Cardiology News

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

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

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

Primary care ‘recruiting frenzy’ over

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

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

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

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

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

Among the key findings:

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

Starting salaries take a pandemic hit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary care ‘recruiting frenzy’ over

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

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

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

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

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

Among the key findings:

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

Starting salaries take a pandemic hit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary care ‘recruiting frenzy’ over

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

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

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

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

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

Among the key findings:

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

Starting salaries take a pandemic hit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Killer babies and their aging mommies

The joys of new parenthood are endless, like the long nights and functioning on 4 hours of sleep. But those babies sure are sweet, and deadly. That’s right, little Johnny junior is shaving years off of your life.

LWA/Dann Tardif/Getty Images

Investigators at the University of California, Los Angeles, found that new mothers who slept less than 7 hours a night 6 months after giving birth were, biologically, 3-7 years older than were those who slept 7 or more hours. But hold on, that doesn’t mean mothers need to update their driver licenses. There’s a difference between biological and chronological age.

Biological aging is measured by epigenetics, which analyzes changes in DNA over time by determining whether coding for certain proteins is turned on or off. The process acts as a sort of clock, lead author Judith E. Carroll, PhD, said in a separate statement, allowing scientists to estimate a person’s biological age.

Although loss of sleep may accelerate biological aging and increase health risks, the researchers don’t want people to think that lack of sleep during infant care is going to automatically cause permanent damage. The jury is still out on whether the effects are long lasting. Instead, they emphasized the importance of prioritizing sleep needs and getting some help from others to do it.

“With every hour of additional sleep, the mother’s biological age was younger,” Dr. Carroll said. “I, and many other sleep scientists, consider sleep health to be just as vital to overall health as diet and exercise.”

So, new moms, fix that gourmet dinner after you go for that run because you’re already up at 4 a.m. anyway. It’s all about balance.
 

Me and my phone-y phriends

It’s been months since you’ve seen your friends in person. You got your vaccine and so, after all this time, you can finally meet with your friends in real life. No more Zoom. It’s a strange dream come true.

nemke/E+

The problem is that half your friends barely seem interested, spending much of your time together staring at their phones. Naturally, there’s a clever term for this: You’ve just been the victim of phubbing, specifically friend phubbing or fphubbing (we’re not sure there are enough “f” sounds at the beginning of that word), and it’s been the focus of a new study from the University of Georgia.

So who are these fphubbers? Researchers found that neurotic and depressed individuals are more likely to fphub, as were those with social anxiety, since they may actually prefer online interaction over face-to-face conversation. On the flip side, people with agreeable traits were less likely to fphub, as they felt doing so would be rude and impolite. Quite a bold stance right there, we know.

The researchers noted the complete ordinariness of people pulling their phones out while with friends, and the rapid acceptance of something many people may still consider rude. It could speak to casual smartphone addiction and the urge we all get when we hear that notification in our pocket. Maybe what we need when we see friends is the equivalent of those PSAs before movies telling you to turn off your cell phones. Then you can all go down to the lobby and get yourselves a treat.
 

Who needs a vaccine when there’s horse paste?

It’s not the first time, and it won’t be the last, that some people think they know best when it comes to COVID-19 safety.

Mario Olaya/Pixabay

What is the newest “trend” for prevention and treatment? Enter, ivermectin, a Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for treating conditions caused by parasitic worms. The prescription form is hard to find these days, so some folks have been “raiding rural tractor supply stores in search of ivermectin horse paste (packed with ‘apple flavor’!) and [weighing] the benefits of taking ivermectin ‘sheep drench’,” according to the Daily Beast.

The FDA does not condone the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 and warns that the types meant for animals can be harmful to humans if taken in large doses. Facebook has played its part, as groups are forming to share conflicting information about how the drug can be used for COVID-19. The medication often comes from sketchy sources, and it’s seemingly causing more harm than good. Pharmacies are even starting to treat ivermectin as if it’s an opioid.

“My ‘horse’ had no negative side effects, and now he tells me he feels like a million bucks and is now COVID free,” one social media poster wrote in code, according to the Daily Beast.
 

When the card fits, COVID-19 will take a hit

Good news! We have figured out the problem behind the whole COVID-19 vaccine-denial business.

Richard Franki/MDedge

And by “we,” of course, we mean someone else. But we’re telling you about it, and isn’t that really the important part?

Anyway, back to the problem. It’s not the vaccines themselves, it’s the vaccine cards. They’re the wrong size.

The Atlantic’s Amanda Mull explains: “When I got my first shot, in late February, I sat in the mandatory waiting area, holding my new card in one hand and my wallet in the other, trying to understand why the two objects weren’t compatible.”

She didn’t get very far with the CDC, but Chelsea Cirruzzo, a public-health reporter at U.S. News & World Report who has been tweeting about the vaccine cards, suggested that “someone just printed out a bunch of cards that are easy to write your name and vaccine brand on, without thinking about wallets.”

The evidence does fit the nobody-really-gave-it-any-thought argument. The template was available to the public on some state government websites when the vaccine was approved and can still be found on Florida’s, Ms. Mull notes. “Try to imagine governments freely distributing their templates for driver’s licenses, passports, or other documents intended to certify a particular identity or status.” The FBI, we understand, frowns upon this sort of thing.

Well, there you have it, America. When the card fits in a wallet, the vaccine problem will go away. Just remember where you read it, not where we read it.

Killer babies and their aging mommies

The joys of new parenthood are endless, like the long nights and functioning on 4 hours of sleep. But those babies sure are sweet, and deadly. That’s right, little Johnny junior is shaving years off of your life.

LWA/Dann Tardif/Getty Images

Investigators at the University of California, Los Angeles, found that new mothers who slept less than 7 hours a night 6 months after giving birth were, biologically, 3-7 years older than were those who slept 7 or more hours. But hold on, that doesn’t mean mothers need to update their driver licenses. There’s a difference between biological and chronological age.

Biological aging is measured by epigenetics, which analyzes changes in DNA over time by determining whether coding for certain proteins is turned on or off. The process acts as a sort of clock, lead author Judith E. Carroll, PhD, said in a separate statement, allowing scientists to estimate a person’s biological age.

Although loss of sleep may accelerate biological aging and increase health risks, the researchers don’t want people to think that lack of sleep during infant care is going to automatically cause permanent damage. The jury is still out on whether the effects are long lasting. Instead, they emphasized the importance of prioritizing sleep needs and getting some help from others to do it.

“With every hour of additional sleep, the mother’s biological age was younger,” Dr. Carroll said. “I, and many other sleep scientists, consider sleep health to be just as vital to overall health as diet and exercise.”

So, new moms, fix that gourmet dinner after you go for that run because you’re already up at 4 a.m. anyway. It’s all about balance.
 

Me and my phone-y phriends

It’s been months since you’ve seen your friends in person. You got your vaccine and so, after all this time, you can finally meet with your friends in real life. No more Zoom. It’s a strange dream come true.

nemke/E+

The problem is that half your friends barely seem interested, spending much of your time together staring at their phones. Naturally, there’s a clever term for this: You’ve just been the victim of phubbing, specifically friend phubbing or fphubbing (we’re not sure there are enough “f” sounds at the beginning of that word), and it’s been the focus of a new study from the University of Georgia.

So who are these fphubbers? Researchers found that neurotic and depressed individuals are more likely to fphub, as were those with social anxiety, since they may actually prefer online interaction over face-to-face conversation. On the flip side, people with agreeable traits were less likely to fphub, as they felt doing so would be rude and impolite. Quite a bold stance right there, we know.

The researchers noted the complete ordinariness of people pulling their phones out while with friends, and the rapid acceptance of something many people may still consider rude. It could speak to casual smartphone addiction and the urge we all get when we hear that notification in our pocket. Maybe what we need when we see friends is the equivalent of those PSAs before movies telling you to turn off your cell phones. Then you can all go down to the lobby and get yourselves a treat.
 

Who needs a vaccine when there’s horse paste?

It’s not the first time, and it won’t be the last, that some people think they know best when it comes to COVID-19 safety.

Mario Olaya/Pixabay

What is the newest “trend” for prevention and treatment? Enter, ivermectin, a Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for treating conditions caused by parasitic worms. The prescription form is hard to find these days, so some folks have been “raiding rural tractor supply stores in search of ivermectin horse paste (packed with ‘apple flavor’!) and [weighing] the benefits of taking ivermectin ‘sheep drench’,” according to the Daily Beast.

The FDA does not condone the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 and warns that the types meant for animals can be harmful to humans if taken in large doses. Facebook has played its part, as groups are forming to share conflicting information about how the drug can be used for COVID-19. The medication often comes from sketchy sources, and it’s seemingly causing more harm than good. Pharmacies are even starting to treat ivermectin as if it’s an opioid.

“My ‘horse’ had no negative side effects, and now he tells me he feels like a million bucks and is now COVID free,” one social media poster wrote in code, according to the Daily Beast.
 

When the card fits, COVID-19 will take a hit

Good news! We have figured out the problem behind the whole COVID-19 vaccine-denial business.

Richard Franki/MDedge

And by “we,” of course, we mean someone else. But we’re telling you about it, and isn’t that really the important part?

Anyway, back to the problem. It’s not the vaccines themselves, it’s the vaccine cards. They’re the wrong size.

The Atlantic’s Amanda Mull explains: “When I got my first shot, in late February, I sat in the mandatory waiting area, holding my new card in one hand and my wallet in the other, trying to understand why the two objects weren’t compatible.”

She didn’t get very far with the CDC, but Chelsea Cirruzzo, a public-health reporter at U.S. News & World Report who has been tweeting about the vaccine cards, suggested that “someone just printed out a bunch of cards that are easy to write your name and vaccine brand on, without thinking about wallets.”

The evidence does fit the nobody-really-gave-it-any-thought argument. The template was available to the public on some state government websites when the vaccine was approved and can still be found on Florida’s, Ms. Mull notes. “Try to imagine governments freely distributing their templates for driver’s licenses, passports, or other documents intended to certify a particular identity or status.” The FBI, we understand, frowns upon this sort of thing.

Well, there you have it, America. When the card fits in a wallet, the vaccine problem will go away. Just remember where you read it, not where we read it.

Killer babies and their aging mommies

The joys of new parenthood are endless, like the long nights and functioning on 4 hours of sleep. But those babies sure are sweet, and deadly. That’s right, little Johnny junior is shaving years off of your life.

LWA/Dann Tardif/Getty Images

Investigators at the University of California, Los Angeles, found that new mothers who slept less than 7 hours a night 6 months after giving birth were, biologically, 3-7 years older than were those who slept 7 or more hours. But hold on, that doesn’t mean mothers need to update their driver licenses. There’s a difference between biological and chronological age.

Biological aging is measured by epigenetics, which analyzes changes in DNA over time by determining whether coding for certain proteins is turned on or off. The process acts as a sort of clock, lead author Judith E. Carroll, PhD, said in a separate statement, allowing scientists to estimate a person’s biological age.

Although loss of sleep may accelerate biological aging and increase health risks, the researchers don’t want people to think that lack of sleep during infant care is going to automatically cause permanent damage. The jury is still out on whether the effects are long lasting. Instead, they emphasized the importance of prioritizing sleep needs and getting some help from others to do it.

“With every hour of additional sleep, the mother’s biological age was younger,” Dr. Carroll said. “I, and many other sleep scientists, consider sleep health to be just as vital to overall health as diet and exercise.”

So, new moms, fix that gourmet dinner after you go for that run because you’re already up at 4 a.m. anyway. It’s all about balance.
 

Me and my phone-y phriends

It’s been months since you’ve seen your friends in person. You got your vaccine and so, after all this time, you can finally meet with your friends in real life. No more Zoom. It’s a strange dream come true.

nemke/E+

The problem is that half your friends barely seem interested, spending much of your time together staring at their phones. Naturally, there’s a clever term for this: You’ve just been the victim of phubbing, specifically friend phubbing or fphubbing (we’re not sure there are enough “f” sounds at the beginning of that word), and it’s been the focus of a new study from the University of Georgia.

So who are these fphubbers? Researchers found that neurotic and depressed individuals are more likely to fphub, as were those with social anxiety, since they may actually prefer online interaction over face-to-face conversation. On the flip side, people with agreeable traits were less likely to fphub, as they felt doing so would be rude and impolite. Quite a bold stance right there, we know.

The researchers noted the complete ordinariness of people pulling their phones out while with friends, and the rapid acceptance of something many people may still consider rude. It could speak to casual smartphone addiction and the urge we all get when we hear that notification in our pocket. Maybe what we need when we see friends is the equivalent of those PSAs before movies telling you to turn off your cell phones. Then you can all go down to the lobby and get yourselves a treat.
 

Who needs a vaccine when there’s horse paste?

It’s not the first time, and it won’t be the last, that some people think they know best when it comes to COVID-19 safety.

Mario Olaya/Pixabay

What is the newest “trend” for prevention and treatment? Enter, ivermectin, a Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for treating conditions caused by parasitic worms. The prescription form is hard to find these days, so some folks have been “raiding rural tractor supply stores in search of ivermectin horse paste (packed with ‘apple flavor’!) and [weighing] the benefits of taking ivermectin ‘sheep drench’,” according to the Daily Beast.

The FDA does not condone the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 and warns that the types meant for animals can be harmful to humans if taken in large doses. Facebook has played its part, as groups are forming to share conflicting information about how the drug can be used for COVID-19. The medication often comes from sketchy sources, and it’s seemingly causing more harm than good. Pharmacies are even starting to treat ivermectin as if it’s an opioid.

“My ‘horse’ had no negative side effects, and now he tells me he feels like a million bucks and is now COVID free,” one social media poster wrote in code, according to the Daily Beast.
 

When the card fits, COVID-19 will take a hit

Good news! We have figured out the problem behind the whole COVID-19 vaccine-denial business.

Richard Franki/MDedge

And by “we,” of course, we mean someone else. But we’re telling you about it, and isn’t that really the important part?

Anyway, back to the problem. It’s not the vaccines themselves, it’s the vaccine cards. They’re the wrong size.

The Atlantic’s Amanda Mull explains: “When I got my first shot, in late February, I sat in the mandatory waiting area, holding my new card in one hand and my wallet in the other, trying to understand why the two objects weren’t compatible.”

She didn’t get very far with the CDC, but Chelsea Cirruzzo, a public-health reporter at U.S. News & World Report who has been tweeting about the vaccine cards, suggested that “someone just printed out a bunch of cards that are easy to write your name and vaccine brand on, without thinking about wallets.”

The evidence does fit the nobody-really-gave-it-any-thought argument. The template was available to the public on some state government websites when the vaccine was approved and can still be found on Florida’s, Ms. Mull notes. “Try to imagine governments freely distributing their templates for driver’s licenses, passports, or other documents intended to certify a particular identity or status.” The FBI, we understand, frowns upon this sort of thing.

Well, there you have it, America. When the card fits in a wallet, the vaccine problem will go away. Just remember where you read it, not where we read it.

Less than one in five women physicians are practicing in the top five high-paying specialties. Women compose only 6% of orthopedic surgeons, 8% of interventional cardiologists, 10% of urologists, 17% of plastic surgeons, and 18% of otolaryngologists, according to the 2020 Association of American Medical Colleges Physician Specialty Data Report.

Plastic surgeons earn an average of $526,000 annually, which is the highest-paying specialty. Otolaryngologists earn an average of $417,000 annually, and urologists earn $427,000, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021: The Recovery Begins.

Yet, far more women are practicing in specialties that pay less. Women are the majority in pediatrics (64%), ob.gyn. (59%), internal medicine (53%), and endocrinology (51%), the AAMC data show. The exception is dermatology, which pays well and in which 51% are women. The annual average pay is $394,000.

Why are so many women avoiding the top-paying specialties?

Several physician researchers and leaders in the top-paying specialties point to four main factors: Women are attracted to specialties that have more women in faculty and leadership positions, women prioritize work-life balance over pay, women residents may be deterred from the high-paying specialties because of gender discrimination and sexual harassment, and the longer training periods for surgical specialties may be a deterrent for women who want to have children.
 

Lack of women leaders

The specialties with the most women tend to have the highest proportion of women in leadership positions. For example, obstetrics and gynecology had the highest proportion of women department chairs (24.1%) and vice chairs (38.8). Pediatrics had the highest proportion of women division directors (31.5%) and residency program directors (64.6%), a study shows.

Surgical specialties, on the other hand, may have a harder time attracting female residents, possibly because of a lack of women in leadership positions. A recent study that examined gender differences in attitudes toward surgery training found that women would be more likely to go into surgery if there were more surgical faculty and residents of their same gender.

An analysis of orthopedic residency programs shows that more trainees were drawn to programs that had more female faculty members, including associate professors and women in leadership positions.

Terri Malcolm, MD, a board-certified ob.gyn. and CEO/founder of Master Physician Leaders, said women need to consider whether they want to be a trailblazer in a specialty that has fewer women. “What support systems are in place to accommodate your goals, whether it’s career advancement, having a family, or mentorship? Where can you show up as your whole self and be supported in that?”

Being the only woman in a residency program can be a challenge, said Dr. Malcolm. If the residents and attendings are predominantly men, for example, they may not think about creating a call schedule that takes into account maternity leave or the fact that women tend to be caretakers for their children and parents.

The study of gender differences toward surgery training shows that 75% of women, in comparison with 46% of men, would be more willing to enter surgery if maternity leave and childcare were made available to female residents and attending physicians.
 

Women want work-life balance

Although both men and women want families, women still shoulder more family and childcare responsibilities. That may explain why women physicians ranked work-life balance first and compensation second in the Medscape Women Physicians 2020 Report: The Issues They Care About.

“My physician colleagues have been and are supportive of intellectual abilities, but I feel they don’t fully understand the uneven distribution of childcare issues on women,” a woman dermatologist commented.

Women may want to work fewer hours or have a more flexible schedule to take care of children. “I can count on one hand the number of women who have a part-time job in orthopedics. It’s very rare, and working part time absolutely is a barrier for someone who wants to be a surgeon,” said Julie Samora, MD, PhD, a researcher and pediatric hand surgeon at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, in Columbus, Ohio. She is also a spokesperson for the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons.

Preeti Malani, MD, a professor of medicine who specializes in infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, chose to work full-time in academia while raising two children with her husband. In a decade, she rose through the ranks to full professor. “I took the advice of a woman who wanted to recruit me to have a full-time position with maximum flexibility rather than work part time, often for more hours and less pay. I also have tried to build my career so I was not doing all clinical work.”

Her husband is a surgeon at the University of Michigan. His schedule was not flexible, and he was unable to take on family responsibilities, said Dr. Malani. “I knew someone had to be able to grab the kids from daycare or pick them up at school if they were sick.” She also took work home and worked weekends.

Young women physicians in particular are thinking about combining parenting with work – in the Medscape report, that issue ranked third among the issues women care about. Seeing other women doctors navigate that in their particular specialty can have a positive impact.

“When I chose adolescent medicine, I remember working with a doctor in this field who talked about how much she enjoyed raising her kids even as teenagers and how much she was enjoying them as young adults. She seemed so balanced and happy in her family, and it gave me a nice feeling about the field,” said Nancy Dodson, MD, MPH, a pediatrician specializing in adolescent medicine at Pediatrics on Hudson in New York.

Rachel Zhuk, MD, a reproductive psychiatrist in New York, took a break after medical school to spend time with her newborn son. She met a woman who was also a young parent and a psychiatrist. “We were both figuring out parenting together – it was like looking into my future.” That friendship and her desire to have more time with patients influenced her decision to pursue psychiatry instead of internal medicine.
 

Discrimination and harassment influence specialty choice

Women doctors in the top-paying surgical and other specialties have reported experiencing more discrimination and harassment than men.

Of 927 orthopedic surgeons who responded to an AAOS survey, 66% said they experienced gender discrimination, bullying, sexual harassment, or harassment in the health care workplace. More than twice as many women (81%) experienced these behaviors as men (35%).

“This study shows that women in orthopedic surgery disproportionately experience these negative behaviors, and only a handful of institutions in the United States provide any type of training to prevent them,” said Dr. Samora, the lead author of the AAOS report.

Radiology is another male-dominated field – women represent 26% of all radiologists, the 2020 AAMC specialty report shows. A systematic review shows that 40% of women radiologists experienced gender discrimination at work, compared with 1% of men, and that 47% of women experienced sexual harassment.

Female trainees in surgery have also reported disproportionate rates of discrimination and harassment. Female general surgical residents have experienced more gender discrimination than male residents (65.1% vs. 10.0%) and more sexual harassment than male residents (19.9% vs. 3.9), a national survey indicates.

When medical students are exposed to these behaviors through personal experience, witnessing, or hearing about them, it can affect which specialty they choose. A survey of fourth-year medical students shows that far more women than men reported that exposure to gender discrimination and sexual harassment influenced their specialty choices (45.3% vs. 16.4%) and residency rankings (25.3% vs. 10.9%). Women who chose general surgery were the most likely to experience gender discrimination and sexual harassment during residency selection; women who chose psychiatry were the least likely to experience such behaviors, the report shows.

“If young trainees witness such behaviors in a specific field, they would naturally migrate toward a different specialty,” said Dr. Samora.

Trainees can also be put off by residency directors asking them inappropriate questions. Of nearly 500 female orthopedic surgeons surveyed, 62% reported that they were asked inappropriate questions during their residency interviews. “Inappropriate questions and comments directed toward women during residency interviews are clearly not conducive to women entering the field,” the authors stated. They found that little changed during the study period from 1971 to 2015.

The most frequent inappropriate questions concerned whether the prospective residents would be getting pregnant or raising children during residency and their marital status. One female orthopedic surgeon reported: “I was asked if I have children and was told that it would be too difficult to complete an orthopedic residency with children.”

The interviewers also made frequent comments about the inferiority of women to men. For example, “I was told by one program interviewer that ‘I don’t have a bias about women in medicine, I have a bias about women in orthopedic surgery,’ ” another female orthopedic surgeon commented.
 

Longer training

Residency training for the top-paying surgical specialties, including orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, and otolaryngology, lasts 5-6 years. This compares with 3-4 years for the lower-paying specialties, such as pediatrics, internal medicine, and ob.gyn., according to data from the American Medical Association.

Women doctors are in their prime childbearing years during residency. Women who want to start a family will consider whether they want to get pregnant during residency or wait until they finish their training, said Dr. Malcolm.

The vast majority (84%) of 190 female orthopedic surgery trainees who responded to a survey indicated that they did not have children or were pregnant during residency. Nearly half (48%) reported that they had postponed having children because they were in training.

“The longer training is definitely a concerning issue for women of childbearing age. Many professional women are waiting to have children, for multiple reasons, but one major fear is the stigma due to taking time off from work obligations. There is a risk of irritating your peers because they may have to take on more work and cover more calls for you during your absence,” said Dr. Samora.

That fear is not unfounded. At least half of the 190 female orthopedic residents reported that they encountered bias against becoming pregnant during training from both coresidents (60%) and attendings (50%), according to the study.

Another recent survey suggests that pregnant surgical residents face several barriers during their training, including a lack of salary for extended family leave, resentment from fellow residents who need to cover for them during maternity leave, and a lack of formal lactation policies.

A few policy changes by national board organizations, including those in the surgical specialties, may make life a little easier for female trainees to have children, suggested Dr. Samora.

Residents and fellows are now allowed a minimum of 6 weeks away for medical leave or caregiving once during training, without having to use vacation or sick leave and without having to extend their training, the American Board of Medical Specialties has announced.

In addition, the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery and the American Board of Surgery have enacted policies that allow lactating women to take a break to pump during their board exams.

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

Less than one in five women physicians are practicing in the top five high-paying specialties. Women compose only 6% of orthopedic surgeons, 8% of interventional cardiologists, 10% of urologists, 17% of plastic surgeons, and 18% of otolaryngologists, according to the 2020 Association of American Medical Colleges Physician Specialty Data Report.

Plastic surgeons earn an average of $526,000 annually, which is the highest-paying specialty. Otolaryngologists earn an average of $417,000 annually, and urologists earn $427,000, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021: The Recovery Begins.

Yet, far more women are practicing in specialties that pay less. Women are the majority in pediatrics (64%), ob.gyn. (59%), internal medicine (53%), and endocrinology (51%), the AAMC data show. The exception is dermatology, which pays well and in which 51% are women. The annual average pay is $394,000.

Why are so many women avoiding the top-paying specialties?

Several physician researchers and leaders in the top-paying specialties point to four main factors: Women are attracted to specialties that have more women in faculty and leadership positions, women prioritize work-life balance over pay, women residents may be deterred from the high-paying specialties because of gender discrimination and sexual harassment, and the longer training periods for surgical specialties may be a deterrent for women who want to have children.
 

Lack of women leaders

The specialties with the most women tend to have the highest proportion of women in leadership positions. For example, obstetrics and gynecology had the highest proportion of women department chairs (24.1%) and vice chairs (38.8). Pediatrics had the highest proportion of women division directors (31.5%) and residency program directors (64.6%), a study shows.

Surgical specialties, on the other hand, may have a harder time attracting female residents, possibly because of a lack of women in leadership positions. A recent study that examined gender differences in attitudes toward surgery training found that women would be more likely to go into surgery if there were more surgical faculty and residents of their same gender.

An analysis of orthopedic residency programs shows that more trainees were drawn to programs that had more female faculty members, including associate professors and women in leadership positions.

Terri Malcolm, MD, a board-certified ob.gyn. and CEO/founder of Master Physician Leaders, said women need to consider whether they want to be a trailblazer in a specialty that has fewer women. “What support systems are in place to accommodate your goals, whether it’s career advancement, having a family, or mentorship? Where can you show up as your whole self and be supported in that?”

Being the only woman in a residency program can be a challenge, said Dr. Malcolm. If the residents and attendings are predominantly men, for example, they may not think about creating a call schedule that takes into account maternity leave or the fact that women tend to be caretakers for their children and parents.

The study of gender differences toward surgery training shows that 75% of women, in comparison with 46% of men, would be more willing to enter surgery if maternity leave and childcare were made available to female residents and attending physicians.
 

Women want work-life balance

Although both men and women want families, women still shoulder more family and childcare responsibilities. That may explain why women physicians ranked work-life balance first and compensation second in the Medscape Women Physicians 2020 Report: The Issues They Care About.

“My physician colleagues have been and are supportive of intellectual abilities, but I feel they don’t fully understand the uneven distribution of childcare issues on women,” a woman dermatologist commented.

Women may want to work fewer hours or have a more flexible schedule to take care of children. “I can count on one hand the number of women who have a part-time job in orthopedics. It’s very rare, and working part time absolutely is a barrier for someone who wants to be a surgeon,” said Julie Samora, MD, PhD, a researcher and pediatric hand surgeon at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, in Columbus, Ohio. She is also a spokesperson for the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons.

Preeti Malani, MD, a professor of medicine who specializes in infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, chose to work full-time in academia while raising two children with her husband. In a decade, she rose through the ranks to full professor. “I took the advice of a woman who wanted to recruit me to have a full-time position with maximum flexibility rather than work part time, often for more hours and less pay. I also have tried to build my career so I was not doing all clinical work.”

Her husband is a surgeon at the University of Michigan. His schedule was not flexible, and he was unable to take on family responsibilities, said Dr. Malani. “I knew someone had to be able to grab the kids from daycare or pick them up at school if they were sick.” She also took work home and worked weekends.

Young women physicians in particular are thinking about combining parenting with work – in the Medscape report, that issue ranked third among the issues women care about. Seeing other women doctors navigate that in their particular specialty can have a positive impact.

“When I chose adolescent medicine, I remember working with a doctor in this field who talked about how much she enjoyed raising her kids even as teenagers and how much she was enjoying them as young adults. She seemed so balanced and happy in her family, and it gave me a nice feeling about the field,” said Nancy Dodson, MD, MPH, a pediatrician specializing in adolescent medicine at Pediatrics on Hudson in New York.

Rachel Zhuk, MD, a reproductive psychiatrist in New York, took a break after medical school to spend time with her newborn son. She met a woman who was also a young parent and a psychiatrist. “We were both figuring out parenting together – it was like looking into my future.” That friendship and her desire to have more time with patients influenced her decision to pursue psychiatry instead of internal medicine.
 

Discrimination and harassment influence specialty choice

Women doctors in the top-paying surgical and other specialties have reported experiencing more discrimination and harassment than men.

Of 927 orthopedic surgeons who responded to an AAOS survey, 66% said they experienced gender discrimination, bullying, sexual harassment, or harassment in the health care workplace. More than twice as many women (81%) experienced these behaviors as men (35%).

“This study shows that women in orthopedic surgery disproportionately experience these negative behaviors, and only a handful of institutions in the United States provide any type of training to prevent them,” said Dr. Samora, the lead author of the AAOS report.

Radiology is another male-dominated field – women represent 26% of all radiologists, the 2020 AAMC specialty report shows. A systematic review shows that 40% of women radiologists experienced gender discrimination at work, compared with 1% of men, and that 47% of women experienced sexual harassment.

Female trainees in surgery have also reported disproportionate rates of discrimination and harassment. Female general surgical residents have experienced more gender discrimination than male residents (65.1% vs. 10.0%) and more sexual harassment than male residents (19.9% vs. 3.9), a national survey indicates.

When medical students are exposed to these behaviors through personal experience, witnessing, or hearing about them, it can affect which specialty they choose. A survey of fourth-year medical students shows that far more women than men reported that exposure to gender discrimination and sexual harassment influenced their specialty choices (45.3% vs. 16.4%) and residency rankings (25.3% vs. 10.9%). Women who chose general surgery were the most likely to experience gender discrimination and sexual harassment during residency selection; women who chose psychiatry were the least likely to experience such behaviors, the report shows.

“If young trainees witness such behaviors in a specific field, they would naturally migrate toward a different specialty,” said Dr. Samora.

Trainees can also be put off by residency directors asking them inappropriate questions. Of nearly 500 female orthopedic surgeons surveyed, 62% reported that they were asked inappropriate questions during their residency interviews. “Inappropriate questions and comments directed toward women during residency interviews are clearly not conducive to women entering the field,” the authors stated. They found that little changed during the study period from 1971 to 2015.

The most frequent inappropriate questions concerned whether the prospective residents would be getting pregnant or raising children during residency and their marital status. One female orthopedic surgeon reported: “I was asked if I have children and was told that it would be too difficult to complete an orthopedic residency with children.”

The interviewers also made frequent comments about the inferiority of women to men. For example, “I was told by one program interviewer that ‘I don’t have a bias about women in medicine, I have a bias about women in orthopedic surgery,’ ” another female orthopedic surgeon commented.
 

Longer training

Residency training for the top-paying surgical specialties, including orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, and otolaryngology, lasts 5-6 years. This compares with 3-4 years for the lower-paying specialties, such as pediatrics, internal medicine, and ob.gyn., according to data from the American Medical Association.

Women doctors are in their prime childbearing years during residency. Women who want to start a family will consider whether they want to get pregnant during residency or wait until they finish their training, said Dr. Malcolm.

The vast majority (84%) of 190 female orthopedic surgery trainees who responded to a survey indicated that they did not have children or were pregnant during residency. Nearly half (48%) reported that they had postponed having children because they were in training.

“The longer training is definitely a concerning issue for women of childbearing age. Many professional women are waiting to have children, for multiple reasons, but one major fear is the stigma due to taking time off from work obligations. There is a risk of irritating your peers because they may have to take on more work and cover more calls for you during your absence,” said Dr. Samora.

That fear is not unfounded. At least half of the 190 female orthopedic residents reported that they encountered bias against becoming pregnant during training from both coresidents (60%) and attendings (50%), according to the study.

Another recent survey suggests that pregnant surgical residents face several barriers during their training, including a lack of salary for extended family leave, resentment from fellow residents who need to cover for them during maternity leave, and a lack of formal lactation policies.

A few policy changes by national board organizations, including those in the surgical specialties, may make life a little easier for female trainees to have children, suggested Dr. Samora.

Residents and fellows are now allowed a minimum of 6 weeks away for medical leave or caregiving once during training, without having to use vacation or sick leave and without having to extend their training, the American Board of Medical Specialties has announced.

In addition, the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery and the American Board of Surgery have enacted policies that allow lactating women to take a break to pump during their board exams.

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

Less than one in five women physicians are practicing in the top five high-paying specialties. Women compose only 6% of orthopedic surgeons, 8% of interventional cardiologists, 10% of urologists, 17% of plastic surgeons, and 18% of otolaryngologists, according to the 2020 Association of American Medical Colleges Physician Specialty Data Report.

Plastic surgeons earn an average of $526,000 annually, which is the highest-paying specialty. Otolaryngologists earn an average of $417,000 annually, and urologists earn $427,000, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021: The Recovery Begins.

Yet, far more women are practicing in specialties that pay less. Women are the majority in pediatrics (64%), ob.gyn. (59%), internal medicine (53%), and endocrinology (51%), the AAMC data show. The exception is dermatology, which pays well and in which 51% are women. The annual average pay is $394,000.

Why are so many women avoiding the top-paying specialties?

Several physician researchers and leaders in the top-paying specialties point to four main factors: Women are attracted to specialties that have more women in faculty and leadership positions, women prioritize work-life balance over pay, women residents may be deterred from the high-paying specialties because of gender discrimination and sexual harassment, and the longer training periods for surgical specialties may be a deterrent for women who want to have children.
 

Lack of women leaders

The specialties with the most women tend to have the highest proportion of women in leadership positions. For example, obstetrics and gynecology had the highest proportion of women department chairs (24.1%) and vice chairs (38.8). Pediatrics had the highest proportion of women division directors (31.5%) and residency program directors (64.6%), a study shows.

Surgical specialties, on the other hand, may have a harder time attracting female residents, possibly because of a lack of women in leadership positions. A recent study that examined gender differences in attitudes toward surgery training found that women would be more likely to go into surgery if there were more surgical faculty and residents of their same gender.

An analysis of orthopedic residency programs shows that more trainees were drawn to programs that had more female faculty members, including associate professors and women in leadership positions.

Terri Malcolm, MD, a board-certified ob.gyn. and CEO/founder of Master Physician Leaders, said women need to consider whether they want to be a trailblazer in a specialty that has fewer women. “What support systems are in place to accommodate your goals, whether it’s career advancement, having a family, or mentorship? Where can you show up as your whole self and be supported in that?”

Being the only woman in a residency program can be a challenge, said Dr. Malcolm. If the residents and attendings are predominantly men, for example, they may not think about creating a call schedule that takes into account maternity leave or the fact that women tend to be caretakers for their children and parents.

The study of gender differences toward surgery training shows that 75% of women, in comparison with 46% of men, would be more willing to enter surgery if maternity leave and childcare were made available to female residents and attending physicians.
 

Women want work-life balance

Although both men and women want families, women still shoulder more family and childcare responsibilities. That may explain why women physicians ranked work-life balance first and compensation second in the Medscape Women Physicians 2020 Report: The Issues They Care About.

“My physician colleagues have been and are supportive of intellectual abilities, but I feel they don’t fully understand the uneven distribution of childcare issues on women,” a woman dermatologist commented.

Women may want to work fewer hours or have a more flexible schedule to take care of children. “I can count on one hand the number of women who have a part-time job in orthopedics. It’s very rare, and working part time absolutely is a barrier for someone who wants to be a surgeon,” said Julie Samora, MD, PhD, a researcher and pediatric hand surgeon at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, in Columbus, Ohio. She is also a spokesperson for the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons.

Preeti Malani, MD, a professor of medicine who specializes in infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, chose to work full-time in academia while raising two children with her husband. In a decade, she rose through the ranks to full professor. “I took the advice of a woman who wanted to recruit me to have a full-time position with maximum flexibility rather than work part time, often for more hours and less pay. I also have tried to build my career so I was not doing all clinical work.”

Her husband is a surgeon at the University of Michigan. His schedule was not flexible, and he was unable to take on family responsibilities, said Dr. Malani. “I knew someone had to be able to grab the kids from daycare or pick them up at school if they were sick.” She also took work home and worked weekends.

Young women physicians in particular are thinking about combining parenting with work – in the Medscape report, that issue ranked third among the issues women care about. Seeing other women doctors navigate that in their particular specialty can have a positive impact.

“When I chose adolescent medicine, I remember working with a doctor in this field who talked about how much she enjoyed raising her kids even as teenagers and how much she was enjoying them as young adults. She seemed so balanced and happy in her family, and it gave me a nice feeling about the field,” said Nancy Dodson, MD, MPH, a pediatrician specializing in adolescent medicine at Pediatrics on Hudson in New York.

Rachel Zhuk, MD, a reproductive psychiatrist in New York, took a break after medical school to spend time with her newborn son. She met a woman who was also a young parent and a psychiatrist. “We were both figuring out parenting together – it was like looking into my future.” That friendship and her desire to have more time with patients influenced her decision to pursue psychiatry instead of internal medicine.
 

Discrimination and harassment influence specialty choice

Women doctors in the top-paying surgical and other specialties have reported experiencing more discrimination and harassment than men.

Of 927 orthopedic surgeons who responded to an AAOS survey, 66% said they experienced gender discrimination, bullying, sexual harassment, or harassment in the health care workplace. More than twice as many women (81%) experienced these behaviors as men (35%).

“This study shows that women in orthopedic surgery disproportionately experience these negative behaviors, and only a handful of institutions in the United States provide any type of training to prevent them,” said Dr. Samora, the lead author of the AAOS report.

Radiology is another male-dominated field – women represent 26% of all radiologists, the 2020 AAMC specialty report shows. A systematic review shows that 40% of women radiologists experienced gender discrimination at work, compared with 1% of men, and that 47% of women experienced sexual harassment.

Female trainees in surgery have also reported disproportionate rates of discrimination and harassment. Female general surgical residents have experienced more gender discrimination than male residents (65.1% vs. 10.0%) and more sexual harassment than male residents (19.9% vs. 3.9), a national survey indicates.

When medical students are exposed to these behaviors through personal experience, witnessing, or hearing about them, it can affect which specialty they choose. A survey of fourth-year medical students shows that far more women than men reported that exposure to gender discrimination and sexual harassment influenced their specialty choices (45.3% vs. 16.4%) and residency rankings (25.3% vs. 10.9%). Women who chose general surgery were the most likely to experience gender discrimination and sexual harassment during residency selection; women who chose psychiatry were the least likely to experience such behaviors, the report shows.

“If young trainees witness such behaviors in a specific field, they would naturally migrate toward a different specialty,” said Dr. Samora.

Trainees can also be put off by residency directors asking them inappropriate questions. Of nearly 500 female orthopedic surgeons surveyed, 62% reported that they were asked inappropriate questions during their residency interviews. “Inappropriate questions and comments directed toward women during residency interviews are clearly not conducive to women entering the field,” the authors stated. They found that little changed during the study period from 1971 to 2015.

The most frequent inappropriate questions concerned whether the prospective residents would be getting pregnant or raising children during residency and their marital status. One female orthopedic surgeon reported: “I was asked if I have children and was told that it would be too difficult to complete an orthopedic residency with children.”

The interviewers also made frequent comments about the inferiority of women to men. For example, “I was told by one program interviewer that ‘I don’t have a bias about women in medicine, I have a bias about women in orthopedic surgery,’ ” another female orthopedic surgeon commented.
 

Longer training

Residency training for the top-paying surgical specialties, including orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, and otolaryngology, lasts 5-6 years. This compares with 3-4 years for the lower-paying specialties, such as pediatrics, internal medicine, and ob.gyn., according to data from the American Medical Association.

Women doctors are in their prime childbearing years during residency. Women who want to start a family will consider whether they want to get pregnant during residency or wait until they finish their training, said Dr. Malcolm.

The vast majority (84%) of 190 female orthopedic surgery trainees who responded to a survey indicated that they did not have children or were pregnant during residency. Nearly half (48%) reported that they had postponed having children because they were in training.

“The longer training is definitely a concerning issue for women of childbearing age. Many professional women are waiting to have children, for multiple reasons, but one major fear is the stigma due to taking time off from work obligations. There is a risk of irritating your peers because they may have to take on more work and cover more calls for you during your absence,” said Dr. Samora.

That fear is not unfounded. At least half of the 190 female orthopedic residents reported that they encountered bias against becoming pregnant during training from both coresidents (60%) and attendings (50%), according to the study.

Another recent survey suggests that pregnant surgical residents face several barriers during their training, including a lack of salary for extended family leave, resentment from fellow residents who need to cover for them during maternity leave, and a lack of formal lactation policies.

A few policy changes by national board organizations, including those in the surgical specialties, may make life a little easier for female trainees to have children, suggested Dr. Samora.

Residents and fellows are now allowed a minimum of 6 weeks away for medical leave or caregiving once during training, without having to use vacation or sick leave and without having to extend their training, the American Board of Medical Specialties has announced.

In addition, the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery and the American Board of Surgery have enacted policies that allow lactating women to take a break to pump during their board exams.

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

Adolescents can develop mild myocarditis as a rare complication after COVID-19 vaccination, as has been reported in adults, an early case series from Boston confirms.

The adolescents who developed heart inflammation after vaccination typically had a benign course, with symptoms resolving without treatment, although one patient had persistent borderline low left ventricular (LV) function, report Audrey Dionne, MD, and colleagues at Boston Children’s Hospital.

“Despite the risks of myocarditis associated with vaccination, the benefits of vaccination likely outweigh risks in children and adolescents,” they say.

They estimate that for males 12-29 years of age COVID-19 vaccination prevents 11,000 COVID-19 cases, 560 hospitalizations, 138 intensive care unit admissions, and six deaths, compared with 39-47 expected myocarditis cases.

The case series was published online Aug. 10 in JAMA Cardiology.

Long-term risks unknown 

Dr. Dionne and colleagues reviewed the results of comprehensive cardiac imaging in 14 boys and 1 girl, 12-18 years of age (median, 15 years), who were hospitalized with myocarditis after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Symptoms started 1-6 days after vaccine administration (most after the second dose) and included chest pain in all 15 patients, fever in 10 (67%), myalgia in eight (53%), and headache in six (40%).

On admission, all patients had elevated troponin levels (median, 0.25 ng/mL; range, 0.08-3.15 ng/mL). Troponin levels peaked 0.1-2.3 days after admission.

Echocardiography revealed decreased LV ejection fraction (EF) in three patients (20%) and abnormal global longitudinal or circumferential strain in five patients (33%). No patient had a pericardial effusion.

Cardiac MRI findings were consistent with myocarditis in 13 patients (87%), including late gadolinium enhancement in 12 (80%), regional hyperintensity on T2-weighted imaging in two (13%), elevated extracellular volume fraction in three (20%), and elevated LV global native T1 in two (20%).

The patients remained in the hospital for 1-5 days (median, 2 days) and were discharged. No patient required admission to the intensive care unit.

In follow-up assessments performed 1-13 days after hospital discharge, symptoms of myocarditis had resolved in 11 patients (73%).

One patient (7%) had persistent borderline low LV systolic function on echocardiogram (LVEF, 54%).

Troponin levels remained mildly elevated in three patients (20%). One patient (7%) had nonsustained ventricular tachycardia on ambulatory monitor.

The authors say longitudinal studies of patients with myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccine “will be important to better understand long-term risks.”

In a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre, Peter Openshaw, FMedSci, Imperial College London, says: “The problem with case series of this type is the lack of comparison groups. How many cases of myocarditis might be seen in normal children, or those given other vaccines (including those that are not for COVID), or in teenagers infected with SARS-CoV-2?”

“As the authors note, myocarditis does happen after other vaccines. The estimated rate (62.8 cases per million) makes this a rare event,” Dr. Openshaw says.

“My view that teenagers should be considered for vaccination is not changed by this new publication,” he adds.

This study was funded by the McCance Foundation. The authors have declared no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Openshaw has served on scientific advisory boards for Janssen/J&J, Oxford Immunotech, GSK, Nestle, and Pfizer in relation to immunity to viruses (fees paid to Imperial College London).

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

Adolescents can develop mild myocarditis as a rare complication after COVID-19 vaccination, as has been reported in adults, an early case series from Boston confirms.

The adolescents who developed heart inflammation after vaccination typically had a benign course, with symptoms resolving without treatment, although one patient had persistent borderline low left ventricular (LV) function, report Audrey Dionne, MD, and colleagues at Boston Children’s Hospital.

“Despite the risks of myocarditis associated with vaccination, the benefits of vaccination likely outweigh risks in children and adolescents,” they say.

They estimate that for males 12-29 years of age COVID-19 vaccination prevents 11,000 COVID-19 cases, 560 hospitalizations, 138 intensive care unit admissions, and six deaths, compared with 39-47 expected myocarditis cases.

The case series was published online Aug. 10 in JAMA Cardiology.

Long-term risks unknown 

Dr. Dionne and colleagues reviewed the results of comprehensive cardiac imaging in 14 boys and 1 girl, 12-18 years of age (median, 15 years), who were hospitalized with myocarditis after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Symptoms started 1-6 days after vaccine administration (most after the second dose) and included chest pain in all 15 patients, fever in 10 (67%), myalgia in eight (53%), and headache in six (40%).

On admission, all patients had elevated troponin levels (median, 0.25 ng/mL; range, 0.08-3.15 ng/mL). Troponin levels peaked 0.1-2.3 days after admission.

Echocardiography revealed decreased LV ejection fraction (EF) in three patients (20%) and abnormal global longitudinal or circumferential strain in five patients (33%). No patient had a pericardial effusion.

Cardiac MRI findings were consistent with myocarditis in 13 patients (87%), including late gadolinium enhancement in 12 (80%), regional hyperintensity on T2-weighted imaging in two (13%), elevated extracellular volume fraction in three (20%), and elevated LV global native T1 in two (20%).

The patients remained in the hospital for 1-5 days (median, 2 days) and were discharged. No patient required admission to the intensive care unit.

In follow-up assessments performed 1-13 days after hospital discharge, symptoms of myocarditis had resolved in 11 patients (73%).

One patient (7%) had persistent borderline low LV systolic function on echocardiogram (LVEF, 54%).

Troponin levels remained mildly elevated in three patients (20%). One patient (7%) had nonsustained ventricular tachycardia on ambulatory monitor.

The authors say longitudinal studies of patients with myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccine “will be important to better understand long-term risks.”

In a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre, Peter Openshaw, FMedSci, Imperial College London, says: “The problem with case series of this type is the lack of comparison groups. How many cases of myocarditis might be seen in normal children, or those given other vaccines (including those that are not for COVID), or in teenagers infected with SARS-CoV-2?”

“As the authors note, myocarditis does happen after other vaccines. The estimated rate (62.8 cases per million) makes this a rare event,” Dr. Openshaw says.

“My view that teenagers should be considered for vaccination is not changed by this new publication,” he adds.

This study was funded by the McCance Foundation. The authors have declared no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Openshaw has served on scientific advisory boards for Janssen/J&J, Oxford Immunotech, GSK, Nestle, and Pfizer in relation to immunity to viruses (fees paid to Imperial College London).

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

Adolescents can develop mild myocarditis as a rare complication after COVID-19 vaccination, as has been reported in adults, an early case series from Boston confirms.

The adolescents who developed heart inflammation after vaccination typically had a benign course, with symptoms resolving without treatment, although one patient had persistent borderline low left ventricular (LV) function, report Audrey Dionne, MD, and colleagues at Boston Children’s Hospital.

“Despite the risks of myocarditis associated with vaccination, the benefits of vaccination likely outweigh risks in children and adolescents,” they say.

They estimate that for males 12-29 years of age COVID-19 vaccination prevents 11,000 COVID-19 cases, 560 hospitalizations, 138 intensive care unit admissions, and six deaths, compared with 39-47 expected myocarditis cases.

The case series was published online Aug. 10 in JAMA Cardiology.

Long-term risks unknown 

Dr. Dionne and colleagues reviewed the results of comprehensive cardiac imaging in 14 boys and 1 girl, 12-18 years of age (median, 15 years), who were hospitalized with myocarditis after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Symptoms started 1-6 days after vaccine administration (most after the second dose) and included chest pain in all 15 patients, fever in 10 (67%), myalgia in eight (53%), and headache in six (40%).

On admission, all patients had elevated troponin levels (median, 0.25 ng/mL; range, 0.08-3.15 ng/mL). Troponin levels peaked 0.1-2.3 days after admission.

Echocardiography revealed decreased LV ejection fraction (EF) in three patients (20%) and abnormal global longitudinal or circumferential strain in five patients (33%). No patient had a pericardial effusion.

Cardiac MRI findings were consistent with myocarditis in 13 patients (87%), including late gadolinium enhancement in 12 (80%), regional hyperintensity on T2-weighted imaging in two (13%), elevated extracellular volume fraction in three (20%), and elevated LV global native T1 in two (20%).

The patients remained in the hospital for 1-5 days (median, 2 days) and were discharged. No patient required admission to the intensive care unit.

In follow-up assessments performed 1-13 days after hospital discharge, symptoms of myocarditis had resolved in 11 patients (73%).

One patient (7%) had persistent borderline low LV systolic function on echocardiogram (LVEF, 54%).

Troponin levels remained mildly elevated in three patients (20%). One patient (7%) had nonsustained ventricular tachycardia on ambulatory monitor.

The authors say longitudinal studies of patients with myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccine “will be important to better understand long-term risks.”

In a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre, Peter Openshaw, FMedSci, Imperial College London, says: “The problem with case series of this type is the lack of comparison groups. How many cases of myocarditis might be seen in normal children, or those given other vaccines (including those that are not for COVID), or in teenagers infected with SARS-CoV-2?”

“As the authors note, myocarditis does happen after other vaccines. The estimated rate (62.8 cases per million) makes this a rare event,” Dr. Openshaw says.

“My view that teenagers should be considered for vaccination is not changed by this new publication,” he adds.

This study was funded by the McCance Foundation. The authors have declared no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Openshaw has served on scientific advisory boards for Janssen/J&J, Oxford Immunotech, GSK, Nestle, and Pfizer in relation to immunity to viruses (fees paid to Imperial College London).

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

Real-world protection from COVID-19 vaccination is better than expected in transplant recipients, reducing the risk of symptomatic infection by almost 80% in those who have had both doses compared with unvaccinated controls, a new transplant registry analysis shows.

“Persons who have received an organ transplant are considered to be at increased risk for COVID-19 and for a severe outcome because their immune systems are necessarily suppressed to ensure their transplants are successful and lasting,” lead author Saima Aslam, MD, professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, said in a statement.

Because numerous studies have demonstrated reduced antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in solid organ transplant recipients and variable effect on T-cell responses, there has been a need to study clinical effectiveness and breakthrough infections in those who are vaccinated, they explained.

“These findings offer strong evidence that getting vaccinated provides significant protection,” Dr. Aslam noted.

The investigators say that recent data from France, as well as other studies, show an increased rate of detectable antibodies following a third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in organ transplant recipients, “but based on our data it is unclear if a third dose is clinically warranted.”

The researchers stressed that almost half of the solid organ transplant recipients analyzed in the study had not been vaccinated at all, even by the beginning of 2021 when the United States was well into a third wave of COVID-19 infections.

So there is still a significant need, the authors said, to continue to improve outreach efforts to those in the transplant community and promote the benefits of being fully vaccinated.

The study was published online recently in Transplant Infectious Disease.
 

Transplant registry

The researchers analyzed clinical data from the UC San Diego transplant registry from Jan. 1 through June 2 of this year, with 2,151 solid organ transplant recipients identified. The patients had received a variety of solid organ transplants including kidney, liver, lung, and heart; the largest percentage received a donor kidney.

Among all patients, 912 were fully vaccinated and 1,239 were not (1,151 of those 1,239 received no vaccine at all and 88 had been partially vaccinated; these 1,239 served as the control group).

Fully vaccinated patients had received two shots of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 or the Moderna vaccine, or a single dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The majority, at nearly 70%, had received the Moderna vaccine. The mean age of the cohort was 57 years and the median time since patients had undergone transplantation was almost 5 years (57.5 months).

During the 6-month study interval, 65 cases of COVID-19 were documented in the group overall. Only 4 cases occurred among fully vaccinated individuals whereas 61 cases occurred among the unvaccinated, including in 2 patients who had been partially vaccinated.

Among the four cases that occurred among the fully vaccinated, two were considered mild and were treated on an outpatient basis, and the other two were moderate, requiring hospitalization and treatment with remdesivir.

There were no COVID-19–related deaths among the 4 patients who experienced breakthrough infections, whereas 2 (3.3%) of 61 of control patients died of COVID-19–related causes.

The authors noted that the incidence rate for COVID-19 was 0.065 per 1,000-person days among the fully vaccinated compared with an incidence rate of 0.34 per 1,000-person days in the control group.
 

Booster doses for especially vulnerable transplant recipients?

“These findings are encouraging for a couple of reasons,” said coauthor Kristin Mekeel, MD, chief of transplant and hepatobiliary surgery at UCSD.

“First, they demonstrate real-world clinical effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in a vulnerable population,” she noted.

“Second, the effectiveness is better than expected,” she added, “given that studies have found that only about half of solid organ transplant recipients develop detectable antibodies after vaccination.”

Although calls for patients who are immunosuppressed to receive a third booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine may not be necessary, “prioritizing at-risk subsets of transplant recipients based on immunological profiles and clinical characteristics for a third vaccine dose could be considered,” they said, adding it’s still vitally important for transplant patients to continue to mask and practice social distancing.

And it is especially important for transplant recipients to encourage household members to get vaccinated, too, especially given the current COVID-19 surge in San Diego.

The study was funded by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

Dr. Aslam reports receiving grants from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation as well as honoraria from Gilead and Merck. Study author  Susan J. Little, MD, received grant funding from Gilead Sciences. Dr. Mekeel has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Real-world protection from COVID-19 vaccination is better than expected in transplant recipients, reducing the risk of symptomatic infection by almost 80% in those who have had both doses compared with unvaccinated controls, a new transplant registry analysis shows.

“Persons who have received an organ transplant are considered to be at increased risk for COVID-19 and for a severe outcome because their immune systems are necessarily suppressed to ensure their transplants are successful and lasting,” lead author Saima Aslam, MD, professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, said in a statement.

Because numerous studies have demonstrated reduced antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in solid organ transplant recipients and variable effect on T-cell responses, there has been a need to study clinical effectiveness and breakthrough infections in those who are vaccinated, they explained.

“These findings offer strong evidence that getting vaccinated provides significant protection,” Dr. Aslam noted.

The investigators say that recent data from France, as well as other studies, show an increased rate of detectable antibodies following a third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in organ transplant recipients, “but based on our data it is unclear if a third dose is clinically warranted.”

The researchers stressed that almost half of the solid organ transplant recipients analyzed in the study had not been vaccinated at all, even by the beginning of 2021 when the United States was well into a third wave of COVID-19 infections.

So there is still a significant need, the authors said, to continue to improve outreach efforts to those in the transplant community and promote the benefits of being fully vaccinated.

The study was published online recently in Transplant Infectious Disease.
 

Transplant registry

The researchers analyzed clinical data from the UC San Diego transplant registry from Jan. 1 through June 2 of this year, with 2,151 solid organ transplant recipients identified. The patients had received a variety of solid organ transplants including kidney, liver, lung, and heart; the largest percentage received a donor kidney.

Among all patients, 912 were fully vaccinated and 1,239 were not (1,151 of those 1,239 received no vaccine at all and 88 had been partially vaccinated; these 1,239 served as the control group).

Fully vaccinated patients had received two shots of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 or the Moderna vaccine, or a single dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The majority, at nearly 70%, had received the Moderna vaccine. The mean age of the cohort was 57 years and the median time since patients had undergone transplantation was almost 5 years (57.5 months).

During the 6-month study interval, 65 cases of COVID-19 were documented in the group overall. Only 4 cases occurred among fully vaccinated individuals whereas 61 cases occurred among the unvaccinated, including in 2 patients who had been partially vaccinated.

Among the four cases that occurred among the fully vaccinated, two were considered mild and were treated on an outpatient basis, and the other two were moderate, requiring hospitalization and treatment with remdesivir.

There were no COVID-19–related deaths among the 4 patients who experienced breakthrough infections, whereas 2 (3.3%) of 61 of control patients died of COVID-19–related causes.

The authors noted that the incidence rate for COVID-19 was 0.065 per 1,000-person days among the fully vaccinated compared with an incidence rate of 0.34 per 1,000-person days in the control group.
 

Booster doses for especially vulnerable transplant recipients?

“These findings are encouraging for a couple of reasons,” said coauthor Kristin Mekeel, MD, chief of transplant and hepatobiliary surgery at UCSD.

“First, they demonstrate real-world clinical effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in a vulnerable population,” she noted.

“Second, the effectiveness is better than expected,” she added, “given that studies have found that only about half of solid organ transplant recipients develop detectable antibodies after vaccination.”

Although calls for patients who are immunosuppressed to receive a third booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine may not be necessary, “prioritizing at-risk subsets of transplant recipients based on immunological profiles and clinical characteristics for a third vaccine dose could be considered,” they said, adding it’s still vitally important for transplant patients to continue to mask and practice social distancing.

And it is especially important for transplant recipients to encourage household members to get vaccinated, too, especially given the current COVID-19 surge in San Diego.

The study was funded by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

Dr. Aslam reports receiving grants from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation as well as honoraria from Gilead and Merck. Study author  Susan J. Little, MD, received grant funding from Gilead Sciences. Dr. Mekeel has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Real-world protection from COVID-19 vaccination is better than expected in transplant recipients, reducing the risk of symptomatic infection by almost 80% in those who have had both doses compared with unvaccinated controls, a new transplant registry analysis shows.

“Persons who have received an organ transplant are considered to be at increased risk for COVID-19 and for a severe outcome because their immune systems are necessarily suppressed to ensure their transplants are successful and lasting,” lead author Saima Aslam, MD, professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, said in a statement.

Because numerous studies have demonstrated reduced antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in solid organ transplant recipients and variable effect on T-cell responses, there has been a need to study clinical effectiveness and breakthrough infections in those who are vaccinated, they explained.

“These findings offer strong evidence that getting vaccinated provides significant protection,” Dr. Aslam noted.

The investigators say that recent data from France, as well as other studies, show an increased rate of detectable antibodies following a third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in organ transplant recipients, “but based on our data it is unclear if a third dose is clinically warranted.”

The researchers stressed that almost half of the solid organ transplant recipients analyzed in the study had not been vaccinated at all, even by the beginning of 2021 when the United States was well into a third wave of COVID-19 infections.

So there is still a significant need, the authors said, to continue to improve outreach efforts to those in the transplant community and promote the benefits of being fully vaccinated.

The study was published online recently in Transplant Infectious Disease.
 

Transplant registry

The researchers analyzed clinical data from the UC San Diego transplant registry from Jan. 1 through June 2 of this year, with 2,151 solid organ transplant recipients identified. The patients had received a variety of solid organ transplants including kidney, liver, lung, and heart; the largest percentage received a donor kidney.

Among all patients, 912 were fully vaccinated and 1,239 were not (1,151 of those 1,239 received no vaccine at all and 88 had been partially vaccinated; these 1,239 served as the control group).

Fully vaccinated patients had received two shots of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 or the Moderna vaccine, or a single dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The majority, at nearly 70%, had received the Moderna vaccine. The mean age of the cohort was 57 years and the median time since patients had undergone transplantation was almost 5 years (57.5 months).

During the 6-month study interval, 65 cases of COVID-19 were documented in the group overall. Only 4 cases occurred among fully vaccinated individuals whereas 61 cases occurred among the unvaccinated, including in 2 patients who had been partially vaccinated.

Among the four cases that occurred among the fully vaccinated, two were considered mild and were treated on an outpatient basis, and the other two were moderate, requiring hospitalization and treatment with remdesivir.

There were no COVID-19–related deaths among the 4 patients who experienced breakthrough infections, whereas 2 (3.3%) of 61 of control patients died of COVID-19–related causes.

The authors noted that the incidence rate for COVID-19 was 0.065 per 1,000-person days among the fully vaccinated compared with an incidence rate of 0.34 per 1,000-person days in the control group.
 

Booster doses for especially vulnerable transplant recipients?

“These findings are encouraging for a couple of reasons,” said coauthor Kristin Mekeel, MD, chief of transplant and hepatobiliary surgery at UCSD.

“First, they demonstrate real-world clinical effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in a vulnerable population,” she noted.

“Second, the effectiveness is better than expected,” she added, “given that studies have found that only about half of solid organ transplant recipients develop detectable antibodies after vaccination.”

Although calls for patients who are immunosuppressed to receive a third booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine may not be necessary, “prioritizing at-risk subsets of transplant recipients based on immunological profiles and clinical characteristics for a third vaccine dose could be considered,” they said, adding it’s still vitally important for transplant patients to continue to mask and practice social distancing.

And it is especially important for transplant recipients to encourage household members to get vaccinated, too, especially given the current COVID-19 surge in San Diego.

The study was funded by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

Dr. Aslam reports receiving grants from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation as well as honoraria from Gilead and Merck. Study author  Susan J. Little, MD, received grant funding from Gilead Sciences. Dr. Mekeel has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The streak of positive phase 3 trial results for the novel “twincretin” tirzepatide when treating patients with type 2 diabetes continued in a report in The Lancet on results from the SURPASS-3 trial, which compared weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide against daily treatment with insulin degludec in patients inadequately controlled on metformin alone or on metformin plus a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

Despite positive results in SURPASS-3, as well as in four other pivotal trials that are in the process of releasing full results, the safety and efficacy picture of tirzepatide still includes several as-yet unresolved issues, including the true incidence rate of gastrointestinal adverse effects, the role these effects play in weight loss during tirzepatide treatment, and the drug’s effect on important endpoints beyond weight loss and glycemic control such as cardiovascular outcomes and renal function, said two Australian experts who coauthored a comment on the new SURPASS-3 report.

Tirzepatide is called a “twincretin” because the molecule acts as both a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, the drug class that includes semaglutide (Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy) and liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza), and also as a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Trial results reported to date suggest that tirzepatide “might be more potent than available GLP-1 receptor agonists,” based on evidence of superior glycemic control it produced relative to semaglutide in results from the SURPASS-2 phase 3 trial reported in August 2021, wrote Christopher K. Rayner, MD, and Michael Horowitz, MD, in their comment.

Uncertainty about gastrointestinal adverse effects

“Limitations of SURPASS-3 include the relatively small number of Asian and Black” patients enrolled, “and an open-label design that carries a risk for bias” when tallying the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects, which the trial recorded based on self-reports by enrolled patients.

A better design would use validated questionnaires geared to discerning gastrointestinal symptoms like the ones used in trials involving patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders, wrote Dr. Rayner, a professor of gastroenterology at the University of Adelaide, and Dr. Horowitz, a professor at the same institution and also director of the endocrine and metabolic unit at Royal Adelaide Hospital.

This approach would “allow for more robust evaluation of whether gastrointestinal symptoms are associated with increased weight loss,” they proposed, a possible partial explanation for the weight loss of some patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Additional outstanding questions about tirzepatide include the contribution resulting from the drug’s stimulation of the GIP receptor, as well as the role of GLP-1 receptor stimulation by tirzepatide in slowing gastric emptying. And they also cite the still-unreported effects of tirzepatide on cardiovascular events, fatty liver disease, and kidney function, and its longer-term effects with chronic treatment beyond a year.

All five of the recently completed SURPASS trials ran for 40-52 weeks.

Tirzepatide surpasses insulin degludec’s glycemic control

SURPASS-3 enrolled 1,444 patients with type 2 diabetes at 122 sites in 13 countries during 2019. The study’s primary endpoint was mean change in hemoglobin A1c from baseline after 52 weeks on treatment. The results showed that the A1c reduction with tirzepatide treatment significantly exceeded the drop produced by insulin degludec by 0.59%, 0.86%, and 1.04%, respectively, across the three tirzepatide dosages tested in a dose-response fashion, according to the recent publication.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects were gastrointestinal, which decreased with continued treatment, and tirzepatide produced fewer episodes of hypoglycemia, compared with insulin degludec (Tresiba).

In addition to full reports now out from SURPASS-2 and SURPASS-3, researchers also recently published full primary results from SURPASS-1. Results from SURPASS-5 appeared in a poster presented at the American Diabetes Association scientific sessions in June 2021 but have not yet been published in a full report, and the primary results from SURPASS-4are expected in a report during the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in September 2021.

SURPASS-3 and the other trials of tirzepatide were funded by Lilly, the company developing the drug. Dr. Rayner has been an adviser to Allergen and Glyscend, and has received research funding from Sanofi and Novartis. Dr. Horowitz has received symposia fees from Lilly, as well as from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The streak of positive phase 3 trial results for the novel “twincretin” tirzepatide when treating patients with type 2 diabetes continued in a report in The Lancet on results from the SURPASS-3 trial, which compared weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide against daily treatment with insulin degludec in patients inadequately controlled on metformin alone or on metformin plus a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

Despite positive results in SURPASS-3, as well as in four other pivotal trials that are in the process of releasing full results, the safety and efficacy picture of tirzepatide still includes several as-yet unresolved issues, including the true incidence rate of gastrointestinal adverse effects, the role these effects play in weight loss during tirzepatide treatment, and the drug’s effect on important endpoints beyond weight loss and glycemic control such as cardiovascular outcomes and renal function, said two Australian experts who coauthored a comment on the new SURPASS-3 report.

Tirzepatide is called a “twincretin” because the molecule acts as both a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, the drug class that includes semaglutide (Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy) and liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza), and also as a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Trial results reported to date suggest that tirzepatide “might be more potent than available GLP-1 receptor agonists,” based on evidence of superior glycemic control it produced relative to semaglutide in results from the SURPASS-2 phase 3 trial reported in August 2021, wrote Christopher K. Rayner, MD, and Michael Horowitz, MD, in their comment.

Uncertainty about gastrointestinal adverse effects

“Limitations of SURPASS-3 include the relatively small number of Asian and Black” patients enrolled, “and an open-label design that carries a risk for bias” when tallying the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects, which the trial recorded based on self-reports by enrolled patients.

A better design would use validated questionnaires geared to discerning gastrointestinal symptoms like the ones used in trials involving patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders, wrote Dr. Rayner, a professor of gastroenterology at the University of Adelaide, and Dr. Horowitz, a professor at the same institution and also director of the endocrine and metabolic unit at Royal Adelaide Hospital.

This approach would “allow for more robust evaluation of whether gastrointestinal symptoms are associated with increased weight loss,” they proposed, a possible partial explanation for the weight loss of some patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Additional outstanding questions about tirzepatide include the contribution resulting from the drug’s stimulation of the GIP receptor, as well as the role of GLP-1 receptor stimulation by tirzepatide in slowing gastric emptying. And they also cite the still-unreported effects of tirzepatide on cardiovascular events, fatty liver disease, and kidney function, and its longer-term effects with chronic treatment beyond a year.

All five of the recently completed SURPASS trials ran for 40-52 weeks.

Tirzepatide surpasses insulin degludec’s glycemic control

SURPASS-3 enrolled 1,444 patients with type 2 diabetes at 122 sites in 13 countries during 2019. The study’s primary endpoint was mean change in hemoglobin A1c from baseline after 52 weeks on treatment. The results showed that the A1c reduction with tirzepatide treatment significantly exceeded the drop produced by insulin degludec by 0.59%, 0.86%, and 1.04%, respectively, across the three tirzepatide dosages tested in a dose-response fashion, according to the recent publication.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects were gastrointestinal, which decreased with continued treatment, and tirzepatide produced fewer episodes of hypoglycemia, compared with insulin degludec (Tresiba).

In addition to full reports now out from SURPASS-2 and SURPASS-3, researchers also recently published full primary results from SURPASS-1. Results from SURPASS-5 appeared in a poster presented at the American Diabetes Association scientific sessions in June 2021 but have not yet been published in a full report, and the primary results from SURPASS-4are expected in a report during the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in September 2021.

SURPASS-3 and the other trials of tirzepatide were funded by Lilly, the company developing the drug. Dr. Rayner has been an adviser to Allergen and Glyscend, and has received research funding from Sanofi and Novartis. Dr. Horowitz has received symposia fees from Lilly, as well as from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The streak of positive phase 3 trial results for the novel “twincretin” tirzepatide when treating patients with type 2 diabetes continued in a report in The Lancet on results from the SURPASS-3 trial, which compared weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide against daily treatment with insulin degludec in patients inadequately controlled on metformin alone or on metformin plus a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

Despite positive results in SURPASS-3, as well as in four other pivotal trials that are in the process of releasing full results, the safety and efficacy picture of tirzepatide still includes several as-yet unresolved issues, including the true incidence rate of gastrointestinal adverse effects, the role these effects play in weight loss during tirzepatide treatment, and the drug’s effect on important endpoints beyond weight loss and glycemic control such as cardiovascular outcomes and renal function, said two Australian experts who coauthored a comment on the new SURPASS-3 report.

Tirzepatide is called a “twincretin” because the molecule acts as both a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, the drug class that includes semaglutide (Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy) and liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza), and also as a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Trial results reported to date suggest that tirzepatide “might be more potent than available GLP-1 receptor agonists,” based on evidence of superior glycemic control it produced relative to semaglutide in results from the SURPASS-2 phase 3 trial reported in August 2021, wrote Christopher K. Rayner, MD, and Michael Horowitz, MD, in their comment.

Uncertainty about gastrointestinal adverse effects

“Limitations of SURPASS-3 include the relatively small number of Asian and Black” patients enrolled, “and an open-label design that carries a risk for bias” when tallying the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects, which the trial recorded based on self-reports by enrolled patients.

A better design would use validated questionnaires geared to discerning gastrointestinal symptoms like the ones used in trials involving patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders, wrote Dr. Rayner, a professor of gastroenterology at the University of Adelaide, and Dr. Horowitz, a professor at the same institution and also director of the endocrine and metabolic unit at Royal Adelaide Hospital.

This approach would “allow for more robust evaluation of whether gastrointestinal symptoms are associated with increased weight loss,” they proposed, a possible partial explanation for the weight loss of some patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Additional outstanding questions about tirzepatide include the contribution resulting from the drug’s stimulation of the GIP receptor, as well as the role of GLP-1 receptor stimulation by tirzepatide in slowing gastric emptying. And they also cite the still-unreported effects of tirzepatide on cardiovascular events, fatty liver disease, and kidney function, and its longer-term effects with chronic treatment beyond a year.

All five of the recently completed SURPASS trials ran for 40-52 weeks.

Tirzepatide surpasses insulin degludec’s glycemic control

SURPASS-3 enrolled 1,444 patients with type 2 diabetes at 122 sites in 13 countries during 2019. The study’s primary endpoint was mean change in hemoglobin A1c from baseline after 52 weeks on treatment. The results showed that the A1c reduction with tirzepatide treatment significantly exceeded the drop produced by insulin degludec by 0.59%, 0.86%, and 1.04%, respectively, across the three tirzepatide dosages tested in a dose-response fashion, according to the recent publication.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects were gastrointestinal, which decreased with continued treatment, and tirzepatide produced fewer episodes of hypoglycemia, compared with insulin degludec (Tresiba).

In addition to full reports now out from SURPASS-2 and SURPASS-3, researchers also recently published full primary results from SURPASS-1. Results from SURPASS-5 appeared in a poster presented at the American Diabetes Association scientific sessions in June 2021 but have not yet been published in a full report, and the primary results from SURPASS-4are expected in a report during the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in September 2021.

SURPASS-3 and the other trials of tirzepatide were funded by Lilly, the company developing the drug. Dr. Rayner has been an adviser to Allergen and Glyscend, and has received research funding from Sanofi and Novartis. Dr. Horowitz has received symposia fees from Lilly, as well as from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Short-term, 7-day prophylactic regimens are superior to longer-term strategies for preventing seizures following spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), new research shows.

Investigators created a model that simulated common clinical scenarios to compare four antiseizure drug strategies – conservative, moderate, aggressive, and risk-guided. They used the 2HELPS2B score as a risk stratification tool to guide clinical decisions.

The investigators found that the short-term, early-seizure prophylaxis strategies “dominated” long-term therapy under most clinical scenarios, underscoring the importance of early discontinuation of antiseizure drug therapy.

“The main message here was that strategies that involved long-term antiseizure drug prescription (moderate and aggressive) fail to provide better outcomes in most clinical scenarios, when compared with strategies using short-term prophylaxis (conservative and risk-guided),” senior investigator Lidia M.V.R. Moura, MD, MPH, assistant professor of neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

The study was published online July 26 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Common complication

“Acute asymptomatic seizures [early seizures ≤7 days after stroke] are a common complication of sICH,” the authors noted.

Potential safety concerns have prompted recommendations against the use of antiseizure medications for primary prophylaxis. However, approximately 40% of U.S. patients with sICH do receive prophylactic levetiracetam before seizure development. For these patients, the duration of prophylaxis varies widely.

“Because seizure risk is a key determinant of which patient groups might benefit most from different prophylaxis strategies, validated tools for predicting early ... and late ... seizure risks could aid physicians in treatment decisions. However, no clinical trials or prospective studies have evaluated the net benefit of various strategies after sICH,” the investigators noted.

“Our patients who were survivors of an intracerebral hemorrhage motivated us to conduct the study,” said Dr. Moura, who is also director of the MGH NeuroValue Laboratory. “Some would come to the clinic with a long list of medications; some of them were taking antiseizure drugs for many years, but they never had a documented seizure.” These patients did not know why they had been taking an antiseizure drug for so long.

“In these conversations, we noted so much variability in indications and variability in patient access to specialty care to make treatment decisions. We noted that the evidence behind our current guidelines on seizure management was limited,” she added.

Dr. Moura and colleagues were “committed to improve outcome for people with neurological conditions by leveraging research methods that can help guide providers and systems, especially when data from clinical trials is lacking,” so they “decided to compare different strategies head to head using available data and generate evidence that could be used in situations with many trade-offs in risks and benefits.”

To investigate, the researchers used a simulation model and decision analysis to compare four treatment strategies on the basis of type of therapy (primary vs. secondary prophylaxis), timing of event (early vs. late seizures), and duration of therapy (1-week [short-term] versus indefinite [long-term] therapy).

These four strategies were as follows:

• Conservative: short-term (7-day) secondary early-seizure prophylaxis with long-term therapy after late seizure
• Moderate: long-term secondary early-seizure prophylaxis or late-seizure therapy
• Aggressive: long-term primary prophylaxis
• Risk-guided: short-term secondary early-seizure prophylaxis among low-risk patients (2HELPS2b score, 0), short-term primary prophylaxis among patients at higher risk (2HELPS2B score ≥1), and long-term secondary therapy for late seizure

The decision tree’s outcome measure was the number of expected quality-adjusted life-years.

Primary prophylaxis was defined as “treatment initiated immediately on hospital admission.” Secondary prophylaxis was defined as “treatment started after a seizure” and was subdivided into secondary early-seizure prophylaxis, defined as treatment started after a seizure occurring in the first 7 days after the stroke, or secondary late-seizure therapy, defined as treatment started or restarted after a seizure occurring after the first poststroke week.
 

Incorporate early-risk stratification tool

The researchers created four common clinical scenarios and then applied the decision-making model to each. They found that the preferred strategies differed, depending on the particular scenario.

‘Potential fallacies’

Commenting on the study, José Biller, MD, professor and chairman, department of neurology, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., called it a “well-written and intriguing contribution [to the field], with potential fallacies.”

The bottom line, he said, is that only a randomized, long-term, prospective, multicenter, high-quality study with larger cohorts can prove or disprove the investigators’ assumption.

The authors acknowledged that a limitation of the study was the use of published literature to obtain data to estimate model parameters and that they did not account for other possible factors that might modify some parameter estimates.

Nevertheless, Dr. Moura said the findings have important practical implications because they “highlight the importance of discontinuing antiseizure medications that were started during a hospitalization for sICH in patients that only had an early seizure.”

It is “of great importance for all providers to reassess the indication of antiseizure medications. Those drugs are not free of risks and can impact the patient’s health and quality of life,” she added.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Moura reported receiving funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the NIH, and the Epilepsy Foundation of America (Epilepsy Learning Healthcare System) as the director of the data coordinating center. Dr. Biller is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases and a section editor of UpToDate.

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

Short-term, 7-day prophylactic regimens are superior to longer-term strategies for preventing seizures following spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), new research shows.

Investigators created a model that simulated common clinical scenarios to compare four antiseizure drug strategies – conservative, moderate, aggressive, and risk-guided. They used the 2HELPS2B score as a risk stratification tool to guide clinical decisions.

The investigators found that the short-term, early-seizure prophylaxis strategies “dominated” long-term therapy under most clinical scenarios, underscoring the importance of early discontinuation of antiseizure drug therapy.

“The main message here was that strategies that involved long-term antiseizure drug prescription (moderate and aggressive) fail to provide better outcomes in most clinical scenarios, when compared with strategies using short-term prophylaxis (conservative and risk-guided),” senior investigator Lidia M.V.R. Moura, MD, MPH, assistant professor of neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

The study was published online July 26 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Common complication

“Acute asymptomatic seizures [early seizures ≤7 days after stroke] are a common complication of sICH,” the authors noted.

Potential safety concerns have prompted recommendations against the use of antiseizure medications for primary prophylaxis. However, approximately 40% of U.S. patients with sICH do receive prophylactic levetiracetam before seizure development. For these patients, the duration of prophylaxis varies widely.

“Because seizure risk is a key determinant of which patient groups might benefit most from different prophylaxis strategies, validated tools for predicting early ... and late ... seizure risks could aid physicians in treatment decisions. However, no clinical trials or prospective studies have evaluated the net benefit of various strategies after sICH,” the investigators noted.

“Our patients who were survivors of an intracerebral hemorrhage motivated us to conduct the study,” said Dr. Moura, who is also director of the MGH NeuroValue Laboratory. “Some would come to the clinic with a long list of medications; some of them were taking antiseizure drugs for many years, but they never had a documented seizure.” These patients did not know why they had been taking an antiseizure drug for so long.

“In these conversations, we noted so much variability in indications and variability in patient access to specialty care to make treatment decisions. We noted that the evidence behind our current guidelines on seizure management was limited,” she added.

Dr. Moura and colleagues were “committed to improve outcome for people with neurological conditions by leveraging research methods that can help guide providers and systems, especially when data from clinical trials is lacking,” so they “decided to compare different strategies head to head using available data and generate evidence that could be used in situations with many trade-offs in risks and benefits.”

To investigate, the researchers used a simulation model and decision analysis to compare four treatment strategies on the basis of type of therapy (primary vs. secondary prophylaxis), timing of event (early vs. late seizures), and duration of therapy (1-week [short-term] versus indefinite [long-term] therapy).

These four strategies were as follows:

• Conservative: short-term (7-day) secondary early-seizure prophylaxis with long-term therapy after late seizure
• Moderate: long-term secondary early-seizure prophylaxis or late-seizure therapy
• Aggressive: long-term primary prophylaxis
• Risk-guided: short-term secondary early-seizure prophylaxis among low-risk patients (2HELPS2b score, 0), short-term primary prophylaxis among patients at higher risk (2HELPS2B score ≥1), and long-term secondary therapy for late seizure

The decision tree’s outcome measure was the number of expected quality-adjusted life-years.

Primary prophylaxis was defined as “treatment initiated immediately on hospital admission.” Secondary prophylaxis was defined as “treatment started after a seizure” and was subdivided into secondary early-seizure prophylaxis, defined as treatment started after a seizure occurring in the first 7 days after the stroke, or secondary late-seizure therapy, defined as treatment started or restarted after a seizure occurring after the first poststroke week.
 

Incorporate early-risk stratification tool

The researchers created four common clinical scenarios and then applied the decision-making model to each. They found that the preferred strategies differed, depending on the particular scenario.

‘Potential fallacies’

Commenting on the study, José Biller, MD, professor and chairman, department of neurology, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., called it a “well-written and intriguing contribution [to the field], with potential fallacies.”

The bottom line, he said, is that only a randomized, long-term, prospective, multicenter, high-quality study with larger cohorts can prove or disprove the investigators’ assumption.

The authors acknowledged that a limitation of the study was the use of published literature to obtain data to estimate model parameters and that they did not account for other possible factors that might modify some parameter estimates.

Nevertheless, Dr. Moura said the findings have important practical implications because they “highlight the importance of discontinuing antiseizure medications that were started during a hospitalization for sICH in patients that only had an early seizure.”

It is “of great importance for all providers to reassess the indication of antiseizure medications. Those drugs are not free of risks and can impact the patient’s health and quality of life,” she added.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Moura reported receiving funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the NIH, and the Epilepsy Foundation of America (Epilepsy Learning Healthcare System) as the director of the data coordinating center. Dr. Biller is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases and a section editor of UpToDate.

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

Short-term, 7-day prophylactic regimens are superior to longer-term strategies for preventing seizures following spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), new research shows.

Investigators created a model that simulated common clinical scenarios to compare four antiseizure drug strategies – conservative, moderate, aggressive, and risk-guided. They used the 2HELPS2B score as a risk stratification tool to guide clinical decisions.

The investigators found that the short-term, early-seizure prophylaxis strategies “dominated” long-term therapy under most clinical scenarios, underscoring the importance of early discontinuation of antiseizure drug therapy.

“The main message here was that strategies that involved long-term antiseizure drug prescription (moderate and aggressive) fail to provide better outcomes in most clinical scenarios, when compared with strategies using short-term prophylaxis (conservative and risk-guided),” senior investigator Lidia M.V.R. Moura, MD, MPH, assistant professor of neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

The study was published online July 26 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Common complication

“Acute asymptomatic seizures [early seizures ≤7 days after stroke] are a common complication of sICH,” the authors noted.

Potential safety concerns have prompted recommendations against the use of antiseizure medications for primary prophylaxis. However, approximately 40% of U.S. patients with sICH do receive prophylactic levetiracetam before seizure development. For these patients, the duration of prophylaxis varies widely.

“Because seizure risk is a key determinant of which patient groups might benefit most from different prophylaxis strategies, validated tools for predicting early ... and late ... seizure risks could aid physicians in treatment decisions. However, no clinical trials or prospective studies have evaluated the net benefit of various strategies after sICH,” the investigators noted.

“Our patients who were survivors of an intracerebral hemorrhage motivated us to conduct the study,” said Dr. Moura, who is also director of the MGH NeuroValue Laboratory. “Some would come to the clinic with a long list of medications; some of them were taking antiseizure drugs for many years, but they never had a documented seizure.” These patients did not know why they had been taking an antiseizure drug for so long.

“In these conversations, we noted so much variability in indications and variability in patient access to specialty care to make treatment decisions. We noted that the evidence behind our current guidelines on seizure management was limited,” she added.

Dr. Moura and colleagues were “committed to improve outcome for people with neurological conditions by leveraging research methods that can help guide providers and systems, especially when data from clinical trials is lacking,” so they “decided to compare different strategies head to head using available data and generate evidence that could be used in situations with many trade-offs in risks and benefits.”

To investigate, the researchers used a simulation model and decision analysis to compare four treatment strategies on the basis of type of therapy (primary vs. secondary prophylaxis), timing of event (early vs. late seizures), and duration of therapy (1-week [short-term] versus indefinite [long-term] therapy).

These four strategies were as follows:

• Conservative: short-term (7-day) secondary early-seizure prophylaxis with long-term therapy after late seizure
• Moderate: long-term secondary early-seizure prophylaxis or late-seizure therapy
• Aggressive: long-term primary prophylaxis
• Risk-guided: short-term secondary early-seizure prophylaxis among low-risk patients (2HELPS2b score, 0), short-term primary prophylaxis among patients at higher risk (2HELPS2B score ≥1), and long-term secondary therapy for late seizure

The decision tree’s outcome measure was the number of expected quality-adjusted life-years.

Primary prophylaxis was defined as “treatment initiated immediately on hospital admission.” Secondary prophylaxis was defined as “treatment started after a seizure” and was subdivided into secondary early-seizure prophylaxis, defined as treatment started after a seizure occurring in the first 7 days after the stroke, or secondary late-seizure therapy, defined as treatment started or restarted after a seizure occurring after the first poststroke week.
 

Incorporate early-risk stratification tool

The researchers created four common clinical scenarios and then applied the decision-making model to each. They found that the preferred strategies differed, depending on the particular scenario.

‘Potential fallacies’

Commenting on the study, José Biller, MD, professor and chairman, department of neurology, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., called it a “well-written and intriguing contribution [to the field], with potential fallacies.”

The bottom line, he said, is that only a randomized, long-term, prospective, multicenter, high-quality study with larger cohorts can prove or disprove the investigators’ assumption.

The authors acknowledged that a limitation of the study was the use of published literature to obtain data to estimate model parameters and that they did not account for other possible factors that might modify some parameter estimates.

Nevertheless, Dr. Moura said the findings have important practical implications because they “highlight the importance of discontinuing antiseizure medications that were started during a hospitalization for sICH in patients that only had an early seizure.”

It is “of great importance for all providers to reassess the indication of antiseizure medications. Those drugs are not free of risks and can impact the patient’s health and quality of life,” she added.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Moura reported receiving funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the NIH, and the Epilepsy Foundation of America (Epilepsy Learning Healthcare System) as the director of the data coordinating center. Dr. Biller is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases and a section editor of UpToDate.

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

In April, a group of more than a dozen cardiologists at St. Louis Heart and Vascular (SLHV) lost their privileges at SSM Health, an eight-hospital system in St. Louis.

The physicians did not lose their privileges because of a clinical failure. Rather, it was because of SSM’s decision to enter into an exclusive contract with another set of cardiologists.

“The current situation is economically untenable for us,” said Harvey Serota, MD, founder and medical director of SLHV. “This is an existential threat to the practice.”

Because of the exclusive contract, many of SLHV’s patients are now being redirected to SSM-contracted cardiologists. Volume for the group’s new $15 million catheterization lab has plummeted. SLHV is suing SSM to restore its privileges, claiming lack of due process, restraint of trade, interference with its business, and breach of contract.

Losing privileges because a hospital seeks to increase their profits is becoming all too familiar for many independent specialists in fields such as cardiology, orthopedic surgery, and urology, as the hospitals that hosted them become their competitors and forge exclusive contracts with opposing groups.

What can these doctors do if they’re shut out? File a lawsuit, as SLHV has done? Demand a hearing before the medical staff and try to resolve the problem? Or simply give up their privileges and move on?

Unfortunately, none of these approaches offer a quick or certain solution, and each comes with risks.

Generally, courts have upheld hospitals’ use of exclusive contracts, which is also known as economic credentialing, says Barry F. Rosen, a health law attorney at Gordon Feinblatt, in Baltimore.

“Courts have long recognized exclusive contracts, and challenges by excluded doctors usually fail,” he says.

However, Mr. Rosen can cite several examples in which excluded doctors launched legal challenges that prevailed, owing to nuances in the law. The legal field in this area is tangled, and it varies by state.
 

Can hospitals make exclusive deals?

Hospitals have long used exclusive contracts for hospital-based specialists – anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists, emergency physicians, and hospitalists. They say that restricting patients to one group of anesthesiologists or radiologists enhances operational efficiency and that these contracts do not disrupt patients, because patients have no ties to hospital-based physicians. Such contracts are often more profitable for the hospital because of the negotiated rates.

Exclusive contracts in other specialties, however, are less accepted because they involve markedly different strategies and have different effects. In such cases, the hospital is no longer simply enhancing operational efficiency but is competing with physicians on staff, and the arrangement can disrupt the care of patients of the excluded doctors.

In the courts, these concerns might form the basis of an antitrust action or a claim of tortious interference with physicians’ ability to provide care for their patients, but neither claim is easy to win, Mr. Rosen says.

In antitrust cases, “the issue is not whether the excluded doctor was injured but whether the action harmed competition,” Mr. Rosen says. “Will the exclusion lead to higher prices?”

In the case of interference with patient care, “you will always find interference by one entity in the affairs of another,” he says, “but tortious interference applies to situations where something nefarious is going on, such as the other side was out to destroy your business and create a monopoly.”

Hospitals may try to restrict the privileges of physicians who invest in competing facilities such as cath labs and ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), says Gregory Mertz, managing director of Physician Strategies Group, a consultancy in Virginia Beach.

“However, any revenge that a hospital might take against the doctors who started an ASC would usually not be publicly admitted,” Mr. Mertz says. “Revenge would be exacted in subtle ways.”

In the St. Louis situation, SSM did not cite SLHV’s cath lab as a reason for its exclusive contract. SSM stated in court documents that the decision was based on the recommendations of an expert panel. Furthermore, SSM said the board created the panel in response to a state report that cited the limited experience of some SLHV cardiologists in treating a rare type of heart attack.

Mr. Mertz says the board’s interest in the state’s concern and then its forming the special panel lent a great deal of legitimacy to SSM’s decision to start an exclusive contract. “SSM can show evidence that the board’s decision was based on a clinical matter and not on trying to squeeze out the cardiologists,” he says.

In SLHV’s defense, Dr. Serota says the practice offered to stop taking calls for the type of heart attack that was cited, but the hospital did not respond to its offer. He says SSM should have consulted the hospital’s medical staff to address the state’s concern and to create the exclusive contract, because these decisions involved clinical issues that the medical staff understands better than the board.

The law, however, does not require a hospital board to consult with its medical staff, says Alice G. Gosfield, a health care attorney in Philadelphia. “The board has ultimate legal control of everything in the hospital,” she says. However, the board often delegates certain functions to the medical staff in the hospital bylaws, and depending on the wording of the bylaws, it is still possible that the board violated the bylaws, Ms. Gosfield adds.
 

Can excluded physicians get peer review?

Can the hospital medical staff help restore the privileges of excluded physicians? Don’t these physicians have the right to peer review – a hearing before the medical staff?

Indeed, the Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, states that the hospital must have “mechanisms, including a fair hearing and appeal process, for addressing adverse decisions for existing medical staff members and other individuals holding clinical privileges for renewal, revocation, or revision of clinical privileges.”

However, excluded physicians may not have a right to a hearing if they have not been fully stripped of privileges. SSM discontinued adult cardiology privileges for SLHV doctors but retained some doctors’ internal medicine privileges. Dr. Serota says internal medicine privileges are useless to cardiologists, but because the doctors’ privileges had not been fully removed, they cannot ask for a hearing.

More fundamentally, exclusive contracts are not a good fit for peer review. Mr. Rosen says the hearings were designed to review the physicians’ clinical competence or behavior, but excluded physicians do not have these problems. About all the hearing could focus on is the hospital’s policy, which the board would not want to allow. To avoid this, “the hospital might rule out a hearing as contrary to the intent of the bylaws,” Mr. Rosen says.

Furthermore, even if peer review goes forward, “what the medical staff decides is only advisory, and the hospital board makes the final decision,” Mr. Rosen says. He notes that the doctor could challenge the decision in court, but the hospital might still prevail.
 

Excluded physicians sometimes prevail

Although it is rare for excluded physicians to win a lawsuit against their hospital, it does happen, says Michael R. Callahan, health lawyer at Katten Muchin Rosenman, in Chicago.

Mr. Callahan cites a 2010 decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court that stopped the state’s largest health system from denying physicians’ privileges. Among other things, the hospital was found to have tortiously interfered with the physicians’ contracts with patients.

In a 2007 decision, a West Virginia court ruled that hospitals that have a mission to serve the public cannot exclude physicians for nonquality issues. In addition, some states, such as Texas, limit the economic factors that can be considered when credentialing decisions are made. Other states, such as Ohio, give hospitals a great deal of leeway to alter credentialing.

Dr. Serota is optimistic about his Missouri lawsuit. Although the judge in the case did not immediately grant SLHV’s request for restoration of privileges while the case proceeds, she did grant expedited discovery – allowing SLHV to obtain documents from SSM that could strengthen the doctors’ case – and she agreed to a hearing on SLHV’s request for a temporary restoration of privileges.

Ms. Gosfield says Dr. Serota’s optimism seems justified, but she adds that such cases cost a lot of money and that they may still not be winnable.

Often plaintiffs can settle lawsuits before they go to trial, but Mr. Callahan says hospitals are loath to restore privileges in a settlement because they don’t want to undermine an exclusivity deal. “The exclusive group expects a certain volume, which can’t be reached if the competing doctors are allowed back in,” he says.
 

Many physicians don’t challenge the exclusion

Quite often, excluded doctors decide not to challenge the decision. For example, Dr. Serota says groups of orthopedic surgeons and urologists have decided not to challenge similar decisions by SSM. “They wanted to move on,” he says.

Mr. Callahan says many excluded doctors also don’t even ask for a hearing. “They expect that the hospital’s decision will be upheld,” he says.

This was the case for Devendra K. Amin, MD, an independent cardiologist in Easton, Pa. Dr. Amin has not had any hospital privileges since July 2020. Even though he is board certified in interventional cardiology, which involves catheterization, Dr. Amin says he cannot perform these procedures because they can only be performed in a hospital in the area.

In the 1990s, Dr. Amin says, he had invasive cardiology privileges at five hospitals, but then those hospitals consolidated, and the remaining ones started constricting his privileges. First he could no longer work in the emergency department, then he could no longer read echocardiograms and interpret stress test results, because that work was assigned exclusively to employed doctors, he says.

Then the one remaining hospital announced that privileges would only be available to physicians by invitation, and he was not invited. Dr. Amin says he could have regained general cardiology privileges if he had accepted employment at the hospital, but he did not want to do this. A recruiter and the head of the cardiology section at the hospital even took him out to dinner 2 years ago to discuss employment, but there was a stipulation that the hospital would not agree to.

“I wanted to get back my interventional privileges back,” Dr. Amin says, “but they told me that would not be possible because they had an exclusive contract with a group.”

Dr. Amin says that now, he can only work as a general cardiologist with reduced volume. He says primary care physicians in the local hospital systems only refer to cardiologists within their systems. “When these patients do come to me, it is only because they specifically requested to see me,” Dr. Amin says.

He does not want to challenge the decisions regarding privileging. “Look, I am 68 years old,” Dr. Amin says. “I’m not retiring yet, but I don’t want to get into a battle with a hospital that has very deep pockets. I’m not a confrontational person to begin with, and I don’t want to spend the next 10 years of my life in litigation.”
 

Diverging expectations

The law on exclusive contracts does not provide easy answers for excluded doctors, and often it defies physicians’ conception of their own role in the hospital.

Many physicians expect the hospital to be a haven where they can do their work without being cut out by a competitor. This view is reinforced by organizations such as the American Medical Association.

The AMA Council on Medical Service states that privileges “can only be abridged upon recommendation of the medical staff and only for reason related to professional competence, adherence to standards of care, and other parameters agreed to by the medical staff.”

But the courts don’t tend to agree with that position. “Hospitals have a fiduciary duty to protect their own financial interests,” Mr. Callahan says. “This may involve anything that furthers the hospital’s mission to provide high-quality health care services to its patient community.”

At the same time, however, there are plenty of instances in which courts have ruled that exclusive contracts had gone too far. But usually it takes a lawyer experienced in these cases to know what those exceptions are.

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

In April, a group of more than a dozen cardiologists at St. Louis Heart and Vascular (SLHV) lost their privileges at SSM Health, an eight-hospital system in St. Louis.

The physicians did not lose their privileges because of a clinical failure. Rather, it was because of SSM’s decision to enter into an exclusive contract with another set of cardiologists.

“The current situation is economically untenable for us,” said Harvey Serota, MD, founder and medical director of SLHV. “This is an existential threat to the practice.”

Because of the exclusive contract, many of SLHV’s patients are now being redirected to SSM-contracted cardiologists. Volume for the group’s new $15 million catheterization lab has plummeted. SLHV is suing SSM to restore its privileges, claiming lack of due process, restraint of trade, interference with its business, and breach of contract.

Losing privileges because a hospital seeks to increase their profits is becoming all too familiar for many independent specialists in fields such as cardiology, orthopedic surgery, and urology, as the hospitals that hosted them become their competitors and forge exclusive contracts with opposing groups.

What can these doctors do if they’re shut out? File a lawsuit, as SLHV has done? Demand a hearing before the medical staff and try to resolve the problem? Or simply give up their privileges and move on?

Unfortunately, none of these approaches offer a quick or certain solution, and each comes with risks.

Generally, courts have upheld hospitals’ use of exclusive contracts, which is also known as economic credentialing, says Barry F. Rosen, a health law attorney at Gordon Feinblatt, in Baltimore.

“Courts have long recognized exclusive contracts, and challenges by excluded doctors usually fail,” he says.

However, Mr. Rosen can cite several examples in which excluded doctors launched legal challenges that prevailed, owing to nuances in the law. The legal field in this area is tangled, and it varies by state.
 

Can hospitals make exclusive deals?

Hospitals have long used exclusive contracts for hospital-based specialists – anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists, emergency physicians, and hospitalists. They say that restricting patients to one group of anesthesiologists or radiologists enhances operational efficiency and that these contracts do not disrupt patients, because patients have no ties to hospital-based physicians. Such contracts are often more profitable for the hospital because of the negotiated rates.

Exclusive contracts in other specialties, however, are less accepted because they involve markedly different strategies and have different effects. In such cases, the hospital is no longer simply enhancing operational efficiency but is competing with physicians on staff, and the arrangement can disrupt the care of patients of the excluded doctors.

In the courts, these concerns might form the basis of an antitrust action or a claim of tortious interference with physicians’ ability to provide care for their patients, but neither claim is easy to win, Mr. Rosen says.

In antitrust cases, “the issue is not whether the excluded doctor was injured but whether the action harmed competition,” Mr. Rosen says. “Will the exclusion lead to higher prices?”

In the case of interference with patient care, “you will always find interference by one entity in the affairs of another,” he says, “but tortious interference applies to situations where something nefarious is going on, such as the other side was out to destroy your business and create a monopoly.”

Hospitals may try to restrict the privileges of physicians who invest in competing facilities such as cath labs and ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), says Gregory Mertz, managing director of Physician Strategies Group, a consultancy in Virginia Beach.

“However, any revenge that a hospital might take against the doctors who started an ASC would usually not be publicly admitted,” Mr. Mertz says. “Revenge would be exacted in subtle ways.”

In the St. Louis situation, SSM did not cite SLHV’s cath lab as a reason for its exclusive contract. SSM stated in court documents that the decision was based on the recommendations of an expert panel. Furthermore, SSM said the board created the panel in response to a state report that cited the limited experience of some SLHV cardiologists in treating a rare type of heart attack.

Mr. Mertz says the board’s interest in the state’s concern and then its forming the special panel lent a great deal of legitimacy to SSM’s decision to start an exclusive contract. “SSM can show evidence that the board’s decision was based on a clinical matter and not on trying to squeeze out the cardiologists,” he says.

In SLHV’s defense, Dr. Serota says the practice offered to stop taking calls for the type of heart attack that was cited, but the hospital did not respond to its offer. He says SSM should have consulted the hospital’s medical staff to address the state’s concern and to create the exclusive contract, because these decisions involved clinical issues that the medical staff understands better than the board.

The law, however, does not require a hospital board to consult with its medical staff, says Alice G. Gosfield, a health care attorney in Philadelphia. “The board has ultimate legal control of everything in the hospital,” she says. However, the board often delegates certain functions to the medical staff in the hospital bylaws, and depending on the wording of the bylaws, it is still possible that the board violated the bylaws, Ms. Gosfield adds.
 

Can excluded physicians get peer review?

Can the hospital medical staff help restore the privileges of excluded physicians? Don’t these physicians have the right to peer review – a hearing before the medical staff?

Indeed, the Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, states that the hospital must have “mechanisms, including a fair hearing and appeal process, for addressing adverse decisions for existing medical staff members and other individuals holding clinical privileges for renewal, revocation, or revision of clinical privileges.”

However, excluded physicians may not have a right to a hearing if they have not been fully stripped of privileges. SSM discontinued adult cardiology privileges for SLHV doctors but retained some doctors’ internal medicine privileges. Dr. Serota says internal medicine privileges are useless to cardiologists, but because the doctors’ privileges had not been fully removed, they cannot ask for a hearing.

More fundamentally, exclusive contracts are not a good fit for peer review. Mr. Rosen says the hearings were designed to review the physicians’ clinical competence or behavior, but excluded physicians do not have these problems. About all the hearing could focus on is the hospital’s policy, which the board would not want to allow. To avoid this, “the hospital might rule out a hearing as contrary to the intent of the bylaws,” Mr. Rosen says.

Furthermore, even if peer review goes forward, “what the medical staff decides is only advisory, and the hospital board makes the final decision,” Mr. Rosen says. He notes that the doctor could challenge the decision in court, but the hospital might still prevail.
 

Excluded physicians sometimes prevail

Although it is rare for excluded physicians to win a lawsuit against their hospital, it does happen, says Michael R. Callahan, health lawyer at Katten Muchin Rosenman, in Chicago.

Mr. Callahan cites a 2010 decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court that stopped the state’s largest health system from denying physicians’ privileges. Among other things, the hospital was found to have tortiously interfered with the physicians’ contracts with patients.

In a 2007 decision, a West Virginia court ruled that hospitals that have a mission to serve the public cannot exclude physicians for nonquality issues. In addition, some states, such as Texas, limit the economic factors that can be considered when credentialing decisions are made. Other states, such as Ohio, give hospitals a great deal of leeway to alter credentialing.

Dr. Serota is optimistic about his Missouri lawsuit. Although the judge in the case did not immediately grant SLHV’s request for restoration of privileges while the case proceeds, she did grant expedited discovery – allowing SLHV to obtain documents from SSM that could strengthen the doctors’ case – and she agreed to a hearing on SLHV’s request for a temporary restoration of privileges.

Ms. Gosfield says Dr. Serota’s optimism seems justified, but she adds that such cases cost a lot of money and that they may still not be winnable.

Often plaintiffs can settle lawsuits before they go to trial, but Mr. Callahan says hospitals are loath to restore privileges in a settlement because they don’t want to undermine an exclusivity deal. “The exclusive group expects a certain volume, which can’t be reached if the competing doctors are allowed back in,” he says.
 

Many physicians don’t challenge the exclusion

Quite often, excluded doctors decide not to challenge the decision. For example, Dr. Serota says groups of orthopedic surgeons and urologists have decided not to challenge similar decisions by SSM. “They wanted to move on,” he says.

Mr. Callahan says many excluded doctors also don’t even ask for a hearing. “They expect that the hospital’s decision will be upheld,” he says.

This was the case for Devendra K. Amin, MD, an independent cardiologist in Easton, Pa. Dr. Amin has not had any hospital privileges since July 2020. Even though he is board certified in interventional cardiology, which involves catheterization, Dr. Amin says he cannot perform these procedures because they can only be performed in a hospital in the area.

In the 1990s, Dr. Amin says, he had invasive cardiology privileges at five hospitals, but then those hospitals consolidated, and the remaining ones started constricting his privileges. First he could no longer work in the emergency department, then he could no longer read echocardiograms and interpret stress test results, because that work was assigned exclusively to employed doctors, he says.

Then the one remaining hospital announced that privileges would only be available to physicians by invitation, and he was not invited. Dr. Amin says he could have regained general cardiology privileges if he had accepted employment at the hospital, but he did not want to do this. A recruiter and the head of the cardiology section at the hospital even took him out to dinner 2 years ago to discuss employment, but there was a stipulation that the hospital would not agree to.

“I wanted to get back my interventional privileges back,” Dr. Amin says, “but they told me that would not be possible because they had an exclusive contract with a group.”

Dr. Amin says that now, he can only work as a general cardiologist with reduced volume. He says primary care physicians in the local hospital systems only refer to cardiologists within their systems. “When these patients do come to me, it is only because they specifically requested to see me,” Dr. Amin says.

He does not want to challenge the decisions regarding privileging. “Look, I am 68 years old,” Dr. Amin says. “I’m not retiring yet, but I don’t want to get into a battle with a hospital that has very deep pockets. I’m not a confrontational person to begin with, and I don’t want to spend the next 10 years of my life in litigation.”
 

Diverging expectations

The law on exclusive contracts does not provide easy answers for excluded doctors, and often it defies physicians’ conception of their own role in the hospital.

Many physicians expect the hospital to be a haven where they can do their work without being cut out by a competitor. This view is reinforced by organizations such as the American Medical Association.

The AMA Council on Medical Service states that privileges “can only be abridged upon recommendation of the medical staff and only for reason related to professional competence, adherence to standards of care, and other parameters agreed to by the medical staff.”

But the courts don’t tend to agree with that position. “Hospitals have a fiduciary duty to protect their own financial interests,” Mr. Callahan says. “This may involve anything that furthers the hospital’s mission to provide high-quality health care services to its patient community.”

At the same time, however, there are plenty of instances in which courts have ruled that exclusive contracts had gone too far. But usually it takes a lawyer experienced in these cases to know what those exceptions are.

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

In April, a group of more than a dozen cardiologists at St. Louis Heart and Vascular (SLHV) lost their privileges at SSM Health, an eight-hospital system in St. Louis.

The physicians did not lose their privileges because of a clinical failure. Rather, it was because of SSM’s decision to enter into an exclusive contract with another set of cardiologists.

“The current situation is economically untenable for us,” said Harvey Serota, MD, founder and medical director of SLHV. “This is an existential threat to the practice.”

Because of the exclusive contract, many of SLHV’s patients are now being redirected to SSM-contracted cardiologists. Volume for the group’s new $15 million catheterization lab has plummeted. SLHV is suing SSM to restore its privileges, claiming lack of due process, restraint of trade, interference with its business, and breach of contract.

Losing privileges because a hospital seeks to increase their profits is becoming all too familiar for many independent specialists in fields such as cardiology, orthopedic surgery, and urology, as the hospitals that hosted them become their competitors and forge exclusive contracts with opposing groups.

What can these doctors do if they’re shut out? File a lawsuit, as SLHV has done? Demand a hearing before the medical staff and try to resolve the problem? Or simply give up their privileges and move on?

Unfortunately, none of these approaches offer a quick or certain solution, and each comes with risks.

Generally, courts have upheld hospitals’ use of exclusive contracts, which is also known as economic credentialing, says Barry F. Rosen, a health law attorney at Gordon Feinblatt, in Baltimore.

“Courts have long recognized exclusive contracts, and challenges by excluded doctors usually fail,” he says.

However, Mr. Rosen can cite several examples in which excluded doctors launched legal challenges that prevailed, owing to nuances in the law. The legal field in this area is tangled, and it varies by state.
 

Can hospitals make exclusive deals?

Hospitals have long used exclusive contracts for hospital-based specialists – anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists, emergency physicians, and hospitalists. They say that restricting patients to one group of anesthesiologists or radiologists enhances operational efficiency and that these contracts do not disrupt patients, because patients have no ties to hospital-based physicians. Such contracts are often more profitable for the hospital because of the negotiated rates.

Exclusive contracts in other specialties, however, are less accepted because they involve markedly different strategies and have different effects. In such cases, the hospital is no longer simply enhancing operational efficiency but is competing with physicians on staff, and the arrangement can disrupt the care of patients of the excluded doctors.

In the courts, these concerns might form the basis of an antitrust action or a claim of tortious interference with physicians’ ability to provide care for their patients, but neither claim is easy to win, Mr. Rosen says.

In antitrust cases, “the issue is not whether the excluded doctor was injured but whether the action harmed competition,” Mr. Rosen says. “Will the exclusion lead to higher prices?”

In the case of interference with patient care, “you will always find interference by one entity in the affairs of another,” he says, “but tortious interference applies to situations where something nefarious is going on, such as the other side was out to destroy your business and create a monopoly.”

Hospitals may try to restrict the privileges of physicians who invest in competing facilities such as cath labs and ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), says Gregory Mertz, managing director of Physician Strategies Group, a consultancy in Virginia Beach.

“However, any revenge that a hospital might take against the doctors who started an ASC would usually not be publicly admitted,” Mr. Mertz says. “Revenge would be exacted in subtle ways.”

In the St. Louis situation, SSM did not cite SLHV’s cath lab as a reason for its exclusive contract. SSM stated in court documents that the decision was based on the recommendations of an expert panel. Furthermore, SSM said the board created the panel in response to a state report that cited the limited experience of some SLHV cardiologists in treating a rare type of heart attack.

Mr. Mertz says the board’s interest in the state’s concern and then its forming the special panel lent a great deal of legitimacy to SSM’s decision to start an exclusive contract. “SSM can show evidence that the board’s decision was based on a clinical matter and not on trying to squeeze out the cardiologists,” he says.

In SLHV’s defense, Dr. Serota says the practice offered to stop taking calls for the type of heart attack that was cited, but the hospital did not respond to its offer. He says SSM should have consulted the hospital’s medical staff to address the state’s concern and to create the exclusive contract, because these decisions involved clinical issues that the medical staff understands better than the board.

The law, however, does not require a hospital board to consult with its medical staff, says Alice G. Gosfield, a health care attorney in Philadelphia. “The board has ultimate legal control of everything in the hospital,” she says. However, the board often delegates certain functions to the medical staff in the hospital bylaws, and depending on the wording of the bylaws, it is still possible that the board violated the bylaws, Ms. Gosfield adds.
 

Can excluded physicians get peer review?

Can the hospital medical staff help restore the privileges of excluded physicians? Don’t these physicians have the right to peer review – a hearing before the medical staff?

Indeed, the Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, states that the hospital must have “mechanisms, including a fair hearing and appeal process, for addressing adverse decisions for existing medical staff members and other individuals holding clinical privileges for renewal, revocation, or revision of clinical privileges.”

However, excluded physicians may not have a right to a hearing if they have not been fully stripped of privileges. SSM discontinued adult cardiology privileges for SLHV doctors but retained some doctors’ internal medicine privileges. Dr. Serota says internal medicine privileges are useless to cardiologists, but because the doctors’ privileges had not been fully removed, they cannot ask for a hearing.

More fundamentally, exclusive contracts are not a good fit for peer review. Mr. Rosen says the hearings were designed to review the physicians’ clinical competence or behavior, but excluded physicians do not have these problems. About all the hearing could focus on is the hospital’s policy, which the board would not want to allow. To avoid this, “the hospital might rule out a hearing as contrary to the intent of the bylaws,” Mr. Rosen says.

Furthermore, even if peer review goes forward, “what the medical staff decides is only advisory, and the hospital board makes the final decision,” Mr. Rosen says. He notes that the doctor could challenge the decision in court, but the hospital might still prevail.
 

Excluded physicians sometimes prevail

Although it is rare for excluded physicians to win a lawsuit against their hospital, it does happen, says Michael R. Callahan, health lawyer at Katten Muchin Rosenman, in Chicago.

Mr. Callahan cites a 2010 decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court that stopped the state’s largest health system from denying physicians’ privileges. Among other things, the hospital was found to have tortiously interfered with the physicians’ contracts with patients.

In a 2007 decision, a West Virginia court ruled that hospitals that have a mission to serve the public cannot exclude physicians for nonquality issues. In addition, some states, such as Texas, limit the economic factors that can be considered when credentialing decisions are made. Other states, such as Ohio, give hospitals a great deal of leeway to alter credentialing.

Dr. Serota is optimistic about his Missouri lawsuit. Although the judge in the case did not immediately grant SLHV’s request for restoration of privileges while the case proceeds, she did grant expedited discovery – allowing SLHV to obtain documents from SSM that could strengthen the doctors’ case – and she agreed to a hearing on SLHV’s request for a temporary restoration of privileges.

Ms. Gosfield says Dr. Serota’s optimism seems justified, but she adds that such cases cost a lot of money and that they may still not be winnable.

Often plaintiffs can settle lawsuits before they go to trial, but Mr. Callahan says hospitals are loath to restore privileges in a settlement because they don’t want to undermine an exclusivity deal. “The exclusive group expects a certain volume, which can’t be reached if the competing doctors are allowed back in,” he says.
 

Many physicians don’t challenge the exclusion

Quite often, excluded doctors decide not to challenge the decision. For example, Dr. Serota says groups of orthopedic surgeons and urologists have decided not to challenge similar decisions by SSM. “They wanted to move on,” he says.

Mr. Callahan says many excluded doctors also don’t even ask for a hearing. “They expect that the hospital’s decision will be upheld,” he says.

This was the case for Devendra K. Amin, MD, an independent cardiologist in Easton, Pa. Dr. Amin has not had any hospital privileges since July 2020. Even though he is board certified in interventional cardiology, which involves catheterization, Dr. Amin says he cannot perform these procedures because they can only be performed in a hospital in the area.

In the 1990s, Dr. Amin says, he had invasive cardiology privileges at five hospitals, but then those hospitals consolidated, and the remaining ones started constricting his privileges. First he could no longer work in the emergency department, then he could no longer read echocardiograms and interpret stress test results, because that work was assigned exclusively to employed doctors, he says.

Then the one remaining hospital announced that privileges would only be available to physicians by invitation, and he was not invited. Dr. Amin says he could have regained general cardiology privileges if he had accepted employment at the hospital, but he did not want to do this. A recruiter and the head of the cardiology section at the hospital even took him out to dinner 2 years ago to discuss employment, but there was a stipulation that the hospital would not agree to.

“I wanted to get back my interventional privileges back,” Dr. Amin says, “but they told me that would not be possible because they had an exclusive contract with a group.”

Dr. Amin says that now, he can only work as a general cardiologist with reduced volume. He says primary care physicians in the local hospital systems only refer to cardiologists within their systems. “When these patients do come to me, it is only because they specifically requested to see me,” Dr. Amin says.

He does not want to challenge the decisions regarding privileging. “Look, I am 68 years old,” Dr. Amin says. “I’m not retiring yet, but I don’t want to get into a battle with a hospital that has very deep pockets. I’m not a confrontational person to begin with, and I don’t want to spend the next 10 years of my life in litigation.”
 

Diverging expectations

The law on exclusive contracts does not provide easy answers for excluded doctors, and often it defies physicians’ conception of their own role in the hospital.

Many physicians expect the hospital to be a haven where they can do their work without being cut out by a competitor. This view is reinforced by organizations such as the American Medical Association.

The AMA Council on Medical Service states that privileges “can only be abridged upon recommendation of the medical staff and only for reason related to professional competence, adherence to standards of care, and other parameters agreed to by the medical staff.”

But the courts don’t tend to agree with that position. “Hospitals have a fiduciary duty to protect their own financial interests,” Mr. Callahan says. “This may involve anything that furthers the hospital’s mission to provide high-quality health care services to its patient community.”

At the same time, however, there are plenty of instances in which courts have ruled that exclusive contracts had gone too far. But usually it takes a lawyer experienced in these cases to know what those exceptions are.

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