s application for a booth, the AAP has given no response to date.

A Wall Street Journal article on the furor, published last week, has clocked up 785 comments to date.  

There has been an exponential increase in the number of adolescents who identify as transgender – reporting discomfort with their birth sex – in Western countries, and the debate has been covered in detail, having intensified worldwide in the last 12 months, regarding how best to treat youth with gender dysphoria.

Although “affirmative” medical care, defined as treatment with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to transition to the opposite sex, is supported by the AAP and other medical organizations, there is growing concern among many doctors and other health care professionals as to whether this is, in fact, the best way to proceed, given that there are a number of irreversible changes associated with treatment. There is also a growing number of “detransitioners” – mostly young people who transitioned and then changed their minds, and “detransitioned” back to their birth sex.

“Because of the low quality of the available evidence and the marked change in the presentation of gender dysphoria in youth in the last several years (many more adolescents with recently emerging transgender identities and significant mental health comorbidities are presenting for care), what constitutes good health care for this patient group is far from clear,” notes SEGM.

“Quelling the debate will not help America’s pediatricians guide patients and their families based on best available evidence. The politicization of the field of gender medicine must end, if we care about gender-variant youth and their long-term health,” they conclude.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is at the center of a row with an international group of doctors who question whether hormone treatment is the most appropriate way to treat adolescents with gender dysphoria.

After initially accepting the application and payment from the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) for the organization to have an information booth at the AAP annual meeting in October, the AAP did a U-turn earlier this month and canceled the registration, with no explanation as to why.

“Just days earlier,” says SEGM in a statement on its website, “over 80% of AAP members” had indicated they wanted more discussion on the topic of “addressing alternatives to the use of hormone therapies for gender dysphoric youth.”

“This rejection sends a strong signal that the AAP does not want to see any debate on what constitutes evidence-based care for gender-diverse youth,” they add.

Asked for an explanation as to why it accepted but later rescinded SEGM’s application for a booth, the AAP has given no response to date.

A Wall Street Journal article on the furor, published last week, has clocked up 785 comments to date.  

There has been an exponential increase in the number of adolescents who identify as transgender – reporting discomfort with their birth sex – in Western countries, and the debate has been covered in detail, having intensified worldwide in the last 12 months, regarding how best to treat youth with gender dysphoria.

Although “affirmative” medical care, defined as treatment with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to transition to the opposite sex, is supported by the AAP and other medical organizations, there is growing concern among many doctors and other health care professionals as to whether this is, in fact, the best way to proceed, given that there are a number of irreversible changes associated with treatment. There is also a growing number of “detransitioners” – mostly young people who transitioned and then changed their minds, and “detransitioned” back to their birth sex.

“Because of the low quality of the available evidence and the marked change in the presentation of gender dysphoria in youth in the last several years (many more adolescents with recently emerging transgender identities and significant mental health comorbidities are presenting for care), what constitutes good health care for this patient group is far from clear,” notes SEGM.

“Quelling the debate will not help America’s pediatricians guide patients and their families based on best available evidence. The politicization of the field of gender medicine must end, if we care about gender-variant youth and their long-term health,” they conclude.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the label for Eli Lilly’s ultra–rapid-acting insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 units/mL (Lyumjev) for use in insulin pumps.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Lyumjev (insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 and 200 units/mL) was initially approved in June 2020 to improve glycemic control in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. That formulation is administered by injection from a pen or syringe. Now, the 100 units/mL formulation can also be delivered via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with an insulin pump.

Lyumjev will compete with Novo Nordisk’s fast-acting insulin aspart injection 100 units/mL (Fiasp). Fiasp had a head start: it was approved for use in adults in the United States in September 2017. It was approved for use in insulin pumps in October 2019 and for use in children with diabetes in January 2020.

The new approval for Lyumjev was based on data from a phase 3 trial, PRONTO-Pump-2. That trial, which included 432 participants with type 1 diabetes, confirmed the drug’s safety and efficacy when used in pumps.

The study met the primary endpoint of noninferiority in reduction of hemoglobin A1c from baseline to week 16, compared with insulin lispro (Humalog 100 units/mL). It was superior in both 1-hour and 2-hour postprandial glucose reduction when delivered 0-2 minutes before meals, according to a Lilly statement.

Patients who cannot afford the drug can go to www.insulinaffordability.com for assistance. Those with commercial insurance can also visit www.Lyumjev.com to access the Lyumjev Savings Card.

Lyumjev is available in several global markets, including Japan and the European Union, where it is also approved for use in insulin pumps.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the label for Eli Lilly’s ultra–rapid-acting insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 units/mL (Lyumjev) for use in insulin pumps.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Lyumjev (insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 and 200 units/mL) was initially approved in June 2020 to improve glycemic control in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. That formulation is administered by injection from a pen or syringe. Now, the 100 units/mL formulation can also be delivered via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with an insulin pump.

Lyumjev will compete with Novo Nordisk’s fast-acting insulin aspart injection 100 units/mL (Fiasp). Fiasp had a head start: it was approved for use in adults in the United States in September 2017. It was approved for use in insulin pumps in October 2019 and for use in children with diabetes in January 2020.

The new approval for Lyumjev was based on data from a phase 3 trial, PRONTO-Pump-2. That trial, which included 432 participants with type 1 diabetes, confirmed the drug’s safety and efficacy when used in pumps.

The study met the primary endpoint of noninferiority in reduction of hemoglobin A1c from baseline to week 16, compared with insulin lispro (Humalog 100 units/mL). It was superior in both 1-hour and 2-hour postprandial glucose reduction when delivered 0-2 minutes before meals, according to a Lilly statement.

Patients who cannot afford the drug can go to www.insulinaffordability.com for assistance. Those with commercial insurance can also visit www.Lyumjev.com to access the Lyumjev Savings Card.

Lyumjev is available in several global markets, including Japan and the European Union, where it is also approved for use in insulin pumps.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the label for Eli Lilly’s ultra–rapid-acting insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 units/mL (Lyumjev) for use in insulin pumps.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Lyumjev (insulin lispro-aabc injection 100 and 200 units/mL) was initially approved in June 2020 to improve glycemic control in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. That formulation is administered by injection from a pen or syringe. Now, the 100 units/mL formulation can also be delivered via continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with an insulin pump.

Lyumjev will compete with Novo Nordisk’s fast-acting insulin aspart injection 100 units/mL (Fiasp). Fiasp had a head start: it was approved for use in adults in the United States in September 2017. It was approved for use in insulin pumps in October 2019 and for use in children with diabetes in January 2020.

The new approval for Lyumjev was based on data from a phase 3 trial, PRONTO-Pump-2. That trial, which included 432 participants with type 1 diabetes, confirmed the drug’s safety and efficacy when used in pumps.

The study met the primary endpoint of noninferiority in reduction of hemoglobin A1c from baseline to week 16, compared with insulin lispro (Humalog 100 units/mL). It was superior in both 1-hour and 2-hour postprandial glucose reduction when delivered 0-2 minutes before meals, according to a Lilly statement.

Patients who cannot afford the drug can go to www.insulinaffordability.com for assistance. Those with commercial insurance can also visit www.Lyumjev.com to access the Lyumjev Savings Card.

Lyumjev is available in several global markets, including Japan and the European Union, where it is also approved for use in insulin pumps.

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

An overwhelmingly loud and high-pitched screech rattles against your hip. You startle and groan into the pillow as your thoughts settle into conscious awareness. It is 3 a.m. You are a 2nd-year resident trudging through the night shift, alerted to the presence of a new patient awaiting an emergency assessment. You are the only in-house physician. Walking steadfastly toward the emergency unit, you enter and greet the patient. Immediately, you observe a look of surprise followed immediately by a scowl.

You extend a hand, but your greeting is abruptly cut short with: “I want to see a doctor!” You pace your breaths to quell annoyance and resume your introduction, asserting that you are a doctor and indeed the only doctor on duty. After moments of deep sighs and questions regarding your credentials, you persuade the patient to start the interview.

It is now 8 a.m. The frustration of the night starts to ease as you prepare to leave. While gathering your things, a visitor is overheard inquiring the whereabouts of a hospital unit. Volunteering as a guide, you walk the person toward the opposite end of the hospital. Bleary eyed, muscle laxed, and bone weary, you point out the entrance, then turn to leave. The steady rhythm of your steps suddenly halts as you hear from behind: “Thank you! You speak English really well!” Blankly, you stare. Your voice remains mute while your brain screams: “What is that supposed to mean?” But you do not utter a sound, because intuitively, you know the answer.

While reading this scenario, what did you feel? Pride in knowing that the physician was able to successfully navigate a busy night? Relief in the physician’s ability to maintain a professional demeanor despite belittling microaggressions? Are you angry? Would you replay those moments like reruns of a bad TV show? Can you imagine entering your home and collapsing onto the bed as your tears of fury pool over your rumpled sheets?

The emotional release of that morning is seared into my memory. Over the years, I questioned my reactions. Was I too passive? Should I have schooled them on their ignorance? Had I done so, would I have incurred reprimands? Would standing up for myself cause years of hard work to fall away? Moreover, had I defended myself, would I forever have been viewed as “The Angry Black Woman?”

This story is more than a vignette. For me, it is another reminder that, despite how far we have come, we have much further to go. As a Black woman in a professional sphere, I stand upon the shoulders of those who sacrificed for a dream, a greater purpose. My foremothers and forefathers fought bravely and tirelessly so that we could attain levels of success that were only once but a dream. Despite this progress, a grimace, carelessly spoken words, or a mindless gesture remind me that, no matter how much I toil and what levels of success I achieve, when I meet someone for the first time or encounter someone from my past, I find myself wondering whether I am remembered for me or because I am “The Black One.”
 

Honest look at medicine is imperative

It is important to consider multiple facets of the super-doctor myth. We are dedicated, fearless, authoritative, ambitious individuals. We do not yield to sickness, family obligations, or fatigue. Medicine is a calling, and the patient deserves the utmost respect and professional behavior. Impervious to ethnicity, race, nationality, or creed, we are unbiased and always in service of the greater good. Often, however, I wonder how the expectations of patient-focused, patient-centered care can prevail without an honest look at the vicissitudes facing medicine.

We find ourselves amid a tumultuous year overshadowed by a devastating pandemic that skews heavily toward Black and Brown communities, in addition to political turmoil and racial reckoning that sprang forth from fear, anger, and determination ignited by the murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd – communities united in outrage lamenting the cries of Black Lives Matter.

I remember the tears briskly falling upon my blouse as I watched Mr. Floyd’s life violently ripped from this Earth. Shortly thereafter, I remember the phone calls, emails, and texts from close friends, acquaintances, and colleagues offering support, listening ears, pledging to learn and endeavoring to understand the struggle for recognition and the fight for human rights. Even so, the deafening support was clouded by the preternatural silence of some medical organizations. Within the Black physician community, outrage was palpable. We reflected upon years of sacrifice and perseverance despite the challenge of bigotry, ignorance, and racism – not only from patients and their families – but also colleagues and administrators. Yet, in our time of horror and need, in those moments of vulnerability ... silence. Eventually, lengthy proclamations of support were expressed through various media. However, it felt too safe, too corporate, and too generic and inauthentic. As a result, an exodus of Black physicians from leadership positions and academic medicine took hold as the blatant continuation of rhetoric – coupled with ineffective outreach and support – finally took its toll.

Frequently, I question how the obstacles of medical school, residency, and beyond are expected to be traversed while living in a world that consistently affords additional challenges to those who look, act, or speak in a manner that varies from the perceived standard. In a culture where the myth of the super doctor reigns, how do we reconcile attainment of a false and detrimental narrative while the overarching pressure acutely felt by Black physicians magnifies in the setting of stereotypes, sociopolitical turbulence, bigotry, and racism? How can one sacrifice for an entity that is unwilling to acknowledge the psychological implications of that sacrifice?

Throughout my medical career, I encountered, personally and remotely, various incidents that emphasize the unique struggles facing Black physicians. For instance, while in medical school, I transitioned my hair to its natural state but was counseled against doing so because of the risk of losing residency opportunities as a direct result of my “unprofessional” appearance. Throughout residency, multiple incidents come to mind, including frequent demands to see my hospital badge despite the same not being of asked of my White cohorts; denial of entry into physician entrance within the residency building because, despite my professional attire, I was presumed to be a member of the custodial staff; and patients being confused and asking for a doctor despite my long white coat and clear introductions.

Furthermore, the fluency of my speech and the absence of regional dialect or vernacular are quite often lauded by patients. Inquiries to touch my hair as well as hypotheses regarding my nationality or degree of “blackness” with respect to the shape of my nose, eyes, and lips are openly questioned. Unfortunately, those uncomfortable incidents have not been limited to patient encounters.

In one instance, while presenting a patient in the presence of my attending and a 3rd-year medical student, I was sternly admonished for disclosing the race of the patient. I sat still and resolute as this doctor spoke on increased risk of bias in diagnosis and treatment when race is identified. Outwardly, I projected patience but inside, I seethed. In that moment, I realized that I would never have the luxury of ignorance or denial. Although I desire to be valued for my prowess in medicine, the mythical status was not created with my skin color in mind. For is avoidance not but a reflection of denial?

In these chaotic and uncertain times, how can we continue to promote a pathological ideal when the roads traveled are so fundamentally skewed? If a White physician faces a belligerent and argumentative patient, there is opportunity for debriefing both individually and among a larger cohort via classes, conferences, and supervisions. Conversely, when a Black physician is derided with racist sentiment, will they have the same opportunity for reflection and support? Despite identical expectations of professionalism and growth, how can one be successful in a system that either directly or indirectly encourages the opposite?

As we try to shed the super-doctor myth, we must recognize that this unattainable and detrimental persona hinders progress. This myth undermines our ability to understand our fragility, the limitations of our capabilities, and the strength of our vulnerability. We must take an honest look at the manner in which our individual biases and the deeply ingrained (and potentially unconscious) systemic biases are counterintuitive to the success and support of physicians of color.

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.

An overwhelmingly loud and high-pitched screech rattles against your hip. You startle and groan into the pillow as your thoughts settle into conscious awareness. It is 3 a.m. You are a 2nd-year resident trudging through the night shift, alerted to the presence of a new patient awaiting an emergency assessment. You are the only in-house physician. Walking steadfastly toward the emergency unit, you enter and greet the patient. Immediately, you observe a look of surprise followed immediately by a scowl.

You extend a hand, but your greeting is abruptly cut short with: “I want to see a doctor!” You pace your breaths to quell annoyance and resume your introduction, asserting that you are a doctor and indeed the only doctor on duty. After moments of deep sighs and questions regarding your credentials, you persuade the patient to start the interview.

It is now 8 a.m. The frustration of the night starts to ease as you prepare to leave. While gathering your things, a visitor is overheard inquiring the whereabouts of a hospital unit. Volunteering as a guide, you walk the person toward the opposite end of the hospital. Bleary eyed, muscle laxed, and bone weary, you point out the entrance, then turn to leave. The steady rhythm of your steps suddenly halts as you hear from behind: “Thank you! You speak English really well!” Blankly, you stare. Your voice remains mute while your brain screams: “What is that supposed to mean?” But you do not utter a sound, because intuitively, you know the answer.

While reading this scenario, what did you feel? Pride in knowing that the physician was able to successfully navigate a busy night? Relief in the physician’s ability to maintain a professional demeanor despite belittling microaggressions? Are you angry? Would you replay those moments like reruns of a bad TV show? Can you imagine entering your home and collapsing onto the bed as your tears of fury pool over your rumpled sheets?

The emotional release of that morning is seared into my memory. Over the years, I questioned my reactions. Was I too passive? Should I have schooled them on their ignorance? Had I done so, would I have incurred reprimands? Would standing up for myself cause years of hard work to fall away? Moreover, had I defended myself, would I forever have been viewed as “The Angry Black Woman?”

This story is more than a vignette. For me, it is another reminder that, despite how far we have come, we have much further to go. As a Black woman in a professional sphere, I stand upon the shoulders of those who sacrificed for a dream, a greater purpose. My foremothers and forefathers fought bravely and tirelessly so that we could attain levels of success that were only once but a dream. Despite this progress, a grimace, carelessly spoken words, or a mindless gesture remind me that, no matter how much I toil and what levels of success I achieve, when I meet someone for the first time or encounter someone from my past, I find myself wondering whether I am remembered for me or because I am “The Black One.”
 

Honest look at medicine is imperative

It is important to consider multiple facets of the super-doctor myth. We are dedicated, fearless, authoritative, ambitious individuals. We do not yield to sickness, family obligations, or fatigue. Medicine is a calling, and the patient deserves the utmost respect and professional behavior. Impervious to ethnicity, race, nationality, or creed, we are unbiased and always in service of the greater good. Often, however, I wonder how the expectations of patient-focused, patient-centered care can prevail without an honest look at the vicissitudes facing medicine.

We find ourselves amid a tumultuous year overshadowed by a devastating pandemic that skews heavily toward Black and Brown communities, in addition to political turmoil and racial reckoning that sprang forth from fear, anger, and determination ignited by the murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd – communities united in outrage lamenting the cries of Black Lives Matter.

I remember the tears briskly falling upon my blouse as I watched Mr. Floyd’s life violently ripped from this Earth. Shortly thereafter, I remember the phone calls, emails, and texts from close friends, acquaintances, and colleagues offering support, listening ears, pledging to learn and endeavoring to understand the struggle for recognition and the fight for human rights. Even so, the deafening support was clouded by the preternatural silence of some medical organizations. Within the Black physician community, outrage was palpable. We reflected upon years of sacrifice and perseverance despite the challenge of bigotry, ignorance, and racism – not only from patients and their families – but also colleagues and administrators. Yet, in our time of horror and need, in those moments of vulnerability ... silence. Eventually, lengthy proclamations of support were expressed through various media. However, it felt too safe, too corporate, and too generic and inauthentic. As a result, an exodus of Black physicians from leadership positions and academic medicine took hold as the blatant continuation of rhetoric – coupled with ineffective outreach and support – finally took its toll.

Frequently, I question how the obstacles of medical school, residency, and beyond are expected to be traversed while living in a world that consistently affords additional challenges to those who look, act, or speak in a manner that varies from the perceived standard. In a culture where the myth of the super doctor reigns, how do we reconcile attainment of a false and detrimental narrative while the overarching pressure acutely felt by Black physicians magnifies in the setting of stereotypes, sociopolitical turbulence, bigotry, and racism? How can one sacrifice for an entity that is unwilling to acknowledge the psychological implications of that sacrifice?

Throughout my medical career, I encountered, personally and remotely, various incidents that emphasize the unique struggles facing Black physicians. For instance, while in medical school, I transitioned my hair to its natural state but was counseled against doing so because of the risk of losing residency opportunities as a direct result of my “unprofessional” appearance. Throughout residency, multiple incidents come to mind, including frequent demands to see my hospital badge despite the same not being of asked of my White cohorts; denial of entry into physician entrance within the residency building because, despite my professional attire, I was presumed to be a member of the custodial staff; and patients being confused and asking for a doctor despite my long white coat and clear introductions.

Furthermore, the fluency of my speech and the absence of regional dialect or vernacular are quite often lauded by patients. Inquiries to touch my hair as well as hypotheses regarding my nationality or degree of “blackness” with respect to the shape of my nose, eyes, and lips are openly questioned. Unfortunately, those uncomfortable incidents have not been limited to patient encounters.

In one instance, while presenting a patient in the presence of my attending and a 3rd-year medical student, I was sternly admonished for disclosing the race of the patient. I sat still and resolute as this doctor spoke on increased risk of bias in diagnosis and treatment when race is identified. Outwardly, I projected patience but inside, I seethed. In that moment, I realized that I would never have the luxury of ignorance or denial. Although I desire to be valued for my prowess in medicine, the mythical status was not created with my skin color in mind. For is avoidance not but a reflection of denial?

In these chaotic and uncertain times, how can we continue to promote a pathological ideal when the roads traveled are so fundamentally skewed? If a White physician faces a belligerent and argumentative patient, there is opportunity for debriefing both individually and among a larger cohort via classes, conferences, and supervisions. Conversely, when a Black physician is derided with racist sentiment, will they have the same opportunity for reflection and support? Despite identical expectations of professionalism and growth, how can one be successful in a system that either directly or indirectly encourages the opposite?

As we try to shed the super-doctor myth, we must recognize that this unattainable and detrimental persona hinders progress. This myth undermines our ability to understand our fragility, the limitations of our capabilities, and the strength of our vulnerability. We must take an honest look at the manner in which our individual biases and the deeply ingrained (and potentially unconscious) systemic biases are counterintuitive to the success and support of physicians of color.

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.

An overwhelmingly loud and high-pitched screech rattles against your hip. You startle and groan into the pillow as your thoughts settle into conscious awareness. It is 3 a.m. You are a 2nd-year resident trudging through the night shift, alerted to the presence of a new patient awaiting an emergency assessment. You are the only in-house physician. Walking steadfastly toward the emergency unit, you enter and greet the patient. Immediately, you observe a look of surprise followed immediately by a scowl.

You extend a hand, but your greeting is abruptly cut short with: “I want to see a doctor!” You pace your breaths to quell annoyance and resume your introduction, asserting that you are a doctor and indeed the only doctor on duty. After moments of deep sighs and questions regarding your credentials, you persuade the patient to start the interview.

It is now 8 a.m. The frustration of the night starts to ease as you prepare to leave. While gathering your things, a visitor is overheard inquiring the whereabouts of a hospital unit. Volunteering as a guide, you walk the person toward the opposite end of the hospital. Bleary eyed, muscle laxed, and bone weary, you point out the entrance, then turn to leave. The steady rhythm of your steps suddenly halts as you hear from behind: “Thank you! You speak English really well!” Blankly, you stare. Your voice remains mute while your brain screams: “What is that supposed to mean?” But you do not utter a sound, because intuitively, you know the answer.

While reading this scenario, what did you feel? Pride in knowing that the physician was able to successfully navigate a busy night? Relief in the physician’s ability to maintain a professional demeanor despite belittling microaggressions? Are you angry? Would you replay those moments like reruns of a bad TV show? Can you imagine entering your home and collapsing onto the bed as your tears of fury pool over your rumpled sheets?

The emotional release of that morning is seared into my memory. Over the years, I questioned my reactions. Was I too passive? Should I have schooled them on their ignorance? Had I done so, would I have incurred reprimands? Would standing up for myself cause years of hard work to fall away? Moreover, had I defended myself, would I forever have been viewed as “The Angry Black Woman?”

This story is more than a vignette. For me, it is another reminder that, despite how far we have come, we have much further to go. As a Black woman in a professional sphere, I stand upon the shoulders of those who sacrificed for a dream, a greater purpose. My foremothers and forefathers fought bravely and tirelessly so that we could attain levels of success that were only once but a dream. Despite this progress, a grimace, carelessly spoken words, or a mindless gesture remind me that, no matter how much I toil and what levels of success I achieve, when I meet someone for the first time or encounter someone from my past, I find myself wondering whether I am remembered for me or because I am “The Black One.”
 

Honest look at medicine is imperative

It is important to consider multiple facets of the super-doctor myth. We are dedicated, fearless, authoritative, ambitious individuals. We do not yield to sickness, family obligations, or fatigue. Medicine is a calling, and the patient deserves the utmost respect and professional behavior. Impervious to ethnicity, race, nationality, or creed, we are unbiased and always in service of the greater good. Often, however, I wonder how the expectations of patient-focused, patient-centered care can prevail without an honest look at the vicissitudes facing medicine.

We find ourselves amid a tumultuous year overshadowed by a devastating pandemic that skews heavily toward Black and Brown communities, in addition to political turmoil and racial reckoning that sprang forth from fear, anger, and determination ignited by the murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd – communities united in outrage lamenting the cries of Black Lives Matter.

I remember the tears briskly falling upon my blouse as I watched Mr. Floyd’s life violently ripped from this Earth. Shortly thereafter, I remember the phone calls, emails, and texts from close friends, acquaintances, and colleagues offering support, listening ears, pledging to learn and endeavoring to understand the struggle for recognition and the fight for human rights. Even so, the deafening support was clouded by the preternatural silence of some medical organizations. Within the Black physician community, outrage was palpable. We reflected upon years of sacrifice and perseverance despite the challenge of bigotry, ignorance, and racism – not only from patients and their families – but also colleagues and administrators. Yet, in our time of horror and need, in those moments of vulnerability ... silence. Eventually, lengthy proclamations of support were expressed through various media. However, it felt too safe, too corporate, and too generic and inauthentic. As a result, an exodus of Black physicians from leadership positions and academic medicine took hold as the blatant continuation of rhetoric – coupled with ineffective outreach and support – finally took its toll.

Frequently, I question how the obstacles of medical school, residency, and beyond are expected to be traversed while living in a world that consistently affords additional challenges to those who look, act, or speak in a manner that varies from the perceived standard. In a culture where the myth of the super doctor reigns, how do we reconcile attainment of a false and detrimental narrative while the overarching pressure acutely felt by Black physicians magnifies in the setting of stereotypes, sociopolitical turbulence, bigotry, and racism? How can one sacrifice for an entity that is unwilling to acknowledge the psychological implications of that sacrifice?

Throughout my medical career, I encountered, personally and remotely, various incidents that emphasize the unique struggles facing Black physicians. For instance, while in medical school, I transitioned my hair to its natural state but was counseled against doing so because of the risk of losing residency opportunities as a direct result of my “unprofessional” appearance. Throughout residency, multiple incidents come to mind, including frequent demands to see my hospital badge despite the same not being of asked of my White cohorts; denial of entry into physician entrance within the residency building because, despite my professional attire, I was presumed to be a member of the custodial staff; and patients being confused and asking for a doctor despite my long white coat and clear introductions.

Furthermore, the fluency of my speech and the absence of regional dialect or vernacular are quite often lauded by patients. Inquiries to touch my hair as well as hypotheses regarding my nationality or degree of “blackness” with respect to the shape of my nose, eyes, and lips are openly questioned. Unfortunately, those uncomfortable incidents have not been limited to patient encounters.

In one instance, while presenting a patient in the presence of my attending and a 3rd-year medical student, I was sternly admonished for disclosing the race of the patient. I sat still and resolute as this doctor spoke on increased risk of bias in diagnosis and treatment when race is identified. Outwardly, I projected patience but inside, I seethed. In that moment, I realized that I would never have the luxury of ignorance or denial. Although I desire to be valued for my prowess in medicine, the mythical status was not created with my skin color in mind. For is avoidance not but a reflection of denial?

In these chaotic and uncertain times, how can we continue to promote a pathological ideal when the roads traveled are so fundamentally skewed? If a White physician faces a belligerent and argumentative patient, there is opportunity for debriefing both individually and among a larger cohort via classes, conferences, and supervisions. Conversely, when a Black physician is derided with racist sentiment, will they have the same opportunity for reflection and support? Despite identical expectations of professionalism and growth, how can one be successful in a system that either directly or indirectly encourages the opposite?

As we try to shed the super-doctor myth, we must recognize that this unattainable and detrimental persona hinders progress. This myth undermines our ability to understand our fragility, the limitations of our capabilities, and the strength of our vulnerability. We must take an honest look at the manner in which our individual biases and the deeply ingrained (and potentially unconscious) systemic biases are counterintuitive to the success and support of physicians of color.

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, I have received a growing number of inquiries about collection issues. For a variety of reasons, many patients seem increasingly reluctant to pay their medical bills. I’ve written many columns on keeping credit card numbers on file, and other techniques for keeping your accounts receivable in check; but despite your best efforts, there will always be a few deadbeats that you will need to pursue.

For the record, I am not speaking about patients who lost income due to the pandemic and are now struggling with debts, or otherwise have fallen on hard times and are unable to pay. I am addressing the problem of patients who are able to pay, but for whatever reason, do not.

The worst kinds of deadbeats are the ones who rob you twice; they accept payments from insurance companies and keep them. Such crooks must be pursued aggressively, with all the means at your disposal; but to reiterate the point I’ve tried to drive home repeatedly, the best cure is prevention.

You already know that you should collect as many fees as possible at the time of service. For cosmetic procedures you should require a substantial deposit in advance, with the balance due at the time of service. When that is impossible, maximize the chances you will be paid by making sure all available payment mechanisms are in place.

With my credit-card-on-file system that I’ve described many times, patients who fail to pay their credit card bill are the credit card company’s problem, not yours. In cases where you suspect fees might exceed credit card limits, you can arrange a realistic payment schedule in advance and have the patient fill out a credit application. You can find forms for this online at formswift.com, templates.office.com, and many other websites.

In some cases, it may be worth the trouble to run a background check. There are easy and affordable ways to do this. Dunn & Bradstreet, for example, will furnish a report containing payment records and details of any lawsuits, liens, and other legal actions for a nominal fee. The more financial information you have on file, the more leverage you have if a patient later balks at paying his or her balance.

For cosmetic work, always take before and after photos, and have all patients sign a written consent giving permission for the procedure, assuming full financial responsibility, and acknowledging that no guarantees have been given or implied. This defuses the common deadbeat tactics of claiming ignorance of personal financial obligations and professing dissatisfaction with the results.

Despite all your precautions, a deadbeat will inevitably slip through on occasion; but even then, you have options for extracting payment. Collection agencies are the traditional first line of attack for most medical practices. Ideally, your agency should specialize in handling medical accounts, so it will know exactly how much pressure to exert to avoid charges of harassment. Delinquent accounts should be submitted earlier rather than later to maximize the chances of success; my manager never allows an account to age more than 90 days, and if circumstances dictate, she refers them sooner than that.

When collection agencies fail, think about small claims court. You will need to learn the rules in your state, but in most states there is a small filing fee and a limit of $5,000 or so on claims. No attorneys are involved. If your paperwork is in order, the court will nearly always rule in your favor, but it will not provide the means for actual collection. In other words, you will still have to persuade the deadbeat to pay up. However, in many states a court order will give you the authority to attach a lien to property, or garnish wages, which often provides enough leverage to force payment.

What about those double-deadbeats who keep the insurance checks for themselves? First, check your third-party contract; sometimes the insurance company or HMO will be compelled to pay you directly and then go after the patient to get back its money. (They won’t volunteer this service, however – you’ll have to ask for it.)

If that’s not an option, consider reporting the misdirected payment to the Internal Revenue Service as income to the patient, by submitting a 1099 Miscellaneous Income form. Be sure to notify the deadbeat that you will be doing this. Sometimes the threat of such action will convince the individual to pay up; if not, at least you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing he or she will have to pay taxes on the money.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, I have received a growing number of inquiries about collection issues. For a variety of reasons, many patients seem increasingly reluctant to pay their medical bills. I’ve written many columns on keeping credit card numbers on file, and other techniques for keeping your accounts receivable in check; but despite your best efforts, there will always be a few deadbeats that you will need to pursue.

For the record, I am not speaking about patients who lost income due to the pandemic and are now struggling with debts, or otherwise have fallen on hard times and are unable to pay. I am addressing the problem of patients who are able to pay, but for whatever reason, do not.

The worst kinds of deadbeats are the ones who rob you twice; they accept payments from insurance companies and keep them. Such crooks must be pursued aggressively, with all the means at your disposal; but to reiterate the point I’ve tried to drive home repeatedly, the best cure is prevention.

You already know that you should collect as many fees as possible at the time of service. For cosmetic procedures you should require a substantial deposit in advance, with the balance due at the time of service. When that is impossible, maximize the chances you will be paid by making sure all available payment mechanisms are in place.

With my credit-card-on-file system that I’ve described many times, patients who fail to pay their credit card bill are the credit card company’s problem, not yours. In cases where you suspect fees might exceed credit card limits, you can arrange a realistic payment schedule in advance and have the patient fill out a credit application. You can find forms for this online at formswift.com, templates.office.com, and many other websites.

In some cases, it may be worth the trouble to run a background check. There are easy and affordable ways to do this. Dunn & Bradstreet, for example, will furnish a report containing payment records and details of any lawsuits, liens, and other legal actions for a nominal fee. The more financial information you have on file, the more leverage you have if a patient later balks at paying his or her balance.

For cosmetic work, always take before and after photos, and have all patients sign a written consent giving permission for the procedure, assuming full financial responsibility, and acknowledging that no guarantees have been given or implied. This defuses the common deadbeat tactics of claiming ignorance of personal financial obligations and professing dissatisfaction with the results.

Despite all your precautions, a deadbeat will inevitably slip through on occasion; but even then, you have options for extracting payment. Collection agencies are the traditional first line of attack for most medical practices. Ideally, your agency should specialize in handling medical accounts, so it will know exactly how much pressure to exert to avoid charges of harassment. Delinquent accounts should be submitted earlier rather than later to maximize the chances of success; my manager never allows an account to age more than 90 days, and if circumstances dictate, she refers them sooner than that.

When collection agencies fail, think about small claims court. You will need to learn the rules in your state, but in most states there is a small filing fee and a limit of $5,000 or so on claims. No attorneys are involved. If your paperwork is in order, the court will nearly always rule in your favor, but it will not provide the means for actual collection. In other words, you will still have to persuade the deadbeat to pay up. However, in many states a court order will give you the authority to attach a lien to property, or garnish wages, which often provides enough leverage to force payment.

What about those double-deadbeats who keep the insurance checks for themselves? First, check your third-party contract; sometimes the insurance company or HMO will be compelled to pay you directly and then go after the patient to get back its money. (They won’t volunteer this service, however – you’ll have to ask for it.)

If that’s not an option, consider reporting the misdirected payment to the Internal Revenue Service as income to the patient, by submitting a 1099 Miscellaneous Income form. Be sure to notify the deadbeat that you will be doing this. Sometimes the threat of such action will convince the individual to pay up; if not, at least you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing he or she will have to pay taxes on the money.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, I have received a growing number of inquiries about collection issues. For a variety of reasons, many patients seem increasingly reluctant to pay their medical bills. I’ve written many columns on keeping credit card numbers on file, and other techniques for keeping your accounts receivable in check; but despite your best efforts, there will always be a few deadbeats that you will need to pursue.

For the record, I am not speaking about patients who lost income due to the pandemic and are now struggling with debts, or otherwise have fallen on hard times and are unable to pay. I am addressing the problem of patients who are able to pay, but for whatever reason, do not.

The worst kinds of deadbeats are the ones who rob you twice; they accept payments from insurance companies and keep them. Such crooks must be pursued aggressively, with all the means at your disposal; but to reiterate the point I’ve tried to drive home repeatedly, the best cure is prevention.

You already know that you should collect as many fees as possible at the time of service. For cosmetic procedures you should require a substantial deposit in advance, with the balance due at the time of service. When that is impossible, maximize the chances you will be paid by making sure all available payment mechanisms are in place.

With my credit-card-on-file system that I’ve described many times, patients who fail to pay their credit card bill are the credit card company’s problem, not yours. In cases where you suspect fees might exceed credit card limits, you can arrange a realistic payment schedule in advance and have the patient fill out a credit application. You can find forms for this online at formswift.com, templates.office.com, and many other websites.

In some cases, it may be worth the trouble to run a background check. There are easy and affordable ways to do this. Dunn & Bradstreet, for example, will furnish a report containing payment records and details of any lawsuits, liens, and other legal actions for a nominal fee. The more financial information you have on file, the more leverage you have if a patient later balks at paying his or her balance.

For cosmetic work, always take before and after photos, and have all patients sign a written consent giving permission for the procedure, assuming full financial responsibility, and acknowledging that no guarantees have been given or implied. This defuses the common deadbeat tactics of claiming ignorance of personal financial obligations and professing dissatisfaction with the results.

Despite all your precautions, a deadbeat will inevitably slip through on occasion; but even then, you have options for extracting payment. Collection agencies are the traditional first line of attack for most medical practices. Ideally, your agency should specialize in handling medical accounts, so it will know exactly how much pressure to exert to avoid charges of harassment. Delinquent accounts should be submitted earlier rather than later to maximize the chances of success; my manager never allows an account to age more than 90 days, and if circumstances dictate, she refers them sooner than that.

When collection agencies fail, think about small claims court. You will need to learn the rules in your state, but in most states there is a small filing fee and a limit of $5,000 or so on claims. No attorneys are involved. If your paperwork is in order, the court will nearly always rule in your favor, but it will not provide the means for actual collection. In other words, you will still have to persuade the deadbeat to pay up. However, in many states a court order will give you the authority to attach a lien to property, or garnish wages, which often provides enough leverage to force payment.

What about those double-deadbeats who keep the insurance checks for themselves? First, check your third-party contract; sometimes the insurance company or HMO will be compelled to pay you directly and then go after the patient to get back its money. (They won’t volunteer this service, however – you’ll have to ask for it.)

If that’s not an option, consider reporting the misdirected payment to the Internal Revenue Service as income to the patient, by submitting a 1099 Miscellaneous Income form. Be sure to notify the deadbeat that you will be doing this. Sometimes the threat of such action will convince the individual to pay up; if not, at least you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing he or she will have to pay taxes on the money.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johnson & Johnson not in the mix

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

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

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

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

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

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

The details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Peace of mind’

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

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

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

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

More boosters on the way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johnson & Johnson not in the mix

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

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

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

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

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

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

The details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Peace of mind’

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

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

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

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

More boosters on the way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johnson & Johnson not in the mix

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

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

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

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

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

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

The details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Peace of mind’

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

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

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

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

More boosters on the way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite ongoing pandemic-related economic challenges, endocrinologists report stability in their overall wealth in the past year, with more than a third of the specialists having a net worth between $1 million and $5 million, according to the Medscape Endocrinologist Wealth & Debt Report 2021.

South_agency/Getty Images

The findings regarding wealth and debt among endocrinologists, along with 28 other specialties, were reported as part of Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2021, which included nearly 18,000 physicians.

According to the report, endocrinologists had an upswing in their income, compared with the prior year, with average annual earnings of $245,000 versus $236,000 in 2020. The earnings tie them with infectious disease specialists at fourth from the bottom of the list of specialties.

In the latest report, 38% reported a net worth between $1 million and $5 million, down 1% from 39% in last year’s report.

Nine percent of endocrinologists had a net worth of over $5 million, matching last year’s rate.

That puts endocrinologists and rheumatologists near the middle of specialists earning more than $5 million. Dermatologists rank the highest, with 28% worth over $5 million. Allergy and immunology specialists are at the bottom of the list, with just 2%.

Joel Greenwald, MD, a wealth management advisor to physicians based in St. Louis Park, Minn., said the reasons for the stability in wealth are multifactorial.

“The rise in home prices is certainly a factor,” he said. “Definitely the rise in the stock market played a large role; the S&P 500 finished the year up over 18%.

“I’ve seen clients accumulate cash, which has added to their net worth,” Dr. Greenwald added. “They cut back on spending because they were worried about big declines in income and also because there was simply less to spend money on [during lockdowns].”

The percentage of endocrinologists reporting a net worth below $500,000 decreased from 37% in 2020 to 31% for the current report, placing them fifth from the top of the list of specialists with a net worth below $500,000. Family medicine was at the top of the list, at 40%.
 

Gender disparities in net worth are striking

The gender disparities in net worth among endocrinologists are substantial. Although only 15% of male endocrinologists have a net worth of less than $500,000, that rate is nearly three times higher – 44% – for female endocrinologists.

Twenty-seven percent of male endocrinologists have a net worth between $1 million and $2 million, compared with just 13% among women. Although 14% of men have a net worth of more than $5 million, only 4% of female endocrinologists fall in that category.

Of note, 61% of those who responded to the poll were men; 36% were women.
 

Expenses, savings

Only 6% of endocrinologists reported being unable to pay their mortgage as a result of the pandemic; 8% said they were unable to pay other bills because of COVID-19.

The vast majority, however – 91% – said the pandemic did not affect their ability to pay bills or their mortgage. U.S. Census Bureau data from last July show that about a quarter of adults (25.3%) missed a mortgage or rent payment because of challenges related to COVID-19.

Approximately three-quarters of endocrinologists (72%) reported having not made any changes to reduce major expenses in 2020, despite the pandemic. About 25% took significant measures to reduce expenses, including refinancing their house or moving to a different home.

Seventeen percent say they are still paying off their school loans, similar to the rate last year.

The report notes that, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the average medical school debt for students who graduated in 2019 was $201,490, compared with an average student loan debt for all graduating students in the same year of $28,950.

Although 65% of endocrinologists said they added the same amount to their 401(k) plan in the past year, 28% put less into their fund, and although 53% put the same amount into their taxable savings account, 23% reported not using the taxable savings accounts at all.

Although earnings were steady in the past year, 12% of endocrinologists report having losses from practice problems, compared with 5% the previous year. COVID-19 was the most common cause. The proportion reporting no financial losses declined to 65%, versus 75% in the last report.

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

Despite ongoing pandemic-related economic challenges, endocrinologists report stability in their overall wealth in the past year, with more than a third of the specialists having a net worth between $1 million and $5 million, according to the Medscape Endocrinologist Wealth & Debt Report 2021.

South_agency/Getty Images

The findings regarding wealth and debt among endocrinologists, along with 28 other specialties, were reported as part of Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2021, which included nearly 18,000 physicians.

According to the report, endocrinologists had an upswing in their income, compared with the prior year, with average annual earnings of $245,000 versus $236,000 in 2020. The earnings tie them with infectious disease specialists at fourth from the bottom of the list of specialties.

In the latest report, 38% reported a net worth between $1 million and $5 million, down 1% from 39% in last year’s report.

Nine percent of endocrinologists had a net worth of over $5 million, matching last year’s rate.

That puts endocrinologists and rheumatologists near the middle of specialists earning more than $5 million. Dermatologists rank the highest, with 28% worth over $5 million. Allergy and immunology specialists are at the bottom of the list, with just 2%.

Joel Greenwald, MD, a wealth management advisor to physicians based in St. Louis Park, Minn., said the reasons for the stability in wealth are multifactorial.

“The rise in home prices is certainly a factor,” he said. “Definitely the rise in the stock market played a large role; the S&P 500 finished the year up over 18%.

“I’ve seen clients accumulate cash, which has added to their net worth,” Dr. Greenwald added. “They cut back on spending because they were worried about big declines in income and also because there was simply less to spend money on [during lockdowns].”

The percentage of endocrinologists reporting a net worth below $500,000 decreased from 37% in 2020 to 31% for the current report, placing them fifth from the top of the list of specialists with a net worth below $500,000. Family medicine was at the top of the list, at 40%.
 

Gender disparities in net worth are striking

The gender disparities in net worth among endocrinologists are substantial. Although only 15% of male endocrinologists have a net worth of less than $500,000, that rate is nearly three times higher – 44% – for female endocrinologists.

Twenty-seven percent of male endocrinologists have a net worth between $1 million and $2 million, compared with just 13% among women. Although 14% of men have a net worth of more than $5 million, only 4% of female endocrinologists fall in that category.

Of note, 61% of those who responded to the poll were men; 36% were women.
 

Expenses, savings

Only 6% of endocrinologists reported being unable to pay their mortgage as a result of the pandemic; 8% said they were unable to pay other bills because of COVID-19.

The vast majority, however – 91% – said the pandemic did not affect their ability to pay bills or their mortgage. U.S. Census Bureau data from last July show that about a quarter of adults (25.3%) missed a mortgage or rent payment because of challenges related to COVID-19.

Approximately three-quarters of endocrinologists (72%) reported having not made any changes to reduce major expenses in 2020, despite the pandemic. About 25% took significant measures to reduce expenses, including refinancing their house or moving to a different home.

Seventeen percent say they are still paying off their school loans, similar to the rate last year.

The report notes that, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the average medical school debt for students who graduated in 2019 was $201,490, compared with an average student loan debt for all graduating students in the same year of $28,950.

Although 65% of endocrinologists said they added the same amount to their 401(k) plan in the past year, 28% put less into their fund, and although 53% put the same amount into their taxable savings account, 23% reported not using the taxable savings accounts at all.

Although earnings were steady in the past year, 12% of endocrinologists report having losses from practice problems, compared with 5% the previous year. COVID-19 was the most common cause. The proportion reporting no financial losses declined to 65%, versus 75% in the last report.

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

Despite ongoing pandemic-related economic challenges, endocrinologists report stability in their overall wealth in the past year, with more than a third of the specialists having a net worth between $1 million and $5 million, according to the Medscape Endocrinologist Wealth & Debt Report 2021.

South_agency/Getty Images

The findings regarding wealth and debt among endocrinologists, along with 28 other specialties, were reported as part of Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2021, which included nearly 18,000 physicians.

According to the report, endocrinologists had an upswing in their income, compared with the prior year, with average annual earnings of $245,000 versus $236,000 in 2020. The earnings tie them with infectious disease specialists at fourth from the bottom of the list of specialties.

In the latest report, 38% reported a net worth between $1 million and $5 million, down 1% from 39% in last year’s report.

Nine percent of endocrinologists had a net worth of over $5 million, matching last year’s rate.

That puts endocrinologists and rheumatologists near the middle of specialists earning more than $5 million. Dermatologists rank the highest, with 28% worth over $5 million. Allergy and immunology specialists are at the bottom of the list, with just 2%.

Joel Greenwald, MD, a wealth management advisor to physicians based in St. Louis Park, Minn., said the reasons for the stability in wealth are multifactorial.

“The rise in home prices is certainly a factor,” he said. “Definitely the rise in the stock market played a large role; the S&P 500 finished the year up over 18%.

“I’ve seen clients accumulate cash, which has added to their net worth,” Dr. Greenwald added. “They cut back on spending because they were worried about big declines in income and also because there was simply less to spend money on [during lockdowns].”

The percentage of endocrinologists reporting a net worth below $500,000 decreased from 37% in 2020 to 31% for the current report, placing them fifth from the top of the list of specialists with a net worth below $500,000. Family medicine was at the top of the list, at 40%.
 

Gender disparities in net worth are striking

The gender disparities in net worth among endocrinologists are substantial. Although only 15% of male endocrinologists have a net worth of less than $500,000, that rate is nearly three times higher – 44% – for female endocrinologists.

Twenty-seven percent of male endocrinologists have a net worth between $1 million and $2 million, compared with just 13% among women. Although 14% of men have a net worth of more than $5 million, only 4% of female endocrinologists fall in that category.

Of note, 61% of those who responded to the poll were men; 36% were women.
 

Expenses, savings

Only 6% of endocrinologists reported being unable to pay their mortgage as a result of the pandemic; 8% said they were unable to pay other bills because of COVID-19.

The vast majority, however – 91% – said the pandemic did not affect their ability to pay bills or their mortgage. U.S. Census Bureau data from last July show that about a quarter of adults (25.3%) missed a mortgage or rent payment because of challenges related to COVID-19.

Approximately three-quarters of endocrinologists (72%) reported having not made any changes to reduce major expenses in 2020, despite the pandemic. About 25% took significant measures to reduce expenses, including refinancing their house or moving to a different home.

Seventeen percent say they are still paying off their school loans, similar to the rate last year.

The report notes that, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the average medical school debt for students who graduated in 2019 was $201,490, compared with an average student loan debt for all graduating students in the same year of $28,950.

Although 65% of endocrinologists said they added the same amount to their 401(k) plan in the past year, 28% put less into their fund, and although 53% put the same amount into their taxable savings account, 23% reported not using the taxable savings accounts at all.

Although earnings were steady in the past year, 12% of endocrinologists report having losses from practice problems, compared with 5% the previous year. COVID-19 was the most common cause. The proportion reporting no financial losses declined to 65%, versus 75% in the last report.

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

Rhythmic brain signals that help encode memories also appear to influence blood sugar levels and may regulate the timing of the release of hormones, early, pre-clinical research shows.

“Our study is the first to show how clusters of brain cell firing in the hippocampus may directly regulate metabolism,” senior author György Buzsáki, MD, PhD, professor, department of neuroscience and physiology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, said in a news release.

“Evidence suggests that the brain evolved, for reasons of efficiency, to use the same signals to achieve two very different functions in terms of memory and hormonal regulation,” added corresponding author David Tingley, PhD, a post-doctoral scholar in Dr. Buzsáki’s lab.

Additional research may also reveal devices or therapies that can adjust the brain signals to lower blood sugar and improve memory, the researchers say.

The study was published online August 11 in Nature.

It’s recently been discovered that populations of hippocampal neurons fire within milliseconds of each other in cycles. This firing pattern is called a “sharp wave ripple” for the shape it takes when captured graphically by electroencephalogram.

In their study, Dr. Buzsáki, Dr. Tingley, and colleagues observed that clusters of sharp wave ripples recorded from the hippocampus of rats were “reliably” and rapidly, followed by decreases in blood sugar concentrations in the animals.

“This correlation was not dependent on circadian, ultradian, or meal-triggered fluctuations; it could be mimicked with optogenetically induced ripples in the hippocampus, but not in the parietal cortex, and was attenuated to chance levels by pharmacogenetically suppressing activity of the lateral septum (LS), the major conduit between the hippocampus and hypothalamus,” the researchers report.

These observations suggest that hippocampal sharp wave ripples may regulate the timing of the release of hormones, possibly including insulin, by the pancreas and liver, as well as other hormones by the pituitary gland, the researchers note.

As sharp wave ripples mostly occur during non-rapid eye movement sleep, the impact of sleep disturbance on sharp wave ripples may provide a mechanistic link between poor sleep and high blood sugar levels seen in type 2 diabetes, they suggest.

“There are a couple of experimental studies showing that if you deprive a young healthy person from sleep [for 48 hours], their glucose tolerance resembles” that of a person with diabetes, Dr. Buzsáki noted in an interview.

Moving forward, the researchers will seek to extend their theory that several hormones could be affected by nightly sharp wave ripples.

The research was funded by National Institutes of Health. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Rhythmic brain signals that help encode memories also appear to influence blood sugar levels and may regulate the timing of the release of hormones, early, pre-clinical research shows.

“Our study is the first to show how clusters of brain cell firing in the hippocampus may directly regulate metabolism,” senior author György Buzsáki, MD, PhD, professor, department of neuroscience and physiology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, said in a news release.

“Evidence suggests that the brain evolved, for reasons of efficiency, to use the same signals to achieve two very different functions in terms of memory and hormonal regulation,” added corresponding author David Tingley, PhD, a post-doctoral scholar in Dr. Buzsáki’s lab.

Additional research may also reveal devices or therapies that can adjust the brain signals to lower blood sugar and improve memory, the researchers say.

The study was published online August 11 in Nature.

It’s recently been discovered that populations of hippocampal neurons fire within milliseconds of each other in cycles. This firing pattern is called a “sharp wave ripple” for the shape it takes when captured graphically by electroencephalogram.

In their study, Dr. Buzsáki, Dr. Tingley, and colleagues observed that clusters of sharp wave ripples recorded from the hippocampus of rats were “reliably” and rapidly, followed by decreases in blood sugar concentrations in the animals.

“This correlation was not dependent on circadian, ultradian, or meal-triggered fluctuations; it could be mimicked with optogenetically induced ripples in the hippocampus, but not in the parietal cortex, and was attenuated to chance levels by pharmacogenetically suppressing activity of the lateral septum (LS), the major conduit between the hippocampus and hypothalamus,” the researchers report.

These observations suggest that hippocampal sharp wave ripples may regulate the timing of the release of hormones, possibly including insulin, by the pancreas and liver, as well as other hormones by the pituitary gland, the researchers note.

As sharp wave ripples mostly occur during non-rapid eye movement sleep, the impact of sleep disturbance on sharp wave ripples may provide a mechanistic link between poor sleep and high blood sugar levels seen in type 2 diabetes, they suggest.

“There are a couple of experimental studies showing that if you deprive a young healthy person from sleep [for 48 hours], their glucose tolerance resembles” that of a person with diabetes, Dr. Buzsáki noted in an interview.

Moving forward, the researchers will seek to extend their theory that several hormones could be affected by nightly sharp wave ripples.

The research was funded by National Institutes of Health. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Rhythmic brain signals that help encode memories also appear to influence blood sugar levels and may regulate the timing of the release of hormones, early, pre-clinical research shows.

“Our study is the first to show how clusters of brain cell firing in the hippocampus may directly regulate metabolism,” senior author György Buzsáki, MD, PhD, professor, department of neuroscience and physiology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health, said in a news release.

“Evidence suggests that the brain evolved, for reasons of efficiency, to use the same signals to achieve two very different functions in terms of memory and hormonal regulation,” added corresponding author David Tingley, PhD, a post-doctoral scholar in Dr. Buzsáki’s lab.

Additional research may also reveal devices or therapies that can adjust the brain signals to lower blood sugar and improve memory, the researchers say.

The study was published online August 11 in Nature.

It’s recently been discovered that populations of hippocampal neurons fire within milliseconds of each other in cycles. This firing pattern is called a “sharp wave ripple” for the shape it takes when captured graphically by electroencephalogram.

In their study, Dr. Buzsáki, Dr. Tingley, and colleagues observed that clusters of sharp wave ripples recorded from the hippocampus of rats were “reliably” and rapidly, followed by decreases in blood sugar concentrations in the animals.

“This correlation was not dependent on circadian, ultradian, or meal-triggered fluctuations; it could be mimicked with optogenetically induced ripples in the hippocampus, but not in the parietal cortex, and was attenuated to chance levels by pharmacogenetically suppressing activity of the lateral septum (LS), the major conduit between the hippocampus and hypothalamus,” the researchers report.

These observations suggest that hippocampal sharp wave ripples may regulate the timing of the release of hormones, possibly including insulin, by the pancreas and liver, as well as other hormones by the pituitary gland, the researchers note.

As sharp wave ripples mostly occur during non-rapid eye movement sleep, the impact of sleep disturbance on sharp wave ripples may provide a mechanistic link between poor sleep and high blood sugar levels seen in type 2 diabetes, they suggest.

“There are a couple of experimental studies showing that if you deprive a young healthy person from sleep [for 48 hours], their glucose tolerance resembles” that of a person with diabetes, Dr. Buzsáki noted in an interview.

Moving forward, the researchers will seek to extend their theory that several hormones could be affected by nightly sharp wave ripples.

The research was funded by National Institutes of Health. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using a procedureless intragastric balloon (PIGB) as a first-line treatment for obesity is cost effective as either a standalone intervention or a bridge to bariatric surgery, according to a new simulation model study published in PLOS One.

PIGB boasts a noninvasive delivery mechanism in the form of a swallowable capsule. Upon reaching the stomach, the capsule is filled with fluid via a catheter. The clinician uses x-ray or fluoroscopy to confirm correct positioning of the balloon. After 4 months, the balloon’s release valve opens to drain the fluid, and the balloon is excreted naturally. If presented with a major complication, clinicians can typically remove PIGB endoscopically. This not only translates into much lower costs than bariatric surgery but also fewer adverse events.

The available evidence surrounding PIGB’s relative efficacy is less clear. Prior studies have shown that PIGB produces an average weight loss of 14.2% after a single, 4-month treatment episode, compared with 32% after bariatric surgery. When compared against other intragastric balloon devices, however, PIGB has been shown to lead to comparable or superior levels of weight loss. There is also limited evidence about PIGB’s long-term efficacy, but some data suggest that weight lost is generally regained after removal of the balloon.

To date, though, there had been no analysis of whether PIBG’s proposed advantages would make it more cost effective when measured against the superior outcomes of commonly performed bariatric surgeries.
 

Assessing the cost of PIGB

Researchers compared the cost-effectiveness of six regimens: PIGB; standalone gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy; PIGB as a bridge to gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy; and no treatment. The specific PIGB device the investigators assessed was the Elipse balloon (Allurion Technologies), which is approved in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, and is in the premarket approval process in the United States.

They then applied an individual patient-level Markov microsimulation model to compare these separate regimens in terms of costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The simulation incorporated data from 10,000 adults aged 18-64 with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35, of which 44% had a BMI ≥ 40. The model assumed patients initially underwent treatment with PIGB, gastric bypass, or sleeve gastrectomy. Based on the predicted weight loss resulting from that intervention, the model then estimated how PIGB-only, gastric bypass–only, and sleeve gastrectomy–only patients transitioned to a new health state, ranging from no obesity to death. It also incorporated a hybrid strategy in which patients underwent bariatric surgery if their BMI was still ≥ 35. The researchers modeled complications in all groups as chance events, with a probability of occurrence based on BMI state.

The model determined that the most cost-effective approach was using PIGB as a bridge to sleeve gastrectomy, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3,781 per QALY. PIGB alone was not cost effective versus bariatric surgery, but it did outperform no treatment (ICER, $21,711 per QALY).

The study investigators noted that there was a counterintuitive aspect to finding that PIGB was most cost effective when used as a bridge to surgery.

“Contrary to expectations that an add-on treatment to already expensive bariatric surgery would further increase health care costs, our results show that using PIGB as an add-on treatment reduces total costs and improves health outcomes, compared with bariatric surgery alone,” they wrote. “Consequently, as decision-makers look for ways to curb rising health care costs, it will be worthwhile to consider incorporating PIGB prior to bariatric surgery within the clinical care pathway.”

They also noted that initial PIGB may help patients achieve a lower BMI following surgery.
 

An appealing option

“This technique is very appealing to a lot of patients because you don’t need sedation, you can do it fairly quickly, and the risks and complications of endoscopy or surgery aren’t there with the procedureless balloon, at least on implantation,” said Reem Sharaiha, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of Bariatric & Metabolic Endoscopy at Weill Cornell Medicine, when asked to comment on the study’s results. “I believe that you need to offer a lot of options to tackle obesity as an epidemic and to give patients multiple treatment options, because it’s not going to be a one and done. It’s going to be multiple procedures in their lifetime.”

Dr. Sharaiha added that PIGB’s noninvasive qualities may make it a viable option for addressing a notable gap in obesity treatment; only about 2% of individuals who would qualify for surgery actually do so each year.

“A lot of people are reluctant to undergo it because of the fear of complications or the fear of invasiveness. They do not want to be off work for many weeks,” she said. “Many people come to see me and say, ‘I don’t want to tell anyone that I’ve had it done.’ Or, ‘I don’t want any scars.’ So, a lot of these [factors] come into play as well.”

Dr. Sharaiha is a consultant for Boston Scientific and has participated in trials conducted to seek Food and Drug Administration approval for the Elipse device.

Using a procedureless intragastric balloon (PIGB) as a first-line treatment for obesity is cost effective as either a standalone intervention or a bridge to bariatric surgery, according to a new simulation model study published in PLOS One.

PIGB boasts a noninvasive delivery mechanism in the form of a swallowable capsule. Upon reaching the stomach, the capsule is filled with fluid via a catheter. The clinician uses x-ray or fluoroscopy to confirm correct positioning of the balloon. After 4 months, the balloon’s release valve opens to drain the fluid, and the balloon is excreted naturally. If presented with a major complication, clinicians can typically remove PIGB endoscopically. This not only translates into much lower costs than bariatric surgery but also fewer adverse events.

The available evidence surrounding PIGB’s relative efficacy is less clear. Prior studies have shown that PIGB produces an average weight loss of 14.2% after a single, 4-month treatment episode, compared with 32% after bariatric surgery. When compared against other intragastric balloon devices, however, PIGB has been shown to lead to comparable or superior levels of weight loss. There is also limited evidence about PIGB’s long-term efficacy, but some data suggest that weight lost is generally regained after removal of the balloon.

To date, though, there had been no analysis of whether PIBG’s proposed advantages would make it more cost effective when measured against the superior outcomes of commonly performed bariatric surgeries.
 

Assessing the cost of PIGB

Researchers compared the cost-effectiveness of six regimens: PIGB; standalone gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy; PIGB as a bridge to gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy; and no treatment. The specific PIGB device the investigators assessed was the Elipse balloon (Allurion Technologies), which is approved in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, and is in the premarket approval process in the United States.

They then applied an individual patient-level Markov microsimulation model to compare these separate regimens in terms of costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The simulation incorporated data from 10,000 adults aged 18-64 with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35, of which 44% had a BMI ≥ 40. The model assumed patients initially underwent treatment with PIGB, gastric bypass, or sleeve gastrectomy. Based on the predicted weight loss resulting from that intervention, the model then estimated how PIGB-only, gastric bypass–only, and sleeve gastrectomy–only patients transitioned to a new health state, ranging from no obesity to death. It also incorporated a hybrid strategy in which patients underwent bariatric surgery if their BMI was still ≥ 35. The researchers modeled complications in all groups as chance events, with a probability of occurrence based on BMI state.

The model determined that the most cost-effective approach was using PIGB as a bridge to sleeve gastrectomy, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3,781 per QALY. PIGB alone was not cost effective versus bariatric surgery, but it did outperform no treatment (ICER, $21,711 per QALY).

The study investigators noted that there was a counterintuitive aspect to finding that PIGB was most cost effective when used as a bridge to surgery.

“Contrary to expectations that an add-on treatment to already expensive bariatric surgery would further increase health care costs, our results show that using PIGB as an add-on treatment reduces total costs and improves health outcomes, compared with bariatric surgery alone,” they wrote. “Consequently, as decision-makers look for ways to curb rising health care costs, it will be worthwhile to consider incorporating PIGB prior to bariatric surgery within the clinical care pathway.”

They also noted that initial PIGB may help patients achieve a lower BMI following surgery.
 

An appealing option

“This technique is very appealing to a lot of patients because you don’t need sedation, you can do it fairly quickly, and the risks and complications of endoscopy or surgery aren’t there with the procedureless balloon, at least on implantation,” said Reem Sharaiha, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of Bariatric & Metabolic Endoscopy at Weill Cornell Medicine, when asked to comment on the study’s results. “I believe that you need to offer a lot of options to tackle obesity as an epidemic and to give patients multiple treatment options, because it’s not going to be a one and done. It’s going to be multiple procedures in their lifetime.”

Dr. Sharaiha added that PIGB’s noninvasive qualities may make it a viable option for addressing a notable gap in obesity treatment; only about 2% of individuals who would qualify for surgery actually do so each year.

“A lot of people are reluctant to undergo it because of the fear of complications or the fear of invasiveness. They do not want to be off work for many weeks,” she said. “Many people come to see me and say, ‘I don’t want to tell anyone that I’ve had it done.’ Or, ‘I don’t want any scars.’ So, a lot of these [factors] come into play as well.”

Dr. Sharaiha is a consultant for Boston Scientific and has participated in trials conducted to seek Food and Drug Administration approval for the Elipse device.

Using a procedureless intragastric balloon (PIGB) as a first-line treatment for obesity is cost effective as either a standalone intervention or a bridge to bariatric surgery, according to a new simulation model study published in PLOS One.

PIGB boasts a noninvasive delivery mechanism in the form of a swallowable capsule. Upon reaching the stomach, the capsule is filled with fluid via a catheter. The clinician uses x-ray or fluoroscopy to confirm correct positioning of the balloon. After 4 months, the balloon’s release valve opens to drain the fluid, and the balloon is excreted naturally. If presented with a major complication, clinicians can typically remove PIGB endoscopically. This not only translates into much lower costs than bariatric surgery but also fewer adverse events.

The available evidence surrounding PIGB’s relative efficacy is less clear. Prior studies have shown that PIGB produces an average weight loss of 14.2% after a single, 4-month treatment episode, compared with 32% after bariatric surgery. When compared against other intragastric balloon devices, however, PIGB has been shown to lead to comparable or superior levels of weight loss. There is also limited evidence about PIGB’s long-term efficacy, but some data suggest that weight lost is generally regained after removal of the balloon.

To date, though, there had been no analysis of whether PIBG’s proposed advantages would make it more cost effective when measured against the superior outcomes of commonly performed bariatric surgeries.
 

Assessing the cost of PIGB

Researchers compared the cost-effectiveness of six regimens: PIGB; standalone gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy; PIGB as a bridge to gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy; and no treatment. The specific PIGB device the investigators assessed was the Elipse balloon (Allurion Technologies), which is approved in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, and is in the premarket approval process in the United States.

They then applied an individual patient-level Markov microsimulation model to compare these separate regimens in terms of costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The simulation incorporated data from 10,000 adults aged 18-64 with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35, of which 44% had a BMI ≥ 40. The model assumed patients initially underwent treatment with PIGB, gastric bypass, or sleeve gastrectomy. Based on the predicted weight loss resulting from that intervention, the model then estimated how PIGB-only, gastric bypass–only, and sleeve gastrectomy–only patients transitioned to a new health state, ranging from no obesity to death. It also incorporated a hybrid strategy in which patients underwent bariatric surgery if their BMI was still ≥ 35. The researchers modeled complications in all groups as chance events, with a probability of occurrence based on BMI state.

The model determined that the most cost-effective approach was using PIGB as a bridge to sleeve gastrectomy, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3,781 per QALY. PIGB alone was not cost effective versus bariatric surgery, but it did outperform no treatment (ICER, $21,711 per QALY).

The study investigators noted that there was a counterintuitive aspect to finding that PIGB was most cost effective when used as a bridge to surgery.

“Contrary to expectations that an add-on treatment to already expensive bariatric surgery would further increase health care costs, our results show that using PIGB as an add-on treatment reduces total costs and improves health outcomes, compared with bariatric surgery alone,” they wrote. “Consequently, as decision-makers look for ways to curb rising health care costs, it will be worthwhile to consider incorporating PIGB prior to bariatric surgery within the clinical care pathway.”

They also noted that initial PIGB may help patients achieve a lower BMI following surgery.
 

An appealing option

“This technique is very appealing to a lot of patients because you don’t need sedation, you can do it fairly quickly, and the risks and complications of endoscopy or surgery aren’t there with the procedureless balloon, at least on implantation,” said Reem Sharaiha, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of Bariatric & Metabolic Endoscopy at Weill Cornell Medicine, when asked to comment on the study’s results. “I believe that you need to offer a lot of options to tackle obesity as an epidemic and to give patients multiple treatment options, because it’s not going to be a one and done. It’s going to be multiple procedures in their lifetime.”

Dr. Sharaiha added that PIGB’s noninvasive qualities may make it a viable option for addressing a notable gap in obesity treatment; only about 2% of individuals who would qualify for surgery actually do so each year.

“A lot of people are reluctant to undergo it because of the fear of complications or the fear of invasiveness. They do not want to be off work for many weeks,” she said. “Many people come to see me and say, ‘I don’t want to tell anyone that I’ve had it done.’ Or, ‘I don’t want any scars.’ So, a lot of these [factors] come into play as well.”

Dr. Sharaiha is a consultant for Boston Scientific and has participated in trials conducted to seek Food and Drug Administration approval for the Elipse device.

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

NYU Langone Health

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

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

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

Outcomes based on disease severity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

University of Toronto

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

Explaining heparin’s varying effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NYU Langone Health

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

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

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

Outcomes based on disease severity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

University of Toronto

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

Explaining heparin’s varying effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NYU Langone Health

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

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

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

Outcomes based on disease severity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

University of Toronto

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

Explaining heparin’s varying effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An underrecognized complication

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An underrecognized complication

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An underrecognized complication

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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