MDedge Surgery

A jury last month found in favor of a West Virginia man who was permanently paralyzed following spinal cord surgery, according to a report by WOWK13 News, a local CBS affiliate in Huntington and Charleston, W. Va., among other news outlets.

On or about June 4, 2017, Michael Rodgers sustained injuries while riding his motorcycle. Admitted to Charleston Area Medical Center’s (CAMC’s) Level I trauma center, he initially showed no neurologic impairment and was able to feel and move all his extremities. A subsequent CT scan revealed, though, that he had incurred a T5 Chance fracture, as his later complaint states.

On June 6, a neurosurgeon affiliated with CAMC, John Orphanos, MD, instructed Mr. Rodgers to wear a back brace for 6 to 8 weeks. Later that day, though, Dr. Orphanos changed his course of treatment and recommended that Mr. Rodgers undergo surgery to treat his injuries. Despite his new recommendation, the neurosurgeon/spine specialist didn’t order a presurgical MRI of his patient’s thoracic spine. Typically, such a scan would have been used to determine any existing or potential spinal cord problems and any soft-tissue problems in the area of the fracture.

Not having such information, Dr. Orphanos was unaware that his patient had “an abundance of epidural fat, cord compression, cord edema, spinal abnormality, and spinal cord injury,” the complaint states. The neurosurgeon’s operative plan, therefore, included neither decompression of the spinal column nor use of neurophysiologic intraoperative monitoring, which is used to gauge, in real time during procedures, both how fast and how strongly a patient’s nerves are carrying signals.

Late on June 6, Dr. Orphanos performed a surgery to fuse his patient’s vertebrae from the T2 to the T6 region. Following the procedure, however, Mr. Rodgers experienced a complete loss of motor function and sensation in his lower extremities. A postoperative MRI proved inconclusive because of certain distorting effects of hardware implanted during the original surgery. Had a CT myelogram been ordered, it would have yielded a more accurate picture, the plaintiff alleged in his complaint.

Mr. Rodgers underwent a second surgery, during which Dr. Orphanos performed a T5 laminectomy. The patient’s loss of motor function and sensation persisted, however. He has been experiencing T5-level paraplegia ever since, with complete loss of control of his legs, bowel, and bladder.

In his complaint, Mr. Rodgers alleged that Dr. Orphanos had repeatedly deviated from the standard of care. Among other things, the plaintiff claimed, Dr. Orphanos had failed in both of his surgeries to order the proper preop and postop testing, thereby jeopardizing the outcomes of each procedure. This gross negligence and recklessness, the plaintiff argued, led directly to his permanent and disabling injuries.

Late last month, a West Virginia jury agreed that Dr. Orphanos was at fault and awarded Mr. Rodgers $17 million in damages.

Commented one of the pair of attorneys representing Mr. Rodgers: “We are very grateful to the jury, who saw through the attempts to rationalize the defendant’s conduct and delivered a jury verdict that will take care of Mr. Rodgers and provide the services he will need.”
 

Provider-to-provider disputes not time sensitive, state high court says

Early last month, Indiana’s high court ruled that the state’s med-mal statute of limitations doesn’t apply to disputes between providers, as a story in Radiology Business and other news sites reports.

The legal wrangling dates to April 2011. At that time, Joseph Shaughnessy underwent two CT scans at a Franciscan Alliance hospital, part of a healthcare system run by Franciscan Health. Outside radiologists from Lake Imaging read the scans, but they allegedly failed to note bleeding on the right side of the patient’s brain. Mr. Shaughnessy subsequently died, and his family filed suit against Franciscan, on the assumption that the radiologists were employees.

In 2015, the plaintiffs and Franciscan reached a $187,000 settlement, but Franciscan claimed it wasn’t liable for the payment, citing a clause in its prior agreement with Lake Imaging that protected it. But Lake Imaging sought to dismiss the Franciscan claim, arguing that the hospital system had failed to bring its suit within the state’s 2-year med-mal statute of limitations.

In its review of the case, the Indiana Supreme Court dismissed this argument: “(T)here is nothing in the [Medical Malpractice Act] to suggest that it extends beyond the physician-patient relationship to encompass commercial contracts between healthcare providers.”

In other words, while Indiana law places a 2-year limit on patients suing a hospital, doctor, or other healthcare professional, it places no such limit on contractually bound providers who take steps to sue each other.

As part of its unanimous decision, the high court also sent a claim by Lake Imaging against its insurance provider back to the trial court. The claim asks the insurance carrier — and not Lake Imaging — to assume responsibility for the settlement between Mr. Shaughnessy and Franciscan Alliance.

There was no word at press time as to when further legal proceedings would take place.
 

Paralyzed patient seeks millions

An Oregon man who was left paralyzed after undergoing surgery to address issues in his leg and foot has filed a large claim against both the hospital and surgical group involved in the procedure, details a story first reported by the Associated Press and picked up by other news outlets, including Fox12 Oregon.

On January 8, 2020, the man underwent brain surgery to address numbness in his left foot and a “vague” pain in his left leg. During the procedure, he experienced a dural tear, which the lead surgeon and his team addressed.

The following day, the man’s condition deteriorated, and he complained of severe pain, according to his lawsuit. Two days after his initial procedure, another surgeon performed a second procedure “to drain fluid and relieve pressure” on the patient’s brain. Nevertheless, the patient neither recovered sensation in his lower extremities nor use of his legs.

His claim against the facility and surgical practice asks for $43.5 million in damages for his injuries. For its part, the hospital expressed “deep compassion” for the patient and his family while making it clear that it believes its “caregivers provided excellent care.”

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

A jury last month found in favor of a West Virginia man who was permanently paralyzed following spinal cord surgery, according to a report by WOWK13 News, a local CBS affiliate in Huntington and Charleston, W. Va., among other news outlets.

On or about June 4, 2017, Michael Rodgers sustained injuries while riding his motorcycle. Admitted to Charleston Area Medical Center’s (CAMC’s) Level I trauma center, he initially showed no neurologic impairment and was able to feel and move all his extremities. A subsequent CT scan revealed, though, that he had incurred a T5 Chance fracture, as his later complaint states.

On June 6, a neurosurgeon affiliated with CAMC, John Orphanos, MD, instructed Mr. Rodgers to wear a back brace for 6 to 8 weeks. Later that day, though, Dr. Orphanos changed his course of treatment and recommended that Mr. Rodgers undergo surgery to treat his injuries. Despite his new recommendation, the neurosurgeon/spine specialist didn’t order a presurgical MRI of his patient’s thoracic spine. Typically, such a scan would have been used to determine any existing or potential spinal cord problems and any soft-tissue problems in the area of the fracture.

Not having such information, Dr. Orphanos was unaware that his patient had “an abundance of epidural fat, cord compression, cord edema, spinal abnormality, and spinal cord injury,” the complaint states. The neurosurgeon’s operative plan, therefore, included neither decompression of the spinal column nor use of neurophysiologic intraoperative monitoring, which is used to gauge, in real time during procedures, both how fast and how strongly a patient’s nerves are carrying signals.

Late on June 6, Dr. Orphanos performed a surgery to fuse his patient’s vertebrae from the T2 to the T6 region. Following the procedure, however, Mr. Rodgers experienced a complete loss of motor function and sensation in his lower extremities. A postoperative MRI proved inconclusive because of certain distorting effects of hardware implanted during the original surgery. Had a CT myelogram been ordered, it would have yielded a more accurate picture, the plaintiff alleged in his complaint.

Mr. Rodgers underwent a second surgery, during which Dr. Orphanos performed a T5 laminectomy. The patient’s loss of motor function and sensation persisted, however. He has been experiencing T5-level paraplegia ever since, with complete loss of control of his legs, bowel, and bladder.

In his complaint, Mr. Rodgers alleged that Dr. Orphanos had repeatedly deviated from the standard of care. Among other things, the plaintiff claimed, Dr. Orphanos had failed in both of his surgeries to order the proper preop and postop testing, thereby jeopardizing the outcomes of each procedure. This gross negligence and recklessness, the plaintiff argued, led directly to his permanent and disabling injuries.

Late last month, a West Virginia jury agreed that Dr. Orphanos was at fault and awarded Mr. Rodgers $17 million in damages.

Commented one of the pair of attorneys representing Mr. Rodgers: “We are very grateful to the jury, who saw through the attempts to rationalize the defendant’s conduct and delivered a jury verdict that will take care of Mr. Rodgers and provide the services he will need.”
 

Provider-to-provider disputes not time sensitive, state high court says

Early last month, Indiana’s high court ruled that the state’s med-mal statute of limitations doesn’t apply to disputes between providers, as a story in Radiology Business and other news sites reports.

The legal wrangling dates to April 2011. At that time, Joseph Shaughnessy underwent two CT scans at a Franciscan Alliance hospital, part of a healthcare system run by Franciscan Health. Outside radiologists from Lake Imaging read the scans, but they allegedly failed to note bleeding on the right side of the patient’s brain. Mr. Shaughnessy subsequently died, and his family filed suit against Franciscan, on the assumption that the radiologists were employees.

In 2015, the plaintiffs and Franciscan reached a $187,000 settlement, but Franciscan claimed it wasn’t liable for the payment, citing a clause in its prior agreement with Lake Imaging that protected it. But Lake Imaging sought to dismiss the Franciscan claim, arguing that the hospital system had failed to bring its suit within the state’s 2-year med-mal statute of limitations.

In its review of the case, the Indiana Supreme Court dismissed this argument: “(T)here is nothing in the [Medical Malpractice Act] to suggest that it extends beyond the physician-patient relationship to encompass commercial contracts between healthcare providers.”

In other words, while Indiana law places a 2-year limit on patients suing a hospital, doctor, or other healthcare professional, it places no such limit on contractually bound providers who take steps to sue each other.

As part of its unanimous decision, the high court also sent a claim by Lake Imaging against its insurance provider back to the trial court. The claim asks the insurance carrier — and not Lake Imaging — to assume responsibility for the settlement between Mr. Shaughnessy and Franciscan Alliance.

There was no word at press time as to when further legal proceedings would take place.
 

Paralyzed patient seeks millions

An Oregon man who was left paralyzed after undergoing surgery to address issues in his leg and foot has filed a large claim against both the hospital and surgical group involved in the procedure, details a story first reported by the Associated Press and picked up by other news outlets, including Fox12 Oregon.

On January 8, 2020, the man underwent brain surgery to address numbness in his left foot and a “vague” pain in his left leg. During the procedure, he experienced a dural tear, which the lead surgeon and his team addressed.

The following day, the man’s condition deteriorated, and he complained of severe pain, according to his lawsuit. Two days after his initial procedure, another surgeon performed a second procedure “to drain fluid and relieve pressure” on the patient’s brain. Nevertheless, the patient neither recovered sensation in his lower extremities nor use of his legs.

His claim against the facility and surgical practice asks for $43.5 million in damages for his injuries. For its part, the hospital expressed “deep compassion” for the patient and his family while making it clear that it believes its “caregivers provided excellent care.”

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

A jury last month found in favor of a West Virginia man who was permanently paralyzed following spinal cord surgery, according to a report by WOWK13 News, a local CBS affiliate in Huntington and Charleston, W. Va., among other news outlets.

On or about June 4, 2017, Michael Rodgers sustained injuries while riding his motorcycle. Admitted to Charleston Area Medical Center’s (CAMC’s) Level I trauma center, he initially showed no neurologic impairment and was able to feel and move all his extremities. A subsequent CT scan revealed, though, that he had incurred a T5 Chance fracture, as his later complaint states.

On June 6, a neurosurgeon affiliated with CAMC, John Orphanos, MD, instructed Mr. Rodgers to wear a back brace for 6 to 8 weeks. Later that day, though, Dr. Orphanos changed his course of treatment and recommended that Mr. Rodgers undergo surgery to treat his injuries. Despite his new recommendation, the neurosurgeon/spine specialist didn’t order a presurgical MRI of his patient’s thoracic spine. Typically, such a scan would have been used to determine any existing or potential spinal cord problems and any soft-tissue problems in the area of the fracture.

Not having such information, Dr. Orphanos was unaware that his patient had “an abundance of epidural fat, cord compression, cord edema, spinal abnormality, and spinal cord injury,” the complaint states. The neurosurgeon’s operative plan, therefore, included neither decompression of the spinal column nor use of neurophysiologic intraoperative monitoring, which is used to gauge, in real time during procedures, both how fast and how strongly a patient’s nerves are carrying signals.

Late on June 6, Dr. Orphanos performed a surgery to fuse his patient’s vertebrae from the T2 to the T6 region. Following the procedure, however, Mr. Rodgers experienced a complete loss of motor function and sensation in his lower extremities. A postoperative MRI proved inconclusive because of certain distorting effects of hardware implanted during the original surgery. Had a CT myelogram been ordered, it would have yielded a more accurate picture, the plaintiff alleged in his complaint.

Mr. Rodgers underwent a second surgery, during which Dr. Orphanos performed a T5 laminectomy. The patient’s loss of motor function and sensation persisted, however. He has been experiencing T5-level paraplegia ever since, with complete loss of control of his legs, bowel, and bladder.

In his complaint, Mr. Rodgers alleged that Dr. Orphanos had repeatedly deviated from the standard of care. Among other things, the plaintiff claimed, Dr. Orphanos had failed in both of his surgeries to order the proper preop and postop testing, thereby jeopardizing the outcomes of each procedure. This gross negligence and recklessness, the plaintiff argued, led directly to his permanent and disabling injuries.

Late last month, a West Virginia jury agreed that Dr. Orphanos was at fault and awarded Mr. Rodgers $17 million in damages.

Commented one of the pair of attorneys representing Mr. Rodgers: “We are very grateful to the jury, who saw through the attempts to rationalize the defendant’s conduct and delivered a jury verdict that will take care of Mr. Rodgers and provide the services he will need.”
 

Provider-to-provider disputes not time sensitive, state high court says

Early last month, Indiana’s high court ruled that the state’s med-mal statute of limitations doesn’t apply to disputes between providers, as a story in Radiology Business and other news sites reports.

The legal wrangling dates to April 2011. At that time, Joseph Shaughnessy underwent two CT scans at a Franciscan Alliance hospital, part of a healthcare system run by Franciscan Health. Outside radiologists from Lake Imaging read the scans, but they allegedly failed to note bleeding on the right side of the patient’s brain. Mr. Shaughnessy subsequently died, and his family filed suit against Franciscan, on the assumption that the radiologists were employees.

In 2015, the plaintiffs and Franciscan reached a $187,000 settlement, but Franciscan claimed it wasn’t liable for the payment, citing a clause in its prior agreement with Lake Imaging that protected it. But Lake Imaging sought to dismiss the Franciscan claim, arguing that the hospital system had failed to bring its suit within the state’s 2-year med-mal statute of limitations.

In its review of the case, the Indiana Supreme Court dismissed this argument: “(T)here is nothing in the [Medical Malpractice Act] to suggest that it extends beyond the physician-patient relationship to encompass commercial contracts between healthcare providers.”

In other words, while Indiana law places a 2-year limit on patients suing a hospital, doctor, or other healthcare professional, it places no such limit on contractually bound providers who take steps to sue each other.

As part of its unanimous decision, the high court also sent a claim by Lake Imaging against its insurance provider back to the trial court. The claim asks the insurance carrier — and not Lake Imaging — to assume responsibility for the settlement between Mr. Shaughnessy and Franciscan Alliance.

There was no word at press time as to when further legal proceedings would take place.
 

Paralyzed patient seeks millions

An Oregon man who was left paralyzed after undergoing surgery to address issues in his leg and foot has filed a large claim against both the hospital and surgical group involved in the procedure, details a story first reported by the Associated Press and picked up by other news outlets, including Fox12 Oregon.

On January 8, 2020, the man underwent brain surgery to address numbness in his left foot and a “vague” pain in his left leg. During the procedure, he experienced a dural tear, which the lead surgeon and his team addressed.

The following day, the man’s condition deteriorated, and he complained of severe pain, according to his lawsuit. Two days after his initial procedure, another surgeon performed a second procedure “to drain fluid and relieve pressure” on the patient’s brain. Nevertheless, the patient neither recovered sensation in his lower extremities nor use of his legs.

His claim against the facility and surgical practice asks for $43.5 million in damages for his injuries. For its part, the hospital expressed “deep compassion” for the patient and his family while making it clear that it believes its “caregivers provided excellent care.”

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

Who needs medical degrees anyway?

It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.

vchal/Thinkstock

That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.

Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.

We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
 

No need to ‘guess what size horse you are’

Is COVID-19 warming up for yet another surge? Maybe. That means it’s also time for the return of its remora-like follower, ivermectin. Our thanks go out to the Tennessee state legislature for bringing the proven-to-be-ineffective treatment for COVID back into our hearts and minds and emergency rooms.

StockPlanets/Getty Images

Both the state House and Senate have approved a bill that allows pharmacists to dispense the antiparasitic drug without a prescription while shielding them “from any liability that could arise from dispensing ivermectin,” Nashville Public Radio reported.

The drug’s manufacturer, Merck, said over a year ago that there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies … and a concerning lack of safety data.” More recently, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that ivermectin treatment had no important benefits in patients with COVID.

Last week, the bill’s Senate sponsor, Frank Niceley of Strawberry Plains, said that it was all about safety, as he explained to NPR station WPLN: “It’s a lot safer to go to your pharmacist and let him tell you how much ivermectin to take than it is to go to the co-op and guess what size horse you are.”

And on that note, here are a few more items of business that just might end up on the legislature’s calendar:

• Horses will be allowed to “share” their unused ivermectin with humans and other mammals.
• An apple a day not only keeps the doctor away, but the IRS and the FDA as well.
• Colon cleansing is more fun than humans should be allowed to have.
• TikTok videos qualify as CME.

Who needs medical degrees anyway?

It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.

vchal/Thinkstock

That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.

Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.

We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
 

Speak louder, I can’t see you

With the introduction of FaceTime and the pandemic pushing work and social events to Zoom, video calls have become ubiquitous. Along the way, however, we’ve had to learn to adjust to technical difficulties. Often by yelling at the screen when the video quality is disrupted. Waving our hands and arms, speaking louder. Sound like you?

Tumisu/Pixabay

Well, a new study published in Royal Society Open Science shows that it sounds like a lot of us.

James Trujillo of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who was lead author of the paper, said on Eurekalert that “previous research has shown that speech and gestures are linked, but ours is the first to look into how visuals impact our behavior in those fields.”

He and his associates set up 40 participants in separate rooms to have conversations in pairs over a video chat. Over the course of 40 minutes, the video quality started to deteriorate from clear to extremely blurry. When the video quality was affected, participants started with gestures but as the quality continued to lessen the gestures increased and so did the decibels of their voices.

Even when the participants could barely see each other, they still gestured and their voices were even louder, positively supporting the idea that gestures and speech are a dynamically linked when it comes to communication. Even on regular phone calls, when we can’t see each other at all, people make small movements and gestures, Mr. Trujillo said.

So, the next time the Wifi is terrible and your video calls keep cutting out, don’t worry about looking foolish screaming at the computer. We’ve all been there.
 

Seek a doctor if standing at attention for more than 4 hours

Imbrochável. In Brazil, it means “unfloppable” or “flaccid proof.” It’s also a word that Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro likes to use when referring to himself. Gives you a good idea of what he’s all about. Imagine his embarrassment when news recently broke about more than 30,000 pills of Viagra that had been secretly distributed to the Brazilian military.

PublicDomainPictures/Pixabay

The military offered a simple and plausible explanation: The Viagra had been prescribed to treat pulmonary hypertension. Fair, but when a Brazilian newspaper dug a little deeper, they found that this was not the case. The Viagra was, in general, being used for its, shall we say, traditional purpose.

Many Brazilians reacted poorly to the news that their tax dollars were being used to provide Brazilian soldiers with downstairs assistance, with the standard associated furor on social media. A rival politician, Ciro Gomes, who is planning on challenging the president in an upcoming election, had perhaps the best remark on the situation: “Unless they’re able to prove they’re developing some kind of secret weapon – capable of revolutionizing the international arms industry – it’ll be tough to justify the purchase of 35,000 units of a erectile dysfunction drug.”

Hmm, secret weapon. Well, a certain Russian fellow has made a bit of a thrust into world affairs recently. Does anyone know if Putin is sitting on a big Viagra stash?
 

Who needs medical degrees anyway?

It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.

vchal/Thinkstock

That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.

Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.

We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
 

No need to ‘guess what size horse you are’

Is COVID-19 warming up for yet another surge? Maybe. That means it’s also time for the return of its remora-like follower, ivermectin. Our thanks go out to the Tennessee state legislature for bringing the proven-to-be-ineffective treatment for COVID back into our hearts and minds and emergency rooms.

StockPlanets/Getty Images

Both the state House and Senate have approved a bill that allows pharmacists to dispense the antiparasitic drug without a prescription while shielding them “from any liability that could arise from dispensing ivermectin,” Nashville Public Radio reported.

The drug’s manufacturer, Merck, said over a year ago that there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies … and a concerning lack of safety data.” More recently, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that ivermectin treatment had no important benefits in patients with COVID.

Last week, the bill’s Senate sponsor, Frank Niceley of Strawberry Plains, said that it was all about safety, as he explained to NPR station WPLN: “It’s a lot safer to go to your pharmacist and let him tell you how much ivermectin to take than it is to go to the co-op and guess what size horse you are.”

And on that note, here are a few more items of business that just might end up on the legislature’s calendar:

• Horses will be allowed to “share” their unused ivermectin with humans and other mammals.
• An apple a day not only keeps the doctor away, but the IRS and the FDA as well.
• Colon cleansing is more fun than humans should be allowed to have.
• TikTok videos qualify as CME.

Who needs medical degrees anyway?

It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.

vchal/Thinkstock

That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.

Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.

We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
 

Speak louder, I can’t see you

With the introduction of FaceTime and the pandemic pushing work and social events to Zoom, video calls have become ubiquitous. Along the way, however, we’ve had to learn to adjust to technical difficulties. Often by yelling at the screen when the video quality is disrupted. Waving our hands and arms, speaking louder. Sound like you?

Tumisu/Pixabay

Well, a new study published in Royal Society Open Science shows that it sounds like a lot of us.

James Trujillo of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who was lead author of the paper, said on Eurekalert that “previous research has shown that speech and gestures are linked, but ours is the first to look into how visuals impact our behavior in those fields.”

He and his associates set up 40 participants in separate rooms to have conversations in pairs over a video chat. Over the course of 40 minutes, the video quality started to deteriorate from clear to extremely blurry. When the video quality was affected, participants started with gestures but as the quality continued to lessen the gestures increased and so did the decibels of their voices.

Even when the participants could barely see each other, they still gestured and their voices were even louder, positively supporting the idea that gestures and speech are a dynamically linked when it comes to communication. Even on regular phone calls, when we can’t see each other at all, people make small movements and gestures, Mr. Trujillo said.

So, the next time the Wifi is terrible and your video calls keep cutting out, don’t worry about looking foolish screaming at the computer. We’ve all been there.
 

Seek a doctor if standing at attention for more than 4 hours

Imbrochável. In Brazil, it means “unfloppable” or “flaccid proof.” It’s also a word that Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro likes to use when referring to himself. Gives you a good idea of what he’s all about. Imagine his embarrassment when news recently broke about more than 30,000 pills of Viagra that had been secretly distributed to the Brazilian military.

PublicDomainPictures/Pixabay

The military offered a simple and plausible explanation: The Viagra had been prescribed to treat pulmonary hypertension. Fair, but when a Brazilian newspaper dug a little deeper, they found that this was not the case. The Viagra was, in general, being used for its, shall we say, traditional purpose.

Many Brazilians reacted poorly to the news that their tax dollars were being used to provide Brazilian soldiers with downstairs assistance, with the standard associated furor on social media. A rival politician, Ciro Gomes, who is planning on challenging the president in an upcoming election, had perhaps the best remark on the situation: “Unless they’re able to prove they’re developing some kind of secret weapon – capable of revolutionizing the international arms industry – it’ll be tough to justify the purchase of 35,000 units of a erectile dysfunction drug.”

Hmm, secret weapon. Well, a certain Russian fellow has made a bit of a thrust into world affairs recently. Does anyone know if Putin is sitting on a big Viagra stash?
 

Who needs medical degrees anyway?

It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.

vchal/Thinkstock

That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.

Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.

We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
 

No need to ‘guess what size horse you are’

Is COVID-19 warming up for yet another surge? Maybe. That means it’s also time for the return of its remora-like follower, ivermectin. Our thanks go out to the Tennessee state legislature for bringing the proven-to-be-ineffective treatment for COVID back into our hearts and minds and emergency rooms.

StockPlanets/Getty Images

Both the state House and Senate have approved a bill that allows pharmacists to dispense the antiparasitic drug without a prescription while shielding them “from any liability that could arise from dispensing ivermectin,” Nashville Public Radio reported.

The drug’s manufacturer, Merck, said over a year ago that there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies … and a concerning lack of safety data.” More recently, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that ivermectin treatment had no important benefits in patients with COVID.

Last week, the bill’s Senate sponsor, Frank Niceley of Strawberry Plains, said that it was all about safety, as he explained to NPR station WPLN: “It’s a lot safer to go to your pharmacist and let him tell you how much ivermectin to take than it is to go to the co-op and guess what size horse you are.”

And on that note, here are a few more items of business that just might end up on the legislature’s calendar:

• Horses will be allowed to “share” their unused ivermectin with humans and other mammals.
• An apple a day not only keeps the doctor away, but the IRS and the FDA as well.
• Colon cleansing is more fun than humans should be allowed to have.
• TikTok videos qualify as CME.

Who needs medical degrees anyway?

It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.

vchal/Thinkstock

That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.

Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.

We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
 

Speak louder, I can’t see you

With the introduction of FaceTime and the pandemic pushing work and social events to Zoom, video calls have become ubiquitous. Along the way, however, we’ve had to learn to adjust to technical difficulties. Often by yelling at the screen when the video quality is disrupted. Waving our hands and arms, speaking louder. Sound like you?

Tumisu/Pixabay

Well, a new study published in Royal Society Open Science shows that it sounds like a lot of us.

James Trujillo of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who was lead author of the paper, said on Eurekalert that “previous research has shown that speech and gestures are linked, but ours is the first to look into how visuals impact our behavior in those fields.”

He and his associates set up 40 participants in separate rooms to have conversations in pairs over a video chat. Over the course of 40 minutes, the video quality started to deteriorate from clear to extremely blurry. When the video quality was affected, participants started with gestures but as the quality continued to lessen the gestures increased and so did the decibels of their voices.

Even when the participants could barely see each other, they still gestured and their voices were even louder, positively supporting the idea that gestures and speech are a dynamically linked when it comes to communication. Even on regular phone calls, when we can’t see each other at all, people make small movements and gestures, Mr. Trujillo said.

So, the next time the Wifi is terrible and your video calls keep cutting out, don’t worry about looking foolish screaming at the computer. We’ve all been there.
 

Seek a doctor if standing at attention for more than 4 hours

Imbrochável. In Brazil, it means “unfloppable” or “flaccid proof.” It’s also a word that Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro likes to use when referring to himself. Gives you a good idea of what he’s all about. Imagine his embarrassment when news recently broke about more than 30,000 pills of Viagra that had been secretly distributed to the Brazilian military.

PublicDomainPictures/Pixabay

The military offered a simple and plausible explanation: The Viagra had been prescribed to treat pulmonary hypertension. Fair, but when a Brazilian newspaper dug a little deeper, they found that this was not the case. The Viagra was, in general, being used for its, shall we say, traditional purpose.

Many Brazilians reacted poorly to the news that their tax dollars were being used to provide Brazilian soldiers with downstairs assistance, with the standard associated furor on social media. A rival politician, Ciro Gomes, who is planning on challenging the president in an upcoming election, had perhaps the best remark on the situation: “Unless they’re able to prove they’re developing some kind of secret weapon – capable of revolutionizing the international arms industry – it’ll be tough to justify the purchase of 35,000 units of a erectile dysfunction drug.”

Hmm, secret weapon. Well, a certain Russian fellow has made a bit of a thrust into world affairs recently. Does anyone know if Putin is sitting on a big Viagra stash?
 

Structural aortic valve deterioration (SVD) at 5 years is lower following repair with a contemporary transcatheter implantation (TAVI) device than with surgery, according to a pooled analysis of major trials.

For healthier patients with a relatively long life expectancy, this is important information for deciding whether to undergo TAVI or surgical aortic valve repair (SAVR), Michael J. Reardon, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Every week I get this question about which repair is more durable,” said Dr. Reardon, whose study was not only designed to compare device deterioration but to evaluate the effect of SVD on major outcomes.

In this analysis, the rates of SVD were compared for the self-expanding supra-annular CoreValve Evolut device and SAVR. The SVD curves separated within the first year. At 5 years, the differences were highly significant favoring TAVI (2.57% vs. 4.38%; P = .0095).

As part of this analysis, the impact of SVD was also assessed independent of type of repair. At 5 years, those with SVD relative to those without had an approximately twofold increase in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization of aortic valve worsening. These risks were elevated regardless of type of valve repair.

The data presented by Dr. Reardon can be considered device specific. The earlier PARTNER 2A study comparing older- and newer-generation TAVI devices with SAVR produced a different result. When a second-generation balloon-expandable SAPIEN XT device and a third-generation SAPIEN 3 device were compared with surgery, neither device achieved lower SVD rates relative to SAVR.

In PARTNER 2A, the SVD rate for the older device was nearly three times greater than SAVR (1.61 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years). The numerically higher SVD rates for the newer device (0.68 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years) was not statistically different, but the TAVI device was not superior.

More than 4,000 patients evaluated at 5 years

In the analysis presented by Dr. Reardon, data were pooled from the randomized CoreValve U.S. High-Risk Pivotal Trial and the SURTAVI Intermediate Risk Trial. Together, these studies randomized 971 patients to surgery and 1,128 patients to TAVI. Data on an additional 2,663 patients treated with the Evolut valve in two registries were added to the randomized trial data, providing data on 4,762 total patients with 5-year follow-up.

SVD was defined by two criteria. The first was a mean gradient increase of at least 10 mm Hg plus a mean overall gradient of at least 20 mm Hg as measured with echocardiography and assessed, when possible, by an independent core laboratory. The second was new-onset or increased intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation of at least moderate severity.

When graphed over time, the SVD curves separated in favor of TAVI after about 6 months of follow-up. The shape of the curves also differed. Unlike the steady rise in SVD observed in the surgery group, the SVD rate in the TAVI group remained below 1% for almost 4 years before beginning to climb.

There was greater relative benefit for the TAVI device in patients with annular diameters of 23 mm or less. Unlike the rise in SVD rates that began about 6 months after SAVR, the SVD rates in the TAVI patients remained at 0% for more than 2 years. At 5 years, the differences remained significant favoring TAVI (1.39% vs. 5.86%; P = .049).

In those with larger annular diameters, there was still a consistently lower SVD rate over time for TAVI relative to SAVR, but the trend for an advantage at 5 years fell just short of significance (2.48% vs. 3.96%; P = .067).
 

SVD linked to doubling of mortality

SVD worsened outcomes. When all data surgery and TAVI data were pooled, the hazard ratios corresponded with about a doubling of risk for major adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality (HR, 1.98; P < .001), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.82; P = .008), and hospitalization for aortic valve disease or worsening heart failure (HR, 2.11; P = .01). The relative risks were similar in the two treatment groups, including the risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 2.24; P < .001 for TAVI vs. HR, 2.45; P = .002 for SAVR).

The predictors for SVD on multivariate analysis included female sex, increased body surface area, prior percutaneous coronary intervention, and a prior diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.

Design improvements in TAVI devices are likely to explain these results, said Dr. Reardon, chair of cardiovascular research at Houston Methodist Hospital.

“The CoreValve/Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding bioprosthesis is the first and only transcatheter bioprosthesis to demonstrate lower rates of SVD, compared with surgery,” Dr. Reardon said.

This analysis validated the risks posed by the definition of SVD applied in this study, which appears to be a practical tool for tracking valve function and patient risk. Dr. Reardon also said that the study confirms the value of serial Doppler transthoracic echocardiography as a tool for monitoring SVD.

Several experts agreed that this is important new information.

“This is a remarkable series of findings,” said James McClurken, MD, who is a cardiovascular surgeon affiliated with Temple University, Philadelphia, and practices in Doylestown, Penn. By both demonstrating the prognostic importance of SVD and showing differences between the study device and SAVR, this trial will yield practical data to inform patients about relative risks and benefits.

Athena Poppas, MD, the new president of the ACC and a professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I., called this study “practice changing” for the same reasons. She also thinks it has valuable data for guiding choice of intervention.

Overall, the data are likely to change thinking about the role of TAVI and surgery in younger, fit patients, according to Megan Coylewright, MD, chief of cardiology at Erlanger Cardiology, Chattanooga, Tenn.

“There are patients [in need of aortic valve repair] with a long life expectancy who have been told you have to have a surgical repair because we know they last longer,” she said. Although she said that relative outcomes after longer follow-up remain unknown, “I think this does throw that comment into question.”

Dr. Reardon has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Gore Medical. Dr. Poppas and McClurken reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Coylewright reported financial relationships with Abbott, Alleviant, Boston Scientific, Cardiosmart, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Occlutech. The study received financial support from Medtronic.

Structural aortic valve deterioration (SVD) at 5 years is lower following repair with a contemporary transcatheter implantation (TAVI) device than with surgery, according to a pooled analysis of major trials.

For healthier patients with a relatively long life expectancy, this is important information for deciding whether to undergo TAVI or surgical aortic valve repair (SAVR), Michael J. Reardon, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Every week I get this question about which repair is more durable,” said Dr. Reardon, whose study was not only designed to compare device deterioration but to evaluate the effect of SVD on major outcomes.

In this analysis, the rates of SVD were compared for the self-expanding supra-annular CoreValve Evolut device and SAVR. The SVD curves separated within the first year. At 5 years, the differences were highly significant favoring TAVI (2.57% vs. 4.38%; P = .0095).

As part of this analysis, the impact of SVD was also assessed independent of type of repair. At 5 years, those with SVD relative to those without had an approximately twofold increase in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization of aortic valve worsening. These risks were elevated regardless of type of valve repair.

The data presented by Dr. Reardon can be considered device specific. The earlier PARTNER 2A study comparing older- and newer-generation TAVI devices with SAVR produced a different result. When a second-generation balloon-expandable SAPIEN XT device and a third-generation SAPIEN 3 device were compared with surgery, neither device achieved lower SVD rates relative to SAVR.

In PARTNER 2A, the SVD rate for the older device was nearly three times greater than SAVR (1.61 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years). The numerically higher SVD rates for the newer device (0.68 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years) was not statistically different, but the TAVI device was not superior.

More than 4,000 patients evaluated at 5 years

In the analysis presented by Dr. Reardon, data were pooled from the randomized CoreValve U.S. High-Risk Pivotal Trial and the SURTAVI Intermediate Risk Trial. Together, these studies randomized 971 patients to surgery and 1,128 patients to TAVI. Data on an additional 2,663 patients treated with the Evolut valve in two registries were added to the randomized trial data, providing data on 4,762 total patients with 5-year follow-up.

SVD was defined by two criteria. The first was a mean gradient increase of at least 10 mm Hg plus a mean overall gradient of at least 20 mm Hg as measured with echocardiography and assessed, when possible, by an independent core laboratory. The second was new-onset or increased intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation of at least moderate severity.

When graphed over time, the SVD curves separated in favor of TAVI after about 6 months of follow-up. The shape of the curves also differed. Unlike the steady rise in SVD observed in the surgery group, the SVD rate in the TAVI group remained below 1% for almost 4 years before beginning to climb.

There was greater relative benefit for the TAVI device in patients with annular diameters of 23 mm or less. Unlike the rise in SVD rates that began about 6 months after SAVR, the SVD rates in the TAVI patients remained at 0% for more than 2 years. At 5 years, the differences remained significant favoring TAVI (1.39% vs. 5.86%; P = .049).

In those with larger annular diameters, there was still a consistently lower SVD rate over time for TAVI relative to SAVR, but the trend for an advantage at 5 years fell just short of significance (2.48% vs. 3.96%; P = .067).
 

SVD linked to doubling of mortality

SVD worsened outcomes. When all data surgery and TAVI data were pooled, the hazard ratios corresponded with about a doubling of risk for major adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality (HR, 1.98; P < .001), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.82; P = .008), and hospitalization for aortic valve disease or worsening heart failure (HR, 2.11; P = .01). The relative risks were similar in the two treatment groups, including the risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 2.24; P < .001 for TAVI vs. HR, 2.45; P = .002 for SAVR).

The predictors for SVD on multivariate analysis included female sex, increased body surface area, prior percutaneous coronary intervention, and a prior diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.

Design improvements in TAVI devices are likely to explain these results, said Dr. Reardon, chair of cardiovascular research at Houston Methodist Hospital.

“The CoreValve/Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding bioprosthesis is the first and only transcatheter bioprosthesis to demonstrate lower rates of SVD, compared with surgery,” Dr. Reardon said.

This analysis validated the risks posed by the definition of SVD applied in this study, which appears to be a practical tool for tracking valve function and patient risk. Dr. Reardon also said that the study confirms the value of serial Doppler transthoracic echocardiography as a tool for monitoring SVD.

Several experts agreed that this is important new information.

“This is a remarkable series of findings,” said James McClurken, MD, who is a cardiovascular surgeon affiliated with Temple University, Philadelphia, and practices in Doylestown, Penn. By both demonstrating the prognostic importance of SVD and showing differences between the study device and SAVR, this trial will yield practical data to inform patients about relative risks and benefits.

Athena Poppas, MD, the new president of the ACC and a professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I., called this study “practice changing” for the same reasons. She also thinks it has valuable data for guiding choice of intervention.

Overall, the data are likely to change thinking about the role of TAVI and surgery in younger, fit patients, according to Megan Coylewright, MD, chief of cardiology at Erlanger Cardiology, Chattanooga, Tenn.

“There are patients [in need of aortic valve repair] with a long life expectancy who have been told you have to have a surgical repair because we know they last longer,” she said. Although she said that relative outcomes after longer follow-up remain unknown, “I think this does throw that comment into question.”

Dr. Reardon has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Gore Medical. Dr. Poppas and McClurken reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Coylewright reported financial relationships with Abbott, Alleviant, Boston Scientific, Cardiosmart, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Occlutech. The study received financial support from Medtronic.

Structural aortic valve deterioration (SVD) at 5 years is lower following repair with a contemporary transcatheter implantation (TAVI) device than with surgery, according to a pooled analysis of major trials.

For healthier patients with a relatively long life expectancy, this is important information for deciding whether to undergo TAVI or surgical aortic valve repair (SAVR), Michael J. Reardon, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Every week I get this question about which repair is more durable,” said Dr. Reardon, whose study was not only designed to compare device deterioration but to evaluate the effect of SVD on major outcomes.

In this analysis, the rates of SVD were compared for the self-expanding supra-annular CoreValve Evolut device and SAVR. The SVD curves separated within the first year. At 5 years, the differences were highly significant favoring TAVI (2.57% vs. 4.38%; P = .0095).

As part of this analysis, the impact of SVD was also assessed independent of type of repair. At 5 years, those with SVD relative to those without had an approximately twofold increase in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization of aortic valve worsening. These risks were elevated regardless of type of valve repair.

The data presented by Dr. Reardon can be considered device specific. The earlier PARTNER 2A study comparing older- and newer-generation TAVI devices with SAVR produced a different result. When a second-generation balloon-expandable SAPIEN XT device and a third-generation SAPIEN 3 device were compared with surgery, neither device achieved lower SVD rates relative to SAVR.

In PARTNER 2A, the SVD rate for the older device was nearly three times greater than SAVR (1.61 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years). The numerically higher SVD rates for the newer device (0.68 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years) was not statistically different, but the TAVI device was not superior.

More than 4,000 patients evaluated at 5 years

In the analysis presented by Dr. Reardon, data were pooled from the randomized CoreValve U.S. High-Risk Pivotal Trial and the SURTAVI Intermediate Risk Trial. Together, these studies randomized 971 patients to surgery and 1,128 patients to TAVI. Data on an additional 2,663 patients treated with the Evolut valve in two registries were added to the randomized trial data, providing data on 4,762 total patients with 5-year follow-up.

SVD was defined by two criteria. The first was a mean gradient increase of at least 10 mm Hg plus a mean overall gradient of at least 20 mm Hg as measured with echocardiography and assessed, when possible, by an independent core laboratory. The second was new-onset or increased intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation of at least moderate severity.

When graphed over time, the SVD curves separated in favor of TAVI after about 6 months of follow-up. The shape of the curves also differed. Unlike the steady rise in SVD observed in the surgery group, the SVD rate in the TAVI group remained below 1% for almost 4 years before beginning to climb.

There was greater relative benefit for the TAVI device in patients with annular diameters of 23 mm or less. Unlike the rise in SVD rates that began about 6 months after SAVR, the SVD rates in the TAVI patients remained at 0% for more than 2 years. At 5 years, the differences remained significant favoring TAVI (1.39% vs. 5.86%; P = .049).

In those with larger annular diameters, there was still a consistently lower SVD rate over time for TAVI relative to SAVR, but the trend for an advantage at 5 years fell just short of significance (2.48% vs. 3.96%; P = .067).
 

SVD linked to doubling of mortality

SVD worsened outcomes. When all data surgery and TAVI data were pooled, the hazard ratios corresponded with about a doubling of risk for major adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality (HR, 1.98; P < .001), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.82; P = .008), and hospitalization for aortic valve disease or worsening heart failure (HR, 2.11; P = .01). The relative risks were similar in the two treatment groups, including the risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 2.24; P < .001 for TAVI vs. HR, 2.45; P = .002 for SAVR).

The predictors for SVD on multivariate analysis included female sex, increased body surface area, prior percutaneous coronary intervention, and a prior diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.

Design improvements in TAVI devices are likely to explain these results, said Dr. Reardon, chair of cardiovascular research at Houston Methodist Hospital.

“The CoreValve/Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding bioprosthesis is the first and only transcatheter bioprosthesis to demonstrate lower rates of SVD, compared with surgery,” Dr. Reardon said.

This analysis validated the risks posed by the definition of SVD applied in this study, which appears to be a practical tool for tracking valve function and patient risk. Dr. Reardon also said that the study confirms the value of serial Doppler transthoracic echocardiography as a tool for monitoring SVD.

Several experts agreed that this is important new information.

“This is a remarkable series of findings,” said James McClurken, MD, who is a cardiovascular surgeon affiliated with Temple University, Philadelphia, and practices in Doylestown, Penn. By both demonstrating the prognostic importance of SVD and showing differences between the study device and SAVR, this trial will yield practical data to inform patients about relative risks and benefits.

Athena Poppas, MD, the new president of the ACC and a professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I., called this study “practice changing” for the same reasons. She also thinks it has valuable data for guiding choice of intervention.

Overall, the data are likely to change thinking about the role of TAVI and surgery in younger, fit patients, according to Megan Coylewright, MD, chief of cardiology at Erlanger Cardiology, Chattanooga, Tenn.

“There are patients [in need of aortic valve repair] with a long life expectancy who have been told you have to have a surgical repair because we know they last longer,” she said. Although she said that relative outcomes after longer follow-up remain unknown, “I think this does throw that comment into question.”

Dr. Reardon has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Gore Medical. Dr. Poppas and McClurken reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Coylewright reported financial relationships with Abbott, Alleviant, Boston Scientific, Cardiosmart, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Occlutech. The study received financial support from Medtronic.

Early meniscal surgery does not appear to be better than a program of exercise and education in improving knee outcomes in young adults with meniscal tears, according to the results of the randomized controlled DREAM trial presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.

Indeed, similar clinically relevant improvements in knee pain, function, and quality of life at 12 months were seen among participants in both study arms.

“Our results highlight that decisions on surgery or nonsurgical treatment must depend on preferences and values and needs of the individuals consulting their surgeon,” Søren T. Skou, PT, MSc, PhD, reported during one of the opening sessions at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

The lack of superiority was contrary to the expectations of the researchers who hypothesized that early surgical intervention in adults aged between 18 and 40 years would be more beneficial than an active rehabilitation program with later surgery if needed.

Although the results do tie in with the results of other trials and systematic reviews in older adults the reason for looking at young adults specifically, aside from the obvious differences and the origin of meniscal tears, was that no study had previously looked at this population, Dr. Skou explained.
 

Assembling the DREAM team

The DREAM (Danish RCT on Exercise versus Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery for Young Adults) trial “was a collaborative effort among many clinicians in Denmark – physical therapists, exercise physiologists, and surgeons,” Dr. Skou observed.

In total, 121 adults with MRI-verified meniscal tears who were eligible for surgery were recruited and randomized to either the early meniscal surgery group (n = 60) or to the exercise and education group (n = 61). The mean age was just below 30 years and 28% were female

Meniscal surgery, which was either an arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or meniscal repair, was performed at seven specialist centers. The exercise and education program was delivered by trained physical therapists working at 19 participating centers. The latter consisted of 24 sessions of group-based exercise therapy and education held over a period of 12 weeks.

Participants randomized to the exercise and education arm had the option of later meniscal surgery, with one in four eventually undergoing this procedure.
 

No gain in pain

The primary outcome measure was the difference in the mean of four of the subscales of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) from baseline to 12-month assessment. The KOOS4 looks at knee pain, symptoms, function in sport and recreation, and quality of life.

“We considered a 10-point difference between groups as clinically relevant,” said Dr. Skou, but “adjusting for the baseline differences, we found no [statistical] differences or clinically relevant differences between groups.”

Improvement was seen in both groups. In an intention-to-treat analysis the KOOS4 scores improved by 19.2 points and 16.4 points respectively in the surgery and exercise and education groups, with a mean adjusted difference of 5.4 (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to 11.4). There was also no difference in a per protocol analysis, which considered only those participants who received the treatment strategy they were allocated (mean adjusted difference, 5.7; 95% CI, –0.9 to 12.4).

Secondary outcomes were also similarly improved in both groups with clinically relevant increases in all four KOOS subscale scores and in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET).

While there were some statistical differences between the groups, such as better KOOS pain, symptoms, and WOMET scores in the surgery group, these were felt unlikely to be clinically relevant. Likewise, there was a statistically greater improvement in muscle strength in the exercise and education group than surgery group.

There was no statistical difference in the number of serious adverse events, including worsening of symptoms with or without acute onset during activity and lateral meniscal cysts, with four reported in the surgical group and seven in the exercise and education group.
 

Views on results

The results of the trial, published in NEJM Evidence, garnered attention on Twitter with several physiotherapists noting the data were positive for the nonsurgical management of meniscal tears in younger adults.

During discussion at the meeting, Nadine Foster, PhD, NIHR Professor of Musculoskeletal Health in Primary Care at Keele (England) University, asked if a larger cohort might not swing the results in favor of surgery.

She said: “Congratulations on this trial. The challenge: Your 95% CIs suggest a larger trial would have concluded superiority of surgery?”

Dr. Skou responded: “Most likely the true difference is outside the clinically relevant difference, but obviously, we cannot exclude that there is actually a clinically relevant difference between groups.”

Martin Englund, MD, Phd, of Lund (Sweden) University Hospital in Sweden, pointed out that 16 patients in the exercise and education group had “crossed over” and undergone surgery. “Were there any differences for those patients?” he asked.

“We looked at whether there was a difference between those – obviously only having 16 participants, we’re not able to do any statistical comparisons – but looking just visually at the data, they seem to improve to the same extent as those undergoing nonsurgical only,” Dr. Skou said.

The 2-year MRI data are currently being examined and will “obviously also be very interesting,” he added.

The DREAM trial was funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research, IMK Almene Fond, Lundbeck Foundation, Spar Nord Foundation, Danish Rheumatism Association, Association of Danish Physiotherapists Research Fund, Research Council at Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, and Region Zealand. Dr. Skou had no financial or other conflicts of interest to disclose.

Early meniscal surgery does not appear to be better than a program of exercise and education in improving knee outcomes in young adults with meniscal tears, according to the results of the randomized controlled DREAM trial presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.

Indeed, similar clinically relevant improvements in knee pain, function, and quality of life at 12 months were seen among participants in both study arms.

“Our results highlight that decisions on surgery or nonsurgical treatment must depend on preferences and values and needs of the individuals consulting their surgeon,” Søren T. Skou, PT, MSc, PhD, reported during one of the opening sessions at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

The lack of superiority was contrary to the expectations of the researchers who hypothesized that early surgical intervention in adults aged between 18 and 40 years would be more beneficial than an active rehabilitation program with later surgery if needed.

Although the results do tie in with the results of other trials and systematic reviews in older adults the reason for looking at young adults specifically, aside from the obvious differences and the origin of meniscal tears, was that no study had previously looked at this population, Dr. Skou explained.
 

Assembling the DREAM team

The DREAM (Danish RCT on Exercise versus Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery for Young Adults) trial “was a collaborative effort among many clinicians in Denmark – physical therapists, exercise physiologists, and surgeons,” Dr. Skou observed.

In total, 121 adults with MRI-verified meniscal tears who were eligible for surgery were recruited and randomized to either the early meniscal surgery group (n = 60) or to the exercise and education group (n = 61). The mean age was just below 30 years and 28% were female

Meniscal surgery, which was either an arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or meniscal repair, was performed at seven specialist centers. The exercise and education program was delivered by trained physical therapists working at 19 participating centers. The latter consisted of 24 sessions of group-based exercise therapy and education held over a period of 12 weeks.

Participants randomized to the exercise and education arm had the option of later meniscal surgery, with one in four eventually undergoing this procedure.
 

No gain in pain

The primary outcome measure was the difference in the mean of four of the subscales of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) from baseline to 12-month assessment. The KOOS4 looks at knee pain, symptoms, function in sport and recreation, and quality of life.

“We considered a 10-point difference between groups as clinically relevant,” said Dr. Skou, but “adjusting for the baseline differences, we found no [statistical] differences or clinically relevant differences between groups.”

Improvement was seen in both groups. In an intention-to-treat analysis the KOOS4 scores improved by 19.2 points and 16.4 points respectively in the surgery and exercise and education groups, with a mean adjusted difference of 5.4 (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to 11.4). There was also no difference in a per protocol analysis, which considered only those participants who received the treatment strategy they were allocated (mean adjusted difference, 5.7; 95% CI, –0.9 to 12.4).

Secondary outcomes were also similarly improved in both groups with clinically relevant increases in all four KOOS subscale scores and in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET).

While there were some statistical differences between the groups, such as better KOOS pain, symptoms, and WOMET scores in the surgery group, these were felt unlikely to be clinically relevant. Likewise, there was a statistically greater improvement in muscle strength in the exercise and education group than surgery group.

There was no statistical difference in the number of serious adverse events, including worsening of symptoms with or without acute onset during activity and lateral meniscal cysts, with four reported in the surgical group and seven in the exercise and education group.
 

Views on results

The results of the trial, published in NEJM Evidence, garnered attention on Twitter with several physiotherapists noting the data were positive for the nonsurgical management of meniscal tears in younger adults.

During discussion at the meeting, Nadine Foster, PhD, NIHR Professor of Musculoskeletal Health in Primary Care at Keele (England) University, asked if a larger cohort might not swing the results in favor of surgery.

She said: “Congratulations on this trial. The challenge: Your 95% CIs suggest a larger trial would have concluded superiority of surgery?”

Dr. Skou responded: “Most likely the true difference is outside the clinically relevant difference, but obviously, we cannot exclude that there is actually a clinically relevant difference between groups.”

Martin Englund, MD, Phd, of Lund (Sweden) University Hospital in Sweden, pointed out that 16 patients in the exercise and education group had “crossed over” and undergone surgery. “Were there any differences for those patients?” he asked.

“We looked at whether there was a difference between those – obviously only having 16 participants, we’re not able to do any statistical comparisons – but looking just visually at the data, they seem to improve to the same extent as those undergoing nonsurgical only,” Dr. Skou said.

The 2-year MRI data are currently being examined and will “obviously also be very interesting,” he added.

The DREAM trial was funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research, IMK Almene Fond, Lundbeck Foundation, Spar Nord Foundation, Danish Rheumatism Association, Association of Danish Physiotherapists Research Fund, Research Council at Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, and Region Zealand. Dr. Skou had no financial or other conflicts of interest to disclose.

Early meniscal surgery does not appear to be better than a program of exercise and education in improving knee outcomes in young adults with meniscal tears, according to the results of the randomized controlled DREAM trial presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.

Indeed, similar clinically relevant improvements in knee pain, function, and quality of life at 12 months were seen among participants in both study arms.

“Our results highlight that decisions on surgery or nonsurgical treatment must depend on preferences and values and needs of the individuals consulting their surgeon,” Søren T. Skou, PT, MSc, PhD, reported during one of the opening sessions at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

The lack of superiority was contrary to the expectations of the researchers who hypothesized that early surgical intervention in adults aged between 18 and 40 years would be more beneficial than an active rehabilitation program with later surgery if needed.

Although the results do tie in with the results of other trials and systematic reviews in older adults the reason for looking at young adults specifically, aside from the obvious differences and the origin of meniscal tears, was that no study had previously looked at this population, Dr. Skou explained.
 

Assembling the DREAM team

The DREAM (Danish RCT on Exercise versus Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery for Young Adults) trial “was a collaborative effort among many clinicians in Denmark – physical therapists, exercise physiologists, and surgeons,” Dr. Skou observed.

In total, 121 adults with MRI-verified meniscal tears who were eligible for surgery were recruited and randomized to either the early meniscal surgery group (n = 60) or to the exercise and education group (n = 61). The mean age was just below 30 years and 28% were female

Meniscal surgery, which was either an arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or meniscal repair, was performed at seven specialist centers. The exercise and education program was delivered by trained physical therapists working at 19 participating centers. The latter consisted of 24 sessions of group-based exercise therapy and education held over a period of 12 weeks.

Participants randomized to the exercise and education arm had the option of later meniscal surgery, with one in four eventually undergoing this procedure.
 

No gain in pain

The primary outcome measure was the difference in the mean of four of the subscales of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) from baseline to 12-month assessment. The KOOS4 looks at knee pain, symptoms, function in sport and recreation, and quality of life.

“We considered a 10-point difference between groups as clinically relevant,” said Dr. Skou, but “adjusting for the baseline differences, we found no [statistical] differences or clinically relevant differences between groups.”

Improvement was seen in both groups. In an intention-to-treat analysis the KOOS4 scores improved by 19.2 points and 16.4 points respectively in the surgery and exercise and education groups, with a mean adjusted difference of 5.4 (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to 11.4). There was also no difference in a per protocol analysis, which considered only those participants who received the treatment strategy they were allocated (mean adjusted difference, 5.7; 95% CI, –0.9 to 12.4).

Secondary outcomes were also similarly improved in both groups with clinically relevant increases in all four KOOS subscale scores and in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET).

While there were some statistical differences between the groups, such as better KOOS pain, symptoms, and WOMET scores in the surgery group, these were felt unlikely to be clinically relevant. Likewise, there was a statistically greater improvement in muscle strength in the exercise and education group than surgery group.

There was no statistical difference in the number of serious adverse events, including worsening of symptoms with or without acute onset during activity and lateral meniscal cysts, with four reported in the surgical group and seven in the exercise and education group.
 

Views on results

The results of the trial, published in NEJM Evidence, garnered attention on Twitter with several physiotherapists noting the data were positive for the nonsurgical management of meniscal tears in younger adults.

During discussion at the meeting, Nadine Foster, PhD, NIHR Professor of Musculoskeletal Health in Primary Care at Keele (England) University, asked if a larger cohort might not swing the results in favor of surgery.

She said: “Congratulations on this trial. The challenge: Your 95% CIs suggest a larger trial would have concluded superiority of surgery?”

Dr. Skou responded: “Most likely the true difference is outside the clinically relevant difference, but obviously, we cannot exclude that there is actually a clinically relevant difference between groups.”

Martin Englund, MD, Phd, of Lund (Sweden) University Hospital in Sweden, pointed out that 16 patients in the exercise and education group had “crossed over” and undergone surgery. “Were there any differences for those patients?” he asked.

“We looked at whether there was a difference between those – obviously only having 16 participants, we’re not able to do any statistical comparisons – but looking just visually at the data, they seem to improve to the same extent as those undergoing nonsurgical only,” Dr. Skou said.

The 2-year MRI data are currently being examined and will “obviously also be very interesting,” he added.

The DREAM trial was funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research, IMK Almene Fond, Lundbeck Foundation, Spar Nord Foundation, Danish Rheumatism Association, Association of Danish Physiotherapists Research Fund, Research Council at Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, and Region Zealand. Dr. Skou had no financial or other conflicts of interest to disclose.

In a deep dive into obscure Chinese language transplant journals, a pair of researchers from Australia and Israel have added a new layer of horror to what’s already known about forced organ harvesting in China.

Searching for documentation that vital organs are being harvested from nonconsenting executed prisoners, a practice that the China Tribunal confirmed “beyond any reasonable doubt” in 2020, Jacob Lavee, MD, an Israeli heart transplant surgeon, and Matthew Roberston, a PhD student at Australian National University, uncovered something even more shocking: that vital organs are being explanted from patients who are still alive.

“We have shown for the first time that the transplant surgeons are the executioners – that the mode of execution is organ procurement. These are self-admissions of executing the patient,” Dr. Lavee told this news organization. “Up until now, there has been what we call circumstantial evidence of this, but our paper is what you’d call the smoking gun, because it’s in the words of the physicians themselves that they are doing it. In the words of these surgeons, intubation was done only after the beginning of surgery, which means the patients were breathing spontaneously up until the moment the operation started ... meaning they were not brain dead.”

The research, published in the American Journal of Transplantation, involved intricate analysis of thousands of Chinese language transplant articles and identified 71 articles in which transplant surgeons describe starting organ procurement surgery before declaring their patients brain dead.

“What we found were improper, illegitimate, nonexistent, or false declarations of brain death,” Mr. Robertson said in an interview. He explained that this violates what’s known as the dead donor rule, which is fundamental in transplant ethics. “The surgeons wrote that the donor was brain dead, but according to everything we know about medical science, they could not possibly have been brain dead because there was no apnea test performed. Brain death is not just something you say, there’s this whole battery of tests, and the key is the apnea test, [in which] the patient is already intubated and ventilated, they turn the machine off, and they’re looking for carbon dioxide in the blood above a certain level.”

Mr. Robertson and Dr. Lavee have painstakingly documented “incriminating sentences” in each of the 71 articles proving that brain death had not occurred before the organ explantation procedure began. “There were two criteria by which we claimed a problematic brain death declaration,” said Mr. Robertson, who translated the Chinese. “One was where the patient was not ventilated and was only intubated after they were declared brain dead; the other was that the intubation took place immediately prior to the surgery beginning.”

“It was mind-boggling,” said Dr. Lavee, from Tel Aviv University. “When I first started reading, my initial reaction is, ‘This can’t be.’ I read it once, and again, and I insisted that Matt get another independent translation of the Chinese just to be sure. I told him, ‘There’s no way a physician, a surgeon could write this – it doesn’t make sense.’ But the more of these papers we read, we saw it was a pattern – and they didn’t come out of a single medical center, they are spread all over China.”

For the analysis, Mr. Robertson wrote code and customized an algorithm to examine 124,770 medical articles from official Chinese databases between 1980 and 2020. The 71 articles revealing cases involving problematic brain death came from 56 hospitals (of which 12 were military) in 33 cities across 15 provinces, they report. In total, 348 surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, and other medical workers or researchers were listed as authors of these publications.

Why would these medical personnel write such self-incriminating evidence? The researchers say it’s unclear. “They don’t think anyone’s reading this stuff,” Mr. Robertson suggests. “Sometimes it’s revealed in just five or six characters in a paper of eight pages.” Dr. Lavee wonders if it’s also ignorance. “If this has been a practice for 20 or 30 years in China, I guess nobody at that time was aware they were doing something wrong, although how to declare brain death is something that is known in China. They’ve published a lot about it.”

The article is “evidence that this barbarity continues and is a very valuable contribution that continues to bring attention to an enormous human rights violation,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine. “What they’ve reported has been going on for many, many years, the data are very clear that China’s doing many more transplants than they have cadaver organ donors,” he said, adding that the country’s well-documented and lucrative involvement in transplant tourism “means you have to have a donor ready when the would-be recipient appears; you have to have a matched organ available, and that’s hard to do waiting on a cadaver donor.”

Although the researchers found no incriminating publications after 2015, they speculate that this is likely due to growing awareness among Chinese surgeons that publishing the information would attract international condemnation. “We think these practices are continuing to go on,” said Dr. Lavee. He acknowledged that a voluntary organ donation program is slowly developing in parallel to this. He said, given China’s place as the world’s second largest transplant country behind the U.S., as well as its low rate of voluntary donation, it’s reasonable to conclude that the main source of organs remains prisoners on death row.

Dr. Caplan and the researchers have called for academic institutions and medical journals to resume their previous boycotts of Chinese transplant publications and speakers, but as long as China denies the practices, economic and political leaders will turn a blind eye. “In the past, I don’t think the question of China’s medical professional involvement in the execution of donors has been taken as seriously as it should have,” said Mr. Robertson. “I certainly hope that with the publication of this paper in the leading journal in the field, this will change.”

The study was supported by the Google Cloud Research Credits program, the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Mr. Robertson, Dr. Lavee, and Dr. Caplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a deep dive into obscure Chinese language transplant journals, a pair of researchers from Australia and Israel have added a new layer of horror to what’s already known about forced organ harvesting in China.

Searching for documentation that vital organs are being harvested from nonconsenting executed prisoners, a practice that the China Tribunal confirmed “beyond any reasonable doubt” in 2020, Jacob Lavee, MD, an Israeli heart transplant surgeon, and Matthew Roberston, a PhD student at Australian National University, uncovered something even more shocking: that vital organs are being explanted from patients who are still alive.

“We have shown for the first time that the transplant surgeons are the executioners – that the mode of execution is organ procurement. These are self-admissions of executing the patient,” Dr. Lavee told this news organization. “Up until now, there has been what we call circumstantial evidence of this, but our paper is what you’d call the smoking gun, because it’s in the words of the physicians themselves that they are doing it. In the words of these surgeons, intubation was done only after the beginning of surgery, which means the patients were breathing spontaneously up until the moment the operation started ... meaning they were not brain dead.”

The research, published in the American Journal of Transplantation, involved intricate analysis of thousands of Chinese language transplant articles and identified 71 articles in which transplant surgeons describe starting organ procurement surgery before declaring their patients brain dead.

“What we found were improper, illegitimate, nonexistent, or false declarations of brain death,” Mr. Robertson said in an interview. He explained that this violates what’s known as the dead donor rule, which is fundamental in transplant ethics. “The surgeons wrote that the donor was brain dead, but according to everything we know about medical science, they could not possibly have been brain dead because there was no apnea test performed. Brain death is not just something you say, there’s this whole battery of tests, and the key is the apnea test, [in which] the patient is already intubated and ventilated, they turn the machine off, and they’re looking for carbon dioxide in the blood above a certain level.”

Mr. Robertson and Dr. Lavee have painstakingly documented “incriminating sentences” in each of the 71 articles proving that brain death had not occurred before the organ explantation procedure began. “There were two criteria by which we claimed a problematic brain death declaration,” said Mr. Robertson, who translated the Chinese. “One was where the patient was not ventilated and was only intubated after they were declared brain dead; the other was that the intubation took place immediately prior to the surgery beginning.”

“It was mind-boggling,” said Dr. Lavee, from Tel Aviv University. “When I first started reading, my initial reaction is, ‘This can’t be.’ I read it once, and again, and I insisted that Matt get another independent translation of the Chinese just to be sure. I told him, ‘There’s no way a physician, a surgeon could write this – it doesn’t make sense.’ But the more of these papers we read, we saw it was a pattern – and they didn’t come out of a single medical center, they are spread all over China.”

For the analysis, Mr. Robertson wrote code and customized an algorithm to examine 124,770 medical articles from official Chinese databases between 1980 and 2020. The 71 articles revealing cases involving problematic brain death came from 56 hospitals (of which 12 were military) in 33 cities across 15 provinces, they report. In total, 348 surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, and other medical workers or researchers were listed as authors of these publications.

Why would these medical personnel write such self-incriminating evidence? The researchers say it’s unclear. “They don’t think anyone’s reading this stuff,” Mr. Robertson suggests. “Sometimes it’s revealed in just five or six characters in a paper of eight pages.” Dr. Lavee wonders if it’s also ignorance. “If this has been a practice for 20 or 30 years in China, I guess nobody at that time was aware they were doing something wrong, although how to declare brain death is something that is known in China. They’ve published a lot about it.”

The article is “evidence that this barbarity continues and is a very valuable contribution that continues to bring attention to an enormous human rights violation,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine. “What they’ve reported has been going on for many, many years, the data are very clear that China’s doing many more transplants than they have cadaver organ donors,” he said, adding that the country’s well-documented and lucrative involvement in transplant tourism “means you have to have a donor ready when the would-be recipient appears; you have to have a matched organ available, and that’s hard to do waiting on a cadaver donor.”

Although the researchers found no incriminating publications after 2015, they speculate that this is likely due to growing awareness among Chinese surgeons that publishing the information would attract international condemnation. “We think these practices are continuing to go on,” said Dr. Lavee. He acknowledged that a voluntary organ donation program is slowly developing in parallel to this. He said, given China’s place as the world’s second largest transplant country behind the U.S., as well as its low rate of voluntary donation, it’s reasonable to conclude that the main source of organs remains prisoners on death row.

Dr. Caplan and the researchers have called for academic institutions and medical journals to resume their previous boycotts of Chinese transplant publications and speakers, but as long as China denies the practices, economic and political leaders will turn a blind eye. “In the past, I don’t think the question of China’s medical professional involvement in the execution of donors has been taken as seriously as it should have,” said Mr. Robertson. “I certainly hope that with the publication of this paper in the leading journal in the field, this will change.”

The study was supported by the Google Cloud Research Credits program, the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Mr. Robertson, Dr. Lavee, and Dr. Caplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a deep dive into obscure Chinese language transplant journals, a pair of researchers from Australia and Israel have added a new layer of horror to what’s already known about forced organ harvesting in China.

Searching for documentation that vital organs are being harvested from nonconsenting executed prisoners, a practice that the China Tribunal confirmed “beyond any reasonable doubt” in 2020, Jacob Lavee, MD, an Israeli heart transplant surgeon, and Matthew Roberston, a PhD student at Australian National University, uncovered something even more shocking: that vital organs are being explanted from patients who are still alive.

“We have shown for the first time that the transplant surgeons are the executioners – that the mode of execution is organ procurement. These are self-admissions of executing the patient,” Dr. Lavee told this news organization. “Up until now, there has been what we call circumstantial evidence of this, but our paper is what you’d call the smoking gun, because it’s in the words of the physicians themselves that they are doing it. In the words of these surgeons, intubation was done only after the beginning of surgery, which means the patients were breathing spontaneously up until the moment the operation started ... meaning they were not brain dead.”

The research, published in the American Journal of Transplantation, involved intricate analysis of thousands of Chinese language transplant articles and identified 71 articles in which transplant surgeons describe starting organ procurement surgery before declaring their patients brain dead.

“What we found were improper, illegitimate, nonexistent, or false declarations of brain death,” Mr. Robertson said in an interview. He explained that this violates what’s known as the dead donor rule, which is fundamental in transplant ethics. “The surgeons wrote that the donor was brain dead, but according to everything we know about medical science, they could not possibly have been brain dead because there was no apnea test performed. Brain death is not just something you say, there’s this whole battery of tests, and the key is the apnea test, [in which] the patient is already intubated and ventilated, they turn the machine off, and they’re looking for carbon dioxide in the blood above a certain level.”

Mr. Robertson and Dr. Lavee have painstakingly documented “incriminating sentences” in each of the 71 articles proving that brain death had not occurred before the organ explantation procedure began. “There were two criteria by which we claimed a problematic brain death declaration,” said Mr. Robertson, who translated the Chinese. “One was where the patient was not ventilated and was only intubated after they were declared brain dead; the other was that the intubation took place immediately prior to the surgery beginning.”

“It was mind-boggling,” said Dr. Lavee, from Tel Aviv University. “When I first started reading, my initial reaction is, ‘This can’t be.’ I read it once, and again, and I insisted that Matt get another independent translation of the Chinese just to be sure. I told him, ‘There’s no way a physician, a surgeon could write this – it doesn’t make sense.’ But the more of these papers we read, we saw it was a pattern – and they didn’t come out of a single medical center, they are spread all over China.”

For the analysis, Mr. Robertson wrote code and customized an algorithm to examine 124,770 medical articles from official Chinese databases between 1980 and 2020. The 71 articles revealing cases involving problematic brain death came from 56 hospitals (of which 12 were military) in 33 cities across 15 provinces, they report. In total, 348 surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, and other medical workers or researchers were listed as authors of these publications.

Why would these medical personnel write such self-incriminating evidence? The researchers say it’s unclear. “They don’t think anyone’s reading this stuff,” Mr. Robertson suggests. “Sometimes it’s revealed in just five or six characters in a paper of eight pages.” Dr. Lavee wonders if it’s also ignorance. “If this has been a practice for 20 or 30 years in China, I guess nobody at that time was aware they were doing something wrong, although how to declare brain death is something that is known in China. They’ve published a lot about it.”

The article is “evidence that this barbarity continues and is a very valuable contribution that continues to bring attention to an enormous human rights violation,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine. “What they’ve reported has been going on for many, many years, the data are very clear that China’s doing many more transplants than they have cadaver organ donors,” he said, adding that the country’s well-documented and lucrative involvement in transplant tourism “means you have to have a donor ready when the would-be recipient appears; you have to have a matched organ available, and that’s hard to do waiting on a cadaver donor.”

Although the researchers found no incriminating publications after 2015, they speculate that this is likely due to growing awareness among Chinese surgeons that publishing the information would attract international condemnation. “We think these practices are continuing to go on,” said Dr. Lavee. He acknowledged that a voluntary organ donation program is slowly developing in parallel to this. He said, given China’s place as the world’s second largest transplant country behind the U.S., as well as its low rate of voluntary donation, it’s reasonable to conclude that the main source of organs remains prisoners on death row.

Dr. Caplan and the researchers have called for academic institutions and medical journals to resume their previous boycotts of Chinese transplant publications and speakers, but as long as China denies the practices, economic and political leaders will turn a blind eye. “In the past, I don’t think the question of China’s medical professional involvement in the execution of donors has been taken as seriously as it should have,” said Mr. Robertson. “I certainly hope that with the publication of this paper in the leading journal in the field, this will change.”

The study was supported by the Google Cloud Research Credits program, the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Mr. Robertson, Dr. Lavee, and Dr. Caplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Encouraging improvements in survival have been reported by surgeons who used liver transplants from live donors as a treatment for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and unresectable liver metastases. These patients usually have a poor prognosis, and for many, palliative chemotherapy is the standard of care.

“For the first time, we have been able to demonstrate [outside of Norway] that liver transplantation for patients with unresectable liver metastases is feasible with good outcomes,” lead author Gonzalo Sapisochin, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Furthermore, this is the first time we are able to prove that living donation may be a good strategy in this setting,” Dr. Sapisochin said of the series of 10 cases that they published in JAMA Surgery.

The series showed “excellent perioperative outcomes for both donors and recipients,” noted the authors of an accompanying commentary. They said the team “should be commended for adding liver-donor live transplantation to the armamentarium of surgical options for patients with CRC liver metastases.”

However, they express concern about the relatively short follow-up of 1.5 years and the “very high” recurrence rate of 30%.

Commenting in an interview, lead editorialist Shimul Shah, MD, an associate professor of surgery and the chief of solid organ transplantation at the University of Cincinnati, said: “I agree that overall survival is an important measure to look at, but it’s hard to look at overall survival with [1.5] years of follow-up.”

Other key areas of concern are the need for more standardized practices and for more data on how liver transplantation compares with patients who just continue to receive chemotherapy.

“I certainly think that there’s a role for liver transplantation in these patients, and I am a big fan of this,” Dr. Shah emphasized, noting that four patients at his own center have recently received liver transplants, including three from deceased donors.

“However, I just think that as a community, we need to be cautious and not get too excited too early,” he said. “We need to keep studying it and take it one step at a time.”

Moving from deceased to living donors

Nearly 70% of patients with CRC develop liver metastases, and when these are unresectable, the prognosis is poor, with 5-year survival rates of less than 10%.

The option of liver transplantation was first reported in 2015 by a group in Norway. Their study included 21 patients with CRC and unresectable liver tumors. They reported a striking improvement in overall survival at 5 years (56% vs. 9% among patients who started first-line chemotherapy).

But with shortages of donor livers, this approach has not caught on. Deceased-donor liver allografts are in short supply in most countries, and recent allocation changes have further shifted available organs away from patients with liver tumors.

An alternative is to use living donors. In a recent study, Dr. Sapisochin and colleagues showed viability and a survival advantage, compared with deceased-donor liver transplantation.

Building on that work, they established treatment protocols at three centers – the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, the Cleveland Clinic, , and the University Health Network in Toronto.

Of 91 evaluated patients who were prospectively enrolled with liver-confined, unresectable CRC liver metastases, 10 met all inclusion criteria and received living-donor liver transplants between December 2017 and May 2021. The median age of the patients was 45 years; six were men, and four were women.

These patients all had primary tumors greater than stage T2 (six T3 and four T4b). Lymphovascular invasion was present in two patients, and perineural invasion was present in one patient.

The median time from diagnosis of the liver metastases to liver transplant was 1.7 years (range, 1.1-7.8 years).

At a median follow-up of 1.5 years (range, 0.4-2.9 years), recurrences occurred in three patients, with a rate of recurrence-free survival, using Kaplan-Meier estimates, of 62% and a rate of overall survival of 100%.

Rates of morbidity associated with transplantation were no higher than those observed in established standards for the donors or recipients, the authors noted.

Among transplant recipients, three patients had no Clavien-Dindo complications; three had grade II, and four had grade III complications. Among donors, five had no complications, four had grade I, and one had grade III complications.

All 10 donors were discharged from the hospital 4-7 days after surgery and recovered fully.

All three patients who experienced recurrences were treated with palliative chemotherapy. One died of disease after 3 months of treatment. As of the time of publication of the study, the other two had survived for 2 or more years following their live donor liver transplant.
 

Patient selection key

The authors are now investigating tumor subtypes, responses in CRC liver metastases, and other factors, with the aim of developing a novel screening method to identify appropriate candidates more quickly.

In the meantime, they emphasized that indicators of disease biology, such as the Oslo Score, the Clinical Risk Score, and sustained clinical response to systemic therapy, “remain the key filters through which to select patients who have sufficient opportunity for long-term cancer control, which is necessary to justify the risk to a living donor.”

Dr. Sapisochin reported receiving grants from Roche and Bayer and personal fees from Integra, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Shah disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Encouraging improvements in survival have been reported by surgeons who used liver transplants from live donors as a treatment for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and unresectable liver metastases. These patients usually have a poor prognosis, and for many, palliative chemotherapy is the standard of care.

“For the first time, we have been able to demonstrate [outside of Norway] that liver transplantation for patients with unresectable liver metastases is feasible with good outcomes,” lead author Gonzalo Sapisochin, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Furthermore, this is the first time we are able to prove that living donation may be a good strategy in this setting,” Dr. Sapisochin said of the series of 10 cases that they published in JAMA Surgery.

The series showed “excellent perioperative outcomes for both donors and recipients,” noted the authors of an accompanying commentary. They said the team “should be commended for adding liver-donor live transplantation to the armamentarium of surgical options for patients with CRC liver metastases.”

However, they express concern about the relatively short follow-up of 1.5 years and the “very high” recurrence rate of 30%.

Commenting in an interview, lead editorialist Shimul Shah, MD, an associate professor of surgery and the chief of solid organ transplantation at the University of Cincinnati, said: “I agree that overall survival is an important measure to look at, but it’s hard to look at overall survival with [1.5] years of follow-up.”

Other key areas of concern are the need for more standardized practices and for more data on how liver transplantation compares with patients who just continue to receive chemotherapy.

“I certainly think that there’s a role for liver transplantation in these patients, and I am a big fan of this,” Dr. Shah emphasized, noting that four patients at his own center have recently received liver transplants, including three from deceased donors.

“However, I just think that as a community, we need to be cautious and not get too excited too early,” he said. “We need to keep studying it and take it one step at a time.”

Moving from deceased to living donors

Nearly 70% of patients with CRC develop liver metastases, and when these are unresectable, the prognosis is poor, with 5-year survival rates of less than 10%.

The option of liver transplantation was first reported in 2015 by a group in Norway. Their study included 21 patients with CRC and unresectable liver tumors. They reported a striking improvement in overall survival at 5 years (56% vs. 9% among patients who started first-line chemotherapy).

But with shortages of donor livers, this approach has not caught on. Deceased-donor liver allografts are in short supply in most countries, and recent allocation changes have further shifted available organs away from patients with liver tumors.

An alternative is to use living donors. In a recent study, Dr. Sapisochin and colleagues showed viability and a survival advantage, compared with deceased-donor liver transplantation.

Building on that work, they established treatment protocols at three centers – the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, the Cleveland Clinic, , and the University Health Network in Toronto.

Of 91 evaluated patients who were prospectively enrolled with liver-confined, unresectable CRC liver metastases, 10 met all inclusion criteria and received living-donor liver transplants between December 2017 and May 2021. The median age of the patients was 45 years; six were men, and four were women.

These patients all had primary tumors greater than stage T2 (six T3 and four T4b). Lymphovascular invasion was present in two patients, and perineural invasion was present in one patient.

The median time from diagnosis of the liver metastases to liver transplant was 1.7 years (range, 1.1-7.8 years).

At a median follow-up of 1.5 years (range, 0.4-2.9 years), recurrences occurred in three patients, with a rate of recurrence-free survival, using Kaplan-Meier estimates, of 62% and a rate of overall survival of 100%.

Rates of morbidity associated with transplantation were no higher than those observed in established standards for the donors or recipients, the authors noted.

Among transplant recipients, three patients had no Clavien-Dindo complications; three had grade II, and four had grade III complications. Among donors, five had no complications, four had grade I, and one had grade III complications.

All 10 donors were discharged from the hospital 4-7 days after surgery and recovered fully.

All three patients who experienced recurrences were treated with palliative chemotherapy. One died of disease after 3 months of treatment. As of the time of publication of the study, the other two had survived for 2 or more years following their live donor liver transplant.
 

Patient selection key

The authors are now investigating tumor subtypes, responses in CRC liver metastases, and other factors, with the aim of developing a novel screening method to identify appropriate candidates more quickly.

In the meantime, they emphasized that indicators of disease biology, such as the Oslo Score, the Clinical Risk Score, and sustained clinical response to systemic therapy, “remain the key filters through which to select patients who have sufficient opportunity for long-term cancer control, which is necessary to justify the risk to a living donor.”

Dr. Sapisochin reported receiving grants from Roche and Bayer and personal fees from Integra, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Shah disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Encouraging improvements in survival have been reported by surgeons who used liver transplants from live donors as a treatment for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and unresectable liver metastases. These patients usually have a poor prognosis, and for many, palliative chemotherapy is the standard of care.

“For the first time, we have been able to demonstrate [outside of Norway] that liver transplantation for patients with unresectable liver metastases is feasible with good outcomes,” lead author Gonzalo Sapisochin, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Furthermore, this is the first time we are able to prove that living donation may be a good strategy in this setting,” Dr. Sapisochin said of the series of 10 cases that they published in JAMA Surgery.

The series showed “excellent perioperative outcomes for both donors and recipients,” noted the authors of an accompanying commentary. They said the team “should be commended for adding liver-donor live transplantation to the armamentarium of surgical options for patients with CRC liver metastases.”

However, they express concern about the relatively short follow-up of 1.5 years and the “very high” recurrence rate of 30%.

Commenting in an interview, lead editorialist Shimul Shah, MD, an associate professor of surgery and the chief of solid organ transplantation at the University of Cincinnati, said: “I agree that overall survival is an important measure to look at, but it’s hard to look at overall survival with [1.5] years of follow-up.”

Other key areas of concern are the need for more standardized practices and for more data on how liver transplantation compares with patients who just continue to receive chemotherapy.

“I certainly think that there’s a role for liver transplantation in these patients, and I am a big fan of this,” Dr. Shah emphasized, noting that four patients at his own center have recently received liver transplants, including three from deceased donors.

“However, I just think that as a community, we need to be cautious and not get too excited too early,” he said. “We need to keep studying it and take it one step at a time.”

Moving from deceased to living donors

Nearly 70% of patients with CRC develop liver metastases, and when these are unresectable, the prognosis is poor, with 5-year survival rates of less than 10%.

The option of liver transplantation was first reported in 2015 by a group in Norway. Their study included 21 patients with CRC and unresectable liver tumors. They reported a striking improvement in overall survival at 5 years (56% vs. 9% among patients who started first-line chemotherapy).

But with shortages of donor livers, this approach has not caught on. Deceased-donor liver allografts are in short supply in most countries, and recent allocation changes have further shifted available organs away from patients with liver tumors.

An alternative is to use living donors. In a recent study, Dr. Sapisochin and colleagues showed viability and a survival advantage, compared with deceased-donor liver transplantation.

Building on that work, they established treatment protocols at three centers – the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, the Cleveland Clinic, , and the University Health Network in Toronto.

Of 91 evaluated patients who were prospectively enrolled with liver-confined, unresectable CRC liver metastases, 10 met all inclusion criteria and received living-donor liver transplants between December 2017 and May 2021. The median age of the patients was 45 years; six were men, and four were women.

These patients all had primary tumors greater than stage T2 (six T3 and four T4b). Lymphovascular invasion was present in two patients, and perineural invasion was present in one patient.

The median time from diagnosis of the liver metastases to liver transplant was 1.7 years (range, 1.1-7.8 years).

At a median follow-up of 1.5 years (range, 0.4-2.9 years), recurrences occurred in three patients, with a rate of recurrence-free survival, using Kaplan-Meier estimates, of 62% and a rate of overall survival of 100%.

Rates of morbidity associated with transplantation were no higher than those observed in established standards for the donors or recipients, the authors noted.

Among transplant recipients, three patients had no Clavien-Dindo complications; three had grade II, and four had grade III complications. Among donors, five had no complications, four had grade I, and one had grade III complications.

All 10 donors were discharged from the hospital 4-7 days after surgery and recovered fully.

All three patients who experienced recurrences were treated with palliative chemotherapy. One died of disease after 3 months of treatment. As of the time of publication of the study, the other two had survived for 2 or more years following their live donor liver transplant.
 

Patient selection key

The authors are now investigating tumor subtypes, responses in CRC liver metastases, and other factors, with the aim of developing a novel screening method to identify appropriate candidates more quickly.

In the meantime, they emphasized that indicators of disease biology, such as the Oslo Score, the Clinical Risk Score, and sustained clinical response to systemic therapy, “remain the key filters through which to select patients who have sufficient opportunity for long-term cancer control, which is necessary to justify the risk to a living donor.”

Dr. Sapisochin reported receiving grants from Roche and Bayer and personal fees from Integra, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Shah disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The next generation of COVID-19 vaccines should be able to fight off a new strain and be given each year, a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration said April 6.

But members of the panel also acknowledged that it will be an uphill battle to reach that goal, especially given how quickly the virus continues to change.

The members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they want to find the balance that makes sure Americans are protected against severe illness and death but doesn’t wear them out with constant recommendations for boosters.

“We don’t feel comfortable with multiple boosters every 8 weeks,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “We’d love to see an annual vaccination similar to influenza but realize that the evolution of the virus will dictate how we respond in terms of additional vaccine doses.”

The virus itself will dictate vaccination plans, he said.

The government must also keep its focus on convincing Americans who haven’t been vaccinated to join the club, said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, given that “it seems quite obvious that those who are vaccinated do better than those who aren’t vaccinated.”

The government should clearly communicate to the public the goals of vaccination, he said.

“I would suggest that our overall aim is to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death more than just infection prevention,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

The FDA called the meeting of its advisers to discuss overall booster and vaccine strategy, even though it already authorized a fourth dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for certain immune compromised adults and for everyone over age 50.

Early in the all-day meeting, temporary committee member James Hildreth, MD, the president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tenn., asked why that authorization was given without the panel’s input. Peter Marks, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the decision was based on data from the United Kingdom and Israel that suggested immunity from a third shot was already waning.

Dr. Marks later said the fourth dose was “authorized as a stopgap measure until we could get something else in place,” because the aim was to protect older Americans who had died at a higher rate than younger individuals.

“I think we’re very much on board that we simply can’t be boosting people as frequently as we are,” said Dr. Marks.
 

Not enough information to make broader plan

The meeting was meant to be a larger conversation about how to keep pace with the evolving virus and to set up a vaccine selection and development process to better and more quickly respond to changes, such as new variants.

But committee members said they felt stymied by a lack of information. They wanted more data from vaccine manufacturers’ clinical trials. And they noted that so far, there’s no objective, reliable lab-based measurement of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness – known as a correlate of immunity. Instead, public health officials have looked at rates of hospitalizations and deaths to measure whether the vaccine is still offering protection.

“The question is, what is insufficient protection?” asked H. Cody Meissner, MD, director of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. “At what point will we say the vaccine isn’t working well enough?”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials presented data showing that a third shot has been more effective than a two-shot regimen in preventing serious disease and death, and that the three shots were significantly more protective than being unvaccinated.

In February, as the Omicron variant continued to rage, unvaccinated Americans aged 5 years and older had an almost three times higher risk of testing positive, and nine times higher risk of dying, compared with those who were considered fully vaccinated, said Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

But only 98 million Americans – about half of those aged 12 years or older – have received a third dose, Dr. Scobie said.

It’s also still not clear how much more protection a fourth shot adds, or how long it will last. The committee heard data on a just-published study of a fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine given to some 600,000 Israelis during the Omicron wave from January to March. The rate of severe COVID-19 was 3.5 times lower in the group that received a fourth dose, compared with those who had gotten only three shots, and protection lasted for at least 12 weeks.

Still, study authors said, any protection against infection itself was “short lived.”


 

More like flu vaccine?

The advisers discussed the possibility of making COVID-19 vaccine development similar to the process for the flu vaccine but acknowledged many difficulties.

The flu predictably hits during the winter in each hemisphere and a global surveillance network helps the World Health Organization decide on the vaccine strains each year. Then each nation’s regulatory and public health officials choose the strains for their shot and vaccine makers begin what is typically a 6-month-long manufacturing process.

COVID outbreaks have happened during all seasons and new variants haven’t always hit every country in a similar fashion. The COVID virus has mutated at five times the speed of the flu virus – producing a new dominant strain in a year, compared with the 3-5 years it takes for the flu virus to do so, said Trevor Bedford, PhD, a professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

Global COVID surveillance is patchy and the WHO has not yet created a program to help select strains for a COVID-19 vaccine but is working on a process. Currently, vaccine makers seem to be driving vaccine strain selection, said panelist Paul Offit, MD, professor of paediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I feel like to some extent the companies dictate the conversation. It shouldn’t come from them. It should come from us.”

“The important thing is that the public understands how complex this is,” said temporary committee member Oveta A. Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan. “We didn’t get to understand influenza in 2 years. It’s taken years to get an imperfect but useful process to deal with flu.”

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

The next generation of COVID-19 vaccines should be able to fight off a new strain and be given each year, a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration said April 6.

But members of the panel also acknowledged that it will be an uphill battle to reach that goal, especially given how quickly the virus continues to change.

The members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they want to find the balance that makes sure Americans are protected against severe illness and death but doesn’t wear them out with constant recommendations for boosters.

“We don’t feel comfortable with multiple boosters every 8 weeks,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “We’d love to see an annual vaccination similar to influenza but realize that the evolution of the virus will dictate how we respond in terms of additional vaccine doses.”

The virus itself will dictate vaccination plans, he said.

The government must also keep its focus on convincing Americans who haven’t been vaccinated to join the club, said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, given that “it seems quite obvious that those who are vaccinated do better than those who aren’t vaccinated.”

The government should clearly communicate to the public the goals of vaccination, he said.

“I would suggest that our overall aim is to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death more than just infection prevention,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

The FDA called the meeting of its advisers to discuss overall booster and vaccine strategy, even though it already authorized a fourth dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for certain immune compromised adults and for everyone over age 50.

Early in the all-day meeting, temporary committee member James Hildreth, MD, the president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tenn., asked why that authorization was given without the panel’s input. Peter Marks, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the decision was based on data from the United Kingdom and Israel that suggested immunity from a third shot was already waning.

Dr. Marks later said the fourth dose was “authorized as a stopgap measure until we could get something else in place,” because the aim was to protect older Americans who had died at a higher rate than younger individuals.

“I think we’re very much on board that we simply can’t be boosting people as frequently as we are,” said Dr. Marks.
 

Not enough information to make broader plan

The meeting was meant to be a larger conversation about how to keep pace with the evolving virus and to set up a vaccine selection and development process to better and more quickly respond to changes, such as new variants.

But committee members said they felt stymied by a lack of information. They wanted more data from vaccine manufacturers’ clinical trials. And they noted that so far, there’s no objective, reliable lab-based measurement of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness – known as a correlate of immunity. Instead, public health officials have looked at rates of hospitalizations and deaths to measure whether the vaccine is still offering protection.

“The question is, what is insufficient protection?” asked H. Cody Meissner, MD, director of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. “At what point will we say the vaccine isn’t working well enough?”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials presented data showing that a third shot has been more effective than a two-shot regimen in preventing serious disease and death, and that the three shots were significantly more protective than being unvaccinated.

In February, as the Omicron variant continued to rage, unvaccinated Americans aged 5 years and older had an almost three times higher risk of testing positive, and nine times higher risk of dying, compared with those who were considered fully vaccinated, said Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

But only 98 million Americans – about half of those aged 12 years or older – have received a third dose, Dr. Scobie said.

It’s also still not clear how much more protection a fourth shot adds, or how long it will last. The committee heard data on a just-published study of a fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine given to some 600,000 Israelis during the Omicron wave from January to March. The rate of severe COVID-19 was 3.5 times lower in the group that received a fourth dose, compared with those who had gotten only three shots, and protection lasted for at least 12 weeks.

Still, study authors said, any protection against infection itself was “short lived.”


 

More like flu vaccine?

The advisers discussed the possibility of making COVID-19 vaccine development similar to the process for the flu vaccine but acknowledged many difficulties.

The flu predictably hits during the winter in each hemisphere and a global surveillance network helps the World Health Organization decide on the vaccine strains each year. Then each nation’s regulatory and public health officials choose the strains for their shot and vaccine makers begin what is typically a 6-month-long manufacturing process.

COVID outbreaks have happened during all seasons and new variants haven’t always hit every country in a similar fashion. The COVID virus has mutated at five times the speed of the flu virus – producing a new dominant strain in a year, compared with the 3-5 years it takes for the flu virus to do so, said Trevor Bedford, PhD, a professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

Global COVID surveillance is patchy and the WHO has not yet created a program to help select strains for a COVID-19 vaccine but is working on a process. Currently, vaccine makers seem to be driving vaccine strain selection, said panelist Paul Offit, MD, professor of paediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I feel like to some extent the companies dictate the conversation. It shouldn’t come from them. It should come from us.”

“The important thing is that the public understands how complex this is,” said temporary committee member Oveta A. Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan. “We didn’t get to understand influenza in 2 years. It’s taken years to get an imperfect but useful process to deal with flu.”

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

The next generation of COVID-19 vaccines should be able to fight off a new strain and be given each year, a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration said April 6.

But members of the panel also acknowledged that it will be an uphill battle to reach that goal, especially given how quickly the virus continues to change.

The members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they want to find the balance that makes sure Americans are protected against severe illness and death but doesn’t wear them out with constant recommendations for boosters.

“We don’t feel comfortable with multiple boosters every 8 weeks,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “We’d love to see an annual vaccination similar to influenza but realize that the evolution of the virus will dictate how we respond in terms of additional vaccine doses.”

The virus itself will dictate vaccination plans, he said.

The government must also keep its focus on convincing Americans who haven’t been vaccinated to join the club, said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, given that “it seems quite obvious that those who are vaccinated do better than those who aren’t vaccinated.”

The government should clearly communicate to the public the goals of vaccination, he said.

“I would suggest that our overall aim is to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death more than just infection prevention,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

The FDA called the meeting of its advisers to discuss overall booster and vaccine strategy, even though it already authorized a fourth dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for certain immune compromised adults and for everyone over age 50.

Early in the all-day meeting, temporary committee member James Hildreth, MD, the president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tenn., asked why that authorization was given without the panel’s input. Peter Marks, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the decision was based on data from the United Kingdom and Israel that suggested immunity from a third shot was already waning.

Dr. Marks later said the fourth dose was “authorized as a stopgap measure until we could get something else in place,” because the aim was to protect older Americans who had died at a higher rate than younger individuals.

“I think we’re very much on board that we simply can’t be boosting people as frequently as we are,” said Dr. Marks.
 

Not enough information to make broader plan

The meeting was meant to be a larger conversation about how to keep pace with the evolving virus and to set up a vaccine selection and development process to better and more quickly respond to changes, such as new variants.

But committee members said they felt stymied by a lack of information. They wanted more data from vaccine manufacturers’ clinical trials. And they noted that so far, there’s no objective, reliable lab-based measurement of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness – known as a correlate of immunity. Instead, public health officials have looked at rates of hospitalizations and deaths to measure whether the vaccine is still offering protection.

“The question is, what is insufficient protection?” asked H. Cody Meissner, MD, director of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. “At what point will we say the vaccine isn’t working well enough?”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials presented data showing that a third shot has been more effective than a two-shot regimen in preventing serious disease and death, and that the three shots were significantly more protective than being unvaccinated.

In February, as the Omicron variant continued to rage, unvaccinated Americans aged 5 years and older had an almost three times higher risk of testing positive, and nine times higher risk of dying, compared with those who were considered fully vaccinated, said Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

But only 98 million Americans – about half of those aged 12 years or older – have received a third dose, Dr. Scobie said.

It’s also still not clear how much more protection a fourth shot adds, or how long it will last. The committee heard data on a just-published study of a fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine given to some 600,000 Israelis during the Omicron wave from January to March. The rate of severe COVID-19 was 3.5 times lower in the group that received a fourth dose, compared with those who had gotten only three shots, and protection lasted for at least 12 weeks.

Still, study authors said, any protection against infection itself was “short lived.”


 

More like flu vaccine?

The advisers discussed the possibility of making COVID-19 vaccine development similar to the process for the flu vaccine but acknowledged many difficulties.

The flu predictably hits during the winter in each hemisphere and a global surveillance network helps the World Health Organization decide on the vaccine strains each year. Then each nation’s regulatory and public health officials choose the strains for their shot and vaccine makers begin what is typically a 6-month-long manufacturing process.

COVID outbreaks have happened during all seasons and new variants haven’t always hit every country in a similar fashion. The COVID virus has mutated at five times the speed of the flu virus – producing a new dominant strain in a year, compared with the 3-5 years it takes for the flu virus to do so, said Trevor Bedford, PhD, a professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

Global COVID surveillance is patchy and the WHO has not yet created a program to help select strains for a COVID-19 vaccine but is working on a process. Currently, vaccine makers seem to be driving vaccine strain selection, said panelist Paul Offit, MD, professor of paediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I feel like to some extent the companies dictate the conversation. It shouldn’t come from them. It should come from us.”

“The important thing is that the public understands how complex this is,” said temporary committee member Oveta A. Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan. “We didn’t get to understand influenza in 2 years. It’s taken years to get an imperfect but useful process to deal with flu.”

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

After more than a decade of moving because of medical school, residencies, and international fellowships, Abhi Kole, MD, PhD, is ready to put down roots. But he’s learning that buying a house in today’s housing market is easier said than done.

In the past 6 months, Dr. Kole, an internist at Grady Hospital in Atlanta, put in offers on three houses. None resulted in a purchase. Dr. Kole says he’s learned how to be more competitive with each subsequent offer, starting out with a bid significantly above the asking price and waiving his right to an appraisal or financing contingencies.

The experience has been surprising and disappointing.

“I knew the market was bad when I started looking and that home prices had gone up,” Dr. Kole says. “What I didn’t realize was that it would still be so hard for me. I have a good job, no debt, and great credit.”

Another frustration for Dr. Kole: He’s been approved for a physician’s loan (a type of mortgage that requires a lower down payment and does not count student loans in debt-to-income calculations) from a national bank, but sellers seem to prefer buyers who work with local lenders. Dr. Kole has been willing to waive the appraisal and mortgage contingency on the right home, but he draws the line at waiving the inspection, a trend that some other buyers in his area are going along with.

“With each house, I learn more about how this works and what amount of risk I can safely assume,” Dr. Kobe says. “There are certain things I definitely wouldn’t give up.”

Dr. Kole’s experience mirrors that of millions of other would-be homebuyers navigating a strong seller’s market.

“Potential homebuyers are really facing a triple threat right now,” says Clare Losey, an assistant research economist with the Texas Real Estate Research Center. “There’s high home appreciation, high mortgage rates, and low inventory of homes for sale.”

It’s still possible to find — and buy — your dream home, even in today’s market with all its challenges. Here are some important steps that can help you.
 

1. Do not low ball.

There may be some cases in which you can save money by making an offer significantly below the asking price on a property. However, with most housing areas across the country experiencing a seller’s market, you run the risk of offending the buyer or being dismissed as not having a serious offer.

In today’s market, a better strategy is to go in with close to your best and final offer from the start, realtors say. It can help to waive the appraisal or financing contingency as well, although it’s important to understand the risk associated with doing so. Last month, the average home sold for 103% of the list price, according to data compiled from Statista.
 

2. Get credit ready.

The better your credit, the easier time you’ll have getting a mortgage — and the lower the rate you’ll pay for the loan. The average first-time homebuyer has a credit score of 746, according to a recent paper by Fannie Mae. If you know you’re going to buy a home in the next few months, you can improve your credit by making sure to pay all your bills on time and by avoiding taking on any new debt.

This is also a good opportunity to check your credit report (get all three reports for free from AnnualCreditReport.com) to see whether there are any mistakes or other problems that you’ll need to clear up before applying for a loan. Also, take a look at your credit-utilization ratio (the amount of credit you use compared to the amount available to you). Experts recommend keeping this number below 30%.
 

3. Prepare to move quickly.

Among homes that closed in March, the average number of days on the market (the amount of time between listing and closing) was just 38 days, according to Realtor.com. In busy markets, homes are moving even faster, realtors say, with sellers commonly accepting offers within days of listing their house for sale.

“It’s crazy,” says Sarah Scattini, president of the Reno/Sparks Association of Realtors. “The market is moving extremely fast here. If you list your home, your sale is pending within 5 days.”

In addition to moving quickly to make your initial offer, do the same if a buyer counters with a negotiation. A speedy response will show the buyer that you’re very interested — and to beat out any other bidders who may have also received a counteroffer.
 

4. Shop around for mortgages.

Especially for first-time homebuyers, the process will go much more smoothly if you’ve got a team of professionals to help you. Look for a realtor and a mortgage lender who have experience working with first-time homebuyers and with physicians, if possible.

Since mortgage rates can vary wildly, you’ll want to shop around a bit before settling on a lender. Get quotes from a local lender, an online lender, and, potentially, a credit union or a mortgage broker to get a sense of the types of mortgages and rates available to you.

“With multiple offers on every single listing, you really want to align yourself with a great realtor who can negotiate for you on your behalf and navigate you through this very tricky market,” says Ms. Scattini.

For both your realtor and your lender, you’ll want to know up front how they get paid and how they calculate their fees. Typically, the real estate agents for buyers and sellers split a 6% commission on home sales, meaning that your realtor will likely take home 3% of the purchase price.
 

5. Get preapproved.

Once you’ve settled on a lender, getting preapproved for a mortgage can make your offer more appealing to potential buyers. Preapproval is an in-depth process in which lenders pull your credit and look at other financial factors, such as your income and assets, to tell you ahead of time how much you could borrow under their standards and how much that might cost you.

These days, a large number of buyers are coming in with a cash offer, which in former times was considered very appealing to sellers. However, preapproval helps equalize buyers, and as one seller noted, “I don’t care if it’s cash or mortgage, as long as I get the money.”

If, like most homebuyers, you need a mortgage to finance the purchase, having preapproval can provide some assurance to sellers that your offer won’t fall through because you can’t qualify for the mortgage you expected. Once you’ve received preapproval, don’t open any new credit accounts. If your credit score goes down, the amount you can borrow could decline as well.
 

6. Firm up your budget.

While the preapproval process will tell you how much a lender thinks you can afford, it typically makes sense to come up with your own budget as well. That’s because banks and other mortgage lenders may approve you for much more than you want or are able to pay for a home.

You’ll want to factor in future costs of homeowners as well as any other (current or future) expenses for which the lender may not have accounted. For example, if you’re planning to have children soon, you may want to lower your budget to factor in the cost of childcare.

Knowing your budget ahead of time, and looking only at houses that fall within it, will prevent you from falling in love with a house that you really can’t afford.
 

7. Stick with it.

Buying a house in today’s market is no easy task. The first part of the process requires simply looking at multiple houses to get a sense of how far your budget will go and whether there are homes that meet your requirements.

If you’re sure that purchasing a home is the best financial move for you, don’t give up. Instead, consider whether you can make adjustments that could widen your pool of potential homes. That may mean changing your budget, moving a little further out geographically, or opting for a house that needs a little more work than you expected.

That said, while the pace of price increases will likely moderate, it’s unlikely prices will go down significantly in the future.

“We might see home price appreciation subside to levels close to 10% to 15% [from 20% last year] or even just 5% to 10%,” Ms. Losey says. “When you do the math, home prices just can’t continue to go up 20% year over year.”

Dr. Kobe is planning to keep looking for his home for at least the next several months.

“Prices are still going up, but we are hearing that the inventory will increase over the summer,” he says. “I’m still out looking for the right house, and I’m ready to make an offer.”

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

After more than a decade of moving because of medical school, residencies, and international fellowships, Abhi Kole, MD, PhD, is ready to put down roots. But he’s learning that buying a house in today’s housing market is easier said than done.

In the past 6 months, Dr. Kole, an internist at Grady Hospital in Atlanta, put in offers on three houses. None resulted in a purchase. Dr. Kole says he’s learned how to be more competitive with each subsequent offer, starting out with a bid significantly above the asking price and waiving his right to an appraisal or financing contingencies.

The experience has been surprising and disappointing.

“I knew the market was bad when I started looking and that home prices had gone up,” Dr. Kole says. “What I didn’t realize was that it would still be so hard for me. I have a good job, no debt, and great credit.”

Another frustration for Dr. Kole: He’s been approved for a physician’s loan (a type of mortgage that requires a lower down payment and does not count student loans in debt-to-income calculations) from a national bank, but sellers seem to prefer buyers who work with local lenders. Dr. Kole has been willing to waive the appraisal and mortgage contingency on the right home, but he draws the line at waiving the inspection, a trend that some other buyers in his area are going along with.

“With each house, I learn more about how this works and what amount of risk I can safely assume,” Dr. Kobe says. “There are certain things I definitely wouldn’t give up.”

Dr. Kole’s experience mirrors that of millions of other would-be homebuyers navigating a strong seller’s market.

“Potential homebuyers are really facing a triple threat right now,” says Clare Losey, an assistant research economist with the Texas Real Estate Research Center. “There’s high home appreciation, high mortgage rates, and low inventory of homes for sale.”

It’s still possible to find — and buy — your dream home, even in today’s market with all its challenges. Here are some important steps that can help you.
 

1. Do not low ball.

There may be some cases in which you can save money by making an offer significantly below the asking price on a property. However, with most housing areas across the country experiencing a seller’s market, you run the risk of offending the buyer or being dismissed as not having a serious offer.

In today’s market, a better strategy is to go in with close to your best and final offer from the start, realtors say. It can help to waive the appraisal or financing contingency as well, although it’s important to understand the risk associated with doing so. Last month, the average home sold for 103% of the list price, according to data compiled from Statista.
 

2. Get credit ready.

The better your credit, the easier time you’ll have getting a mortgage — and the lower the rate you’ll pay for the loan. The average first-time homebuyer has a credit score of 746, according to a recent paper by Fannie Mae. If you know you’re going to buy a home in the next few months, you can improve your credit by making sure to pay all your bills on time and by avoiding taking on any new debt.

This is also a good opportunity to check your credit report (get all three reports for free from AnnualCreditReport.com) to see whether there are any mistakes or other problems that you’ll need to clear up before applying for a loan. Also, take a look at your credit-utilization ratio (the amount of credit you use compared to the amount available to you). Experts recommend keeping this number below 30%.
 

3. Prepare to move quickly.

Among homes that closed in March, the average number of days on the market (the amount of time between listing and closing) was just 38 days, according to Realtor.com. In busy markets, homes are moving even faster, realtors say, with sellers commonly accepting offers within days of listing their house for sale.

“It’s crazy,” says Sarah Scattini, president of the Reno/Sparks Association of Realtors. “The market is moving extremely fast here. If you list your home, your sale is pending within 5 days.”

In addition to moving quickly to make your initial offer, do the same if a buyer counters with a negotiation. A speedy response will show the buyer that you’re very interested — and to beat out any other bidders who may have also received a counteroffer.
 

4. Shop around for mortgages.

Especially for first-time homebuyers, the process will go much more smoothly if you’ve got a team of professionals to help you. Look for a realtor and a mortgage lender who have experience working with first-time homebuyers and with physicians, if possible.

Since mortgage rates can vary wildly, you’ll want to shop around a bit before settling on a lender. Get quotes from a local lender, an online lender, and, potentially, a credit union or a mortgage broker to get a sense of the types of mortgages and rates available to you.

“With multiple offers on every single listing, you really want to align yourself with a great realtor who can negotiate for you on your behalf and navigate you through this very tricky market,” says Ms. Scattini.

For both your realtor and your lender, you’ll want to know up front how they get paid and how they calculate their fees. Typically, the real estate agents for buyers and sellers split a 6% commission on home sales, meaning that your realtor will likely take home 3% of the purchase price.
 

5. Get preapproved.

Once you’ve settled on a lender, getting preapproved for a mortgage can make your offer more appealing to potential buyers. Preapproval is an in-depth process in which lenders pull your credit and look at other financial factors, such as your income and assets, to tell you ahead of time how much you could borrow under their standards and how much that might cost you.

These days, a large number of buyers are coming in with a cash offer, which in former times was considered very appealing to sellers. However, preapproval helps equalize buyers, and as one seller noted, “I don’t care if it’s cash or mortgage, as long as I get the money.”

If, like most homebuyers, you need a mortgage to finance the purchase, having preapproval can provide some assurance to sellers that your offer won’t fall through because you can’t qualify for the mortgage you expected. Once you’ve received preapproval, don’t open any new credit accounts. If your credit score goes down, the amount you can borrow could decline as well.
 

6. Firm up your budget.

While the preapproval process will tell you how much a lender thinks you can afford, it typically makes sense to come up with your own budget as well. That’s because banks and other mortgage lenders may approve you for much more than you want or are able to pay for a home.

You’ll want to factor in future costs of homeowners as well as any other (current or future) expenses for which the lender may not have accounted. For example, if you’re planning to have children soon, you may want to lower your budget to factor in the cost of childcare.

Knowing your budget ahead of time, and looking only at houses that fall within it, will prevent you from falling in love with a house that you really can’t afford.
 

7. Stick with it.

Buying a house in today’s market is no easy task. The first part of the process requires simply looking at multiple houses to get a sense of how far your budget will go and whether there are homes that meet your requirements.

If you’re sure that purchasing a home is the best financial move for you, don’t give up. Instead, consider whether you can make adjustments that could widen your pool of potential homes. That may mean changing your budget, moving a little further out geographically, or opting for a house that needs a little more work than you expected.

That said, while the pace of price increases will likely moderate, it’s unlikely prices will go down significantly in the future.

“We might see home price appreciation subside to levels close to 10% to 15% [from 20% last year] or even just 5% to 10%,” Ms. Losey says. “When you do the math, home prices just can’t continue to go up 20% year over year.”

Dr. Kobe is planning to keep looking for his home for at least the next several months.

“Prices are still going up, but we are hearing that the inventory will increase over the summer,” he says. “I’m still out looking for the right house, and I’m ready to make an offer.”

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

After more than a decade of moving because of medical school, residencies, and international fellowships, Abhi Kole, MD, PhD, is ready to put down roots. But he’s learning that buying a house in today’s housing market is easier said than done.

In the past 6 months, Dr. Kole, an internist at Grady Hospital in Atlanta, put in offers on three houses. None resulted in a purchase. Dr. Kole says he’s learned how to be more competitive with each subsequent offer, starting out with a bid significantly above the asking price and waiving his right to an appraisal or financing contingencies.

The experience has been surprising and disappointing.

“I knew the market was bad when I started looking and that home prices had gone up,” Dr. Kole says. “What I didn’t realize was that it would still be so hard for me. I have a good job, no debt, and great credit.”

Another frustration for Dr. Kole: He’s been approved for a physician’s loan (a type of mortgage that requires a lower down payment and does not count student loans in debt-to-income calculations) from a national bank, but sellers seem to prefer buyers who work with local lenders. Dr. Kole has been willing to waive the appraisal and mortgage contingency on the right home, but he draws the line at waiving the inspection, a trend that some other buyers in his area are going along with.

“With each house, I learn more about how this works and what amount of risk I can safely assume,” Dr. Kobe says. “There are certain things I definitely wouldn’t give up.”

Dr. Kole’s experience mirrors that of millions of other would-be homebuyers navigating a strong seller’s market.

“Potential homebuyers are really facing a triple threat right now,” says Clare Losey, an assistant research economist with the Texas Real Estate Research Center. “There’s high home appreciation, high mortgage rates, and low inventory of homes for sale.”

It’s still possible to find — and buy — your dream home, even in today’s market with all its challenges. Here are some important steps that can help you.
 

1. Do not low ball.

There may be some cases in which you can save money by making an offer significantly below the asking price on a property. However, with most housing areas across the country experiencing a seller’s market, you run the risk of offending the buyer or being dismissed as not having a serious offer.

In today’s market, a better strategy is to go in with close to your best and final offer from the start, realtors say. It can help to waive the appraisal or financing contingency as well, although it’s important to understand the risk associated with doing so. Last month, the average home sold for 103% of the list price, according to data compiled from Statista.
 

2. Get credit ready.

The better your credit, the easier time you’ll have getting a mortgage — and the lower the rate you’ll pay for the loan. The average first-time homebuyer has a credit score of 746, according to a recent paper by Fannie Mae. If you know you’re going to buy a home in the next few months, you can improve your credit by making sure to pay all your bills on time and by avoiding taking on any new debt.

This is also a good opportunity to check your credit report (get all three reports for free from AnnualCreditReport.com) to see whether there are any mistakes or other problems that you’ll need to clear up before applying for a loan. Also, take a look at your credit-utilization ratio (the amount of credit you use compared to the amount available to you). Experts recommend keeping this number below 30%.
 

3. Prepare to move quickly.

Among homes that closed in March, the average number of days on the market (the amount of time between listing and closing) was just 38 days, according to Realtor.com. In busy markets, homes are moving even faster, realtors say, with sellers commonly accepting offers within days of listing their house for sale.

“It’s crazy,” says Sarah Scattini, president of the Reno/Sparks Association of Realtors. “The market is moving extremely fast here. If you list your home, your sale is pending within 5 days.”

In addition to moving quickly to make your initial offer, do the same if a buyer counters with a negotiation. A speedy response will show the buyer that you’re very interested — and to beat out any other bidders who may have also received a counteroffer.
 

4. Shop around for mortgages.

Especially for first-time homebuyers, the process will go much more smoothly if you’ve got a team of professionals to help you. Look for a realtor and a mortgage lender who have experience working with first-time homebuyers and with physicians, if possible.

Since mortgage rates can vary wildly, you’ll want to shop around a bit before settling on a lender. Get quotes from a local lender, an online lender, and, potentially, a credit union or a mortgage broker to get a sense of the types of mortgages and rates available to you.

“With multiple offers on every single listing, you really want to align yourself with a great realtor who can negotiate for you on your behalf and navigate you through this very tricky market,” says Ms. Scattini.

For both your realtor and your lender, you’ll want to know up front how they get paid and how they calculate their fees. Typically, the real estate agents for buyers and sellers split a 6% commission on home sales, meaning that your realtor will likely take home 3% of the purchase price.
 

5. Get preapproved.

Once you’ve settled on a lender, getting preapproved for a mortgage can make your offer more appealing to potential buyers. Preapproval is an in-depth process in which lenders pull your credit and look at other financial factors, such as your income and assets, to tell you ahead of time how much you could borrow under their standards and how much that might cost you.

These days, a large number of buyers are coming in with a cash offer, which in former times was considered very appealing to sellers. However, preapproval helps equalize buyers, and as one seller noted, “I don’t care if it’s cash or mortgage, as long as I get the money.”

If, like most homebuyers, you need a mortgage to finance the purchase, having preapproval can provide some assurance to sellers that your offer won’t fall through because you can’t qualify for the mortgage you expected. Once you’ve received preapproval, don’t open any new credit accounts. If your credit score goes down, the amount you can borrow could decline as well.
 

6. Firm up your budget.

While the preapproval process will tell you how much a lender thinks you can afford, it typically makes sense to come up with your own budget as well. That’s because banks and other mortgage lenders may approve you for much more than you want or are able to pay for a home.

You’ll want to factor in future costs of homeowners as well as any other (current or future) expenses for which the lender may not have accounted. For example, if you’re planning to have children soon, you may want to lower your budget to factor in the cost of childcare.

Knowing your budget ahead of time, and looking only at houses that fall within it, will prevent you from falling in love with a house that you really can’t afford.
 

7. Stick with it.

Buying a house in today’s market is no easy task. The first part of the process requires simply looking at multiple houses to get a sense of how far your budget will go and whether there are homes that meet your requirements.

If you’re sure that purchasing a home is the best financial move for you, don’t give up. Instead, consider whether you can make adjustments that could widen your pool of potential homes. That may mean changing your budget, moving a little further out geographically, or opting for a house that needs a little more work than you expected.

That said, while the pace of price increases will likely moderate, it’s unlikely prices will go down significantly in the future.

“We might see home price appreciation subside to levels close to 10% to 15% [from 20% last year] or even just 5% to 10%,” Ms. Losey says. “When you do the math, home prices just can’t continue to go up 20% year over year.”

Dr. Kobe is planning to keep looking for his home for at least the next several months.

“Prices are still going up, but we are hearing that the inventory will increase over the summer,” he says. “I’m still out looking for the right house, and I’m ready to make an offer.”

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

I’d do anything for weight loss (but I won’t do that)

Weight loss isn’t a multibillion-dollar industry for nothing. How many people step onto the scale in the morning and sigh, wishing they could lose that last 10 pounds?

Alcohol also isn’t a multibillion-dollar industry for nothing. If there’s one thing more universal than wishing you could lose weight, it’s drinking to forget your woes about being unable to lose weight.

© Ljupco Smokovski/Fotolia.com

Naturally, and unfortunately for those of us who rather enjoy a good beer, one of the best ways to lose weight is to stop drinking. Alcohol is almost the definition of empty calories. So, which wins out: The unstoppable force of wanting to lose weight, or the immovable object of alcohol? According to a survey from DrugAbuse.com, it’s alcohol, and it’s not even close.

Even in a state with as health conscious a reputation as California, not only are people not willing to give up alcohol to lose weight, they’re willing to gain a noticeable amount of weight in order to continue drinking. It’s 14 pounds for Californians, which is in the middle of the road for America, which overall averaged 13 pounds to keep drinking. Hawaiians, South Dakotans, Utahns, and Vermonters were at the bottom, willing to add only 8 pounds to keep booze in their diet. At the other end of the scale, willing to add 28 whole pounds to keep the beer flowing, is humble little Rhode Island, followed by Wyoming at 23 pounds, Maryland at 22, and Tennessee at 21.

Obviously, that’s a lot of weight to gain, but to drive home the exact quantity of just how much weight, KRON-TV noted that adding the U.S. average of 13 pounds to your body is the equivalent of strapping 224 slices of bacon to yourself, which, to us, is just the poorest choice of comparison. If there’s one thing we’re less willing to give up than alcohol, it’s probably bacon. Or if you’re feeling especially ambitious, you could go for bacon-scented beer from the Waffle House. Now that’s a drink.
 

This looks like a job for the ‘magnetic slime robot’

What’s that? While you were in the process of gaining 14 pounds so you could keep drinking alcohol you swallowed something that you shouldn’t have? Did you swallow a lot of aggression?

openclipart/freesvg

You swallowed a what? An ear bud? But how did you manage that? No, never mind, we don’t really want to hear about your personal life. Lucky for you, though, today’s LOTME phrase that pays is “magnetic turd” and it’s just the thing for the busy executive/child with a foreign object stuck in their … whatever.

Yes, we said magnetic turd. Or, if you prefer, a “magnetic slime robot.” The black-brown–colored blob/robot/turd in question is an investigational substance that can be controlled magnetically to move through very narrow spaces and encircle small objects that have been accidentally swallowed, its cocreator, Li Zhang of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, told the Guardian.

It’s made by combining the polymer polyvinyl alcohol with borax and particles of neodymium magnet. And since those neodymium particles are not particularly friendly to humans, Dr. Zhang and the research team coated the slime with silica to seal in the toxicity. The slime has the consistency of custard and exhibits “visco-elastic properties,” Dr. Zhang said, meaning that “sometimes it behaves like a solid, sometimes it behaves like a liquid.”

We could go on, telling you about the substance’s self-healing ability and electrical conductivity and how it does look very, very turd-like. Instead, we offer this link to the team’s really freaky video.

We’re going to be seeing that in our nightmares.
 

Fish: More than meets the fry?

When you think of fish, intelligence isn’t usually the first thing to pop into your head. Their short memory spans, which can be as little as 3 seconds, probably don’t help their cause.

Taken/Pixabay

Recently, though, it has become apparent that fish can be trained to do simple math problems like adding and subtracting. Research conducted in Germany has shown that cichlids – tropical fish often found in home aquariums – and stingrays can observe small quantities and know how many things are there without actually counting, kind of like how a human can look at a bowl of apples and know about how many are in it.

Fish, once thought to be not very smart, may be on the same level of intelligence as birds, suggested Vera Schluessel, PhD, of the University of Bonn’s Institute of Zoology, and associates.

“Successful fish showed abilities far above chance level, specifically in the stingrays. Again, this raises the question of what abilities fish may be capable of if being asked the ‘right’ question,” the researchers said in Scientific Reports.

They tried to teach the cichlids and stingrays how to add and subtract by recognizing colors: Blue meant to add one and yellow meant to subtract one. Gates were set up and when the fish chose a correct answer, they were rewarded with food. Although it took many sessions for the fish to completely catch on, they did figure it out eventually.

If fish are smarter than we thought, maybe we can stop paying for math tutors for our kids and just have the family goldfish do it.
 

For earthworms, not all plastics are created equal

Everything living on the earth has to deal with pollution in some way, including earthworms. Not only have they have adapted to eating plastics found in soil, they have preferences.

Piqsels

The earthworm is a little creature with a big job. The materials and minerals they munch on as they go through the earth get recycled through their tiny bodies to create more fertile soil for things to grow – making them the hidden heroes of every garden. But what about soil that’s full of microscopic plastic pieces? Well, turns out earthworms will eat that too, investigators from Nankai University in Tianjin, China, reported in Environmental Science & Technology.

The researchers looked at how these eating machines were digesting the plastic and found that they actually have preferences. Soils with bio-based polylactic acid (PLA) or petroleum-derived polyethylene terephthalate (PET) particles were a hit. Another test showed that the worms broke the PLA particles down into smaller fragments than the PET ones. So at least the “healthier” option agreed with them more. More work is needed, however, to determine if the worms are being harmed by all the waste they’re digesting.

So what does this mean for the evolution or even survival of this unsung hero of the planet? Scientists still need to dig into that question. No pun intended.

I’d do anything for weight loss (but I won’t do that)

Weight loss isn’t a multibillion-dollar industry for nothing. How many people step onto the scale in the morning and sigh, wishing they could lose that last 10 pounds?

Alcohol also isn’t a multibillion-dollar industry for nothing. If there’s one thing more universal than wishing you could lose weight, it’s drinking to forget your woes about being unable to lose weight.

© Ljupco Smokovski/Fotolia.com

Naturally, and unfortunately for those of us who rather enjoy a good beer, one of the best ways to lose weight is to stop drinking. Alcohol is almost the definition of empty calories. So, which wins out: The unstoppable force of wanting to lose weight, or the immovable object of alcohol? According to a survey from DrugAbuse.com, it’s alcohol, and it’s not even close.

Even in a state with as health conscious a reputation as California, not only are people not willing to give up alcohol to lose weight, they’re willing to gain a noticeable amount of weight in order to continue drinking. It’s 14 pounds for Californians, which is in the middle of the road for America, which overall averaged 13 pounds to keep drinking. Hawaiians, South Dakotans, Utahns, and Vermonters were at the bottom, willing to add only 8 pounds to keep booze in their diet. At the other end of the scale, willing to add 28 whole pounds to keep the beer flowing, is humble little Rhode Island, followed by Wyoming at 23 pounds, Maryland at 22, and Tennessee at 21.

Obviously, that’s a lot of weight to gain, but to drive home the exact quantity of just how much weight, KRON-TV noted that adding the U.S. average of 13 pounds to your body is the equivalent of strapping 224 slices of bacon to yourself, which, to us, is just the poorest choice of comparison. If there’s one thing we’re less willing to give up than alcohol, it’s probably bacon. Or if you’re feeling especially ambitious, you could go for bacon-scented beer from the Waffle House. Now that’s a drink.
 

This looks like a job for the ‘magnetic slime robot’

What’s that? While you were in the process of gaining 14 pounds so you could keep drinking alcohol you swallowed something that you shouldn’t have? Did you swallow a lot of aggression?

openclipart/freesvg

You swallowed a what? An ear bud? But how did you manage that? No, never mind, we don’t really want to hear about your personal life. Lucky for you, though, today’s LOTME phrase that pays is “magnetic turd” and it’s just the thing for the busy executive/child with a foreign object stuck in their … whatever.

Yes, we said magnetic turd. Or, if you prefer, a “magnetic slime robot.” The black-brown–colored blob/robot/turd in question is an investigational substance that can be controlled magnetically to move through very narrow spaces and encircle small objects that have been accidentally swallowed, its cocreator, Li Zhang of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, told the Guardian.

It’s made by combining the polymer polyvinyl alcohol with borax and particles of neodymium magnet. And since those neodymium particles are not particularly friendly to humans, Dr. Zhang and the research team coated the slime with silica to seal in the toxicity. The slime has the consistency of custard and exhibits “visco-elastic properties,” Dr. Zhang said, meaning that “sometimes it behaves like a solid, sometimes it behaves like a liquid.”

We could go on, telling you about the substance’s self-healing ability and electrical conductivity and how it does look very, very turd-like. Instead, we offer this link to the team’s really freaky video.

We’re going to be seeing that in our nightmares.
 

Fish: More than meets the fry?

When you think of fish, intelligence isn’t usually the first thing to pop into your head. Their short memory spans, which can be as little as 3 seconds, probably don’t help their cause.

Taken/Pixabay

Recently, though, it has become apparent that fish can be trained to do simple math problems like adding and subtracting. Research conducted in Germany has shown that cichlids – tropical fish often found in home aquariums – and stingrays can observe small quantities and know how many things are there without actually counting, kind of like how a human can look at a bowl of apples and know about how many are in it.

Fish, once thought to be not very smart, may be on the same level of intelligence as birds, suggested Vera Schluessel, PhD, of the University of Bonn’s Institute of Zoology, and associates.

“Successful fish showed abilities far above chance level, specifically in the stingrays. Again, this raises the question of what abilities fish may be capable of if being asked the ‘right’ question,” the researchers said in Scientific Reports.

They tried to teach the cichlids and stingrays how to add and subtract by recognizing colors: Blue meant to add one and yellow meant to subtract one. Gates were set up and when the fish chose a correct answer, they were rewarded with food. Although it took many sessions for the fish to completely catch on, they did figure it out eventually.

If fish are smarter than we thought, maybe we can stop paying for math tutors for our kids and just have the family goldfish do it.
 

For earthworms, not all plastics are created equal

Everything living on the earth has to deal with pollution in some way, including earthworms. Not only have they have adapted to eating plastics found in soil, they have preferences.

Piqsels

The earthworm is a little creature with a big job. The materials and minerals they munch on as they go through the earth get recycled through their tiny bodies to create more fertile soil for things to grow – making them the hidden heroes of every garden. But what about soil that’s full of microscopic plastic pieces? Well, turns out earthworms will eat that too, investigators from Nankai University in Tianjin, China, reported in Environmental Science & Technology.

The researchers looked at how these eating machines were digesting the plastic and found that they actually have preferences. Soils with bio-based polylactic acid (PLA) or petroleum-derived polyethylene terephthalate (PET) particles were a hit. Another test showed that the worms broke the PLA particles down into smaller fragments than the PET ones. So at least the “healthier” option agreed with them more. More work is needed, however, to determine if the worms are being harmed by all the waste they’re digesting.

So what does this mean for the evolution or even survival of this unsung hero of the planet? Scientists still need to dig into that question. No pun intended.

I’d do anything for weight loss (but I won’t do that)

Weight loss isn’t a multibillion-dollar industry for nothing. How many people step onto the scale in the morning and sigh, wishing they could lose that last 10 pounds?

Alcohol also isn’t a multibillion-dollar industry for nothing. If there’s one thing more universal than wishing you could lose weight, it’s drinking to forget your woes about being unable to lose weight.

© Ljupco Smokovski/Fotolia.com

Naturally, and unfortunately for those of us who rather enjoy a good beer, one of the best ways to lose weight is to stop drinking. Alcohol is almost the definition of empty calories. So, which wins out: The unstoppable force of wanting to lose weight, or the immovable object of alcohol? According to a survey from DrugAbuse.com, it’s alcohol, and it’s not even close.

Even in a state with as health conscious a reputation as California, not only are people not willing to give up alcohol to lose weight, they’re willing to gain a noticeable amount of weight in order to continue drinking. It’s 14 pounds for Californians, which is in the middle of the road for America, which overall averaged 13 pounds to keep drinking. Hawaiians, South Dakotans, Utahns, and Vermonters were at the bottom, willing to add only 8 pounds to keep booze in their diet. At the other end of the scale, willing to add 28 whole pounds to keep the beer flowing, is humble little Rhode Island, followed by Wyoming at 23 pounds, Maryland at 22, and Tennessee at 21.

Obviously, that’s a lot of weight to gain, but to drive home the exact quantity of just how much weight, KRON-TV noted that adding the U.S. average of 13 pounds to your body is the equivalent of strapping 224 slices of bacon to yourself, which, to us, is just the poorest choice of comparison. If there’s one thing we’re less willing to give up than alcohol, it’s probably bacon. Or if you’re feeling especially ambitious, you could go for bacon-scented beer from the Waffle House. Now that’s a drink.
 

This looks like a job for the ‘magnetic slime robot’

What’s that? While you were in the process of gaining 14 pounds so you could keep drinking alcohol you swallowed something that you shouldn’t have? Did you swallow a lot of aggression?

openclipart/freesvg

You swallowed a what? An ear bud? But how did you manage that? No, never mind, we don’t really want to hear about your personal life. Lucky for you, though, today’s LOTME phrase that pays is “magnetic turd” and it’s just the thing for the busy executive/child with a foreign object stuck in their … whatever.

Yes, we said magnetic turd. Or, if you prefer, a “magnetic slime robot.” The black-brown–colored blob/robot/turd in question is an investigational substance that can be controlled magnetically to move through very narrow spaces and encircle small objects that have been accidentally swallowed, its cocreator, Li Zhang of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, told the Guardian.

It’s made by combining the polymer polyvinyl alcohol with borax and particles of neodymium magnet. And since those neodymium particles are not particularly friendly to humans, Dr. Zhang and the research team coated the slime with silica to seal in the toxicity. The slime has the consistency of custard and exhibits “visco-elastic properties,” Dr. Zhang said, meaning that “sometimes it behaves like a solid, sometimes it behaves like a liquid.”

We could go on, telling you about the substance’s self-healing ability and electrical conductivity and how it does look very, very turd-like. Instead, we offer this link to the team’s really freaky video.

We’re going to be seeing that in our nightmares.
 

Fish: More than meets the fry?

When you think of fish, intelligence isn’t usually the first thing to pop into your head. Their short memory spans, which can be as little as 3 seconds, probably don’t help their cause.

Taken/Pixabay

Recently, though, it has become apparent that fish can be trained to do simple math problems like adding and subtracting. Research conducted in Germany has shown that cichlids – tropical fish often found in home aquariums – and stingrays can observe small quantities and know how many things are there without actually counting, kind of like how a human can look at a bowl of apples and know about how many are in it.

Fish, once thought to be not very smart, may be on the same level of intelligence as birds, suggested Vera Schluessel, PhD, of the University of Bonn’s Institute of Zoology, and associates.

“Successful fish showed abilities far above chance level, specifically in the stingrays. Again, this raises the question of what abilities fish may be capable of if being asked the ‘right’ question,” the researchers said in Scientific Reports.

They tried to teach the cichlids and stingrays how to add and subtract by recognizing colors: Blue meant to add one and yellow meant to subtract one. Gates were set up and when the fish chose a correct answer, they were rewarded with food. Although it took many sessions for the fish to completely catch on, they did figure it out eventually.

If fish are smarter than we thought, maybe we can stop paying for math tutors for our kids and just have the family goldfish do it.
 

For earthworms, not all plastics are created equal

Everything living on the earth has to deal with pollution in some way, including earthworms. Not only have they have adapted to eating plastics found in soil, they have preferences.

Piqsels

The earthworm is a little creature with a big job. The materials and minerals they munch on as they go through the earth get recycled through their tiny bodies to create more fertile soil for things to grow – making them the hidden heroes of every garden. But what about soil that’s full of microscopic plastic pieces? Well, turns out earthworms will eat that too, investigators from Nankai University in Tianjin, China, reported in Environmental Science & Technology.

The researchers looked at how these eating machines were digesting the plastic and found that they actually have preferences. Soils with bio-based polylactic acid (PLA) or petroleum-derived polyethylene terephthalate (PET) particles were a hit. Another test showed that the worms broke the PLA particles down into smaller fragments than the PET ones. So at least the “healthier” option agreed with them more. More work is needed, however, to determine if the worms are being harmed by all the waste they’re digesting.

So what does this mean for the evolution or even survival of this unsung hero of the planet? Scientists still need to dig into that question. No pun intended.

The rates of infection involving cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs), like pacemakers and cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), are substantial, but only a minority of patients in the United States receive the guideline-directed recommendation of device removal, according to data from a Medicare population.

The study was conducted on the hypothesis that adherence to guidelines were low, “but we were surprised by how low the extraction rates turned out to be,” Sean D. Pokorney, MD, an electrophysiologist at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The major U.S. and European guidelines are uniform in recommending complete extraction for a CIED infection. The American Heart Association and the Heart Rhythm Society and two out of the three other guidelines cited by Dr. Pokorney not only recommend extraction but specify prompt extraction.

Neither complete extraction nor prompt extraction are typical.

Of the 11,619 CIED infection cases identified in the Medicare database, 18.2% underwent extraction within 30 days of diagnosis. Only 13% were extracted within 6 days.
 

Lack of extraction may cause avoidable mortality

The result is likely to be avoidable mortality. Among those with extraction within 30 days, 80% were still alive 1 year later. Survival at 1 year fell to 67.6% in those without an extraction within this time frame.

This translated to a 22% lower rate of death at 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.78; P = .008) in those who underwent extraction within 30 days.

For those in whom the device was extracted within 7 days, the associated HR for death at 1 year was more than 40% lower (HR, 0.59; P < .001), reported Dr. Pokorney, who characterized these reductions as occurring in “a dose-response fashion.”

The very high risk of relapse despite antibiotics is the reason that “there is a class 1 indication for complete hardware removal,” Dr. Pokorney. He cited five studies that addressed this question. With partial device removal or medical therapy alone, relapse was consistently 50% or greater. In one study, it was 67%. In another it was 100%.

With complete removal, the rate of infection relapse was 1% or lower in four. In the fifth, the rate was 4.2%.

Infections can occur early or late after implantation, but cases accumulate over time. In the Medicare data sample, infection rates climbed from 0.3% at 1 year to 0.6% at 2 years and then to 1.1% at 3 years, Dr. Pokorney reported.

Other studies have also shown a steady increase in the proportion of implanted devices associated with infection over time. In a cohort study conducted in Olmstead County, Minnesota, the cumulative probability of a CIED infection reached 6.2% after 15 years and 11.7% after 25 years. While about half of these were infections localized to the device pocket, the others were potentially life-threatening systemic infections, according to Dr. Pokorney, who cited this study.

In his analysis of the Medicare data, all fee-for-service patients receiving a first CIED implant over a period of 14 years were included. The 14-year period ended just before the COVID-19 epidemic.

The more than 11,000 CIED infections were identified in 1,065,549 total CIED patients. Most (72%) had received a pacemaker. Of the others , more than half received an ICD and the others received a cardiac resynchronization device. The median age was 78 years.
 

Female and Black patients even less likely to undergo extraction

About half (49.1%) of the overall study population was female, but females represented only about 40% of those who developed an infection. Blacks represented just under 8% of the population but nearly 16% of the CIED infections. Both females and Blacks were significantly less likely than the overall study population to undergo extraction for their infection (P < .001 for both).

Perhaps predictably, patients with comorbidities were more likely to develop CIED infections. For example, 87% of those with infection, versus only 64.9% of the overall population, were in heart failure at the time of implantation. Diabetes (68.3% vs. 49.3%), ischemic heart disease (91.9% vs. 79.4%), renal disease (70.5% vs. 37.9%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (70.6% vs. 55.0%) were also more common at baseline in those who went on to a CIED infection than in the overall population.

Based on the evidence that there is a large unmet need to improve adherence to the guidelines, Dr. Pokorney called for care pathways and other quality initiatives to address the problem.

The reasons that so many patients are not undergoing prompt device extraction at the time of infection is unclear, but Dr. Pokorney offered some hypotheses.

“There appears to be a false belief in the efficacy of antibiotics for treating CIED infections,” Dr. Pokorney said.
 

Comorbidities shouldn’t delay extraction

It is also possible that clinicians are concerned about performing extractions in patients with multiple comorbidities. If clinicians are delaying extractions for this reason, Dr. Pokorney suggested this behavior is misdirected given the fact that delays appear to increase mortality risk.

Several experts, including Rachel Lambert, MD, an electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., agreed that these data deserve a response.

“I was not surprised by the mortality data, but I was surprised at this low extraction rate,” said Dr. Lambert, who concurs with the guidelines. She indicated this study provides teeth to prompt action.

“It is great to have these data about the increased mortality risk to back up the guidelines,” she said.

More information is needed to understand exactly why CIED infection is not now leading to guideline-directed care. Dr. Pokorney said: “Where do we go from here is a key question.”

While several different types of initiatives might be needed, Dr. Pokorney called for regionalization of care to address the fact that not every center that places CIEDs has the capability to perform extractions.

“Extraction is not available at every center, and it probably should not be available at every center, so mechanisms are need to get patients with infection to the specialized centers that provide care,” he said.

Dr. Pokorney has financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Philips. Dr. Lambert reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, and Medtronic.

The rates of infection involving cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs), like pacemakers and cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), are substantial, but only a minority of patients in the United States receive the guideline-directed recommendation of device removal, according to data from a Medicare population.

The study was conducted on the hypothesis that adherence to guidelines were low, “but we were surprised by how low the extraction rates turned out to be,” Sean D. Pokorney, MD, an electrophysiologist at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The major U.S. and European guidelines are uniform in recommending complete extraction for a CIED infection. The American Heart Association and the Heart Rhythm Society and two out of the three other guidelines cited by Dr. Pokorney not only recommend extraction but specify prompt extraction.

Neither complete extraction nor prompt extraction are typical.

Of the 11,619 CIED infection cases identified in the Medicare database, 18.2% underwent extraction within 30 days of diagnosis. Only 13% were extracted within 6 days.
 

Lack of extraction may cause avoidable mortality

The result is likely to be avoidable mortality. Among those with extraction within 30 days, 80% were still alive 1 year later. Survival at 1 year fell to 67.6% in those without an extraction within this time frame.

This translated to a 22% lower rate of death at 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.78; P = .008) in those who underwent extraction within 30 days.

For those in whom the device was extracted within 7 days, the associated HR for death at 1 year was more than 40% lower (HR, 0.59; P < .001), reported Dr. Pokorney, who characterized these reductions as occurring in “a dose-response fashion.”

The very high risk of relapse despite antibiotics is the reason that “there is a class 1 indication for complete hardware removal,” Dr. Pokorney. He cited five studies that addressed this question. With partial device removal or medical therapy alone, relapse was consistently 50% or greater. In one study, it was 67%. In another it was 100%.

With complete removal, the rate of infection relapse was 1% or lower in four. In the fifth, the rate was 4.2%.

Infections can occur early or late after implantation, but cases accumulate over time. In the Medicare data sample, infection rates climbed from 0.3% at 1 year to 0.6% at 2 years and then to 1.1% at 3 years, Dr. Pokorney reported.

Other studies have also shown a steady increase in the proportion of implanted devices associated with infection over time. In a cohort study conducted in Olmstead County, Minnesota, the cumulative probability of a CIED infection reached 6.2% after 15 years and 11.7% after 25 years. While about half of these were infections localized to the device pocket, the others were potentially life-threatening systemic infections, according to Dr. Pokorney, who cited this study.

In his analysis of the Medicare data, all fee-for-service patients receiving a first CIED implant over a period of 14 years were included. The 14-year period ended just before the COVID-19 epidemic.

The more than 11,000 CIED infections were identified in 1,065,549 total CIED patients. Most (72%) had received a pacemaker. Of the others , more than half received an ICD and the others received a cardiac resynchronization device. The median age was 78 years.
 

Female and Black patients even less likely to undergo extraction

About half (49.1%) of the overall study population was female, but females represented only about 40% of those who developed an infection. Blacks represented just under 8% of the population but nearly 16% of the CIED infections. Both females and Blacks were significantly less likely than the overall study population to undergo extraction for their infection (P < .001 for both).

Perhaps predictably, patients with comorbidities were more likely to develop CIED infections. For example, 87% of those with infection, versus only 64.9% of the overall population, were in heart failure at the time of implantation. Diabetes (68.3% vs. 49.3%), ischemic heart disease (91.9% vs. 79.4%), renal disease (70.5% vs. 37.9%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (70.6% vs. 55.0%) were also more common at baseline in those who went on to a CIED infection than in the overall population.

Based on the evidence that there is a large unmet need to improve adherence to the guidelines, Dr. Pokorney called for care pathways and other quality initiatives to address the problem.

The reasons that so many patients are not undergoing prompt device extraction at the time of infection is unclear, but Dr. Pokorney offered some hypotheses.

“There appears to be a false belief in the efficacy of antibiotics for treating CIED infections,” Dr. Pokorney said.
 

Comorbidities shouldn’t delay extraction

It is also possible that clinicians are concerned about performing extractions in patients with multiple comorbidities. If clinicians are delaying extractions for this reason, Dr. Pokorney suggested this behavior is misdirected given the fact that delays appear to increase mortality risk.

Several experts, including Rachel Lambert, MD, an electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., agreed that these data deserve a response.

“I was not surprised by the mortality data, but I was surprised at this low extraction rate,” said Dr. Lambert, who concurs with the guidelines. She indicated this study provides teeth to prompt action.

“It is great to have these data about the increased mortality risk to back up the guidelines,” she said.

More information is needed to understand exactly why CIED infection is not now leading to guideline-directed care. Dr. Pokorney said: “Where do we go from here is a key question.”

While several different types of initiatives might be needed, Dr. Pokorney called for regionalization of care to address the fact that not every center that places CIEDs has the capability to perform extractions.

“Extraction is not available at every center, and it probably should not be available at every center, so mechanisms are need to get patients with infection to the specialized centers that provide care,” he said.

Dr. Pokorney has financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Philips. Dr. Lambert reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, and Medtronic.

The rates of infection involving cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs), like pacemakers and cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), are substantial, but only a minority of patients in the United States receive the guideline-directed recommendation of device removal, according to data from a Medicare population.

The study was conducted on the hypothesis that adherence to guidelines were low, “but we were surprised by how low the extraction rates turned out to be,” Sean D. Pokorney, MD, an electrophysiologist at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The major U.S. and European guidelines are uniform in recommending complete extraction for a CIED infection. The American Heart Association and the Heart Rhythm Society and two out of the three other guidelines cited by Dr. Pokorney not only recommend extraction but specify prompt extraction.

Neither complete extraction nor prompt extraction are typical.

Of the 11,619 CIED infection cases identified in the Medicare database, 18.2% underwent extraction within 30 days of diagnosis. Only 13% were extracted within 6 days.
 

Lack of extraction may cause avoidable mortality

The result is likely to be avoidable mortality. Among those with extraction within 30 days, 80% were still alive 1 year later. Survival at 1 year fell to 67.6% in those without an extraction within this time frame.

This translated to a 22% lower rate of death at 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.78; P = .008) in those who underwent extraction within 30 days.

For those in whom the device was extracted within 7 days, the associated HR for death at 1 year was more than 40% lower (HR, 0.59; P < .001), reported Dr. Pokorney, who characterized these reductions as occurring in “a dose-response fashion.”

The very high risk of relapse despite antibiotics is the reason that “there is a class 1 indication for complete hardware removal,” Dr. Pokorney. He cited five studies that addressed this question. With partial device removal or medical therapy alone, relapse was consistently 50% or greater. In one study, it was 67%. In another it was 100%.

With complete removal, the rate of infection relapse was 1% or lower in four. In the fifth, the rate was 4.2%.

Infections can occur early or late after implantation, but cases accumulate over time. In the Medicare data sample, infection rates climbed from 0.3% at 1 year to 0.6% at 2 years and then to 1.1% at 3 years, Dr. Pokorney reported.

Other studies have also shown a steady increase in the proportion of implanted devices associated with infection over time. In a cohort study conducted in Olmstead County, Minnesota, the cumulative probability of a CIED infection reached 6.2% after 15 years and 11.7% after 25 years. While about half of these were infections localized to the device pocket, the others were potentially life-threatening systemic infections, according to Dr. Pokorney, who cited this study.

In his analysis of the Medicare data, all fee-for-service patients receiving a first CIED implant over a period of 14 years were included. The 14-year period ended just before the COVID-19 epidemic.

The more than 11,000 CIED infections were identified in 1,065,549 total CIED patients. Most (72%) had received a pacemaker. Of the others , more than half received an ICD and the others received a cardiac resynchronization device. The median age was 78 years.
 

Female and Black patients even less likely to undergo extraction

About half (49.1%) of the overall study population was female, but females represented only about 40% of those who developed an infection. Blacks represented just under 8% of the population but nearly 16% of the CIED infections. Both females and Blacks were significantly less likely than the overall study population to undergo extraction for their infection (P < .001 for both).

Perhaps predictably, patients with comorbidities were more likely to develop CIED infections. For example, 87% of those with infection, versus only 64.9% of the overall population, were in heart failure at the time of implantation. Diabetes (68.3% vs. 49.3%), ischemic heart disease (91.9% vs. 79.4%), renal disease (70.5% vs. 37.9%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (70.6% vs. 55.0%) were also more common at baseline in those who went on to a CIED infection than in the overall population.

Based on the evidence that there is a large unmet need to improve adherence to the guidelines, Dr. Pokorney called for care pathways and other quality initiatives to address the problem.

The reasons that so many patients are not undergoing prompt device extraction at the time of infection is unclear, but Dr. Pokorney offered some hypotheses.

“There appears to be a false belief in the efficacy of antibiotics for treating CIED infections,” Dr. Pokorney said.
 

Comorbidities shouldn’t delay extraction

It is also possible that clinicians are concerned about performing extractions in patients with multiple comorbidities. If clinicians are delaying extractions for this reason, Dr. Pokorney suggested this behavior is misdirected given the fact that delays appear to increase mortality risk.

Several experts, including Rachel Lambert, MD, an electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., agreed that these data deserve a response.

“I was not surprised by the mortality data, but I was surprised at this low extraction rate,” said Dr. Lambert, who concurs with the guidelines. She indicated this study provides teeth to prompt action.

“It is great to have these data about the increased mortality risk to back up the guidelines,” she said.

More information is needed to understand exactly why CIED infection is not now leading to guideline-directed care. Dr. Pokorney said: “Where do we go from here is a key question.”

While several different types of initiatives might be needed, Dr. Pokorney called for regionalization of care to address the fact that not every center that places CIEDs has the capability to perform extractions.

“Extraction is not available at every center, and it probably should not be available at every center, so mechanisms are need to get patients with infection to the specialized centers that provide care,” he said.

Dr. Pokorney has financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Philips. Dr. Lambert reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, and Medtronic.